Sunday, December 26, 2010

Fantasy Film Worlds of George Pal

The 1985 documentary, Fantasy Film Worlds of George Pal, provides an overview of the career of the famed animator, producer, director, writer and stop-motion pioneer as simply as it possibly can: It shows archival interviews with Pal, brief snippets of praise from both peers and acolytes and loads of scenes from his movies. In other words, it goals are modest, it's subject straightforward and it has no concerns with breaking new ground in documentary film making. Simply put, it's object is to show a lot of clips while giving the viewer the understanding that much of fantasy and science fiction of the sixties onward was heavily influenced by Mr. Pal. This isn't a documentary for fans of Ken Burns or Errol Morris. Fans of Barbara Kopple, don't bother. This documentary isn't about finding profound meanings hidden in the nooks or exploring the central core of Pal's being. It's about how cool the movies were that he made and how much they changed the landscape of fantasy/science fiction.

The point is made early, as in right in the opening scene, which isn't from a Pal movie at all, but Gremlins. This is followed by shots of E.T.,the Extra-Terrestrial and Close Encounters and the message is immediately clear: Pal paved the way for the fantasy/sci-fi of today. But in watching the documentary one also gets the impression that his legacy may also be that a kind, gentle and generous person can actually succeed in Hollywood.

It's expected in a documentary of this sort that no one interviewed will have anything bad to say ("I hated that bastard!") but the sheer volume of praise from the wide variety of actors (Russ Tamblyn, Charlton Heston, Tony Curtis, Rod Taylor, Janet Leigh, etc) and the sincerity with which they give it makes one feel an immediate affection for Pal. All of them talk about the confidence he had in them, the exuberance, the sheer unswerving optimism, all from a man who fled Nazi Germany (unlike Veit Harlan) and then, seven years later, had to flee again (he had fled to Holland then left for the United States just before Germany invaded). He saw how bad the world could get but always knew it could be better.

And hard working? They don't make 'em as hard working as George Pal anymore. He built his career around the success of his stop-motion animation, later to become his famous Puppetoons, only it wasn't claymation, it was replacement animation! That means every time a character changed expression, or walked, or waved their hand or freaking blinked(!), a new puppet figure had to be inserted. His charts and storyboards for this were so detailed it made the operation schematics for the construction of the atomic bomb look like a recipe for boiling water. This fascination with detail and the nuts and bolts of things is what contributed to his greatest successes in live action when the time came.

Ray Bradbury comments, correctly, that Destination Moon was the first sci-fi film all about the science. It's all about how the rocket works and the journey there that matters, not actually being on the moon. And it was Pal's interest in solving problems that led him to provide efficient ways to communicate the science to the audience, like having the scientists show a Woody Woodpecker cartoon to potential investors to explain how the process of getting to the moon works. This technique was used again years later by Steven Spielberg in Jurassic Park when John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) shows everyone a cartoon to explain how the dinosaurs have been created.

It's true, his movies are not masterpieces. The acting and writing seem unrefined at times and the budgets ran on the low side but, as stated again by Ray Bradbury, he did something very important for science fiction film: He made it respectable. Before Destination Moon, science fiction seemed entirely silly to most of Hollywood and most adult moviegoers but after Destination Moon, it proved it could take itself seriously and rake in the big bucks. It also helped that he hired the best artists and designers in the game, from the great matte artist Chesley Bonestell to model designer Albert Nozaki who created the iconic Martian spaceships for War of the Worlds.


George Pal continued to have success in film, most notably The Time Machine, with Rod Taylor and Yvette Mimieux in 1960, but it's his fifties sci-fi work that is most remembered today and clearly the most influential to future generations of sci-fi film makers. The pacing, style and action of today's sci-fi comes a variety of influences and directors such as Steven Spielberg and James Cameron but the idea that it could be something more than cheap serial fare came from Pal, and it's an idea I'm glad he didn't keep to himself.

_______________________________________


This has been a contribution post to the Steven Spielberg Blogathon hosted by Ryan Kelly and Adam Zanzie.

20 comments:

Neil Sarver said...

Great post! I can't believe I haven't watched this, but I certainly need to.

Greg said...

Pal was one of the best and after watching the documentary I like him a lot as a person too.

Anonymous said...

tdraicer:

Actually I think The Naked Jungle IS a masterpiece-or close enough to make no difference, combining a great romance, a mystery, a thrilling action movie, and a horror film all in beautiful color. It's my favorite Chuck Heston movie, and certainly on my top 50 films list.

Greg said...

tdraicer, I love The Naked Jungle too. It's one of three Pal movies I own (along with Destination Moon and War of the Worlds) but, for me, the relationship section always drags it down a bit for me. Still, I see your point and, frankly, the climax where Chuck has to get through to the dam and release it is handled expertly with stuntwork and effects that are pretty damn incredible.

Adam Zanzie said...

Well Greg, I can't say I share your enthusiasm for Pal but this may stem from my lack of familiarity with much of his work. I rented the original The War of the Worlds for the first time this month (in preparation for the blogathon), and on the DVD there's a documentary that talks about some of the other movies he helped make. I'm mildly interested in seeing that cartoon he made in which small wind-up robots turn into Nazi stormtroopers.

No doubt you're correct that Pal paved the way for some of the films of Joe Dante and, to a point, Spielberg, but I don't know if it's appropriate to compare him--as a filmmaker--to those directors. I must confess that I wasn't impressed with Pal's War of the Worlds, not just because of its hokiness (the flying saucers, the obnoxious 50's dialogue and cardboard characters, the absurd appearance of the aliens) but because it lacked a singular vision from the artist behind it. Everybody says the original War of the Worlds is a Pal film. Didn't Byron Haskin direct it, though? Pal only produced it. Sure, he hired the technical team and came up with the majority of the concepts, but the fact remains that he didn't direct the movie.

How, then, is Pal an auteur? I have a problem with the notion of a producer being an auteur. It's like saying High Noon is a Kramer movie instead of a Zinnemann movie. Walt Disney is one of the few producers I'd consider an auteur. I don't know about Pal, though... isn't Pal more comparable to the likes of, say, Selznick and Zanuck?

Again, you've seen more of Pal's work than I have so I'd love for you to elaborate on your defense of his work.

Anonymous said...

tdraicer:

>that I wasn't impressed with Pal's War of the Worlds, not just because of its hokiness

I'm not Greg, but I would reject that term. Films reflect their eras, not ours, and you can either use them to enter into the past or reject them as "dated" (or "hokey").

(I know I'm unfairly implying an intentional choice here, but I recognize those reactions are rarely chosen; a film either gets you to suspend disbelief or it doesn't, and that is always subjective and personal).

But on your other point (and again, I'n not Greg, I'm only playing him in this post) if you saw more Pal films perhaps you'd recognize the "vision" that ties them together (whether you found them hokey or not). For me there is certainly a recognizable feel that ties Pals films together in the same way there is with Val Lewton's films at RKO. Sometimes the producer really IS the key figure.

Marilyn said...

Greg - I like Barbara Kopple and Errol Morris, but I'm sure I'd like this, too. Heck, I paid good money to see Ray Harryhausen spout off about his work and show off his models and a few film clips. It was a gas!

(BTW, I had a dream about you last night. You were shorter than I.)

I think our esteemed blog host, Adam, needs to look before he leaps. Anonymous is quite right.

Greg said...

No doubt you're correct that Pal paved the way for some of the films of Joe Dante and, to a point, Spielberg, but I don't know if it's appropriate to compare him--as a filmmaker--to those directors.

Adam, I confess I'm a little confused. I never compared anyone, simply said that he paved the way, and he did.

I wasn't impressed with Pal's War of the Worlds, not just because of its hokiness (the flying saucers, the obnoxious 50's dialogue and cardboard characters, the absurd appearance of the aliens) but because it lacked a singular vision from the artist behind it. Everybody says the original War of the Worlds is a Pal film. Didn't Byron Haskin direct it, though? Pal only produced it.

Pal was a working producer. That means he cast, worked on the script and worked hand in hand with the director. Just as Gone With the Wind isn't really any director's film, it's Selznick's, War of the Worlds is Pal's.


How, then, is Pal an auteur?

Who in the hell mentioned auteurs? I know I didn't as I avoid that term like the plague. By its definition, it applies to directors working within a studio system putting their stamp on work not their own. That doesn't apply to Pal. Where did that statement of yours come from?

George Pal was a fine producer and did, indeed, pave the way for film makers like Spielberg. I'm not sure why that bothers you so much.

Peter Nellhaus said...

If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend Pal's Tom Thumb. The scenes with Terry Thomas and Peter Sellers are laugh out loud funny.

And yeah, I pretty much like George Pal movies, no matter who the credited director is.

Greg said...

Peter, I have seen Tom Thumb, a couple of times actually and I agree. Also, Russ Tamblyn was just an extraordinary physical dancer/gymnast.

Also, when Pal himself directed, as with The Time Machine, he did a fine job, I thought. You can see more visual similarities with that and War of the Worlds than between Haskin's From the Earth to the Moon, which is dreadful, and War of the Worlds because Pal as a producer was like Howard Hawks as a producer with The Thing or Orson Welles as a producer with Journey into Fear or the already mentioned Selznick on Gone with the Wind: Other men may have been credited with directing, and did, of course work with the actors, but it was the producer in those cases that had the primary artistic control.

Greg said...

Marilyn, re your dream: Me being shorter than you doesn't sound like much of a dream. You could have at least made me fly or something.

Greg said...

I'm not Greg, but I would reject that term. Films reflect their eras, not ours, and you can either use them to enter into the past or reject them as "dated" (or "hokey").

tdraicer, I think you worded that how I've always wanted to but couldn't. One of my loves of older films is their ability to transport me to another time. I've said it before but they really are a method of time travel with images, fashions, idioms, customs, etc, all preserved on film for the taking.

Anonymous said...

>tdraicer, I think you worded that how I've always wanted to but couldn't.

(blushes modestly, looks down, digs toe into the dirt-and I'm in my apartment)

Greg said...

Can someone please vacuum tdraicer's apartment? Thanks.

Adam Zanzie said...

Greg and Marilyn, with all due respect, this piece is a contribution to the Spielberg Blogathon, isn't it? Why is my question so offensive to you guys?

So Greg doesn't like using the word "auteur". Fair enough. But I would like a little more feedback here about what makes Pal such an exceptional filmmaking artist and why he deserves more appreciation these days--appreciation that Greg specifically calls for in this piece. What do you mean by that, Greg? Appreciation on the level of Spielberg? What did Pal accomplish that earns him such appreciation?

You guys can't blame me for being skeptical here. Producing is not directing: it's not an artistic profession. It's definitely an honorable profession that helps support movies, but that's another story.

While you guys have mentioned the influence Pal had on Spielberg's fantasy and science fiction films, the closest I can actually say Pal compares to Spielberg as a filmmaker is, really, to the Spielberg of Amblin Entertainment or to the Spielberg of DreamWorks. In other words, not the side of Spielberg that is admired so much by cinephiles.

I realize Greg never explicitly compared Pal to Spielberg, but when he mentions how Pal paved the way for Spielberg and then calls for Pal to be more appreciated, that, honestly, strikes me as some kind of flirtation with comparison.

Greg said...

Appreciation on the level of Spielberg? What did Pal accomplish that earns him such appreciation?

I am still not sure why you keep comparing the two. I know you wrote this,

I realize Greg never explicitly compared Pal to Spielberg, but when he mentions how Pal paved the way for Spielberg and then calls for Pal to be more appreciated, that, honestly, strikes me as some kind of flirtation with comparison.

so you must think I'm flirting with comparison. I'm not. I don't think Lenny Bruce compares in any way, shape or form to Richard Pryor but he did pave the way. That's a whole different thing.

Secondly, it wasn't any particular question that offended me because nothing offended me. It just seemed that you immediately got hostile because I wrote a piece on Pal for the Spielberg blogathon. None of us know where that hostility came from or why it's still there.


You guys can't blame me for being skeptical here. Producing is not directing: it's not an artistic profession. It's definitely an honorable profession that helps support movies, but that's another story.

Well, yes, with the examples of Val Lewton and George Pal we were trying to say it can be an artistic profession. If you don't think Lewton and Pal were artists then I cannot convince you. You keep asking for me to explain why Pal was good and I can't explain to you or anyone else why someone is good if you have already decided that they are not.

I wrote this piece because I wanted to contribute and now I wish I hadn't because it doesn't feel worth it.

Adam Zanzie said...

Greg, when was I ever "hostile"? I asked you a sincere question and thought I was being as civil as possible. It was only after you started saying thing like "when the hell did I ever say that?" and after Marilyn started telling me I need to "watch before I leap" before I sensed there was ever any hostility of any kind in the air here.

Greg said...

Adam, I wrote a post on George Pal. It was a post that no one would think was a "debate piece" and yet you came into the comments section demanding to know how the lowly Pal could be compared to the exalted Spielberg. If you don't understand how that smacked of hostility then I can't explain it to you. Sometimes a post is written with the idea of stirring debate and argument. This was not one of them and yet you treated it as if it were. You even finished up your initial comment saying you'd like to hear my "defense" of Pal. Defense? It's an appreciation piece, not a debate piece.

And even if it were, isn't the defense right there in the post? His incredible work ethic, his innovation with sci-fi in making it respectable, his pioneering efforts in stop-motion. I even say his films weren't "masterpieces", it was his effort and innovation that counted and at no time, EVER, did I compare him in any way to Spielberg so as to make you or anyone else ask for a justification of that.

So, let's put this all behind us now for good. I have removed Spielberg's name from the post title and from the body of the post itself. I have left in the titles of his movies because taking them out would remove important reference points for the piece. I have removed the link at the bottom to the blogathon and this is now, solely, a review of the documentary Fantasy Film Worlds of George Pal. It is no longer connected in any way with Spielberg or any Spielberg blogathon.

There, now it stands on its own and there will be no more arguments of comparison on an appreciation piece that never invited them in the first place.

You may, of course, leave the link up at the blogathon site or not at your discretion. Certainly, with the popularity the blogathon has enjoyed you don't need a link from me and I congratulate you and Ryan on a job well done. You got a lot of good posts from a lot of good writers.

Adam Zanzie said...

Greg, Ryan and I both want you to reconsider putting the link back in and relabeling the post. I never meant to upset you here, and believe me: I am very sorry if I did.

Greg said...

Adam, I'm sorry if I got touchy on the subject. I wanted to contribute and couldn't think of anything so I wrote up the recently watched doc on Pal, connecting it by threadbare to Spielberg. I was just surprised by your response, I suppose, more than anything else. I was, honestly, just trying to write up an appreciation of Pal.

So, my apologies for taking any or all of it too personally. I put the link back and put a couple of references to Spielberg back in but, trust me, you don't need any post from me when you've got big guns like Jim Emerson contributing.

Congrats again on a great blogathon and thanks for stopping back by to clear things up. I appreciate it.