TWOBEN'S DOMAIN

The Illusionist (L'Illusionniste)

2011-01-05T11:17:00.000-08:00

French filmmaker Sylvain Chomet is in a category all his own in terms of filmmaking. Judging by the time between his projects (its been 7 years since The Triplets of Belleville), a conclusion could be reached that he is a perfectionist, with a delicate eye for detail. The Illustionist is only his second feature film, and while it has some hallmarks in common with Triplets, there is new territory here as well. Both films are nearly wordless and feature stylized characters in non-stylized settings. However, Triplets is a comedic adventure with bits of action and musical interludes, while The Illusionist is more emotionally driven with a greater focus on characters and emotional growth.

The film isn't totally Chomet's. In some ways it is a (phantom) collaboration between Chomet and famed French filmmaker Jacques Tati (1907-1982). Tati, who directed only six features during his life, is best known for his nearly wordless comedies staring his alter-ego, the innocently-incompetent Mr. Hulot. The Illusionist is adapted from an un-produced screenplay by Tati, said to be written as a response to his estranged eldest daughter.

The movie takes place for the most part all around the United Kingdom, with locations in London, Scotland, and a majority spent in Edinburgh (also the location of Chomet's studio where the film was produced). The time of the movie isn't established, although it can considered somewhere around the late 50's and early 60's. The main character, Tatischeff (Tati's birth name), is an aging magician who finds interest for his talents dwindling, and is short on venues to perform his magic act. One of his luckier ventures into Scotland introduce him to an impressed young waitress. After some confusion, she winds up in his lap, and he ends up taking care of her, like a father figure. The rest of the film shows the girl growing up emotionally, while Tatischeff slowly comes to the realization that he needs to rethink his life.

I have to say, the film is more of a thematic essay than a thorough story. But I might be far reaching. It seems like it is trying to be a clear story, but the relationship between the magician and the girl doesn't start off very clearly. Because there is hardly any dialog, the audience has to pay close attention to the acting and pantomime in order to realize the characters' developments. I had some trouble there.

One of my favorite characters is a pudgy white rabbit with an irate temper and a need to bite. The rabbit is added for comedic effect, as Tatischeff has a difficult time controlling his live prop before and after shows.

The character designs are great, although not as fantastical as in Triplets. While the characters in Triplets were like bizarre caricatures, the characters in The Illusionist are much softer in terms of exaggeration. They are not scary looking, and are a little more realistic. Tatischeff is an obvious caricature of Jacques Tati, but in a friendly way.

The art direction of the film is beautiful. The majority is done by hand, drawn and painted with watercolors. Like the character designs, the art direction is only slightly exaggerated, as the location are quite precise. Some shots still require digital assistance, but they are wonderfully composed shots.

Some shots, however, get a little too crowded. Too many characters in one shot, and a lot of faces to catch. Actually, this may give the film some staying power. The more it is watched, the more details one can pick up on. However, considering how tricky the story is, that remains to be seen.

I am very willing to see this film again. This review is after only one viewing, and likely to change after several more viewings. For now, I am still very impressed by Sylvain Chomet's talents as a director and artist, and it is a good film. I just feel the storytelling needs work. It is not easy to replicate a writing style, especially Jacques Tati's style, which was very unique and distinctive. However, I can see Tati's influence in Triplets as well, so the influence is clearly there. I hope Chomet has a few more films up his sleeve. At the very least, his complexities may allow him as many films as Tati produced in his lifetime.

Tangled...a little too straightened

2010-12-18T13:18:00.000-08:00

This movie has been hyped up as Disney's big return to form, especially after years of sub-par movies in the shadow of its partner studio, Pixar. I actually thought Princess and the Frog was the true return to form, but it turns out I was wrong (although I still enjoyed that movie very much). Tangled may be a return to form, but one that depends on nostalgia. Aside from the animation, the movie doesn't break any new ground or enter any new territory.

The story is pretty simple. Most of us know the Grimm's fairy tale of Rapunzel. The story revolves around a princess who is surrendered as an infant to a witch and locked in a tower, where the only known means of entrance is climbing the girl's supremely long hair up to the windows. The story here is altered a bit, with Rapunzel being a princess, and kidnapped rather than surrendered. Also of note is that Rapunzel's long hair has healing powers, due to her mother drinking an enchanted elixir while pregnant. The villain (kidnapper in this case) is Gothel, and she isn't a witch or an enchantress, but a very vain woman so consumed with being young forever. Gothel needs the power of the girl's hair in order to remain youthful looking. Move ahead 16 years later, and Rapunzel wants to see the world outside her tower, and gets her chance when a young hoodlum named Flynn Rider (originally a prince in the Grimm's tale) seeks solace in her tower while on the run.

The story, I have to say is not very original, but it is solid. There is enough development between the characters and their relationships. And while non of it is unique, it is enough to keep the story and the movie going along. Flynn Rider turns out to be a rather compelling character, one in which is so slippery that its hard to know whether or not to trust him. Although he's a thief, its only because he's something of a dreamer who thinks its possible to attain the impossible. This works in the relationship between him and Rapunzel: what she believes is impossible is actually possible, and its vice versa for him. Their relationship connects when they finally make these realizations.

Tangled is a mixture of two formulas: Disney's Princess films in the 1950's, and the modern Broadway formula in the early 1990's. They are updated further with Computer Animation. However, the CG is not the realistic "Illusion of reality" look Disney initially tried to achieve years ago, but a closer adaptation of Disney's original character designs from the previously mentioned eras. Glen Keane, who was originally one of the directors, contributes to the character designs of the film, and if you check out his blog and original drawings, the 3D characters bear a much closer resemblence to their drawn counterparts. A much appreciated breakthrough.

I have to say, when I first heard about this movie (when it was still called Rapunzel), I was curious about how they described the look of the film. Previous directors Glen Keane and Dean Wellins had stated they were working on a CG look that would capture the feel of 2D animation but with an emphasis on the look of oil paintings. I had no idea how to imagine this, but it sounded unique. What they finally have here is very nice, with a great job done on Rapunzel's hair (the much said struggles with the hair seem to have paid off). There were parts of the movie where I didn't like Rapunzel's hair, especially in the end when her hair gets cut off, and it looks all brown and pulpy (sound familiar?).

These formulas wouldn't be complete without the cute animal characters and broadway style songs which the characters break out into. Rapunzel's only friend in the tower is Pascal, a little chameleon that acts more like a cat than a lizard. The horse, Maximus, is one of my favorite characters in the movie. Maximus starts off as a loyal Royal Guard horse (acting more like a dog than a horse), fiercely tracking down the wanted Flynn, but then becoming a willing ally of Flynn, due to their mutual respect of Rapunzel. These misplaced animals personas managed to add to the enjoyment of the film.

I had problems with the songs. They just weren't memorable enough for me, even with Alan Menken, whose music many a child has grown up on. They just weren't catchy or lyrically poignant enough for me. "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid is still a great example of lyrical memorability. However, Menken has not worked with as bold a lyricist as the late Howard Ashman. I mean no disrespect to Glenn Slater, but these songs sounded more like they were playing it safe, rather than treading some new territories.

Overall, I come back to the same thing I tell everyone. The movie is good, but its not great. It may be a return to form for Disney, but its no great leap forward. I would have preferred something that broke new ground, either visually or story-wise. I give Tangled a 7 out of 10.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

2010-12-07T11:56:00.000-08:00

I have written about the Harry Potter films on the domain before. Anyone who knows me knows I am a huge fan of the Potter movies. I have managed to read most of the original books by J.K. Rowling, but it was the movies that turned me into such a Potter geek. At least two years ago, it was announced that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last novel in the series and the end of the story, would be split into two movies, Part 1 and Part 2. This excited me, as it was obvious that after a 10 year-long phenomenon, it needed to end on a grand scale.

Part I came out a couple of weeks ago, and I saw it on my birthday. Recently, I saw it a second time (as I missed about five minutes the first time due to an emergency bathroom break). And all I can say is fantastic. Its already got me revved up for the final part next July.

Although its a great movie, it has to be judged as part of a series. It will feel weird to judge it entirely as a stand-alone movie, which I notice some other critics have done. As a stand-alone movie, it is technically marvelous, but the script and story rely on everything that has occurred in the series so far. If the previous films are ignored, then the story is confusing and disjointed. Thankfully I know the story well enough to judge it properly. And on a technical level, the film is beautifully composed, with David Yates and his crew really taking their time with the story, and changing the tones a little more casually, as opposed to rushing them from scene to scene, as they did two movies ago on Harry Potter 5.

This movie is very unique to the series in several ways. For one thing, it is the first movie where nothing takes place at the Hogwarts school. Since Hogwarts has been the primary setting for most of the story, this movie allows us to see the main characters (Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, Hermione Granger) under completely new circumstances. Now they are travelling the U.K. completely incognito, searching for horcruxes, the secret to the evil Lord Voldemort's immortality. However, there appears to be something of a Holocaust occurring, with Voldemort's control of the Ministry of Magic cracking down on muggle-born witches and wizards (something akin to white Aryans frowning upon Jews and other minorities). In this Holocaust, the Ministry declares Harry Potter "Undesirable No. 1."

This is by far the darkest movie of the series, and the movies have been getting progressively darker as the characters get older. In this one, the main characters are completely cut off from their safety zones, and yet have to enter danger to find what they are looking for. And in the courses of this danger, characters get killed off. I tend to look forward to darkness in these sort of stories, as it helps to bring home the relationships between the main characters, and it exemplifies the themes a little quicker than if it were lighthearted. Even Rowling herself stated that the major theme of the story is "death."

There are some really beautiful landscapes throughout the main trio's travels. The outdoor settings really give the feeling of a road movie, with a wide open world surrounding the three main characters. I don't know who did scouting for this movie, but they deserve some recognition for finding these locations.

And there are more scenes in this movie that take place in the "muggle" world, or the world as we know it. There are more scenes that take place in the real settings of London and Surrey. I feel these scenes really tie the story close to home, and we can understand it a little easier, without putting too much logic on the setting.

A major highlight of the film is the animated "Deathly Hallows" fable. As a fairy tale that proves vital to the second half of the story, it is given a very special treatment. The story of the three brothers and their "gifts" from Death is told in a style rendered in CG, but reminiscent of the silhouettes of Lotte Reiniger's The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1937). The style is very engaging, and gives great clarity to what I consider to be a "difficult to remember" plot device. It was designed and directed by Ben Hibon with Framestore. Definitely worth the price of admission.

In terms of acting, which has always been a stand-out (at least for me) in these movies, those who get to shine really pull it all together. The three main actors (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson) have practically grown up onscreen as actors, and the results really show. In particular, Emma Watson's performance of Hermione stands out. However, if I have one complaint, its that certain actors that don't appear for very long, they don't seem to put enough into their performance. In particular, this occurs with most of the Death Eater characters, sans Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) who are terrific as usual. Other characters, such as the Malfoys (Jason Isaacs, Helen McCrory, Tom Felton), don't get the full treatment. In particular, I thought more should have been added to the character of Narcissa Malfoy, as she plays an important role in the upcoming Part II.

I would have also liked to have seen Bill Nighy's role as Rufus Scrimgeour expanded a bit (although that would have worked better with Harry Potter 6). However, in saying that, Bill Nighy is one of my favorite actors and seeing him as Rufus Scrimgeour is one of the highlights of the movie for me.

It looks like they wrapped up these movies just in the nick of time. The three main actors are starting to look too old to play the right ages of these characters. I'm sure everything will be wrapped up nicely in the last installment in July 2011. Its nice to have something to look forward to, isn't it?

Megamind...

2010-11-30T17:53:00.000-08:00

DreamWorks's animated features have had the slowest time improving themselves (at least for my tastes). For all we know, this is as good as its going to get (and I hope I'm wrong). Five years ago, DreamWorks Animation was typified by dazzling computer animation and amazing effects, and voice-acting by the top-grossing actors of the day. While this is still the norm, they also relied on terribly transparent stories, rehashing pop-culture references and clichés (I still have a hard time appreciating the Shrek movies). In the last few years, their movies have improved slightly, with stories that, while not totally perfect, do not rely heavily on pop-cultural references or expose the actors behind the microphone.

Megamind is a good movie, but not a great movie. Its pretty forgettable and is likely to become dated as the years go by. But for the time being, it is a pretty enjoyable one. The story follows the evolution of the "bad guy" (another trend following Despicable Me??). In an obvious lift from Superman, Megamind (as an infant) is sent away from his doomed planet for survival on Earth. Unfortunately, the exact same thing occurs with a more human-looking child with super-powers. While the "human" baby is settled with a wealthy couple and lifelong public adoration, the blue alien lands in a Prison for the Criminally Gifted, and grows up with a twisted morale and is led to believe that he is destined to be super-villain. Flash forward to the present, Megamind is the arch nemesis of Metro Man, well known for their elaborate battles throughout Metro City ("Metrocity" as Megamind wrongly says it). When Megamind finally succeeds in killing his arch-nemesis, it seems like the clouds are finally parting for him. So what next?

The story has some socialist overtones to it, particularly in regards to public relations to large figures. If anything, there can be comparisons drawn between 2008 Presidential Election and the fictional reactions of the main characters. It seems like parallels can be drawn between Megamind and John McCain, while the same can be said for Metro Man and President Barack Obama. This isn't meant to be a political critique (I'm the last person to do that), but the point of it is that, with all the recent criticism of President Obama, it seems like he was rooted for the wrong reasons earlier.
In Megamind, the good guy gets to grow up in the lap of luxury, looking all perfect, while the bad guy grows up in a prison, with no proper role models. Megamind is brushed aside for his alien-appearance and loose morals, but turns out in the end to be just as human and good-natured as we see most heroes. Now Metro Man is loved all around (with a Jesus reference thrown in there), but his outward persona masks some sad flaws, as this "great" hero is just as human as any of us.
However, the story has a plot that could have gone in any direction, and the writers chose one of those alternate routes. It certainly helps that there's a sense of unpredictability to the story. I mean, what does the bad guy finally achieve when his sole ambition has been to kill the hero and take over a single city? For a movie built on clichés, it does a good job of mocking clichés.

One of my biggest problems with this movie is the design. The characters look generally boring, and I find their expressions to be limited. I have had this problem before, but I believe this movie could have benefitted from a little more stylization. The designers could have moved away from the mild DC look, which works better when drawn, not rigged in CGI. And the color design (which is a problem with nearly all Dreamworks films) still has that fast-food in the summer look to it. If the movie were better designed, the story probably could have benefitted from that.

There are too many destruction scenes with too much debris, but I guess that's to be expected is a superhero movie (I think I'm just very anal in that area). I still have that problem with big-budgeted movies: their shots and compositions are all over the place, and are too fast-paced.

One of the movie's hallmarks appears to be the use of popular music. Dreamworks always seems to be willing to pay handsomely for the biggest pop music hits, and that's no exception here. Megamind and his crew seem to have a preference for AC/DC and other hard rock gems. There's a very humorous scene in which Megamind's sidekick, Minion, keeps accidentally playing Minnie Riperton's "Lovin' You" when trying to turn off the AC/DC track. And there's a nice Michael Jackson tribute at the end, complete with the song "Bad." Is this all a good thing?

Don't get me wrong. I love hearing hard rock and heavy metal in an animated film. I just wish they didn't always go for the hit songs.

The voice acting is too flat for me. Will Ferrell is a good actor, but as a voice artist, it doesn't always work. His performance as Megamind is too friendly throughout, and at the beginning, it kind of gives away that the character is likely to change. The same can be said for Jonah Hill's performance, although it works to the story's advantage. As for the rest of the cast, there's still that sense that they are just talking into a microphone, and not putting a fully formed performance into the characters.

My opinion in the end? Like I said before, its a good movie, but I don't see it being timeless. This is a very expensive B movie. If I have to chart this on a scale of 1 to 10, I give it a 6.

Artist Personas: Rock Musicians

2010-11-24T11:43:00.000-08:00

During my last year at Pratt, I took a class that dealt with the ways artists are portrayed in fiction. Looking back, I wish I had taken the class a little more seriously, because it might have prepared me better for after school. In school, we never studied the psychology of artists, and as such we have the same attitude about our heroes as others do.

Its the old story of the intense creative types determined to prove their brilliance to the world. The following entry might be the first of many for me to cover this. I am starting with something that has been on my mind for sometime now: the personalities of rock musicians.

It has become more and more obvious to me recently that those who play music professionally are likely to have to a particular personality. A sort of crazy personality. Sometimes a narcissistic personality. It is a personality that starts off as idealistic, but eventually it is a very confrontational and opinionated sort. There are countless musicians who fit this profile.

Before, I just assumed it was an overtly social personality, very unlike my own. Until recently, in my lifetime of listening to music, I never thought about the personalities of the artists I was listening to. But after working with and encountering rock musicians personally, I now have a better realization of these personalities. It has slightly affected my listening habits in a way, as I might get repelled by a brash personality, and want to hear something else.

Recently, I because a late-blooming Rush fan. I have been slightly fond of Rush for a long time, but not a real fan. Its only in the last couple of years that I suddenly became more and more fascinated by Rush's music and history. Earlier this year, a documentary entitled Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage was released. Along with documenting the band's career, it also interviews several celebrated musicians who were inspired by Rush. The interviewed personalities of the band differ drastically in many ways compared to their admirers. Band members Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart appear for the most part to be very casual and introverted. Their admirers on the other hand (such as members of Smashing Pumpkins and Rage Against the Machine) are extremely extroverted, over-opinionated, and blunt in their regards to music and the band. I don't know if its the difference between talking about yourself and talking about your idols, but the members of Rush strike me as anomalies in hard rock music, especially Neil Peart.

Neil Peart borders slightly on the persona of the tortured poet persona, but not totally there.

These types are equally extroverted, but can quiet themselves down when they feel really creative. You'll find that a lot of people who are exceedingly creative have qualities that put other people off. They can be crazy, brooding, reclusive, intense, self-centered, or anything else on an endless list. That's not to say some are friendly and personable, as I am confidently sure there are.

At the moment, I am reading No Certainty Attached, a biography of Steven Kilbey. Kilbey is the lead singer/songwriter and bass player of the The Church, an Australian alternative band (although Kilbey is British-born). They are best known in American for their song "Under the Milky Way", but I have become a fan of their other works, which are quite prolific. So far, Kilbey seems to downplay a mysterious persona that he has come to be mistaken for, and opened up about his own egotism, musical idealism, and occasionally extroverted nature. The book was written by Robert Lurie, who admits that as a great fan of the Church, he was a little unnerved by the realization that his heroes are just as human and vulnerable as he is. Kilbey admits the same thing about meeting his idols.

Some artists play the illusion of someone they admire. This isn't just in the case of professional musicians, but even artists in other mediums (animators especially). It is believed if someone made it one way, then another can make it that same path, which is not always the case. You'll end up wasting a lot of time wondering why nothing works.

You'll notice something about the personal lives of those who become really famous. The people who become really famous are those whose qualities make others doubt them early on. A prime example is John Lennon in his youth: I doubt anyone expected him to be as famous as he eventually became, and he had a pretty checkered reputation when he was young. This is not something you can copy, and its certainly not something to wish to have. That's almost like wishing you were clinically depressed.

I could be wrong in some of these instances, but so far I believe I am right. There are more psychological profiles to associate with artists. If I left anything out, I will be sure to come to them at some other point.

Personal Update, October 2010

2010-10-19T16:01:00.000-07:00

I am writing this to keep my Domain blog going. There is no one subject to this entry, so its pretty much all over the place. I am learning to take advantage of my own individuality, and letting a lot of stuff out. I've been negligent with this blog for months, mainly for a couple of reasons.

Image from Barton Fink (1991), illustrating the self-righteous writer.

The first reason is that I have taken up a new practice of writing as much dribble as I can each week (and hopefully each day). My one requirement for this practice is to write at least 1000 words in one day. I just pick a subject thats nagging at me, and then dribble the hell out of it. Some of this stuff gets really personal, so its not stuff I want to post here, or share with everyone. But I don't consider these journal entries. I'm simply just trying to better my own writing, and search for new ideas.

Second, my movie reviews have slowed down, primarily due to my financial state. I have to be more selective when going to the cinema nowadays. I can't afford to see anything all the time, even though this past summer was particularly slow in terms of interesting movies. I did see movies, but I neglected to review them, as I couldn't write up enough to say about them.

Seeing recent previews for the DVD release of How To Train Your Dragon isn't helping me at the moment. I saw the movie when it came out back in March, and at first I was excited to see it, as it marked Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois' return to feature directing. However, I came out of the movie feeling rather disappointed. While the movie looked very impressive, I was unimpressed and uninspired by the story, the acting, and the character development. I later looked up the original source material, and found that the filmmakers chose to downplay the more whimsical elements of the original material, and focus more on an action/adventure tale. I felt very displeased to know that nearly everyone else I know loved the movie, and considered it the best Dreamworks movie to date. I felt very alone.

Now at the time I saw HTTYD, it was during a week that did not go well for me. I got screwed over by two jobs, which temporarily shattered me. I reasoned that the disappointment of that week colored my viewing of HTTYD. The only way I can know that for sure is if I watch the movie again, preferably during a more relaxed period. But so far, looking at the previews and watching the clips, I am still reasoning that I am still disappointed by the story and minimal character development. Nothing about it surprised me. Even more disappointing is I feel like the only who feels this way. Still, the movie is only months old, and the recently announced sequel may prove to be a better movie (of which there's a 70% chance of happening).

Other movies I have seen are Bill Plympton's Idiots and Angels, playing at the IFC Centre here in New York City, and the Social Network. Idiots and Angels may be Plympton's best feature so far, a long time coming. One thing I admire Plympton for is his ambition and drive to finish what he thinks and starts. So far, he has done nine indie features and countless short films. His features, however, have had trouble finding larger audiences outside of his cult following (due in some part to his lack of feature writing experience). But with Idiots and Angels, he seems to have found a style that works with a feature length, one with little dialog, musical emphasis, and solid pacing in terms of the plot.

The Social Network is an easy one for me, having been a devoted Facebook-er for over four years now. I really enjoyed this movie, and it paints an intriguing picture that is both dark and funny. I don't know Mark Zuckerberg enough to judge him or this portrayal, but it seems to be an excellent representation of the Age of the Individualist. Everyone goes from being in clubs to being their own entity. I'm usually pretty cautious with David Fincher's movies, and I was very relieved with how much I enjoyed this one.

Recently, my preference for independent animation has been re-awoken after some time. After two years out of college and struggling in the animation industry, I have found the commercial world to be full of nepotism, two-facedness, and blind irony. Now granted, the last two years saw the Entertainment industry ravaged by the financial recession, I can't say any other industry is better. But as I have lost friends and faith, it has forced me to re-evaluate where I stand in this industry and other directions to look in. From the recession, I have lost some idealism, and developed a cynical attitude that arises at the sight of any injustice.

But independent animation and independent artists have their own world, far from the prying eyes of the commercial world. Its a small world where everyone influences one another, and can get instant gratification from their art and other art. Its a world I enjoy poking my head in from time to time. A recent Cartoon Brew article, written by Amid Amidi, has just spelled out the end of the creator-driven era in the animation industry. I insist anyone reading this also read that, as it makes some lucid points.

In the past, I have hoped to be a part of something that would occur again, but I can't let that guide me anymore. I am looking in other areas not just for ambition, but for survival.

Recently, my coverage for ASIFA-East's Exposure Sheet has given me some attention for my writing. I am getting encouragement to try my writing elsewhere (although the tricky part of that is not having a journalism degree). There will be things to look forward to in the future of animation and film. I have already figured out that nothing is pre-meditated. Its all a matter of being at the right place at the right time.

Irrational Reactions

2010-09-26T20:37:00.000-07:00

This is a first for me. Animation director, John R. Dilworth, recently held a show at 92Y Tribeca in New York City. The show was called Irrational Reactions, and John requested me to cover it for ASIFA-East, as he felt this show to be particularly successful. I had previously written about John Dilworth for ASIFA last November, but this show had something different to it. Although they are mostly the same films, John's way of presenting them was more intimate than before. The size of the venue allowed for easy audience participation (my sister was one of the lucky volunteers, in John's demonstration of TV series pitching). The highlights of this show were John's moments of prop-comedy (of which he is a natural).

Here is a link to the article. Enjoy reading.

Satoshi Kon (1963-2010)

2010-08-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

Two years ago, I took the opportunity to see anime filmmaker Satoshi Kon at the Lincoln Film Center in New York City. They were showing his movies, and that night, he appeared for a Q&A after a screening of Paprika. He came out with a camera, and proceeded to photograph the audience. Through his translator, he proclaimed he liked rearranging positions, and in this case, he was observing the audience.

Satoshi Kon passed away this week, on Tuesday August 24 2010. He was 46 years old. The news came to me, as well as many other admirers, as a terrible shock.

I have seen all four of his movies, and had only recently started watching his anime series, Paranoia Agent. I was seeing a lot of stuff for the first time while at college, and among it were the movies Perfect Blue and Tokyo Godfathers. Needless to say, I was blown away by both of them. At the time, I was still slow to accept anime, with the exception of Hayao Miyazaki. But someone told me that Satoshi Kon was just as unique as Miyazaki, so I went on a hunch. And I'm glad I did. His movies are filled realistic images (too realistic by animation standards) being disrupted by surrealistic and dreamlike occurrences and disturbances. I immediately likened him to David Lynch, in terms of writing. He has a real talent of directing stories that enchant the audience with psychologically complex stories, in spite of the incoherent nature of the writing. And yet through all the drama, there is plenty of visual treats and edgy humor to balance the movies out. Very impressive.

My heart goes out to Satoshi Kon's family. Thank you for the magic, Sweet Prince.

Tales from Earthsea: We're not there yet...

2010-08-17T13:04:00.000-07:00

Tales from Earthsea is sort of like a progressive rock album. On a technical level, it is quite extraordinary. The way the shots and action are arranged are top-notch. Unfortunately, it falls very, very short in terms of its content.

Mind you, I only compare this to progressive rock, because I've been listening to a lot of it lately.

The film starts off with a promising plot. But about 30 minutes in, it doesn't feel like much has changed since then. The beginning shows two dragons fighting in the sky, and this is witnessed by a ship crew below. It is established that seeing a dragon is normal, but to see them fighting viciously is very unusual. The two dragons are never explained again. We are meant to assume that this is a symbol of unbalance in Earthsea's environment.

The story moves very slowly. Its almost like a J.R.R. Tolkein story, fully of allegories surrounded by mythical and medieval occurences. But it takes a long time to reach the point of something, and you are never certain why you are reaching that point. Like Tolkein, it exists within a world of its own, with its own history and mythology. That much is explained, but it is never really explained how the main characters are connected to that.

The characters are never fully explained. My attention was mostly focused on the character of Arren, who is introduced murdering his father, and then running away, having periodic moments of suicidal tendency. This fascinated me, but wasn't touched upon later in the story. It seemed more like Arren was recovering from something, but we never find out what. Its possible his problems may be an allegory for bipolar disorder.

The character of Therru is kept a mystery throughout much of the story. We learn that she was an abused child, and her low social status makes her a severe outcast. But at the end of the movie, she is shown to be immortal, which is never fully explained. It seems like there wasn't enough time to fully round her out as a character.

The antagonist, Cob, is a very confusing character for me. On a simpler note, he's a wizard wishing to gain immortality, but the story alludes to a past he has, which is connected to Earthsea's mythology. The latter isn't explained very much.

Goro Miyazaki definitely has the technical prowess down. For a first time director, he helmed a nicely organized visual treat. But as a storyteller, he needs a ton of work there. And this seems to be the general consensus of the whole thing. Goro Miyazaki, the son of animation icon Hayao Miyazaki, needs to really concentrate on what he wants to say in a story, and how to fully explain that to the audience. It seems like he didn't spend very much adapting the screenplay (based on books by Ursula K. Le Guin), and more time structuring the technical challenges of the movie.

Something nice about Tales from Earthsea: it fits nicely with Studio Ghibli's other films. Its not the best thing they've done, but it doesn't ruin their track record.

Back again: Belated respone to Toys and Bad Guys

2010-08-03T10:37:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not showing up here in nearly four months. These past four months haven't been easy. Back in March, where I last left the Domain, I got screwed over by two jobs.

When that happens in the same week, your judgement gets messed up. I saw How to Train Your Dragon that same week, but in the midst of everything going, I think my judgement of the movie was clouded. I will wait for the DVD, and watch it on a day when I'm feeling pretty good about stuff.

To be on the safe side, I probably shouldn't discuss one of the issues. But I can safely give the reasons I have been away from this blog for so long. Its simply been an issue of work, and the intolerance of not being paid. I did managed to snag a couple of jobs, but they require me not disclose them anywhere. But in all, everything that happened in 2009 caught up with me, and I saw just how degraded the animation industry has become. While waiting for the industry to clear up (if it ever does), I have focused exclusively on improving my writing skills. Now that might sound ironic as I am explaining why I haven't been around here. But some things I have to keep to myself in the meantime.

In the meantime, my movie-going has been few and far in-between. Again, this is due to money. There were few movies I wanted to see in the meantime anyway. The only two animated features to grab my attention were Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me. Every other animated trailer I've seen...zip. I managed to see both Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me, without clouded judgement, even in a summer-swollen New York City.

I have written reviews for both, although they are both late. I've been too distracted to write them as quickly. They simply take no immediate priority. But I still have my right to comment on them, even if nobody is interested in them now.

TOY STORY 3

If this is to be the final installment of the Toy Story movies, they did a terrific job.

I also kind of hope this is the last Toy Story movie. When Pixar did the first two movies, they were still perfecting their technology, and trying to get a natural look for their movies. As such, the first two movies don't look as unique and exaggerated as Pixar's more recent endeavors. But to keep Toy Story 3 in the same vein as the first two, I guess it was important for it to look slightly realistic so as to keep it in close relation to its predecessors. After this, I would prefer Pixar to continue expanding the different directions the visuals of their movies can go.

The first movie focused on Woody and Buzz. The second movie did the same, but also equally focused on Jesse and the new introductions. This movie gives its total focus to all of the main characters of "Andy's Toys," making it an ensemble film of sorts. And it works. While not all the characters get equal screen time (there's just way too many), they are given enough development for the audience to identify them.

The new characters are given fresh twists, both amusing and dark, compared to how toys were portrayed in the previous movies. In the daycare center, new characters like Lotso (Lots-o-huggin Bear), Ken (Barbie's companion), and Lotso's henchmen are complex toys that have lost their owners, and been given a desolate view on life. Lotso felt abandoned, and his own psychology told him that everyone should be made to suffer just as he did, and they earn their rewards. Ken is a unique character, as he is male but has all the accessories of a girls toy. He's probably been mocked his whole existence, and feels the need to be one of the tough guys to prove his "boys-toy"-hood.

The toys in Bonnie's room are among my favorites. Whereas in Andy's room, the toys treated it like an office job, the toys in Bonnie's room are like a theater troupe acting in plays with their owner. My favorite new character would have to be Mr. Pricklepants, a cute hedgehog in lederhosen, who thinks of himself as a thespian actor.

The garbage dump/incinerator scene is one of the high points of the movie. I have to admit, some children may be scared of this scene, but that's not my problem. This scene kept me on my seat, and the character animation enhanced the emotion of the danger beautifully without overdoing it (i.e. getting too wordy and sentimental).

Now that I am into the Toy Story movies for the time being, I will wonder if anybody is interested in the twisted logic behind the movies' universe. Does anyone care how these toys come to everlasting life? How can toys made of plastic and cotton have vocal chords? And why hasn't the government latched onto these potentially useful weapons of home invasion? Just let that sink in for a bit.

All in all, as I said before, a nice finale to what turned out to be a trilogy. Pixar really pulled it off this time. I like the dark direction they are going into, as it seems to relate to most of the movie going audience nowadays.

Day and Night.
This may be the best Pixar short in years. Technically, the concept is simple. The two main characters are hand-drawn, but colored with 3D animation. The simplicity ends there. They are fun to watch, and we are curious about their interactions. I do have to admit though, the concept gets a little lost in the middle, when a paranoid radio broadcast in played. That seemed kind of forced. Also, I would have preferred a music different from the happy-go-lucky 1950's soundtrack. That keeps the designs tied in with 1950's UPA.

Despite all that, a good experience.

DESPICABLE ME

This movie came from Illumination Entertainment. It's not immediately original, but its not a bad movie really. Some studios are really trying to put their best foot forward, even though the economy prevents them from getting too far. The plot of the movie sounds unique, in that a "bad guy" is the protagonist this time around. The main character, Gru, is not a pleasant looking figure, but we grow to appreciate him as the movie goes along. Something of an anti-hero, Gru is trying to maintain his status as a super-villain, while dealing with an unexpected new role as adoptive father to three little girls.

The animation is very cartoony. Lots of exaggerated poses (well not a lot, but more than what you'd find in a Dreamworks movie).

The roller coaster scene is actually pretty impressive. The way the shots are positioned and sustained, you really do get the queasiness of being high up on rails.

Nice characters designs. Nice to see a unique one for the main character. There's nothing typical about Gru's design, as he is supposed to be a bad guy, and bad guys usually have interesting appearances. According to interviews, the designers referenced Ronald Searle for inspiration. The could have done a little better for Gru's mother, who I felt had a tired design.

The minions are never explained. I read somewhere that they are genetically enhanced corn pops.

We have the usual half-hearted voice overs. Steve Carrell's faux-german accent is pretty funny most of the time, although a little forced in parts. Russel Brand does the best job as Gru's aging scientist.

A big plus for the screenplay is the humor. There is very little reliance on pop-culture for the most part. The interaction between Gru and the little girls provides a unique backdrop for some very humorous conversations.

I didn't like the last 15 minutes of the movie. It was in the end that it got too cliched. It gets too glossy at the end, with a big disco scene, and everyone suddenly accepting one another. And this disco scene wasn't the first in the movie. I didn't understand the connection between Disco and super-villany. Sometimes, opposites don't always attract.

Not a perfect movie (again), but not a bad one. I didn't cringe anywhere in the movie, so that's a big plus.

Tim Burton: Alice and the MoMA

2010-03-28T15:05:00.001-07:00

I feel like I have been putting this off for no reason. But the time seems right to write about Tim Burton.

I have to start off by calling Tim Burton one of my favorite filmmakers. As a little kid and up until college, he was my favorite director. Although my tastes and views have changed, I still hold Burton in the highest regard.

The Tim Burton exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) is a subdued spectacle to see. I say subdued, because of the enormous popularity the exhibit has attracted, which I will explain below.

The exhibit is divided into two halves: "Growing up in Burbank" and "After Burbank." The former represents Burton's life until 1985, when his movie career took off. These include childhood projects and collected artwork (mostly drawing) from his days at CalArts and Disney. The drawings are what truly make the show exciting, as they demonstrate everything Burton is appreciated for.

His drawings illustrate an extremely fertile imagination. In Burton's world, we find charming characters based on animals and fictional monsters, and grotesque beings based on what we see everyday (what some would call normal people). What we see in the drawings is not something that can be duplicated easily, but these worlds have to be truly felt. One can not feel them unless they experienced the same childhood Burton did.

There are hundreds of ideas coming out of these drawings. It would be great if Burton did a 2D animated film someday. But for now, these drawings work just as well with (Burton's preferred) stop-motion animation.

I have seen it twice, and each time, it is crowded, and considering the space the show is in (one of the smaller spaces), it is not very pleasant.
The drawings, which are the central items of the show, are stacked in at least 20 frames per wall. To really appreciate this show, the drawings really need to be examined.

Anybody remember Poppy?

The second half of the exhibit covers Burton's years after Burbank. The years of 1985 to the present, when Burton went from struggling animator to feature film director. This part of the exhibit seems to be padded down with items and props from Burton's movies. The centerpieces of this half are the stop-motion puppets from The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride. There is also some stop-motion tests made for Mars Attacks! (1996). The movie is not one of Burton's best, but Barry Purves' animation is still a treat for the right enthusiast.

Presently, the exhibit coincides with Burton's latest offering, Alice In Wonderland. Although the movie's reviews have been mixed, I enjoyed the movie immensely. When you admire Burton as much as I do, you run the risk of regretting it if the movie doesn't live up to expectations, and that has happened before (Planet of the Apes [2001] and Corpse Bride [2005]). But that didn't happen this time, thank goodness.

I don't think its a perfect movie, but I think it is being judged much too harshly. Burton and his crew handled the plot very carefully, making sure everything had a reason for being there, but not overdoing it. When one does a movie with this much visual extravigence, it usually helps that the story be simplified. Linda Woolverton's script is straight to the point, and not padded down with excess dialog.

The "real world" scenes that bookend the movie prove that Burton has the ability to bring out characters and their traits without having to rely on the visuals for guidance. This is something a lot of people forget, even though Burton has done it in several movies (particularly Ed Wood [1994]).

The 3D aspect of the movie works perfectly. It accomplishes the trait of distinguishing Wonderland (or "Underland" in this case) as its own separate world. And like Avatar recently, the characters become the visual aspect. And that brings out some wonderful work from the actors.

If I have any criticisms, it is with the soundtrack. Although Danny Elfman's score is strong, it fails to work in several areas of the movie. Personally, I love "Alice's Theme," but the other parts of the score don't seem to live up as quickly. And also, some of the sound mixing seemed rushed, and some of the character's dialog got overrun with other sound effects.

Well, that's all the hot air I have to fill Burton up with right now. Go see the exhibit if you can. You can always get the art book, but its not the same as physically seeing them.

Waking Sleeping Beauty

2010-02-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

Last week, I was lucky enough to attend a preview screening of the new documentary, WAKING SLEEPING BEAUTY. Its theatrical release date isn't for another month, but preview screenings are always fun. The documentary covers the Walt Disney Animation studio at the time of its Renaissance in the late 80's and 90's. Outwardly, it was a very exciting time (I remember these movies coming out every summer, they were huge events). But behind the scenes, it was a constant battle, one between the artists and executives, and conflict among the executives themselves.

Then-CE0 Michael Eisner (left) and Jeffrey Katzenberg (right) around the time of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

I wrote a review, which has been published on ASIFA-East's Exposure Sheet. Actually, I need to point out that this is first time one of my reviews has been edited by someone other than myself. Richard Gorey replaced changed some of the wording, so its a little alien to me. But I shouldn't be too surprised by this. Most authors have to deal with editing. I'm learning this, and will have to learn it occasionally for survival. You can read the whole thing here.

An Inspiring Warning

2010-01-19T12:53:00.000-08:00

This was already posted on Cartoon Brew, but I found it very inspiring.

The Revolution Will Be Animated from Marine Lormant Sebag on Vimeo.

It is a short documentary by Marine Lormant Sebag about Nina Paley's struggles and resolution with copyright. For those who don't know, Nina Paley's feature film, Sita Sings the Blues, is a marvelous undertaking, which she produced and funded all on her own. The rest is explained in the clip, but it is an interesting insight into how indie filmmakers like Paley and Bill Plympton make their living, and the confines one could face from a business perspective. There is a lot to be aware of here. I'm not sure what Paley was thinking from the very beginning. As a devoted music fan, I am aware of the dangers of using copyrighted music against my own art. While some big distributors are able to secure the rights to some music, it is difficult with indie filmmakers searching for distribution. Clearing the rights to just two songs could consume half your budget.

Just something to be clear on. I don't know if this would be harder, but I would much rather collaborate with a famous songwriter or composer, than borrow a famous song. It may sound like a pipe dream, but it also sounds a hell of a lot more logical.

The Princess and the Frog

2009-12-24T11:35:00.000-08:00

The big news with The Princess and the Frog is Disney Animation's return to hand-drawn animation. That detail might have been a bit over-hyped. But its an exciting return, as it is an art form that hasn't been subconsciously abandoned. I got to see the movie twice already, and there is a lot to praise about it. I just hope Disney improves upon this in the new decade.

The first thing I must praise is the screenplay. The dialog is the most un-clichéd I've heard from Disney in a long time! Rather than using worn-out movie lines, the writers find new ways to say the same things. And they go easy on the puns. The dialog was more dignified, and the movie ran smoothly all the way through.

For once, both the (supposed) princess and prince are not innocent, but flawed characters. Prince Naveen is spoiled and penniless. He is philandering and cut off from his rich family for being irresponsible. His self-absorption gets him into trouble, but give him a slight fearlessness of the outside world (although its just as naive). A slight flaw in the film, however, is the story establishes this too quickly.

Tiana is a career-driven, type-A persona. She is a very skilled chef, and she dreams of owning a restaurant in New Orleans. However, she has been so determined to succeed, she unknowingly abandons freedoms she already has. She chooses to work instead of having fun (even for just a few moments).

Dr. Facilier (played brilliantly by Keith David) is a very unique Disney villain. He is a voodoo master ("Shadow Man" in the movie), which is just the same as an evil sorcerer. However, this time its not just greed that drives him, but also fear for his own soul. Part of his plan is intended to help him repay a debt to his friends on the "other side." I've almost likened Facilier to a corrupt business man needing to repay loan-sharks.

All characters are put to good use in the story, and there's no wonder as to why they are there. Louis, the jazz-loving alligator may be comical, but he relates to Naveen and Tiana's plight, and is as much an outcast as they see themselves.

Raymond, the cajun firefly, initially struck me as a throwaway character, but soon becomes the movie's unlikely tragic hero. Tiana's debutante friend, "Lottie," becomes the frogs' destination as she is a temporary princess needed to break their spell. And Mama Odie, the blind voodoo lady, is presented as the wise fairy godmother. But to keep it fresh, the writers have her lessons temporarily fall on deaf ears. And Naveen's bumbling valet becomes the movie's secondary villain (Nice!).

The animation is beautiful and nicely balanced. Now that CG animation is in full swing, Disney's hand-drawn animation doesn't have to worry about trying to be as realistic as possible. Now the animators can go back to capturing what only 2D animation can capture: an immediate essence balanced with style, art and acting. The character animation is right to the point.

This "money shot" here reminds me of something Hayao Miyazaki would have done. The coins are all hand-drawn, so their lines are constantly moving.

An unsung star in this movie is animator Eric Goldberg. Goldberg's primary character is Louis the Alligator (who I think has the best animation in the movie). Goldberg is also responsible for the miscellaneous characters in the background. All these characters bear Goldberg's influence of Chuck Jones. Goldberg's animation captures something extreme and abstract, while also maintaining a soft flow and irresistible charm. Bravo Mr. Goldberg.

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of Disney clichés here. And a few of those clichés contribute flaws. The final wedding scene is by far the most clichéd scene in the film, complete with a cute animal audience and over-the-top water effects.

The Broadway style also feels like a cliché long overused. But at least here, John Musker and Ron Clements do it right. Rather than just throwing a few songs into the film, the music takes up at least 1/3 of the film's length, making it seem like a complete musical. One of my complaints with movies like Aladdin and The Lion King is that there wasn't enough music in the movies to make the musical aspect complete. With The Princess and the Frog, the other 2/3 of the film don't seem out of place with the rest of the music.

Randy Newman's jazz inspired score is a new achievement in his animation repertoire. I have to admit, I have never been a huge fan of Randy Newman's scores. I find them too happy-go-lucky sounding. I like it when music can change its tone and ambience according to the scenes. In Princess and the Frog, Newman's score seems a little more experimental, and he incorporates jazz and swing music into the mix, and he does a nice job balancing it with some Gershwin inspired orchestrations.

The Princess and the Frog works very well on its own. Compared to other Disney movies, its definitaly one of the best, but it still feels like another Disney movie. There's nothing about it that makes it significant compared to other movies. But on its own feet, it works tremendously well. Disney's animated films still have much to improve upon, and they have just started again here.

We are approaching the next decade of the 21st century. And that really shouldn't mean anything. Its just another year.

Happy Holidays anyway!

An Evening with John R. Dilworth

2009-12-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T12:32:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-19T13:24:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T14:39:00.000-08:00

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"

2009-10-21T20:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-10T22:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Ponyo: the ocean feels very warm

2009-08-27T15:59:00.000-07:00

Hayao Miyazaki is one of my favorite filmmakers, one of my favorite artists, and a champion of originality. Although his movies are considered Japanese anime, viewers have a better chance of learning of Miyazaki through Disney than through more traditional anime.

Miyazaki has stressed many times his fascination with a child's point of view. Previously, he explored this idea in My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away. Ponyo marks another journey into adolescence and childhood through the child's point of view. Everything seems very large, and not too complex. The world and the its ocean are big and mysterious to the two main characters, Ponyo and Sōsuke.

The story follows a humanoid fish (referred to as a "goldfish," but looking like a little human girl) named "Brünnhilde" by her father, but later named Ponyo. The goldfish swims away from her father, a caretaker of the sea, to view the world above, and soon possesses a desire to be human. She is found by a five year-old boy named Sōsuke, and they each take a quick liking to each other. Afterward, they are separated, explaining their friendship to their parents, and then brought back together again, only to truly prove their relationship in a test of love. In the midst of all this, Ponyo's parents (wizard and goddess) struggle to maintain balance in the sea as they realize their daughter's true (yet unnatural) passion to evolve from a mystical sea creature to human being in the world above.

Ponyo has a slightly different look for a Miyazaki film. The backgrounds are executed with a much softer tone, almost with pastels and water colors, as opposed to delicate realism. In keeping with the theme of water, everything visual is round and bulbous. There's hardly a straight line to be seen in the movie. The animation of the characters also seems to be a little looser than in Miyazaki's previous movies. The characters' outlines appear to be moving more than usual, giving their bodies more physical expression.

Some of the best parts of the movie, in my opinion, are those featuring ocean waves and the shapes coming from the sea. Rather than a realistic looking ocean and storm (already a complicated task), Miyazaki and his crew took what sounds like an easier and more experimental approach. This time, the exaggeration of the waves, looking like morphing bulbous blobs, is easier to understand. The waves are also a lot of fun to watch. This is the first time in a while where I was having fun watching the animation, rather than just admiring the technicality of it. The waves are dark and looming, but there's something funny and amiable about them.

A big part of the story deals with parental relationships. Sōsuke at first glance has an average relationship with his mother, but is later shown to care very deeply about her. He also shows concern for her, especially when his father (a ship captain) has a habit of working overtime. Ponyo's parents, by comparison, are more unique, as they have mystical elements. Ponyo's father, Fujimoto, is very layered: he is shown to be a stern wizard who despises humans (despite being one himself at one point) and is devoted to the well-being of the sea. Despite these traits, he truly loves and cares for his daughter and other children, and in the end, accepts Ponyo's decision. Ponyo's mother, Gran Mamare, is a looming sea goddess, with great beauty and gentle insight. The scenes with Gran Mamare are among my favorite scenes in the movie.

I can't say enough to praise the film score. Joe Hisaishi's music has been a crucial part of Miyzaki's movies since their first collaboration on Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, close to 25 years ago. I found myself getting the chills at the sound of the primary theme of the score, which mostly played during scenes under the ocean and scenes involving Ponyo's mother, Gran Mamare. The music in these scenes is loud and operatic with an emphasizing choir, enough to make a full-grown adult feel small. There are also parts of the score that are reminiscent of Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," (Miyazaki has stated that part of the story and setting is inspired by Wagner's Die Walküre).

I am glad this got a theatrical release here in the U.S., thanks to Disney. I have to admit I had great concern over the English dub. What made me nervous right away was the casting of Frankie Jonas (youngest brother of the Jonas Brother) and Noah Cyrus (Miley's younger sister) and Sōsuke and Ponyo respectively. The Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus are big Disney stars, and here they casted their siblings, which strikes me as Hollywood nepotism. Surprisingly, these two kids do a great job: their voices are emotive and clear, and right to the heart of the young characters. Tina Fey (of Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock) portrays Sōsuke's mother, Lisa, and also managed to bring heart and warmth to the character. The rest of the actors (Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett, Lily Tomlin, Cloris Leachman, Betty White, Matt Damon) are all pretty good, even though a couple of them have only minimal dialog. I also have to admit, I feel a little uncertain about Liam Neeson's performance (and I say this as a Neeson admirer).

Ponyo is one of the warmest movies I have seen in a theater in quite a while (not since the Wallace and Gromit movie four years ago). The movie ends with a sense that anything can happen, but happiness and balance are now full circle. Miyazaki hasn't lost his touch, all of his movies are timeless, and Ponyo is no different. I will be remembering Ponyo for a long time.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs...not there yet

2009-08-22T15:53:00.000-07:00

Being a part of the New York animation scene, I am biased to be pleased that there is a place like Blue Sky Studios nearby (previously located in White Plains, NY; now relocated to Greenwich, CT). But being pleased with a studio that makes animated feature films doesn't count for how I feel about their output. So far, I find each of Blue Sky's movies to be mindfully flawed in some way (or ways). Ice Age: The Dawn of the Dinosaurs, the third installment of Blue Sky's Ice Age movies, is just as flawed, but not enough to keep me from enjoying the movie.

The story of Ice Age 3 is probably my favorite so far in the Ice Age films. The "herd" is still together, and true to form, they can't live with each other or without each other. Wooly mammoth partners Manny (Ray Romano) and Ellie (Queen Latifah) are expecting their first child, yet Ellie seems to be suffering the least of her extended family. After discovering three lone eggs in an underground cavern, Sid, the unhealthy yet optimistic sloth (John Leguizamo) decides to care for them. When they hatch into baby tyrannosaurus, their mother attacks above ground looking for them, and takes them (and unintentionally) Sid back into the cavern. The rest of herd rush into the cabin to find him, and happen upon an underground jungle populated by (thought to be) extinct creatures.

The story is pretty decent. The herd is portrayed from the start to be something of an extended family (something I enjoy seeing in stories). I love the action element to the story, but there are great moments of comedy interspersed throughout. My favorite scene has to be when the herd is trying to cross through a toxic cave, and when they breath in, the toxic gas causes them to go uncharacteristically happy and hysterical. The stories of the previous Ice Age films were okay, although I like the first one the least (the human characters were boring and unnecessary), and the second was only a mild improvement.

The best part of the movie is the overall look. Recently, I became a fan of illustrator and character-designer Peter De Sève, probably best known for his New Yorker magazine illustrations. The designs of the characters are wonderfully balanced between needing to be 3-dimensional, looking unique and distinctive, and wordlessly expressive. In fact, Mr. De Sève recently started up a blog, which includes some of his pre-production drawings for the movie. His designs of Manny, Diego, and Sid are very distinctive of one another, and all have traits that define their personalities (like Diego being very sharp looking with a few rounded edges, Manny all hidden away by tusks and fur, and Sid with tiny eyes and a carelessly round belly).

The designs of the rest of the "herd" are cute as well: Ellie is a lot softer looking than Manny, and I love the manic appearances of twin possums Crash and Eddie. The new character, Buck is my favorite new design, for the biased reason that I love weasel characters.

The wooly mammoth characters, Manny and Ellie, are impressively animated. Not only are they shown to be large and rotund, but their tusks and wool cover most of their faces. This leaves their eyes as the primary source of facial expression, which the animators do a fantastic job of accomplishing.

The biggest flaw of Ice Age 3 is the dialogue. I find most of the dialogue (if not all) to be predictable, which drives me crazy. I like being surprised by what a character says (especially in humorous situations). This is a flaw evident in all the Ice Age movies. I constantly find myself cringing at some of the dialogue, and I just want to pause the movie so I can correct the dialogue to myself. I was especially displeased with the character of Buck having an Australian accent, thus making the dialogue one big cliché after another. Maybe it would have helped if the accent didn't have so many references to Australian dialect (i.e. "You'll never find your mate,...MATE").

None of the voice acting helps the dialogue out. I personally don't like the celebrity casting Blue Sky places in its movies, although I can appreciate what it does for the reputation of the movies themselves. Ray Romano's portrayal of Manny in the first movie seemed a little too close to his comedy persona, but in Ice Age 2 and 3, his performance is much smoother and not as forced. John Leguizamo, of course, always impresses by keeping himself masked with a happy lisp when playing Sid the Sloth. The rest of the cast (Queen Latifah, Denis Leary, Simon Pegg, Seann William Scott, Josh Peck) isn't too impressive, and don't give the characters as much depth as their appearances offer.

The Scrat and Scratte subplot is at times very sweet, very funny, and a little creepy. As in the previous movies, Scrat, a "saber-toothed squirrel," is still obsessed with gathering acorns, except this time he meets his match in a female counterpart, Scratte. Throughout this story, Scratte managed to outsmart Scrat in getting a particular acorn, most of which end in pain for Scrat (the weirdest part being a scene that evokes the chest-waxing scene in The 40 Year-Old Virgin). Eventually the two fall in love, only for Scrat to be torn by between his love for her and his absurd acorn obsession.

Eventually her nit-picky attitude opens the door for him to pursue his acorn, which leads the two prehistoric squirrels back to their previous conflict. Long story short, he ends up losing both his precious acorn, and (quite possibly) his one true soul mate. Aside from the aforementioned chest-waxing, I quite enjoyed this little subplot. Not everyone wants to admit it, but the reason Scrat's little adventures are so enjoyable is the lack of dialogue, and total reliance on physical comedy, something harking back to the early days (or prehistoric in this case) of cinema.

What more can I say (if I haven't said enough). This is my favorite of the Ice Age films, but its not the best movie ever. I still mind the dialogue flaw very much. However, its still nice to see computer animation that's not overdone, and still has a simplified, yet stylized look. Still, my thoughts on Blue Sky movies remains unchanged.

The Secret of Kells

2009-08-05T18:16:00.000-07:00

Here is a film with which I had no expectations whatsoever. I don't know the filmmaker (Tomm Moore), the studio (Gébéka Films), or the story. But in the end, all I can say is The Secret of Kells is a fantastic movie. Great animation, great story, great acting, and it is short yet complete.

I thought the film would seem a little strange to someone with no prior knowledge of Celtic mythology. But that proved not to be the case.

The film takes place in Ireland in the 9th century and follows twelve year-old Brendan. An adventurous boy by nature, Brendan is in the care and shadow of his strict uncle Abbot, whose sole concern is the safety of the Kells Village from the oncoming Viking attacks (in Irish terminology, the Vikings are referred to as "Norsemen"). One day, the village receives an elderly visitor, Brother Aidan, who introduces Brendan to the valuable and fantastical Book of Kells. As the film continues, Aidan inspires Brendan to develop his imagination and complete the book, all the while narrowly avoiding the severe disapproval of his uncle.

The art direction, from a first glance, is reminiscent of the shows currently on Cartoon Network. This, surprisingly, helps to move the story along. The combination of simplicity with fantasy setting keeps the story from getting caught up in technological detail. But that's not to say the art direction is terrible. Quite the opposite: it has one of the best art directions I have seen in any animated feature of the last decade.

The color scheme of the movie is very distinctive. The film's primary colors are, unsurprisingly, green (an Irish tradition) and white (which gives the sense of the world surrounding the Irish). The most drastic change in the color scheme comes at two points: when Brendan is learning and working on the Book of Kells, the palette is made up of various warm colors, giving a feeling of comfort while Brendan becomes engaged in his new found interest; the other points are the scenes involving the Vikings (aka the Norsemen) where the dominating color is red, signaling danger and anger.

The music is an impressive component of the film. Some of the score is provided by French composer Bruno Coulais, who provided a haunting ambient score woven with Celtic melodies. The score goes beautifully with the fantasy-related sequences. Elsewhere, music is provided by Kíla, a Celtic folk group, whose sound adds a feeling of authenticity to the scenes within the Kells village. The psychological aspects of Coulais's score with Kíla's Ireland meets the World sound makes for one impressive soundtrack.

It is exciting to see a country's unknown animation talent getting unleashed. I have never known of any Irish animation, not even indie (I've probably missed something, feel free to correct me). But The Secret of Kells has given me hope for hand-drawn animation. I don't know what's next for Ireland. Technically, the film is one third Irish, one third Belgian, and one third French. Still, for me, the film is all Irish. The Irish have always had a film scene, and this may be just a new addition to their country's film culture. Or it could be the start of something interesting....

Harry Potter: the Half-Blood Prince is still in the Title.

2009-07-21T19:36:00.000-07:00

I wrote an entry some months ago about how much I enjoyed the Harry Potter film series. The entry is pretty open-ended, and there is still much about the films to be praised, and (at the time of writing it) there are still 3 more films in the series. Now one of those 3 has been released, and I am ecstatic.

(images copied from Yahoo Movies)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is part six in the series (both book and film). The story picks up just a few weeks after the end of the last installment, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Despite going through what may have been the worst year of his life, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe, always remarkable) is slowly but surely keeping his feet on the ground, and has shed some of his erratic behavior from the last movie. Now he seems to have a firm grip on what's going on around him, and it shows when, for the first time, he starts to realize his feelings for Ginny Weasly (Bonnie Wright), his best friend's sister.

The acting is spot on, as usual. The movie's primary newcomer is Jim Broadbent, playing Hogwarts professor Horace Slughorn. The character of Slughorn almost mirrors the mood of the movie overall. Slughorn is a very excited yet nervous person, whose naive (yet comedic) nature hides a dark secret he has yet to forgive himself for. Its the same as the rest of the movie, which has an ominous feeling overall, despite many moments of charming comedy. Jim Broadbent's performance is exceptional in capturing these moods and hidden emotions. The scene in Hagrid's hut has to be the centerpiece of Broadbent's performance.

A further kudos to Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore, his fourth time out. His performance as Dumbledore is always outstanding. The performance can be described as playing him like a drowsy sleepwalker who is always aware of everything around him. In words, that probably sounds like a criticism, but it is not. Especially in this movie, the character displays a sense of fear and ominous expectation.

What more can I say about Alan Rickman's performance as Severus Snape? Rickman is a remarkable actor, and he knows how to manipulate emotions in the strangest of ways.

A lot must be said for director David Yates, who's directing of the series has improved remarkably. Although Order of the Phoenix was very enjoyable, there were flaws which I minded more than the other films. I found the pacing of the movie 5 to be too quick, and some of the characters were given less screen time and development than before (in fact, book 5 is the longest in the series, while movie 5 is the shortest so far. Sadly ironic, don't you think?). But this time, Mr. Yates appears to have learned from his previous experience, and directed with a beautiful pace and careful timing for each character.

The characters of Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) have been given tremendous development. More than in the previous movie, here they really do support Harry, without drawing too much away from their own issues. Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is given his biggest role in the series, as he is now made a part of Lord Voldemort's Death Eaters, but later revealed to be against his will. He is shown to be disturbed by the actions he is being forced to do, showing that despite his own bigotry, he is unwilling to act on them.

Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter, terrific as usual) is given a bigger role than previously, as she goes from being introduced as the first female Death Eater to a rather vicious and devoted follower. Another newcomer to the series is Helen McCrory as Narcissa Malfoy, a role that is to be larger in the next installment.

Visually, the scenery is unchanged from the previous movies. But now, everything is colored differently, with an emphasis on gray. This is to show that the world is aware that something is wrong; that there is a storm coming. The attacks that start the movie (Diagon alley, and then the London Bridge) really set the tone. Bruno Delbonnel is the movie's cinematographer, and he does a nice job of giving the movie a lush yet slightly desaturated look.

Among the few minor complaints I have is the music. Nicholas Hooper, the film composer, worked on movie 5 and did a fantastic job. This time, however, much of the score, save for the very end of the movie, seems to be repeated from the previous film. I would have liked to hear some more alterations and new music for this film.

A second complaint I have is the placement of the scene where Snape makes the unbreakable vow with Narcissa Malfoy. It comes after we see Harry meeting Dumbledore at the beginning. I would have rather the vow scene come before we catch up with Harry, that way, we can maintain a sense of secrecy, outside of Harry's knowledge.

And finally, not much too go on here, but I think the Half-Blood Prince subplot wasn't focused on enough. It doesn't become significant until the end. I won't spoil it, but I will say its a moment of tragic irony.

All I can say now is I am super excited about the final two installments. These last two movies make up the seventh installment, as the producers saw fit to give the final book a really big sendoff. My thinking exactly. Much of the cast from throughout the series will be appearing, so everyone gets a proper sendoff or comeuppance. And looking at movie 6, I am confident David Yates will pull off an extraordinary finale.

Brüno: he'll turn you on, then turn you off.

2009-07-13T20:04:00.000-07:00

Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the greatest living actors. That may sound over the top, but I firmly believe it. He may be cited as being primarily a comedian, but there is more to him than just being a funny man. I've always likened him to a persona like Groucho Marx, and a chameleon like Peter Sellers. But even in that case, Baron Cohen is something completely original and on his own. Even with his own characters, he has an uncanny ability to turn any role he is given into his own alter-ego.

Baron Cohen's chameleonic talents are presented again in another feature length film. Brüno, like Borat (2006), is based on an alter-ego of Baron Cohen's, that of Brüno (no last name given), a flamboyant, gay Austrian fashion reporter and interviewer. And especially like Borat and Ali G, the comedy of Brüno not only comes from the title character's persona, but from Baron Cohen's flawless ability to interview and then humiliate unsuspecting citizens and officials (most of which are unaware of the charade). It is a dangerous and painful comedic exercise.

Unfortunately, Brüno doesn't totally live up to expectations. The movie is painfully entertaining, but suffers from a weak plot. It is technically similar to Borat, but seems to focus more on the extremities of the character. One of the weakest parts of the story is Brüno himself, whose short-comings don't seem plausible enough. The character of Borat was given plausibility in that he was from a country with cultures alternative to the United States. Brüno, however, is just a mass of idiocy, blind egotism, and spoiled judgment. Most of the humor is extreme homophobia, enough to confirm one's own sexual orientation.

In the film, Brüno loses his job as a fashion reporter in Austria after he is blacklisted for disrupting a fashion show (due to him trying to wear a disastrous suit made of velcro). With his desired fame stalling in Austria, he decides to head to Los Angeles with his assistant (who harbors a secret crush, much like Smithers on The Simpsons). Everything that follows is based on his desire to be world famous, no matter what the reason is. Through it all, he fails at: interviewing celebrities; attempting to make a sex tape with Ron Paul; trying to solve political imbalance in Israel; adopting an African baby; and attempting to go straight.

Some of the deception used in the film is a testament to Baron Cohen's abilities. But it doesn't get the same reaction from everyone. After Borat, it seems like a lot of people are more interested in which parts of the movie are staged, and which parts are the real deal. It has already been confirmed that the Ron Paul sex-tape attempt is real (and just as painful for the audience to watch). Others are easy to figure out, such as when Brüno is in Israel, and he is chased by the locals for his offensive outfit (the timing suggests that it is real, and not refined).

On a technical level, there is not much else outside of Baron Cohen's credits. Director Larry Charles (who also directed Borat), manages to make some stylistic changes in adapting to a more flamboyant subject matter. Still, that shouldn't short change Mr. Charles, whose directing and writing credits are rather impressive. But as mentioned before, a lot of the humor comes from the shock value and (harmless) attacks on the unsuspecting public. So really, this movie has a life beyond most of the people involved.

What was unnecessary? The gay sex, although meant to humorous, could have been shortened in length (for those who have seen the movie, no pun intended).

Does he succeed at anything? Yes. He manages to exploit parents who are so desperate for fame they will exploit their infant children through overly religious and politically incorrect photographs. He fills up time in his failed TV pilot with some impressive penis acrobatics (really, they are quite impressive). And he manages to give Mel Gibson a new name: "Der Führer."

The Simpler way is UP

2009-06-06T19:18:00.000-07:00

The opening of a new Pixar/Disney is always eventful. Commercially eventful that is. Not much is celebrated at the artistic eventfulness of a new Pixar movie.

There are elements that tend to repeat themselves throughout Pixar movies. That just happens to be the way they write. However they are less repetitive than other studios. Every Pixar movie has a plot different from the last, and they always demonstrate a willingness to try something new. There's something new to the plot of Up for sure.

Up tells the tale of Carl Fredrickson (wonderfully voiced by Edward Asner), a 74-year old widower with with limited social interests and an aversion to change (I can relate a few parts of Carl's physique and personality to my own grandfather). Carl's beloved wife, Ellie, fulfilled a part of Carl's life that was always shy, and both shared an interest in adventuring. However, they were never able to take their dream vacation to South America before Ellie's time came. After being threatened and then court ordered to leave his house of many years to make room for a growing city, Carl decides he must head to South America now, before his own time comes. Unexpectadly, Carl, a former balloon salesman, tethers thousands of helium ballons from his fireplace, and lifts the house from its foundation. Carl then pilots the house from there on, after which we realize the house represents Ellie in Carl's eyes. And that's only the first 10 minutes.

The Incredibles was Pixar's first feature to have all humans as the main characters. Up is another venture down that road. People will read this and think of the animal characters in the movie, but story-wise, the humans control all the actions. Up marks Pixar's first time having an eldery figure as the main character. It might have been done before to a lesser extent somewhere, but this is a major release today. Interviews with director Pete Docter have suggested an uncertainty to how young audiences will able to relate to a 74-yeard old man. But Mr. Docter and co-director Bob Peterson always seem confident, as I'm sure of the movie's writers and crew are. And besides, its a quiet truth that animated features are not just reserved for children, but for adults as well.

The whole story is based around relationship issues. Carl Fredrickson lost his beloved wife and closest companion (nicely illustrated four minutes into the movie, with minimal dialogue). He later meets a young boy scout, Russell (voiced by newcomer Jordon Nagai, and modeled after Pixar animator Peter Sohn), who is later revealed to have issues with his distant father. Then there's the bad guy, a nearly 90 year-old adventurer genius (nicely portrayed by Christopher Plummer), whose relationship with society (and the rest of the world) was damaged years ago, due to skepticism versus enthusiasm. Even the main dog character, Dug (played very lovingly by co-director Peterson), has master and peer issues, as he is the happy outcast in a group of dogs devoted to their paranoid genius of a master. I love movies that deal with developing relationships and regret over previous relationships. It may sound complicated to some, but it really isn't.

Pixar's movies are not complicated. These movies are coherent for sure. But Up appears to have a simpler plot compared to Pixar's last few movies. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Its good to relax. But Ratatouille and Wall-E are quite sophisticated in terms of plot (i.e. rats trying to integrate into the human world; a robot left alone on earth, yet ends up reaching out to humanity). I'm probably reaching too far, but that's how I see it. Up is a simpler tale of a widower wanting to fullfill something that is, in fact, possible.

There's a sense of mild child abuse in the movie, except its portrayed as accidental, so there's nothing to cry over. Russell, the boy scout who accidentally gets stuck on the floating house, finds himself in several dangerous situations throughout the film (I was reminded of moments in Rescuers Down Under and Jurassic Park). He gets dangled a few times from dangerous heights (always a movie favorite, even in fantasies), nearly gets injured by rabid dogs, and almost dropped from a flying durigable.
Does this bother me? No way. I'm just praising the new levels Pixar's writers have reached.

Design wise, there's really nothing new to the movie. Like all of Pixar's movies, everything is just as saturated as everything else, while delicately lit. That's not a bad thing at all, as it looks carefully constructed to suit the story. Its just that I had a discussion with a friend recently about how saturated all computer-animated movies look.

My biggest criticism (and so far only) is over the last few minutes of the movie. Its a happy ending, but I wasn't satisfied with it. It didn't seem original enough, and I guess I expecting some other things to happen. I guess I thought Russell would be convincing someone that he wasn't abducted by the crotchety old man. The rest of the story is great, and I just wish the end had a little more originality than Carl and Russell reliving something Russell shared with his own father.

That's it for Up. I will probably be seeing it again soon. Of course, that also means I will be seeing the new Pixar short, Partly Cloudy, directed by Peter Sohn. All I can say is that I was never big on the idea of babies coming from the sky. And I think this was by far Pixar's most disturbing short film. That may change, but that's how I feel now.

And we're back to seeing a trailer for next year's release, Toy Story 3. We can only wait and see if Pixar can pull a third one off, and without actor Jim Varney and writer/actor Joe Ranft. Still, Pixar got lucky with Toy Story 2, because they were very serious about it, so there may be nothing to worry about.

One overdone and one under-done

2009-04-13T18:32:00.000-07:00

The following is a double review of Monsters vs. Aliens and $9.99.

Life's been busy. Going to the movies has been getting sparse for me lately. In the last month, however, I have managed to see two primary animated features.

I managed to see Tatia Rosenthal's stop-motion feature $9.99 at the MOMA, apparently its New York premier. Like others, I have known of the film from the festival circuit for months. It is an Australian/Israeli film, based on the short stories of Israeli writer Edgar Keret. I have to say, for an animated feature, the writing really stood out. Story-wise, it had the structure and essence of a Robert Altman or P.T. Anderson ensemble piece, one in which the characters are unknowingly connected (think Short Cuts or Magnolia). In this case, the various characters all live in the same apartment complex. And along comes an outsider that connects a few of the characters, in the form of a dead panhandler/angel (played wonderfully by Geoffrey Rush). The story then takes several existential turns.

Animation wise, I am kind of mixed. I know that the budget is about $3 million (not bad for an indie film), but even so, that shouldn't have gotten in the way of design. I was a little put-off by the design of the puppets, which seemed to be going for a near-realistic look. I also felt a couple of characters looked too similar, and thus confused a part of the story. The story seemed to be based on enough stark realism, that I thought the puppets could have taken a more simplistic, yet exaggerated look. And I especially can't stand the tiny add-on mouths, which makes the characters look like they are always puckering.

In the end, I have to say the writing got the best of the movie, which is a good thing, since a lot of movies can fall victim to bad writing. The voice acting also seemed to get the job done without ruining the script.

Next up, I saw Monsters Vs. Aliens in 3-D. At first I wasn't interested, but I thought I might wrong. Dreamworks' last couple features had elements that I consider to be vast improvements over their dreaded, commercialized past. Unfortunately, this film took a few steps downward, mostly due to what was supposed to bring it out on top. The movie has already been reported to have advanced, eye (and paddle-ball) popping 3-D, and I was curious about how far it is being taken.

it is obvious to me that a great deal of time was spent making the animation and 3D as impressive as possible. But in the end, the story suffers from under development. Parts of the story feel rushed and recycled, and it is way too predictable. On the other hand, maybe it was a good idea in the beginning, and the 3-D came later, outdoing the original idea. I only hope that the improvements Dreamworks has been making are not fading away so soon.

Of the all-star cast, the ones who stand out to me are Hugh Laurie and Keifer Sutherland. Laurie does a beautiful turn as Dr. Cockroach, P.D., and Keifer Sutherland does a nice job as (General Patton-like) General W.R. Monger. The rest of the actors just seemed to be tossed on. I am also perplexed as to why Renee Zellweger and John Krasinski were even paid just to play a couple of one-minute characters. Definitally a waste of money.

Any good points? The movie has plenty of funny bits to remain entertaining. One of my favorite bits is a guilty pleasure; the President of the U.S.A. tries to communicate with an alien spacecraft via synthesizer. First he tries the alien signal from Close Encounters, then starts playing the "Foley" theme of Beverly Hills Cop, to which a couple of bodyguards jerk rhthymically. And a few of the scenes involving the alien race seem satisfying.

3-D is something that still needs some improvements. Actually its just the glasses. Hopefully, they will find some way to make 3D glasses that don't tint or darken the viewer's eyes.

I will be back here again soon. In the meantime, be sure to check out my articles for the ASIFA-East Exposure Sheet Blog. Or just check out the blog anyway.

Oscar, Coraline, and Slumdog.

2009-02-25T14:13:00.000-08:00

The week of the Academy Awards are over. After all the build-up, I remember again why the awards are so fleeting, and how much of a "meat-parade" they are. I have to admit, I stole the "meat-parade" bit from George C. Scott, which is what he called the Academy Awards when he refused his Best Actor award in 1971. This year, the ceremony couldn't have been more overblown, with a broadway style show led by host, Hugh Jackman. Although I have to praise Jackman's song and dance abilities, the whole thing seemed a little too inappropriate given the current state of the economy. Like Benjamin Button, some of the musical numbers just seemed to drag on. Although I was pleased with most of the outcome, by the end of it, I realized I just didn't care.

This year so far, I am all over two movies that left me with a sense of cinematic hope.

Although it opened two months ago, it wasn't until January I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire. Although I am not as familiar with all his work, director Danny Boyle did Trainspotting in 1996, which is one of my favorite movies. Slumdog is a marvelous movie, filmed more like a blood and sweat independent film, rather than a big budget Hollywood polish. I don't mean to sound too biased, but there are times when I am more in favor of the indie style. Come to think of it, most films looked like that in the days before the digital age.

The story of Slumdog reads like a modern-day fairy tale, with a traditional good vs. evil plot. And I mean this in the best way possible. We get a slimey representation of India and its various battles, notably the slums vs. the economy, and the uneducated vs. the educated, and (more realistically) religious conflict. I love this movie, because it is a gratifying story, portrayed with sweat and dirt, and mixed with glitter.

Next up is Coraline. I've seen it only once, and I make it a point to write a proper review after seeing it twice. But I need to be careful financially, so I can't make too many trips to the cinemas. But after one viewing, I was already blown away by how beautiful the movie was. It is full of charm, stunning design work, and a grand mix of chaos and atmosphere. Obviously the right hands were involved in this, and the result is one that doesn't suffer from a transparent script, and doesn't become too predictable. A big kudos to Henry Selick, whose skills as a director are in terrific form with this film.
The film is solid, and is so far, the best film of the year. I know it is early to say that, but I can say it with honesty. I just feel its a shame the movie had to be released in February, when a lot of attention is usually paid to the Oscar nominations. Still, the movie seems to be doing good business, though it still has catching up to do at the box-office.

Now we have a whole new year of new films to look forward to.

Harry Potter and the words of a Film Loving Yank

2009-02-01T22:31:00.000-08:00

I love the Harry Potter movies. I keep hearing a lot of negative things about the movies in general (though the acting usually receives the best accolades). All I can say is that if I am both inspired and entertained, then for me, the films have done their job. I love the characters, because they represent things about us we are often afraid to explore. Harry goes through events that most people dread (losing your family, seeing your friends get murdered, having a whole community against you, etc), and survives through it all in ways we can only hope. I love films with a shade of darkness within them. I don't mean to say I'm a morose person (although if I am, I don't mean to be). But the fact is, these are fantasies that revolve around death and mortality. Harry Potter's life story starts with the horrible murder of his parents, and his mysterious (one-year old) defeat of their murderer, the evil Lord Voldemort.

The first two movies were handled by American director Chris Columbus (best known for family films like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire). While the stories were clear and the acting already in terrific form, the overall feel of the movies were too commercial for my tastes. There didn't seem to be enough going on artistically, and the directing was simply too plain. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to Columbus. I'm sure he's a nice guy, he's just not one of my favorite directors. Besides, if the first movie appears cliched, it was probably because the first book is meant to introduce all the main characters. And from the outset, most of the earlier characters seem to be based on traditional character-types, though they eventually evolve as the story moves forward.

With the arrival of Alfonso Cuaron (Mexican born who did Y tu mama tambien and Children of Men), the series took a new direction. Cuaron's approach involved playing with the visual style (particularly the photography) and making his take on Harry Potter more character driven. Although it has been argued that Chris Columbus's versions were more faithful to the novels, Cuaron's version gave a whole new level of audience accessibility. The relationship and communication of the characters now appeared to be more realistic, which in a way, blurs the line between the wizarding world (fantasy) and the muggle world (reality). The actors seem to be given more room to play with their characters. The Wizarding school of Hogwarts is now portrayed more like a British boarding school, where magic happens to be natural.

These movies get the best actors in the United Kingdom. Not just film and TV actors, but well-renowned stage performers (including Daniel Radcliffe himself). It is known that one of J.K. Rowling's conditions for selling the rights was that an all-British cast be used, unless a different nationality is noted in the stories. One of the reasons I am so entranced with the Harry Potter films is because I am in awe of a fantasy starring the very best British talent in the world. I am simply going to say that I am impressed with every one of these actors. Rambling on any further about them could get kind of boring.

Daniel Radcliffe is an actor with a lot of promise, and hopefully, he will embark on a career beyond Harry Potter. This image of Radcliffe is not from Harry Potter, but from Equus, a Peter Shaffer play currently on Broadway, starring Radcliffe and Richard Griffiths (Harry Potter's uncle Vernon Dursley).

Ralph Fiennes gives Lord Voldemort, the primary antagonist, an amazing energy. His performance makes the character not only dangerous and fearful (as he should), but also gives a charming demeanor, which plays to the character's strengths.

Along with the best British talent, the fourth movie featured some of best musical talent. The Yule Ball scene called for a famous rock band from the wizarding world, The Weird Sisters. In an inspiring cameo, the Weird Sisters are fronted by Jarvis Cocker (leader of Pulp), and members of Radiohead, Pulp, electronic groups All Seeing I, and Add N to (X). The result is a band that looks like a Goth version of Queen meets Jethro Tull.

With Mike Newell, there is now a distinctly British feel to the whole thing. Current director David Yates has managed to maintain that feel. When I say a British feel, I am more or less referring to the British dialects and wording. With that, the movies feel like they are taking place somewhere real; in this case, England. In the third and fifth movies, some of my favorite scenes are those that take place precisely in London. The flying sequence at the beginning of movie 5 is dazzling for me, not just because of the effects, but because of the footage capturing London seen from the River Thames (and Nicholas Hooper's score compliments it nicely). All in all, a nice visual composition.

Now, I don't want people to think I wish these places were real, but like a toddler, I do. But I am old enough to know better. I can call these movies fantasies, and at the very least, they exist on paper and in movie sets.
Anyway, I have read the last two books, and am looking forward to their adaptations. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (movie 6) is set to be released in July.

A Late Start to the new year

2009-01-15T21:33:00.000-08:00

In case anyone still reads this blog, here is an internet update.

Parasite's Delight is being shown this week on Channel Frederator. Also included is a brief interview. Thank you for the exposure, Frederator.

Also, my new website is now up at emmettgoodman.com. Its been (and it still is) a long time in the making. Now that is it up, I expect it to be redesigned in a matter of months, hopefully looking more professional.

I sincerely apologize for the lack of updates. I have been busy working on the website, as well getting a few projects started. And the painful truth, unfortunately, is that I have more energy going into my swamp blog, than this one. However, I do not wish to abandon this blog at any point. I always have something to write about, I just never get around to it. Perhaps like the swamp blog, I should find something to update this blog with everyday or something.

Emotional Draining from both sides

2008-12-17T21:46:00.000-08:00

I have been unable to write anything since last time. I have been working as part of the crew on an independent film. I don't feel like its my place to discuss any details of the film, and its bad enough I'm not getting immediate payment for it. But I can definitely say the experience is emotionally draining, and if there's anything I'm getting out of it, its possible inspiration for something of my own.

Recently, I got chewed out (to a lesser extent) for putting down the Academy Awards in the comments section of Michael Sporn's blog. Sporn had listed all the animated shorts submitted for consideration, and they of course included all the major studios as well as independents. I've only given attention to the Academy the last few years, but I got the feeling that the Academy was going to nominate Disney, Pixar and Blue Sky, no matter what, because they were the bigger names on the list. I said it, and opened up a can of worms from Sporn and a couple other readers. I immediately apologized when I saw it, but I think I made myself look bad. I didn't mean to cause any grief, but I still believe there is a certain bias in the Academy's selection. Of course, many independent films have won Best Animated Short, which I am fully aware of. But being nominated gains you just as much credibility as winning. And not every Disney short is an outstanding piece. But since I am still relatively new in this industry, I don't have an seasoned experience like some others.

WALL-E, which I think is one of Pixar's most unique works, won the LA Film Critics Circle's Best Picture award. I understand this is the first time an animated feature has won best picture for the LA Film Critics Circle. That's a big achievement, as far as I am concerned.

I currently have a couple of jobs coming up, both unpaid. Though I am very interested in their possibilities, I still yearn for some paying work. Unfortunately, the economy hasn't been on mine or anyone Else's side lately.

A week in review.

2008-11-29T20:48:00.000-08:00

Last week, I saw things you couldn't believe. Actually, they are plenty easy to believe, I just felt like saying that.

This is late, but I had a lot in the way. Last week, Don Hertzfeldt, one of my indie idols, came to New York and visited both Pratt Institute and the IFC theater (the latter as part of his current tour). At Pratt, Andy London conducted a Q&A with Mr. Hertzfeldt, who is currently promoting his newest creation, I Am So Proud of You, a sequel to his last masterpiece, Everything Will Be OK. The Q&A was pretty basic, with information I already knew from previous interviews. Of all things, one part of the interview that excited me was when Mr. Hertzfeldt said he had recently seen Morrissey in concert. Andy later turned questions onto the audience, and I got a turn: I asked Don "Can you name your least favorite movies?", and I think he got caught off guard. It seemed like a fair question at the time, but I think he felt a little too cautious to answer it. Instead he turned the question into something I can't remember now (again, sorry for being late. Crazy schedule). I felt really bad, but everyone assured me it was all fine.

The next night, Mr. Hertzfeldt made it to the IFC theater, where the place was totally packed. It was a mix of animation locals and hard-core indie/Hertzfeldt fans. Watching Hertzfeldt's films on actual film was a real treat. Real Unorthodox-Old School. And I Am So Proud of You is a beautiful piece of work, possibly Hertzfeldt's darkest film to date.

The next night was ASIFA-East's annual animation art auction. Due to my financial instability at the moment, I couldn't afford to buy anything over $25. And of course, as the night went on, all this (I guess) amazing stuff went as high as $400. And all the while, I am thinking how can people afford to buy some of this stuff given the shape the economy is in? President Dave Levy stunned me with his excessive spending of the night. I sat between animators and friends Tony Lamberty and Katie Cropper, and gawked at the their spending the whole time, though they were not as excessive as some.

An ink drawing by Christy Karacas, based on his own brilliant, inhumane creation, Superjail.

I really liked this drawing from Maxwell Atoms of his characters from Billy and Mandy.

There were five animation cels/drawings from Mark Kausler's brilliantly animated short, Its the Cat. Katie got one of the sets, and gave me the cel as a birthday present. Thank you again, Katie.

I'm usually very cautious about stuff at auctions, because if I want to buy something considered so rare and once in a lifetime, it has to be something I can be inspired by in years to come.

On the other hand, MC Tom Warburton (creator of Codename: Kids Next Door) was very entertaining and really let loose.

Finally, the 22nd came. My Birthday
I had a nice gathering at an English chip shop, and then we all congregated off to a local bar (with a chalkroom in the back, yay). Although I am feeling weird around birthday time now, its still a good reminder of all the things to take care off in my lifetime.

My sister Clio and I looking deep in thought, yet fully engaged, as always.

And finally. Happy Thanksgiving.

Madagascar 2: A few steps forward for Dreamworks

2008-11-16T21:31:00.000-08:00

Dreamworks animation is a touchy and often unpleasant subject for me. The studio revolves around money, and as far as commercial animation goes, Dreamworks is the worst of the lot. The last few years, it has seemed like the movies with the worst reviews make the most money. Now that is tragic (at least for me). For all I know, it is nothing new. But some of these films may never be revisited again, and I wonder if they are going to inspire artists in the future.
I recently caught Dreamworks' Madagascar 2: Escape 2 Africa. It picks up right where Madagascar left off, with the animals and guests making their way off Madagascar and hopefully back to New York.

As usual, the movie goes overboard with celebrity voices behind the characters. I am not the biggest fan of Ben Stiller (I'm not sure if I have met one yet), hence I don't enjoy seeing a character (Alex the Lion) who acts and sounds just like him. Its more or less the same with Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith, and David Schwimmer (although Chris Rock has some nice control vocally on the microphone).

The top performance of the film belongs to Sacha Baron Cohen as King Julien of the lemurs. This is no surprise as Cohen is a brilliant comedian, as well as chameleon. Cohen does what any great voice-over actor should do: he masks himself behind the visual, and breaths life into another character. In fact, I don't think Cohen has allowed himself to be photographed or taped performing his recording sessions for the movie, which is kind of admirable, as it maintains some mystique. This is the kind of celebrity that works best in animation.
The late Bernie Mac, who has a nice silent tribute at the end of the movie, does a pretty decent job as Alex's father. But the rest of the actors in the movie seem to be underused, and merely there to give some star credibility.
And of course, there is the issue of dialogue. Though its not all bad, some of it could have been better and less predictable. The parts of the story which are considered the emotional center, the dialogue felt predictable and used before.

However, there are some perks. A hallmark that has made me dread Dreamworks features is the overuse of pop-culture references. I don't mind a few, but I take artistic issue when the entire script is based all around them. The first Madagascar was no exception. But a couple of Dreamworks' last movies have cut back on the excess references, and here they continue to cut back. Because of this, I found the story to be less cluttered and easier to sit through.

And visually, as well as the first movie, it stands out from other Dreamworks pictures with a more unique design and color scheme. All the characters have simpler yet interesting shapes, and show a better focus on design than an obsession with realism. I love the way the lemur characters are designed. Although they are based on various species of lemur, their designs are all unique and have some features that distinguish them. And it is much more colorful, with an emphasis on coloring associated with African art.

All in all, not a great movie, but a pretty good movie.

There are vast improvements here that give a good impression. I can only hope the artists at Dreamworks continue these improvements, and their movies may actually reach a level of timelessness. And hopefully, Dreamworks can make some innovations of their own, instead of copying the innovations of Pixar. One innovation which I don't mind being copied is the idea of the credits being presented in original 2D graphics and animation.
Maybe one day, independent animated features will really take off, and Dreamworks will copy those.

My first ASIFA-East article

2008-10-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

I've contributed my first article to ASIFA-East, covering the Animation Show of Shows screening in New York this past Monday. You can read it over at the ASIFA-East blog (asifaeast.wordpress.com/).
The above image is from one this year's mind-bending short films, Skhizen by Jeremy Clapin (France).

It's been a month...

2008-10-16T21:41:00.000-07:00

...since I last posted. I have nothing to talk about, except I'm still desperatally trying to find work, and trying not to get too pretentious and idealistic with what comes my way.

If anybody out there is reading this and hiring, don't hestitate to contact me.

I don't know how some bloggers do it. Maybe I just don't read as much. I'm trying, I really am.

Steady now, steady now.

I'm not depressed. I'm just trying to build up my creativity. I'm trying to build up what Twyla Tharp calls the "White Room."

I'm listening to the Cocteau Twins now, as well as a Cocteau Twins Pandora station obsessivelly. And I'm working on my own website layouts, as I hope my website (which had been put off, because of my thesis and other things) will be up within a couple of months.

Ramble, ramble, ramble. My, how grey the sky is, ramble, ramble, ramble.

What else have I been doing, except growing my hair hideously out. Well, one thing I'm please to say is that I have kept my sketch blog going successfully, and have been able to keep my drawing needs going.

And I've got some nice characters going.

And here's to Paul Newman, the most famous graduate of Shaker Heights High School.

I've rambled on enough. But this is to let everyone know I haven't given up on this blog. If anyone out there has any suggestions for me to discuss, lets hear it.

Storm Thorgerson

2008-09-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't noticed, I changed the blog description above. I've realized that my blog doesn't really work as an animation blog alone, as I don't always have anything new to discuss, and my mind tends to focus on multiple mediums. I've decided to include other things that work their way into whatever ventures I'm on.

I want to share a newfound appreciation (and realized influence) of graphic designer Storm Thorgerson.

Being the rock enthusiast that I am and also being an artist, it should be no suprise that I have a great appreciation for album artwork. I have to admit, however, that I've never really taken the time to appreciate them as works of art. Its probably because in recent years, we've had the great popularity of MP3, iTunes, and the iPod. Its kind of sad when you think about it. Its a strange feeling when something like music is suddenly replaced by computer codes. But even before that, as I was growing up, I could help but listen to an album, and associate much of it with the artwork of the album cover. I grew up listening to old rock music, as I had a hard time in my teens accepting newer music.

But back to album art: I was quick to notice album designs by Hipgnosis (the British art design group) and especially those of Storm Thorgerson. I didn't realize until recently just how much those designs are embedded in my subconcious. Thorgerson's images are very similar to Salvador Dali's world; in fact they are almost parallel. But there is something that separated Thorgerson's work from Dali's. Of course the fact that they are two different artists has something to do with it, but because there is music to be associated with the covers, there is more to back up the proposed narratives of the works.

I don't know enough about Thorgerson to explore him as an artist. In fact, this interest is very recent. But the images are on my mind, and I want to swim around them for now.

I have to admit, a few of these albums here, I have never listened to them. I just put them up for the artwork, but if anyone reading wants to post an opinion of the albums, they are more than welcome.

I'm not going to make any secret about this. The reason I started thinking about Thorgerson's work again was due in part to the recent passing of Pink Floyd's keyboard player, Richard Wright. As an avid listener of Pink Floyd, the news of Mr. Wright's passing is sad, and truly marks the end of something special. His contribution to Pink Floyd's music is immeasurable. My heart goes out to his family. Shine on, Richard Wright.

Half-Assed Update

2008-09-04T21:55:00.000-07:00

I have been concerned lately, because I can't seem to come up with any decent ideas for a new film. And it doesn't help to continually read about the destruction of commercial animation.

I have just read John K's latest blog entry, which happens to be part of something larger. Mr K is currently writing up a very informative history of Canadian Commercial animation. Although distinctions are pointed out from American animation, I feel like some of the noteworthy criticisms Mr. K has to offer are mirrored in the history of American commercial animation. The parts that really shattered me was where he detailed the devastatingly unoriginal ideas behind the characters and stories in some of these shows and movies.

Not coming up with any good ideas lately is frustrating. And when I see things that have half-assed ideas, a part of me should feel determined not to follow that route. But then another part of me fears that I may follow that route without knowing it. After all I must admit: I did not know what made lousy animated shows/movies until after I turned 18. I grew up on certain things, and recently I watched them again. The feeling just isn't the same.

I don't know why I am saying all of this. I guess I just need to blow off some steam (and this seems like a harmless way to do so). I enjoy Mr. K's amazing insight into the art of good animation and filmmaking. But even though I am no longer an enrolled student, I still feel like I don't even know half the game. I completed Parasite's Delight having learned a great deal about structuring a short film. But the feeling is fleeting; I was wondering how much work it will be to do it again. I don't learn as quickly as some of my peers.

Twoben's sketchbook

2008-08-27T20:54:00.000-07:00

My friend Jennifer Lee and I have made something of a pact to post up at least one drawing or piece of art on our blogs every single day from this point forward. We were both inspired by Dan Pinto's blog, in which he has, for nearly two years now, managed to post a drawing every single day. The idea will be that we both improve something in our own drawing, as well as our thought/idea processes. I figure, because I find myself trying to think up more written entries for this blog and I have been killing time with drawings, that I have a separate sketch blog. The link is twobenswamp.blogspot.com.

This is the first image posted on the blog

The Animation Show 2008, part II

2008-08-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

It took long enough, but here's the rest of my review of the films of this year's Animation Show. Actually, these four films are more or less the show's centerpieces, but I swear I am not being prejudicial with the last post. I didn't realize it until earlier this week. But if anyone thinks I have been biased with these films, I swear to you I am anything but.

JEU

Georges Schwizgebel from Switzerland is a marvel of an animator. His paint-on-glass technique is daunting and staggering, but is at the same time beautiful. It is also hypnotizing as the images move, and blend into each other seamlessly. I have nothing but the utmost praise for Mr. Schwizgebel, which is why I can't say more. Its easier to show you his work, than to pick it to death with words.

HOT DOG

Hot Dog is the third film to feature Bill Plympton's well-meaning, dwarfish bulldog (referred to as "Bill Plympton's Mickey Mouse"). The last few months, I have felt like one of the few who actually like this film. Several friends of mine and colleagues of Plympton have criticized it for a lack of originality and over-worked humor. Hot Dog (as well as Guide and Guard) stands out to me as being among Plympton's better work in recent years. The last three years, he has gone through a bit of a Woody Allen phase, in which he has his good days and bad days. That might be a little harsh in judging only a few years of Plympton's 25- year animation career, but its easier to judge him this way, because he puts out more work a year than any other indie animator I know of.

WESTERN SPAGHETTI

PES is another marvel of independent animation. This film, animated with Javan Ivey, is another treat in PES's stop-motion technique pleasing the audience. A quip, it doesn't seem as complex or mesmerizing as PES's previous films. What was nice? I liked the bubble-wrap boiling water; the velvet tomato sauce, and the post-it note butter. PES still has a gift of balancing simplicity (use of found objects and short time spans) with complexity (excellent timing for stop-motion).

THIS WAY UP

Smith and Foulkes, from the United Kingdom. I don't know these guys too well, but for a CG short, they nailed down a pretty good film. A black comedy that keeps its leaning towards the humorous side. A rather charming story of two brothers trying to deliver the body of their deceased mother to the local grave site, and are met with a series of bizarre mishaps. What's also nice is throughout these obstacles, the two brothers' different personalities add an emotional center to the piece. Each gains his own sympathy in every bizarre incident that happens to them.

Something quotes Lydon

2008-08-06T21:20:00.000-07:00

Lately, doodling has become rather frustrating. This is probably the most satisfying thing I've come up with in a week. The creature is quoting a lyric from a song by Public Image Ltd. Lately, I've been into John Lydon lyrics.

The Animation Show 2008, part I

2008-08-01T19:13:00.000-07:00

First off, my usual self-pity. I'm still searching for more work, trying to come up with new ideas, trying to read more books, and whatever else there is to feel sorry for. Otherwise, everything is moving along carefully. Now to keep myself writing.

The Animation Show returned this year, and usual, the show is still a real treat. I was concerned about how this year's program would turn out. This is mainly because of founder Don Hertzfeldt's departure from the show's curation and programming. For those who don't know, this show was founded nearly five years ago by Hertzfeldt and Mike Judge (creator of Beavis and Butt-head and King of the Hill). Even with just three tours, Hertzfeldt's included films always struck me as the show's signature. According to animator Bill Plympton, who spoke at one of the screenings, the show's organizers wanted to do a more humorous screening. Hertzfeldt's recent films, while still humorous in their own right, have also become darker and more cerebral, and the filmmaker decided he no longer fit into the show. Either way, Mike Judge and company still managed to put together something very funny as well as some artistic variety.

The show opener, directed by Joel Trussell, is a great little piece itself. The style is clearly inspired by 1950's stylized animation, particularly UPA work. Even though I see a lot of this from Genndy Tartakovsky and Craig McCracken, the drawings in this style are usually wonderful and thrilling. In other words, its a look I don't mind seeing over and over again, as long as its inventively designed and colored, as it is here.

PSYCH0TOWN

These three short pieces, directed in Australia by Dave Carter, help to maintain the show's variety. They are animated in a form of cut-out/stop motion, but in a very simple way that adds to absurdist humor of these subtly, psychotic shorts. Very enjoyable, and perfect icebreakers.

OPERATOR

An English short by Matthew Walker. Something of a piece of minimalist humor, I don't think this is a bad piece. Its simply a man calling God on the phone to ask a casual question. I guess if anything, the visual is made to look boring, because there is nothing to be surprised about. I mean, if everybody could just talk to God like that, all of life's questions would be answered.

MR. SCHWARTZ, MR. HAZEN, & MR. HORLOCKER

A wonderfully written and timed piece piece from Germany by Stefan Muller. I have to say this was my personal favorite of the whole show. The animation combines funny drawings with computer imagery, and a plot that is told in two different view-points. This form of storytelling is unique in that it entices the audience and makes them curious about what's going on. For example, we start off seeing a man calling the police to complain about loud music nearby, but later when the policeman arrives, the man is smiling and dancing like an idiot. I truly laughed the hardest at this one.

ANGRY UNPAID HOOKER

This title stuck out immediatally to everyone, for obvious reasons. This poorly drawn short with snappy dialog feels like something that might have been done on Family Guy. I still enjoyed it as an icebreaker between the more visually-interesting pieces.

BLIND SPOT

A piece of black comedy that recalls the doughnut store shoot-out from Boogie Nights. Although some of the computer animation didn't impress me overall, I still found parts of this short to laugh at, and thought the character designs were very nice.

PROF. NIETO SHOW - EP 1

I'm not sure why this was in the show. There was more live-action in it than actual animation. The only animation was a group of bugs, and even they were not very interesting. Very confusing and very tedious.

VOODOO

A nice piece of hand-drawn work here. And some interesting surprises in what looks to be a familiar story. Three stereotypical adventurers try to infiltrate a temple, and the local tribe uses voodoo to stop them. But then the local tribe uses the voodoo for a form of horse-racing and thrill seeking entertainment. Nice touch there.

This is all I have for right now. I will continue the rest in my next post.

Attempted Hair

2008-07-29T19:42:00.001-07:00

Actually, I tried drawing The Cure in a different style. Didn't come out that way, but I think its still pretty interesting.

Life Drawing

2008-07-24T11:48:00.000-07:00

Practice in Photoshop

2008-07-22T12:52:00.000-07:00

I need to make a daily/weekly thing out of this. Illustrating in Photoshop is something I am behind in. Actually, I don't do as much digital drawing as I probably should be (most of the jobs here in New York call for it). I have posted these drawings on others sites already, but I might as well place them here.

I feel bad for not doing enough writing. But this is a time during the year where I don't have enough to write about. Just wait until things start to get busy.

elephants and flowers

2008-07-20T12:46:00.000-07:00

WALL-E

2008-07-14T20:24:00.000-07:00

I wish I had written this sooner, but I had other things distracting me. But I just had to do a review of Pixar's latest offering, Wall-E.

Wall-E has a story that differs immensely from Pixar's previous movies. Writer/director Andrew Stanton truly has a spark to take us to different worlds, and explore their atmospheres. It starts off on Earth, nearly 800 or so years into the future. The planet's atmosphere is covered with broken satellites, and the entire surface is a wasteland of garbage, sludge, and dust. We then meet WALL-E, a disposal-robot who is revealed to be the last being left alone on the planet.

The majority of Pixar's previous film's were "buddy" pictures (Toy Story, Monsters. Inc, Finding Nemo) or concerned individuals seeking to prove themselves (Cars, Ratatouille). This time, we have a character like WALL-E, who simply wishes to be loved and show affection. The character of EVE more or less follows the latter plot line, except she isn't trying to prove anything; rather she learns that there is something else beyond her directive purpose.
Love is clearly one of the biggest themes in the movie. WALL-E and EVE's budding romance is more central to the story than the romance in Pixar's previous movies.

Wall-E can also be argued as Pixar's most pessimistic story to date. It depicts what would happen if an international corporation (Buy N Large or BNL) gained enough power to be Earth's sole government. The Earth becomes over-polluted, all humans are sent into Space to wait for Earth to be cleaned up, and ultimately, BNL fails to take any responsibility. 700 years later, the humans in space are unaware of what has become of their home planet, and in the care of BNL's robots, they evolve into grotesquely obese beings who are too weak or distracted to do anything on their own.

I think that is a superb premise, and a pretty risky one.

The animation and visual design of the movie is remarkable. The look of the wasted Earth has so much atmosphere and depth. You get the feeling of a place that is really hot and it smells from every direction. You sort of get a feeling of claustrophobia in several places, which soon gets freed up when the setting shifts to outer space.

Something I cannot stress my greatest appreciation for is the way the dialog is handled. Wall-E and EVE (as well as the movie's many other robots) have very few words, including their names for the most part. As such, there is very little reliance on dialog to carry the story in several parts of the movie. The first 40 minutes of the film has so few human voices, that when we shift to the human characters, the sensation is pretty strong (its somewhat similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey, though not exactly).

The music is also quite unique. Thomas Newman, who provided the score for Finding Nemo (also directed by Andrew Stanton), composes a score that tailors itself to the characters. The music is very rhythmic with WALL-E, and very lush with EVE, and it gets busier when necessary. The music when WALL-E sees EVE for the first time is one of my favorite parts of the film, as well as when WALL-E and EVE are dancing outside the space station. And of course, there is a lovely song at the end, performed by one of my idols, Peter Gabriel.

I'm sure this review is too long already. And I think my praise is clear. This is truly one of Pixar's best. I encourage anyone reading this to go see it big-screen before it is too late.

Oh, and one more thing. As usual, Pixar has a short film that accompanies the movie. The short, "Presto," is a really charming and cute telling of the relationship between a magician and his rabbit. It seems to bear a slight resemblance to my own short, Ivan's Act. And also, there wasn't a preview for Pixar's next movie, as there usually is with each of their theatrical releases. Guess we'll find out later on.

Animals and Aliens

2008-07-10T13:50:00.000-07:00

I did this for another blog. I should really try doing more of this.

Doodles from a Tattoo Parlor

2008-07-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

Summertime is considerably inacitve for animation. At least for me. Until my work restarts and the organizations are up again, I can't really think of anything much to comment on. I'm sure something will come to me at some point. But for now, I'm just going to post some drawings here. Here's something that was done on a visit to a tattoo parlor (not for me, but for a friend of my sister's).

Getting something down

2008-07-05T15:38:00.000-07:00

I need to post more drawings.

These were done at the Hubley screening at the MOMA last month.

The Pros and Cons of a Kung-Fu Panda

2008-06-25T12:50:00.000-07:00

I can't believe how slowly things move. I can't even bring myself to the blog on a regular basis, because I spend most of my time job-hunting, or working on festivals. I just don't have enough to report on for the time being. Right now, I can at least offer up a review of Dreamworks' latest, Kung Fu Panda.

Let me just start with this. I have a particularly big problem with most of what Jeffrey Katzenberg's animation studio has put out in the past ten years. A lot of it follows the same routine. A bigger emphasis on the celebrities who voice the characters than the actual characters or story; and a plot that is built up around countless pop-culture references. They commercialize these movies to the point that there is no artistic merit to speak of.

Kung-Fu Panda, which I just got around to seeing, is still part of the routine, but with some definite improvements.

The Pros.
The animation here is a hell of a lot better than the previous Dreamworks Animation flicks. The characters don't have that horrible toothpick movement the Shrek movies have. The characters move and stretch in ways that are clear and easy to look at. Some of the expressions are really nice too. And the coloring in certain scenes is quite beautiful.

This is first time (I can recall) there being no recognizable pop-culture references thrown all over the movie's plot. This is a huge relief, because when there is a huge focus on pop-culture in a film, then the final product lacks a sense of timelessness. If this were my movie, I would want it to be remembered. I can't see anything about the Shrek movies being successful in another ten or fifteen years.

And finally. The movie is bookended with traditional hand-drawn animation. This must be a trend that started with nt-style:italic;">Ratatouille's 2D animated end credits. But in Kung-Fu Panda, there is a lot more of it, and it is beautifully stylized and colored. In charge of this animation is James Baxter, a renowned Disney animator. I must applaud Mr. Baxter and his team. .

The Cons.
There is still too much emphasis on the actors who play the characters. Everytime I saw and heard the Panda, I saw and heard Jack Black. I like some of Jack Black's live action work, but I can't applaud his voice over work. The same goes for some of the other actors: Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, and others). I have said it many times: some of these actors just don't know how to add charm and charisma to their voices in order to bring these characters to life.

The story and dialog felt like shadows of stories I have heard many times. There was nothing new or inventive about the plot, and I felt like I heard it all before. Some of the characters seemed like shadows as well. For example, there is a scene at the end when it looks like the Kung-Fu master has died, when in fact he is just tired. The way that scene is portrayed felt too predictable and the dialog was too chunky.

My opinion of the film is pretty mixed. It is not a perfect film, but with some vast improvements from previous Dreamworks movies. I guess I could watch this film again, but I can't predict what will become of it in ten or twenty years.

Parasite's Delight

2008-05-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

It's been over a month since I last wrote here, and I apologize. I have been hard at work on my film, but it is now finished. And I am ready to share it with the rest of the world (or those who are at least interested).

Parasite's Delight tells the tale of a small, orange parasite named Pitti. He has been living inside a cow, until the cow dies of natural causes. Pitti's palace (the cow) deteriorates quickly, and he is left homeless in a post-apocalyptic environment. He will find a lot is different in this world, where his fellow parasitic species have learned to survive on their own.

This film was very different for me. It used more animation, more coloring, more cut-backs, original music (courtesy of my Dad), and many other little things. If there is anything I am proudest of, it is that I managed to create something with some scale to it, which is tricky for some independent filmmakers. When I say scale, I mean a story that can move through environments and maintain its layers. A lot of commercial films have scale. John Dilworth's work has tremendous scale. Don Hertzfeld's work (after 1999 in my opinion) has amazing scale. Parasite's Delight has many layers to it. There are themes in it which I hope to revisit at some point in future work.

I have the film on YouTube, but I don't encourage you to watch it this way. This film is meant to be seen more clearly.

Now that the film is done, I am in the process of getting it into some festivals now. I am also in the process of finding work.
I hope to be back soon. I am still recuperating.

Those who conquere commercial and independent worlds.

2008-04-08T11:22:00.000-07:00

I apologize for being away. I have been sick twice, had to go to a wedding, and the rest of my time devoted to my film, which has less than four weeks before making its debut. Which means less than four weeks to finish it.

Which brings me to the top of this post. Now that I am almost finished with this project, I need to start thinking about where to go next. I would love to start thinking up another personal film, but then I thought about maybe having a long-term idea I could develop before an opportunity comes along. Someone recently mentioned the idea of doing a TV show, something that is sort at the bottom of my list. I thought that if someone actually offered me the chance to do one, I’d probably take the opportunity, as it might open more doors for me in the future. But I don’t want to stray too far away from independent work, which is a great thing to be a part of. I hold great admiration for artists who are successful in exploring both independent and commercial worlds.

These guys managed to establish their own styles through their independent work, and were able to bring them to a larger audience. (I apologize if I should have mentioned someone else, but didn't. These were the first that came to mind).

John R. Dilworth.

I have met Mr. Dilworth quite a few times. He is one of my idols; one of the best animation directors ever. Dilworth has managed to do some stunning independent films, and has also created Courage The Cowardly Dog, one of the best animated shows of the last ten years. Apparently, he refused to do Courage unless he could produce it from his own studio, Stretch Films, in New York, as opposed to moving to Los Angeles.

Dilworth’s own style is evident in both his commercial and personal work. There are elements recognizable in his work prior to Courage, which made it into the show. And Courage is also unusual compared to most animated shows today, in that it has no continuity, but rather unique situations and different characters per episode (although a few episodes made reference to the original film, The Chicken From Outer Space).

You can watch all of Mr. Dilworth's films (small screen unfortunately) in the Works section of StretchFilms.com.

Joe Murray

I have known of Joe Murray since I was 7 or 8 years old. That was when his show, Rocko’s Modern Life was still on Nickelodeon. Looking back, I realize how unique the first couple seasons of that show was (my opinion of the last season is a little sour now).

I admit I only started checking out his most recent show, Camp Lazlo, last summer. But I was intrigued by the show’s distinct character designs, and beautifully textured backgrounds. It was then that I learned that Murray is also an independent animator. Unfortunately, his personal films are hard to find (they must be available on VHS somewhere). I admit I have not seen any of these films, only read about them. I just thought he was worth mentioning.

You can read more about Mr. Murray's work at JoeMurrayStudio.com/.

Danny Antonucci

Mr. Antonucci has been a great advocate of traditional, hand-drawn animation. He has found success with his own work (Lupo the Butcher), and with his commercial ventures (Ed, Edd and Eddy on Cartoon Network). Antonucci’s work personifies what it means to be edgy in animation (actually, I use the term “edgy” to describe what he was doing in the late 1980’s and 1990’s). In 1991, Antonucci had a show on MTV that tethered between indie and mainstream, called The Brothers Grunt. Of course, this was back when MTV was good. But watching that, along with Lupo and Ed, Edd, and Eddy, presents a remarkable diversity. In an interview at last year’s Annecy Festival, Antonucci revealed he looking to return to his indie roots, which I find really exciting.

Ed, Edd, and Eddy stood out right from the beginning. The boiling line style combined with Tex Avery-style gags was something totally new for Cartoon Network's programming. The show currently holds Cartoon Network’s record for their longest-running original program. And he wants to go back to independent work; kudos to Mr. Antonucci.

I apologize in advance if it takes a while for me to post again. My film has to come first, but I am still keeping this blog up.

And I promise, if anybody wants something totally new, that I will have something on my film in my next post. Now, it’s at a good stage for me to start sharing it.

Cheers.

Desperate Doodle and Paul Driessen

2008-03-22T22:25:00.000-07:00

Just desperate to post something.

I've been in hell. Last week I got stomach flu, and then suffered an acute medical reaction, which sent me to the hospital. I would prefer not to discuss it on this blog, however. Let's just say it was frightening, and I am happy I can still talk normally.

What should I post? Well, I have rekindled an interest in Dutch/Canadian animator/filmmaker Paul Driessen. One of my favorite independents, I hope to meet Mr. Driessen someday. He has a wonderful talent in telling very complex ideas in such a simple yet whimsical style. His animation style is very unique and unlike anything else. He accomplishes things I hope to accomplish. Using a very charming and whimsical style to tell stories and ideas that are unique and unusual. Here are two of his films.

The Killing of the Egg

The Boy Who Say The Iceberg

I have lost time and resumed working on my film, Parasite's Delight (as it is still called). I hope to have a couple of finished shots up here in a couple weeks. I worry about my schedule, but Andy London assures me that I have nothing to fear. And seeing how Andy handles these things, I should believe him.
Still I am desperate to do some non-thesis drawing. This was all I can muster up.

Hope to write again next week. Hopefully.

Ident ~ Aardman, 1989

2008-03-09T14:47:00.000-07:00

This is a short film directed by Richard Goleszowski, and produced by Aardman Animation in 1989. It is remarkably different from other Aardman shorts, especially looking at it now.

I have been watching this short recently. I showed it to a friend, it was her first time seeing it, and it blew her away.

I love this short, and its a little hard to explain why. I think I just love the nonsensical nature of it. The gibberish and the actions are hysterical. It's a short film that works very well without a story. Pat Smith had a rant on his blog some time ago about how it is not always about story, but really the idea, or just the characters, or the visuals. In my opinion, there is no one source, it can be anything. It just depends on what comes first, and where that leads. Ident is a short that is very complete, and based solely on the idea and the visual.

Also, some exciting stuff over here. The Pratt Animation shows have been set up (a tremendous thanks to Fran Krause). We will have three showings, all in May. I will add more information if anyone out there is interested. Also, this coming week are screenings for the ASIFA-East festival this year. As a member, I have the privilege of casting my vote in the screening. I hope to have something to report on.

To all the Pratt animators

2008-02-26T22:47:00.000-08:00

of 2008 that is....

It is late, and I have just come back from the studio here at Pratt. It’s one of those nights where I have lost all objectivity of my own work. I am at a point in my film where I am going through a lot of these episodes. I can't judge my own work, I can't seem to figure out if something is working, or if it will function to an audience (you have to be your own audience in these situations). When this happens, I run the risk of making animation that is unclear and compositions/shots that have too much or too little.

These episodes wear off, but I still need to talk about them. I hate losing objectivity in my own work. It causes me to lose motivation. We usually have critiques every Monday morning. Even though we can e-mail stuff to other people, we are not always motivated to do so. For me, my schedule is so tight, I am afraid to re-work a scene, I worry about losing time on the rest of the film (which I feel like I am). Everything has to be finished by May 1: eight months of work in a short film

I know schedules work differently for different independent animators. Some work fast enough to get at least one film done every year. Others pace themselves out for one or two years or more. But most of these animators, unlike most students, have employees/interns working for them. Even if it is only four or five people, it still provides plenty of objectivity for the directors.

I need more than one person to look at my work. At this point, until something evolves, I need some more objectives than what I usually get every week. Andy London, my thesis adviser, always spells out the challenges of making a film. His point are very clear, but I wish to hear ways to get around them, or accept them. How do we accept these challenges if we want to spend the rest of our lives working in film and/or animation?

I end this by spreading the blogs of some of my fellow animators.

Maya Edelman
Javan Ivey
Christopher Ko
Jen Lee
David (Dav-odd) Meehan
Dan Mountain
Isam Prado

I apologize for leaving anyone out. If they wish to be added, just let me know, and I will add you to the list.

The Cure showing off

2008-02-20T19:04:00.000-08:00

I just got an idea for another post, but I don't know when I will write it. I figure I should post something for this week. I've wanted to post these for a while now.

Just a couple of music videos by the Cure, made in the 1980's. I really like these videos. Because they not only give the songs some nice illustration, but there's something real and exuberant about the band members' on-screen personalities. They are not professional actors, but they can show off like anybody else. I love watching people show off like this. Not showing off a strength, but showing the way one naturally moves. Non-sense motions like these make their way into my head when thinking of characters. It often gives me ideas of how to physically express a character's personality.

"The Walk" 1983

Of course, I love the songs too. Maybe that adds to my enjoyment of these early music videos. But I still think music videos should be made this way. They probably are, but the artist just isn't popular enough.

"Why Can't I Be You" 1986

Actually, I saw a new Radiohead video simply made up of video camera footage of the band recording the song. It looked a lot better than some of the stuff I am usually subjected to.

Sleep, Movies and Persepolis

2008-02-11T15:49:00.000-08:00

This is a late post, and its not even the post I wanted to make. But my schedule is reaching that point. The point where I am working on my film into the early morning hours, and my sleep patterns get all screwed up. I originally wanted to do a post on Chuck Jones, but I didn't have enough time to put all the images together. So for now, I am throwing this together.

Amid Amidi, Cartoon Brew's other half and (now) New York commentator, posted something on Cartoon Brew last week that really excited me. It was an article written by David Levy for the ASIFA-East newsletter, about the rise of independent animated features coming from New York. Music to my ears. With Persepolis getting lots of attention, I side with Mr. Levy in seeing this as a sign of an on-coming revolution. An evolution in animated features. I suggest you read it.

Among the filmmakers mentioned are Michael Sporn, Bill Plympton, Nina Paley, Paul Fierlinger, and Dan Kanemoto. I am suprised Amid neglected to mention Pat Smith, as Pat is working on a feature of his own at the moment.

I visited Michael Sporn's studio months ago with a class. There, he informed us of a feature he was working on, based on Edgar Allen Poe. I hope it goes well, because as Sporn's style has evolved over the years, its got the potential to hold an audience's attention for more than an hour. And I think his style is a relaxing place to go to.

Nina Paley and Paul Fierlinger also have interesting films coming along. Nina Paley has a style that is quite charming and embracing, so I am very curious to see the very personal Sita Sings the Blues. And Paul Fierlinger managed to snag some top-notch British actors for his film about a man's relationship with his dog. Very impressive.

Bill Plympton has been making his own features for years. They have been quite rocky for him, however, as they seem to go in limbo when released, and never make much money. The image above is a feature he did four years ago, Hair High, which I saw and believe to be his best feature. His most recent feature, Idiots and Angels, might be a little more effort in embracing it. Still, its nice to have something different, and after hearing Mr. Plympton talk about it with us, its clear that he is thinking more like a filmmaker than an animator now.

In the midst of my depressing schedule, I managed to go see Persepolis. I saw it early at the Ottawa Festival back in September. It is truly unlike any other feature out there. Even though its directly based on Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel, its still refreshing to see an animated feature today that is black/white and introspective. It is a deeply moving and emotion story, with moments of wonderful humor. I know some animators have complained about the style of it. But the style makes the movie work, and its probably one of the more complete features of the last ten years.

The start of a revolution? I absolutely hope so.

Henpecked Hoboes (Tex Avery, 1946)

2008-01-30T22:00:00.000-08:00

Why is this cartoon not on DVD? In fact, the Droopy Theatrical Collection is the only thing out there that has any of Fred "Tex" Avery's MGM cartoons.

What do I want to see? I think there should be a DVD set of Tex Avery's MGM cartoons from the 40's and 50's. I consider these particular cartoons to be among some of the finest work in the animation world. If anything, they are possibly among the best film making ever done. Unfortunately, these cartoons have taken some undeserved heap in our recent years of censorship and political embarrassment. But thankfully, the DVD releases of Droopy, Popeye, and the Looney Tunes collections have shined some light on the matter, and kept the cartoons as they were meant to be. I mean, for heaven's sake, you can't erase or improve history.

*The following has no in depth analysis or artistic breakdown like most bloggers show. It is simply a general enjoyment.*

I came across this cartoon recently. I haven't seen it in years, and now that I am older, there is so much more I see in it. I loved seeing this when I was little (when they still showed old cartoons on public television).

I now know that the characters of George and Junior are based on the two leads in Of Mice and Men (a very depressing read for me).

A satisfying ending: the stupid tramp gets her ass kicked.

This image is from Kevin Langley's blog, which I recently discovered. If you like this, I suggest checking his blog out.

On another note: if anybody reads this, I have a question. I am trying to figure out how to get quicktimes up here on the blog. I need to get my work up here while I try to figure out my web page. What is the recommended web host to do this?