I disagree more with the review of Hotel Transylvania—it is a great film for kids—and there is nothing objectionable and, in fact, there is a good message from it. IMHO. My 6-year-old loved it.

Mark Kamoski: Thanks for your feedback. You think “Monsters are misunderstood and humans are the real monsters for persecuting them” is a good message?

Ug. We had to endure the previews of “Hotel Transylvania” and “ParaNorman” when we saw “Brave” in the theater this summer. My 5 year old boy was terrified and my 8 year old girl thought they looked “gross”. Glad to know I won’t want to talk them out of their original reactions!

@ Posted by SDG on Friday, Oct 5, 2012 9:40 AM (EST): ...You think “Monsters are misunderstood and humans are the real monsters for persecuting them” is a good message?

It seems to me that is a leading question because that was not the message. The good messages, among many, are “do not prejudge”, “do not be afraid of something just because you do not understand it”, “investigate and get to know sentient beings on your own and find verify what you have been told about them”, “try to get along rather than fight”, “do not sequester people and lie to them under the guise of protection”, “kids are generally smarter and more competent than they get credit for”, “tell kids the truth and it will work out”, “do not be afraid of the truth”, “stick by your friends who are good”, “stand up from your friends”, etc, etc. The “humans” and “monsters” angle that you pre-suppose is NOT something kids “see”. Remember, this movie is for kids. They are not thinking abstractly along the lines of “humanity at-large is represented in such-and-such a way in this film”. They are thinking “that mean daddy of the girl vampire is doing something bad by not telling her the truth and look there she found out the truth anyway”. Etc. And so on.

You may have some point (but probably not) but only if one is doing an abstract analysis of the theoretic meanings of the metaphors represented in the film—but, I can guarantee you that a 99.99% of children are not going to see any of that angle.

Become simple as children—they ARE children so we can learn from them.

Etc.

(BTW, I generally like your reviews and you are a good guy, so I thank you for your hard work and we are blessed to have watchdogs like you.)

Look, I do not want to start a fight here—I guess I just see it differently.

God bless you,

—Mark Kamoski

Mark Kamoski:
 
Thanks again for your feedback. I’m glad you’ve found my work generally helpful, and it’s more than okay to disagree with me about any film in the world. I’m glad your six-year-old loved the film, and I’m sure many others will as well.
 
My “leading question” was clearly polemical, but not belligerently meant. In my experience it’s perfectly possible to disagree about movies and even argue at length without quarreling.
 
For what it’s worth, my 14-year-old son, who loves many movies for young kids, turned to me early on during Hotel Transylvania and said, “This better get interesting soon.” Toward the end he turned pleading eyes to me and whispered, “Make it stop!”
 
Your proposed take-away messages from the film include “kids are generally smarter and more competent than they get credit for” and “that mean daddy is doing something bad by not telling his daughter the truth and look there she found out the truth anyway.” And you think this is a good thing?
 
I think kids are bombarded with animated stories vindicating kids who turn out to be smarter than their parents think (if not smarter than their parents, period) versus mean daddies who don’t understand their kids or their interests and do bad things to try to manipulate or force them to grow up the way the mean daddies want them to, from The Little Mermaid and Pocahontas to How to Train Your Dragon.
 
The recent convergence of three creepy animated family films in theaters at the same time—ParaNorman, Hotel Transylvania and Frankenweenie—strikingly illustrates the ubiquity of this theme. All three of these films feature a father who doesn’t understand his offspring and pressures him/her to grow up in a way acceptable to Daddy.
 
In Frankenweenie this is somewhat mitigated in that while Victor’s father wants to push his son in a socially normalizing direction (going out for sports), he isn’t against his son’s interest in science; in fact, when the community turns against Victor’s beloved science teacher, Victor’s parents are the only ones who stand up for him. In Hotel Transylvania and ParaNorman, though, the father’s benighted view of his offspring is near total.
 
How many sympathetic or supportive father figures can you remember in animated Hollywood films from the last ten or fifteen years? Outside of three films, all from Pixar (Brave, The Incredibles and Finding Nemo, which also featured an overprotective father, but a deeply sympathetic and truly heroic one), I’m not sure I can think of a single one.
 
I am weary unto death of mean or cruel animated fathers who don’t understand their offspring. The convergence of ParaNorman, Hotel Transylvania and Frankenweenie has done me in. I think I will write a manifesto against this stereotype if I get a chance. It won’t change anything, but it will make me feel better.
 
On the depiction of human beings as “the real monsters,” I’m not so concerned with how kids will consciously process the movie the first time they watch it as with the long-term influence of this and convergent themes in other movies with misanthropic subtexts, from Disney’s Brother Bear to Happy Feet. In all these films people are the problem (or a problem), or are at least complicit in the problem, over against a marginalized or otherwise wronged Other (monsters; nature; penguins).
 
In ParaNorman fear of witches was linked by implication, however tangentially, to homophobia, a more overt concern in Happy Feet. I seem to recall thinking during Hotel Transylvania some similar spin on the “tolerance” message, but I don’t recall particulars and don’t have my notes. (And they might not be helpful anyway…and I might be wrong.)
 
FWIW, I’ve been thinking about how kids watch movies for a long time. I’ve been reviewing movies with a special focus on family films for a dozen years, and I’m raising seven kids with my lady, the oldest just off to college and the youngest not yet two months old. I watch movies with my kids practically every single day. In the course of my work I’ve gotten feedback from a lot of parents with a lot of different kids, which has helped refine my ideas about how kids watch movies.
 
That doesn’t mean I know everything about kids, or that my ideas on how kids watch movies are necessarily right, but I don’t just throw this stuff out because I’ve forgotten to “become as little children,” or because I’m thinking in abstract analytical terms and not on how movies actually affect children. I often distinguish between what I think is a concern for young viewers and what is merely annoying to parents. I put Hotel Transylvania in the former category. Not to a huge degree, but to a degree worth calling out.

@ Post by SDG on Friday, Oct 5, 2012 11:51 AM (EST):

Well, it looks like we disagree, and we probably should not start a cycle.

I will part by saying that I bet that if you take a typical 6-year-old and read to him/her my take on the movie (as above Friday, Oct 5, 2012 9:58 AM) and yours (as above Friday, Oct 5, 2012 11:51 AM) my take is going to be WAY closer to how the kid understands the movie, at that is likely to track similarly up until kids get quite a bit older (say around 10). That’s my guess; but, I’ll bet the bank on it. All younger kids (5-10) are going to get out of that movie is some good, clean, goofy fun because that’s all that is there.

Those who see other psychological projections in such movies are commonly the same folk that miss the point of Lord Of The Rings, and throw it in the dumpster because it “promotes magic” or some such other thing—when, in fact, the “message” is clear—“good VS evil.

Maybe we “saw” 2 different movies, but as far as I “see” it in Hotel Transylvania, the over-arching message is “tell the truth” and “do not judge others”, which are both good messages.

IMHO.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Mark Kamoski,
 
1. To recap, the “messages” I critiqued in much of my most recent comment (11:51 AM) were your own statements of what you saw in the film.
 
2. The way I watch and interpret family films is expressly not limited to what children will get out of them watching the movies at age six (that would be a very limited way to read a film, in my view).
 
Rather, I try to reflect on how the themes of movies they watch (often repeatedly) over time are likely to shape and influence their inner worlds, their imaginations, their categories as they grow up in the culture in which we live. Seeing Hotel Transylvania one time at age six, in isolation, isn’t likely to have any lasting effect of any kind, good or bad.
 
3. If you think there’s anything in common between my method and that of the people with the reactions you describe to The Lord of the Rings, I think you’ve seriously misunderstood. Cheers.

I have to disagree slightly regarding “Frankenweenie’s” portrayal of Victor’s father.  I think his defense of Victor at the school meeting is more than enough to mitigate any wrong-headed overbearing paternal stereotype that he possibly embodies.  He also never discourages his son or opposes his specific interest, unlike most overbearing fathers.  He only wants his son to try something else in addition to science; he never says that Vicor cannot grow up to be a scientist.  The movie even opens with him and his wife watching one of Victor’s own movies.  That’s a pretty strong form of encouragement.  The only reason Frankenweenie even caused a blip on my radar in this regard, is because so many other animated films have beaten this cliche to a pulp, from Little Mermaid, to PoliticallyCorrect-ahontas, to ParaNorman.
...
And as an aside, as someone who is generally a big fan of Tim Burton, (I think I’ve mentioned that in other comboxes) I cannot remember the last time I enjoyed a movie as much as “Frankenweenie.”

@ Post by SDG on Friday, Oct 5, 2012 1:03 PM (EST):

Dear Stephen—

Regarding this…

“The way I watch and interpret family films is expressly not limited to what children will get out of them watching the movies at age six (that would be a very limited way to read a film, in my view)”

...I am glad you stated it like that because it illustrates exactly my point, and the error that I am suggesting exists in your approach to viewing Hotel Transylvannia. If you interpret such a film in anything other than the view of the target audience (probably 4 to 12 for a film like this) then your interpretation is not (by definition) about what they target audience thinks—it is, rather, about some other audience. While that other audience’s viewpoint may be interesting, it says nothing about the real target audience. The levels of abstration that you posit are simply not relevant to those for whom the film is meant. Of course an adult (or teen) is going to interpret a lot “stuff” in the film—that’s normal but that “stuff” is coming from the teen’s head, not the movie. The thing-in-itself is simply a cartoon with goofy dialog. It is not some nefarious anti-human sub-text. It is about goofy cartoon characters who think (along with the target audience—kids) that farts are funny. That’s why an adult thinking like an adult never “gets” a good fart joke—the kid willl “get it” every time—but if the adult thinks like a kid (with same syntax, worldview, etc) then the fart joke becomes funny even to the “adult”. For crying out cornflakes, let’s give the kids a break. It is their movie, not ours. They go to see it and don’t want to hear “stop the potty talk” correction (and their like) from the parents—they want to snicker because farts ARE funny, to them, then kids. This was Freud’s problem. Everything was about something else—a person cannot open their mouth or make a bodily gesture without being labelled for this thing or that. If any psychological theory comes into play here it is the matter of projection. Occam’s Razor.

Regarding this…

Rather, I try to reflect on how the themes of movies they watch (often repeatedly) over time are likely to shape influence their inner worlds, their imaginations, their categories as they grow up in the culture in which we live.

...that is very speculative. To correlate such psychological influences if fuzzy at best. It is tricky business and probably more error prone than not. Besides, we should not be in the business of social-engineering or psychological-engineering at all, let along via censorship and the mind-police approach. That’s the problem with the State at-large. Rather, we need to point kids to the joy of the truth. We should teach the kids to figure things out on their own, which, incidentally, something the movie suggests strongly.

This film is good. The father is redeemed by his apology. The child shows mercy and forgiveness. The parent-child bond is thereby strengthened. The group-a VS group-b tension is redeemed via unity and understanding. The lie is exposed by the light of the truth. Etc. Etc.

Yes, there are bad films that coerce viewers; but, this is not one of them. We can “reflect” and abstract but unless that is found in the piece of art itself, then it is just opinion.

Contrary to popular perception…
Beauty is in the thing itself.
Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder.

(So too Non-Beauty.)

Etc.

HTH.

God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

Evan: I don’t think we disagree about Victor’s father.
 
Mark Kamoski:
 
There is a prima facie reasonableness, but an underlying error, to your statement:
 

“If you interpret such a film in anything other than the view of the target audience (probably 4 to 12 for a film like this) then your interpretation is not (by definition) about what they target audience thinks—it is, rather, about some other audience. While that other audience’s viewpoint may be interesting, it says nothing about the real target audience.”

 
The thesis that the movie means only what it means to 4- to 12-year-olds, and nothing more, is manifestly inadequate.
 
For example, consider the dialogue in which the Invisible Man, having lost his swimsuit while swimming, protests to bystanders with (pointless) self-consciousness that of course there’s been “shrinkage” and not to “judge” him. Or the scene in which a male zombie appears to be making off with a female mannequin with evident personal interest. Or the zombie construction workers ogling a female zombie. Or, heck, the Twilight joke (the best gag in the film).
 
What will all this mean to 4- to 12-year-olds? In most cases, perhaps nothing at all. By your method, then, should we conclude that all of this in fact means nothing at all—that it doesn’t really “mean” what every adult watching the film (many of whom will know, for instance, the “Seinfeld” reference in the shrinkage gag, as the filmmakers fully intended) knows it does mean?
 
Even kids for whom this stuff means nothing will eventually learn the necessary context and (if they remember the film, as will likely be the case for those who watch it over and over on Blu-ray or DVD) will know what it means—as the filmmakers may reasonably be presumed to have intended, at least implicitly.
   
And that’s the other problem with your theory that, in effect, the proper film critic for this film is one aged 4 to 12: Children don’t remain children forever—and filmmakers know this. A movie I watched when I was nine does not mean only what it meant to me when I was nine. It also means what it means to me when I look back on it at 12, and 17, and 30, and 44.
 
This is particularly the case when a movie offers “messages” or moral themes intended to contribute in some way to a child’s formation and to the culture in which he lives, a contribution that will matter not only when he is 6 or 8 but also when he is 18, 24 and 37.
 
No six-year-old watching, say, Madagascar 2: Escape 2 Africa is going to think of tolerance/acceptance of sexual diversity, but to conclude for that reason that the intended meaning of the film doesn’t include tolerance/acceptance of sexual diversity is a very much mistaken critical methodology.

@SDG: I misread (or in this case mis-heard) you.  My apologies.  I guess I might be a little overly enthusiastic in my admiration of “Frankenweenie.”  (And how do you do italics?)

Evan: No apology necessary. More than likely, given the limitations of the 60-second format (and my obvious sensitivity on this point) I failed to do adequate justice to my take on Victor’s father.
 
For italics, just type the html tags, like so … <i>This will appear in italics.</i>

The overt message in Hotel Transylvania that I disliked was that love is an emotional “zing” and once you feel that, which will come just one time in your life, you must go with it.  My 13 year old daughter recognized that you have to use your head in love too, and that there isn’t just one “zing” for your life.  (Won’t be buying this one, though they may ask for it….)

Chris: Well said. One of many points I would have liked to make about that film, given more than the 60 second format.

I saw Looper.
I really wish I hadn’t.

I read the ratings advice of several Catholic sites first, but simply commenting on nudity and/or violence is a poor mechanism for determinng the good or bad effect of a movie on our mind and soul.

Your words “a chilling vision” about sum it up.

I don’t expect to sleep well for a while.