Christmas
The weird thing about making "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" a long movie is that it's not meant to be one. The 2000 Grinch movie has some good merits to it, even if If I'm not a big fan of it. Jim Carrey playing the Grinch is pretty interesting and he brings his own quirks to the character. The 2018 movie is fine, if anything that's it , fine. It's not awful in the sense that it makes Dr. Seuss rise from his grave and exact his vengeance upon Comcast for allowing such a thing to exist.
It's fine, meaning that it's okay. The main thing both the 2000 and 2018 movies have to do is make a short story a feature length movie; it a truly short story, to the point that the 1966 special, that is 25 minutes long has to stretch out things to fit 25 minutes. Though that special used songs and animation to do it, it was able to take something that was a page in the book and make it sequence. The 1966 special takes the mind set of taking the story and transferring to animation but doesn't have to fit 90 minutes. The 2018 movie is 86 minutes long; the 2000 live-action film in 105 minutes long.
The basic story of the Grinch is that he hates Christmas and the 66 special says we don't know why, makes some guesses about his shoes and his heart being too small, but hand waves it and says whatever the reason, he doesn't like Christmas. It kind of lets you ponder, why , but his reasoning isn't really to the story. The 2000 and 2018 movies decide the best approach to fill time is to fill time. They give a back story, both are kind of close, the idea is the Grinch is orphan who as a child had negative interactions with the Whos. The 2000 movie goes with he was in school with some of them and they made fun of him for not being human, while the 2018 goes for he was left behind at orphanage and Christmas was a hard time for him. They both find away to tie in Christmas specially to show why he might have ire towards the day.
In a way, the Grinch story has the same idea as "A Charlie Brown Christmas", Charlie Brown wonders about the commercialization of Christmas , the story of the Grinch is to show that Christmas is more than just trees, Santa, gifts, roasts beasts, and things. The main story and '66 special really don't give us much about the Whos and again, that's one way to keep the story short and all we really need them for is that they are there for the plot: their celebration annoys the Grinch, their honoring Christmas after the Grinch steals Christmas is have Mr. G switch to figuring out that Christmas is more than just the stuff, and decides to return the stuff and the whos have him feast with them and they don't execute him.
The movies have ,again, need to fill time, so it does dive on the Whos. That's where things get a little stuck. The 2000 movie depicts the Whos has an allegory of current times (2000 times) they are obsessed with gifts, decorations, the flash. This kind of hurts the big ending idea that's supposed to pivot the Grinch into being kind. Which again is the biggest part of the Grinch story , he's a Scrooge and turns kind like Scrooge taking Christmas into heart. Having the the Whos be annoying and jerks ,kind of makes one want to root for the Grinch to just burn down their town. The 2000 movie makes them unlikable, all except young Cindy Lou Who, whom has own topic coming up. It's weird when the Grinch takes their stuff they go "Oh wow, yeah Christmas is more than just stuff" after not showing any signs of that and not using the expanded time they have to show maybe how they realized that message. Could have written it where the Whos were annoying like they were, but then have them realize they were caught up too much too, like many of us can be, then it would show both sides growing thanks to the power of Christmas, and that keeps it closer to the spirit of the original story.
The 2018 Whos are slightly more palatable than the 2000 ones. They are kind of like like our modern (2018 times) and they kind of are big on Christmas and slightly annoying the Grinch but not in a way that makes it seem like they want to be mean to him or have malice towards him compared to 2000. This movie does take a different direction in having two plots mesh together.
The 2018 Whos are better than the 2000 Whos. That's if you want Who development. They were going to hard into the idea of making a reason for the Grinch to hate Christmas they forgot that there was also a reason the Whos worked in the original story in the first place. The 2018 one at least balanced it out, by making the reason he hates Christmas be loneliness.
Let's talk about Cindy Lou Who. She doesn't have much a role in the original story and the '66 special, maybe to show the Grinch has a little bit of kindness in him, by getting her some water or something. In the 2000 and 2018 movies, her role is expanded. I don't think this was bad idea, since she's the only named Who character, and her being a child they are able to do a contrast to the cynical Grinch. In both movies she's way more than 2, though , she speaks pretty well for being no more than 2 in the 66 special so maybe...the rhyme was trying too hard.
Cindy's role in 2000 is she's a contrast to the other Whos. She's sweet, kind, and caring, and doesn't care for the others over commercialization of Christmas. Her parents don't seem to be giving her attention as much as they are wrapped up Christmas as well. Her parents are not the worst Whos in the film, though. Cindy's role is there to contrast the Grinch as well, she also seems curious about him. She wants the Grinch to feel accepted and hopes the best for him.
Essentially in the 2000 movie, she's exhibiting the traits of what Christmas should be like: caring for others and not being self absorbed. The mayor, the worst character in this movie, puts blame on Cindy during the big "oh no Christmas has been stolen " moment but it makes her parents stand up for her and mention that she's the only one around there that's been caring about Christmas. It sets up a more forced they understand Christmas thing versus the original story. That's not a fault on Cindy's character, that's just how that movie kind rolls- trying to force the story into it's own story without any nuance. Cindy will be the only Who to really root for in this movie.
Cindy 2018, has her own story arc and she's the B plot of this movie. Her mom is a single mom who takes care of her and her younger brothers. Cindy wants one thing from Santa Claus,: to help her mother be less stressed and over worked. Thanks to the Grinch she decides a letter isn't enough, she wants to trap Santa so she can talk to him.
The 2018 movie gives her just as much role as the Grinch and you probably guess where they intersect. Unlike the 2000 version, they kind of made her more normal like a normal girl and again her role isn't to contrast against the other Whos compared to the 2000 movie. Her main concern is her mother being over worked not being consumed by commercialism. Again, the Whos in this movie are at least likeable versus 2000, so Cindy doesn't have to be a saint.
They work in the trap Santa Claus plot with it being the Grinch dressed as Santa, you can kind of have to figure in both these films that idea of convenience that they can't tell the character they've met before is not the character they've met before in Santa suit. Her wish to reduce her mom's workload and gives him some advice, that it kind of touches him, but he still continues Christmas stealing because plot. At the same time makes sense because he's not doing a 180 switch yet, but there have been hints in the film that he is lonely and that he doesn't open quickly to kindness.
Cindy feels the blame thinking she is the reason Christmas was stolen because of the Santa trap. (Not the 2002 movie of the same name) her mother consoles her and tells her what Christmas is about and that it's not about gifts. Which I'm glad the movie remembers that the Whos weren't all wrapped up in Christmas to forget that Christmas was about. Cindy later invites the Grinch to the dinner that was see at the end of each version of the tales. Showing that she cares and the Whos also welcome him in, it's predictable, but not bad.
Her who goal is worry about her mother, but not doing things with her mother when there are chances or helping out. Maybe it's to show she got so wrapped up in her gift idea that she didn't see what she could do to help. Hey, if you are going to up stuff to make a short story long, at least add some fiber to the the filling.
Let's talk about the Grinch, himself. The simple thing is that he hates Christmas. In 1966 special, he's grumpy. menacing, commanding, but yet he's convincing and good liar to convince Cindy Lou Who he's Santa. The 2000 movie Grinch is Jim Carrey, I don't mean that he's just played by him, but Carrey brings his mannerisms to the character. This Grinch is goofy, he's crazy, over the top and apparently doesn't mind being around the Whos but hates them because of the past.
As mentioned before, 2000 Grinch has a backstory that as a kid he was bullied by the Whos and that shaped why he hates them and Christmas because it happened around Christmas. I will commend Carrey does a good job and he was in annoying making up and costumes and he still put his all into the character. It's hard for him to be a villain because the non Cindy Whos are very unlikable to the point I think they forgot the Grinch was supposed to be the villain, Why should I care he ruined their Christmas? They embarrassed him in a ceremony, it justifies his torching of the town. The Grinch is the hero?
The short time of the 1966 special helps it work better because we really don't need to know why Grinch hates Christmas, sometimes people just hate things because they don't understand or just hate things because why not? We get a light look at his character without trying to understand him.
The 2018 film, has Benedict Cumberbatch voicing the Grinch since we are back to animation. In this one he's kind of more a normal person that happens to be green and fuzzy. What if the Grinch did normal things like shopping, exercise , wears underwear (which makes more questions that we should ever need about the Grinch) , drink coffee, and he actually does intermingle in Whoville, for someone who is supposed to be annoyed by them he's not like having his essentials delivered.
The Grinch here is more the guy who wants to be left alone, but has to still go out and do stuff but leave him alone. I won't say he was evil as a character in the first place, but here is very human-ish. Also for design, the 2000 movie where a guy is dressed in suit also has yellow eyes (so help me, he had yellow eyes) this one has perfect teeth and normal eyes; good work 2000 movie, you win that very small detail. Cumberbatch does fake American voice instead of cool British voice, which would have been great for the Grinch. (I'm tired)
In 2018, he also goes around the town and does like annoyances on the Whos. Which I mean, is weird. Anyway backstory is that he's an orphan and apparently there was no Christmas for him because reasons. They took the line "We don't why he doesn't like Christmas" and really made us confused as to why he doesn't like Christmas. It seems to show that he's lonely and was left out as a kid. I don't know, I've re watched the part that explains many times and I'm like I don't know he's sad? If you are going to make a reason then show it! Show me a reason! I'd take Grinch hates Christmas because Santa ate his parents as a reason. If they are trying to say he's lonely then be clear about it.
If I had to pick between these two and don't really want to drink arsenic sauce I guess 2000 Grinch wins this more. but Chad Grinch is 1966.
I will point out a main problem of the films is that they are taking a short story and trying to feature film it. That's a hard effect, essentially you have to make a new story to fit into the main story and wonder how to fit them in together. Maybe that's why there were no Dr. Seuss films until after he died. They both had some good ideas, and some ideas that just didn't land well. I'm against the idea of giving Cindy Lou Who some characterization , but they didn't do anything to make her interesting in either film. The 2018 one, it's fine to have her be tom boy-ish and stuff but they didn't give her anything that makes her different from another character, even in an illumination film.
I also feel they wanted the Grinch in the 2018 film to be Gru, but slightly different, like he does bad things but not really evil, and having to have villain back stories in both movies seems to be something that just wants to be done.
Both movies try to go into modern times, meaning they feel like the times they were made in just by the way they flow. The 2000 movie does mention some modern things, 2018 has strong single mom and "girl power" daughter and a rap song. The 1966 Grinch doesn't feel like 1966. It feels like it takes place in any time, and just goes with it. The movies try to fit in the times they were made and what humor they think would fit with the times made. 2000 movie also does some weird things that would also offend someone because anything offends someone now, me typing that has offended someone. 2018 movie, has twerking Grinch , because somehow timelessly they think butts are funny. 2018 movie is made like a modern movie, the opening shots are the town doing stuff, they gave the Grinch a reindeer thing to be it's annoying animal thing and feel time, like it's their minon to sell toys of , where there Fred toys? Then to keep it like the story they get rid of Fred and have Max do it anyway so, they wasted someone's time. Hey, if you were going to do thing differently go all out, be mad with it, like yeah sure replace Max with a deer that works. Commit to it, they already had Max and Grinch live together like they are couple so that's something.
Like , I was saying sometimes you can do alot more in short time than a longer time. Imagine if "Charlie Brown Christmas" was made into a 85 minute long movie, the 25 minute story being 85 minutes. They'd have musical sequences. Why Does Charlie Brown feel weird about Christmas? Well you see his parents were eaten by a Christmas tree, he became an orphan and thus hates the commercialization of Christmas. They'd also forget the Bible verse so.. hope they never find away to claw Peanuts from the Schulz family and that the Schulz Family won't allow such bad things to happen. (How does everything you do end up back on Peanuts?_
The ending of the 2018 film does work and adds it's own feeling, but adds a screaming goat at the end so that's something.
The two movies have different looks to them, they both show the weird world of Whoville, but there is a difference. The 2000 movie is more muted in color and and kind of smog looking, like this was Whoville but also LA. It gives the world other wordly feel, but not very comparable to the brighter world we see in the 1966 special. Making people look like the Whos is kind of horrifying, the make up works but it is kind of a strange look, maybe they should have found a way to compromise.
The 2018 movie is bright, and at least feels like Whoville a little bit more though. I think that's also because there's probably someone out there saying cartoon movies are supposed to be bright and colorful more than just trying to recreate the look. The Whos look like people with some modification, so kind of like the 1966,but more human looking than other worldly than the 1966, or even the other Universal animated Dr.Seuss movie about creatures called Whos.
I think both movies are weak, you can like them but I think the main goals are to just try to make their properties with an existing template because "Grinch" is a brand of recognition. I do kind of wonder how the movies would have worked if they just made them based off "The Grinch" but had more story freedom, not trying to jam the original story; might actually be worse but who knows?
So anyway, that's it for now tune in next time when they make Daisy-Head Mayzie into a feature length movie. (If they did, it won't be from Universal or their sister companies)
