The Seuss estate holder (widow Audrey Geisel) had vowed there would be no more live-action adaptations after Cat (which contained too many adult themes for her. I guess it's also just true that those other two films weren't very good movies no matter the medium either.
Those structures and creatures just aren't meant to be real. I don't know-but the latest attempt both looks better for an estimated 89MM than the Cat in the Hat (109MM in 2003 dollars) or How the Grinch Stole Christmas (123MM in 2000 dollars) and works better. When we build those houses for live action sets though, they really do have to stand up and maybe our brains tell us that no matter how good they look, they're just not real. We don't have to wonder how all those Who-houses stand up because in pen and ink they're weightless. That's because the pictures are, to some extent, a metaphor for the story rather than a literal rendition. The fluid, flexible imaginary realms that Seuss's characters inhabit render well on a printed page with fanciful drawings-and moving to hand-drawn animation, it still works. Seuss's locations aren't meant to be real: they exist in the imaginary landscape of our childhood minds. I think that this isn't for lack of trying, I think it's because of the medium as much as anything. Seuss movies have not been kind to his legacy.
0 kommentar(er)
