Jul 30 2010

Inception: A spinning top and a spun web

Grant J.

Rating: 4 stars (out of 4)


Earlier this year, Leonardo DiCaprio teamed up with Martin Scorsese for the astonishing Shutter Island, a profoundly disturbing foray into the mind of someone who didn’t always know what was real.  Now, a few months later, he’s paired himself with Christopher Nolan for Inception, a profoundly dizzying foray into dreams and reality.  From the guilt-ridden memories of a dead wife down to the nature of illusion and perception, Inception shares more than a few similarities with Shutter, and, while Inception is a very different type of film, the quality and impact are very nearly the same—which is extraordinary praise.  All told, DiCaprio has put together one of the best years for an actor in the past decade.

Inception’s plot, enveloped in secrecy as hype mounted before its July 2010 release, seemed labyrinthine when the teasers and trailers were leaked, and watching it once hardly clears everything up.  To sum up as much is necessary: Cobb (Leo) practices a form of theft called extraction, whereby he breaks into a person’s mind, invading their dreams to exploit their subconscious at a time when its defenses are lowered.  He’s recruited by a wealthy businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe) for a more dangerous, more captivating, idea: “if you can steal an idea from someone’s mind, why can’t you plan one there?”

Thus, the “Inception” of the title represents planting an idea in someone’s mind, while he dreams, that is subsequently believed to be self-conceived.  A fascinating concept, to be sure, and it’s one that, the film implies, Cobb has been toying with for years.  He’s most attracted to Saito’s offer, however, because he’s promised the ability to return to America, something that hasn’t been possible since the death of Cobb’s wife Mal (Marion Cotillard).  So he enlists long-time associate Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an architect named Ariadne (Ellen Page), and other merry men, much like Danny Ocean assembled his team of thieves.

Soon, Cobb and his team are hurtling themselves into dreams within dreams within dreams; before seeing this movie, I already thought that ‘false awakenings’ were perhaps the creepiest thing I could contemplate, and here, the subject would have to ‘wake up’ 3 times to actually return to reality.  And in the process, Nolan creates some of the most astounding, awe-inspiring visual sights I’ve ever seen: a Parisian city folding over on top of itself like an Origami creation; water bursting through the sides of a building in a dream as a person is dropped into a bathtub; a freight train barreling down a highway, tossing aside cars as though they’re flies; structures that disintegrate, piece by piece, into the ocean; and, above all, that zero-gravity fight scene that has left me and everyone else jaw-dropped.  It simply has to be seen to be believed, probably should have been longer, and—along with everything else—should ensure that Nolan has all of the technical and visual Oscars locked up for 2010.

The idea that Cobb’s team are instructed to plant concerns the heir of a wealthy corporation (Cillian Murphy) dissolving his father’s empire, but Inception truly advances the motif of family devastation and reconciliation through Cobb, in his motivations for accepting the job and his own subconscious guilt that has been dogging his work.  Nolan, who spent 10 years working on the script, drives the plot forward with a remarkable amount of efficiency and stability—upon subsequent viewings, the film feels more coherent, not less, and everything just seems to fall into place precisely where it should.  The notion of dreaming, of invading someone else’s mind, of challenging the idea that everything that occurs inside our head is ours and ours alone, faces stricter and stricter tests as the film progresses.  And, simultaneously, Nolan ratchets up the action as the climax approaches, helping obliterate the potential torpor that could be engendered by a two-and-a-half hour running time.

I won’t get too bogged down in discussing theories and deciphering plot details; that’s not the subject of a movie review.  But I’ll say a few things to indicate how much I’m fascinated by this discussion.  It’s critical to note that it seems that Nolan, in the world he created, did not actually give us/his characters a way to differentiate dreams from reality—only to differentiate being in someone else’s dream or not.  Unless that top was a special type of totem (which I haven’t ruled out), it can’t differentiate reality from a person’s own dreams.  Because of that, and because the top may not have been Cobb’s actual totem (since it was his wife’s), the final shot—fascinating as it is, theoretically—is more a red herring than anything else.

I’ll say that I’m immensely intrigued by the scene where Cobb tests out his chemist’s (Dileep Rao) sedative, wakes up and tries to spin the top, and doesn’t actually do so—was he still in a dream from that point onward?  And I’m essentially convinced that the last scene does not represent ‘reality’…a position that, of course, hardly limits the number of possibilities of what did happen.

At first, I thought that Inception, though great, had a bit of an inherent ceiling built into it, since it was more of an action-packed thriller than an intense psychological study (compare with the superior Shutter).  And several reviewers noted that it resonated more strongly on an intellectual and visceral than an emotional level, and that may be true.  But, upon further reflection, I realized that I was fascinated by the notions that Nolan floats: that, once it takes hold, an idea can rarely be eradicated or changed within someone’s mind; that we have no way of knowing whether our world is real or not (Descartes’s “Dream Argument” that also informed Shutter) and, critically, that it doesn’t matter whether that top was about to fall over or not.

That is where Inception truly hits me like a ton of bricks; the more I’ve debated it with people afterwards, the more I’ve come to accept a very similar theme to Shutter.  We wonder what was real, and what was just in Leo’s head—and we debate theories proposing that everything we saw was a dream, or that someone was performing inception on him—and we decide that the distinction doesn’t matter.  Scorsese’s film emphasized the blur between sanity and insanity; here, the blur between dreams and reality is used to tell us that what’s ‘all in our heads’ can be real.  In Cobb’s mind, he had resolved his guilt, had moved his way past the stress that was infesting his life, had forgiven himself to the point where he could see his children.  His turning away from the totem at the end indicates that he doesn’t particularly care, that he shares a philosophy put forth about halfway through the film, a line that when I first heard I immediately stored in my brain as a potential movie theme: “Their dreams have become reality; who are you to say otherwise?”

So, yes, there are a couple tiny flaws within Inception; I still wonder if it could have been more philosophical, but, as I have to tell myself, not every great movie has to be brooding and contemplative.  Inception has it—that indefinable trait that enables it to still floor you, still leave you drained and tired, still make you want to remain planted in your seat during the credits, after 4 viewings in 3 weeks.  It’s the trait that makes it stick in your mind long afterwards, that keeps you awake at night as you toss and turn its ideas around in your head like a spinning washing machine.  It’s not just a complex plot that invites discussion about ‘what happened’; it’s more than that.  It’s not just filled with delectable visual treats.  It’s all of those things—and my, is it those things—but it’s a classic, a 4-star movie instead of a 3 or 3.5, because it has it.

Made in a time when movies simplify themselves, cater to the least common denominator, and bank on re-makes and sequels and adaptations, Nolan’s movie is an incredibly creative work, and every aspect of it is performed with pristine crispness, as though everyone involved realized its potential and didn’t want to be the weak link.  The cinematographer (Wally Pfister) and film editor (who at one point has to piece together scenes from 4 different locations and dreams states while still keeping us on point) have to be recognized at Oscar time along with Nolan.  Hans Zimmer’s score is an outstanding touch, something else that buzzes around in head long afterwards.  From the actors, there’s not a bad performance here, as supporting characters from Page to Watanabe to Cotillard to Tom Hardy enliven the screen.  But at the center of it all, in almost every scene, is DiCaprio, who trims his performance of any movie-star fat yet still commands the screen.  In a scene at the end, when he closes his eyes and makes his entire body sigh, feeling the weight of his guilt leaving himself, he imparts a bit of his character into everyone in the audience.

The world’s strongest virus, Cobb says, is an idea, because we can’t forget having thought something, and we can’t deny what we believe, even if we rationally think otherwise. So, in your mind, is your top still spinning?  And do you care?


Jul 29 2010

The Annie Awards: An overview and analysis

Dan S.

This article is part of animation month.

The Annie Awards are essentially the Oscars for animation. Since 1992, they’ve been handing out awards in the category of Best Animated Feature. And, much like the Academy Awards have a bunch of categories I don’t care about (Best Documentary, Best Makeup, anything involving a short film, etc.), The Annies have their fair share of categories that are largely inconsequential: Best Animated Home Entertainment Production (aka Best Straight-to-DVD), Best Animated Short Subject, and a couple more.

There’s also something suspicious about the Annies. It’s so blatantly self-congratulatory. The biggest sponsors for the show are Dreamworks, Disney, Nickelodeon, Sony, Pixar, Warner Bros., and a few other companies: in other words, the people funding the awards are the major recipients. Still, very few of the choices have been illogical, so it’s hard to believe they’re a complete sham.

(Edit: There has been some talk thie year about the alleged corruption of the Annies. Pixar backed out of the awards. Read about it here.)

Looking back over the history of nominations and choices, I made a few frustrating observations. (Note that, from this point on, I’m only talking about the Best Animated Feature category.) First is the nomination system, which has chosen anywhere from 1 to 6 films per year to put on the ballot. Also, the films nominated by year weren’t always released in the same calendar year.

For example, The Iron Giant (release date: 8/6/99) won the 1999 award, but Toy Story 2 (11/24/99) won the 2000 award. From that, it seems like the cutoff comes some time between August and November. But then, why was Millennium Actress (9/14/02) honored the same year as Looney Tunes: Back in Action (11/14/03)? There’s just no justifiable logic evident there.

It’s a shame the set-up of the award is a head-scratcher. From a historical perspective, I would’ve loved to have seen the Annies represent a single calendar year. That would’ve made it easier to develop a snapshot of what animated films were important when. (It also would have been fun to see who would’ve won a duel between the #5 and #4 greatest animated films of all time according to IGN.)

Here’s a list of winners by year. I’ve also included my favorite film of the bunch (that I’ve seen) and, just for kicks, the film with the best rating on IMDb. Again, I want to stress that I don’t really understand the organization by year, at least up until around 2004 when it regularized. Even for those early years, when the groupings by year didn’t really make sense, I’m just sticking with the list of provided nominees.

1992

  • Winner: Beauty and the Beast
  • Bebe’s Kids
  • FernGully: The Last Rainforest
  • My pick: Beauty and the Beast
  • IMDb’s pick: Beauty and the Beast

1993

  • Winner: Aladdin
  • Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland
  • Once Upon a Forest
  • My pick: Aladdin
  • IMDb’s pick: Aladdin

1994

A uniformly strong and popular set of nominees this year.

  • Winner: The Lion King
  • The Nightmare Before Christmas
  • Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
  • My pick: The Lion King
  • IMDb’s pick: The Lion King (#144 on IMDb’s top 250 list), edging Nightmare (#237)

1995

A weak year put to shame by ’94.

  • Winner: Pocahontas (Disney four years running…)
  • A Goofy Movie
  • The Swan Princess
  • My pick: A Goofy Movie
  • IMDb’s pick: A Goofy Movie, surprisingly

1996

Just one nominee, which is kind of strange. But not entirely inappropriate. Honestly, no one else stood a chance. Toy Story was hugely popular, influential, and acclaimed.

  • Winner/My Pick/IMDb’s pick: Toy Story (#148)

1997

No clear frontrunner.

  • Winner: Cats Don’t Dance
  • Hercules
  • Space Jam
  • My pick: Hercules
  • IMDb’s pick: Cat’s Don’t Dance

1998

  • Winner: Mulan
  • Anastasia
  • I Married a Strange Person!
  • Quest for Camelot
  • My pick: Mulan – but to be fair, I haven’t seen any of the others in their entirety
  • IMDb’s pick: Mulan

1999

A very strong year that would be even better if Toy Story 2 was included.

  • Winner: The Iron Giant
  • A Bug’s Life
  • South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut
  • Tarzan
  • The Prince of Egypt
  • My pick: The Iron Giant with apologies to… well, every other nominee
  • IMDb’s pick: The Iron Giant edging South Park by a hair

2000

A one-horse race unless you dig Chicken Run a lot more than I do.

  • Winner: Toy Story 2
  • Fantasia 2000
  • The Road to El Dorado
  • Chicken Run
  • Titan A.E.
  • My pick: Toy Story 2
  • IMDb’s pick: Toy Story 2 (#228)

2001

  • Winner: Shrek
  • Blood: The Last Vampire
  • The Emperor’s New Groove
  • Osmosis Jones
  • My pick: Shrek though I’m a huge Groove fan
  • IMDb’s pick: Shrek

2002

Another great year, one of the best to date.

  • Winner: Spirited Away
  • Monsters, Inc.
  • Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron
  • Lilo and Stitch
  • Ice Age
  • My pick: Too close to call between Spirited Away and Monsters, Inc.
  • IMDb’s pick: Spirited Away (#57)

2003

  • Winner: Finding Nemo
  • Brother Bear
  • Millennium Actress
  • Looney Tunes: Back in Action
  • Triplets of Belleville
  • My pick: Finding Nemo
  • IMDb’s pick: Finding Nemo (#154)

2004

  • Winner: The Incredibles
  • Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence
  • Shrek 2
  • The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie
  • My pick: The Incredibles
  • IMDb’s pick: The Incredibles (#184)

2005

  • Winner: Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit
  • Howl’s Moving Castle
  • Madagascar
  • Chicken Little
  • Corpse Bride
  • My pick: Wallace & Gromit over Corpse Bride – haven’t seen Howl’s, though
  • IMDB’s pick: Howl’s Moving Castle

2006

  • Winner: Cars
  • Happy Feet
  • Monster House
  • Open Season
  • Over the Hedge
  • My pick: Over the Hedge, because I have to choose something
  • IMDb’s pick: Cars

2007

  • Winner: Ratatouille
  • The Simpson’s Movie
  • Persepolis
  • Surf’s Up
  • Bee Movie
  • My pick: Ratatouille
  • IMDb’s pick: Ratatouille (#168) barely topping Persepolis

2008

Easily the most controversial year. I’ve read a few articles alleging different things – from conspiracy and bribery to stupidity – for Wall-E not winning this award. While I think Wall-E is a bit overvalued and Panda a bit undervalued, the choice is quite baffling given the buzz and respect Wall-E received.

  • Winner: Kung Fu Panda
  • Wall-E
  • Bolt
  • $9.99
  • Waltz with Bashir
  • My pick: Wall-E, though I tip my hat to Panda
  • IMDb’s pick: Wall-E (#48)

2009

While the Annies got some buzz in ’08 for choosing the wrong movie, they got some buzz in ’09 for the freaking incredible slate of movies that had come out that year. Seriously, 2009 was the best year for animation ever, and it’s not even close. A few good ones weren’t even included.

  • Winner: Up
  • Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
  • Coraline
  • Fantastic Mr. Fox
  • The Princess and the Frog
  • The Secret of Kells
  • My pick: Hard to decide. So stacked. Every one I’ve seen (all except Kells) has a solid claim for one reason or another. I’ll go with Up.
  • IMDb’s pick: Up (#84)

2010

The nominations won’t come out for several months, but here are my early projections:

  • Projected winner: Toy Story 3
  • How to Train Your Dragon (edit: if conspiracy theories hold true, Dragon might win)
  • Despicable Me
  • Tangled
  • Legend of the Guardians (or possibly Megamind if Guardians tanks)
  • The Illusionist (to get something foreign on there)
  • My pick: Toy Story 3 with a hat tip to Dragon
  • IMDb’s pick: Toy Story 3 (#10 currently… though it will inevitably drop to the mid-40s at the highest)


Jul 18 2010

Inception (2010) First Impressions: A dream within a film within a dream

Dan S.

inception

Edit: You’re probably better off reading Grant’s excellent review of Inception than this rambly mind dump. Proceed at your own peril — this is a wordy post.

Taking a break from my month of animation posts, here is a semi-review of Christopher Nolan’s latest blockbuster, Inception.

Before you read on, I should warn you that this post is spoiler-heavy, and even if it wasn’t, there’s not much intelligent discussion that can be had about Inception until you’ve seen the film. Also, I’ve deliberately not rated the film out of four stars, simply because Inception is so dense that I couldn’t cut to its core enough to fairly evaluate it. Though I loved it, I need to see it again before I can decide whether the film is a masterpiece or simply a convoluted ruse. (The truth is probably somewhere in between.)

Now that I’ve had a day to process my first viewing of it, after the jump are a few takes I had on the film, from the plotting to the subtext, and more.

Continue reading


Jul 18 2010

Boys Like Girls: The Best and Worst of Emo-Pop

Grant J.

Boys Like Girls (2006) – 2.5 stars

Love Drunk (2009) – 4 stars  

In the mid-to-late 00s, Boys Like Girls have piggybacked onto the pop-emo scene trail-blazed by bands like the (the infinitely more talented) All-American Rejects.  A genre that has now almost completely abandoned its Rites of Spring roots, emo’s path of change has traversed Sunny Day Real Estate and Weezer and Jimmy Eat World, coming to rest somewhere in between Fall Out Boy (ugh) and AAR, with an eye turned ever towards mainstream acceptance.   

In between those two is BLG, whose self-titled debut proved that there was a healthy market for such music, one likely appealing most to teenage girls.  A fair number of them ate up the predictably over-the-top emotions expressed on said album, which featured a couple sharp, exhilarating tracks that lifted off (“The Great Escape” and “Five Minutes to Midnight” most prominently), but which sank without a trace by the end. 

A 12-song work that should have been 2-4 shorter, with that many more re-worked, Boys Like Girls, at its nadir, exemplifies the worst traits of this kind of schmaltzy pop-rock.  The lyrics sustain that kind of immature, woe-is-me attitude—“Who said it’s better to have loved and lost? / I wish that I had never loved at all,” etc—that, apparently, people still find poignant.  When the melodies fade away, there’s not much left in the songs’ originality or sturdiness to make up for it, and lead singer Martin Johnson’s voice just gets thinner and thinner.  The aforementioned two opening tracks, plus a couple more, are worth downloading, but that’s about it.

All of which makes their 2009 sophomore release, Love Drunk, that much more surprising.  This is a massive step forward, though not via a significant musical shift.  Indeed, it’s merely the other end of the spectrum, projecting the best feelings in emo-pop.  This is what they should have always gone for, the kind of loud, hyper-melodic, blood-pumping, Top Gun-style-campy music that’s best belted out loudly from the car.  When they sing “We’re heading for a heart, heart, heartbreak” or “I used to be love drunk, but now I’m hung-over” or “I wish that I could turn this car around, but she’s got a boyfriend now,” they sound carefree instead of overly caring, closer to delighted than despondent, loose rather than lost. 

And THAT is the critical distinction—and the philosophical bent that really makes the album work.  Self-misery would have sunk this project—and it wouldn’t have fit with the music—but the freewheeling thoughts blend together perfectly with the anthemic choruses to actually uplift you.  When I saw some of these song titles (particularly “She’s Got a Boyfriend Now”) I nervously foresaw some Pinkerton or Narrow Stairs-esque lyrics; instead, they treat such situations as opportunities for freedom and novelty.

And they marry such sentiments to songs whose ability to withstand repeated playings, I’ll be honest, stunned me.  Thanks to the playfulness and energy, the vastly improved hooks, and the fact that the songs are now drenched in color rather than projecting the same boring hue, they’re able to stir up that feeling of grand romanticism to which many similar bands only aspire.  Despite re-using some elements (start-stop basslines, falsettos), their previously-dormant sense of songcraft masks flaws: Tracks like the opener and “Chemicals Collide” are as good of stress-relievers as I’ve heard. 

No, Allmusic, “Two is Better Than One” (sung with Taylor Swift, but whatever) isn’t the worst of the ballads on here, for at least it has some punch and a decent grip on melody.  It has tangible flaws, to be sure, but the real penetrating stares should be directed at the tracks that most recall the second half of their debut: “Someone Like You” and “Go,” which commits that crime of all music crimes, the limpid album closer. (Why, oh why, don’t bands just dance with what brought them?  I’m looking at you, Jawbox.   And Placebo.)

So, on some level, Love Drunk is what it is, but deep down, it’s not.  Much as the snobby will hate it, this kind of music can be bad or good, depending on its execution, just like all rock can be.  Their career has proved that.  But for the most part, this is very well-executed—and fun.

In a lot of ways, this kind of music compares with country.  There’s not a ton going on, musically, which redirects attention onto the vocals and lyrics.  And, perhaps for that reason, the attitude and philosophy of the genre—the culture, if you will—is presented so forcefully as to feel like it’s being shoved down your right.  Your appreciation, therefore, will be highly dependent upon your approval of that culture.  But if you’re OK with it—and you’re finished with all 3 All-American Rejects albums—turn here.


Jul 16 2010

Neon Trees – Habits (2010): ‘Always the same thing,’ but you shouldn’t mind

Grant J.

Rating: 3 and a half stars (out of 5)

Neon Trees opened for The Killers in 2008, inviting a natural comparison to a band they clearly respect.  A couple years later, the Trees are playing a gig at the upcoming Lollapalooza concerts, their lead single “Animal” gets some radio play, and…they’re also plugging Las Vegas vacations.  OK, so they haven’t become Killers-level huge yet, but there’s enough on Habits, their debut LP, to suggest they can.  

Whooshing through in a breezy 29 minutes, Habits is a fairly by-the-books dance-pop-rock album, with lots of nods to imperfect relationships and some endearingly catchy hooks.  Yet the Trees manage to sound both mainstream and independent—like they’re doing their own thing, and it just happens to sound like this.  “Animal” is suitably indie-quirky, with dance-friendly synths and a come-and-get-me refrain—“Oh, oh, I want some more / What are you waiting for? / Take a bite of my heart tonight”—but it tends to grate a little under heavy repetition.  Fortunately, quality-wise, it’s really only in the middle of the pack here. 

The real stand-out is the follow-up, “Your Surrender,” where U2 meets Rooney, with a hint of the Arcade Fire thrown in underneath. (If this sounds as appealing to you as it does me, buy this album; otherwise, don’t.) It works primarily because the refrain eschews that annoying sense of worthlessness found in too many of these songs, adopting instead the same kind of mischievousness as “Animal,” but with more confidence—“How long till your surrender?”

What truly sets Habits apart from its contemporaries in the somewhat-amateurish danceable post-punk scene, what makes it sound less pre-packaged than you’d expect, are the surprising shades of gray lurking underneath the songs.  Neon Trees manage to infuse these songs with more than a few traces of muffled darkness, as though coming from just under a pillow, a technique that works effectively against their natural pop leanings.  Songs like “Sins of My Youth,” “Girls and Boys in School,” and “Our War” bring forth cloudier arrangements than one might expect, which helps them sustain repeated plays.  Of most interest is closer “War,” a touching near-ballad both uplifting (particularly in the vocals) and tantalizing, as one can envision it having been further developed at the hands of a more refined band.

Other worthy tracks include “1983” (sometimes, they don’t hide their influences all that much), with legitimately striking twists and turns; but, the thing is, with an eight-song album, you’d better have a very high batting average.  Allmusic calls “Love and Affection” pure Bloc Party, but all it sounds like to me is a forced melody and those aforementioned irritating attitudes—the “I just don’t understand why my love isn’t good enough” kind. 

That’s the only truly skippable song here, but a fair number of tracks combine traits with faults (formulaic ‘soaring’ choruses, uninspired lyrics, similar sounds); they’d do well to freeze-frame the “Fuck all the rest and forget the rules!” coda of “Girls,” their strongest boundary-pushing moment here.  In the meantime, though, if you have an itch for this kind of music—and especially with Rooney’s Eureka looking like a disappointment—feel free to enjoy Neon Trees for what they are, rather than asking them to be something else.


Jul 15 2010

What was the greatest decade for animated films?

Dan S.

vlcsnap-2010-07-15-17h34m24s249

This post is part of The Month of Animated Features.

Without thinking too much about it, what’s your gut answer to the headline?

Once you take a close look at the catalog of animated features released over the years, the answer becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly. First, let’s examine this question in terms of rigid numeric decades — e.g. “the 1950′s” would be eligible as a decade, but 1967-1976 would not be eligible as a decade.

Before I reveal what I believe is the clearly correct answer, let me go over how I evaluated each decade. As a reminder, I’m concerned mostly with enduring artistic quality and entertainment value, as opposed to issues separate from the product itself, like influence, technical innovation, or reputation.

[Edit: To reiterate, I'm focused exclusively on feature-length animation. I am not including animated shorts, TV shows, etc. This is especially important when considering the early decades in which theatrical shorts were very popular. While those are compelling in their own right, they are not relevant to this analysis. The logical flaws in this distinction have been argued, but I'm sticking with this constraint.]

Perhaps we should look first at the peak films of each decade. Generating a list of five of the best animated features from each decade should make it a little bit more clear which decades stand out as particularly weak or strong. We’ll start with the 1940′s, since that was the first complete decade with American-released animated films. (The movies are in no particularly order.)

  • 1940′s: Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Dumbo, and… umm… Bugville?
  • 1950′s: Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, and Animal Farm (UK)
  • 1960′s: Yellow Submarine (UK) and 101 Dalmations. Then… The Jungle Book? The Phantom Toolbooth? Sword in the Stone?
  • 1970′s: Allegro Non Troppo (Italy), Fritz the Cat, Watership Down, Fantastic Planet (Fr.), and Heavy Traffic
  • 1980′s: The Little Mermaid, Akira (Jap.), Castle in the Sky (Jap.), Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and The Secret of NIMH
  • 1990′s: Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Princess Mononoke (Jap.) [just to have something non-Disney]
  • 2000′s: Wall-E, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Shrek, and Spirited Away (Jap.)

Upon looking at those lists, there are a few obvious cuts. The 1960′s go out the door first, quickly followed by the 1970′s. The 1940′s have a tremendous top four, but thin quickly afterwards, so they have to go, too. The 1950′s, 1980′s, 1990′s, and 2000′s all seem worth consideration.

But if you start trying to come up with the five next best films from each of those decades, it becomes obvious two decades really warrant consideration for the top spot.

  • 1950′s: Alice in Wonderland… followed by… maybe the claymation cult favorite Hansel and Gretel? The Sword in the Stone? That’s about it.
  • 1980′s: My Neighbor Totoro (Jap.), Grave of the Fireflies (Jap.), Barefoot Gen (Jap.), The King and the Mockingbird (Fr.), and… that’s it?
  • 1990′s: Aladdin, Tarzan, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Iron Giant, and A Bug’s Life
  • 2000′s: Up, Finding Nemo, Howl’s Moving Castle, Kung Fu Panda, and Monsters Inc.

So, assuming you want at least ten great-or-borderline-great films from whatever decade you choose, the only real contenders here are the 1990′s and the 2000′s. You could argue that I’m biased because that’s really the only time I was watching movies, but I think the lists back me up.

(Quick sidebar that will receive expansion later: There is a very compelling conclusion from this observation: Animated film has been better the past two decades than it ever was before that, period. This statement will probably bother some purists and historians — the ones who dubbed 1918-1960 the so-called “Golden Age” of animation.)

So, which decade of these two is it, then? Just looking at the ten films as the best from each decade, even if there were a few that I missed that you’d have chosen, it seems relatively balanced. So I will go through a few more bits of evidence.

  • Exhibit  A: The Annies — a set of annual awards given out for excellent work in animation — were instituted in 1991, when they nominated three films for Best Animated Feature. Starting in 1998, they expanded the nominations to four or five pictures, peaking with six nominations in 2009.
  • Exhibit B: The Academy Awards added the category “Best Animated Feature” in 2001.
  • Exhibit C: According to Rotten Tomates — if you count only movies with 20 or more reviews — the 1990′s had 12 animated films with a 90%+ critical approval, whereas 2000′s had 21 animated films with a 90%+ critical approval. If you expand this to all films with at least five reviews, the minimum required by RT for a movie to have a valid approval rating, then the 1990′s have 16 and the 2000′s have 28 with 90%+ critical approval. Bring this bar down to 80%, and the 1990′s had 29, while 2000′s had 58.
  • Exhibit D: On the IMDb poll, the 1990′s have 12 on the list of the 50 most popular animated films. The 2000′s have 21 on the list.

You could find reasons to ignore any one of these on their own, but the more you stare at the facts — and look at lists of films from each decade — the more clear it becomes that there was a serious expansion in the quality, credibility, and breadth of animation in 2000′s; this is evidenced by the number of popular films and the increased industry respect through more Annie nominations and the Academy Award category.

Look closely at which films were released when, and you have trouble finding great animated films in the first half of the 1990′s not produced by Disney. The Annie Awards in particular are pretty revealing. I can tell you with pretty strong confidence that Space Jam, Ferngully, Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumber Land, The Swan Princess, and Once Upon a Forest — all Best Animated Feature nominees — would have had a tough time being nominated in the 2000′s in any year. They’re decent, but not quite best-of-the-year material. For most of the 1990′s, it seems like The Annies struggled to find at least three options. (And in 1996, they didn’t even try — they just gave it to Toy Story.)

To spin it one last way, the weakest year for animation in the 2000′s was probably 2004, with 2003 not far behind. Only 1999 (TS2, The Iron Giant, Tarzan) from the 90′s definitively tops them. Every other year from 1990′s was weaker than every year from the 2000′s.

There’s just a richer, more diverse group of studios and film-makers using animation these past ten years than ever. The result is the strongest slate of animated movies, and it’s honestly not even close. Credit the 1990′s for reviving the medium and for providing what will remain some of the most cherished animated films of all time. But don’t let nostalgia for the Disney masterpieces plus the merely decent non-Disney fairy tales that filled theaters trick you into choosing it as a stronger overall decade.

So, to answer the question raised in the headline: the 2000′s (with the 2010′s projecting to at least match it) were the greatest, with the 1990′s taking silver, and the 1980′s taking bronze. That’s a nice upward trend that excites me about the next few years.

A question with a less clear-cut answer is “What set of 10 years gave us the best animation?” For this discussion, I will allow 2010. I know we’re only six-and-a-half months into the year, but 2010 has been so good for animation so far that this half year trumps most other full years.

So, there are two answers for which I think you can make a really good case: 1999-2008 and 2001-2010. The problem is that 1999 and 2009 were two of the best years ever for animation, and they’re just far enough apart that you can’t include both of them.

These two spans obviously have a lot of overlap, so let’s consider the films not included in both of these categories. From 1999-2000 — so in the first span, but not the second — you have Toy Story 2, The Iron Giant, Tarzan, The Emperor’s New Groove, Chicken Run, and Fantasia 2000 probably in that order in terms of significance. In 2009-2010 — in the second span, but not the first — you get Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon, Up, Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog, Despicable Me, and The Secret of Kells.

Again, I’m hesitant to fixate on the present and overlook the past, but I have to side with the more recent 2001-2010. I can pretty confidently say that the past ten years have been the best overall years for animation ever.

Note: Perhaps you’re wondering why I included a frame from The Sword and the Stone, of the 1960′s. One reason is that Merlin’s looking ponderous, as appropriate for a post with a question for a headline. The other, more prominent reason is that I forgot to bring up the film in my overview of Disney during “The Golden Age” and wanted to give it some recognition. A glaring omission of a passable film. [Edit: Not true following my recent revision]


Jul 14 2010

Children of Men: Beauty amidst chaos

Grant J.

Rating: 4 stars (out of 4)

“With Inception hitting theaters, we take a look at movies that take a dark view of the future.”  So declared the Rotten Tomatoes website today, and in the same spirit, I revisit 2006′s criminally underappreciated sci-fi classic.

Every once in a while, a movie comes out that puts together every aspect of cinema so magnificently that you can’t imagine how it could be better.  Such movies don’t remind you why you go to the theater; any solid one can do that.  Such movies instead remind you of the transcendental power of cinema, the life-affirming revelation that all great literature, music, and movies can possess when constructed by masters.  Children of Men is such a movie.  Upon its release, this was the best film to come out since 2004.

Based on the science fiction book by P.D. James, Men is set in Britain in 2027, when the world is exactly like ours but for one crucial difference: humans are infertile.  No one under 18 years old is alive.  The government passes out suicide kits with the slogan, “You decide when.”  With no prospects for long-term survival, anarchy is the rule around the world.  Britain arrives at the most successful method for handling the situation by prohibiting immigration, deporting and locking up any illegals, and enforcing a police state.  A walk to work is an opportunity to be attacked by a rabid police dog.  A visit to a coffee shop in the morning might be your last.  Is it the lack of innocent children that corrupts people?  Or the sheer fact that there’s nothing to live for?   

Clive Owen prefers to play amoral characters, and he has a particular affinity for people who derive strength from destruction occurring around them (see Croupier, Closer).  Yet here it is the rest of the world that has fallen apart while he ultimately finds a measure of decency and redemption.  He plays Theo Faron, an ex-activist now resorting to mindlessness.  He carries too much suffering from his past to be bothered by the death of the youngest person alive, which captivates everyone else.  His ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore) takes him out of his shell by arranging for him to be the caretaker of Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey, solid), an African woman who miraculously is pregnant.  The government wants no part of any foreigners, and rebel groups want to use the baby for political purposes, so it is left to Theo to keep her safe and deliver her to the Human Project, an organization dedicated to planning for the future.   

The set-up might seem a perfect opportunity to lionize Theo, but the movie never makes that mistake.  He’s a broken-down man who fights for Kee because she reminds him of the child he and Julian had together who died at the age of two.  Children of Men, though, is less a character analysis than a study of the human condition.  Theo speaks to both the ways that society and culture can shape an individual’s behavior and to the extent to which one can forge his own path.  Theo, having endured too much pain at the hands of fate, has withdrawn from life at the beginning, but the arrival of a baby transforms him, most notably in a stunning scene in which he delivers the child.  But there are also smaller decisions he makes independent of fate, which together are the main reason you walk out of the theater feeling good about humanity amidst the terror and carnage.

In many respects, Children of Men is an adventure story, as Theo and Kee, with a midwife named Miriam (Pam Ferris), have to escape and evade the violence surrounding them, but it is filled with so many rich scenes and tender moments of humanity that it transcends its genre.  Though a violent rebel group named the Fishes wrecks their plans more than once, there is no battle against a specific enemy here.  This is a battle against the world, against our human flaws, against apathy, against dangers that we bring upon ourselves. 

Director Alfonso Cuaron allows us to see small measures of goodness amidst the carnage: how people try to replace children the best they can with pets—dogs, kittens, sheep, roosters, goats, and birds roam the squalid streets and buildings—as though they must care for something.  After Kee’s baby is born, it is Theo, not the mother, who knows how to care for the baby; he’s done it before, but no one Kee’s age has even seen a child.  And Jasper (Michael Caine, also impressive), Theo’s best friend who deals with the end of the world with strawberry-flavored weed and classic British music, provides some levity but also deeply cares for his catatonic wife, a former journalist who was tortured, probably for exposing the nasty ways of the government.  In both the sunshine in his scenes that belies the generally grey and dark blue hues of London and in Theo’s rare laughter around him, viewers can observe how much joy Jasper brings.     

None of this, however, can obscure the movie’s darkness.  It makes a statement about what would happen with no children to keep us innocent and no accountability for adults’ actions to keep our base desires in check.  It’s not political, but the implications of the anti-immigrant policy reverberate, particularly in a startlingly close to home depiction of a refugee camp that would not be out of place in today’s news.  In another poignant scene, Miriam explains to Theo what the gradual awareness of infertility felt like, in an abandoned school where the playground is desolate except for the quiet humming and singing of Kee, reflecting her divorce from the rest of society.  “I was there for the end,” Miriam says, and Theo, watching Kee swing, replies, “And now you can be there for the beginning.”  He wants her to relish that, but this movie informs us that this wouldn’t necessarily be enjoyable if we continued to acted like this.

All the touches from the hand of Cuaron, who collaborated with four others on the screenplay as well, have a revelatory effect: the chilling music that underlies a cold shot of a London alleyway before Theo and Kee traverse it; a camera shot that lingers for a moment on a kitten crawling up Theo’s leg; the high-pitched ringing noise in Theo’s ears, reflecting his proximity to a prior bombing, that ominously plays periodically throughout the movie.  Even when you don’t think Cuaron’s doing anything, he is, be it through purposeful background music, a camera splattered with blood, or a vivid, single-shot presentation of a car attacked from all sides using a hand-held camera.  He understands the power of creating a world in which you can lose yourself for a couple hours.  So many movies fail to take advantage of scenery and background, existing in nondescript places, but cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and Cuaron create a London 20 years from now—complete with houses literally barricaded from the outside world, billboards declaring that avoiding fertility tests is a crime, and bone-shattering explosions in coffee shops—that stays with you long after the credits roll.

And the last ten minutes are by themselves more emotionally affecting than most movies taken as a whole, one of the top five most affecting segments I’ve ever seen on film.  From the moment when the cries of Kee’s baby silence a squadron of government troops pounding a rebel hangout to the concluding scene in a boat, Children of Men goes from being a great movie to an exceptional one.  Hope mixes with despair, as the desires of the soldiers to get a look at the baby are diverted by a bomb from the rebels and as Theo shows Kee how to hold the baby amidst fighter planes lighting up the morose sky.  In his face as he carries the two girls away from danger, it is also, once again, apparent that Clive Owen plumbs emotional depths that few other actors can.  He resists the natural urge to look sanctimonious, or foolishly proud, or smug; instead, he cares about nothing more than protecting them, and his eyes simply gaze outward, as though looking towards the future.  He looks real—battered and bruised but finally stable.  For the first time in many years, he’s happy that he opened his eyes in the morning—just like us.


Jul 13 2010

The Top 20 Most Influential Animated Features of All Time

Dan S.

vlcsnap-2010-07-13-17h55m52s43

Although I’m primarily concerned with the lasting creative merits of a film, I do find it fascinating and valuable to observe the “influence” on a film. When I use this term, I mean its effect on future animated features (to date, that is; I tried to not include projection into the future), as well as the public perception of animation.

This list is concerned with influence on American animation. Foreign animated film has been considered, and in a few cases included, based on its effect on the Hollywood culture of animation.

Among criteria I looked for were: unique artistic achievement later mimicked, technical advances, commercial success (because Hollywood follows the money), cultural ubiquity, and the setting or altering of trends.

Again: This isn’t a list of the greatest animated films or my favorite animated films. My goal was simply to look at a film’s overall effect on how later films were and are made.

My list of twenty, sorted chronologically, after the jump.

Continue reading


Jul 12 2010

The Taking of Pelham 123: Proof that style doesn’t equal superficiality

Grant J.

Rating: 3 stars (out of 4)

pelham

Taking a quick break from Dan’s animated movie series to present a film I watched in theaters last summer and again recently.  I’m sure Dan will have you back to your regularly-scheduled programming shortly.

On first glance, The Taking of Pelham 123 could be yet another insipid Denzel Washington movie; certainly it inspires comparisons to Inside Man, where he likewise played a hostage negotiator.  But Pelham gets a lot more right than Inside, or Denzel’s previous collaboration with director Tony Scott (Man on Fire), or, for that matter, many of Denzel’s recent popcorn-y flicks.  It generates much sharper tension and feels much more mature and weighty, and, propelled by its two lead actors, it captivates one’s attention for its entire running time.

A remake of a respected 1974 thriller, Pelham stars John Travolta as one bad dude—Ryder, a Fu Manchu- and neck tattoo-sporting guy who, along with a few associates, takes control of a New York Subway car underground and parks it in the tunnel between two stops.  After disconnecting all but one car and 18 hostages, he makes contact with the train’s control center, where self-proclaimed “civil servant” Walter Garber (Washington) happens to get the call.  So begins the chess match, with Ryder demanding $10 million from the mayor before he starts killing hostages.  A NYPD hostage negotiator expert (John Turturro) is eventually brought in, but we know that Ryder will want to talk only to Garber.

It’s an inherently interesting if somewhat recycled plot line, but this film doesn’t rest on its laurels.  Writer Brian Helgeland, who penned Man on Fire (not to mention, ahem, Mystic River), helps Scott and the actors generate moments of genuine suspense and tension.  For much of the film’s midsection, with Ryder on the subway car and Garber on the phone trying to talk his way through everything, I felt myself consistently on edge.  A sequence with money in transit to the subway as the clock ticks is crisply executed.  What’s more, the fact that Ryder proves willing to actually kill if people don’t obey him adds to the level of suspense—one might expect, coming in, that he won’t win, in the end, but seeing an early shooting tells us that we can’t always predict what will come next.

A sequence culminating in Garber revealing the details of a bribe he recently took pulses with energy.  Ryder, who has access to the Internet and can do background searches, intuits that a man of Garber’s stature would not be operating a layman’s job unless he had slipped up somewhere along the line.  He’s also intrigued at the thought of his seemingly decent counterpart paralleling himself in one way: trying to make a dishonest buck.  Thus, with a crowd gathering around Garber’s speaker as the situation escalates, Ryder grabs a teenage hostage and vows to kill him unless Garber spills the details of his scam.  The cuts between the kid, the gunman, and the gradually sadder Garber are exhilarating, and Washington’s few tears at the end strike the perfect note. 

The moment also illustrates another interesting point about the movie—nobody comes out unscathed.  Aside from Garber’s indiscretion, the mayor (James Gandolfini) has recently faced a scandal (of the sexual variety, we infer) and really just wants his time to expire so he can retire to an island somewhere.  These touches—particularly as Ryder makes comments about the dirtiness and sleaze of the city—help elevate Pelham above most thrillers. 

On a somewhat related note, it was also nice to see that Washington’s character was no great hero.  He’s almost passive, a reluctant participant, clearly embarrassed about his previous misdeed; and he delivers no grand, Denzel Washington-style pronouncements or shouting matches with his adversary.  It’s immensely enjoyable to see Washington pull off this kind of role as skillfully as he does, in the aforementioned confessional scene and throughout the rest of the movie; what’s more, and critical for the movie, is that his character, and his acting, compliments Ryder and Travolta well.  Travolta eats up the role, over-the-top in a calculated and intentional way, but he never falls into caricature.  He looks legitimately scary, and he acts that way too, always with a sense of rage (largely stemming from a previous conviction) and carelessness—and intelligence—that elevate him from most cinematic villains.  And the supporting cast further enhances the film—John Turturro and James Gandolfini illustrate the value to be had in casting legitimate actors in ‘entertainment’ movies.

Pelham probably would have benefited from a little more background information on the hostages.  The hijacking occurs after no set-up whatsoever, which is a little bit of a nod to the modern ADD generation and isn’t necessary in a movie that’s hardly too long.  And Ryder’s ultimate comeuppance isn’t the most inspired climax of all-time.  Scott, for his part, can’t resist some of his patented visual flourishes that are probably unnecessary (such as the presentation of the opening credits), but, thankfully, he tones it down for the majority of the movie, perhaps being constrained by the stationary nature of the train car.

To that end, Pelham isn’t really an action movie.  The few shots we see of cars crashing are tangential to the main story, which primarily features talking between its two leads.  It’s a psychological battle between someone not really cut out for this, someone with other problems on his mind, forced to constantly listen to instructions from his superiors as he improvises with his counterpart, who’s clearly enjoying the ride a lot more.


Jul 10 2010

Despicable Me (2010): It’s so fluffy!

Dan S.

despicable_me_movie_poster_02-550x874

This post is part of The Month of Animated Features.

Rating: 3 stars (out of 4)

It never brought tears down my face the way Up and Toy Story 3 did. It never soared away with my heart the way How to Train Your Dragon did. But Despicable Me’s manic silliness, unmatchable cuteness, and comedy-powered voice cast overcome some tonal confusion to make it a worthy entry into the canon of animated film that has been simply outstanding the past two years.

If nothing else, Despicable Me is, at its best, a wacky change of pace from fairy tale-style and heart-tugging stories. This is a film that is derived more from Tom and Jerry than Snow White. The visual set pieces have excellent comic timing and often revolve around one character one-upping another to humorous effect. There are throwaway sight gags and visual punchlines galore, and they’re entertaining enough that I’ll definitely see this movie again when it comes to the local discount theater or rent it when it comes out on DVD.

A large portion of the film’s charm comes from Steve Carrel, the voice actor for lead anti-hero Gru. He gleefully throws himself into a role whose ambiguously Eastern European accent sounds like it was learned from years of watching spy movie villains. More than just his enthusiasm, it’s the way he hilariously alters English syntax that makes every noise out of Gru’s mouth a treat. (After a young girl says “Pretty please!,” he responds that “The physical appearance of the ‘please’ does not matter!”)

The film starts with Gru, the old-fashioned villain — he carries a mace to the front door when the doorbell rings — having his thunder stolen by snotty up-and-comer Vector, voiced by my personal favorite comedy actor, Jason Segel. While Segel does decent work, he doesn’t seem like a great fit for the character, who is inconsistently characterized by the film.

Gru winds up responsible for possibly the three most adorable girls in the history of animation, especially little Agnes who is fixated on fluffy unicorns. The little girls steal any scene they’re in, particularly any scene in which Agnes plays an important role.

The pill-shaped little minions I’m mixed on, though. While they provide a springboard for some great, Looney Tunes-inspired action, they seem a bit too calculated in their cuteness. I enjoyed them, but not to the level that I enjoyed the roles of Gru and the three girls, who are not only the funniest characters but the heart of the film.

Another part of the movie that I remain on the fence about are the more emotionally-manipulative elements. The little kids and minions in the film are heartrendingly lovable, yet the film puts them through such trials as being put in a “box of shame” in a cardboard box at an orphanage. You can hear the “awwww!”s in unison. Then, when Agnes offers up her piggy bank, you get more “awwww!”s but in a different tone. There’s so much “awwww”ing in this movie, it almost detracts from the clever caper elements and the more earned moments of emotional gratification towards the end of the film.

Gru-and-Agnes

Several of the backup characters are a bit inconsistent in their writing. As I previously mentioned, Vector is troublesome. The film couldn’t quite settle between dastardly prodigy and spoiled brat. He’s also the victim of some of the unfunniest moments of the film: The butt-on-keyboard gag that seems to be one of media’s recurring images of the film, in particular, annoyed me.

The Russell Brand-voiced mad scientist who aids Gru has some hilarious lines, but the character seems a bit uneven. At times, he’s pathetically harmless. At others, effortlessly manipulative of Gru. Still, Brand is probably the second-best adult voice actor here behind Carell.

The animation is uniformly strong, and I want to give my special compliments to the character designers. (Where were these guys when How to Train Your Dragon was hiring?) My favorite was the distinctive Gru, who is ugly and pointed enough to make him unlikeable. Had the writing lacked sharpness or underlying warmth for the character, or Carell botched the voice work, it would’ve prevented the entire film from working. Almost every character here is memorable and unique.

But the character design dwells on wide array of styles, which highlights the most troubling part of the film for me: Despicable Me is about three or four movies struggling to come out on top. Is it a dark comedy that’s reminiscent of Burton if he were obsessed with Cold War espionage instead of the macabre? Is it a silent sight-gag comedy that is inspired equally by Looney Tunes and Wall-E? A generic DreamWorks comedy, polished but unmemorable like Madagascar or Over the Hedge? Or a Pixar-esque tale that maturely extols the healing power of involved parenthood?

The answer is all of the above, for better and worse. At times, I loved Despicable Me for pulling this balancing act off well. At others, I was bothered by its split personality. But most of the time, I was laughing too hard at a unicorn song, a floating minion, or the effects of a shrink ray to really care one way or the other.

A few more notes:

  • Despicable Me has the first fart joke in an animated movie that’s made me laugh in a long time, probably going back to Shrek (“I know what I smell, and it was no brimstone!”)
  • The closest cousin to this animated film might be last year’s superior Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, which has a similar level of mania but more convincing execution.
  • Count me in the small camp of viewers who did not dig the movie’s music. As How to Train Your Dragon reminded me a few months ago (still listening to the score daily, by the way), good music can make or break the tone of the movie. The hip hop beats and an unadventurous score should have been replaced with something more understated; the music should have evoked Spy vs. Spy instead of yet-another-animated-family comedy.
  • I love having Julie Andrews and Kristin Wiig in the cast, and the film surely deserves some strong female figures, but their characters (Gru’s mom and an orphanage administrator) came across as muddled and unnecessary.
  • The 3D in this movie seems like it’s mostly there for 3D’s sake rather than for the benefit of the movie, unlike (again) How to Train Your Dragon. Still, it’s impressive and immersive, particularly the post-credits minion sequence.
  • “It’s so fluffy!” trumps “Is it better to live as a monster or die as a good man?” from Shutter Island as my favorite movie line of the year.