Rewatching: Shrek (2001)

A rewatch of the original "Shrek" - nearly twenty years after its debut.

Holy Donkey! (forgive the pun...)

It's been literally months since I last posted on my blog. Yeah, I know, I've frightfully neglected my little online corner. But amidst an all-new increase of Covid-19 cases here in Italy, the pressing need to finish paid copywriting projects that allow me to pay the bills, chronic fatigue, plus a (only partially successful) attempt to tackle Inktober, I've just been postponing my next post for what seemed an eternity. No excuses here - other than real life sometimes is a b*tch. (And when you suffer from chronic fatigue, it's a b*tch more often than not).

Due to the new Covid restrictions, however, I now have more free days since our working schedule has been reduced to half our current hours. Yesterday I had an ill spell that left me out of sorts pretty much all the day, but feeling somewhat better this evening, I decided to kill the time of this long weekend with some movie re-watching. I didn't have anything particular in mind, so I just randomly picked a title.

"Shrek". The original flick, from 2001.

Now, what to say about Shrek? Let me first get a bit into my original exposure to this movie. No, I didn't see "Shrek" when it came out in theaters, but I did read up vaguely about the plot. I knew the story in very loose terms. It just wasn't the kind of movie I was "desperate" to see, so I passed that. 

Flashfoward to some years later when our favorite pizza place started offering free VHS upon completion of a "fidelty card". Among the available titles, "Shrek" was the only one that seemed remotely interesting, so I chose that, sat down on the sofa with my pizza and Coke, and spent an enjoyable one-and-a-half hour in company of Shrek, Fiona and their quick-witted sidekick Donkey.

I must admit that my recollections about what I liked about the movie were vague, as I did not really rewatch it that often since (if at all). But I do remember being pleasantly surprised by how "Shrek" directors seemed to like breaking stereotypes and diverting expectations. The movie was a whimsical spin of the classical fairytale, it was fresh, and it was made for a good, fun watch.

So tonight - and nearly twenty years after its premiere - I sat down again to watch "Shrek", knowing I'd not be disappointed. And predictably, I wasn't. But "Shrek" wasn't just a nice trip back to the past, to a more carefree time and age. It pulled far less nostalgia strings than it reasonated better with me - as an adult.

I doubt there is anyone out here who hasn't seen "Shrek" at least once - but in case you haven't, here is a quick primer. The story takes place in a fictional forest from the world of fairytales, where the ogre Shrek lives an introvert, yet satisfactory existence. Shrek knows himself, knows where his place in (or rather, out of) society lays, and has reached a level of comfort just being true to his nature - or so he thinks. He knows he's no blood-thirsty, dumb, brutish cookie-cutter ogre stereotype; however he has no illusions about how people see him as and has decided he just doesn't give a whit about anyone's opinion.

His orderly life is shattered when a wild variety of fairytale characters are evicted from their dwellings and forced to expatriate into his swamp. To get rid of the cumbersome intruders, Shrek sets out to find the responsible beyond their improptu exodus; Lord Farquaad, the tiny ruler of the innaturally pristine town of Duloc. His comedic sidekick through the journey to Farquaad's castle is a talking Donkey who has clung to Shrek ever since he saved his hide - literally - from a bunch of armed knights. But although his reception in Duloc is the most typical he can imagine - with guards facing him off in a "wild fray" that's mostly played for laughs - Shrek has no idea what he's really walking into.
 

As it turns out, Farquaad offers to dispose of the intruders in his swamp, if only Shrek will hail to the assault of a tower in which princess Fiona is held captive by a dragon. Farquaad intends to marry the princess, thus gaining legitimate Kingship over Duloc and the entire surrounding reign. So Shrek, wanting only to get his home back, sets out to find and rescue princess Fiona, never guessing how much his life's going to change around. Because Fiona is not your everyday damsel-in-distress; she has certain expectations about what her rescue should be like, she's strong-willed, she's sassy, and she's badass. Shrek can't help feeling this isn't what he thought a princess was like. Just as he isn't what Fiona thought a knight - or an ogre - was like.

On the overall, this seems to be "Shrek"'s main theme - subverting expectations. Nothing in this movie is what it seems at face value, and I feel even twenty years after its original release, that's a precious lesson that "Shrek" has to teach. I also found myself a lot more invested in Fiona's dilemma than I was when I first watched the movie, because just like her, I know nowadays what it's like to struggle with your image (including your body image), your sense of self-worth, and the perception that others harbor in your regards.

I spoke of sense of worth and struggles with one's self-image but don't get me wrong. The thing I really, thoroughly enjoyed about "Shrek" is that this subject is never tackled in a desponent or depressing manner. Rather, we are given an insight into Fiona and Shrek's growing frustration, because they both know deep inside that there's more to them than meets the eyes, but that in so long as the status quo is preserved, everyone's going to categorize them, write them off, and lump them in a role that's been written for then; brutish monster the ogre, frail damsel the princess. But neither Fiona or Shrek are defined by what they are, and they don't want to be defined by what they are, either. The lesson of assessing who you want to live as is a powerful one, and the first "Shrek" movie handled it in a surprisingly mature way without coming off as either too heavy or too lackadaisical. 

 

On a technical level, the plot works well and manages to be both witty, charming and original. Even the musical numbers are used very skillfully as part of a montage that still "shows, not tell". And I think this is another card up "Shrek"'s sleeve; the pace is perfect, never too fast, never slow and sluggish. I've seen movies and TV series that literally trudged on to get from one pivotal event to the next. That isn't quite the case with "Shrek". 

The comedy is perhaps more down to earth and less slapstick than in your average Disney flick - but it doesn't detract from the story. Even the occasional potty humor is there with reason, and never get cringe-worthy or feel out of place.

And what to say of the graphic? While CGI has undoubtedly come a long way, it feels safe to say that "Shrek" has aged well for a movie shot in the early 2000's. The visuals are amazing, and the special effects still do their work. I've also found it interesting how Donkey, despite being surely more "cartoony" in his design than the exasperate realism Disney was going for in the most recent CGI remakes (like "Jungle Book" or "The Lion King") is still every bit as expressive as his more human-looking (or ogre-looking) counteparts on screen. See, Disney - it's not bad to be cartoony if it means your character has expressions. Audience can "aaahhhh" and "oooohhh" all you want at how realistic Simba's fur looks but what's the point if all that work is wasted in a character that has far less visible emotion than its animated predecessor, and _far_ less than a real lion cub? (But we'll get to that in another post, I think).

So to wrap up my opinion, I think "Shrek" holds it age amazingly well; it's a fun movie, it has a good pace, cool graphics, and an engaging cast of characters. So for me, the rank is still a solid 9/10. It's not my all-time animated favorite (that would be "WALL-E", in case you're wondering) - but decidedly a good film.