FILM REVIIEW: KUNG FU PANDA

From his perch on high Po (voice by Jack Black) in Kung Fu Panda


May cause a little pandemonium in the hearts of kids

By John Esther

With a heart as nearly as big as his belly, yet nowhere as grand as his imagination, Po (voice by Jack Black) has dreams of being the greatest martial artist of all time. The primary problem with this fantasy is that Po eats and works all day at his father’s (voice by James Hong) noodle shop. A martial arts warrior trains by day and night. No time for trivial things such as work and food.

Just kidding, there is no problem that cannot be quickly overcome in the world of DreamWorks animation. Being a working-class chubby cub is hardly a real-life problem when one lives in a Hollywood narrative. Po may be the biggest goof living in a valley of Old China (where everyone speaks English), but fat fairy tale fate has something else in storybook land.

The wise leader and kung fu originator, a hardly slow yet questionably wise turtle named Oogway (voice by Randall Duk Kim), has had a scary premonition. The treacherous snow leopard Tai Lung (voice by Ian McShane) is about to escape from prison. This does not settle well with Master Shifu (voice by Dustin Hoffman), who is responsible for Tai Lung’s penal predicament.

In response Shifu sends ducky Zeng (voice by Dan Fogler) off to warn Commander Vachir (voice by Michael Clarke Duncan) that the sole prisoner at the seemingly impenetrable Chorh-Gom Prison is about to escape. Meanwhile a new dragon warrior must be appointed to save the valley from Tai Lung’s wrath. Guess who gets the nod?

Juxtaposing skill and silliness, in the movie's most inspired scene we see how Tai Lung escapes the prison while Po becomes the appointed Dragon Warrior. It does not look good for the valley.

Led by Shifu and the Furious Five, who stand in form and symbol to the most popular styles of kung fu movies – the rightful Dragon Warrior, Tigress (Angelina Jole); Crane (voice by David Cross); Mantis (voice by Seth Rogan); Monkey (voice by Jackie Chan – a martial arts movie first where he did not get hurt doing stunts) and Viper (voice by Lucy Liu); Po struggles with the wills to powers of the kung fu artist. Without much encouragement Po seems a hopeless case whom would rather eat a case of cookies than concentrate on kung fu.
However predictably as one expects, Po’s weaknesses become his strengths and thus we all have a pretty good idea what will happen to Po and the gang.

Meanwhile…if it seems I am providing a broader synopsis than usual it is because your kids may have questions after coming home from this richly colored, animation action-packed busy picture. There is a lot more going on than may meet many a youngster’s eyes.

Which leads me the primary problematic virtues of Kung Fu Panda, an otherwise amusing movie with an unfortunate tendency toward hyper violence promoting sloth and obesity while containing issues perhaps too traumatic for little children.

First of all, for a PG movie this movie is loaded with cartoon violence. Co-directed by John Stevenson and Mark Osborne (both fathers) and written by four writers, the characters of Kung Fu Panda are tossed and turned through walls, halls, holes, bricks and blades yet remain unscathed enough to make WWF professional wrestling bouts look like a geriatric game of musical chairs.

For instance Po sets a pile of fireworks to his chair and blasts off into a wall only to be hurt for a few minutes in what would otherwise be a fatal endeavor (the pyrotechnic plays and displays of Independence Day are less than a month way). I know kids are exposed to all kinds of violence that they can tell is not real, but Po makes it look fun and funny – like when the standing pigs in the movie belched. Tee-hee-hee.

Secondly, in a movie geared towards the fattest youth to have ever lived on earth, the concluding message of Kung Fu Panda is that one’s fat liability can transform into one’s fattest ass-et. Tai Lung’s awesome strength is no match for a jolly fat panda. Now I, more than most Americans, love rooting for the underdog or under-panda, but do we really need a symbol of obesity for a hero? You can be fat, daydream and still become a dragon warrior? Sure, in big budget movies.
Regarding some of the mature issues here, they obviously went over some heads at the All Media screening (where members of the public are invited to watch a movie along with the press) I attended. The relationship between Po and his dad seem to bewilder the kids. How does a bird dad get a bear boy? And there was this lesson about “there is no magic secret” which seemed to bedazzle the kids enough. But when Shifu and Tai Lung have their showdown, you could almost feel the air get think with parental-child apprehension and tension.

Shifu adopted Tai Lung from a very early age, raised him properly, taught him well and loved him immensely. But for some reason Tai Lung would be a bad cat in the end (clearly a disturbing argument for nature over nurture) and only Oogway, not Shifu could see that. Shifu and Tai Lung wage this Oedipal crossroads in which the latter beats the living remnants of love out of Shifu as Shifu complains how he loved Tai Lung too much. What kind of sadistic sentiment is that? To tell an audience that parents can love their kids, raise them right and yet have to betray them because the kids failed the parents?

Empirically speaking, I have never seen anyone raised right grow up bad. I have seen it the other way around where people who were raised poorly rise above their ilk, but not the other way around. Granted, Po’s dad was loving and supporting of Po, but the showdown between Shifu and Tai Lung drowns that out.

Kung Fu Panda can be a good very fun and funny movie at times, but it would be irresponsible to ignore its troublesome messages.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: SERGEI BODROV

History is in the remaking for director Sergei Bodrov's Mongol


Move Mongol

By John Esther

Oscar nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, Sergei Bodrov’s Mongol is a sweeping epic covering the early days of Genghis Kahn (1142-1227) that challenges the myth behind the man known to many around the world as a monster, especially in Russia where myth had turned into historical truth for many.

According to Bodrov and co-writer Arif Aliyey, the child Temudjin (Odnyam Odsuren) was a tough kid who withstood a lot of abuse from people after his father was assassinated.

Beaten, boarded up, and ostracized for much of his youth, the child who would be king grew up to be the fierce and revered outsider Temudjin (Japan's Tadanobu Asano) a military genius instilling fear in his enemies.

Guided by a sense of nationalistic purpose and love for Börte (the fascinating looking yet not very convincing actor Khulan Chuluun), his first wife and personal confidant, Temudjin seeks bloody revenge on those who crossed him while bestowing rewards on the loyal.

Filmed with grand shots of reclusive parts of Mongolia, filled with frank violence and framed with loving eyes toward its subject, the 126-film stops off where Temudjin, now Genghis Kahn (amongst other names and different spellings thereof), went on to unite a great part of Asia through many mean means as necessary.

Although its historical “corrections” seem plausible, if not admirable, Mongol remains a questionable piece of filmmaking where nationalism and military might are hailed as virtues.

An internationally acclaimed director, Bodrov’s films include Bear’s Kiss, The Quickie, Kavkazskiy Plennik and Nomad.

In this exclusive interview we spoke to Bodrov about Mongol.

JEsther Entertainment: Why did you want to make this film?
Sergei Bodrov: It’s an interesting story about a guy who’s almost always known as an evil monster. In Russia he’s one of the most unpopular names. We blame Mongolians for all our problems. It was nice to go against stereotype.

JE: How have Russians responded to the film?
SB: They were surprised when I said I would make this movie. “Why are you doing this? What good did the Mongols do for us?” Good or bad, it’s part of our history.
JE: Have you found that it changes the perspectives of many Russians?
SB: Yes, yes, yes, it’s changed better than we expected. Movies are emotional and there’s a great story; they work especially for the younger generations. They have more hope.

JE: What do you have in common with Temudjin?
SB: That’s an interesting question [Laughs]. Production was extremely difficult. It was a war, a battle, fights. I couldn’t give up because he was a warrior with such a very strong spirit.

JE: He also has a very nationalistic and traditional spirit. What concerns did you have that here would be a character who promoted nationalism at the expense of those whom wanted to break off on their own?
SB: He was very loyal to his people and people were very loyal to him. His war was not about religion – he believed in his Mongolian god, but he was also surrounded by Buddhists, Muslims and Christians; plus Mongolians were never occupants like Russia. He established his rules. You like it or you don’t like it. Some rules we’re still using now. For example, it was the Mongolians who first said, “Don’t kill my messengers. Don’t kill my ambassadors. I’m sending people to talk with proposals.” He said, “I will punish for this.” And the punishment was tough. People learned their lessons. Now people don’t kill ambassadors, diplomats. He invented this.

JE: Do you plan on making a sequel?
SB: I’m thinking about it.
JE: What kind of hostilities have you encountered from historians who have an investment in maintaining this myth about Genghis Kahn?
SB: Absolutely. Some historians don’t like my take; like the ones from the old school. They say, “It couldn’t happen that he was captured.” I said, “Prove me wrong.” What did he do from this year to that year? We don’t know. They say, “Maybe he was hiding.” Maybe, but I have one source that [claimed] he was captured. I said, “Look you don’t understand the logic, you don’t understand the character.” Some pieces of his life are missing. Some historians were arguing with me then [after they saw the film] they said, “You are right.”

JE: Do you see any leaders on the world stage like Genghis Kahn?
SB: No, he is on his own. He is one of the great leaders. He was a military genius. They still study his battles.

JE: Do we need a military genius on the world stage?
SB: Maybe not. Look, the worst century in human history was the 20th century. World War I, World War II, Nazis camps, Stalin’s camps, Holocaust, nuclear weapons…this is like insane. The hypocrisy is that we’re judging a guy from 800 years ago. He fought looking into the eyes of his enemies. We’re such insane people. We love to judge people, but not thinking about what we’re doing now.

JE: Lastly, what do you think about interviews where you discuss your work? Do they serve the work? Should the work speak for itself?
SB: The work has to speak for itself. The movie has to talk, but if you ask me to talk about the film I have to talk. The movie has to talk. That’s enough for me.