Bad Things Happen Everywhere -- Especially Here, in 'Escape from Tomorrow'

Kids' screams and the clanking of the ride machinery fill Jim's increasingly crowded head.

Escape from Tomorrow

Director: Randy Moore
Cast: Roy Abramsohn, Elena Schuber, Katelynn Rodriguez, Jack Dalton, Danielle Safady, Annet Mahendru, Alison Lees-Taylor, Lee Armstrong, Amy Lucas, Stass Klassen
Rated: NR
Studio: FilmBuff
Year: 2013
US date: 2013-10-11 (Limited release)
"You remember when you were afraid of the Teacups? Same thing."

-- Jim (Roy Abramsohn)

"We need to get a picture with the castle. The whole family." Everyone needs to get that picture when they go on vacation at a theme park with a castle. It's a picture that documents where you've been, that serves as proof and memory, that freezes time and marks your place at that time. And so, when Emily (Elena Schuber) makes her announcement near the beginning of Escape from Tomorrow, then gathers her two kids and husband Jim (Roy Abramsohn) in front of the castle at the Magic Kingdom, you understand. Or at least, you think you do.

It's not long before you discover that this is one of the few moments in Randy Moore's first feature that is so familiar, so exactly mapped onto a collective consciousness. For all around this moment, the film arranges fantasies that challenge familiarity and convention. Shot guerilla-style at Disneyland and Disneyworld without permissions, the movie takes on the prevailing Disney fantasy, that this corporate behemoth means to do anything but make lots and lots of money. That it does so by selling dreams is not unique to Disney. That it does through a vigorous control over image by way of copyright is slightly more specific in the House of Mouse.

Escape From Tomorrow introduces itself as a "work of fiction", then goes on -- in especially creepy-seeming black and white -- to declare its status as well as a kind of documentary, by ensuring that its locations inside the park are marked and named and mentioned. So, you see all kinds of familiar imagery, including rides, shops, and characters, not to mention a gathering of big white Mouse gloves, waving in slow motion. As Emily and Jim and the kids make their way through their last day of vacation, the camera follows and frames them in all sorts of familiar -- that is to say, famous -- locations, standing on line, rolling along Space Mountain or Buzz Lightyear.

All these real-life experiences are rejiggered here into fiction, sort of. Emily's anxious all day long, doing her best to play mom to Sarah (Katelynn Rodriguez) and Elliot (Jack Dalton), which means, in the fantasy of the perfect nuclear unit, that everyone will be happy-happy all day long at the Happiest Place on Earth. That this day begins with Jim on the balcony outside their hotel room, learning that he's been fired ("For no real reason") motivates his bad behavior, which in turn triggers her cascading anxieties and irritations, and the children's confusions. The pattern is set early on, when Elliot acts out, Jim ducks, and Emily complains: "You have to, like, not be so nice to them, it makes me look like the bad guy." As little Sarah tilts her head in the elevator as the doors close and her parents going at it, you know no one will be happy.

While this collapsing fantasy might be said to belong to every member of the family, the film focuses the process through Jim's decidedly disturbing view. Distracted by his bad news (which he doesn't disclose), he finds a series of ways to dislike his wife and resent his children: as they ride into a watery cave, her face looms in shadows behind him, as icky as the masks and puppets that hang overhead, their eyes seeming to follow him, their shadows dark and odious. Offscreen but still all too close, kids' screams and the clanking of the ride machinery fill Jim's increasingly crowded head. When he turns to Elliot and the boy's eyes turn shark black, Jim worries enough to consult his wife, "What's wrong with Elliot?" her answer, "He's not your son," can't be right.

What's possible or convincing shifts from moment to moment, each occurring in this very strange and very familiar place, so unreal and so real at the same time. As Jim cowers and carps, doing his best not to listen to Emily, he turns his attention to a fantasy he can tolerate, two French girls in shorts (one wears braces) who appear again and again, no matter where Jim goes. For a time, he pursues them, dragging Elliot or Sarah along as he rides in cars behind the girls, imagining their interest in him too ("Oooh la, la," he coos while they kiss him and squirm beside him in the little ride car). "Dad," asks Elliot, "Why are we following those girls?" Jim's pathetic and only possible answer ("What girls?") leads pretty much directly to the next step in his fantasy, that they address him, smiling and bubbling, "Bonjour!" Of course!

The lack of imagination in Jim's imagination only replicates the repetition and banality of the very notion of fantasy as delivered and packaged by corporations like Disney. Whether or not this movie invited or anticipated legal action (which Disney has declined to take), it raises two crucial sets of questions. The first is the most obvious and material: what are the costs of fantasies premised on product? Who benefits from those desires produced and reproduced by endless, circular marketing campaigns? And how do these desires shape consumers as such?

The other set of questions is more abstract but no less distressing, namely, how does the delineation of fantasy as desire obscure its realty? How to understand Emily's determination to get a picture, to possess a moment-and-place by appearing in it forever? What sort of desire is this, to be, to remember, to identify in this way? Again, it's hardly Disney's invention, this cycle of packaging and pitching, even if Disney is among the best at it. And so, for all its documenting of Disney, Escape from Tomorrow also asks, beyond Disney, what?


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.