Friday, May 27, 2011

The Kid

Time Travel Device: Man's younger self "travels 30 years across time" to visit him.

Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To help make Russell's next 30+ years a success

Coolness Factor: The idea of change being a real, not instant, possibility. The cast!

Paradox: Avoids the Grandfather paradox since Russell doesn't "fix" his past but starts anew from forty.

Mike says I have a duel problem: Not only do I wait to the last minute to do these reviews, but I have a brilliant, insightful, and talented blogging partner who very often says exactly what I wanted to. While it's my turn to go first, please enjoy Kate's delightful review below, and I'll add a few awkward lines (and my two cents!) after.

Kate says this is a delightful movie. I hadn't seen it in several years, and from the opening scenes, I laughed my head off. Then I got a little weepy. Then I "hoorayed" my way through the ending. It is a great ride!

First, the movie has an excellent cast. I quite like Bruce Willis. Unlike other action heroes, he has aged with not grace, perhaps, but hutzpah. And he has explored less action-type roles within his range. (Christian Bale can just passably switch between action and arty roles; few actors can or should. Also, Bruce Willis is one of the few action heroes who is still cool as an aging tough guy. Harrison Ford just makes me wince.)

Bruce Willis has strong comedic talents with great timing and deadpan looks. Lily Tomlin is hilarious. Emily Mortimer is sweet. And Spencer Breslin . . .

Spencer Breslin is impressive. I love how normal his character, Rusty, is. Cute, yes. Adorable, yes. But ultimately completely, believably normal. He is also a plausible younger version of Willis. I don't know if he copied Willis or Willis copied him, but their inflections and tones match up perfectly.

Before I move on from the cast, I have to mention Jean Smart (who plays Deirdre, the anchorwoman Willis meets on the plane). I'm a fan of Jean Smart (she plays Lana on Frasier), a very talented comedienne. I admire how she is used in The Kid. Her appearance in the beginning of the movie is paid off neatly towards the end. One of the nice things about PG movies is that issues must be resolved platonically or complexly. An "R" movie would have fallen back on a fling between Russell and Deirdre which wouldn't have worked. But a friend giving advice (returning a favor) at the right time/right place works perfectly.

Regarding the theme, I enjoy Back to the Future, but I admit I consider The Kid a more realistic approach to life. Russell and Rusty hope that resolving the confrontation with the childhood bully will make their future life perfect. But the pains of childhood aren't so easily resolved. What Russell can give Rusty is an adult perspective. "Did I do it?" Rusty asks regarding his mother's coming death, and Russell can say, "No" and can even understand where his father's anger came from.

Consequently, Russell's life isn't "fixed." Although that type of solution works with Back to the Future, it completely fails with 13 Going on 30 where the horrible, conniving, deceitful woman becomes a happy, decent one simply by making one right decision when she was 13. I don't buy that.

Instead, in The Kid, Russell is given the opportunity to move forward. The story becomes less about who he used to be and more about what he can do in the years to come. It is about loving, not despising, that little dweeby kid in all of us--"a dogless, chickless guy with a twitch"--precisely so we can let that kid go.

Truly one of the best movies of all time.

Mike Says (again) that this is a wonderful movie, and a fantastic example of using Time Travel in a way the avoids nearly all of the snags and plot holes time travel usually brings. The problem is, all of the things I'd love to point out about this movie, Kate already did! And so well, I don't have much to add!

My favorite thing about this movie (in addition to the humor, the cast, and the music) is that the Time Travel itself is so simple, yet so effective. Russell and Rusty quickly rush past the "how" to tackle the "why?" And it's in the search for the why that everything plays out. Even in the end, when Rusty and Russell meet Russ (old guy), he acknowledges that Russell might have some questions. Instead of launching into techno babble, he just nods, and says, "Well, I wouldn't worry about it. You have thirty years to figure it all out." Awesome. Tightly written, simple, and avoids everything that would, frankly, ruin the tone and distract from the point of the movie.

Watching the movie this time around, something that kept going through my mind is how much Russell dislikes Rusty and the things about himself that Rusty reminds him of. Something I've been known to say quite often is that I'd love the chance to go back in time and beat the crap out of my younger self. Why? I was a socially inept, blundering and clueless blockhead. And I made a lot of mistakes I wish I could forget. Russell, it seems, wants the same thing. He doesn't want to face his past, or resolve it. He resents it! He wants it to go away, so he can just live his life.

The problem is, living your life and MOVING ON with your life aren't the same thing. Rusty gives Russell the chance, or more accurately, FORCES him to look back, understand, and accept those thing he didn't like. I Love, Love, LOVE, that despite all of their efforts, Rusty and Russell don't change a single thing about the past. Instead, Russell gains that perspective that Kate mentions, to see his life as it was, and apply it to the now. And with that, he's able to leave his old self views in the past, and move on to be the adult he wanted to be when he was a kid. And the idea that this opportunity is ultimately set in motion and offered by Russell's older self really shows how the wisdom gained from life and age really help us to see everything in its proper perspective.

If only all of us could have that same chance!

1 comment:

Kate Woodbury said...

Mike: I think you raise a really good point about fantasy/sci-fi devices: "Time Travel itself is so simple, yet so effective. Russell and Rusty quickly rush past the 'how' to tackle the 'why?'"

I call this the "magic door" solution from Red Dwarf. Lister is trying to explain time travel to the Cat. He uses words like "space-time continuum," etc. etc. The Cat doesn't understand. Finally, exasperated, Lister says, "It's a magic door!"

"Ooooh," the Cat says, "why didn't you just say so?"

I think sci-fi/fantasy movies/books often don't need to explain the "science" or "magic" behind their premises as much as the authors think they do. For example, I'm not entirely sure The Matrix is better off for having its premise explained.

On the other hand, WHY human beings are living a simulated life needs to be explained, so sometimes the magic door isn't enough.

I think ultimately it comes down to rules. Even if the writer doesn't explain the magic door, the writer needs to know (personally) how the door works and never violate its rules.

For instance, in E.T., at the end, E.T. flies the bike. We don't know why or how; he just can. But we know that he can because earlier in the movie, he levitates objects. It's a very silly movie, but nobody broke any rules.

In looking over the movies/episodes for this list, I think most of them are pretty consistent with the rules, and the ones that have the most consistency problems (Star Trek and Stargate) provide too much technobabble. However, these are shows where the viewers do expect more explanation (my personal Star Trek explanation--that arcane/petty policies established by an overly aggressive bureaucracy prevent crews from using the technology properly--doesn't work for all viewers).