Popular Iranian animated picture, personal and political; Marjane Satrapi's story, with a co-direction credit to Vincent Paronnaud. 2007.
The animation is simple, with expressionist touches. Use of either white surfaces outside, with almost expressionist touches around the corners. Conveys the mood very well; world changes as the action does. Simpler drawings for clear scenes, twisted trees for hardship, use of shadows, etc.
Constantly moving ‘camera’, constant fades from one scene to the next, frequent montage work. Fast changing of images fits with the speedy narrative. Some wonderful touches as one images transforms into the next. The constant movement does mean that nothing is dwelled upon.
This is both a positive and a negative feature; the cuts to sillouhette for some of the toughest scenes, their quick departure, signals this as a work that is ultimately about one person’s experience.
Nearer the start it is a terrific run through of Iranian history (nicely played out as almost a play within the film), before becoming increasingly a personal story, an interior one. Leaves some questions to be asked. It would be grating and cruel to demand more, but their are certainly other films here (note the almost shot to shot short musical montage debt to the great ‘Waltz with Bashir, a deeper journey).
This is very much narrative, without much character study beyond the lead. The images are also used (in an excellent manner), though some undoubtedly stay with you. A good film, even better than that at its start.
Showing posts with label Animated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animated. Show all posts
Monday, 14 March 2011
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Princess Mononoke
Hayao Miyazaki’s enduringly popular 1997 animation
Analysing an animated films visuals always slightly uncomfortablw; pretending its about shots, we can say we have simple, often vertical movements, with a lot of still takes, except for fast horizontal following ones.
Edited in a very much classic action/ Hollywood manner. Indeed, this is really a narrative driven action-adventure picture, very much in the Hollywood tradition. Though the shots are often longer, a lot of fast back and forwards, changing the angle, a bit of shot/ reverse work. Better directed and edited than the rather repetitious (for all its other qualities) ‘Spirited Away’.
Generally it does not focus on characterisation, everything is narrative-driven, the breaks-off are largely for comic relief. This can make much of what it does slightly jarring, quickly moving from premise to conclusion.
What it does is follow a narrative structure on one or more step; one more step. One of the fun things about Miyazaki’s worlds is his constantly ad-hoc adding of something, always taking something a bit further, always extending to the next phase. This keeps us involved because he doesn’t dwell, doesn’t every dwell on the sheer weirdness of it; it is all very matter of fact.
His creations are largely either completely unknowable or anthropomorphic. Individual scenes are beautiful in the same way a (perhaps slight) drawing is. It is of course impressive, and touching, with the flowers that grow and the walking on water. These are not so much experienced as depicted, so they don’t have a huge force, but are welcome and delicately beautiful in their insertion in the narrative.
Looking at the plot, it tries to strike a middle point. Humans are bad (there is a rather worrying equation of working women with this domination), but nature too is irrational and nasty. The attempt to find a middle way rather deconstructs itself; it is unsuccessful ,everything goes wrong, even if the narrative seems to decide at the ridiculous end that everything is fine. Usual Hollywood attempt to patch things up, forgetting about the debris of destruction it has left behind. Note also the pacifist hero of course really only doing the business when he temporarily forgets things and gets the swords out.
The theme of a primeval nature dominating, human dominating, and the lack of solution to this, is at least an interesting path, even if Miyazaki notably fails to make an intelligent comment on it. This film is certainly fun to watch, and he creates a nicely hyper-real world (or rather, ad hoc bits tacked together; one doesn’t get the sense of much outside of the frame) with a narrative that takes itself always a step further. If he doesn’t great cinematic images, he is led to create quite new ones in his meldings of non-human liquid forces, that does result in a genuinely different cinema and, for short periods, image production.
This is when Miyazaki is at his best; when almost forced to make new things with his images because of his remorseless narrative logic. This only happens for short periods, but it ultimately makes this film at least perhaps his most worthwhile. These aren’t masterpieces, but neither are they null.
Analysing an animated films visuals always slightly uncomfortablw; pretending its about shots, we can say we have simple, often vertical movements, with a lot of still takes, except for fast horizontal following ones.
Edited in a very much classic action/ Hollywood manner. Indeed, this is really a narrative driven action-adventure picture, very much in the Hollywood tradition. Though the shots are often longer, a lot of fast back and forwards, changing the angle, a bit of shot/ reverse work. Better directed and edited than the rather repetitious (for all its other qualities) ‘Spirited Away’.
Generally it does not focus on characterisation, everything is narrative-driven, the breaks-off are largely for comic relief. This can make much of what it does slightly jarring, quickly moving from premise to conclusion.
What it does is follow a narrative structure on one or more step; one more step. One of the fun things about Miyazaki’s worlds is his constantly ad-hoc adding of something, always taking something a bit further, always extending to the next phase. This keeps us involved because he doesn’t dwell, doesn’t every dwell on the sheer weirdness of it; it is all very matter of fact.
His creations are largely either completely unknowable or anthropomorphic. Individual scenes are beautiful in the same way a (perhaps slight) drawing is. It is of course impressive, and touching, with the flowers that grow and the walking on water. These are not so much experienced as depicted, so they don’t have a huge force, but are welcome and delicately beautiful in their insertion in the narrative.
Looking at the plot, it tries to strike a middle point. Humans are bad (there is a rather worrying equation of working women with this domination), but nature too is irrational and nasty. The attempt to find a middle way rather deconstructs itself; it is unsuccessful ,everything goes wrong, even if the narrative seems to decide at the ridiculous end that everything is fine. Usual Hollywood attempt to patch things up, forgetting about the debris of destruction it has left behind. Note also the pacifist hero of course really only doing the business when he temporarily forgets things and gets the swords out.
The theme of a primeval nature dominating, human dominating, and the lack of solution to this, is at least an interesting path, even if Miyazaki notably fails to make an intelligent comment on it. This film is certainly fun to watch, and he creates a nicely hyper-real world (or rather, ad hoc bits tacked together; one doesn’t get the sense of much outside of the frame) with a narrative that takes itself always a step further. If he doesn’t great cinematic images, he is led to create quite new ones in his meldings of non-human liquid forces, that does result in a genuinely different cinema and, for short periods, image production.
This is when Miyazaki is at his best; when almost forced to make new things with his images because of his remorseless narrative logic. This only happens for short periods, but it ultimately makes this film at least perhaps his most worthwhile. These aren’t masterpieces, but neither are they null.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Belleville Rendez Vous
This short little piece from Sylvain Chomet, made in 2003, is a fun enough little piece of work, though it is unlikely something that will be returned to all that often.
Like 'The Illusionist' it is nearly silent, and again much information is conveyed through a sense of the grotesque, of the extreme. This leads to some certainly aggressive images, in what is generally an alienated picture. The real lack of identification mixes with the use of the dog as an mediated device. The fact that what we have the closest relation to is something that is seen as utterly idiotic makes for a difficuly picture.
This picture is more primatively animated than 'The Illusionist', and doesn't wuite employ the same long shots. It also has less of a deeper sense of grief and character, the jokes here are clearly antecedents in the slightly off beat stereotypes, but the way they are used differently, that is in a different perspective, leads to a less thoughtful, but slightly more direct film.
So, we quite enjoyed this, though it wouldn't last too long.
Like 'The Illusionist' it is nearly silent, and again much information is conveyed through a sense of the grotesque, of the extreme. This leads to some certainly aggressive images, in what is generally an alienated picture. The real lack of identification mixes with the use of the dog as an mediated device. The fact that what we have the closest relation to is something that is seen as utterly idiotic makes for a difficuly picture.
This picture is more primatively animated than 'The Illusionist', and doesn't wuite employ the same long shots. It also has less of a deeper sense of grief and character, the jokes here are clearly antecedents in the slightly off beat stereotypes, but the way they are used differently, that is in a different perspective, leads to a less thoughtful, but slightly more direct film.
So, we quite enjoyed this, though it wouldn't last too long.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Waltz Wth Bashir
Ari Folman's masterpiece from 2008. We remember it as one of our favourite films, full stop. On re-watching it surprised as, but remains stunning.
This film is largely about the aetheticisation of war. It is about the way war is portrayed through our false memories. It is, psychonanalytically, a fascinating film, with the backgrounds and symbols bleeding into the presence. This whole film bleeds background to foreground.
Visually, the film is quite simple. We know we are following Folman, we have wide or close shots or so on. The narrative pattern and structure is beautifully done though; deep and insightful, it shows how one bleeds into the next, of collective memory, and of totality.
The excitement and apparent sexiness of some of the actions scenes and the rock music certainly ramps up to a wild manner. The sharp lines really add to the modern, postmodern indeed, passage of what war is. Few films can be as close to dispaying the modern condition.
This film had a different overall tone than we remembered. We remembered the sexiness primarily. In fact this film is harsh, trenchant, unforgiving. What happened was disgusting, we ask ourselves; 'How can this happen? This is impossible'. This ending is a move from bleakness and twisting, which we must see, have to see. This is no cool and fast phatasy; this is bringing the unimaginable too light. Done, of course, through the imaginary animation. Still stunning.
This film is largely about the aetheticisation of war. It is about the way war is portrayed through our false memories. It is, psychonanalytically, a fascinating film, with the backgrounds and symbols bleeding into the presence. This whole film bleeds background to foreground.
Visually, the film is quite simple. We know we are following Folman, we have wide or close shots or so on. The narrative pattern and structure is beautifully done though; deep and insightful, it shows how one bleeds into the next, of collective memory, and of totality.
The excitement and apparent sexiness of some of the actions scenes and the rock music certainly ramps up to a wild manner. The sharp lines really add to the modern, postmodern indeed, passage of what war is. Few films can be as close to dispaying the modern condition.
This film had a different overall tone than we remembered. We remembered the sexiness primarily. In fact this film is harsh, trenchant, unforgiving. What happened was disgusting, we ask ourselves; 'How can this happen? This is impossible'. This ending is a move from bleakness and twisting, which we must see, have to see. This is no cool and fast phatasy; this is bringing the unimaginable too light. Done, of course, through the imaginary animation. Still stunning.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
The Illusionist
This much anticipated Sylvain Chomet adaption of a Jaques Tati script, set largely in Edinburgh, is a truly excellent piece of cinema, so different from the vast majority of other films.
Chomet would be a good director whether or not he used animation. The long shots of the whole body (Tati's animated body, really), the respect for an image and the slight changes that occur, is marvellous. Chomet has an unbelievable, unrivalled eye for the small details, the little things. The turning of a light on and off, the smoothing of fabric, these all add a realism, almost a grittiness, to an otherwise (excuse us) magical tale, light as a feather. This focus on domesticity involves repitition, a key technique Chomet uses to emphasise the upstanding futility of the Illusionist's act. He never directly mocks, but we have more of a sense of time and character through repetitive minor failure than through direct exposition.
Whether or not Chomet directs as he does due to the wish to frame in a certain way, due to the demands of animation, is a question impossible to answer until Chomet explores live action. Elsewhere, it does not seem at all that Chomet limits himself, rather he is able to imbue his locations with a lovely hazy metallic grey, a silence and a blankness to the colours that evoke a bygone world in a city that is always remembering, quietly, its own past. He succesfully shows both the claustrophobia of the streets and the suggestions of openness, of greenery, that appear to loom over rather than open up Edinburgh.
The use of sound is also excellent, nominally this film is perhaps in French but not a single subtitle seems to be used, this film is really silent. Thus we are required a few extra scenes and shots that otherwise, but largely it makes the piece, along with a nicely restrained but very pretty piano score (composed by Chomet), flow to a wonderful rythm as the viewer puts the pieces together. It also frees up the sound for some nice affects, of creaks and cars, that do a huge amount to evoke the time.
As to the story, Chomet is at once slightly cynical about the possibilities of this world, obviously mourning a bygone age. From this negative base he tells us that magic can exist, somewhere, somehow, brought on by others. The themes are complex, of age and care and flowering, but they are addressed nice and ambiguously and not forced down the throat. Perhaps they can wander for ten minutes, but overall this is a film not afraid to ask (this is the Tati part) about what it means to nurture, to sacrifice, to be dis-illusioned with the world.
This is a wonderful film, with fantastic mis-en-scene, mis-en-shot, and premise. It takes us on a floating journey through images and scenes of power and melancholy charm. Excellent, excellent cinema.
Chomet would be a good director whether or not he used animation. The long shots of the whole body (Tati's animated body, really), the respect for an image and the slight changes that occur, is marvellous. Chomet has an unbelievable, unrivalled eye for the small details, the little things. The turning of a light on and off, the smoothing of fabric, these all add a realism, almost a grittiness, to an otherwise (excuse us) magical tale, light as a feather. This focus on domesticity involves repitition, a key technique Chomet uses to emphasise the upstanding futility of the Illusionist's act. He never directly mocks, but we have more of a sense of time and character through repetitive minor failure than through direct exposition.
Whether or not Chomet directs as he does due to the wish to frame in a certain way, due to the demands of animation, is a question impossible to answer until Chomet explores live action. Elsewhere, it does not seem at all that Chomet limits himself, rather he is able to imbue his locations with a lovely hazy metallic grey, a silence and a blankness to the colours that evoke a bygone world in a city that is always remembering, quietly, its own past. He succesfully shows both the claustrophobia of the streets and the suggestions of openness, of greenery, that appear to loom over rather than open up Edinburgh.
The use of sound is also excellent, nominally this film is perhaps in French but not a single subtitle seems to be used, this film is really silent. Thus we are required a few extra scenes and shots that otherwise, but largely it makes the piece, along with a nicely restrained but very pretty piano score (composed by Chomet), flow to a wonderful rythm as the viewer puts the pieces together. It also frees up the sound for some nice affects, of creaks and cars, that do a huge amount to evoke the time.
As to the story, Chomet is at once slightly cynical about the possibilities of this world, obviously mourning a bygone age. From this negative base he tells us that magic can exist, somewhere, somehow, brought on by others. The themes are complex, of age and care and flowering, but they are addressed nice and ambiguously and not forced down the throat. Perhaps they can wander for ten minutes, but overall this is a film not afraid to ask (this is the Tati part) about what it means to nurture, to sacrifice, to be dis-illusioned with the world.
This is a wonderful film, with fantastic mis-en-scene, mis-en-shot, and premise. It takes us on a floating journey through images and scenes of power and melancholy charm. Excellent, excellent cinema.
Friday, 2 April 2010
The Oscar Nomiated Short Films: Animation
These short films, with the exception of 'Loaf and Death', were shorter than the live action category. The best were better, the worst were worse.
French Roast: Good animations of the tramp and the nun, not a particularly fascinating story but interesting enough.
La Dama y La Muerte (The Lady and The Reaper): Funny, with some cool fast moving animation. Generally quite by the book, but some good little touches too (the locking of the boat)
A Matter of Loaf and Death: Half an hour long, this has all the cheesiness (badoom-chi), quirkiness and sentiment we love in Wallace and Gromit. Not great departure from their previous work, but no worse for that.
Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty: For our money the best of both days, this quick Irish comedy is just imaginative in its idea, sharp and fantastic in its execution, nicely layered in its use of animation, and above all damn funnt.
Partly Cloudy (not nominated): Shown before 'UP', this is bid budget and a little mawkish, but not bad at all.
Runaway (not nominated): Rather obvious in its politics, the first really political fiml here, a short parable that is probably right but doesn't say so in a particularly funny or new manner.
The Kinematographer: Has the greatest 'weight' of all the shorts, it is a moving and well animated tale. The best shot, with wonderful sweeping opening scenes, and an undoubtedly affecting story. Let down though by a poor script and rather wooden voice acting.
Logorama (Winner): A terrific idea, if rather annoyingly realised, it is a smart satire with some clever touches that maybe outstays its welcome/ doesn't exploit its premise fully. The swearing is also awkward.
So, we would have given the prize to 'Granny O'Grimm'. The animation category was, on balance, better than the live-action, and we would repeat the comments from yesterday about the encouragement of this art form, and patronisation of it, being applauded.
French Roast: Good animations of the tramp and the nun, not a particularly fascinating story but interesting enough.
La Dama y La Muerte (The Lady and The Reaper): Funny, with some cool fast moving animation. Generally quite by the book, but some good little touches too (the locking of the boat)
A Matter of Loaf and Death: Half an hour long, this has all the cheesiness (badoom-chi), quirkiness and sentiment we love in Wallace and Gromit. Not great departure from their previous work, but no worse for that.
Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty: For our money the best of both days, this quick Irish comedy is just imaginative in its idea, sharp and fantastic in its execution, nicely layered in its use of animation, and above all damn funnt.
Partly Cloudy (not nominated): Shown before 'UP', this is bid budget and a little mawkish, but not bad at all.
Runaway (not nominated): Rather obvious in its politics, the first really political fiml here, a short parable that is probably right but doesn't say so in a particularly funny or new manner.
The Kinematographer: Has the greatest 'weight' of all the shorts, it is a moving and well animated tale. The best shot, with wonderful sweeping opening scenes, and an undoubtedly affecting story. Let down though by a poor script and rather wooden voice acting.
Logorama (Winner): A terrific idea, if rather annoyingly realised, it is a smart satire with some clever touches that maybe outstays its welcome/ doesn't exploit its premise fully. The swearing is also awkward.
So, we would have given the prize to 'Granny O'Grimm'. The animation category was, on balance, better than the live-action, and we would repeat the comments from yesterday about the encouragement of this art form, and patronisation of it, being applauded.
Monday, 22 March 2010
Spirited Away
Critically lauded, watched by us a number of years ago, this Miyazaki/ Ghibli film has its moments but is in all honesty heavily overrated.
First the high points; some wonderful scenes in the bath houses, a heroine who actually develops as the story goes on, and, as always with Miyazaki, wonderfully imaginative twists of the plot. He is able to create creatures and scenes, without a drop in the rythm, that startle with their originality compared to 99% of the fare of the silver screen. His drawings are always beautiful, perhaps not the most evocative but always with their own straight-lined charm and purposefulness.
However, all of these upsides, great as they are (and let us not be misstaken, his films are often fine works, he is one of the superior creators of mainstream fare around), do not hide the fact that he is not a good director, or even perhaps a good storyteller. The storys are wonderful, but often dissapear into lucanas and lack the heart to fully embed themselves and be told across a regional amount of time. Plot strands are set up, and then forgotten, as though Miyazaki has lost his nerve.
This is forgivable, but it is in the literal scene-plotting that Miyazaki falls down. He has the awful habit of shooting every single movement from five angles, we see a character, a room, a door, a step, another step, a hand on the door, the doorhandle turning, the door starting to open....etc etc unto infinity. He throws us straight into plots, but once there everything takes half an hour and twenty cuts to accomplish. This makes his films, most notably 'Spirited Away' (less so 'Ponyo') over-long and frequently energy-sappingly boring. The fact that it takes such a long time, full of inconsequential (not in a imaginative, quirky manner, the inconveniences are the mindane parts) actions, makes his films rather oppressive to watch at times.
Miyazaki has a fantastic creative imagination, a unique visual style, and the ability to render exciting action. His themes of childhood existential angst and loneliness create masterpieces in mood across his work. However, his inability to direct with any subtlety or leaness can make one rather wish to never seen one of his films again.
First the high points; some wonderful scenes in the bath houses, a heroine who actually develops as the story goes on, and, as always with Miyazaki, wonderfully imaginative twists of the plot. He is able to create creatures and scenes, without a drop in the rythm, that startle with their originality compared to 99% of the fare of the silver screen. His drawings are always beautiful, perhaps not the most evocative but always with their own straight-lined charm and purposefulness.
However, all of these upsides, great as they are (and let us not be misstaken, his films are often fine works, he is one of the superior creators of mainstream fare around), do not hide the fact that he is not a good director, or even perhaps a good storyteller. The storys are wonderful, but often dissapear into lucanas and lack the heart to fully embed themselves and be told across a regional amount of time. Plot strands are set up, and then forgotten, as though Miyazaki has lost his nerve.
This is forgivable, but it is in the literal scene-plotting that Miyazaki falls down. He has the awful habit of shooting every single movement from five angles, we see a character, a room, a door, a step, another step, a hand on the door, the doorhandle turning, the door starting to open....etc etc unto infinity. He throws us straight into plots, but once there everything takes half an hour and twenty cuts to accomplish. This makes his films, most notably 'Spirited Away' (less so 'Ponyo') over-long and frequently energy-sappingly boring. The fact that it takes such a long time, full of inconsequential (not in a imaginative, quirky manner, the inconveniences are the mindane parts) actions, makes his films rather oppressive to watch at times.
Miyazaki has a fantastic creative imagination, a unique visual style, and the ability to render exciting action. His themes of childhood existential angst and loneliness create masterpieces in mood across his work. However, his inability to direct with any subtlety or leaness can make one rather wish to never seen one of his films again.
Ponyo
The new(ish) Miyazaki film from his Studio Ghibli warehouse, this is probably the best directed one of his offerings we have seen to date.
It is undoubtedly aged at a younger demographic than prevous darker and often more disturbing work, here the bad guys aren't really bad. This doesn't make the peril less perilous, there's still a sense he could kill a charcter off, but the over-riding message of the fim is one of joy and curiousity rather than the confusion which can characterise his other films.
Due to it being set around infancy the characterisation isn't particularly complex, yet it's fine enough and does well to not ram a message down any throats. The story is nicely told, even if I does drag and draw itself out a little at times. The humour is at once laid on with a troal and rather light, endless rather silly jokes not being oppressive but rather cute.
It is of course in the animation that this film excels, the action scenes especially are wonderous, wild spinnings and leapings, there is no one who can create quite the 'wow' factor with animation as Miyazaki. The characters he draws are exciting, changeable, and different.
This, in comparison to others of his work, is very much a kids film, with more slapstick and even a catchy theme tune. Because of this, its simplicity and, to overuse a word frequently attached to Miyazaki, charm. These make it perhaps the most pleasurable of his films to watch, if not the deepest, for those who like that sort of thing.
It is undoubtedly aged at a younger demographic than prevous darker and often more disturbing work, here the bad guys aren't really bad. This doesn't make the peril less perilous, there's still a sense he could kill a charcter off, but the over-riding message of the fim is one of joy and curiousity rather than the confusion which can characterise his other films.
Due to it being set around infancy the characterisation isn't particularly complex, yet it's fine enough and does well to not ram a message down any throats. The story is nicely told, even if I does drag and draw itself out a little at times. The humour is at once laid on with a troal and rather light, endless rather silly jokes not being oppressive but rather cute.
It is of course in the animation that this film excels, the action scenes especially are wonderous, wild spinnings and leapings, there is no one who can create quite the 'wow' factor with animation as Miyazaki. The characters he draws are exciting, changeable, and different.
This, in comparison to others of his work, is very much a kids film, with more slapstick and even a catchy theme tune. Because of this, its simplicity and, to overuse a word frequently attached to Miyazaki, charm. These make it perhaps the most pleasurable of his films to watch, if not the deepest, for those who like that sort of thing.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Grave Of The Fireflies
This classic animated anti war animated film laid the foundations for the boom of the next to decades, covering wildly different themes, thinking here Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle etc etc.
It is a fine film, and is indeed a deeply humane take on the oft-derided (in this sense) animated genre. It builds up nicely, and the animation of the fiery cities is beautifully inhumane. It is well paced, at once ponderous across time but sufficiently active and visceral when necessary.
Our problem with it was that the characters are not all that compelling or brilliant. The lead male is just idiotic, a boring person placed in a tragic situation. Setsuko is a basic sweet-little-kid cipher. Of course, the situation is tragic and we are moved by the situation we find these people in, but the people themselves add nothing special. Also, the event at the end is clearly a result more of the boy's idiocy regards his banking.
In short, a powerful film, though with a big hole in its centre where well made characters should be.
It is a fine film, and is indeed a deeply humane take on the oft-derided (in this sense) animated genre. It builds up nicely, and the animation of the fiery cities is beautifully inhumane. It is well paced, at once ponderous across time but sufficiently active and visceral when necessary.
Our problem with it was that the characters are not all that compelling or brilliant. The lead male is just idiotic, a boring person placed in a tragic situation. Setsuko is a basic sweet-little-kid cipher. Of course, the situation is tragic and we are moved by the situation we find these people in, but the people themselves add nothing special. Also, the event at the end is clearly a result more of the boy's idiocy regards his banking.
In short, a powerful film, though with a big hole in its centre where well made characters should be.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Waking Life
This self conciously odd piece of animation from Linklater is in many ways rather half-cooked, but there are much worse ways to spend ninety minutes.
The camera following our drawn Wiley Wiggins about is shaky and unstable, certainly disoreintating and we are curious to know whther the from of animation made this a necessity. By the time of 'A Scanner Darkly' the part animatory use of actors had improved leaps, and that film is much more succesful at integrating the style to the film it surrounds. It is an arresting technique; the texture and flourishes made us, well, keep our eyes on the screen. It would be wrong to say that it was more than a diversion however.
The film itself can be a little too much like a showcase for the visuals; the (quite deliberate) meandering structure (we look forward to slackers) may not get boring but does leave a certain incomplete feeling. The conversations, especially earlier on, our fitfully interesting but rather shallow. A good introduction for the 15 year old stoner they may be, but when we had knoweldge of the topic the analyses was pretty much artifical or trivial. Though the very raising of the philosophical, scientific and sociological questions ut does should be applauded.
The film is at its best when the script becomes fragmented, the visuals tire the viewer and let them enter a world of hallucination and weightlessness. Rather fittingly, it is a film that both encourages and revels in its soporific qualities.
A film worth seeing if just for the development of the visual technique (though 'A Scanner' would really be the place to go to see this), and for its bravery in at least reaching out for some intelligence. Far from a wonder, however.
The camera following our drawn Wiley Wiggins about is shaky and unstable, certainly disoreintating and we are curious to know whther the from of animation made this a necessity. By the time of 'A Scanner Darkly' the part animatory use of actors had improved leaps, and that film is much more succesful at integrating the style to the film it surrounds. It is an arresting technique; the texture and flourishes made us, well, keep our eyes on the screen. It would be wrong to say that it was more than a diversion however.
The film itself can be a little too much like a showcase for the visuals; the (quite deliberate) meandering structure (we look forward to slackers) may not get boring but does leave a certain incomplete feeling. The conversations, especially earlier on, our fitfully interesting but rather shallow. A good introduction for the 15 year old stoner they may be, but when we had knoweldge of the topic the analyses was pretty much artifical or trivial. Though the very raising of the philosophical, scientific and sociological questions ut does should be applauded.
The film is at its best when the script becomes fragmented, the visuals tire the viewer and let them enter a world of hallucination and weightlessness. Rather fittingly, it is a film that both encourages and revels in its soporific qualities.
A film worth seeing if just for the development of the visual technique (though 'A Scanner' would really be the place to go to see this), and for its bravery in at least reaching out for some intelligence. Far from a wonder, however.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Up
A perfectly good animated movie aimed at kids that will appeal to adults too. The hoopla over the silent montage is worth it, it's charming and will bring tears if your eyes have ducts (we are jealous of you). The movie is well plotted, a coherent middle section, a beginning and an end. Sure, you can read the plot off beforehand, but the jokes are god, the action's genuinely exciting, and if the kiddiewinks aren't too fussed about a little teetering on cliff tops they shouldn't wet themselves. A good message, nice to see an older citizen as the hero and an obese child as our co-star. Also refreshing that the voices are unknowns, and what difference does that make? Precisely. The animation is smooth and easy on the eye, if not the cutting edge. All the same, this film'll last when your Avatar's are glue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)