Author Archives: lioniemar

Saved!: Film as Social History.


It’s almost easy to forget how far we’ve come as a country when it come to LGBTQ representation in media.  It’s 2014 and if I wanted to watch a film with LGBTQ character representations, I would be able to name at least 5 off the top of my head.  10 years ago, while it was still possible to find representations of the LGBTQ community in media, it wasn’t as easy at it is now.  You can see the social historical change that has occurred concerning the LGBTQ community by following one show that has been around long enough.  For instance, Glee which started in 2009 has a representation of what it is like to be gay in a small town and if you follow the show you get to see the growth of that character from a scared bullied young gay man in high school to now a strong confident gay man living in New York.  We can see the change not only in him as a character but also a change in how others treat him and a sense of growth in attitudes when it comes to LGBTQ community just in this one television series.


This leads me towards the movie Saved!. Saved! is definitely a social representation of the U.S. in 2004 when it come to the topic of religion and the LGBTQ community.  I remember getting the movie Saved! for my birthday in 2004.  I was only 14 and I’m convinced I got it by accident.  Those who gave it to me probably thought it was a religious film judging the film completely by it’s cover.   Saved! however, was a satirical film.  It hit, what I think, was erupting around me as a teenager.  I was starting high school, and even at 14 I was surrounded by young girls getting pregnant, and young classmates exploring their sexuality.  While it what was going on wasn’t a shock to me,  it was a shock to the adults around us.  Saved! made a commentary on teen pregnancy, religion, and LGBTQ issues.  It questioned how those so devoted to “God” and peace and love could treat people who have made mistakes or who are different so horribly.

You have a girl who is ostracized for getting pregnant by her gay boyfriend.  She gets pregnant because she tries to “fix” her gay boyfriend.  He tells her he’s gay and she thinks she can fix it by having sex with him.  This is satirical to the times because as silly as that would sound today,  it was a common thought and assumption not only made by teenagers but adults as well.  The thought that one sin is worse than another is also a common thought.  The main character Mary, also thinks it’s acceptable to have sex with her boyfriend, despite her religious values, because she believes it’s for a good cause.  It is a clear representation of the times and what people thought was worse at the time.  People were viewing being gay as worse sin than having sex before marriage. She thought she was saving him from damnation.


Eventually her gay boyfriend is sent away to a rehabilitation center for his gayness and this girl is dropped by the popular crowd because of her pregnancy.  She wasn’t holy enough to be one of the most popular girls in school and the only person who would befriend her is the only Jew at the catholic school, who is considered to be the biggest rebel and slut at the school.  I think it’s interesting the way that was all set up.  It’s like anyone who isn’t Catholic is a problem and it’s clear when the only non-catholic at the school is seen as the biggest threat to the school.

Screen shot 2014-04-22 at 1.07.29 PM

Saved! was definitely representation of the times in 2004 and of the change of times.  In 2004, the controversies between religion and the LGBTQ community continuing to erupt as it had been but media was sort of taking a stand against it. Media was taking steps in including LGBTQ characters in films and television and how they were being represented.  Media like Saved! was making fun of the close minded views and ridiculous approaches to LGBTQ people.  Later, we start getting media like The L word which also came out  in 2004 like Saved!, and Broke Back Mountain which came out in 2005.  I think it’s pretty interesting how we can follow the growth of the gay character and their struggles using film and looking at it in the lens of social history.  Today, just 10 years later, we went from having monumental films like Brokeback Mountain and film which send a message like Saved!, to now having an entire genre of LGBTOQ films for the LGBTQ community.


Fantastic use of Sound with out Dialogue: Fantasia: The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

Steven Spielberg is quoted in our text to saying “the eyes see better when the sound is great”. There’s not better example of that in my eyes and ears when it comes to Disney’s Fantasia: The Sorcerers Apprentice. The sound in this film is phenomenally expressive. There is no dialogue in this 10 minute short provided above (aside from the introduction and conclusion), and as the introducer of the film states, the music in this animated short was created after the animation was already made. Disney has come a long way from this, but it seems as though they should take a step back because this animated short tells an extremely captivating story, which includes emotions of exhaustion, excitement, fear, panic, calmness, and anger all using only an orchestra’s score only. The orchestra also depicts two different worlds with its music, an already magic filled world when Mickey Mouse is awake, and then another softer magical world when Mickey is asleep and dreaming. The thing that blows my mind is that I have not seen anything like this that has stuck in memory as much as this has in a very long time and this was all done in the 1940’s. This was created when the technology of sound was still being formed into what we have today yet when reading this chapter, instead of wanting to pick a newer film which had access to all the new technology we have today, Fantasia was the first film that popped into mind when wanting to write about sound.


To get back to the story telling aspects of the sound in this movie, the composers and performers in this orchestra utilize sound in order to depict both internal and external moments. They also use pitch and loudness to help move the story along. For instance, in the very beginning, we hear the music start high in pitch and extremely loud. We can sense that something magical and almost a little scary is going on. The film is dark, filled with shades of dark blue and we see the sorcerer, who is almost a daunting figure conducting a spell. As the film progresses we are introduced to Mickey Mouse (the sorcerers apprentice) and the music changes. It is still high in pitch but it is a lot softer. This helps characterize both characters. These elements are repeated and we come to understand that the Sorcerer is powerful and scary and Mickey is more subordinate and harmless to the point of clumsiness.


We can later see the external and internal elements of sound in the film once the Sorcerer has gone to bed and Mickey tries his hand at magic. The implied external sound comes when Mickey turns the broom into a worker and the music begins to loop the same group of beats in the music over an over again. It’s implied that both the broom and Mickey hear that music because they are walking and moving to the beat of music back and forth. We also hear it when Mickey gets an ax and tries to destroy the broom. The music changes and it is implied that the sound is heard in the world of the film because it matches his movement and the audience’s expectation of what it would sound like to hack a broom into pieces.

In the end, when Mickey is caught by the sorcerer the music is softer, there seems to be less of it, and it comes off as more internal. It’s a representation of Mickey’s embarrassment. It’s still high in pitch but it’s so soft and the rhythm is so much slower that it’s as if it’s not really there.


Lastly, the film also uses continuity along with the action going on in the film and overlapping sound so that even when we can’t see the action actually occurring we know it’s still going on.  For instance, we hear the same continuous set of music when the broom is going back and forth with the water and pouring it into the well. It symbolizes the work that the broom is doing. We hear it and then there is silence when Mickey “kills” the broom to signify that the trouble should be over and the work has stopped, but we hear it creep up again as the brooms multiply and go back to work. This continuous music is also overlapped into Mickey’s dream when he falls asleep. It signifies that although Mickey is asleep, the broom has continued working without him because we can hear the work music softly behind the dream music, and unfortunately for him, Mickey realizes this when the mess created by the continuous work of the broom awakes him as he falls into the pool of water beneath him.


Editing in Pearl Harbor


Pearl Harbor is what I like to call a historical romance. It mixes a monumental event in American history with an insanely twisted love story almost as complex as the unfolding events that lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Because the movie is a period piece the editors do an amazing job at switching from color scenes to black and white scenes to give us a sense that we are really seeing these people in this time period. It gives the movie a little bit of authenticity. The film also uses ellipses to enhance suspense. At one point we see Ben Affleck’s character Refe crash into the water while in combat, we then see Danny (his best friend) tell Evelyn (Refe’s girlfriend) the news that Refe has died. We don’t actually see Refe die, but we think he has, and eventually we see why this technique was used. It helps push the story along. Later, after seeing a short montage where Danny and Evelyn grow close and build a relationship we see Refe suddenly appear and we’re giving a flash back to what actually happened. The editing of this film made an already outrageous situation more heart wrenching and captivating. It was already heart wrenching seeing Refe return to his best friend dating his girlfriend, but seeing what he went through to get back was even more heart wrenching. While the editing techniques pushed the love story forward, what I enjoyed most about the film was that it offered every perspective I wanted from a historic point of view. The editing of the film makes the attack on Pearl Harbor scene my favorite scene despite the sadness behind it and despite the romantic love triangle. It’s my favorite scene because it answers every question I would want answered about what happened that day at Pearl Harbor without actually being there and without having actual footage from the attack.


The editing showed every perspective I wanted to see and not only did it show me what I wanted to see the rhythm of each shot also elicited the emotions that would go on when someone is in the middle of a surprise attack. Of course we knew it was coming, but the frantic feeling one would have from being attacked in such a harsh and sudden way was definitely felt by the way the film was cut. The scene above specifically uses match on action cuts and parallel editing in order to create the sense frenzy and understanding at the same time.   The match on action cuts show the frenzy of the Japanese soldiers preparing and getting into their planes, then shows them suddenly appearing in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor, then cut to the confused faces of the sailors when the see the planes flying above them. They also use match on action shots with every missile they let loose on Pearl Harbor in the beginning of the attack. We see the missile let go by the plane, then the shot changes and we see the missile glide through the water and the explosion due to the missile making contact. This happens twice back to back with a second missile which we once again see leave the plane, we see the missile make contact, we get to see the reaction of the people who are inside where the missile lands, then we see a shot where we see the boat explode from the view of the Japanese in their planes. All these quick cuts makes it frantic and it also makes it a lot more personal because it was just one constant distant shot we should really get to see the faces affected by the bomb. The way the film was edited we actually get to see the reaction of the people under attack and then they give us a break by not always showing them blown to pieces (although at times we do). The match on action shots continue when we see the planes and pilots shooting directly at the boats and then we cut to the shots actually being received by the sailors on the boat. Again, it adds to sense of aggression from the pilots, and the sense of frenzy from the sailors being attacked.

The movie also uses parallel shots to give us a sense of perspective. The movie actually does this constantly throughout the movie to show us what was going on in the US at the time while Japan was planning their attack on us. However, seeing the Japanese point of view of what was going on during the actual attack scene give an eerie feel to the entire scene. We only see a little bit of it in the video above, but the rhythm of those shots isolated from the rhythm of all the shots is so calculated that it almost gives you chills watching it. Every few minutes while this attack is going on we go from the frenzy at Pearl Harbor to the calm, quite, calculated home base where the Japanese are basically calculating what should be and is going on at Pearl Harbor at the moment and it just makes the watcher feel so vulnerable. It’s almost a feeling like could this actually happen again, how was it that easy, because it literally seemed so seamless.

For Once Less Doesn’t Mean More: Julianne Moore in Carrie

Many times the performance or verisimilitude of a performance in a movie is left completely on the shoulders of the actors.  Whether something is good or not sometimes gets translated into whether the actor or actress is good or not.  I tend to fall into that at times, however, I do realize that a major part of whether a performance seems right or not also lies on casting.  It doesn’t matter how wonderful an actor or actress is, if their aura, their acting style, and sometimes even just their physical being doesn’t match the essence of a character, then it just doesn’t work.  Casting is quintessential and it’s clear when casting director’s get is just right.  You can feel it when you’re watching the movie and it’s always fascinating and satisfying when they do.  It can change the way you look at an actor or actress.

For instance, Julianne Moore is knows to be a very talented actress.  However, me being me and I guess just being human, I wasn’t much of a fan just because the world thought so.  I tend to shy away from fads and just general opinion just because I’m stubborn and like to know that I have formed my own opinion on things instead of just agreeing with what is assumed as true. To be frank I hadn’t been very impressed from what I have seen of Julianne Moore.  To give Julianne more some credit, I haven’t seen all of her movies and I probably haven’t given her a fair chance, however, I also think some of the movies she’s been cast in didn’t do her any favors.  I’ve seen her in The Kids Are All Right and Crazy, Stupid, Love which I thought were both great movies, and I though she performed fine in but it didn’t resonate with me why she was so great.


I’ve also seen her in movies like Freedomland where I just completely didn’t like her in.  I think I felt this way about Moore because I hadn’t yet seen her in a film where her acting abilities were able to shine in a way that fit her.  She hadn’t been casted, in my opinion of course, in a role where I felt that feeling that made me think “That role is perfect for her”.  I used to find her to be an “over actor” at times, especially in Freedomland.  Some of her reactions and stylistic choices were just too much for me and made me want to role my eyes.  It wasn’t always that her choices were bad and that the passion was unwarranted, but that the character as a whole, or as she interpreted it just didn’t fit the stylistic choices of her scene partners or I guess the overall feel of the film.


Then Julianne Moore was casted as Margaret White in Carrie.  That was the moment where my roll of the eyes when I saw her on screen ceased.  It was perfect.  I personally, excuse my exaggeration; believe casting her in this role just pure genius.  That role just fits her acting style so beautifully.  Julianne Moore has made me feel uncomfortable before with her dedication to certain emotions in roles because while I could feel her full dedication to a character and scene, it just made me uncomfortable because as mentioned prior it was too much for the type of movie she was in.  It could have been toned down.  I particularly always flash back to her scene in Freedomland where she confesses to being the one who murdered her child.


(you can see the same passion in both trailers but one definitely fits more than the other)

However this character matched her extremities on it’s own.  Margaret White on paper was deranged and over the top and required outlandish behavior and extreme passion that Julianne Moore was more than equipped to provide.  It’s as if other roles couldn’t handle the passion that she naturally exudes and this one fit just right.  It beckoned it.  I remember being completely and utterly uncomfortable watching her even appear on screen. She didn’t have to speak or be doing any of the heinous things she actually does, but her presence and glare freaked me out all on it’s own and it was so satisfying. She was finally, in my eyes, playing a character that was almost made for her.  It definitely helped me realize what all the “hype” was about when it came to her.

One of my Favorite Seven Psychopaths


Seven Psychopaths (2012) is filled with all of my favorite “bad guys” and brought together in a twisted comedy/gangster film.  It has its suspenseful moments; it’s moments full of action, gunshots, and witty one-liners, all over a stolen Shih Tzu.  What I enjoyed a lot about this movie is its cinematography, and more specifically the many different shots in once scene that not only defined a moment, but almost more so, the characters in a scene. For instance, the scene below, where Christopher Walken’s character confronts one of the antagonists men half heartedly.  Not only do his actions show how he is cavalier to the situation, but the types of shots in this scene help show his carelessness as well. The beginning of the scene starts with a extreme long shot. You hardly see Walken in the shot, until the shot changes from an extreme long shot to a medium shot.  The scene continues to switch from different types of shots in the next few seconds.  Overall all in the first 30 seconds of this scene, we as a viewer have seen Walken from an extreme long shot to a long shot, then to a medium shot back to a long shot which gradually leads into a medium shot that in that one shot turns into a medium long shot.

All these shots tell us the two important conceptual parts of this scene.  The first thing the back and forth of shots tell us is where Christopher Walken is and how long he’s been traveling.  The movement from extreme long shots, to long shots, to medium long shots shows us a passage of time.  He is clearly in a desert and we can see from the extreme long shots and the long shots how much space Walken is in.  He is the only person or even living creature and/or moving object you see for miles.  The second things we see from these shots are Christopher Walkens intentions.  He clearly has been walking for a while, but we can see from the medium shots, medium long shots, and the close up, that Christopher Walken at this point is walking with purpose but also a sense of carelessness.  At this point in the movie, we know that he is a target.  If the group of “gangster” find him, they are going to recognize him and want to kill him and at the very least want some information from him.  However, Christopher Walkens doesn’t seem to care.  We not only see this from his facial expressions but the shots show us this as well.  As the scene continues in a medium long shot, we are able to see basically what Walken sees.  We see the very people he should be trying to avoid in front of him.  They have their backs turned to him and at this point we see a way out for him but we know from the beginning of the scene that Walken is not going to take the opportunity to hide or run away because he does not care.  Never once is he trying to hide as he walks up.  Our assumptions are correct and the “gangster” turns around and recognizes him.  As he turns around and see’s Walken’s character, we see this in a medium shot.  This shot helps us now narrow in the situation and shows us the surprise in the “gangsters” face that Walken has so easily fallen into his lap without even flinching to get away.

As the scene continues the movement between long shots, medium shots, and close ups continue as well.  It all adds to Walken’s character and the absurdity of the situation.  From a medium long shot of the situation and close ups we see the juxtaposition of how serious the situation of being held a gun point is to how casual Walken is to the situation.  We see Walken’s face, as he smiles and jokes with the man who has him and gun point, and the shock in the man’s face that he doesn’t care.  It not only adds to Walken’s character but this scene adds to the absurdity and the comedy of the entire movie.  The movie takes a situation we are familiar seeing on film and changes the conventions on how a person would react in that movie.  The shock we have is made real by the shock in the other characters face.  I think this would not be as effective or clear if the cinematographer would have shot this scene in on way.  The switches in shots show the switches in perspectives we have as a viewer watching this scene.


Final Destination 2’s design and composition is made to keep you in suspense.  The movie is meant to keep the audience at the edge of their seats yet as far away as possible from the screen.  The movie is filled with gore and twists at every turn.  However, Final Destination 2 does this in a very unique way, at least in my opinion.  The movie is a sequel, so it follows a similar sequence to the first.  A group of people has a near death experience, and now, death is following them killing the survivors in more horrific ways than the first, which was rather horrific to begin with.   However, the fear instilled in the audience is not brought to us by the actor’s portrayal of the characters.  It’s not the acting, the facial expressions and fear in the actors face that scares us.  The movie is not very character based and if the acting was completely terrible, which in the other three sequels that just may be the case, as an audience we are still jumping out of our seats or glued to them by fear and complete shock and disbelief at the gruesome ways these people die.  The movie is also a game.  There is no question that these people are going to die, and we are made aware that there will be clues on how they will die from the beginning, actually we know this if we watched the first movie the sequel is based off of.  The game is to find out how and look away as soon as possible before we’re possibly scared for life.  The Final Destination series does this through the way it’s designed and through it’s composition.

To begin, its design and composition go very hand in hand.  Yes, the film has a basic horror movie design when it comes to lighting.  Most of the movie is shot in almost a blue washed screen.  Everything is not dark, but it’s definitely not bright.  It always looks like it’s raining, is about to rain, or has just rained.  There is almost no brightness or sun until the very end of the movie when “everything is alright”.  As soon as the main characters have “defeated death” the screen is brighter and even the characters skin turn from appearing very white washed to a more lively tone.  I remember the main character actually having hints of pink in her skin tone at the end when in the entire movie she looks extremely pale.  It’s literally a metaphor to being once dead to now being alive.  However, that’s just the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to the design and composition of this film.

This film, again, is not particularly character based when it comes to formulate suspense, as it is based on its properties.  The props literally make the movie.  The props along with the composition literally make the movie what it is.  The way the props in the movie are shot, where they places, how they appear, and just what they are in general are all clues as to what is going to happen next in the film. For instance, the death scene of all of the characters involves an objects that connect to their personality and who they are and those objects getting literally in the way of their life.  The way the scenes are shot, the actors aren’t even the focus of the shot, the actors aren’t what we pay the most attention to in the shot, it’s the object around them.  The death scene of the Evan Lewis, a young man who wins the lottery right after his near death experience, is very clear and concise from the beginning.  Even though he is the first to go and we don’t know much about him yet, the Mise-en-Scene of the movie, however, gives us a clear picture of who this guy is.  He is a ladies man, he is materialistic, he was once poor, and he is very messy and unorganized.  This is made clear to us because his clothes look ten times better than his apartment.  He wins the lottery and comes home with a new computer, new jewelry, and just basically new stuff instead of getting a new place.  He goes to make a meal and our eyes are not on him but on his the side of the fridge where the word “HEYE” is made with kitchen magnets.  We see the “H” fall into the food he is about to prepare, leaving the word “EYE”.  Now we know he is going to die and it may have something to with his eye.  As the scene progresses it’s all about his props he has around him that lead to his death along with some of his character traits.  He puts the food into a microwave and the plastic “H” that fell into it causes the microwave to explode; he drops his new ring into the sink and because he was so focused on getting that out of the sink he gets stuck and almost burns to death; he then eventually makes it out of his burning apartment through the fire escape and is eventually impaled through the EYE by that very fire escape.  Yes, his character traits get him in that situation, but as a viewer there was no real feeling of sadness for the character because we knew it was going to happen we were just waiting on how it would happen.  What property on screen was going to give us the next clue and which would kill him is what we are focused on.  The structure continues in basically every death in the movie.  Our point of view throughout the film is always about the props and how they move in connection to the other props on screen leading to the next fatality. It’s a game you almost wish you were losing at but is very satisfying when your right, because if in the scene mentioned above, Evan Lewis is not killed at all or isn’t killed in someway related to his eyes then everything else doesn’t make sense.



Narration takes a very literal turn when it comes to 2014s The Lego Movie directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller.  Narration as one point becomes so literal that it gave me, what psychologist would call, a “hindsight bias”.  A hindsight bias is basically feeling like you knew something the entire time, however, you only come to that conclusion after the fact has been made.  I am not sure what the general conventions are for a Lego movie, I know there are Lego television shows and things of that nature, however it was my very first Lego movie and there were very interesting “obvious twists” and things I loved about the movie which relate a great deal to what is mentioned in “Looking at Movies” chapter on narrative.


The narrator, at first glance, seems to be a character named Emmet. In the first act of the movie, there is an exposition that leads us straight to him.  There is a backstory, which introduces us to the antagonist first, Lord Business.  He causes an overall obstacle, and basically makes the distinction of good versus evil by stealing “the Kragle” from the Wizard Vitruvius.  This Kragle can end the whole Lego world and by the end of the exposition Vitruvius introduces the idea that at some point a “master builder” will find “the Piece of Resistance” and save Lego world.  Automatically the movie moves forward in time introducing us to Emmet.  As viewers the camera has narratively given us a clue that Emmet is “the master builder”.  This makes the movie narratively omniscient.  We as the audience are given an obstacle from the very beginning in which Emmet is not aware of.  However, we, from this point on, are now viewing events mostly from his point of view and while making assumptions about who he is based on what we already know.  Emmet then continues the narrative for us by continuing to set up the world for us.  He goes through his daily routine that we come to realize is everyone’s daily routine.  We are introduced to this utopian Lego world where everyone follows the same manual and do the same exact thing every single day.  The people watch the same exact shows and even listen to the same exact song all day everyday.

We also get to know Emmet more.  In this world where people are mostly the same we learn how Emmet is different.  He is a bit of an outsider.  Emmet is a very important character, but he is a flat character.  He does not particularly change much.  He is very straight edge, has a type A personality, and is basically so by the book that all the people around him, although they are following the same manual, find him pretty boring.  He is said to have no original thought.  It is almost an anti-hero quality because he does not question anything, which in this case would be bad, because the world he is living in may seem perfect, but is actually deceptive and dangerous.  However, in the end, his flat personality helps the rounded characters work together and save Lego land.

Once we get past the inciting incident, and Emmet finds the “Piece of Resistance” this perfect world literally falls apart around him.  We as the audience already knew that the utopian Lego society was a fraud thanks to the omniscient style of narrative, but on the other hand, feel bad for Emmet because he starts to come to the realization that what made up who he was does not really exist, so he eventually has to build up confidence and find himself in all the routines engrained into him.


As the movie is progressing, there are multiple obstacles in placed in the way, one main one being the character of good cop/bad cop, who is constantly trying to get the “Piece of Resistance” from him and constantly trying to kill him destroying everything in his path.  Good cop/Bad Cop is a round character because although he is always trying to destroy Emmet and constantly barging in ruining things he has reasons for it.  He has two sides to him even though Lord Business literally takes away his good side.  Lord Business destroys good cop/ bad cops parents, using the Kragle on them, ultimately giving him a reason to do what he does.  In the end, good cop/bad cop draws his good side back on and ends up helping Emmet and the other “master builders” save Lego town.


In the climax of the movie we are hit with the narrative “surprise”.  We are brought into the real world and are shown whom the real narrator is.  The narrator, story teller, ends up being an 8 year old boy named Finn who is creating the story going on in Lego land.  We are able to clearly see the juxtaposition of characters and how Finn sees himself and Emmet and how Finn sees his father as Lord Business.  That moment gave me and I think most of the people in the audience an “aha moment”.  It gave us a hindsight bias because of course in the real world we experience children playing with Lego’s and we know Lego’s are toys so we should have expected this but it was a pleasant surprise.  The movie almost has a mix of a 1st person narrative, using Emmet point of view and even Finns point of view, but also a direct-address narrative view because it breaks the convention, our fourth wall almost, of Lego land.  We even literally are shown the juxtaposition of both characters in the resolution of the overall problem.  We see Emmet telling Lord Business in Lego land that he could be “the master builder” and save Lego land, and we see Finn telling his father basically the same thing making it even clearer to us.  Both Lord Business and Finn’s father realize their faults and restore Lego land, and in Finns case his relationship with his father changes.

Overall, I think The Lego movie is the perfect move to use when exploring narrative.  It uses it so well and in so many different dimensions.  It is a great example of how narrative can be used interchangeable in different ways all in one film and how it adds and completes a film.  I don’t think the movie would have resonated with so many parents and children if it were not told in that way.  The movie wasn’t made just to entertain the children but there was logic and metaphor that ignited parents to think as well as the children and the narrative elements used helped drive that.