Skip to main content

Coyote vs Acme: Of Course You Realize This Means War

David Zaslav is an idiot. That’s pretty common knowledge at this point but it is good to have such a forceful demonstration of that as Coyote vs. Acme, the movie his regime at Warner Bros. tried to have buried as a tax write-off only for it to eventually be rescued and at long last released -turning its David and Goliath story into a strikingly meta-textual screed on its own gestation and ultimate triumph. Perhaps it’s better the movie isn’t distributed by Warner Bros. -it would be too embarrassing for them to bear.
A reason for the lack of confidence in the film, which I don’t know of Zaslav or his board said so directly, is the lack of faith at Warner Bros. in their own cartoon icons. The Looney Tunes are arguably the most vital staple of that studio, mascots nearly as ubiquitous with Warner Bros. as Mickey Mouse and the gang over at Disney. And yet they have not bothered to utilize these characters over the past few decades, risking their evaporation in the cultural lexicon of the younger generations their cartoons have always been aimed at. To Warner Bros., the Looney Tunes have been for a while now disposable -to the point that the Space Jam sequel they put out a few years ago was way more about the vertical integration of their company and its many subsidiary pop culture brands, with Bugs Bunny and co. sidelined for a lot of it. “We are a family company that values our family of companies.” Gee, I wonder if that line from a mega-corporate suit in this movie struck a nerve.
Coyote vs. Acme understands the Looney Tunes though, making what Zaslav tried to do to it all the more perplexing. It gets the appeal of both their wacky cartoon humour and brilliant wit and manages to, at least to a point, recreate it. And it does so in a less obvious, more offbeat premise than you might expect. The film is directed by Dave Green, from a script by Samy Burch of all people -the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of May December- and it is based on a humourous New Yorker article by Ian Frazier from 1990 speculating on the idea of Wile E. Coyote suing the Acme Corporation for all of the defective products that have injured him over the years in his pursuit of catching the Roadrunner. In this movie, he happens upon the idea by hiring a small-time personal injury lawyer Kevin Avery (Will Forte) in Albuquerque, who specializes in cartoon cases -this film being about a world where real people and cartoon characters co-exist. Acme is an immensely powerful conglomerate, though it has some severe skeletons in the closet and unrelated conspiracies that Kevin and Wile E. uncover in the course of their legal battle.
A premise actually birthed out of the context of the cartoons, this movie demonstrates a real affinity for the Looney Tunes characters and style. Unlike in past movies they have featured in, they actually resemble their established personalities and the humour is pretty close too. Though geared towards audiences already familiar with this cast of characters, the presentation works just as well for the uninitiated. It takes seconds to establish everything needed about the Coyote and the Roadrunner and the various other characters who make appearances, including Porky Pig, Daffy Duck, Foghorn Leghorn, Tweety Bird, and of course a cameo (surprisingly restrained as well) from Bugs Bunny. Wile E. is the central figure though, and the movie is filled with appropriate gags for him as well as fun ways for him to work off of Forte, who alongside his powerful opposing counsel played by John Cena, is allowed to be quite funny in his own right -something none of these hybrid animation movies have done particularly well since Roger Rabbit.
Yet welded to this strong sense of very appropriate humour, are some potent allusions and genuinely worthwhile character arcs. Wile E. and Kevin make for a fun double-act -in that very old-fashioned but effective pattern of the silly mute (Wile E. communicates only in expressions and a limited number of signs) and the straight man, but they are contrasted also in their attitudes to their work. Kevin has little passion for what he does, routinely settling every cartoon case he has with the Acme corporation and never pursuing beyond that.  Wile E. on the other hand has nothing but passion for his eternal quest, in spite of its Sisyphean futility. Sisyphus is in fact evoked openly by the film, the namesake of a secret Acme project that in its effect is very accurate to that reference. For the purposes of the titular coyote, the movie aspires for something noble and inspiring in his vocation to catch the Roadrunner -even the Roadrunner himself seems to see it- in spite of the fact he will never succeed. What is bizarre is that it actually kind of works, impressing on Kevin a greater sense of purpose alongside the endearing friendship that develops between the two of them.
They are the lightning rod of investment in a movie that does sometimes need it, as the plotting gets more intense the further into the conspiracy things get; Kevin, Wile E., and Kevin's idealistic intern Paige (Lana Condor) slowly unearthing the mystery of Acme's sordid past. There are fun elements in this that further build on the dimensions of this live-action/cartoon world, such as one sequence in a tunnel and the scene where Bugs shows up. But at times it can feel a little too self-serious -a subplot involving the cartoon version of Peter Lorre being a prime example. Thankfully the movie never fully crosses over that line, its more serious themes on the ill-treatment and exploitation of cartoon characters grounded enough by the perhaps unintentional metaphor on how Warner Bros. treats this most treasured property.
The animation is really a delight. The choice to render the cartoon characters as aesthetically two-dimensional rather than the more conventional 3D that was used in the likes of Space Jam: A New Legacy adds so much to this movie's charm. Granted, while the designs aren't 3D, the rendering is, and it is a marriage that doesn't always work especially where human Looney Tunes characters like Granny and Elmer Fudd are concerned -they can occasionally appear as vacant husks. But on those who matter most, Wile E. and the Roadrunner specifically, it is very effective, especially the heightened cartoon looks and movements. The hybrid effects between the cartoon elements and the real world and performers are very nicely done as well, to the point the spatial tangibility of Wile E. Coyote is greater than many a more "realistic" CGI character in a blockbuster film.
Coyote vs. Acme is not a blockbuster in the sense that studios prefer them to be these days -and that is no doubt a part of why Warner Bros. initially shelved it. The mega -studios don't want good movies, they don't even want merely profitable ones. They want the sure-fire giant hits, and the willingness to consign to a void the hard work and artistry of so many just for that narrow chance at the next Avengers is what's wrong with corporate film production today. Warners has in just the last few years released many a movie that is worse than Coyote vs. Acme -the miracle of its release is a satisfying egg on their face. It may not be a billion-dollar franchise vehicle, it may not have the tightest of demographics (the legal subject matter could make it a touch inaccessible to younger audiences), but the movie is a triumph and not just in the David and Goliath story of its long road to release. It is the best movie the Looney Tunes cast has been blessed with, and in its conflict and noble themes it couldn't be a timelier reminder of the value and power of our resilience and perseverance against the anvils of institutions determined to crush us.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
8 comments
Read more