High School Musical 2
Ah, 2007. You gave us Transformers, the Nintendo Wii and this...
High School Musical 2 is a surprisingly good movie. Like most sequels it depends on weather you saw the first one or not in order to make sense, but other than that this is substantially better than its predecessor. It's still got the same budget, but this is a movie I enjoy watching. I actually own the extended edition version of this on DVD, and I am proud of that.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that I find this movie to be surprisingly stylized. I know that's a bit of a stretch, but let me explain it like this. High School Musical exists in a surprisingly surreal world where sexuality is incredibly clear, rich people are exempt from laws and policy, all the girls at the pool wear one piece swimsuits, people go to excessive lengths to achieve their goals, a boss can be considered horrible for having reasonable policies and expectations, and if you want to tell someone you don't dance you should break into a carefully choreographed routine on a sandlot baseball diamond.
In other words Disney's High School Musical features a universe with a very thin grasp on reality where people sing. But that's pretty obvious, and if you've been around the site already you know what I'm gonna do next.
I would like to proudly say that Wes Anderson, one of my idols, could have directed this film, and it wouldn't look much different.
High School Musical 2 is a surprisingly good movie. Like most sequels it depends on weather you saw the first one or not in order to make sense, but other than that this is substantially better than its predecessor. It's still got the same budget, but this is a movie I enjoy watching. I actually own the extended edition version of this on DVD, and I am proud of that.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that I find this movie to be surprisingly stylized. I know that's a bit of a stretch, but let me explain it like this. High School Musical exists in a surprisingly surreal world where sexuality is incredibly clear, rich people are exempt from laws and policy, all the girls at the pool wear one piece swimsuits, people go to excessive lengths to achieve their goals, a boss can be considered horrible for having reasonable policies and expectations, and if you want to tell someone you don't dance you should break into a carefully choreographed routine on a sandlot baseball diamond.
In other words Disney's High School Musical features a universe with a very thin grasp on reality where people sing. But that's pretty obvious, and if you've been around the site already you know what I'm gonna do next.
I would like to proudly say that Wes Anderson, one of my idols, could have directed this film, and it wouldn't look much different.
I'm serious!
OK, let's compare the directorial styles of the film to Wes Anderson's style.
High School Musical 2 is very bright and vibrant. All of the colors are extremely vivid and bright, and you hardly ever see anything grey. This is even amplified by the setting, as the red rocks of New Mexico, the golden wash of the sun, and the green and blue of the golf course are bright and in your face. The film is also contrasted so everything is a bit more saturated than it should be.
It's also a film shot like a stage play. If you need another example of this, check out The Producers. We hardly ever see a room from more than one perspective (especially during musical numbers) like the camera is the audience watching a performance on a stage. Sure it moves around some, but it is always glued to the back wall which you never see.
Let's compare this to Wes Anderson.
Pretty much everything that that man does is bright and vibrant unless the setting calls for something otherwise. Even if someone gets shot, it's still crisp looking. Everything intentionally looks a little bit artificial and extreme, just like High School Musical 2 except even more.
He also has a very specific way of shooting things that I can only describe as a doll house. Every shot is at a right angle, and the camera only ever moves for tracking of some sort. Even then, the camera is panned out far enough that camera movement isn't really necessary. Graphically, you will see lots of shots like this:
OK, let's compare the directorial styles of the film to Wes Anderson's style.
High School Musical 2 is very bright and vibrant. All of the colors are extremely vivid and bright, and you hardly ever see anything grey. This is even amplified by the setting, as the red rocks of New Mexico, the golden wash of the sun, and the green and blue of the golf course are bright and in your face. The film is also contrasted so everything is a bit more saturated than it should be.
It's also a film shot like a stage play. If you need another example of this, check out The Producers. We hardly ever see a room from more than one perspective (especially during musical numbers) like the camera is the audience watching a performance on a stage. Sure it moves around some, but it is always glued to the back wall which you never see.
Let's compare this to Wes Anderson.
Pretty much everything that that man does is bright and vibrant unless the setting calls for something otherwise. Even if someone gets shot, it's still crisp looking. Everything intentionally looks a little bit artificial and extreme, just like High School Musical 2 except even more.
He also has a very specific way of shooting things that I can only describe as a doll house. Every shot is at a right angle, and the camera only ever moves for tracking of some sort. Even then, the camera is panned out far enough that camera movement isn't really necessary. Graphically, you will see lots of shots like this:
And never like this:
OK, so, maybe I'm pushing it a little bit, but you do have to admit the film is stylistically similar to Wes Anderson, at least in some tiny way.
But enough about style, let's talk about story. Unlike its predecessor that used its characters to inform a subtext, this film has a proper mastermind antagonist. When you think about it, Sharpay didn't really do much in the first film. I mean, sure she was being a master manipulator, but in the grand scheme of the story what does Sharpay actually do to separate our protagonists in the second act? I think she talked to their respective teams, but I'm really not sure about that. That's either a plot hole, or Sharpay didn't have anything to do with Troy's lowest point, degrading her to just being one of the agonists.
In the second film, she always has an active role. This could just be the extended addition rearing its ugly face, but I have no idea what's been added. The point is, Sharpay actually IS a master manipulator constantly using her power in the country club hierarchy to take advantage of peoples' personalities. This is a very good use of a villain which I find to be significantly better than what the first movie did. I would even argue that Sharpay is the most important character, not just to the franchise's success, but also to the narrative of this film.
The first film was a romance story that happened to involve a musical at a High School. Sharpay was the best character in the first film, but she didn't really do anything except provide a character foil to Gabriella. The second film noticed this, so Sharpay has a much more active role. It's still Troy's story, don't get me wrong, but Sharpay actually has progression and becomes a better person and improves relations with her brother in the third act. Yes, this progression is forced and abrupt, but it does exist.
Now, looking at the story through that lens, it is really a story of redemption. Sharpay has been a despicable person this entire time, manipulating people to get her way. Then she sees the repercussions of her actions as the people she's hurt come and band together. Things start going wrong for her, and she has a little off camera epiphany after which she apologizes to her brother in the most exposing way she possibly can. Sharpay is a surprisingly interesting character in this movie, and she has one of the most heartwarming subplots of any antagonist in film.
But Sharpay's antagonism and subplot aren't the only reason that she's in here. This film has a surprising amount of stabs at rich people thinly disguised by stabs at airhead popular girls. Sharpay is the stereotypical "Oh my God shoes" girl from every high school movie ever and her posse are portrayed as sheep that only stick with her because her parents own a country club. And here we run into the problem: we hate Sharpay narratively because she's trying to break up Troy and Gabriella, and we also hate her socially because of her steriotype, but we're also for some odd reason supposed to hate her because she's rich.
The problem is that this film is implying that the archetypes of the shoes girl and the money girl are in fact the same archetype, and it takes lots of stabs at the Even's family wealth but doesn't really say anything about it. We must hate Sharpay, but that's because of her vanity. The film never gives us any indication that we should dislike Sharpay because of her money, but it is strongly implied. This might sound a little contradictory, but it really isn't. It is very confused in what it's subtext is, but Sharpay's wealth isn't her problem no matter how much the movie tries to convince you it is.
The first movie did something similar to this with a stab at the western education model, but takes a stab at the idea of a high school drama department (by turning it into a big bad organization) in order to do this.
Now, I'm not saying that this is a good movie. It isn't, it's a bad movie. The third act is identical to the first movie's, nobody's a good actor, and people leave doors open everywhere. I'm just saying it's a bit deeper than it seems. It really deserves more analysis than it gets, because there is some really really well hidden stuff in this film that makes it worth over thinking.
But enough about style, let's talk about story. Unlike its predecessor that used its characters to inform a subtext, this film has a proper mastermind antagonist. When you think about it, Sharpay didn't really do much in the first film. I mean, sure she was being a master manipulator, but in the grand scheme of the story what does Sharpay actually do to separate our protagonists in the second act? I think she talked to their respective teams, but I'm really not sure about that. That's either a plot hole, or Sharpay didn't have anything to do with Troy's lowest point, degrading her to just being one of the agonists.
In the second film, she always has an active role. This could just be the extended addition rearing its ugly face, but I have no idea what's been added. The point is, Sharpay actually IS a master manipulator constantly using her power in the country club hierarchy to take advantage of peoples' personalities. This is a very good use of a villain which I find to be significantly better than what the first movie did. I would even argue that Sharpay is the most important character, not just to the franchise's success, but also to the narrative of this film.
The first film was a romance story that happened to involve a musical at a High School. Sharpay was the best character in the first film, but she didn't really do anything except provide a character foil to Gabriella. The second film noticed this, so Sharpay has a much more active role. It's still Troy's story, don't get me wrong, but Sharpay actually has progression and becomes a better person and improves relations with her brother in the third act. Yes, this progression is forced and abrupt, but it does exist.
Now, looking at the story through that lens, it is really a story of redemption. Sharpay has been a despicable person this entire time, manipulating people to get her way. Then she sees the repercussions of her actions as the people she's hurt come and band together. Things start going wrong for her, and she has a little off camera epiphany after which she apologizes to her brother in the most exposing way she possibly can. Sharpay is a surprisingly interesting character in this movie, and she has one of the most heartwarming subplots of any antagonist in film.
But Sharpay's antagonism and subplot aren't the only reason that she's in here. This film has a surprising amount of stabs at rich people thinly disguised by stabs at airhead popular girls. Sharpay is the stereotypical "Oh my God shoes" girl from every high school movie ever and her posse are portrayed as sheep that only stick with her because her parents own a country club. And here we run into the problem: we hate Sharpay narratively because she's trying to break up Troy and Gabriella, and we also hate her socially because of her steriotype, but we're also for some odd reason supposed to hate her because she's rich.
The problem is that this film is implying that the archetypes of the shoes girl and the money girl are in fact the same archetype, and it takes lots of stabs at the Even's family wealth but doesn't really say anything about it. We must hate Sharpay, but that's because of her vanity. The film never gives us any indication that we should dislike Sharpay because of her money, but it is strongly implied. This might sound a little contradictory, but it really isn't. It is very confused in what it's subtext is, but Sharpay's wealth isn't her problem no matter how much the movie tries to convince you it is.
The first movie did something similar to this with a stab at the western education model, but takes a stab at the idea of a high school drama department (by turning it into a big bad organization) in order to do this.
Now, I'm not saying that this is a good movie. It isn't, it's a bad movie. The third act is identical to the first movie's, nobody's a good actor, and people leave doors open everywhere. I'm just saying it's a bit deeper than it seems. It really deserves more analysis than it gets, because there is some really really well hidden stuff in this film that makes it worth over thinking.