Computer animation is all the rage now. It has almost succeeded in completely supplanting traditional hand-drawn animation to the point where even everyday cartoons are done by computers. This is not to say that the writing was on the wall early on in the evolution of computer animation. When “Tron” was released in 1982, it represented a quantum leap forward in animation technique in a film that was ahead of its time. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, I suggest that you check it out. Disney was not the only one experimenting with computerized film making. Universal Studios and Lorimar film entertainment exclusively utilized Cray supercomputers to generate the special effects for the 1984 film “The Last Starfighter.” The marriage of computer effects and cinematic special effects to this point, however, were merged with the video game subculture, as both of the aforementioned films dealt heavily with videogames as something other than side diversions. It would not be until Disney’s animation renaissance with “The Little Mermaid” in 1989 that the power of computers for animation would fully be appreciated. Although much of “The Little Mermaid” was of the traditional, hand drawn variety, some of the key action-intensive sequences, such as the final battle with Ursula, utilized the Pixar program developed at Disney and in collaboration with Lucasfilm. Computers were also at play in “Beauty and the Beast” during the show-stopping romantic climax where Belle and the Beast dance below a beautifully (computer) animated chandelier while Angela Lansbury sang the title song. Note that if you ever see a purported animation “cel” of this sequence, it is most likely a fake. Unlike traditional animation, there are no cels in computer animation. A cel is a clear plastic piece of cellulose upon which animators would draw their photos. Some of the classic cels are worth many thousands of dollars. Be careful….
But I digress. During the animation renaissance at Disney, Eisner had an opportunity to purchase the Pixar program from Lucas, but he did not. Instead, John Lasseter (then a Disney animator) left when the program was purchased by Steve Jobs, and the Pixar Studio was formed. For the rest of the 1990s, Disney ruled animation, with the zenith of the format’s popularity present in 1994’s “The Lion King.” Sadly, shortly thereafter, Animation Head Jeffrey Katzenberg left the studio, and Disney’s animation fortune rapidly deteriorated into films of diminished returns, including “Pocahontas,” “Hercules”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” “Atlantis”, and “Treasure Planet.” Of course, there were a few hits among the misses (“Mulan,” “Lilo and Stitch,” “Tarzan,” and one of my favorites, “The Emperor’s New Groove”), but for the most part, Disney animation had reached a nadir. “Home on the Range” was the last nail in the coffin.
Meanwhile, Pixar patiently developed their technology. The animation became more and more three dimensional, and the animators worked on perfecting nuances that were not easily accomplished using traditional hand drawn techniques. It was during the early 1990s that Lasseter started work on “Toy Story,” the film that changed all of the rules. The story became the thing, however. Usually, a typical Disney animated film seemed to rise or fall on the number of stuffed animals it was able to sell or the number of hit songs on the Broadway-like soundtracks. With “Toy Story,” however, Pixar crafted a film that succeeded on multiple levels. No more were characters relegated to parts in animated Broadway musicals. The story was the thing. The animation, as beautiful as it was, was in service to the story versus the other way around. Pixar immediately followed up its success with “A Bug’s Life,” “Toy Story 2”, “Monsters, Inc.”, “Finding Nemo”, “The Incredibles”, and “Cars.” Pixar has never experienced a flop, and this is with good reason. They always have great stories.
The creative teams at Pixar really know how to make films. Brad Bird is no exception. One of my favorite films (animated or otherwise) is “The Iron Giant.” It is a traditional animated film based upon a children’s book that is far and away better than anything Disney has put out in the last 15 years. Warner Brothers, the releasing studio at the time, could not figure out how to sell the film, and they ended up dumping it into theaters at the end of August the year of its release. It is truly an amazing film and I heartily recommend this hidden treasure. The director on this amazing film? Brad Bird. Although the film tanked at the box office, the powers-that-be at Pixar knew that the director shared the same sort of vision as they: creating the perfect story and then using animation as the medium. They handed the reins to Brad Bird to create a Pixar film, and Bird succeeded beyond all expectations with “The Incredibles.” The marriage of 60s spy noir with the superhero films of today was a worldwide success, but the success of the film, once again, rose and fell on the dialogue, the relationships, and the storyline. “The Incredibles” is one of my favorite films because it transcends the standard superhero fare. My favorite part of the film is not one of the numerous (albeit amazing) action set pieces; it is the moment near the end when Mr. Incredible tells Helen that he can’t go through the thought of losing his family again. Great stuff.
Why was there this long lead up? Well, I was bringing everyone up to speed to the point of the release of the newest Brad Bird-Pixar collaboration. I have a feeling that Pixar gave Bird even more creative control over this film (for better or for worse), and I have read the usual laudatory praises concerning this latest “Pixar masterpiece.” “Ratatouille” imagines the story of a Food Network devotee who happens to be a rat in
What works about the film? The animation is incredible. As most of you know, I was a scientist in a previous life. I have observed actual live rats, and the animation on these cinematic versions is astonishing. There is a wonderful scene (in the trailers, actually) where Remy is trapped in a bottle, and the animation is detailed enough that one can see his heart rapidly beating beneath his fur just as one would see the same thing in a live rat. The story really resonated with me, and I admired how Bird made Remy and his human friend Linguini both have foibles that tested the bounds of their friendship. The dialogue was wonderful, and the development of the characters was also perfect.
What did not work for me? Well, as much as I love Brad Bird and as much as I love Pixar, this film has the weakest ending of all of the Pixar films to date. Earlier in this entry, I mentioned how Pixar appeared to have given Bird more creative freedom to do what he wanted, but I think that this was a bad thing. The ending of the film is a muddled mess, with dropped plot points, a sudden switch to first person narration after a sparing use earlier, and a framing device that had one end of a bookend but not the other. SPOILER ALERT: I was most troubled by the fact that the audience never received closure concerning the fate of the head chef who was trying to steal Linguini’s birthright. I mean, this was a major character in the film, yet it seemed that Bird did not know how to address his fate. The appearance of the health inspector was also superfluous. When the “bad guy” reported Gasteau’s to the inspector and the inspector said “3 months,” that should have been the end of it. There was no need for the assault on the health inspector by the rats. I also think that the rest of the crew should have shown more faith in Linguini rather than walking out. The entire film set up Linguini as the savior of the restaurant and of the kitchen staff. They were all behind him when they were kicking out the head chef; why the sudden abandonment of faith? It just did not ring true to me. I felt that the film rapidly wound down without coming to a satisfying conclusion and was completely inapposite to what had gone on before.
In spite of this, I would still recommend the film. The animation and story for the first 2/3 are strong enough to overcome my dislike of the film’s ending. I must also report that my filmgoing companions (including my movie going buddy Daisy) loved the film, so perhaps I am being a bit more cynical. I think that, fairly or unfairly, I am holding Pixar to a higher standard. Although this is head and tails above “Cars,” it does not quite rank with the best the studio has to offer. Perhaps this was a side effect of Disney’s acquisition of Pixar. Maybe John Lasseter does not have the time to review the films as he used to do. Nevertheless, this film does rank as one of the better films of the summer. I wonder if this is due more to the fact that so many other films have disappointed…
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment