Walt Disney Pictures.
When I was a kid, that usually meant one of three things:- Animated classics, like "Bambi," "Peter Pan," "One Hundred and One Dalmatians," etc.
- Outdoor adventures, such as "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier," "The Great Locomotive Chase," "Old Yeller," etc.
- Or squeaky-clean teen comedies, those smart-kid/dumb-dad movies that had young teenagers (Annette Funicello, Hayley Mills, Kurt Russell, Tommy Kirk) saving the day in spite of the adults that surrounded them, including their silly fathers (Fred MacMurray, Dean Jones) and wise but ineffectual mothers (Dorothy McGuire, Vera Miles). We're talking "The Absent Minded Professor," "The Shaggy Dog," "The Parent Trap," "Summer Magic," "Monkeys, Go Home!" etc.
Though I remember many of those movies with nostalgic fondness - and on a certain level, I can still enjoy them today - it's easy to see that they were nothing more than simple, innocent family films representative of their era, were often overly simplistic and occasionally quite mindless.
For all their flaws, however, those movies still seem preferable to what we get from Walt Disney Pictures for kids these days - which are equally simplistic and mindless but now contain dubious mixed messages as well.
Aside from throwbacks like the "Mighty Ducks" movies, which could have been made 30 years ago, Disney flicks - as well as other modern motion pictures aimed at the youth market - often seem misguided today, examples including "Heavyweights," "Blank Check," "My Father the Hero" and "My Boyfriend's Back."
All of this comes to mind after seeing (and reviewing in the most recent Weekend section) the latest Disney "family" comedy, "Man of the House." While generally innocuous, there are some elements that I found disturbing.
For the uninitiated, the story evolves out of a perceived threat to the bond between a divorced mother (Farrah Fawcett) and her young son (Jonathan Taylor Thomas, of TV's "Home Improvement") when she decides to marry a federal prosecutor (Chevy Chase).
The plot has Chase moving in with Fawcett and Thomas for a trial run, and Thomas seizes the opportunity to play pranks on Chase - hoping he will run for the hills. But as Fawcett is the prize, Chase feels the hurdles placed in his path by Thomas are worth the trouble.
First off, let's look at the central theme. While on the surface it would seem to deal with important, current cultural issues of divorce and how it affects kids, the idea of a boy having to come to terms with a stepfather is treated rather frivolously here. Thomas plays a character who is a good kid, but a devious one. While he doesn't become alienated or estranged from his mother, and while he doesn't stop going to school or start smoking, shoplifting or get his nose pierced, he does play a number of pranks on Chase, played for comic effect, then feigns innocence, while his mother sticks up for him.
The pranks begin innocently enough - Thomas turns on the faucet to disrupt Chase's hot shower, he repeatedly interrupts Chase and Fawcett when they get romantic, etc. But they begin to escalate after the boy talks Chase into joining the Indian Guides.
Most disturbing here, of course, is the "modern" notion that it's not going to affect a child if a mother allows a man to move into their home. Discreet sexual relations outside of marriage are troubling enough, but this live-in arrangement, encouraged and approved of in a film aimed at kids, seems wildly inappropriate.
Another element that bothered me was a running gag about Thomas' television-viewing habits. Throughout the film he makes "adult" statements about social issues that seem beyond his years. When he's asked about them, he says he watched them being discussed on "Donahue" and "Ger-al-do." And late in the film, Chase goes up to Thomas' bedroom to tell him it's time to watch "Hard Copy" - as if he's asking him to join the family to watch "The Cosby Show."
If these jokes worked as edgy satire they could be enjoyed as ironic, but there is no sense of irony here - the film isn't funny enough. Instead, it seems as if the filmmakers are saying this is the accepted social norm.
There's also a moment that has Thomas playing video games in an arcade with his best friend, and later discussing home video games with another boy. In both cases, the ultra-violent nature of the games is shown or talked about but treated quite lightly, while a more serious discussion takes place on the surface, or remains in the scene's subtext. In other words, these extremely violent games are also simply an accepted part of the teenage landscape.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of "Man of the House," however, is a subplot that has mobsters trying to kill Chase. After several bungled attempts, they finally get their chance in the film's big climax, as Chase and Thomas are camping out in the woods with the Indian Guides.
And wouldn't you know it, the film turns into an outdoors version of "Home Alone," as the bad guys are captured by the kids and their fathers. But before that happens, guns are pointed at the boys and the old children-in-peril ploy is played for laughs.
I wasn't laughing.
While there are some amusing bits of business here and there, for me, "Man of the House" was overwhelmed by a barrage of mixed, if not downright inappropriate messages.
And it made me want to take my youngest son home and show him "Follow Me, Boys!"