When I started this blog my intent was not to bury Disney, nor to praise it - I simply wanted to share my thoughts on a bunch of movies. Some of these I’ve appreciated more than expected, while others have gotten my goat for one reason or another. That I happen to think something like The Lion King is overrated, for example, doesn't stem from some desire to feel superior to “the masses”; hell, I wouldn’t be discussing Disney at all if that were the case. Besides, there are many popular films I’ve reviewed (and will continue to) that I enjoy and appreciate. When watching these films and taking my review notes, I’ve sometimes had to spread my viewings out over a few evenings. This could've been due to family circumstances, prior engagements, or just being too damn tired. So far, however, I haven’t had any trouble getting through a movie because of the movie itself … until I recently sat down to watch The Parent Trap.
The 1961 film stars Hayley Mills (“and Hayley Mills!”) as long-separated twins Sharon and Susan. A chance meeting at summer camp leads them to discover the truth of their upbringing: their parents, Mitch and Maggie (played by Keith David and Maureen O’Hara, respectively,) divorced after they were born and decided to raise them separately. The two hatch a scheme to switch places with each other, to learn more about their estranged parents and eventually reunite the couple. This, they hope, will bring the whole family back together.
No doubt many readers are already familiar with the film, as it’s one of a handful of Disney’s live-action films that seems to have remained popular amongst non-hardcore fandom. From repeats on television to continual re-releases on home video and DVD (as well as a highly-regarded remake from 1998,) The Parent Trap seems to be a fond childhood viewing for many. This is another one that I never really watched when I was young (what can I say? If it didn’t have a corresponding Disneyland ride, I couldn’t be bothered,) though one or two prior viewings in my adulthood have proven it to be a fairly amusing, if overlong early ‘60s comedy (it seems that if Walt got directly involved, very little ended up on the cutting room floor.)
 |
| She's a little bit country ... and I'm a little bit rock n' roll! |
The first section of the film, set at “Miss Inch’s Summer Camp for Girls” is actually pretty fun. The sisters find themselves at opposite ends of feuding cabins, getting into harmless mischief at each other’s expense. Their squabbling soon leads them to trouble, as they knock over a few tables and get cake in the faces of some camp counselors during an inter-camp dance. Camp owner Miss Inch states that “in the history of our camp, that was the most infamous, the most revolting, the most disgusting display of hooliganism we have ever had.” Wow, really? A couple of knocked-over tables and some splattered cake? I don’t know what Walt thought went on at camp, but it’s certainly much worse than that.
 |
| ...and I'll never have that recipe again ... oh nooooo... |
Thus far the film had played out as most Disney comedies of the time did - harmless, lightweight fun. Once we learn, however, about Susan and Sharon’s parents and their agreement to split them up, I found that I simply could not get past this oft-ignored plot-point. So we have two people, Mitch and Maggie: both are shown to be financially successful - he possessing a big, gorgeous ranch in Carmel, she living in a Boston mansion with her family. The two could not get along with each other, and so decided to divorce - fine. While somewhat looked down upon, divorce wasn’t a shameful, unheard of thing by the mid-1950s (when they would've split) - especially for people as well-off as these two. Yet apparently they were so pissed at each other that not only was reconciliation out of the picture, but they wouldn’t even work out a standard custody arrangement? Hell, they not only decided to each raise a daughter without letting them know they had a sibling, but were also okey dokey about voluntarily being absent from one of their own children's lives!
Okay then - the titular parents should indeed be trapped … and then dragged out into the street and shot.
The conceit of having the twin girls switch places and impersonate one-another is clever, and leads to some fine comedic chemistry between Hayley Mills and … herself. But it’s a shame that their ruse is being done to bring their parents back together, when they should be calling C.P.S. on their despicable asses. Once we meet these so-called “parents” I was hoping to at least get some sympathetic characterizations from respected actors David and O’Hara, but this was not the case. Rather than delve into any deep characterization or attempts at making their original decision seem difficult, we are given weak authority figures who exist merely to participate in the film’s toothless comedy. O’Hara is presented as a glamorous but thinly-drawn socialite, seemingly only concerned about her daughter after she’s tricked into thinking the girl plans to run away and get married. Must keep up appearances, after all. Keith David always gives off the air of a put-out drunk who’d rather be doing anything other than acting, especially in something as vapid as this. His talents were much better suited to the multitude of westerns he was frequently cast in.
 |
| THE. WORST. |
When Sharon attempts to grill her father about why she’s never met her mother, Mitch attempts to dissuade her from the subject by stating “oh, you wouldn’t like your mother … besides, she’s fat - really fat.” Tee-fucking-hee, you miserable asshole. Now I know this should be viewed as an “oh, ha ha, silly guy talk that was funny in 1961” thing, but then Sharon responds with “Then why did you fall in love with her?” I guess fatties are destined to die alone in Uncle Walt’s ‘60s.
By this point, I was pretty much done. I left the movie playing for a while, glancing up from the eBay app occasionally to see it getting progressively worse. The movie throws in a sadly over-used and clichéd “gold digger” character in the form of Vicky (Joanna Barnes,) who’s after Mitch for his money. Thus, the twins are given a target to take down in their plot to reunite their parents, and audiences are provided with yet another “nasty woman” to root against and distract from the fact that Mitch and Maggie are horrible, horrible people. Hell, we even get an extra layer of “wicked stepmother,” as Vicky’s own mother is revealed to be in on the “gold digging,” encouraging Vicky to put up with Sharon (or Susan - whatever) long enough to get her hands on his money. Sure, why the hell not? Why don’t we reveal Vicky as a Nazi sympathizer? Or that she’s secretly a cannibal? Or whatever the hell else we can pile onto this glaringly misogynist scapegoat character? Joanna Barnes, a talented columnist and fiction-writer in her own right, was often typecast as attractive secretaries or “party girl” types throughout her acting career, and honestly deserved better.
 |
| Cutie the bomb, met her at a beauty salon... |
You know, I can understand why people like this movie. On the surface, it’s the same as any of the other fluffy comedies Disney churned out in the ‘60s - inoffensive, harmless entertainment. People continue to enjoy it for the nostalgic value, or they watch with the mindset of “well, it was good for the time it came out” - to which I say bullshit. A movie can’t be “1961 good” and suck now. Why should I give a pass to something that hasn’t aged well? Why can’t I simply enjoy a movie that’s actually good, like Night of The Hunter or The Apartment; something well-crafted, that doesn’t need it’s inadequacies explained away by the year it came out?
I’ve never been one to dismiss a film out-of-hand because it’s “dated.” Movies, like any other works of art, are made at a certain point in time and should reflect this, regardless of when the stories themselves are set. However, there are some films that I can’t bring myself to get into because of certain “accepted mindsets” that just don’t sit right with me. That’s why I’ve never been a fan of John Frankenheimer’s original Manchurian Candidate, with it’s over-the-top portrayal of “Evil Communism" and forced, chemistry-free “you’re a dame and I’m a fella” love-story between Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh. There are many things I can look past or forgive as being redolent of the past - and others that just plain stink.
Even for someone who enjoys a lot of older movies, each possessing their own outmoded or questionable elements, I just couldn’t get over my sense of distaste while watching The Parent Trap. After another 15 minutes or so, I finally gave up - I couldn’t focus enough on the film to make any notes beyond “this is shit.” I did attempt to revisit the film again and again over several nights, but didn't get much further. Why am I wasting my time with something I’ve quickly come to hate? Besides, I could already guess where the story was headed, and a quick perusal of Wikipedia confirmed my suspicions: the twins get everyone together for a camping trip, where Vicky is revealed to be *gasp* not the outdoorsy type. After more prodding from the girls, Vicky is ousted, and Mitch and Maggie decide they’re in love again. Swell - maybe they can stay together long enough to produce another child they can screw over.
 |
| Whoop-de-fucking-doo |
So my apologies if this is a favorite of anyone out there - and hopefully I’m not disappointing anybody with this rant. I may (or may not) attempt to watch this again sometime, maybe coming at it from a different angle (or while drunk.) As I noted in a previous post, Disney went on to make three TV-movie sequels to this in the late ‘80s, and re-make it in 1998 with Lindsay Lohan in the twin role. So there is an opportunity for one of my week-long review marathons, provided I can locate the latter two TV sequels - but I really can’t think about that right now. For the time being, I've got some better movies to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment