An Evening with John R. Dilworth

On this blog, I haven't expressed enough of my admiration for John R. Dilworth. I still think Courage the Cowardly Dog is one of the best shows on Cartoon Network (even long after its run) and his independent work is ingenious. A couple nights ago, John was the subject of an ASIFA-East retrospective, and as an ASIFA-East board member, I took the opportunity to write about the event. The article has been published over at The Exposure sheet. Check it out. It was a tremendously enjoyable evening. You couldn't predict anything! Much love goes to John, and plenty comes back to you!

A great Thank You to Pilar Newton for taking these pictures!

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Wes Anderson's animated adaptation of Roald Dahl's The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a great movie. It is also an anomaly amongst other films of recent years.

Anderson's films have a questionable charm to them. We see characters we want to like, but then all these little negative nuances pop up, and the characters become more and more flawed. In saying that, Mr. Fox may very well be Anderson's most charming movie since Rushmore in 1998.

Although this is Anderson's first adapted screenplay, the characters still maintain traits that make this a familiar Anderson territory. For example, the dialog is mostly expository, and characters are portrayed as being brutally honest, and willing to point out things that nobody else needs to hear. And when a character is in need of sympathy, that same character offers some hostile anecdotes.

Mr. Fox (or "Foxy"), the primary character, is the only one who makes himself out to be "fantastic." Immediately, there is a cunningness to the character that the audience can appreciate, but in several scenes, we are ultimately reminded that he is very selfish, and even admits to having feelings of narcissism. George Clooney's performance seems to enhance the leading-man image that Foxy has of himself.


Every other character in the movie lives in their own world, until theirs' falls victim to Foxy's world. Roald Dahl's original story doesn't begin until about a third into the movie. Anderson might have done this in order to set up each character and their motivations.


There is something of a war objective going on. The second half of the movie involves a war between animals living in refuge and humans interested in petty revenge and carnage. It feels like a Holocaust of sorts (and I mean that very lightly). Foxy is targeted for behaving like a wild animal, and the other animals have to suffer for it, even though they all behave like good all around (human) citizens. The three farmers ("Boggis", "Bunce" and "Bean") are the oppressors. Bean acts as the dictator, and the others coming off like passive-aggressive Nazis.


I have mixed feelings about the voice acting. I was concerned about George Clooney playing the lead at firsy, but now I feel that his vocal performance is the strongest. His voice is the most identifiable, and suits the character of Foxy very nicely. The rest of the actors were alright, but not all felt right. Jason Schwartzman, Wallace Wolodarsky, and Eric Chase Anderson all sounded too similar to one another, and Bill Murray sounded too much like Bill Murray. Meryl Streep did a nice acting job, but it wasn't used enough, and Owen Wilson was promoted for a performance that only lasts about 3 minutes.


Visually, the style is classic stop-motion, but in a way that tells a children's tale. In other words, it is technically advanced, but attempts to look simple and aligned. Anderson is known for setting up very crisp looking shots, which is optional for live-action, but a definite for animation. That right there gives some comfort in Anderson taking over an animated venture. The best animation directors need to be able to design their movies, and Anderson is no stranger to this task.
And no Wes Anderson movie is complete without a unique soundtrack of old 1960's rock tunes. When watching Mr. Fox, I had to resist singing along to the songs in the movie, which include stuff from the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones, Burt Ives, and the Bobby Fuller Four.

Jarvis Cocker's appearance (as a human character, "Petey") is a welcome surprise. Cocker is one of my favorite songwriters, if not one of the best songwriters of the last 20 years.
I was not alone in laughing at the irony of Petey being called a weak songwriter.

I have to say the stop-motion style works remarkably well. The characters are only slightly stylized, but are not painfully realistic. The look is carefully balanced between cute, believability, and realism. And the mechanics of the puppets are one of many, many testaments to the puppet work of McKinnon and Saunders. Its good to see puppets with moving jaws, as opposed to stuck on mouths. And the storybook design works pretty well, although it would have been nice to see the sky looking something else other than sunset orange.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox really is a film that both adults and children can enjoy. No more of the parents saying they like the film, because it teaches their children good morales. Here, children audiences can enjoy the look and actions of the characters, while adults can pick out intellectual stimulations that are equally humorous.

Henry Selick in New York

With awards season in full swing, some films from earlier in the year need some reassurance. Coraline doesn't need any in my opinion, but Focus Features probably wants to be safe. Henry Selick is currently doing a small promotional tour of Coraline, and stopped by New York for a few appearances.

Coraline screened in 3D in Union Square Tuesday night. Mr. Selick appeared after the screening for a Q&A. Afterward, I grabbed the last spot on line to grab an audience with the director of not only this film, but The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. I got my audience with him, and got to converse with him. Major
moment.

I had to cover this event for ASIFA-East's blog. For more detail, you can read it here.

Mary and Max

I went to see Mary and Max at the SVA theater for International Animation Day. And what a treat. This year has seen a wide variety of animated releases, and there are still a few more to come before the year is out. Mary and Max is one of those few, and one that stands out on its very own.

The film states at the beginning that it is based on a true story. Director Adam Elliot confirms this in interviews. An Australian filmmaker, Adam Elliot's previous short films (the Uncle, Brother, Cousin trilogy and Harvie Krumpet) are all desaturated stop-motion pieces, primarily dealing with characters with certain disorders (mostly neurological). His films are quite dark, but at the same time, written with funny and sympathetic humor.
This movie follows the pen-pal friendship, beginning in 1976, between Mary, a little Australian girl with blossoming insecurties, and Max, a 44-year old New Yorker with issues of his own.

When I heard about Mary and Max, I was first excited by the general idea of illustrating a pen-pal relationship. But then I became even more intrigued when I learned that one of the main characters has Asperger Syndrome, a form of mild autism.

I write this review as an Aspie myself. Actually, I have to admit I never knew of the word "Aspie" until I saw this movie, and I've been diagnosed since age 9. The character of "Max" is a middle-aged, Jewish New Yorker, whose issues are diagnosed as Asperger Syndrome halfway through the movie. I have to say that the issues portrayed, while exaggerated, are very accurate. Max has difficulty reading other people, making or keeping friends, suffers from acute anxiety, and pays particular attention to certain things (in this case, the amount of cigarette butts on the streets, and chocolate). Something else I connected with was how Max found his favorite cartoon heartwarming, because the characters had everything he didn't.

The character of "Mary" is very sympathetic. She has issues that anybody can have, only her's are exasperated by the people around her. This included her critical, alcoholic mother and distant father, as well as a lack of human friends. However, her friendship with Max remains a pivotal source of inspiration for the rest of her life. So much so, that when she upsets him from afar, she almost considers giving up the rest of her life.

A trademark of Elliot's films is the use of narration. These narrations are distinguished by the timing and pace the speakers usually provide. And of course, Elliot's talent for stringing words together when certain effects are described. The next time I see this movie, I should take note of my favorite quotes.
On that note, I have to praise the voice over work.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of my favorite actors. His repertoire is all about characters, and keeping the audience believing them. His voice-over for Max is nothing like Hoffman's normal voice, but is a very realistic sound for this sort of character. Max sounds real, and his emotion is played out nicely through a deep, slightly congested, slightly Yiddish accented voice. All the praise in the world for Mr. Hoffman.
But with that, I also have to praise Toni Collette's portrayal of Mary, and Barry Humphries' narration.


The movie is stop-motion, although not as complex as Coraline or Wallace and Gromit. But that's not a bad thing at all. The stop-motion gives the movie is own universe. The characters are designed in Elliot's usual fashion, in which nothing is straight or perfectly sculpted. The design of the movie follows this very deliberately. It gives the impression of a flawed world. And this impression fits in well with how the main characters view the rest of the world outside their shells.
One of the film's executive producers introduced the film. He specifically stressed that everything on screen was real and tactile. This not only included puppets and sets, but also effects animation, such as rain and urination. This maintains a tradition with Adam Elliot's previous films, all of which were not only stop-motion, but had limited movement, and relied mostly quick little actions and the character's expressions, and very little concern for effects.

After the screening, I met with some friends and a couple of them asked me how I felt about the way Max was portrayed. I told them it was great, and totally understandable. Mr. Elliot certainly did his homework on the subject, and knew just how to express it. Everything about this film was well balanced. The visual style and the writing style, all worked hand in hand to bring these peculiar subjects to light in a way that is funny and appreciable.

Analo6ue, "I'm Not A Mover"

I am pleased (and relieved) to announce that I have finished my first ever "music film." The usual term is "music video," but since those don't get much airtime on television anymore, and I see more videos at film festivals, it just seems pointless to use that term anymore.

We present "I'm Not A Mover"
by Analo6ue (pronounced "analog")

The short combines live-action (directed by Taylor Clark) with 30's style rubber hose animation; the plot reaches a point where the two interact. I story boarded the whole film, and seeing Taylor recreate my drawings through live-action was quite a sensation.

I need to extend a hand to lead compositor Jaime Ekkens, for the wonderful job she did on the effects.

Like many others, I haven't been very well off financially. For four months, working on this short has kept me sane. Still, the video had to meet its completion at some point, which took two months longer than we had initially intended. Still I am excited about having completed it, and we hope it has a good festival life.

Analo6ue is the first musical group I have ever actually worked "with." The group is a three-piece: Brian (guitar, vocals), an old friend of mine from Ohio; Owen (lead vocals); and Evan (drums). There is no bass player. When people ask me about Analo6ue, I refer to them as an alternative-blues band. The band have a sound which doesn't get much usage in animation. But we all went for the same thing, so there wasn't much conflict.
You can check out more of Analo6ue on their MySpace page.

At the moment, we are trying to get the video exported into HD (High Definition) format. After that, its off to the festivals. I will also announce when it is viewable on the internet.

I hope to move onto another music film soon. It is a point where two of my greatest passions meet.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs...and a side of Praise

I don't know what some are thinking. For the past couple weeks, I have heard a ton of praise for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs from friends and aquaintences, most of whom work in the animation and movie industries. Now it turns into a personal tale that is classic for me: a movie that everyone loves is a huge disappointment for my tastes.

I remember reading the original book in elementary school. I remember enjoying the concept of food being produced through the weather. I can't say I was all over the drawings, and I don't blame the filmmakers for redesigning the original story.

This was a really dumb movie. At least that's how I felt. With all the hype this movie was receiving (particularly from those who don't care much for computer-animated features), this movie sounded like something new and special. It was no different from the first impression I got from the trailer. It is unoriginal and garish looking. The story by and far is nothing but predictable. Flint Lockwood, the main character, is an aspiring amateur inventor whose flaws are terribly humiliating (and the dialog does nothing to help). He finally perfects a useful machine, which can transform water into food and feed his economically tarnished hometown. Eventually, his machine brings out all the flaws in every other character. And the bad guy, the Mayor, isn't a very well-developed bad guy. All I see is someone who want to gorge and be powerful, but he's not totally believable (in fantasy terms).

The pacing is the one thing I would exemplify with this movie. The pacing is organized and doesn't move too fast. All the jokes (no matter how used up and wordy) and drama (no matter how preachy) are at least delivered on time and given enough space to take place.


Visually, the character designs are not too interesting. But with computer animation, character design is tricky to judge. I just didn't like these designs, although the design of Flint, the main character, had some appeal. I'm sorry, but I find cubic shape fingers scary looking in CG.

Terrible voice overs. As usual, these movies put a lot of attention on the celebrities doing the voice overs. Often, there's at least one voice-over per movie that manages to do his/her job. But here, there was nothing special, or impressive. The voices are bland and have few defining characteristics.

The coloring is something of an eyesore. In my psyche, I see too much orange and pink when thinking of the movie. There are no pleasurable color schemes in the movie. All the colors are bright and overdone, and they look like concert lights.
The animated food is a major flaw. All the food looked poorly colored and lumpy. There was nothing alluring about it, which I believe all food on film should look like if that is the point. All the spaghetti, steak, meatballs, donuts, chicken, and whatnot, looked like it was cooked at a theater concession stand. Who could find that appetizing?

The credits have some redemption. Again, this movie keeps up the current trend of presenting credits in an alternate form of animation (beginning with Ratatouille's hand-drawn end credits). The credits have a bit of a 60's retro feel to them, but that is undone by the dance number playing over them.

I don't have too much to say anymore, because I don't want to dive too much into it. My first impression of the movie is very unpleasant. And all the praise this movie received makes me feel like Hell has frozen over.

For all I know, Hell really has Frozen over, and this is the beginning of the apocalypse.

Or maybe, I just need to accept my own opinion and move on.

Inglourious Basterds

I saw Inglourious Basterds a couple of weeks ago. I waited a while to write about it for two reasons: one because I have no deadline on writing reviews; two because I was hearing some bizarre complaints concerning Brad Pitt's character, and I wanted to collect a few of them.

I am a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino. He gives the impression he wants to make movies both he and the audience can enjoy. He is one of the few directors I can believe gets self-gratification out of his own movies, and yet balances his own needs with the audience's. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Tarantino's talents as an auteur.

Everyone seems concerned that Pitt's character, Lt. Aldo Raine (aka "Aldo the Apache") is only in the movie for about 30-40 minutes. It is true Brad Pitt was displayed as the central character of the movie, but he's also the most noteworthy actor in it as well, which gives the movie commercial credibility. Personally, I think that just seems like another of Tarantino's tricks to surprise the audience. That's not to say Pitt doesn't do a good job; he does a great job and his presence seems to add a fantasy element to the movie. I can't deny, however, he gets out-acted by certain cast members.

The movie is presented, as Tarantino intended, as a Spaghetti-western taking place during World War II, with primary emphasis on Nazi-occupied France. The movie is divided into five chapters (in the same way Pulp Fiction was divided into three stories), except this time, there is less juggling with the story's timeframe. There are three camps that are the primary focus of the movie, and they all converge in the final chapter.

The Inglourious Basterds: A team of civilian Jewish Soldiers led by Lt. Aldo Raine. Their sole mission is to murder as many Nazis as possible, which is justified by a few members' flashbacks to their own mal-treatment at Nazi hands.

The Nazis are portrayed as a despicable breed. There are points, however, where they are portrayed as being paranoid about the state of the modern world, and see Jews and minorities as interferences in the modern world's progression. This ideology both justifies why the Nazis are what they are, and at the same time, makes them even more antagonistic.

The third camp is the smallest. Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a young, (secretly) Jewish-French girl who survived the brutal massacre of her family and is on the run under an alias running a movie theater. Understandably bitter about the world around her, she sees a golden opportunity to not only gain victory for the Jews, but bring brutal justice to the wrongs that were done to her.

The screenplay is unique. The characters are handled in a way that makes them sympathetic and understandable at the same time.

The primary antagonist of the picture is Standartenführer Hans Landa (aka "The Jew Hunter"), brilliantly portrayed by Austrian actor Christophe Waltz. The character is a layered sadist of a detective, whose vast attention to detail give him reason to feel like he is invisible. Landa's appearance bookends the movie. Right from the start, Waltz plays Landa like he is floating on air. This is certainly one of the most compelling characters Tarantino has ever created.

Mélanie Laurent's performance as Shosanna is very tender for the most part, but she turns heads with a demonic turn. And ironically, this demon actually possesses some sympathy.

As with his previous two movies, nostalgia obsessed Tarantino opens the movie pretty old fashioned like. He uses an old Universal logo (used in the 1970's and 80's). At my first viewing, there was a little kid. I couldn't see him but he sounded like he could have been from 6-9 years old. As soon as the old logo came upon the screen, the boy loudly went "Wow!" The rest of the audience (myself included) found that amusing.
* Please do not ask me what a kid this young was doing at this movie.*

The climactic scene in the French movie theater is a sight to behold on screen. I found myself wanting to laugh at several parts of it. The scene turns the whole movie on its head, and exposes the major idea behind it: that this movie is taking place during WWII in an alternate universe! One has to appreciate the sound design of that scene. The sound editors had a lot of volume to balance, and did so in a way that made the scene explode (pun intended).
The whole fifth chapter (about 30+ minutes long) is the highlight of the movie, and ties everything up in a pretty exciting, violent, darkly humorous, and satisfying way.

I better stop now before spoiling anything else. All in all, this is a great movie, on par with Pulp Fiction. I loved it. That's all I can say.