FANTASY FILMS: THEIR CHANGE IN POPULARITY

It’s amazing that most of that fantastical epics about good and evil, magic and mystery, and action and adventure have become most popular at the beginning of the 21st century, way more than the end of the 20th century. Ever since then, the genre has accumulated to more fantasy films, all of which are based on popular novels, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, Eragon, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Lemony Snicket, and The Seeker. Some of those that I have named haven’t achieved much success or led to flourishing franchises because whenever the first film fails and disappoints fans of the book, it prevents the chances of more films. They also have been generally appealing to younger children because of their whimsical, funny, and colorful styles that sometimes it makes the grown-up audience turn away from fantasy, except when The Lord of the Rings trilogy was in theaters. Yet it’s amazing how the fantasy genre has become more popular with audiences and is the most commercially promising one, not back in the 1980s when films like The Dark Crystal, The Never-ending Story, and Labyrinth were financial disappointments and received mixed reactions. Instead, those films became more popular cult hits whenever they were released on videocassette and gave audiences a second chance to observe and indulge in them for fantasy entertainment. I wonder if the growing promise of fantasy is different now than it used to be in the ‘80s because of how special effects have become more advanced and how the fantasy genre has blended in with the more epic, action-oriented films like Gladiator and Star Wars have been known to fit into. LOTR is like many Hollywood epics, such as Braveheart and Gladiator, in its epic scope, massive battle scenes, and concrete details that it must have helped in making it one of the first films to bring about the rebirth of fantasy films for a more commercial value, which hadn’t been popping up in the 1990s after the failure of Willow.
Even though there have always been films with fantasy elements, like Ghost and Babe, a more traditional fantasy film would focus on a purely imaginative setting that is either discovered or exists in another time and place. So films like The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, and Willow fit into that convention of the fantasy genre because they are either set in fictional representations of our world or they are simply created by a child’s imagination, which makes them up in the air. For example, the world of Fantasia in The Never-ending Story is the place that is born out of the human mind through the imagination, which strips away any boundaries that there would be in a science-fiction film, where other worlds are found on another planet, another dimension, or another time. In that way, the conventions of science-fiction are to make the fantastical seem plausible because some people believe there could be aliens living in space, or that robots will one day grow in advance, or that cars might be given the ability to fly. Fantasy, however, has nothing to prove of existence since its conventions of magic spells, fairies, dragons, sorcerers, and elves are purely invented outside of the realm of science and only exist inside the human heart. For that reason, fantasy speaks less about the modern world of science that science fiction seems to address allegorically and rather aims for a more mindful truth that transcends the everyday world around us. Perhaps because fantasy is born out of a very child-like imagination, it makes it hard for an older audience to take it seriously as a reasonable genre. Since the fantasy films of the 1980s were mostly invented from the minds of filmmakers with a somewhat kid-oriented audience, it made it hard to take them seriously, in contrast to the action-packed blockbusters like Indiana Jones, The Terminator, and Back to the Future which had more to offer with their share of heavy action, special effects, and humor.
Of course, Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, and The Never-ending Story are not entirely innocent child's fare because of the amount of dark content they contain. There are no munchkins, flowery lands, or colorful kingdoms like in Wizard of Oz or Peter Pan because the worlds of the 80s fantasy films are portrayed as gloomier and perilous from the beginning that it's hard to see them as worlds that children would want to escape to. There’s something that is both dark and wondrous about these films that they could appeal to audiences of any age, although The Dark Crystal seems to have the most adult-oriented style because of its gritty world, its hideous creatures, and its theme of death. This makes Dark Crystal like a small-scale take on The Lord of the Rings, except it has no human characters and has creatures that can’t be found in any mythology or fairy tale, making it a very unique film for its originality of a fantasy world. Labyrinth is another example of a fantasy that is about exploring the imagination of what another world beyond any probability and awakens a child within us, except it’s not a cute child because most of the creatures are ugly and eccentric and the environment is very dank and dreary. So Jim Henson’s fantasies brought back a sense of the more nightmarish imagination that frightens children and brings back the feeling of Tolkien fantasy that shows an adult audience how frightening fantasy can be for children. The Never-ending Story is yet another fantasy film that depicts a world that is created out of a child’s imagination and which a young boy finds himself falling into once he starts believing in it. This world is both wondrous and nightmarish because it’s full of colorful and eccentric creatures and a dangerous force that threatens its existence. The feeling of maintaining imagination in the case of the boy Bastian is a way of remaining a child, but not blinding him to the fact that this world lives through as much suffering as his world does. It brings a dark adult touch to a fantasy world that children would want to escape to, except that they have to face many tests in order to resist the dark forces that encroach it. Willow is another film that depicts the fantastical clash between good and evil and reveals another world in another time that is dank and dreary and living through a tumultuous time. The difference it has to Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, and Never-ending Story is that it tries to follow in the steps of a swashbuckling action-adventure with elements of knights, armory, swords, castles, battles, dragons, and sorcery. In that way, there’s a lighthearted feel in the action and humor of the characters Willow, Madmartigan, the Brownies, and Fin Razael, who hardly come off as bleak and lonely but as colorful archetypes in the tradition of Star Wars. Since George Lucas wrote the story for the film, it’s like he was trying to make a fantasy film that could follow in the steps of his science-fiction saga and hopefully become a Hollywood blockbuster. Unfortunately it didn’t make enough money or receive much acclaim, possibly because it was regarded as just another fantasy film, just like the other fantasy films that came before it and didn’t make much success. Even if it tried to be an action-adventure movie, it maybe disappointed people who saw it as a Star Wars copycat or rip-off to Lord of the Rings. Today, Willow has only been regarded as a cult favorite and not as a classic of the fantasy genre like Wizard of Oz, particularly because of its violence and its campy humor.
Today now, the fantasy genre has become a more popular pick for the Hollywood industry to make promising mega-hits for a wide audience by combining fantasy with epic action/adventure elements. The funny difference about the recent fantasy films is that they are all based off of popular books, rather than being made originally from a filmmaker’s mind. Instead of using their imagination to create something of their own, filmmakers keep turning to reliable source material to bring a fantasy to life on the screen. That could be saying that filmmakers don’t want to dig deep into their minds and bring out the child within them to create their own wondrous fantasies like the ones made in the ‘80s. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Chronicles of Narnia are the three most commercially successful film franchises based off of popular fantasy novel, which have gained anticipation over the years each time one of the next films is released. They have gained anticipation from children, teenagers, and adults alike, although Narnia is the most child-oriented of the franchises with its Disney backing and its very light source material. I see Narnia as having main appeal toward family audiences for its colorful world and Christian themes, which could make it a favorite for people to watch after going to church. Putting that appeal aside, fantasy seems to grow wider in success today for its more human elements, rather than its fantastical elements, since Harry Potter is primarily focused on young kids going to school to learn about magic and grow into accomplished wizards and witches, while also dealing with their raging hormones, playing teenage humor on one another, and facing the threat of dark wizards and witches. That makes it seem less like a wondrous fantasy and more of a coming-of-age story about Harry growing up and finding his place in the world, rather than simply showing off magic tricks and spending time with magical creatures. Although Lord of the Rings is heavy with fantasy, it is more focused action-packed sequences of swords and arrows, not so much magic, like out of an epic war film, making it all the more appealing to older audiences who don’t care for fantasy. The characters are very much human in the portrayal by living breathing actors, despite the pointy ears, beards, and furry feet, with the only completely non-human characters being Gollum, Treebeard, the Orcs, and the Ringwraiths. The elves, the hobbits, the dwarves, the wizards, and the humans are all involved in fantastical surroundings, yet their human surfaces and behavior makes them less fantastical and more believable, which makes them different from the ‘80s fantasy films that showed off many non-human characters with little human resemblances and more connections with the fantastically impossible. Perhaps it’s because of that realism that fantasy films today are not as wondrous as they used to be because now they have been regarded as heavy CGI-laden, melodramatic, action-packed, adventure epics as opposed to the less theatrical, more mysterious, artistic, puppet-filled cult films of the ‘80s. I definitely think the fantasy genre has been helped through the use of CGI and big action scenes, seeing how large and epic the battles in LOTR and Narnia turned out. Yet I feel it’s hard to do anymore fantasy epics in which there is a need for big action sequences because we have seen one too many action sequences like space battles, dog fights, gun battles, and sword battles in war films, action films, and science-fiction films that usually look all the same. In that case, films are running out of good ideas for battles, especially now that we have seen wand battles in Harry Potter, something that has never been seen in a film before. Now that Harry Potter is over with, another fantasy film might come along in which there will be another grand wand battle and people will run out of their own original ideas for battle scenes. I think fantasy films are going to need more than epic battle sequences to make it stand out because fantasy films use to not have to rely on it back then. The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, and The Never-ending Story had no need for battle sequences, they were all about the adventure and the wonder of a magical world as opposed to being re-hashes of war films. Filmmakers may have to make more fantasy films where they can spend more time with the adventure and wonder of fantasy as opposed to the bad-ass attitude of action. Because CGI has developed and the need for huge mainstream blockbusters grow higher in demand, fantasy has entered into a new phase that has distinguished it from that of its reputation in the 1980s, which looked promising back then but didn’t have enough patience and encouragement from the audience to make its leap.

Drive

Drive marks a different turn for a young pretty idol like Ryan Gosling who has charmed people with his looks and quiet demeanor, but this film is meant to show the opposite of his romantic side. This time, he takes on a role that is similar to what most Hollywood stars take on as they reach their 30s or 40s, like Harrison Ford or George Clooney, which is to take make choices in which they can offer deep looks into the feelings and consciences of men. There’s a masculine, gritty edge to what most macho stars can display when it comes to violence and action and a heartfelt side to them as they wish to follow a moral code of theirs that makes them into chivalrous knights. Gosling has walked into that area in his recent early 30s and leaves behind a romantic drama that would have restricted to being another pretty face. Yet Gosling has hardly been restricted as a pretty face icon for young people since he had been doing very serious drama from the beginning of his 20s, such as The Believer to The United States of Leland to Half Nelson. The difference with his character in Driver from his other roles is that it’s one of the few times we see him as a person with a sense of morality, unlike a bigoted Jew in The Believer or an arrogant D.A. in Fracture or a murderous teen in Murder by Numbers. It’s the role where he is once again caught up in the dark side of humanity, but he spends much of this film trying to do battle with evil out of a sense of morality. As violent and dangerous as he grows in the film, one cannot forget that there still lingers a sense of moral purpose behind his agenda, which puts him in the position of heroic movie stars like the few I mentioned earlier. Through this variation of roles, he has shown that he is capable of taking on serious roles that are the opposite of what young people would expect to see in an attractive leading man. He already has an Oscar nomination on his credentials and he may get one in the future, although he lost was snubbed of one on Blue Valentine which people had hoped he would receive. Driver may be the next best film of his serious roles that will earn him more awards and nominations, but it also secures his role as a daring movie star in the way he takes on rough action and gory violence with deep thought and intensity in his behavior that he could easily become the star of an action/adventure flick.

However, this film is beyond an action flick as it spends a great deal of time in deep moments with Gosling’s nameless character “The Driver”, who spends many scenes without many words and few other expressions than just the gentle look in his eyes that implies a smirk or a kind assurance. He rarely has to express himself as angry or devastated because he looks as though he is good at predicting trouble without much difficulty. He’s like a battle-scarred warrior who has seen tumultuous events that have made him wiser and sharp-eyed about his surroundings that he can smell danger and act quickly without blinking or flinching. The more the camera follows him from behind his jacket with the sign of the scorpion as he walks at the center of the frame, he looks isolated and alone in a dangerous world, like a cowboy walking alone into the horizon to face the world on his own. Most of his time alone is restricted to his car as we spend many shots of his face from in front, to the side, and into his reflection in the rear view mirror. He is alone when he faces the road and sits in the car without passengers for most of his driving time and looks with the same expression of awareness and good senses of his surroundings. He’s willingly facing the world on his own and taking action without hesitation like a robot, but not a soulless robot. He seems like he knows what he must do like he’s programmed to do it, but is aware of what purpose he is aiming for. From the moment he meets Carey Mulligan’s character Irene, we can tell he is drawn to her and cares about her without seeing his mouth drool or talking flirtatious with her. He is very easy in his mannerisms because he has no trouble with socializing or helping out people since he gives her and her son a ride home without complaints or nervous energy. From this moment of attraction to her, we can tell that she is a woman that he finds worth protecting from the dangers that are about to plague their lives. Throughout the film, his purpose in fighting off the dangerous forces of the violent underworld of urban Los Angeles is motivated by a sense of love and devotion to the young woman and her son, which often drives him to the most violent behavior ever.

Whenever he takes on violent methods to deal with the underworld and avoid getting killed, he rarely screams like an angry avenger or smiles like a sadistic killer, but keeps the same expression as he usually does. He is not openly afraid of violence or excited by it, he has a very banal acceptance of it as though he can never escape it and will take it in when Death comes looking for him. Violence is clearly something that he has had much experience with in the past, which affects his mood and behavior that he has just learned to accept it and use when necessary. There’s even a point where he hits a woman and threatens to hurt her more if she doesn’t provide him with vital answers and hardly flinches or gives her any warning before he does it. He very cautiously and patiently makes his moves of violence without overreacting or giving a warning, he takes his time and acts quietly, which makes him more unpredictable and tense as to how he is going to act. He’s like a silent predator about to make his mark on his prey through patience and softness before he can finally catch it and hurt it as much as he wants. The build-up is nicely done, yet the violence that results is not as interesting as it is simply gory and no different from what kind of graphic violence that exists in many movies today that I wonder why it was necessary for the director Nicholas Winding Refn to get so excessive with it like out of a Tarantino flick. It ruins the mood and just shows off special ways to hurt or kill people like it’s another entertaining spectacle of gore and feels out of place with the emotional mood of the film.

 Overall, the film is not a commentary on violence or a spectacle on the subject matter, but rather just a series of events that the "Driver" is surrounded by because he is caught up in an underworld of the L.A. area that he cannot escape from. This can easily come off as a neo-noir about a man who confronts his demons in an urban landscape or one of the many crime-dramas that depict Los Angeles for its dirty side (e.g. Heat, Crash). Whatever it is labelled, it is a film that Gosling shines in that helps cement his image as more than a pretty face and assures us that he will play more serious projects soon.