The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T

When I first saw “The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T”, I was 7 years old. My grandparents owned a copy of it at their cabin in Pine Valley, Utah. And I watched it. A lot. It reinforced my childhood beliefs that the piano is the greatest instrument and that all other instruments should be locked away in a dungeon. It spawned an interest in conjoined twins, and a sadness when I learned that people could not be joined by the beard.  It instilled in me a love for elaborate, crazy musical numbers whose absence would not affect the plot in any meaningful way. Now, some of that is a little facetious, but I truly loved how imaginative the film was.  It didn’t matter that the plot made little sense. It didn’t matter that the acting ranged from extremely wooden (Mr. Zabladowski) to insanely over the top (Dr. T).  What mattered was the creativity of the designs, the situations, and the over the top character choices.  I loved, and still love, the crazy art design that was like a literal representation of a Dr. Seuss book. Even the main kid looks like the default boy character from multiple Seuss stories. 

Casting call for the role just had this drawing.

And boy, did they find him.

If we’re going to analyze the film on a technical level, it fails in both its editing and directing. Continuity is thrown out the window for parts of it, and the editing is jarring and off-putting all throughout the film. But in a way, that just adds to the charm of the film, and it definitely adds to the surreal dreamlike quality of the film. If our dreams are chaotic, nonsensical, and jarring, then the film’s editing style merely reflects that.

As we read in class, Freud said “Might we not say that every child at play behaves like a creative writer, in that he creates a world of his own, or, rather, rearranges the things of his world in a new way which pleases him? It would be wrong to think he does not take that world seriously; on the contrary, he takes his play very seriously and he expends large amounts of emotion on it.” To the protagonist, it IS all serious business. This isn’t playtime; for Bart, the stakes are extremely high, which only adds to the surreal, dreamlike nature of the film. It also emphasizes an important aspect of childhood, which is that most things that matter to a child are often overlooked or ignored by adults. The adults in the film have an incredibly hard time listening to Bart and his problems/concerns, and this rings true for any child that wonders why parents won’t listen seriously to their concerns about monsters in the closet or how mean your brother is being. 

After we screened the film in class, Ben asked me if I knew, even as a kid, that this movie was weird. I said yes, of course. Even as a child I could tell this movie was crazier than most. But on further reflection, that's exactly why I loved it. It showed me that a film doesn't have to make sense to be enjoyable. Like Willy Wonka and Disney, Dr. T showed me the joys of pure, unbridled, nonsensical imagination.

Plus, now I can never think of Captain Hook the same way again.

God Bless the Child

INsert commentary here.

Time Bandits

Time Bandits: the boy (insert name later), while curious and inquisitive about history, had never explored for himself.  It was also abundantly clear that he wasn’t getting the attention that he needed from his parents, so the adventure also represented a much-needed escape from his neglectful family life.  Even though I laughed at the “Napoleon is short” jokes, it represents.  This represents the problem that adventure stories often run into. In attempting to portray another culture, or even simply to understand another culture, stereotypes and false information are often used instead of facts or empathy.  This can be seen in Tintin’s adventures, where he travels to dlkfjdlfkjkd and meets a culture very different from his own, which often isn’t portrayed in the nicest light. 

However, Time Bandits is able to escape these admittedly minor failings once it gets into more fantastical territory.  Their travels bring them to the middle of the ocean, where they meet an ogre and his wife who attempt to eat them, a giant with a boat attached to his head, and a vast desert. 

Death of parents.  As an adult, this seems to be the most shocking part of the movie. The parents, obsessed with their gadgets, save a microwave, which has a burned piece of pure evil stuck inside. They touch it, ignoring the warnings of djfkldjfe, and are obliterated.  In logical terms, this doesn’t bode well for young dklfjlkjf. His home has just been burned down and now he has no parents. He’ll become a ward of the state, an orphan, destined to either roam from foster home to foster home or be stuck in an orphanage until he’s 18. 

Also, the decision to make the heroes of the story ‘little people’ has to do with the child protagonist.  Gilliam thought that having grown men take jfkljekfje on an adventure would

Ultimately, djfkldjfkle is better off from his experience

The Graveyard Book

In The Graveyard Book, a toddler enters a graveyard right after a mysterious man kills his entire family, and ends up being adopted by the ghosts of the graveyard, who take him in as their honorary son and give him the name of Nobody. As he matures, he has encounters with ghouls, witches, "The Sleer" and the murderous man Jack.  Similar to other novels for children, such as Pinocchio and The Jungle Book, The Graveyard Book teaches children the complexities of morality, growing up, and the inevitability and ultimately the acceptance of death.

The most obvious moral conflict in the story occurs near the end.  When the man Jack returns with other men to kill Bod, Bod takes action to protect himself, his old childhood friend Scarlett, and his home. He admits that, while he didn’t kill the Jacks, he did what it took to protect himself and his home, including tricking a Jack into falling down a hole, throwing two through a “Ghoul Gate” and using Scarlett as bait in order to trick the man Jack into becoming the master of "The Sleer" for eternity.  In Bod’s mind, he hasn’t broken any laws or done anything morally wrong, and all of his actions were in defense of his home. His friend Scarlett, however, doesn’t see things that way.  She is horrified that Bod would injure and even kill others in order to protect himself.  In her mind, murder and all acts associated with it are always wrong, no matter the circumstances, and Bod is just as evil as the men who tried to murder him.  In relation to morality, they both have created/developed their own moral codes that they adhere to. Bod's moral code seems to fall under the ideals of Consequentialism, which states that the morality of an action should be judged solely on its consequences, whereas Scarlett's moral code falls under the polar opposite ideology of Deontology, which deals more with moral intentions and a devotion to duty. In summary, Bod justifies that his actions were necessary to protect himself and his home, and that the consequence (saving himself and his home) justified his actions, whereas Scarlett is unable, or unwilling, to look past the immorality of Bod's manipulations and inadvertently violent ways.  Furthermore, his guardian Silas, who admits to being neither alive nor dead, has killed dozens, if not hundreds, of members of the Jack of all Trades society in order to protect Bod. He also admits, at the end of the novel, to having committed acts even worse than the man Jack, although he does not elaborate. This shows an interesting aspect about morality in relation to people: people can change, good people can do bad things, and bad people can be redeemed/do good deeds.  These are complex ideas for a child to comprehend, since most children believe for a long time that their view of the world is the only correct one, and that the world is easily categorized, falling into black and white sections that are distinct.

                In many ways, The Graveyard Book resembles a similar structure in teaching morality as Pinocchio (or, more obviously, The Jungle Book). Gaiman offers a debt to Kipling in the afterward of the novel, which even the title of the book alludes to.  Still, the connections are many and obvious.  The structure of both books revolves around an infant being taken care of by an unusual source (ghosts and animals) growing up and learning the rules of his home, making mistakes, meeting different characters, and going on different, loosely connected adventures, all of which are tied together by the constant threat of a dangerous enemy who wants to kill them.  Bod makes a choice, usually a bad one or a dangerous one, it backfires, and he has to be rescued by a parental figure, usually Silas, but also the witch on occasion.  This is similar to the moral structure of Pinocchio, which normally involves Pinocchio being misled, making a poor choice, and having to be saved by an outside figure, having learned an important lesson in the end.

The graveyard location of the novel raises interesting questions about the role of death in our own lives, Bod is raised by ghosts and other worldly creatures from a young age, so he never developed a fear for death, the afterlife, and the unknown.  Death is simply a natural part of life for him.  By normalizing death and the stigmas that surround it, The Graveyard Book teaches children one of the hardest things for most humans to accept: death is natural, inescapable, and a part of life. 

                There’s also a hint of self-fulfilling prophecy in the plot. Man Jack attacks Bod and his family because an ancient Egyptian prophecy stated that a boy would be born who would live between the living and the dead, and he would be the end of the Jack of all Trades. This never would have happened if Jack hadn’t killed Bod’s family, which caused Bod to go into the graveyard and, out of pity, taken in by the ghosts.  This would bring on the wrath of Silas, who made it his mission to exterminate the society of the Jack-of-all-Trades.  In a way, through their murderous and selfish actions, they brought on their own demise.

It’s also interesting to note that when Bod was given the chance to attend public school, he was not able to stand by and watch the older kids extort the younger kids for money. This wasn’t taught to him. In actuality, it was forbidden by Silas to draw attention to himself in any way, for fear that the Man Jack would find him.  His decision to help came in contrast from his mentor’s advice, which raises an important question: how much of morality is taught, and how much of it is innate? Bod never had much contact with real live people, save for Scarlett, so there wasn’t much of an opportunity for him to learn normal childhood communication with the living, such as sharing, fair play, and standing up to others. Yet when he was confronted with the first instance of true injustice and inequality in his entire life, he chose to act, without and without consent from his guardian. This raises an interesting question about morality and the innate good and evil that resides in us all.

                There’s also an old, familiar message in The Graveyard Book: don’t talk to strangers.  The ghouls who kidnap Bod early in the book lie to him by omitting their true identity and calling themselves “emperor of china” and other sorts of things (though, to their credit, those are the names and titles that they chose for themselves). Also, Man Jack returns, calling himself Mr. J. Frost and befriending Scarlett and her mother.  The message is simple: nice things can be deceptive, strangers can deceive, always be on your guard.  This moral bears similarity to the moral from “Red Riding Hood” and similar fairy tales.  Evil can be deceptive, and, to quote Red Riding Hood from the musical Into the Woods, “Nice is different than good.”

   In the novel, once Bod reaches 15, he is finally ready to leave the graveyard and travel the world for himself..  According to modern laws, he would still be a few years away from being legal enough to drink alcohol, buy cigarettes, or even drive a car.  However, ignoring his literal age, the ending comes off more symbolic when thinking about the transition from childhood to adulthood.  He loses his ability to see and talk to ghosts, but it’s implied that he’ll be able to take care of himself and travel the world.  Just like how during the transition from childhood, we lose our innocence, naivete, and childlike wonder, replacing it with the ability to work for ourselves, provide and care for others, and knowledge. 

In the end, The Graveyard Book teaches multiple lessons about morality for children to learn. First, death is a natural part of life that should not be feared. Second, be wary of strangers and use good judgement. Third, while some aspects of morality and justice are innate, everyone will interpret them differently, so what is most important is to decide for ourselves what is wrong and what is right.