Topic: Critter's Animated Film/Anime Marathon

[Dragonfire]

Up was nominated for Best Picture last year.

[Critter]

Yeah that's true. And apart from that the only other one was Beauty and the Beast which was before the Animated Picture category was introduced. Up was similar to TS3, both being Pixar films that a lot of people wanted to win Best Picture. In the end I still think the Animated film section should be removed.

[goodguy]

I'm still not over the fact that the Academy choose Ratatouille over Persepolis as best animated feature. I know it is silly to get worked up over stuff like this because there are countless similar examples in all categories. Still, I'm a little fed up with all the hype about Pixar. Now, I haven't seen Toy Story 3 and maybe this is the one that lives up to it, but somehow I doubt it. Guess what? After that recent discussion with Jon, I finally watched Wall-E and found it to be a nice enough and enjoyable movie, technically flawless, but otherwise nothing very special.

Sorry for the rant, but Pixar is dangerously close to becoming to me what Tarantino or Twilight are to others around here.

[Critter]

Fair enough, we all seem to have our little things that just drive us insane. Those were good examples, some people here may like Twilight while others hate it, very similar thing with Tarantino. It's almost like these things have the extremes, you either really love them or really hate them. As for Pixar I obviously love almost everything they have ever done, and always have. I also try to keep up with animation in all forms however, including not only the big budget massive hits. Films like Waltz with Bashir, Persepilis, The Secret of Kells etc (although I haven't gotten to that one yet) are some of my favourite animated films. I love them just as much as I love the big budget ones, and in many cases I love them more than the bigger films. I've seen obscure animated films from every corner of the globe, and from all different times since the beginning of animated feature films in the 1930's yet for me Pixar still stands strong, and very close to the top amongst them all. I suppose I will just always be a huge Pixar fan, but not for a second do I let them overshadow all the smaller animated films and companies out there. While they may have a bigger impact and larger budget than the others I find that their stories are often simply the best. Of course they are visually also the best, but I have seen many stunning animated films that had terrible plots, so for me it's always Pixar stories that are the winners.

[Najemikon]

I'm still not over the fact that the Academy choose Ratatouille over Persepolis as best animated feature. I know it is silly to get worked up over stuff like this because there are countless similar examples in all categories. Still, I'm a little fed up with all the hype about Pixar. Now, I haven't seen Toy Story 3 and maybe this is the one that lives up to it, but somehow I doubt it. Guess what? After that recent discussion with Jon, I finally watched Wall-E and found it to be a nice enough and enjoyable movie, technically flawless, but otherwise nothing very special.

Sorry for the rant, but Pixar is dangerously close to becoming to me what Tarantino or Twilight are to others around here.

Thanks for giving it a try though.  You have to think, I suppose, where we are coming from. For me Wall-E is astonishing because it's so technically advanced without losing heart. I've talked at length before about how important it has been along with Firefly for developing "organic" CGi.

I absolutely agree with Sophie and it seems a shame to get angry about Pixar who have been one of the most optimistic, open and honest studios at work today. "Hype" is such a misplaced word in their case. Think about what they have achieved, especially when their target audience is under 9. Contrary to popular belief, I do actually understand where the anti-Tarantino brigade are coming from, I simply don't agree. Pixar though have done more to advance animation as a genre than anyone recently.

Wall-E is a silent movie for a good portion of its running time; Ratatouille has a hero who is clearly nuts; Toy Story 3, builds on genuinely dark stuff in the first two movies to deliver a story about death; and Up has an 80-something hero and starts with a heartbreaking montage of his life.

They never pick easy, they never pick safe. Apart from Cars, maybe, or even Monsters Inc. Persopolis and the like are incredible, but will always be marginal. I can never deny Pixar's success because what they do is essential. They're making truly advanced movies for a mainstream audience. Look at the state Disney was in before Toy Story came along. They'd been making generic crap for several years.

I don't agree that the Academy should drop the Animation category because the approach to making live action and animation is so different. My current favourite film of the year is Bad Lieutenant and while I'm not sure it deserves Best Picture of the year yet, it wouldn't be fair on either film to be nominated against one another. By the way, I don't know if BL has even been acknowledged for a possible nod, I'm just using it as an example.

However, Sophie, do you realise that the campaign is very normal? All the studios start releasing "For your consideration" posters around this time. It's one of the points against the Oscars overall, because whenever someone says "why didn't such and such get a nomination?", it's probably because the studio behind it didn't do as good a campaign as the other guys. Cynical, but true.

Trailers for Academy voters basically. If you don't hit 'em over the head with it, they won't know it's there.

[goodguy]

I suppose my view is a bit skewed. I do not watch that many animated films, so Pixar has come to be a stand-in for mainstream animation when, as you said, it probably is superior to most other mainstream stuff. But for me it marks just the baseline of a good movie and constantly falls flat against films I really do get excited about.

Speaking for example of Wall-E as a silent film: I watched it as a double feature together with Blood Tea and Red String, which also happens to be a film without dialogue, although stop motion puppet animation in this case. It's another one of those one-woman, obsessive kitchen-table projects. It is shot on 16mm, it is technically imperfect and the animation is jerky at times. But it is wildly imaginative and morbidly beautiful and I absolutely adore it.

[goodguy]

BTW, here is the trailer for the above-mentioned Blood Tea and Red String by Christiane Cegavske. It's probably not your thing, since you already found Sita too "pretentious", but who knows...

[Najemikon]

Actually that looks fascinating!

My approach to animation is the same as art in general. The visuals demonstrate the talent and creativity of the artist, which makes me interested in what they have to say. Or the story/message grabs me first and the animation could be very crude, but adds to the overall power.

Take a famous piece of modern art for example: Tracey Emin's "My Bed" might well have had some deep social commentary buried in a metaphorical image, but a messy bed takes no talent to create and I find any praise for her hollow and false, so I can't give her message any credibility.

Sita is nothing like that, of course, the animation is a valid expression, but I needed it to be supported by characters and a story I cared about. Which I most certainly did not. I found Sita pretentious because the story didn't grab me and the visuals therefore appeared lazy; cardboard cut-outs having inane conversations is not my thing!

Now that trailer shows even at its crudest, the work is brilliantly detailed and photographed. It looks fantastic. And the story comes over like a proper grown-up fairy tale, which I would enjoy.

It reminds me in some [very small!] ways of The Fantastic Mr. Fox. If you have enjoyed Wes Anderson's previous work, like The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore, it is essential viewing. The animation is again, rather crude in may ways, but the detail is astonishing, just like his live action work. Anderson's trademark emotion and atmosphere is enhanced by the visuals in a wonderful way.

[Critter]

I don't agree that the Academy should drop the Animation category because the approach to making live action and animation is so different. My current favourite film of the year is Bad Lieutenant and while I'm not sure it deserves Best Picture of the year yet, it wouldn't be fair on either film to be nominated against one another. By the way, I don't know if BL has even been acknowledged for a possible nod, I'm just using it as an example.

The only reason I don't like the animated category is that I feel a film should win best picture regardless of it's medium. Sure Up was nominated last year, and Toy Story 3 will most likely be nominated this year but that probably just shows that people are starting to realise just how long it's been since animated films were nominated for Best Picture. And why should they be nominated them when they have their own special little category that they can easily be lumped into? To me it's almost like saying that these animated films aren't worthy of being next to the live-action counterparts so they set up their own award of lesser glory. We all know that Best Picture is the big one, but up until the last two years what animated film has even had a chance? The only other animated film to ever even be nominated for Best Picture was Beauty and the Beast, and that was before the best animated category was started. And when it was started animated films conveniently stopped being nominated for Best Picture as they were suddenly all lumped away in a smaller award.

However, Sophie, do you realise that the campaign is very normal? All the studios start releasing "For your consideration" posters around this time. It's one of the points against the Oscars overall, because whenever someone says "why didn't such and such get a nomination?", it's probably because the studio behind it didn't do as good a campaign as the other guys. Cynical, but true.

I wasn't aware that such campaigns were normal, although now that you mention it I did once see a film called 'For Your Consideration' that was a parody of this type of thing. It just seemed a little excessive to me, especially if the films ends up not being nominated then they would look silly.

[Dragonfire]

Studios have been doing campaigns to push for nominations for years.  Even some of the smaller, independent type releases receive some of it.

[Najemikon]

The only reason I don't like the animated category is that I feel a film should win best picture regardless of it's medium. Sure Up was nominated last year, and Toy Story 3 will most likely be nominated this year but that probably just shows that people are starting to realise just how long it's been since animated films were nominated for Best Picture. And why should they be nominated them when they have their own special little category that they can easily be lumped into? To me it's almost like saying that these animated films aren't worthy of being next to the live-action counterparts so they set up their own award of lesser glory. We all know that Best Picture is the big one, but up until the last two years what animated film has even had a chance? The only other animated film to ever even be nominated for Best Picture was Beauty and the Beast, and that was before the best animated category was started. And when it was started animated films conveniently stopped being nominated for Best Picture as they were suddenly all lumped away in a smaller award.

That's certainly the ideal, but you have to remember you're dealing with a prejudiced lot. Animation = kids is still going to be the basic thought running through a lot of peoples heads. More than anyone, Pixar are breaking it down, while of course there has always been adult animation anyway.

Even then I would keep them separate for several reasons. It isn't that they are not worthy of being next to live action, it's that the methods in creating them and the reasons for creating them are very different. It's possible for an animated film to be created by one person over a very long time (that clip Matthias posted is by someone who worked on it for 13 years!) while live action is a collaboration (and usually a compromised one) involving dozens of people. That has a massive impact on the result and I don't think it would be a fair contest.

It's not a rule, of course, on either side, but it's also more likely live action will respond to the Zeitgeist than animation will. Persopolis and Waltz With Bashir do, but think of Pixar, because they've been most likely to win recently and it's Toy Story 3 you want to win this time. What is Toy Story 3 actually about? Growing old, death, nostalgia, friendship. All marvellous, make no mistake, because they are timeless. Look at recent Best Picture winners though; The Hurt Locker studies what its like to do the most dangerous job in the world now, and is therefore politically and socially relevant. And Crash was controversial because it won over Brokeback Mountain and so it seemed like the Academy was more interested in racism than homosexuality, but at least both were current issues about how attitudes affect lives.

This is why genre films often fail to be nominated (no Kick Ass this year!), unless they capture Hollywood's history and get the voters feeling nostalgic for the old days (Unforgiven, Gladiator, even bloody Titanic).

The final point to make is that Best Picture is not a popularity contest. Just because Toy Story 3 has been reviewed as the best film of the year (and it certainly could be), doesn't make it the most important. I like to look at the Best Picture as an indicator of what direction cinema is following and how film-makers will respond. If Up had won last year that would have told me nothing about the state of cinema as a whole and lets face it, animation rarely inspires producers of other genres.

That's why I was so disappointed they rewarded Titanic, but on the other side I was very reassured that they denied Avatar. The Hurt Locker represented something so much more important, both artistically and thematically.

[Critter]

Beauty and the Beast



Year:1991

Director(s): Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise

Run Time: 84 min

Plot: Belle is a girl who is dissatisfied with life in a small provincial French town, constantly trying to fend off the misplaced "affections" of conceited Gaston. The Beast is a prince who was placed under a spell because he could not love. A wrong turn taken by Maurice, Belle's father, causes the two to meet.

Cast:
Paige O'Hara – Belle
Robby Benson – Beast
Richard White – Gaston
Jerry Orbach – Lumiere
David Ogden Stiers - Cogsworth / Narrator
Angela Lansbury - Mrs. Potts
Bradley Pierce - Chip

 DVD Extras:
•   Music & More (Sing-A-Long track)
•   Audio Commentary
•   Deleted Scenes
•   Music Video
•   Backstage Disney *Diamond Edition*
•   Classic DVD Special Features


My Thoughts
This is a brilliant film that was born at Disney right in the middle of one of the studios biggest peaks. I feel a lot of nostalgia towards this film as it was one that I really loved as a child, but unlike a lot of other Disney films I actually haven’t watched this much as a teenager. Watching it again really took me back to those times when I used to love it and watch Disney films every single day. Despite the fact that I still thoroughly enjoyed this film I can’t help but notice that it doesn’t have quite the lasting impact on me as many other Disney films do, I still enjoy it, but I am not quite blown away by it.

Like most animated Disney films this one is a musical and has some very memorable songs such as ‘Be My Guest’ which are now quite famous and part of the Disney legacy. Aside from just the songs the musical score itself is magical and one that I really love. I think this film suffers slightly from the pacing which feels really rushed. I think maybe a slightly longer run time would have helped flesh out the characters and story a bit more here. I think there is an extended edition somewhere but I haven’t seen it yet so this review is based purely on the theatrical version.

The look of this film is great with especially stunning background art of the French countryside which is where the film is set. The character design is also very well done and I think the look of the beast is great, a nice mix that looks almost like a giant lion crossed with a wolf.

Overall this is a great film, but not one of my all-time favourite Disney’s. I can see myself watching it again in the future though, especially for the nostalgia of my childhood that it brings to me.

My Rating