The Three Pinocchios and Film's Present State
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
In case you've been living under a rock, you may have missed that there have been a lot of Pinocchio adaptations lately. In general, this is true, but this year alone we have had two (somewhat three) adaptations, and these are the ones I wish to focus on, because I feel like there is a lot being said in their very existence. It's kind of like we are staring at the current state of cinema by even talking about these works. The first film is the upcoming Disney+ Pinocchio, directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Tom Hanks as Geppetto (this film is going straight to the streaming service). The second is Guillermo del Toro's stop motion feature starring Ewan McGregor, which is having a theatrical run before making its way to Netflix. The third is a straight-to-video (whatever that means in this day and age) film from 2021 (2022, depending on your location) called Pinocchio: A True Story, which has been a critical bomb that's only bring brought up because there are two other Pinocchios to follow it (also Pauly Shore is in it, which is always a red flag).
Like I said, there have been countless Pinocchio adaptations in general, and Italy has a particular affinity for the puppet-turned-real-boy (obviously given its origins). However, there is something intriguing about these three films in particular. It's all about who is most excited for them. For Zemeckis' film, you have the current state of cinema: those with FOMO that will hop onto the platform that very day and be a part of the latest release, experienced in this massive drive-in theatre that the world has turned into (with all of our homes replacing the vehicles we would sit in). There's a sense of nostalgia found within a carbon copy of a Disney classic, and I doubt that Zemeckis will dip outside of any comfort zones. Del Toro's film will appeal to those that wish to go out to the cinema, experience something different, and really connect with film as at least a partially artistic medium (certainly in comparison with the Disney version). Then there's a version that nobody asked for and nobody saw: the side of the massive pool of online creations of media where there has never been as much output before.
It is abundantly clear that cinema is at a crossroads when it comes to strategy. Do we bank on the easy way to make money: by rehashing an old tale nearly verbatim, and bank on the memories of the jaded? Do we do something creative and a different spin on an old idea whilst risking how much money we will make in returns? Do we flat out not even give a shit and just release something that may make money, when we put zero thought into it and relied on familiarity alone? These are the paths many studios and producers find themselves at in 2022. At the end of the day, film is still a business (whether people like myself like to admit it ot not). There is a clear issue within the film industry when it comes to making money, particularly because budgets are usually quite high in this field. Matt Damon brought up an excellent point when he recognized the major problem with film today: films now only have one shot to perform well and make their money back. For the last few decades, home releases have breathed second life into films, either making their success even better than it would have been via theatrical run alone, or by granting a second chance to films that under performed at the box office. We don't really have that anymore. Films are being rushed out of theatres if they're not massive box office draws, and then they get squeaked onto streaming platforms (or rented). With such access to more than ever before, these films typically get glossed over even in their dying final days.
Sure, there was cinema before home releases became a thing. But this was a different time. You had to see film at the theatre. This wide access to every sort of film from all time periods didn't exist either. The cinema was the core hub of all things film. It isn't the same now. This same medium we have loved for decades is having to be made the same expensive ways as before whilst having to make money in such a diluted, unfair way (if anything, our low budgets were the mid budgets of yesteryear, so even “cheaper” films today are expensive unless they are extremely thinly budgeted). Having said that, there is definitely an enablement of half baked ideas. It's true that franchises and remakes make the most money because of how easy they are to sell (and how quickly producers are willing to fund these projects in relation). I feel like there is still an over reliance on this resort in a medium that is desperate to find new footing. Consider that I brought up three different films. They're all still Pinocchio. This is still a primary method to see the light of day in any way. There's something a little cheeky about this film being the topic of discussion here: one where dishonesty is blatantly apparent (with the growing of a nose, of course). Which Pinocchio is made to profit off of your nostalgia? Which is trying to say something new and take us somewhere else? I've said how I feel, but you may feel completely differently about my selections. At the end of the day, they're all still Pinocchio: an illusion of free selection during a time when film is either facing the odds or becoming submissive for the easy route. To be completely original in this day and age of cinema and actually thrive off of it is more difficult than ever before.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.