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.

Aside: It’s been a week or two since I’ve published anything for my animation month, in large part because of some serious time-sucking from a class I’m taking plus other miscellany. I don’t guarantee that my rate of posting will be high these next four days before July ends, but I do have a few more articles in the works.

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 more blatantly self-congratulatory than any other awards show I follow. 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.

Looking back over the history of nominations and choices, there are a few frustrating things. (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 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 normalized. 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, except South Park, which is funny but I don’t adore
  • 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 by a head 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 it’s charming and 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 was receiving.

  • 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.

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Taking a break from my month of animation posts, here is a semi-review of Christopher Nolan’s latest blockbuster, Inception. Grant will probably have a more eloquent interpretation and analysis ready in the near future, but here’s mine for now.

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 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, but 1967-1976 would not be.

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.

Perhaps we should look first at the peak films of each decade. Generating an 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. (Lists 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? Gay Purr-ee?
  • 1970′s: Allegro Non Troppo (Italy), Fritz the Cat, Watership Down, Fantastic Planet (Fr.), and Heavy Traffic
  • 1980′s: The Little Mermaid, Akira, 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 included, 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 never have been 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 hate to be that brat who becomes infatuated with the present and overlooks 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: I bet you’re wondering why I included a frame from The Sword and the Stone, of the 1950′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 pretty good film.


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.

“Visual” is the key word for Despicable Me. 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 unmemorably 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 The Lion King 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. 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.

Jul 10 2010

Disney’s Golden Age of Feature Animation, Part 2 (1950-1961): Walt’s last stand

Dan S.


vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h24m55s108

This post is part of The Month of Animated Features. Read part one of Disney’s Golden Age historical overview here.

Following the 1942 release Bambi, the next several years were not a kind decade to Walt Disney’s animation studio. With a limited staff and limited funds, they produced only six “package films,” only one of which — the 1949 Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad — showed any real promise.

With the studio on the verge of bankruptcy, they needed a surefire success or risked going out of business for good. So Disney turned to what had worked for him best in the past: A classic fairy tale with a beautiful princess. He hoped his new project, Cinderella, would strike gold the way Snow White had in 1937.

Cinderella used the largest budget of any animated film to date — more than $3 million. It was an everything-or-nothing gamble for Disney, who had learned the hard way that pricey full-feature films weren’t a guaranteed source of income. He encouraged his animators to use some shortcuts to scrimp. For example, almost every scene involving human characters was filmed first with sample actors in cheap live action. Animators used this live film as a reference, which saved them significant amounts of time in the planning and drafting phases, with the side effect of detracting somewhat from the staff’s creative freedom following that filming.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h26m37s97

The one significant part of the film not filmed beforehand were the scenes involving the animals, including the cat Lucifer, the friendly mice, and the assorted dogs and mice. As a result, the film ended with something of a clash between the naturalistic humans and zany animals.

Nonetheless, the film was a smash. Disney wisely decided to retain full rights and responsibilities for the soundtrack, using his new record label to print the soundtrack. The self-produced soundtrack album made a tremendous profit for the company, as did the film in the box office.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h38m37s126

Aesthetically, the film works but does not sparkle with Disney’s best, in part because the character animations are occasionally bland as a result of the live action-to-animation process. Still, it’s a great fairy tale (arguably more compelling and classic than Snow White) and a memorable movie particularly highlighted by the lively animals.

While Walt Disney hoped Cinderella would be a beginning of his second reign as a beloved, influential animator, it would sadly be the last film whose final product bore large amounts of Walt’s own fingerprints. The studio’s next several projects featured intermittent work from Disney himself, but the man had become increasingly frustrated with animation. His later efforts were focused on live-action film and TV, and particularly on his new passion project, Disneyland.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h27m02s109

Next on the animation studio’s slate was Alice in Wonderland, released in 1951. The film had an extremely rocky production and was long in the works, to the point that Disney himself pretty much abandoned the product. His decisions to deviate from the Lewis Carroll’s source material, to make the film all-animated instead of featuring live-action characters, and use frequent, short songs were all maintained.

The film is something of a mess, but an enjoyable one. It focuses on the whimsical verses of Carroll’s books. The voicework and animation are uniformly strong, but the plot is too episodic and surreal to be fully satisfying — even with the changes that brought the story back down to earth slightly.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h26m58s66

Perhaps because of its colorful vibrancy, Alice received some surprising love from critics (purportedly, Walt expected backlash from fans of Carroll’s work), but failed to catch fire in the States. It’s one of the few films from the decade to not become a massive hit.

Disney the company has strongly supported the film in spite of its early disappointment. Alice was one of their first films released to home video, and it has featured prominently in parades and attractions at Disney theme parks.

Much like Fantasia, the company also eventually banked on the film’s popularity with drug-users during the psychedelic era. The film’s 1974 re-release, promoted with trippy posters, was such a massive success that the company only waited seven years to release it again.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h27m24s214

While 1951′s Alice was only a middling success, 1953′s Peter Pan was a rousing one commercially. The highest grossing film of 1953, Pan also ranked among the more inspired animated features of the decade. The animation, overseen in part by Disney and in part by many of his most experienced animators, was vivid and imaginitive. Plus, the film featured much more of a story than Alice.

Some of the philosophical quandaries of J.M. Barrie’s imaginative world allowed Peter Pan to resonate deeply with viewers in ways that even 1950′s blockbuster Cinderella hadn’t. Unfortunately, a major subplot of the film is extremely racist by today’s standards. The group’s encounter with the “Injuns” and ponderings of the “Red Man” are simply painful to watch, something that has tarnished the enjoyability of an otherwise lovable tale with one of Disney’s great villains: Captain Hook.

As was the case of the other 1950′s Disney films, the production of Peter Pan was a long, drawn-out ordeal. Disney secured the rights to the film early, then the film sat in purgatory during World War 2, before finally being dragged out of the vaults and completed.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h31m59s234

But Disney’s next film, Lady and the Tramp, had an even longer and more perilous development. Some reports have early work on the film beginning as early as 1937, the year Snow White invented the modern animated feature. Yet Lady and the Tramp kept being put off by the studio until the early ’50s, finally receiving a release in 1955.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h30m41s235

Writers and fans remain divided on whether Lady and the Tramp deserves the title of “classic,” but surely its title romance is one of the strongest and most compelling among the studio’s works. The film has typically strong animation and a warmth to it (including the famed spaghetti scene) that evaded Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and to a certain extent, even Cinderella. The film resonated with audiences, matching the ticket sales of every Disney animated feature except Snow White.

Walt Disney’s role in Lady in the Tramp was again much smaller than in the earlier films, and the studio would produce only two and a half more features under his tutelage: 1959′s Sleeping Beauty and 1961′s 101 Dalmations, and the early stages of 1967′s Jungle Book.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h32m15s149

Sleeping Beauty was conceived, like Cinderella, as something of an heir to Snow White, but Disney’s increasingly short attention span with animated features caused the film’s creative vision to be dispersed primarily to the visual design department, a change that shows. The scenery and character animation of Beauty are of the first order, with stunningly beautiful design and style.

But the story is the weakest of any of Disney’s full length features to that point. The film seems to get a free ride from Disney loyalists, perhaps for its simplicity and naivete (much like Snow White), but there’s no shying away from the lack of characters worth remembering, growth, thematic undertone, or complexity in the conflict. History has been kind to Sleeping Beauty, perhaps kinder than it should have been.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h33m04s138

Audiences at the time were not entirely enthused by the project, as the film only narrowly made a profit. The unexpectedly poor results forced the studio to make large-scale layoffs. But in time, Sleeping Beauty eventually earned its keep, with seven re-releases bringing cash to Disney’s coffers from 1970 to as recently as 2008.

The final film released in Walt’s lifetime was 101 Dalmations, a charming entry to the Disney canon. A newer, more efficient technique of transferring animation to film gave Dalmations a sharply defined look, with strong black lines outlining characters and pieces of the sets.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h35m14s137

Many animated Disney films have been as defined more by their villains than their heroes, and 101 Dalmations is one such example. The wonderfully named Cruella de Vil at times resembles a demoness more than a fashion-obsessed plutocrat. She also receives one of the most memorable Disney numbers of the decade, a catchy ditty that paints her as a menace.

The film only debatably fits into the “Golden Era” of animation, as its new animation technique and style and its modern setting don’t particularly fit with any of Disney’s other works to that point. Still, 101 Dalmations retains a level of entertainment above any Disney animated film following it until at least  1977′s The Rescuers, if not 1989′s The Little Mermaid. It’s hard to completely discount Walt’s presence, as the studio would quickly reach a weary inconsistency following his death.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h35m20s216

Walt Disney’s death in 1966 seems a good moment to cap The Golden Age, as most film historians agree the period was cooling down by the late fifties and early sixties, both in the spheres of features and shorts. Though Disney’s role was greatly diminished in the above-average 1950′s films compared to the masterpieces of the late 1930′s and early war years, his presence and artistic sensibilities still reigned and even carried over to 1967′s Jungle Book, the last film that Walt had any direct input on.

Regardless of where you draw the closing line for the point when the second half of Disney’s Golden Age ends, it’s clear in his quarter century of animated work, he produced a large slate of classics and even a few masterpieces worthy of repeated reviewings. His influence is still detectable in animation in countless ways, not the least of which is simply the ambition and amount of love poured into his films from the beginning. To this day, animators and writers turn for inspiration to the likes of Pinocchio and Bambi, even with highly advanced drawing tools at their disposal, because attentive visual design and storytelling never die.

vlcsnap-2010-07-10-14h25m07s219



Jul 6 2010

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937): The greatest or the outdated-est?

Dan S.

snow_white_and_the_seven_dwarfs

This post is part of The Month of Animated Features. While the Golden Age overview highlights the role of Snow White in the history of animation, this post takes a look at Snow White in terms of how creatively valuable it is as a film viewed today.

Film Focus: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937

Most film fans would tell you that Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, published in 1937, was the first American animated film, but they’d be wrong. Lotte Reiniger created a one-of-a-kind, silent, silhouette-animated film called The Adventures of Prince Achmed in 1926 after joining a group of experimental filmmakers.

But Snow White was the first hand-drawn animated film, and the first one to leave a major impact on the public, so I’ll start there.

vlcsnap-2010-07-05-01h02m47s133

 

To most film buffs and animation fiends, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is pretty much immune to criticism. Widely regarded as the either the greatest animated film of all time or the runner-up to Pinocchio, Snow White ranks among the biggest commercial, critical, and influential successes of all films, let alone animated films.

That’s why I’m disappointed to have to say this: In many ways, Snow White is not a very good movie by today’s standards. The characters are, for the most part, simplistic and predictable. The plot is threadbare. In short, Snow White has almost no story. It’s little more than extended comic sequences and songs strung together.

Snow White herself is aptly named: She’s so perfectly naïve and proper that it almost passes as a retroactive parody. They won’t be showing this classic at any feminist rallies in the near future: Snow White eagerly cooks dinner, cleans the house, and wants for nothing but a strong man to take care of her.

The most interesting character is the evil queen. There’s something poignant about the fact that she makes herself hideous just to become the most beautiful in the land. Overcome by envy of youth and beauty, she forgets that she is quite beautiful herself. Her obsession is with being the most beautful, best looking woman in the land. She’s willing to take away all of her beauty just to try and bring down Snow White, too. The movie doesn’t really explore this obsession, which is a shame. It’s the darkest and most fascinating element of the plot.

vlcsnap-2010-07-05-01h06m06s76

The dwarfs are, by design, rudimentary characters defined by one trait. The only two who really show any complexity are Doc, the hesitant leader to the group in spite of his nervous stutter, and Grumpy. I suppose its just the cynicism of modern American film that I’m used to, but Grumpy’s hesitancy to give his goodwill to Snow White seems perhaps more reasonable than the other dwarfs’ automatic devotion.

Aside from these characters, no one in the movie has any subtleties or growth. There’s really not enough plot for any character development beyond the fairy tale basics. The worst offender is the prince who doesn’t earn his significance in the plot. I’d be shocked if he’s actually on screen more than a minute total.

But like nearly any classic film from before the 1970’s, if you view Snow White with a different expectations from what you’d have going into a modern movie, you can actually get a lot out of it.

vlcsnap-2010-07-05-01h22m26s87

Simply, Snow White ranks among the most visually beautiful films of all time: You’d have trouble finding a frame of its 80-some minutes not worthy of a screenshot. Every scene, every effect, and every character is obviously-hand designed by pros. No efforts were spared by the animators to make this an impressive debut for Disney.

The strongest scene is late in the film, alternating between the dwarfs frantically rushing back to their house and the painfully quiet exchanges between the disguised queen and snow white. It has a palpable tension to it, no matter how many times I see it.

Any critical plot analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, too, since this is one of the original fairy tales set to cinema. One could argue that the story is stronger because of its simplicity and purity, in that it evokes nostalgia by adhering the heroine to such innocence and plainness.

Finally, the film’s importance cannot be overstated. It immediately made feature-length animation both viable and culturally important. It kicked off the so-called Golden Age for Disney features, a stretch of animated features that wouldn’t be rivaled in quality for a half-century.

Regardless of its slight story, Snow White is a must-see for any movie fan, and a must-own for any animation fiend.

vlcsnap-2010-07-05-01h07m19s88