Change Your Image
shaun-20369
Reviews
Pinocchio (2022)
Disney has sold its soul
In Junior High School we had an assignment to rewrite a fairy tale and make it our own. At the time (and still to this day) my favorite Disney fairy tale was Aladdin, and I "rewrote" the story exactly as it was outlined on film. I got a C on the assignment.
My teacher explained that the assignment was to create something new (and hopefully better) out of a familiar story, and that I had, clearly not added any significantly new ideas at all.
Pinocchio (2022) receives the same grade from me as my 7th grade self did back then: C. And for the same reasons.
I don't mind a live-action retelling of same story. But we need a reason to watch it instead of it's animated (and iconic) counterpart.
Even then the film might have been decent. But it is the adjusted theme itself where this retelling really goes off the rails.
Many other reviews have called it soulless. Truth is, how can we expect a company that has lost its soul to make movies that are NOT soulless. How can we expect a company that has long since abandoned "traditional" morality to make a movie about traditional morality?
In this retelling we learn that Geppetto had lost a son and that Pinocchio was his attempt at filling that heart-wrenching void. But beyond that short allusion, the rest of the film tries to convince us that what Geppetto really wanted was the fake, wooden facsimile rather than authentic human companionship. He even says so in the end.
Pinocchio, then, goes on a quest, not to prove himself and learn important lessons, but to teach us, the audience, that protagonists no longer have to undergo change to themselves, but rather, go to great lengths to convince others (even us) they are perfect as they are.
Even his iconic nose, that grows when he lies, becomes a moral bait and switch. He was just saying things that were untrue... not lying!! Pinocchio doesn't need to become a good boy, he was already made that way! And how do we reverse the nose thing? No need to petition heaven, Blue Fairies, or morality guides. Just say sorry and it's as if it never happened! The entire idea that dishonesty can only be rectified with honesty is lost.
To drive the alt-theme home even further, Pinocchio's refuses to drink (root) beer at Pleasure Island or participate in any wrongdoing at all, and inexplicably starts to become a donkey from... what? Watching other kids misbehave at Disneyland, I guess?
Truthfully, Pinocchio really IS a good boy in the film. But that's sort of the problem. He has no moral journey and so his physical journey is soulless and un-relatable.
In the original Pinocchio, the theme of transformation is strong. Boys will eventually transform into something. If they listen to their conscience, their father, and angelic messengers, they will transform into real boys of character. Otherwise they risk transforming into real jackasses. Yes, the original Italian story and the 1940 film are very much influenced by a religious Italian culture, and it's a powerful message!
Here that theme is all but destroyed and replaced by an accept-the poor-children-for-who-they-are theme that is antithetical to the entire point of the original. And it extends all the way to the ending. In a ridiculous twist, Pinocchio doesn't even become a real boy. Seriously! The entire point of the film (including the lengthy adventure and unfunny monologued rehash at the end) was wished away for some non-sensical reasons clearly unrelated to the film itself or the source material.
Until that last moment the film was redeemable, if for no other reason than nostalgia. But, no. We learn, once again, that Disney will sacrifice anything in order to push an agenda.
And what is the agenda here? Anyone can be a real boy... as long as we redefine some terms!
Disney has apparently spent so much time peddling delusion that their movies can't even maintain a consistent mythos for the length of a one hour and 45 minute movie.
The Bible vs. Joseph Smith (2010)
Aren't straw-men the best?!
This documentary, like many people with an axe to grind, makes a classic mistake when analyzing the Book of Mormon. In order to prove (or disprove) a book you must analyze what it actually says rather than what you *think* it says.
They begin with Nephi and criticize a particular passage (1 Nephi 13:26) that says, "And after they {the writings of the Bible} go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away."
They then ask a regular member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints how the "plain and precious" parts could have been taken away from the Bible. He replies with a common theory among our church members that monks made conscious changes during transcription. They then proceed to destroy that theory with modern evidence. Fair enough, because that theory isn't great anyway.
However they ignore the entire prophecy itself. The prophecy is about a church that takes away the plain and precious parts of the "gospel"- not the Bible. How do they do that? They don't change the Bible. They take away the Bible altogether. For several centuries only the clergy were allowed access to the actual Bible. It was written primarily in Latin and kept from the eyes of the people. After the invention of the printing press, the first attempts at making the Bible generally available resulted in the unceremonious execution of those responsible for such an egregious act. Several martyrs gave their lives during the early days of the reformation for their belief that the Bible should read by all people in their own language whenever possible.
When the Bible actually began to be distributed widely, many realized that the Church was not following what the Bible actually said. The entire reformation was based on that exact same premise. If Nephi was wrong, so then was the entirety of the Protestant movement.
I have not yet finished the film. I had to stop so as not to become completely frustrated by the errors and omissions, from both the Protestant do-gooder and the "regular" Mormon dude.