MYST #4: Matilda

    So on a whim the other day my friend and I decided to watch this 1996 fluff film produced, directed, and starred in by Danny DeVito.  It follows the story of Matilda (Mara Wilson), a girl growing up among neglecting, sleazy parents (Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) and attending a run-down school with a horrible principal (Pam Ferris).  As she learns and grows more, she develops telekinetic powers which she then uses to try and improve her life and the lives of others around her.  It features tacky yet endearing names like "Crunchem Hall," "Bruce Bogtrotter," and "Pricipal Trunchbull."  It's a very over-the-top film. 

   Even the camera work is over-the-top.  There are constant zooming shots, closing in on every character's face, one-size-fits-all for every scene.  There is no reason to have all the zooms.  They should be used sparingly for very important scenes that require accentuation, and not all over the place.  The zooming loses effect every time one is added.  There are also an unhealthy amount of montages.  Montages have to be well done or else they are, well, tacky.  Like in "High School Musical," during the montage where Gabriella and Troy are preparing for their audition and every scene blends into the next, but flows well, montages need to make logical sense and flow smoothly.  The montages in this movie seemed very choppy.  There is one scene where poor Bruce Bogtrotter is forced to eat an entire cake by Principal Trunchbull, and as he eats there are fading transitions as he finishes more and more of the cake.  To me, this did not make logical sense and just seemed out of place.  I was disappointed by the use of montages in this movie.  Part of the problem, I think, was that this movie spans over a large chunk of Matilda's life, and there is a lot of focus on her very early childhood, before she goes to school and discovers her powers, so many scenes have to be montages just to shorten the time gaps.  But then again, montages are a privilege, not a right, and they were definitely overused in this film.

   Which isn't to say I didn't like the film.  It's actually quite amusing.  At one point Matilda is talking about her passion for reading, and accidentally calls the author "Darles Chickens."  Small, amusing things like that are what carry the film along.  And it is a story about kid power, and taking control of a life that has been in the control of others.  Standing up for yourself is the key point, which makes sense since it is based off a Roald Dahl book.  His other stories, like "The B.F.G." and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" have similar messages of childhood and personal strength.

   One scene I did very much appreciate is the scene where the awful Principal Trunchbull is introduced.  We begin with the chatter of children arriving at school, and then the door to the school bangs open.  We see a shot from behind Miss Trunchbull, of only her calves and feet, and we continue to get close-ups only of parts of Miss Trunchbull, like her riding crop slapping against her hand, or her belt buckle, or her really really tidy hair bun.  The kids explain to Matilda, the newcomer, about all the awful things Miss Trunchbull does, and only then, as Miss Trunchbull approaches Matilda, do we see her face.  A very made-up, intentionally ugly face, which gives us quite a shock.  This scene works very well because we have a very long, intense buildup to the reveal of Trunchbull herself.  This sets the tone for the whole film, where everyone lives in constant fear of Principal Trunchbull, and she is always seen as this intimidating, awful character.  I very much appreciated the cinematic elements used here.

    All in all, this film as a very kiddy feel to it.  It's bright colors and funny names make it amusing for children.  It sends a strong message about standing up for yourself and the people you care about, but definitely in a style mostly kids would enjoy.  If you're feeling nostalgic, it has the feel of "The Parent Trap" or "Hocus Pocus," so it can bring you back to the days of unassuming childhood.  But it's definitely not what I would consider fine film.  2.5/5 stars.