Showing posts with label disney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disney. Show all posts

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Look inside yourself, Simba. You are more than what you have become. You must take your place in the Circle of Life.

No 319 - The Lion King
Directors - Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff

Man! I LOVE The Lion King! I was even willing to sit through the longest most OTT DVD menu with an annoying CGI Zazu to watch the film. So long that I can't find a YouTube video of the menu in its entirety.... but you can have a bit of the pre-film ordeal I sat through. That's dedication.

So, the special edition DVD has been spruced up a little bit so we get a much sharper, crisper looking film, and that is OK with me, it just makes it a joy to watch. From the opening African chanting to the final Circle of Life.... this film makes me happy. So lets talk about the highlights, and of course the guilty admission that I do really like some Elton John songs - specially when blended in with the African tribal singing.
Firstly this film has a star studded cast... and somehow, I had never realised that Matthew Broderick plays Simba! Gosh. But look at all these others:



What's great about this cast is that they play so well together - they bounce off each other with grace and with much hilarity. Look at the Hyaenas in any scene where they play off each other and admire the ease and charm and just natural brilliance of the dialogue.

Then we come to the visuals. Disney had started using CGI to assist their animations in earlier films. 1991 has Aladdin's carpet escape and 1992 showed them using the technology more neatly to create the Beauty and the Beast ballroom scene, but I think that by 1994 they'd pretty much nailed it and it allows them to make a far more epic film than they've ever managed before. We do get lush panoramic views of busy savannas, but the film's most impressive moment is the Stampede. This is not only the best bit in the film, it is a near perfect piece of cinema. The visuals are incredible and 'To Die For' is just a gloriously dramatic tune - but not only does it look and sound amazing, it is full of emotion and pain and drama. Despite it being 16 years old, it still looks fresh and new and it still has the power to take your breath away on both an aesthetic and dramatic level. Which, surely, is the holy grail that all films aspire to.

I think that the stampede draws an important parallel with the main film, amongst the great great songs and the excellent zippy dialogue, amongst the excellent visuals, is a really clever film. Disney aren't just cleaning up a Grimm fairy tale to shift princess dolls... they're taking almost all the complexities of Hamlet, mixing in a lot of communist imagery and using it to create a brand new piece of African folklore. I really think that The Lion King is Disney at its cleverest and at its best.
I don't mean that just with the film. After all the Megadrive game was brilliant, the stage show is an experience which you MUST see (and contains my favourite non-film song) and whilst The Lion King 2 is a non-eventful Romeo and Juliet remake, Lion King 3 is an inspired piece of cinema.

For if The Lion King is Hamlet, then The Lion King 3 is Rosencratz and Guildenstern are dead - with a bit of Mystery Science Theater 3000 thrown in and a post modern sense of humour which we see a little of in the first film. Even Pixar don't do referencing that subtle or that high brow.




Monday, 22 March 2010

Three wishes, to be exact. And ixnay on the wishing for more wishes. That's all. Three. Uno, dos, tres. No substitutions, exchanges or refunds.

No 322 - Disney's Aladdin
Directors - Ron Clements and John Musker

Lets be honest. There is one thing which pumps Aladdin into awesomeness. The Genie.Now Robin Williams seems to be pretty hit and miss with his films. He has done some wonderful stuff - I love his performance in the Birdcage for example and I think his performance in One Hour Photo is horrific, yet amazing - but a lot of it seems to be over-sentimental. Or in more modern times just not funny.
Yet, in the olden days, he was a bonkers, anarchic, fastly improvising comedian. It seems odd to think that a Disney cartoon is the vehicle to bring back the madcap comedy of Robin Williams. He brings so many elements to the film that it goes from being a pretty standard Disney film into something so much more.
Recently, cartoons and Kid's films have become more self referential and postmodern. It is something that Disney have also started to do. It is there in the Mystery Science Theatre style Lion King 3, the amazing advertising (far better than the actual film) of Lilo and Stitch. Newer Disney films like Enchanted and even the Frog Princess have throw away sight gags referring to former Disney Princesses.
But none of this is new.... because Aladdin pipped them all to the post.
Firstly there are the Genie's references to other Disney films:
He appears as Pinocchio
He pulls out Sebastian, briefly accompanied to 'Under the Sea'
When packing he wears a Goofy baseball cap.

But then it gets weirder, as he begins to work outside of the parameters of the film, acknowledging that this is a cartoon.
He pulls out the script to Aladdin, and in the final moment rips the animation cell off its light box to talk directly to the audience.

Where Aladdin begins to really differ is by dabbling with pop culture as well. The Genie's fantastical magical state means that there are no laws, and Robin Williams' improving meant that there were no rules in the recording process either. The genie appears as items and people from outside the time line and world of the cartoon. There are so many references that it is impossible to fully get them all, even now I'm not sure of half the characters portrayed by the Genie and I can't find a suitable online list.

For the first time (I think), Disney are giving the adults there own little in jokes, rather than just letting them enjoy the story. Sadly, I think this is needed, because outside of the Genie, Aladdin is not the strongest Disney film - the story is quite week and the plot isn't that exciting. However the film gets by on the strength of the characters (and the songs.... but I'll cover that later).
I think Aladdin is an important character because he is the first Disney 'Prince' to actually be interesting. The Beast has his curse but he is grumpy and dull, all other princes were just catalysts for the Princess's happy ending. But here we have a charismatic, witty, kind but flawed protagonist. A proper hero that you can root for - and he is matched by a feisty feisty princess who is the owner of Disney's first exposed human princess belly button. And she owns a tiger, which is cool.

Aladdin and Jasmine are good characters but they are not the film's most interesting characters. Once we move away fro the Genie's insane brilliance, the best characters remain non-human. Firstly the smart-alec sarcastic new-yoiker attitude of the Parrot Iago played by Gillbert Gottfried. I just find this funny because Gottfried is filth, so I like the concept of him playing a Disney character. Then we have Abu, a character who is lovable in his sulky cheekiness and who is all the more impressive for his inability to speak. On this note however, we must speak about the magic carpet - it is amazing to create a character which not only can't speak. But who has no face. There is no way that the Magic Carpet can emote - no way for it to connect with us. And yet, it does... beautifully. It shows despondence, anger, shyness, pride.... It goes to show just how skilled the Disney animators are and how much experience they have at creating characters.

Because this film is just a celebration of great characters. They keep the film together. They even keep the songs together. The genie's songs are flitting and jolly and bonkers, but the true triumph is A Whole New World - a ballad so beautiful that it remains good even when you can kind of remember the Jordan and Peter cover version (which I won't link to.... I'm not cruel).

This might not be the most exciting Disney film, either in story or in art style (it may have just bee the DVD but it seemed quite grotty at times - certainly not the crisp beauty I associate with Disney) but the protagonists are strong and interesting and the supporting cast are wonderful.

But most of all - you still get that excited Disney feeling when you watch it. Something I hadn't realised I'd been missing until I went to see the Princess and the Frog.

Thursday, 24 December 2009

You didn't save my life, you ruined my death, that's what you did!

No 400 - The Incredibles
Director - Brad Bird

Pixar is a brave and very interesting stable. I mean look at it... it definitely has a strong concept, after all despite the obvious differences Monsters Inc, Toy Story, Nemo, Ratatouille, Cars are all buddy films. About a mediocre person who finds someone to pull them up to greatness.
You've then got The Incredibles which is a domestic drama superhero film in which a member of a family is trying to pull the rest of them to greatness after they've struggled to get down to mediocre.

It is a surprisingly dark film - it is tight, well script and wickedly funny at times. Not only does this stand up against Pixar's phenomenal back catalogue, it stands up against Superhero films. I'd probably but this up there in the top 5 superhero films, and it is a cartoon.... featuring entirely made up characters who don't have a legion of comic book fans.

It is easy to view this as 'Watchmen for kids' - both stories tackle the outlawing of superheroes and the difficulties of keeping a mundane and normal life after having been a superhero. Both stories see a character get back into his old ways, investigating the disappearances of former colleagues. Both tackle danger of using capes in superhero costumes (Watchman's Dollar Bill gets caught in a revolving door and shot whereas we're treated to an entire montage of death - during Edna's AMAZING show stealing appearance - throughout The Incredibles).

In fact, Edna's speech about 'No Capes!' is just a small part of the darkness which is hidden throughout this film. For what is essentially a children's film, we're given a very real sense of danger in the action pieces. We have a huge amount of deaths in the film, both as the aftereffects of the fight scenes but also implied throughout the film. Hell, at one point Mr Incredible hides behind the mostly skeletal corpse of one of his former superhero colleagues. We're not just talking 'Sid's Toys' dark... we're talking dark. Death is an important part of the film, as Helen Parr points out to her children:
Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They *will* kill you if they get the chance. Do *not* give them that chance.

The danger is then mixed with the film's strongest and smartest touch. The family dynamic. The family bicker and bounce off of each other. Arguing and worrying and working together like a real family. It is a strong family dynamic and some excellent voice acting from Spencer Fox in particular (seeing as the woman that voiced Violet is very much a grown up) in conveying the madness and anarchy of being a child.
You also have Bob Parr's constant resentment at having to be normal and Helen's frustration at being the one that has to keep the family together. For around the first 45 minutes of the film we are just watching the mundane life of the Parrs post superhero ban. We're just getting to know the family.
By the time the action begins and the danger really comes out, we care about the Parrs and we are invested in the success of the Incredibles.

The action scenes are also helped by logic. Surprisingly, logic is not always evident in Superhero films, especially not with origin films. It seems that the writers get too involved discussing the origin of the hero they forget they have to include some kind of triumph over adversity and just crowbar in a villain.
Film 2 is normally the film for the villain to shine. Film one is usually weak.

Yet, Incredibles handles it perfectly. The villain, Syndrome, has brilliant (if slightly warped) motivation. An excellent plan. He has the most ridiculous hideout ever. He has a reason to be targeting Mr Incredible.
His emergence is the fault of Mr Incredible. That is what makes it brilliant. A spurned former fan that goes on a petty rampage to try to make the world dependent on him and also annul super heroes completely. He isn't a maniacal power hungry maniac (well he is a little bit) he is mostly a petty, vindictive sadist who has turned against his hero.
Which is a scary type of villain if you ask me.
The fact that

What we have is a family drama. About finding your strengths and working with them, looking at the slick machine 'The Incredibles' become at the film's end and compare it to the ramshackle arguing mess of the initial Parr family.
We have the moral of being true to yourself and gaining more confidence (a theme which is best shown in Violet, the insecure teen character).
We also have a moral about playing fair (after all, the villainous Syndrome didn't play fair and he gets all killed up) which is seen as well in the hilarious school race with super fast Dash trying to look inconspicuous and win the race.

When you look at the morals, we have fairly standard Disney Pixar fare, seen in Ratatouille and Wall:E as well as those mentioned up earlier in the blog... we have the inclusion of John Ratzenberger, a Pixar talisman, crow barred in for the final line. But the film towers over the risk of being standard. It delivers an engrossing and surprisingly edgy story with a great plot, great characters and infinite opportunities for sequels.

It also gave us an excellent spin off cartoon - Jak Jak Attack... which explains what the baby was doing throughout the film...

Monday, 12 October 2009

And this is the Buzz Lightyear aisle. Back in 1995, short-sighted retailers did not order enough dolls to meet demand.

No 179 - Toy Story 2
Director - John Lassiter

Times are changing when it comes to children. Where Toy Story begins with a cardboard town and a toy western, Toy Story 2 begins in the vivid landscapes of space. A fully functioning, Jetpack flying, laser blasting, forcefield toting Buzz Lightyear adventuring their way to defeat the evil emperor Zurg. Only to be blasted to smithereens. Game Over. Welcome to the world of computer games. The geek in me is impressed that this is all played on a SNES (excellent graphics).

This film is impressive because it continues the themes of Toy Story, but inverts the story. So, where Toy Story was about fear of rejection and Buzz realising he is less than he initially thought, Toy Story 2 continues the fear of rejection but is about Woody realising he is more than he initially thought. A collectors item.
The film also continues ideas that were only slightly hinted at in the first film. Here Al's Toy Barn moves from being a fleeting advert for Buzz Lightyear, to becoming the pivotal surroundings as Woody is stolen to be part of a Woody's Round Up collection sold to a museum in Japan. This also gives us the films new characters.
The collection of Barbies add a fun slightly scary dead eyed perma-grin addition to the toy canon. But... as we all know from Small Soldiers. There is nothing scarier than living Barbie dolls.
However the real joyous new additions are the Woody's Round Up Gang of Jessie, Bullseye and Prospector Pete. They continue the franchise's theme of rejection. Pete is a bitter toy, still mint in box, he's never been played with and he believes that children just destroy toys. He tries to corrupt Woody by telling him that though Andy may care for him now but he will grow up, and Woody WILL be neglected. This is just strengthened by Jessie's story (which, I'm ashamed to say, I found the dullest part of the film in 1999 and still do, 10 years on). The idea of a child outgrowing their toys is also (I believe) the theme for the upcoming Toy Story 3.

However, what really shines about this film is just how silly it is - and it is REALLY silly. The film is self referential (a longstanding Pixar tradition) - playing with the concept of the Buzz Lightyear dolls selling out in 1995, including Geri from Geri's Game as the toy fixer and bringing back an arrogant ridiculous Buzz. This time with utility belt.
But the real thing that is odd about this film is the sheer number of movie references from outside Pixar's canon. From the first scene where musical blogs play the introductory tones of 2001. Through to Mr Potato Head using is bowler like Odd Job or Rex being used for a cheap Jurassic Park pun - the film is full of homages. However, the best one is the excellent, almost frame for frame, version of Empire Strikes Back using Utility Belt Buzz and Emperor Zurg, even down to fake James Earl Jones voices. Why is it only the Buzz Lightyear range that fail to realise they're toys?

But most ridiculous of all - is that Andi Peters has a voice cameo in it. I find it really weird, even though it is one line it always jars in the film. Find the one British voice in Toy Story 2. Andi Peters.

This is a film which covers a lot of the themes and plot points of Toy Story but expands on them further. It is about the lengths one would go for friendship. It is about overcoming the fear of being rejected and neglected. It is about co operation and loyalty.

But mostly it is about the importance of being loved.

One minute you're defending the whole galaxy, and, suddenly, you find yourself sucking down Darjeeling with... Marie Antoinette and her little sister.

No 99 - Toy Story
Director - John Lasseter

100 FILMS!!!
100 BLOGS!!!
Yes indeedy... this is my 100th film. It as taken a pitifully long time to get this far. I almost feel ashamed. But I'm trucking along at a much better pace now. We're gathering up steam and we'll hit 200 before you know it! I promise ya.

My Sunday ended up being delightfully Pixar-tinted. Starting with this, their first feature film, followed by Up - which has a delightfully poignant introductory sequence followed by 90 minutes of Looney Tunes style insanity and finally a really interesting South Bank documentary on Pixar.
Naturally - I'll be following it up today with Toy Story 2. Makes sense.

It makes me feel disgustingly old to think that Toy Story came out 14 years ago. 14 YEARS ago. That is just strange. I remember going to see it at the cinema and the excitement of seeing the Disney logo appear in glorious CGI. My how things have changed now....
All it takes is the Disney castle to show you how CGI has developed in the last 15 years, and yet Toy Story still feels surprisingly modern. Yes some parts have visually dated. Especially the organic stuff - the humans feel a bit dead eyed and vacant and Sid's dog Scud is just rubbish in comparison to the new dogs who appear in Up, however elements like the shiny plastic toys still could compete against other, non Pixar, films.

What really impresses about Toy Story though, is the story and the characterisation. Whilst the CGI may have been the initial draw (back in 1995) it is Pixar's amazing depth of character and richness of story that keeps the viewer interested. It is also the bravery of their films. Toy Story may well be a buddy movie told using toys, but it is also far more than that - it is a film about rejection and the fear of replacement. It is a film that addresses the fear of feeling inferior and helps you to tackle it. It is a very strong message told with such lovable characters, letting us see childhood favourites become smart ass shit stirrers and creating new childhood favourites.

As well as tackling rejection and the story of cooperation (after all Buzz and Woody learn to work together), Toy Story tackles some pretty dark moments.
Firstly Buzz's breakdown at the realisation that he isn't a toy. Going through moments of hysteria, despondency and finally realisation. At times it is pretty tough to watch.
The moments where Buzz realises he is a toy is the beginning of Pixar's tradition of putting immensely moving performances into their cartoons. Considering how ridiculed he is, and how odd some of his songs are, Randy Newman's work works really well in the film and this sequence is quite the tear jerker.
As are the dark moments. For Pixar don't shy away from the potentially scary (in what is, after all, a kid's film). Sid's toys are twisted bastardised mutants but are also a prime example of Disney's main message - Don't judge a book by its cover. These twisted mutants have hearts of gold - and Ducky is the most stupidly genius character in the film. Mainly because I love Pez dispensers.
However, Woody's final plan to save Buzz and stop Sid is dark. Through and through. Zombie dolls lurching out of the mud... Woody even evokes the spirit of the exorcist. The poor child will be traumatised forever.

But he is a bully - so fuck him. After all, for everybody else the film ends happily and the toys are more contented at the end of the film then they ever have been before.

Tuesday, 15 September 2009

Nothing that happens is ever forgotten, even if you can't remember it.

No 339 - Spirited Away (Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi)
Director - Hayao Miyazaki

I love Studio Ghibli. I love Miyazaki. He, and his studio, have rekindled a love and excitement about cartoons. It is almost the same thrill I got as a child watching Disney.

Like most Westerners of my generation (though by no means all), I came to discover Ghibli through the release of Spirited Away. It is by no means my favourite, but they're in the list so I can talk about them later. It is, however, my first Ghibli film and so it should be the first one I watch.

I've watched this film several times before in both English and Japanese. For while I have really strong views on dubbing, they don't cross over to animation and I frequently watch the dubbed cartoon (after all lip synch is less of an obvious issue). I have decided to watch the dubbed version this time for 2 reasons:
When I first saw it at the cinema it was the American dub, therefore this is the version that I believe would have been most seen.
Secondly Davigh Chase's voice is far far far less annoying than Rumi Hiragi who plays Chihiro as very screechy. I want to like Chihiro, not want her to be muted.

What I like about Studio Ghibli is that they never go out to make Kid's films. They go out to tell stories. Some of their stories (like the upcoming Ponyo) are more aimed at children, whilst others (such as Princess Mononoke or Grave of the Fireflies) certainly aren't. This one falls in the middle, as it is quite a simple and beautiful love story, but filled with a lot of complex Japanese folklore and mythology.

Simply paraphrased, the film follows a small girl called Chihiro, who is lured to a resort for spirits. Here her parents are turned into pigs, she is forced to work in the bath house until she earns the right to be freed.
There is a love story between her and a mysterious boy/dragon called Haku. There is also an awful lot of talk of spirits and witches and magic, aspects that are deep in the culture and mythology of Japan but are quite alien to my western eyes. However, as I watch more Ghibli films, I'm becoming a bit more experienced with the Japanese spirit world and I recognised familiar themes.
Spirits such as the Spring spirits (large lumbering chicks with vacant stares and hats made of leaves) remind me of Totoro, Ghibli's most famous spring spirit. Totoro's soot sprites also make a return in this. However, this is still a world with only one human character, and no real attempt at explaining who or what the other characters are.

The point I'm trying to make here is that despite an unusual central concept (or perhaps BECAUSE of an unusual central concept) the film captured the western audience and flung Ghibli's back catalog into the public's attention. I love Disney, I really really do - to probably quite an uncool degree - however come 2001, their animation department was pretty much dead (I believe Atlantis was their 2001 release... hardly a Disney classic). So this film came with an epic story, insane characters and beautiful animation and shook up the animation kings.
It bodes well that John Lasseter, one of the key brains behind Pixar and the now king and daddy of Disney's creative department, is a huge Ghibli fan and produced Spirited Away's anglification.

Disney believed that hand drawn animation was on the way out, and that all stories would be moving to computer animation. This is a belief not shared by Mr Lasseter (check out his new ideas for upcoming Disney. Including the proper old school feeling The Princess and The Frog) but was also trounced by Spirited Away.
The animation is beautiful. Truly stunning and should best be admired when checking out the backgrounds. I'm aware that this is a bit of a geeky thing to say, but the backgrounds are stunning. If you haven't seen the film, have a look at the trailer HERE. The animation is quite subtle, rather than the bold lines of Western animation, colours meld into each other and provide an almost watercolour feeling, contrasting boldly with the main characters. Also, check out the stink spirit in Spirited Away. Then go and check out the cursed boar in Mononoke, or the Shadow spies in Howl's Moving Castle or the collapsing giant in Nausicaa. Ghibli love drawing pustulous masses of slime, oozing all over the place and they do it so very very well. It is even more amazing when you think that everything is hand drawn as Miyazaki doesn't believe in using CGI enhancements. Hell, even ALADDIN was using CGI enhancements.

But the final thing I want to talk about, is the sheer imagination of the film (a point I've touched on several times). Without researching Japanese folklore, it is difficult to know what elements were adopted from existing stories, but the tale is incredibly brave. What I love about it is the sheer number of lavish and extravagant characters who appear to be there solely to be extras. The sheer amount of character design is incredible, it makes me think of Del Toro's market scene in Hellboy 2. Only spread out for most of a film.
The vast a varied cast of monsters, ghosts and freaks helps to fully engross the viewer in a surreal and yet believable world. A world where scale doesn't seem to mean anything or where people can travel as small strips of flying origami (paper cutting people to death) or where a love story happens between a child and a river.

Allow me to repeat myself. The central love story is between a small child. And a river.

Yet, whilst that is a very strange thing to type - it makes perfect sense in the film. Surely, that is the true magic of Spirited Away. It creates an elegant story full of fantastic witches and demons and spirits and frogmen. It paints this world in such a beautiful palette. But the true magic is, you believe a girl and a river could fall in love.

And that is one hell of a triumph.