![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Little Prince - Film Review
Aug. 7th, 2016 06:54 pmSaw The Little Prince yesterday on Netflix, which was a mixed bag of delights. I'd read the story ages ago in French, then later in English. It and Voltaire's Candide were assigned readings in French class. Possibly because it would be easier than attempting to read Collette or the Red and The Black, which I also read, just not necessarily in French.
It was an animated film, flipping between OG animation or computerized animation (similar in style to Frozen and Zootopia) and stop-motion animation ( similar in style to Coraline, Nightmare Before Christmas) -- I preferred the stop-motion animation, which I found to be more distinctive and compelling, also oddly, more real. It had more heart -- I think because it takes more time, requires far more attention to detail, and more care than computerized. That is my difficulty with art via computer, it's too fast and it uses another part of the brain, the part that calculates and critiques and solves problems, not the part that feels, loves, and plays. At any rate - this film got the difference across and it worked. It showed the weakness in the framing story, which relied heavily on literal images and interpretations, and the original material "the little prince" which is an existentialist fairy tale told simply through metaphor. Hard to explain - but it was the difference between reading a scientific volume on roses, and well experiencing the simple beauty of a rose.
"The Little Prince" appears on the surface to be a children's tale, but it is, much like Candide, a political satire and a philosophical discourse. Through it the author asks questions such as what is the meaning of existence, is this all there is, and what truly matters? A businessman's classification of the stars or a tiny rose?
I should back up a bit. There's two stories here, the first "The Little Prince by Antoine De St. Expurey" (published in the 1930s) and the second a modern day story about a little girl who befriends De St. Expurey and publishes his story. The second story is used as a means of telling the first and making sense of it, within the context of our modern world. Unfortunately, the second story falls a bit flat and doesn't quite live up to the potential of the first or the story its framing. When we are focusing on "The Little Prince", it is charming film and compelling, but removed from the Little Prince, slightly grating and jarring. We have fallen into the world of Pixar.
Not that "The Little Prince" is easy material to adapt. Other's have tried and failed. It's at heart an existentialist fairy tale told in metaphor. If you don't think metaphorically - it probably makes no sense to you. As de Expurey more or less states in his prologue about drawing a snake that has eaten an elephant, but everyone he shows it too, immediately sees a hat. When he attempts to make it clearer - they want to know why he has bothered to draw it at all. How does this benefit anything?
A commentary on what is wrong with our society, in a nutshell.
This film doesn't trust that people will understand the story of The Little Prince on its own, and like de Expurey, decides not to just draw a snake eating the elephant, but making it obvious that it is a drawing of a snake eating an elephant. I mean, they do have a point, some people won't get it.
It's not stupidity, it's how we think. Some people don't think metaphorically, if you don't spell it out in concrete terms, as x -y = z, with 2 =x, and 1=y, and z=3, then no it makes no sense.
Those who do think metaphorically, may get a bit annoyed with the framing story. Wondering why the writers feel the need to explain The Little Prince. Those who don't, may love the framing story better than the Little Prince. It's hard to tell.
I think this is why it's really hard to critique art. Whether you appreciate or like a work of art has a heck of a lot to do with how you perceive things. And there's really no right or wrong way of doing it. I'm beginning to realize the need to believe there is a right or wrong way or the need to place a value judgment on it -- has a lot to do with our need to validate our ego. Which hurts us more than helps us. Ironically enough.
Anyhow, I think this is one of those films in which less thought, works better. But the book was that way too - it's a book one reads with one's head not one's heart.
It was an animated film, flipping between OG animation or computerized animation (similar in style to Frozen and Zootopia) and stop-motion animation ( similar in style to Coraline, Nightmare Before Christmas) -- I preferred the stop-motion animation, which I found to be more distinctive and compelling, also oddly, more real. It had more heart -- I think because it takes more time, requires far more attention to detail, and more care than computerized. That is my difficulty with art via computer, it's too fast and it uses another part of the brain, the part that calculates and critiques and solves problems, not the part that feels, loves, and plays. At any rate - this film got the difference across and it worked. It showed the weakness in the framing story, which relied heavily on literal images and interpretations, and the original material "the little prince" which is an existentialist fairy tale told simply through metaphor. Hard to explain - but it was the difference between reading a scientific volume on roses, and well experiencing the simple beauty of a rose.
"The Little Prince" appears on the surface to be a children's tale, but it is, much like Candide, a political satire and a philosophical discourse. Through it the author asks questions such as what is the meaning of existence, is this all there is, and what truly matters? A businessman's classification of the stars or a tiny rose?
I should back up a bit. There's two stories here, the first "The Little Prince by Antoine De St. Expurey" (published in the 1930s) and the second a modern day story about a little girl who befriends De St. Expurey and publishes his story. The second story is used as a means of telling the first and making sense of it, within the context of our modern world. Unfortunately, the second story falls a bit flat and doesn't quite live up to the potential of the first or the story its framing. When we are focusing on "The Little Prince", it is charming film and compelling, but removed from the Little Prince, slightly grating and jarring. We have fallen into the world of Pixar.
Not that "The Little Prince" is easy material to adapt. Other's have tried and failed. It's at heart an existentialist fairy tale told in metaphor. If you don't think metaphorically - it probably makes no sense to you. As de Expurey more or less states in his prologue about drawing a snake that has eaten an elephant, but everyone he shows it too, immediately sees a hat. When he attempts to make it clearer - they want to know why he has bothered to draw it at all. How does this benefit anything?
A commentary on what is wrong with our society, in a nutshell.
This film doesn't trust that people will understand the story of The Little Prince on its own, and like de Expurey, decides not to just draw a snake eating the elephant, but making it obvious that it is a drawing of a snake eating an elephant. I mean, they do have a point, some people won't get it.
It's not stupidity, it's how we think. Some people don't think metaphorically, if you don't spell it out in concrete terms, as x -y = z, with 2 =x, and 1=y, and z=3, then no it makes no sense.
Those who do think metaphorically, may get a bit annoyed with the framing story. Wondering why the writers feel the need to explain The Little Prince. Those who don't, may love the framing story better than the Little Prince. It's hard to tell.
I think this is why it's really hard to critique art. Whether you appreciate or like a work of art has a heck of a lot to do with how you perceive things. And there's really no right or wrong way of doing it. I'm beginning to realize the need to believe there is a right or wrong way or the need to place a value judgment on it -- has a lot to do with our need to validate our ego. Which hurts us more than helps us. Ironically enough.
Anyhow, I think this is one of those films in which less thought, works better. But the book was that way too - it's a book one reads with one's head not one's heart.