The Oscar nominations are out. Up received nominations in both Best Animated Picture and Best Picture, much like Z in 1969 received noms in both Foreign and Best Picture as well. The full list of nominations follows.Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air
As for acting the expected winners were all nominated - Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock, Christoph Waltz, Mo'Nique - and the two front runners for Director, James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow, got their expected nods as well.
But let's get back to Up for a moment. I have a longstanding disdain for Pixar's movies and have learned to bite my tongue on the subject. However, Up has now received nominations in both and I want to at least air my views on it since it now has the whiff of distinction about it.
I consistently find myself less enamored than everyone else of Pixar's insufferable whimsy. I find most of their films good to very good as children's films but not very good as films overall whereas I would rank something like Carol Ballard's Black Stallion as an excellent children's film and an excellent film overall. And of course I do like several Pixar efforts, from Toy Story to Finding Nemo. Around that point, after the release of Finding Nemo, they started to believe their own press and started injecting their childhood fantasies with adult sentiments, producing for me an uneasy mix. And now, against my better judgment, I will let loose.
I have often heard full grown adults speak in reverent tones of movies like Ratatouille, saying things like, "It's really about this," or "really about that." In other words, if one disdains the story of a rat wanting to be a chef one gets, "Oh, but it's really about being honest with y
ourself and ..." blah, blah, blah. They say this as if for the first time in cinematic history Pixar is delivering messages with its movies and thus is better. I always follow up by asking if other children's classics, from Snow White to 101 Dalmatians, aren't also "really about" something else. Of course they are. All children's movies, books, television shows and all other forms of media are about lessons. Pixar is not new in this. What they are new at is trying to package the lesson for the adult viewer and then having the great mass of unsophisticated adult viewers lap it up. "Oh, that final statement by the food critic about where art can come from... it was just so amazing, wasn't it?"
Oh, Christ! That pretentious pie-hole speech in that goddamn high-on-itself movie makes me squirm in my seat. The only thing that could have made it bearable for me was if the filmmakers had been honest and before Peter O'Toole's character delivers it, put up a title card that read, "Attention: The movie you have been watching, about a rat that can control a human's movements by pulling on his hair, will now make a faux-serious statement about art so that critics and fans can claim this is a great movie. We sincerely hope you are gullible enough to shovel it down your throat and ask for more. Thank you for your time. Enjoy."
Okay, that's going a little too far but damn, it felt pretty good to type that. I have felt this way from Ratatouille to Up. This need to inject some kind of adult statement into the mix to signal it's more than "just a kid's movie" which, in my book, implies kid's movies aren't worthy enough on their own and so I would propose Pixar is the enemy of the kid's movie. Take the "Baby Mine" scene from Dumbo. It does what a kid's movie should do, it plays on sentiment that children can understand. That often comes off as too cutesy or sentimental to the adult in the audience but too goddamn bad, the movie's made for your kid not you. But not anymore. Now they want to get the money of the teens and the twenty-somethings so they inject a little pseudo-adult dialogue into the mix, plenty of wry humor and the kid's movie more and more recedes into the history books. And the children suffer for it. Having four children who grew up with Pixar changing the landscape I can tell you that I have heard far more praise for Pixar movies from adults than I ever got from my kids.
The latest Pixar release was Up, the movie that started this whole post. I haven't been pleased with other Pixar releases but Up bothered me more than most. One of the things most discussed by those lavishing praise on it is the montage of our lead character and his wife as they go through their lives together leading up to her death, including the indication that they cannot have children. I found this montage not Dumbo-like in its sentimental heart-string tugging but entirely too self-aware of its importance as a set piece. And I then wondered why others didn't view it that way. Like the Ratatouille speech it should come with a title card explaining its true purpose is not exposition but wowing the critics to help hype the movie. It's not a bad way to provide exposition, in fact it's a very good way to do so, but the movie makes too much of it, takes too long with it so enamored is it of itself. Imagine the breakfast table montage in Citizen Kane, showing the deterioration of Kane's marriage, stretched out to ten minutes. Where's the restraint anymore?
But it's the actual story that bothered me most. Carl Fredericksen watches newsreels as a boy of a great adventurer, Charles Muntz, who, after going to Paradise Falls in South America, returns with the skeleton of a great exotic bird that the experts say is a fake, and that Muntz is a fraud. Muntz vows to go back to Paradise Falls and not return until he has a live bird to prove it. Carl meets Ellie, another Muntz admirer, and the two promise to go to Paradise Falls together one day but never do. They spend their lives together until her death when Carl is left alone. At which point he decides to fulfill Ellie's wishes and go to Paradise Falls.
NOPE! I just made that last sentence up! That's not what happens. What happens is that Carl has run afoul of developers who want to buy his house for urban development. The construction people are very nice to him and always friendly. He does not at any point in the movie seem to notice this. Instead, when one of them accidentally hits and then tries to fix his mailbox, a mailbox that he and Ellie made, he is attacked by Carl who whacks him with his walker, cutting open his forehead. After
this Carl is prosecuted and ordered to sell his house so that he can be put into nursing home care, which seems like a real stretch but we go with it because that's what the movie says. Truth is, when one person blocks major urban development cities invoke the right of Eminent Domain and simply buy the person out whether that person wants it or not. But again, the movie goes with the judgment against Carl as their story route so we go with it. And then on the day he is to be taken away, Carl (who has somehow attached thousands of balloons to his house without being noticed - he sold balloons at the zoo his adult life) releases the balloons and, supported by strings, they lift the house off its foundation and he's on his way to Paradise Falls. NOT because of Ellie, rather to evade the court-ordered judgment. The message for kids being, I suppose, that if you ever break the law and the courts pass down a judgment you should flee before it can be carried out.Now that he is traveling to Paradise Falls we realize he has a charming kid in tow to be his humorous sidekick throughout. All kid's movies have to have a sidekick and Russell, the kid, suffices well enough. Then they arrive at Paradise Falls and come across dogs with special collars that allow them to speak. Whimsy overload warning! They also come across that magical bird, drawn to Russell's chocolate. And then, lo and behold, they come across Charles Muntz, still there, still holding to his promise to not return until he had a live specimen. And for his troubles the movie promptly makes him the villain. That's right. The old guy, Carl, who never did what he promised Ellie until he had to escape prosecution is the hero. The old guy, Muntz, who stuck by his word for all these years is the bad guy. To writer Thomas McCarthy and writer-directors Bob Peterson and Pete Docter, may I just offer up a healthy and hearty "fuck you!"
And it gets worse. They turn Muntz into a homicidal maniac because... well, I don't know why quite honestly. For whatever reason this noble adventurer now kills people who come to Paradise Falls. Was he killing people before if he thought they were stealing his glory? I don't know but he sure does now. And how did he make the talking-dog-collars? Couldn't he sell that, make billions (hell trillions - can you imagine if people could buy a collar and then actually hold a conversation with their dog!) and then fund a MASSIVE expedition to prove he was right? Anyway, he doesn't. He just hangs out and kills people and here's the worst sin: He wants to... oh my God... it's so horrible I dare not type it.
I'll try again.
He wants to... no, no I can't, it's too horrifying.
Okay, one last try.
He wants to... take the bird back alive.
Wait, what?
Yes, he wants to take it back alive. Not kill it or harm it in any way. Just take it back alive, like all those animals in the zoo Carl worked at that, apparently, Carl never had a problem with. There, I said it. That's what he wants to do. He wants to have something to show for seventy years of searching. And this, we are told explicitly by the actions of the movie, is an unforgivable evil. And he must die. And he does die. And we are made to feel happy that this evil man is now dead. And I don't care if I just spoiled it for you. Maybe now you won't put any money into this movie's pocket.
I know this movie received top flight reviews from some of the best out there. I know many of my most trusted comrades online liked it, hell, loved it. I am, of course, immeasurably disappointed by this but what can I do? Sometimes people just see things differently and I see Pixar in a vastly different light than do most others. Hopefully though, I have provided some evidence as to why. And so I find myself depressed that Up not only received nomination in the "Best Animated" category, and has the support of so many, but also in the "Best Picture" category, giving it a distinction that I sincerely and profoundly do not believe it deserves. And frankly, that just gets my ire... up.
78 comments:
Up looks like The Red Balloon compared to District 9.
I liked RATATOUILLE because it was about a rat who wanted to be a chef. I also liked that speech, and, Greg, I think you take people's enjoyment of that speech far more seriously than they do.
Flickhead, I'm seeing District 9 soon. I'll let you know how I feel.
Bill - Dennis quoted that speech in one of his quizzes. I do not in any way take it more seriously than other people do. I do not take it seriously at all. That's the problem. People do take it seriously. People take its cliche to be meaningful. That's my problem. Pixar tries to be meaningful and grown-up but all they can muster is tired cliche and then everyone loves them for it.
And this is why I shouldn't have written this and usually bite my tongue. Because the response is always one of "oh come on, don't take it so seriously..." etc. Sorry, but because others take it so seriously I have to. If everyone just said, "It's okay for a kid's movie..." but they don't. PRECISELY because people take them seriously is the problem I have.
Just because Dennis used it for a quiz doesn't mean adults nation-wide were bowled over by its wisdom. I don't get how that's evidence.
I liked the speech. I thought it was a nice little sentiment to cap off the movie, which I very much enjoyed. I do believe that's how a lot of people took it.
Bill - it's not complete evidence no, I agree, just the first thing that came to mind so I mentioned it. I thought the speech came off as smug and pretentious. I realize the vast majority will disagree with me, including you and several other bloggers whose opinions I value. But we disagree. I find Pixar's sentiments smug, not sweet.
But what's smug about it? Critics tear shit down, and it's fun to write and fun to read, but maybe not always fair, and the real benefit of critics is the support they give to work that would otherwise be ignored. And great art can come from anywhere.
What's smug about that?
Smugness as in self-satisfaction. As in look how insightful we are. It is clear that you do not feel that way. I feel it rings completely false. The story should give us that without the critic giving it to us in voiceover. I felt the movie was trying to add a veneer of poetic sophistication to a movie that didn't warrant it. And I know you don't feel that way. So again, I'll say, we disagree on this.
I've voiced elsewhere that I think Pixar is better at branding "quality" than actually delivering it. That by now their movies are predestined for greatness indicates this, and to each his own, but their films invariably leave me cold.
Still, I'm not sure that an Oscar nomination is a mark of distinction. I'm almost sorry that "A Serious Man" and "Basterds" were nominated, as they may have been more distinguished by history if they weren't.
Craig, I tried to work that phrase better by saying "an air of distinction" to indicate not that it means quality but is in fact distinct in being the first movie nominated for both Best Animated Picture and Best Picture.
And let me say this: I realize I get annoyed with Pixar movies and their (TO ME) overly polished bullshit-infested movies. I also know many well-informed writers like Bill and Ed Howard like them. I'm just attempting to define in this piece why I don't like them as best I can.
OK, so you like Finding Nemo but not Up. Nemo is all about the father doing anything for his kid. As we all know, that is not reality, but lots of fathers who saw the movie got a good life lesson out of it that maybe they shouldn't spend all their time attending to their careers and their needs and make some room for their kids and the braindead female in their life. A worse kid-centered film I can't think of, but the fish were great marketing, so the kids at least got toys out of the bargain.
Up's adult messages in the beginningyou very correctly pointed out had nothing to do with kids and everything to do with adults who want to "up" the establishment. There are no life lessons in that for kids, just the adults. What it did accomplish was to tell a moving story about loneliness and its cure--again, make room for the next generation and stop spending all your time being a curmudgeonly old geezer who doesn't want to pay taxes to fund schools when you don't even have children or grandchildren.
Adults ARE self-centered, greedy dunces, and they didn't learn these lessons when they were young, so they better learn them now before the youngsters turn on them and take away their Medicare.
That said, I really enjoyed Up because it was visually stunning, I liked the scout character, the relationship they formed seemed real, and Paradise Falls was a cool place. Doug was not too twee by half either. My grandson still says "Squirrel" and freezes a year after seeing the film.
Greg, actually, I don't really like Pixar's movies much at all. I agree with pretty much everything you've said here, though I haven't seen Up. I think Pixar's movies, for the most part, are pretty much the worst of both worlds: they overload the cloying sentimentality for the kiddies, and also shoehorn in the SERIOUS THEMES so the adults can feel good about themselves. And I think the messages they have to send are very often confused and rather unpleasant. Your comments about the villain in Up resonate, for me, with the treatment of the villain in The Incredibles, who's viewed as first a nuisance and then a villain because, gasp, he wants to strive to be incredible like his heroes. And the heroes treat him like crap and mock him and, no surprise, he turns on them. And we're supposed to hate him and cheer on his death but really he's a very smart guy who was able to invent all sorts of great technology, but he's still viewed as inferior because he doesn't have the innate talent of the superpowered characters. It's a polemic for genetics over self-improvement.
There are things I like about almost all of the studio's films, and they're certainly decent enough if you just judge them by the standards of kids' movies, but I've never thought they deserved the near-universal critical acclaim they always get. My conversation with Jason about Pixar goes over a lot of this territory.
Whoa. Sounds like you've been wanting to vent about Ratatouille for a long time. Glad you've now let it all out of the bottle. And Up being the new "Z"? I admit, there's a ring to that, but why go back so far? Wasn't "Life Is Beautiful" also nominated for Best Picture and Best Foriegn language film?
I actually like District 9 as a modern take on an old B-grade sci-fi flick and it's hella more interesting to me than Avatar (which I've never seen and don't want to) so I was surprised to see it got nominated. I never considered it to be an Oscar contender. Of course if Inglourious Basterds or The Hurt Locker were made by Jess Franco in the '60s the Academy would have ignored them. Haven't seen any of the other nominations but An Education and A Serious Man are on my constantly growing "must see" list.
As for Pixar flicks... blah. We've had this discussion before. Found both Ratatouille and Wall-E to be cute movies and smarter than most modern kid flicks but easily forgotten. But I do know a lot of people who think they're flat out masterpieces. If I had kids I might - and I stress MIGHT - feel differently. But I suspect that if I had kids I'd be forcing them to watch all the stuff I grew up with and they'd be stuck watching old movies like The Wizard of Oz, The Little Prince, pre-80s Disney, etc. and the other kids at school would laugh at them for being so out of touch and unhip.
Marilyn, I feel you are insulting me as a father and I am a little offended. I just want to say that up front.
Second, I said I liked some of Pixar's movies and that was one. I didn't say I loved it and we are after all talking about Pixar so there's more than a little chance I am only throwing that in to smooth things over a bit. Truth is I don't return to Finding Nemo anymore than I do any animated movie, simply that it didn't offend me like others have. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with making a movie about a father who cares about his child. I care about my children. Do you not believe that? Do you not think it possible for me to care about my children? Would you be offended if someone made a movie about me caring for my children because I am a man and apparently men don't do that?
I stand by my assessment of Up as stated in my post. Taken with Ed Howard's assessment of The Incredibles I think one gets a good idea of what bothers me with Pixar movies.
Ed, your analysis of The Incredibles is dead on and that always bothered me about that movie too but aside from a mention of Ratatouille I wanted to keep the conversation confined to UP.
Sorry I missed the conversation. I knew it was posted but honestly, and I swear I don't know where I got this impression, I thought both you and Jason were huge fans of Pixar and so I avoided it not wanted to read another love-fest of how brilliant they are. Geez, sorry I was so off-base. I have no idea where I got the impression you were a big fan.
Anyway, with UP and THE INCREDIBLES there is that uneasy feeling of mixing up the message as we both stated. I AM A PARENT (just wanted to make sure we all know that) and it's confusing explaining to your child why staying true to your goals for seventy years makes you the bad guy.
Tom, I immediately thought of LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL too but like you said, Z just had a better ring to it. I've brought up my problems with Pixar before, on another defunct blog, but the conversation got too heated and so I try to avoid it now. I failed in avoiding it here.
Of course if Inglourious Basterds or The Hurt Locker were made by Jess Franco in the '60s the Academy would have ignored them.
Kimberly, I think that's so very true. I'm glad both were nominated, I just wish INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS stood a better chance.
I think if you had kids you'd do the same as me and many other cinephile parents I know do: You'd have them watch older movies with you. Oh they still see the new stuff on cable, at a friends house, when you take them out to the movies, and that's important because they need to have movies from their childhood to remember as well. But ours are well-versed in the classics as well, especially the youngest. This year she was finally introduced to Hammer films and loved every one.
Kimberly - An Education is highly overrated. I'm not a fan of A Serious Man, but I'm in the minority on that.
Greg - I did not mean to offend you, but I guess that's what blanket and flip statements do. I'll refrain in future.
My major point is that the films seem to be about dads and father figures more than they are about kids. Since kids films are supposed to teach us something (and you yourself point this out in your critique), what exactly are they teaching and to whom? Or if we are to get a lesson out to the kids, is it that dad will come through in the end? With so many broken families, that might be a reassuring message, though it doesn't seem to be aimed at daughters given the character make-up.
Indeed, Up riffs heavily on It's a Wonderful Life, which may have used Mr. Potter as its model for the scientist consumed with his own legacy ("Potterville" anyone?).
And I agree that a parent's choice of viewing material influences a child's. When my friends were raising their daughter, she got a lot of Buster Keaton and Chaplin because Dad was into silent films. Now that she's a teen, she's completely abandoned those choices.
My major point is that the films seem to be about dads and father figures more than they are about kids. Since kids films are supposed to teach us something (and you yourself point this out in your critique), what exactly are they teaching and to whom? Or if we are to get a lesson out to the kids, is it that dad will come through in the end? With so many broken families, that might be a reassuring message, though it doesn't seem to be aimed at daughters given the character make-up.
I agree with everything you say there. Personally, I saw Finding Nemo once, when it was released. If I saw it again now I'd probably feel about as good about it as you do or I do about the other Pixar films.
Finding Nemo was my first experience of a kids film that didn't have a kid at its center. As a former kid, I felt very affronted by it and it is still my least-favorite Pixar film.
My son and daughter were 8 and 2 at the time and they both loved it so I was a little biased towards enjoying it with them I think. I watched RATATOUILLE and WALL-E with the youngest as well, the son being too old at that point, and didn't have as much of that feeling. Neither went over very well with either of us.
I enjoyed WALL-E as a love story. WALL-E was a very charming fellow, particularly his fondness for musical theatre. That film had a very Lady and the Tramp feel for me.
I enjoyed WALL-E as a love story.
I admit to liking that part of WALL-E more than anything else in the movie. I have no active dislike for the movie outside of the bad science but it's a movie and when have the movies ever given us good science? Still, I didn't like it very much either and a part of it is, admittedly, a nails on the blackboard sensation I get from anthropomorphism in these things.
I would like to see a serious, live-action movie of a robot cleaning up a deserted Earth and a wandering civilization grappling with what it wrought. And that's what Pixar does here, for me. They introduce themes and motifs that whet my appetite for something that they don't have the depth to deliver.
Wow! This is one hell of a rant! I only agree with about 50 percent of it, but nice job!
I'll try to be brief and yet cover a lot of ground ...
* Ed is far more critical of Pixar as a whole than I am, but our conversation piece shows we have similar criticisms. So do check it out.
* You've kind of use a strawman in your arguments, because I adore Ratatouille and, honestly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Anton Ego speech at the end. If anything, it's in spite of it. Again, I know you're ranting and speaking from your "I just don't get it" corner. Then again, it's risky to start assuming everyone's taking to these films for the same reason. I know you know this. Just saying.
* Others have suggested this in the comments, but the movie this year that has been said to be about far more than it's actually about -- that has been given way too much credit for cleverness and depth -- is District 9.
* My biggest beef in your piece is with this passage ...
Like the Ratatouille speech it should come with a title card explaining its true purpose is not exposition but wowing the critics to help hype the movie. It's not a bad way to provide exposition, in fact it's a very good way to do so, but the movie makes too much of it, takes too long with it so enamored is it of itself.
The thing is, you could use the same argument to negate every single extravagant long-take in films from Touch of Evil to GoodFellas to Rope to whatever else. Directors often make decisions in the effort to get some kind of "wow" recognition beyond the simple illumination of a film's themes. So if the montage scene makes Pixar a sinner, there ain't many saints. And frankly I'm not so sure I want to watch the saints' films. Sinners are more interesting.
* I was touched by the montage of Up but I was underwhelmed overall, in large part because of the cluttered character motivations you so perfectly slice and dice. There are a lot of moments that work as self-contained set pieces, like the montage, but other than that it's a sloppy mishmash. Truth is, the thing I liked most about it was the dog (Doug?) and his verbal articulation of dog thoughts. That's as deep as Up got for me.
* Now, even though I might have just made the same mistake a bit ago in regard to District 9 this last comment is for everyone ...
Not to pick on Marilyn, but I cringed when I read this: An Education is highly overrated.
I didn't cringe just because I think it's one of the best films in a mostly lame year (because though it's in my top 10 this year, in other years it would barely make my top 25). I cringed because I hate to see intelligent and passionate movie fans that gather here and other places perpetuate the backlash takedown that's way too prevalent on the blogosphere.
Now that there's a new batch of Oscar nominees, it's so tempting to rant about what's overrated. But let's remember: a film's success or praise is not the fault of the film. I can't stand Precious but I don't loath it because some people think it's terrific, and so I'm not going to let its nomination increase my dislike of the film. Because the nomination, the praise, the hype, doesn't change the film.
This is my soapbox speech to fellow bloggers to avoid being part of the backlash wave. Let's compliment and criticize films on their own merits and not based on all the bogus Hollywood hype. I won't pretend I'll be perfect in this regard, so I'm talking to myself here, too.
Jason, thank you for the comment. First let me say that I have edited out one part of the post, a sentence in the hypothetical title card for Ratatouille that upon sober reflection was probably a little too mean.
Now, to your points. Yes, this is a rant but one that I've had bottled up inside me and needed to release. When I was watching the nominations this morning and saw UP get a nomination for Best Animation I thought, "Fine, that's expected." Then it got a nom for Best Picture too and well, I went a little crazy.
* You've kind of use a strawman in your arguments, because I adore Ratatouille and, honestly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Anton Ego speech at the end.
But I am not saying that alone is the reason people like it, so for me it isn't a straw man argument. It is simply that that speech kept getting quoted like it was a profound piece of wisdom and it bugged me. If I had to state what really bugged me about the movie it would be the insipid lead character idiot teen guy. I hated him and continue to hate children's movies that assume our children are culturally illiterate and could not handle a lead character who speaks with anything but a modern American accent. The French accents are acceptable for the caricatured characters on the periphery but not the leads. They must have the same boring American accents that every animated character has no matter what country. I mean, if the story takes place in America then obviously it's fitting. But why not make him a French citizen with a French accent if it takes place in Paris?
The thing is, you could use the same argument to negate every single extravagant long-take in films from Touch of Evil to GoodFellas to Rope to whatever else.
Yes, you're absolutely right. I could, in general, do that. But I'm taking it on a case by case basis. I agree that directors often do and should provide set pieces in their films, my complaint here is that it's too elaborately done to be emotionally effective. I think I get bothered when I can tell a movie is going to great lengths to make me feel moved.
I cringed because I hate to see intelligent and passionate movie fans that gather here and other places perpetuate the backlash takedown that's way too prevalent on the blogosphere...
I'm a little confused here. Is there a great backlash against An Education? And Marilyn is just expressing her thoughts on it without getting mean or anything that I can see so please elaborate on that part.
Oh my. You and I seem to be so on the same page with respect to Pixar that it's not even funny (actually, it's really funny, as the whole schtick about the title card in Ratatouille cracked me up). What I think bothers me most about Pixar is the way that Pixar has become synonymous with animation in most people's eyes in the same way Disney did. The key difference, though, is that what defines Walt Disney's shorts and early features is non-stop experimentation, something that I don't think you could say of Pixar even when on their best day (yes, of course they are computer animation pioneers, but the technology was essentially given to the studio by George Lucas).
Before the Disney acquisition they made mostly enjoyable if throwaway junk (sans Toy Story, which I think is legitimately special, though I have trouble deciding if my fondness for that movie stems strictly from the fact that I saw it when I was 6), but everything from Cars and on has been pretty terrible, and I think Up is far and away the worst. I don't want to come off as condescending, but I find the praise for that movie and its subsequent nomination completely and utterly baffling. I'm usually confused by the love for Pixar but I can at least see why people admire Ratatouille and Wall-E, I admire elements of them as well, even if I think both movies are fatally flawed.
You bring up a great point about how Up more or less destroys any integrity it may have had by adhering to formulaic plot beats. Stephen from the blog Checking On My Sausages summed it up perfectly in a piece for The House, I thought:
"When the balloons rose majestically to free Carl’s house from its foundations in Up, I couldn’t wait to see what bewitching sights from our world I would be treated to. I expected an exciting and profound journey both outward and inward. Instead, I got a big bird and talking dogs. This is bankruptcy of imagination."
Kinda harsh but to the point nonetheless. And Pixar did the same damn thing in Wall-E; that is, pretending to offer us something profound but reverting to standard formula. People compared the first act of Wall-E to the likes of 2001 and City Lights, and while I don't think that's anywhere near accurate, at least it wasn't the banal, hateful mess of a movie that followed. And what's interesting to me is that many of the people who admire Wall-E that I've spoken to act like you have to judge the first act apart from the rest of the movie. That's ridiculous, it's one movie! And anything Wall-E had going for it was shattered with that second half; even if you were to ignore the heavy handed, mean spirited portrayal of humans, the movie becomes completely formulaic. It's just beeping robots crashing into each other in long corridors; more or less a rehash of the Robin Williams animated vehicle Robots.
Sorry for the rant but I just wanted you to know: I hear you, brother.
Damn Ryan, you're right, we do agree on Pixar because I agree with everything you say there. Like I said, for this piece I concentrated on UP but your takes on WALL-E are my own.
When you write this:
Pixar did the same damn thing in Wall-E; that is, pretending to offer us something profound but reverting to standard formula.
I think of this that I wrote in a previous comment up the thread:
They introduce themes and motifs that whet my appetite for something that they don't have the depth to deliver.
Seriously, that is Pixar for me. They paint themselves into a corner with a big idea that fizzles into a cacaphony of noisy antics. I am in complete agreement on WALL-E's climax. Too much noise, commotion and slapstick unbefitting of what came before and that's important because it is one movie, not two.
But you also make a good point about the innovation. Aside from the technical innovation, the dramatic innovation seems to be set up a moving emotional story and then turn the last half into a loud extended chase. That's not innovation, that's lack of imagination. And the fact that they have different writers and directors but have the same flaws indicate that Pixar has a template that their writers and directors must adhere to. If so, Pixar, change the template.
Thanks Ryan, I appreciate the comment.
I'm a little confused here. Is there a great backlash against An Education? And Marilyn is just expressing her thoughts on it without getting mean or anything that I can see so please elaborate on that part.
No, there's not a great backlash against An Education. Not yet. But there wasn't a particularly strong backlast against, say, American Beauty until it won Best Picture. Or throw in the backlash against Juno or whatever.
Criticizing any film is fair. Marilyn above is certainly not "getting mean." Honestly, it's not a shot at Marilyn. But it seems to me that more and more a film is better off avoiding a nomination rather than getting one, avoiding an Oscar rather than winning it. To win, to be recognized, is just to become fodder in the 'overrated' debate.
I'm saying that I think the bloggers that follow your blog and mine and others in the neighborhood should do our best to make debates about the worth, or not, of the films themselves, and spend less attention to the hype and recognition given to them, which, again isn't the fault of the film. If we're going to debate a film, let's make it be about specific ideas, yours against mine. Let's make it be about whether films are great or not, and not whether the film is as good as its hype or not.
Marilyn's comment simply reminded me of the statements we're going to read a lot of in the weeks and months and years ahead, that's all. And I implicate myself as doing the same thing. (And I'm sure I'll do it again in the future.) I'm not trying to pretend that saying a film (or performance, whatever) is "overrated" never has a place or that it can't be done with tact. (I recognize that Marilyn's comment is more or less a throwaway, not the core of a debate, so I admit it's a strange thing to trigger my little soapbox moment.) I'm simply suggesting that all too often when we get into what's overrated it becomes a debate on the response to a film and the attention it received rather than a debate on the film itself.
But maybe I'm alone in thinking that's a developing trend or that it lessons the dialogue around film. To be clear, I certainly meant no offense by it. Wasn't picking a fight. Just hoping that the extended blogging community that includes Cinema Styles can be part of the solution in this regard. But, again, maybe others don't think anything is broken. Hope that clears up my intentions.
Ugh. That would be "lessens." Sorry.
The only people who hated UP more than me were my kids. My 6 year old son thought it "sucked" and my (now) 5 year old daughter thought it was "depressing." Let's see, they introduce to a couple in the first five minutes, the couple find out the wife who can't have kids, the wife dies, the old man gets bitter and obnoxious, the little boy has a father who doesn't love him, his parents are divorced and his dad's new girlfriend doesn't want him around, the old man's hero is a psychopath, the dogs are either stereotypically stupid or vicious...and I can go on but I won't. I went into UP expecting to take my family to see a fun movie that we could laugh about and instead were met with a ponderous, depressing story that hit us over the head with its leaden message. Yes, there is nothing like having to explain to your young children about topics like divorce, infertility and death b/c some f-in cartoon that takes itself too seriously decided to take a shot at the Oscars and win over the mainstream critics. But I guess Pixar figures that since it's a cartoon, they can get away with this shit. The only way UP could have been worse is if it had one of those annoying, old farty Randy Newman scores. If you want to see a movie called UP that is worth sitting through, go see the one directed by Russ Meyers. But, leave the kids at home, ok? And the next time I want to see cartoons, I think I'll stick to re-runs of Bugs Bunny and Pink Panther on Boomerang.
One more thing. I actually like Z, but found the book more enjoyable.
Greg, I didn't like UP at all. I thought it was all too calculated, and the second half made no sense to me, either. I've been baffled for months by its reception. As Pixar movies go, the only one I feel a total fondness for is CARS. It's a nostalgic movie made from Lasseter's heart, and with a fondness for cinema.
My remark about An Education has nothing to do with backlash or the Oscars, which I pay next to no attention to. I sincerely did not care for the film. The more I see of Peter Sarsgaard, the less I like him. He creates no intrigue; he's a very tepid character that I have a hard time believing a smart girl would go this ga ga over. You get a much better look at this type of relationship in The Girl with Green Eyes with Peter Finch in something like Sarsgaard's role.
It looks like all the anti-Pixar people have gathered here in these hallowed halls to vent. Well, I don't want to spoil the party, but
1.) WALL-E was my #1 film of 2008.
2.) UP was my #4 movie of 2009.
RATATOUILLE managed my ten best list, and I though well of FINDING NEMO, A BUG'S LIFE and THE INCREDIBLES. This is yet another rather perplexing situation where the professional critical establishment sings to the tune of about 96% and the bloggers rallying (Marilyn excluded of course) with some major issues.
The scrapbook scene near the beginning of UP, was one of the year's greatest segments in any film, as it poignantly (with the aid of Michael Giacchino's beautiful score) envisions the life cycle.
I say Bah Humbug to all this, and to the fine gentleman who made the comparison with his kids, I'll only say that my wife and five kids loved the film exceedingly, just about as much as I loved it.
Jason, I understand much better what you're saying now, thank you.
If we're going to debate a film, let's make it be about specific ideas, yours against mine. Let's make it be about whether films are great or not, and not whether the film is as good as its hype or not.
I certainly agree. I endeavor to back up my opinion with examples of why I feel the way I do so it's not reduced to "this movies stinks" or "this movie's great." In the comment section of a blog sometimes, sure. But in a review proper, no.
On Facebook Farran Smith Nehme said it's easier to come out against a popular movie than defend an unhip one, like Crash (her example) or American Beauty. It may be but the uneasy implication there is that it's easier to bash something just because it's popular and I don't feel that I or Ed or Ryan or Fred or Larry are doing that. We just didn't like the film, would like to explain why and shouldn't be stifled from doing so just because the film happens to be popular. As a point of clarification, you didn't claim any of this I'm just elaborating on your original topic of backlash.
Fred, I know how it can be taking the kids out for a movie and being disappointed. We watched this one on DVD so at least seventy dollars wasn't dropped for some tickets and popcorn.
I really hated that the explorer Muntz was turned into a psychopath. It sounds kiddie to say but I think the movie would have worked much better had Muntz excitedly worked with Carl and Fred, maybe had a change of heart in the end saying he didn't need the proof after all now that they believed in him. Now that's how it would have ended WERE IT MADE FOR CHILDREN. But it's not. It's mainly for adults, they just don't say it outright in the marketing. Okay, that's fine too. Problem is it's too shallow to work out its story with any depth for an adult. And so we're left with the usual ill-fitting Pixar kid/adult/drama/comedy mix.
As Pixar movies go, the only one I feel a total fondness for is CARS. It's a nostalgic movie made from Lasseter's heart, and with a fondness for cinema.
That's the one Pixar film I still haven't seen. When it came out I kept thinking of that old cartoon from the forties about the Taxicab whose son wants to be a racecar. I wonder if that's the nostalgia you're talking about.
My remark about An Education has nothing to do with backlash or the Oscars, which I pay next to no attention to.
Marilyn, I didn't think you were engaging in any kind of backlash either and Jason has now cleared that up for me.
I haven't seen it yet and will probably see it on DVD. I have seen six of the ten though, which is pretty good for me. Usually it's around 0 to 20 percent, never 60.
This is yet another rather perplexing situation where the professional critical establishment sings to the tune of about 96% and the bloggers rallying (Marilyn excluded of course) with some major issues.
But what does that say? I have often wondered myself. Back in the day the cinephiles found their voice in print, from Farber to Sarris to Kael. By the seventies reviewers were needed as more and more papers got their own critics and by the nineties the pattern was pretty set. Journalism majors, not cinephiles, made up and currently make up the vast majority of film reviewers in print. The cinephiles? The folks who love film, understand it in their bones and have studied it all their lives? They're online, blogging. That's why I don't pay much attention to aggregates of what the critics are saying because most of them, in my opinion, don't know what in the hell they're talking about in the first place.
I pay attention to individual reviews. So someone like Marilyn would give it a good review and Ed Howard a bad one. Then I can get down to the bare bones of it and find out what's really going on, like we're doing here.
I'm glad you liked it Sam. I'm here to voice my disgruntlement with it, but any voice in support is also completely welcome.
The card playing dogs made me laugh. But the far better and funnier film is the original One Hundred and One Dalmations.
tdraicer:
Well Up and Wall-E are the only two Pixar movies I really liked (okay, the two Toy Stories were okay) and your post didn't change my mind about either of them, but then nothing works for everyone. (I should add my favorite part of Wall-E is the attached short on the dvd which fills in the story of a minor robot character in the film proper.)
I don't feel that I or Ed or Ryan or Fred or Larry are doing that. We just didn't like the film, would like to explain why and shouldn't be stifled from doing so just because the film happens to be popular.
Absolutely! And I do realize, as you imply, that often the overwhelming reaction to something (positive or negative) can be a great conversation starter (or an accidental conversation starter).
In no way was Marilyn's comment itself "backlash," it just triggered my, um, er, backlash backlash, if you will.
The card playing dogs made me laugh...
Me too, in fact, there were several parts that made me laugh. I was disappointed and bothered by many of the story elements as I outlined here but certainly found many parts funny as well.
tdraicer, I think I like Toy Story the best of Pixar's efforts but can no longer watch it due to a major overload back in the early 2000's when my younger kids watched it again and again and again and again and again and... well, you get the idea. Same with Lord of the Rings. They youngest son loved them and I saw all three in the theaters three times each, including special showings of extended editions. It will be years before I can watch those again.
Jason, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just making a point. Although, after making the point I admit that sometimes I do suspect certain writers in print do take down films for readership numbers.
I know, Greg. We're cool.
It's been a good passionate discussion here.
Sam, I'm glad your family enjoyed UP more than mine. I guess that's what makes this whole shooting match. For the record, I'm not a knee-jerk anti-Pixar, as I enjoyed Ratatouille, Cars and The Incredibles. Those three still retained a child's sense of fun.
As for my family and UP, we much preferred Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D. It was stoopid fun, but my kids left with a laugh, shouting "Hail Galaxar"! With UP, all we got was an extra set of 3-D glasses.
I like a good rant, but it's got to have some substance or thought behind it. And you provided plenty Greg. Even if I disagree with a lot of it, you made me think about the Pixar films that I do indeed love and wonder if I'm forgiving the flaws because something else about the film has tweaked with me so well. So even if it sounds like I'm saying you're wrong below, I appreciate your take on the film.
I thought UP was great. If my 9 year old and his friend weren't totally engaged in that first montage section of the film, they settled in after that and laughed with the characters and were excited by the adventure. I didn't love that opening as much as some, but I still thought it was very well done. Pixar may not be stretching animation by applying experimental techniques (or even with as much creativity as, say, Miyazaki), but I think they avoid some of the more obvious storytelling methods - that opening montage is done with little dialogue and sets the stage for the rest of the film. I think most kids figured out the basics of why Carl was the way he was from it.
Could UP have been a different and maybe even better film? Just like WALL-E could have been different and better if it had stayed the same as it's first 20-30 minutes? Perhaps (and I'll even lean towards "likely"), but I still love what we got.
I know you were ranting there Greg, but I think you were stretching things by having issues with the lack of Eminent Domain or how Carl got all those balloons attached. Not just because it's an animated film, but because a film can set up its own rules. As long as it then remains consistent within them, then I'm OK with that.
As for Carl, yeah, he's not a nice guy early on. He hurts that construction worker with no remorse and he's always grumpy. And he flies away for the wrong reasons. But don't you think he then changes? Realizes that he has been wasting his life by being that grumpy old man? Realizes that life is a series of little adventures and that you should enjoy them while you can?
I do somewhat agree with you about Muntz though...I did wish that he didn't have to be the totally evil guy. I think he could have joined their adventure somehow and we could still have had the exciting dodging of rocks in the balloon without him chasing them. However, I do disagree with your point about him being the "old guy who stuck by his word for all these years" and then ends up being the bad guy. He's not bad because he stuck to his word and continues to chase the bird. He's "bad" because he's killed people and has become obsessed with proving he is the great explorer. I kinda wish they didn't dispatch him like they did in the end, but he had certainly become something different than what he started out as (I think this goes for how Buddy Pine - an annoying kid who gets in the way and created danger for others - becomes Syndrome - a vicious, ruthless killer out to exact vengeance for the personal slight of not being recognized as the supreme super hero).
Also, I always hear how modern day kids films are too afraid to treat kids as if they are smart and that they sidestep certain issues, but now it's an issue because we have to explain certain adult topics to them because UP raised them?
And I don't quite understand the issues with Finding Nemo. Half of the story is actually dedicated to the kid (Nemo) and his own struggle to escape the fish tank. So in the end, it says that you can be brave and fend for yourself AND that your parent will move mountains to help you too. I may also be biased towards Nemo as it has that scene towards the end when the Dad scoops up his injured son and imagines him as that little cracked egg - for me, a great depiction of how parents see their children.
Thanks for an interesting post Greg...
I know you were ranting there Greg, but I think you were stretching things by having issues with the lack of Eminent Domain or how Carl got all those balloons attached. Not just because it's an animated film, but because a film can set up its own rules. As long as it then remains consistent within them, then I'm OK with that...
Here's a problem I have with Pixar and, although he hasn't shown up, I know Rick Olson has the same problems with them. Namely this: They create a universe very much established in the real world and then play fast and loose with the rules of this real world they've created. In other words, in a Looney Tunes cartoon a dog would just talk and we'd accept it as being in a cartoon universe. In UP the universe is the one we inhabit, so dogs do not talk and require scientific technology to enable this to happen. All of this, along with the opening montage, the construction dispute, etc clearly and firmly establishes the universe of UP to take place in the real world, not a Looney Tunes cartoon world. Because of this, suddenly having a house torn from it's foundations by a few thousand helium balloons seems incongrous to the environment created. It's this kind of fan forgiveness of such blatant ineptitude that bothers me. I think Pixar is given a pass more often than not for dropping the ball in being consistent with its own rules of the story.
Do a search on WALL-E and Coosa Creek Cinema to find Rick's review where he confirms that the universe established is the cold, hard reality of this one and then they play fast and loose with evolution like it's a Looney Tunes environment. Fellas, go with one or the other, not both. It's sloppy.
He's not bad because he stuck to his word and continues to chase the bird. He's "bad" because he's killed people and has become obsessed with proving he is the great explorer...
But why? That's my problem. I realize he's bad for being a murderer but why did they take a character who had the fortitude to stick to his word and continue his search and turn him into a murderer?! Why did they so callously make him a villain? That really bothers me.
Also, I always hear how modern day kids films are too afraid to treat kids as if they are smart and that they sidestep certain issues, but now it's an issue because we have to explain certain adult topics to them because UP raised them?
I don't think that's an issue, no. What I'm talking about is explaining why the hero of Carl becomes a psychopath because I don't think it makes sense.
Now, to the positive. Yes, I do believe Carl changes and I do like the metaphors and how they are visualized, which is why they didn't enter into the rant. Frankly I think the idea of Carl literally throwing his past out to save Russell and the bird is a wonderful illustration of learning how to move on and live in the present. The movie was not without its charms, but for me, the negatives far outweighed the positives.
I like Ratatouille a great deal, mostly out of appreciation for it as a well-made film. Its formulaic chase scene is a little bit more creative and exciting than usual, and its Paris setting is (perhaps stereotypically) romantic, and conducive to far less numbing cacophony than that of WALL-E or The Incredibles or Up.
I really don't understand what's supposed to be special about the now-legendary montage in Up. All it does is compress a life-long relationship into 10 minutes. In what way is that a more impressive achievement than charting the entire course of a marriage over a 2 hour movie, or, hell, a 100-hour television series? Why did they bother giving so much time over to something that only serves the narrative with great reluctance?
Perhaps I'm simply not a nostalgic person, and the fact that the entire emotional structure of the picture is built upon a series of arbitrary symbols of nostalgia leaves me cold. But what I mean when I say the montage only serves the narrative with great reluctance is that the thing seems to trivialize the marriage rather than celebrating it. I'm only a few years into a potentially life-long relationship and it already already seems to me that the beauty of the whole thing lies in the anticipation of small details rather than the retrospective construction of grand narratives. Are people just giving it so much credit because they consider it an audacious sort of thing to include in a "kid's movie"?
Thank you so much for this write-up, Greg. I have written slightly different objections on Up, as well as a full-length explanation of why I did not like WALL·E. I hate how Pixar has now become ensconced in its own aura of greatness, and especially because of those two recent features, and it hurts me even more because I profess a love for some of Pixar's earlier works.
I really don't understand what's supposed to be special about the now-legendary montage in Up... Why did they bother giving so much time over to something that only serves the narrative with great reluctance?
Well said. I viewed it as simple exposition while others viewed it as a masterstroke. I thought the childless section at the doctor's office (whether by miscarriage or infertility, I wasn't sure which) was unnecessary. The plot of the film and the emotional arc built around Carl has to do with fulfilling Ellie's wishes and finally taking that journey they said they were going to take. None of the story or emotional arc hinges on them having or not having kids so I felt that part was cheap, exploitative sentiment. And a lot of people fell for it.
Also, just as a minor point, having lived a life before kids and now with kids I can tell you this: I have no idea why two people without any familial responsibilities would have trouble putting aside a week or two one year and taking a vacation to Paradise Falls. I can understand once you have kids - everything changes. But without kids, geez, I pretty much did whatever the hell I wanted. So I think it actually would've worked better if they had had kids. Then Carl could be even more of a bastard at the start, maybe even blaming his now adult son or daughter for ruining his dreams.
Oh, and by the way, to answer this question about the montage:
Are people just giving it so much credit because they consider it an audacious sort of thing to include in a "kid's movie"?
Yes.
I hate how Pixar has now become ensconced in its own aura of greatness, and especially because of those two recent features, and it hurts me even more because I profess a love for some of Pixar's earlier works.
Colin, me too, as I said earlier about the TOY STORY movies. In fact, I saw those movies as a real breath of fresh air when they started.
I look forward to reading your pieces too but right now it's late here and I've got to get to bed but they'll be my morning reading. Thanks.
I'll grant you that the balloons being attached to the house is a wee bit of a stretch given what we had seen up to that point, but it just didn't take me out of the movie. Am I giving Pixar some slack here? I don't know - I don't think I'm doing it purposely BECAUSE they are Pixar, but simply because the movie had me engaged already. There were also smaller details that were already a bit outside the "norm" - that balloon flying into young Carl's window and stopping at his bed, the way Carl's house was right in the middle of that construction site, the men in black suits...So I bought it.
Back to Muntz...I see him as only being in it for the glory (even from the start) and that leads to the obsession.
"I'm only a few years into a potentially life-long relationship and it already already seems to me that the beauty of the whole thing lies in the anticipation of small details rather than the retrospective construction of grand narratives."
But isn't that where the film ends up? It's what Carl realizes he had and what he then begins anew - the adventure of life is the many small moments.
Am I giving Pixar some slack here? I don't know - I don't think I'm doing it purposely BECAUSE they are Pixar, but simply because the movie had me engaged already.
Bob, I don't think you're doing it because they're Pixar, or anybody is for that matter. I would say it's because of what you and others say, that they find enough good things to overlook certain not so good things. I wrote a whole piece on this subject a couple of years ago. All movies have flaws. In fact, in the piece I start with Citizen Kane itself, talking about how no one, but no one, could have possibly heard Kane say "Rosebud." It is made abundantly clear visually that no one is in the room with him until the nurse walks in AFTER he says "Rosebud." And the whole goddamn movie is built on the premise of searching for the meaning of that last word, that no one could have heard.
So yeah, I understand forgiving flaws in logic or design if the movie engages you. At the end of the day what we're left with is that it engages you (and Sam and Marilyn and countless others) and for others, myself included, it doesn't. I think we've both done a pretty good job of explaining why too, which is more than I ever could have asked for going into this.
Now you can come over to my place and read MY rant (as soon as I repost it; I took it down in a snit).
That doesn't sound good. Took it down? Well, rest assured, I already have the permalink to your rant on THE CHASER saved so I can read it in its original form. Should I wait for the repost?
It's back up. I got very angry with Rod, and decided that if his reaction were typical, I wouldn't be able to handle the backlash. Shane's in Seattle on a death vigil for his mom, and it's a hard time right now.
If I remember right, they do imply that Muntz killed (or at least imprisoned until death) other people who stumbled into Paradise Falls. I also think that Muntz as a crazy person comes about because he's spent 50 years alone with his dogs, never once coming into contact with his bird. At least that's what I picked up. He could have also been the bad guy because he had a bomber jacket and goggles.
Besides A Bug's Life, Cars, and Finding Nemo, I've liked practically all of Pixar's output. I should probably confess that I was 21, 20, 19, 16, 13, 11, and 7 when I saw them for the first time, so I'm probably not the best judge of such things, being a 20-something who, yeah, liked the speech at the end of Ratatouille and, yeah, loved the slap-sticky fat human bits in Wall-E and, ok, still loves The Incredibles even though the mean 'ol superheroes were essentially crushing my childhood dreams.
So, respectfully, I disagree.
Marilyn - I understand the feeling. This UP post has already been posted and linked elsewhere and I've visited a few of the sites and forums to read up on all the bashing I'm receiving. "Boy, that guy didn't get it at all did he?" "God, what a moron!" and so on. Funny, they don't do it here though because here I respect dissent and enjoy engaging in the discussion. My reasoning here isn't perfect, I understand that. Much of what I say here is gut reaction, a feeling I get when watching or thinking about UP that isn't good. And so you want to voice it and you do. And then you think, "But can I handle it when people start yelling at me?"
I'm sorry about Shane's mother but many people don't get the chance to say goodbye so I'm glad he at least has that. Shane will be in my thoughts Marilyn, and you too.
Paul, I liked A BUG'S LIFE too, I forgot to mention that one. I've seen it a few times thanks to my kids and always enjoy the endless variations on the SEVEN SAMURAI theme.
I know these comments are a lot to read through but we have discussed the Muntz character and I have no confusion that he has killed others or that he slowly went crazy. My problem is why? Why do that? Why make this character who Carl admires a crazed paranoid? Why not make him someone (who never killed anyone) who has a change of heart, like Carl, and realizes as long as people like Carl and Ellie believe in him he doesn't need to bring back proof? That's what I'm saying. I find the idea of turning him into a killer not confusing but a cheap shot and an all too easy way to wring a life or death chase scene out of the final fifteen minutes.
It's not that I don't understand that Carl was hanging on to Ellie through his house or that Muntz went crazy due to being alone - It's that I thought they went about it poorly. I'd much rather Carl decides to go to Paradise Falls on his own, without threat of eviction. Or Muntz becoming a paranoid killer.
Thank you for the comment Paul, and the disagreement. It's building up to a pretty even number on both sides and I've learned a lot more about the movie in the process.
Thanks, Greg.
There was an interesting question of the week for the Online Film Critics Society about whether we let our feelings about a filmmaker affect our judgment of his or her films - Mel Gibson's new film was the impetus for the question.
I think it's important to try to be objective, while realizing that there is no such thing as objectivity. Merely reviewing a film that sends a lot of horrible messages in a technical/historical is, to my mind, irresponsible when it comes to new output. I can't do anything about the way African Americans and women were portrayed in the 1930s, so the films become a snapshot of what attitudes prevailed at the time. Current films, however, not only reflect, but also shape attitudes. A really skilled filmmaker can disguise the agenda, too. I think it's important for film reviewers to be human, too, and to applaud or decry trends that help or hurt people, and that's what I do. If that's not "real" film reviewing, then so be it.
Current films, however, not only reflect, but also shape attitudes. A really skilled filmmaker can disguise the agenda, too.
That's very true. I don't know how many people would let a director's reputation affect what they thought of a film but I do believe it informs our attitudes going in. I may see a Ken Loach or Mel Gibson film and think it's great but going in I'll be on the lookout for, I don't know, veiled anti-semitism I suppose. Their reputations will influence how I view their films but I hope in the end it wouldn't affect my final judgment but I could never be sure since I would probably convince myself I wasnt' either way.
Greg you say:
They create a universe very much established in the real world and then play fast and loose with the rules of this real world they've created.
I don't see anything wrong with this. This flexible reality is why I love "The Simpsons" so much...there can be genuine moments within a 23 minute episode, but they can also go waaay out there with their B-story. But what keeps the show
"grounded" (and I think why it's so damn popular) is the ability for the creators to always bring it back to some kind of theme the audience can relate to...so no matter how far out there they go with this particular postmodern trope, in the universe they've created it will always snap back (Groening calls it "rubber band" reality on the DVD commentaries) to a more grounded conclusion.
That being said I agree a lot with what you say about Pixar movies. I avoided Up this year because of all the praise, not that's probably a "shame on me" kind of thing -- and speaks to what Jason was talking about with the hype of a film dictating people's pre-conceived notions of a film -- but I just couldn't bring myself to watch the movie. When I finally did watch Wall-E last year I thoroughly enjoyed its opening moments, but by the time the film's "message" kicked in I was done with the film. Why shouldn't Pixar be held accountable for the same kind of heavy-handedness that plagues bad movies like Crash. It's almost like people are afraid to attack the Pixar machine.
The funny thing (and to sound really pretentious) I don't think Brad Bird has made as good a film at Pixar as he did at Fox with The Iron Giant...that film was an unadulterated animated feature, there weren't any signs of the Pixar self-awareness that you speak of here.
Anyway. Great rant, Greg. I'm sure I have more to say but it's already been covered by this fantastic comment thread.
flexible reality is why I love "The Simpsons" so much...there can be genuine moments within a 23 minute episode, but they can also go waaay out there with their B-story.
Kevin, this is my fault. I didn't state it well enough. The Simpsons is to my mind a surrealistic satire if ever there was one. Characters breaking into song, self references to having three fingers and a thumb, the amount of toxins taken in by Homer over the years, it's all surreal and not specifically taking place in a real world environment. UP is. To illustrate it better, forget animation. Imagine instead it's On Golden Pond which is live action, real world and has the story of a grouchy old man and a young boy creating a bond. There's Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn and there's the lake. The kid shows up. They have their familiar dramatic scenes punctuated by moments of comedy. Same movie you know as On Golden Pond. Then, Fonda says, "Let's have a look at the lake from up high" as he reveals thousands of balloons and the house tears from its foundation supported only by strings in the chimney.
Now, that still isn't bad on its own and magical realism can be a... well, a magical thing when done right. I don't think UP fails completely in this area at all, I really don't and again the story and the characters are my real problems. But that hopefully illustrates better what I was talking about.
And I'm with you completely on The Iron Giant. I own that one on DVD. I think it's a terrific animated movie! It does have a few glaring historical flaws but otherwise it's great. The biggest/funniest flaw is the fact that Sputnik going up is a big part of the story right? That's made pretty damn clear. And we all know Sputnik was the first satellite ever. Ever. And yet early in the movie when the Iron Giant lands and the army brass are trying to figure out what their radar detected one of them says, "Maybe it's a downed satellite" as if we've had thousands up for years. There's one during the course of the movie. Sputnik. That's it. That aside, great movie. I wish Bird did more like that.
Greg:
Good point about the surrealistic world The Simpsons inhabit. Like I said I agree with your rant as it pertains to Pixar, and it seems like Up is trying to have it both ways: a "serious" cartoon, but still be a cartoon. (Does that make sense?)
But yes, your example further proves your point quite well. I agree that "The Simpsons" falls into a different category than the Pixar films.
Nice post-- I love when you pointed out that the plot isn't as kid-friendly as one might have originally thought.
I have one question and one comment for you though:
-Question: So how is "Up" like "Z"? Just because it was nominated in two categories? You didn't really explain.
-Comment: I don't think you give those who like this movie enough credit. More than anything, I think they like it because it's enjoyable for both children and adults. I don't think the love has anything to do about its "lessons," which as you've pointed out, perhaps aren't what they seem. I personally have never heard anyone talk about some greater truth they saw in these movies (even Wall-E, with its environmental message, doesn't teach us anything new)-- they just find them immensely fun. Why is that so bad?
Kevin, The Simpsons during its prime is still some of the most inventive comedy and animation I've ever seen.
Evan, the title of the post is just kind of a joke reference and nothing more. Z was the first film nominated in two "Best Picture" categories and now Up has been nominated in two "Best Picture" categories as well.
I don't think you give those who like this movie enough credit.
Maybe not as much in the heat of the moment posting but I've certainly heard some good defenses of it here in the comment section. I have several movies I think are great while others dismiss them. There are a lot of comments here to read, I understand, but by about the halfway point I've made major concessions to those who liked it: I found many parts well done, and funny, and can understand how others could not be bothered or even see the same things I did.
All of this just came from a gut reaction of seeing this film receive that second nomination for Best Picture. I felt it was overrated and wanted to express that and try and explain why. I didn't do a perfect job of explaining why but I assure you, I don't think UP is a horrible movie, but I do think it is severely flawed and shouldn't have received the accolades it did.
Thanks for the question and comment Evan.
Greg, I laughed myself hoarse reading this wonderful review!
It's great to see someone let loose on something they are passionate about.It's a rant but an honest and well thought through rant.
I agree with so much of what you say about Up and Pixar in general. As Ryan kindly alluded to, I have written myself about my 'issues' with their films and maybe got a little too carried away emotionally in doing so. No use denying it - they get my back up. They play over kids' heads and to the most childish (not childlike) instincts in adults.
Thanks for sharing this!
Greg, thanks for responding. I think your post is well-written; I just didn't agree with part of it. I also agree with you that it's overrated even if I did enjoy it.
Your description of the plot and questioning of what it teaches kids was absolutely hilarious. Thanks for a great article!
Stephen, thanks for gracious comment and support. I agree, they do play over kids' heads which frankly wouldn't bother me that much if they then offer something substantial for the adults but they don't, only adult motifs and set-ups that never play out.
Thanks for coming back Evan. Despite everything I say about UP I still look forward to each new Pixar. I go into each movie expecting and hoping for the best and Pixar's had a few I've liked in the past and I'm sure a few I'll like in the future.
Man, I missed out on all this stuff. I'm so disappointed. Greg, if you could e-mail me in the future and work out this kind of a post on my calendar so that I could set aside some time to take it all in, that would be great.
I liked Ratatouille and I liked The Incredibles very much. Both by Brad Bird who I think is an incredible storyteller when it comes to Animation.
I liked the Toy Story movies, and A Bugs Life. Past that, I'm not really crazy about how Pixar seems to repackage the same stuff.
Up starts off well enough, but my criticism of it is that it seemed scared to really try to say something. Instead it just kind of became a forgettable kids movie. I can't even really remember all that much of it and I have no desire to revisit it.
And here's my problem with this year's Oscars. Do you think that Up is going to win best animation? Is there even a fight now that it was nominated in that and with best picture? I mean, what are the chances it will lose in both categories. I know the end of this film and it hasn't even begun.
Aside from that, I will say that I have no watched Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs several times with my kids and it is a very funny movie. Not best animation feature kind of stuff, but really funny.
But Fantastic Mr. Fox was 112% better than Up and it will go completely unnoticed.
And by the way, I read your post to my children about what Up was really about and they haven't stopped crying. So thanks for that.
74 comments. That's vintage Cinema Styles. Good to see.
Pat - I agree. If no other animated film is nominated for Best Picture, isn't that a defacto statement that UP has already won Best Animated Feature? I assumed, foolishly, that if UP or any other animated film got enough vote for Best Picture it would be ignored due to there being a separate category for them already.
I haven't seen Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs but that seems like a kids movie to me. A real kids movie, even if it is completely different from the book. I still haven't seen Mr. Fox but have high, high pie in the sky hopes for it.
And 76 comments, yours and mine included, is a rarity in these Facebook days but I try.
P.S. - Tell your kids to grow up! Boy, what a bunch of babies.
Greg, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs IS a proper kids movie (I said as much in a review at my blog) that all can enjoy.
I'd recommend it.
bravo.. pixar is overrated
Post a Comment