Year: 1992
Country: United States
Director: Bill Plympton
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: Songwriter Del is given 47 minutes to write a hit tune, or else. However, on his way to present his material, Del gets caught up in the surreal town of Flooby Nooby, where he learns some lessons about life and music. He then presents his songs to his boss and wins the girl of his dreams.
First impressions: This was both Bill Plympton’s first feature-length film and my first exposure to his work, but after seeing it, I’m not exactly eager to rush out and see his other stuff. First and foremost, the story is barely there, so what fills in the running time is lengthy and unfunny visual gags. In fact, these gags have so little to do with each other that the film seems like a slapdash collection of shorts, rather than a film with a single narrative.
Plot and story: I wish I could say that my “scenario” up there is just a bare-bones synopsis, but that is literally everything that happens. And yet, the film is more than an hour long. The barely-there story is padded with musical numbers and overlong visual gags; the former sometimes advance the plot, but the latter never do, and thus come off as a desperate attempt to extend the film’s running time. In the end, when the story is boiled down to its essential elements, it is surprisingly paint-by-numbers and isn’t the least bit interesting. 5/20
Characters: Again, due to the distractions of the pointless visual gags and elaborate transformation sequences that dominate the film’s running time, we spend very little time actually getting to know the characters, and they are barely more than one-dimensional. The only characters that get significant screen time are Del, his love interest, and his boss; they all go through some slight changes over the course of the plot, but are never made particularly relatable or even likeable. 8/20
Voices: No famous voices here, and I can’t say that the voices used manage to elevate the one-note characters. None of them are bad, however, so I’ll give them a middle of the road score. 10/20
Music: Without an interesting plot or developed characters, the musical numbers become the centerpiece of the film, and they are nothing if not surreal. The lyrics and subject matter are bizarre (one song is about a man without a nose), and each song is done in a different musical style, including blues, folk, country, and even surf rock. These songs work well on their own level, but they aren’t really strong enough to save the film and they aren’t catchy enough to make me want to listen to them again. 13/20
Visuals: Being an independent animator, Plympton can’t very well replicate the style of big-budget Hollywood animations; fortunately, he doesn’t try to. His films seem to be a study in economy, with only six to eight frames comprising every second of film (most animation uses at least twelve frames per second). He also makes careful use of still frames and repeated movements, presumably to save time. The simple, “sketchy” style of this film is reminiscent of a crayon drawing, as is the pastel color scheme, and the economized visuals serve as a reminder that cheaper animation doesn’t necessarily look worse than its big-budget counterparts. However, the creative animation in this film (particularly in the surreal transformations mentioned above) is posited as being dominant to the story, when the visuals aren’t actually strong enough to carry the entire film. Thus, while I can imagine that this film was a labor of love for everyone involved, it’s flawed enough that I can only recommend it with reservations. 13/20
Overall grade: 49/100 (C)
Showing posts with label surreal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surreal. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Triplets of Belleville
Year: 2003
Country: France
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Les Triplettes de Belleville, Belleville Rendez-Vous
The scenario: After Madame Souza notices that her grandson, Champion, is happiest on a bicycle, she trains him to compete in the Tour de France. Not all goes well in the race, however, as Champion and two other cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia. Madame Souza sets out on her own to rescue her grandson, but is soon assisted by three elderly jazz-singing sisters known as the Triplets of Belleville.
First impressions: Having heard this movie described as “blissfully bizarre,” I was eager to see it when I first about it around 2004. I rented to the DVD to watch with a friend, but my rather conventionally-minded pal found the imagery in the opening scene too gross to watch and made me stop the movie after seeing only two minutes. Needless to say I was disappointed, but I re-discovered the film a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
Plot and story: This film is a sort of surreal mystery/drama/musical/gangster film/comedy, which is to say that its story is pretty stand-out in the animated film arena. Everything in this film is so deftly original that there isn’t a single uninteresting second. The simple but nuanced plot unfolds with admirable clarity (especially considering there is almost no dialogue), and not a second is wasted in the short running time. The race to save Champion from the mafia is suitably gripping, and everything is fittingly (if bizarrely) resolved at the end. 18/20
Characters: I’ve seen many people complain that since this film lacks dialogue it doesn’t have much in the way of characterization; I disagree. Because the visual storytelling and character animation are so good, a great deal comes across without ever hearing the characters talk. Some of the characters don’t go beyond one-note personalities (most notably the mafia agents, but more disappointingly, Champion); however, our main protagonists have very distinct personalities. Madame Souza is resourceful, determined, and courageous, even when she is out of her element in the strange city of Belleville. The Triplets are an odd but compassionate bunch, and their dinners are quite hilarious. Even Bruno the dog has a personality, being a loyal but rather lazy companion. It is really clear how much thought and effort went into these characters, and they give the film its heart. 17/20
Voices: There are hardly any, as mentioned before. Champion and Madame Souza have only one spoken line each (though Madame Souza sings briefly), and most of the remainder of the talking is just incidental TV broadcasts, radio noise, or sports announcers. The Triplets do most of the singing, but they never speak. This sparing use of voice is another element that sets this film apart from its animated feature brethren. Though some may find this approach jarring, and others may even find it dull, I thought it was another of the film’s strengths. The one thing I didn’t like was Madame Souza’s singing voice. 16/20
Music: Again, since most of the storytelling is visual rather than dialogue-based, the music has to work extra hard to convey the mood of every scene. And, in this respect, the background score works excellently. The Triplets’ signature song, “Belleville Rendez-Vous,” which appears several times, is repetitive yet properly catchy. The most interesting bits of music, however, are the instrumental jams improvised by the Triplets and Madame Souza. With a refrigerator, a vacuum clear, as newspaper, and a bicycle wheel, these four create some of the most original, catchy, and quirky music I’ve ever heard in any film, period. 18/20
Visuals: Both the characters and the settings of this film are stylized to the point of caricature, and some have complained that the visuals are a bit on the grotesque side. Again, I have to disagree. Though the designs may be unusual, the visual creativity of every character and background leaves something to smile about in every frame; Madame Souza’s two different shoes, the fact that her house bends to accommodate a monorail line, the absurd steepness of the streets, the ocean liner that’s bigger than the town it harbors in, the parody of the Statue of Liberty. . . all of these details add something to this film’s peculiar mix of wit and heart. So, with great designs, darn near perfect animation, and a fantastic color palette, the wonderful visuals are the icing on the cake of this wonderful film. 19/20
Overall grade: 88/100 (A)
Country: France
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Watched through: library DVD
Also known as: Les Triplettes de Belleville, Belleville Rendez-Vous
The scenario: After Madame Souza notices that her grandson, Champion, is happiest on a bicycle, she trains him to compete in the Tour de France. Not all goes well in the race, however, as Champion and two other cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia. Madame Souza sets out on her own to rescue her grandson, but is soon assisted by three elderly jazz-singing sisters known as the Triplets of Belleville.
First impressions: Having heard this movie described as “blissfully bizarre,” I was eager to see it when I first about it around 2004. I rented to the DVD to watch with a friend, but my rather conventionally-minded pal found the imagery in the opening scene too gross to watch and made me stop the movie after seeing only two minutes. Needless to say I was disappointed, but I re-discovered the film a few months ago and enjoyed it immensely.
Plot and story: This film is a sort of surreal mystery/drama/musical/gangster film/comedy, which is to say that its story is pretty stand-out in the animated film arena. Everything in this film is so deftly original that there isn’t a single uninteresting second. The simple but nuanced plot unfolds with admirable clarity (especially considering there is almost no dialogue), and not a second is wasted in the short running time. The race to save Champion from the mafia is suitably gripping, and everything is fittingly (if bizarrely) resolved at the end. 18/20
Characters: I’ve seen many people complain that since this film lacks dialogue it doesn’t have much in the way of characterization; I disagree. Because the visual storytelling and character animation are so good, a great deal comes across without ever hearing the characters talk. Some of the characters don’t go beyond one-note personalities (most notably the mafia agents, but more disappointingly, Champion); however, our main protagonists have very distinct personalities. Madame Souza is resourceful, determined, and courageous, even when she is out of her element in the strange city of Belleville. The Triplets are an odd but compassionate bunch, and their dinners are quite hilarious. Even Bruno the dog has a personality, being a loyal but rather lazy companion. It is really clear how much thought and effort went into these characters, and they give the film its heart. 17/20
Voices: There are hardly any, as mentioned before. Champion and Madame Souza have only one spoken line each (though Madame Souza sings briefly), and most of the remainder of the talking is just incidental TV broadcasts, radio noise, or sports announcers. The Triplets do most of the singing, but they never speak. This sparing use of voice is another element that sets this film apart from its animated feature brethren. Though some may find this approach jarring, and others may even find it dull, I thought it was another of the film’s strengths. The one thing I didn’t like was Madame Souza’s singing voice. 16/20
Music: Again, since most of the storytelling is visual rather than dialogue-based, the music has to work extra hard to convey the mood of every scene. And, in this respect, the background score works excellently. The Triplets’ signature song, “Belleville Rendez-Vous,” which appears several times, is repetitive yet properly catchy. The most interesting bits of music, however, are the instrumental jams improvised by the Triplets and Madame Souza. With a refrigerator, a vacuum clear, as newspaper, and a bicycle wheel, these four create some of the most original, catchy, and quirky music I’ve ever heard in any film, period. 18/20
Visuals: Both the characters and the settings of this film are stylized to the point of caricature, and some have complained that the visuals are a bit on the grotesque side. Again, I have to disagree. Though the designs may be unusual, the visual creativity of every character and background leaves something to smile about in every frame; Madame Souza’s two different shoes, the fact that her house bends to accommodate a monorail line, the absurd steepness of the streets, the ocean liner that’s bigger than the town it harbors in, the parody of the Statue of Liberty. . . all of these details add something to this film’s peculiar mix of wit and heart. So, with great designs, darn near perfect animation, and a fantastic color palette, the wonderful visuals are the icing on the cake of this wonderful film. 19/20
Overall grade: 88/100 (A)
Friday, July 17, 2009
Alice
Year: 1988
Country: Czechoslovakia
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Watched through: library VHS
Also known as: Neco z Alenky
The scenario: A very bored Alice falls asleep in her room and then follows the elusive White Rabbit through a desk drawer into a sinister, surreal dream land.
First impressions: This is one of the innumerable film versions of Lewis Carroll’s famous book. So, my first impression was, why bother? This story has been done almost as many times as Cinderella and Peter Pan; what’s different about this version? Well, the atmosphere is certainly different. The whimsy of the original is replaced here with a vague sense of dread, and the grotesque aspects of the dream land are played up in every scene. While it seems like a creative approach to a familiar story, the film itself is actually very dull. I’m aware that this film has a large cult following, but I don’t see anything likeable in it. Also, though it claims to be for children, any kid who watched it would probably alternate between being bored and being grossed out.
Plot and story: While it would seem obvious that this film has a story, since it is, after all, based on a book, it can’t hold a narrative thread to save its life. Alice enters the dream world while chasing the White Rabbit, and what follows is a series of long, dull, and ultimately pointless scenes showing how she navigates the dream world (all white fruitlessly pleading for the Rabbit to wait for her). The scenes have little to no bearing on each other, and could probably be re-arranged in any order without affecting the conclusion. I don’t know how faithful the plot is to the book, and I don’t care. When it comes down to it, there is no suspense, no meaningful connections between the individual scenes, and no real narrative. The result is a ridiculously dull movie that feels like twice its 85 minute running time. 4/20
Characters: What characters? Sure, we have our protagonist and the bizarre inhabitants of the dream world, but none of them come close to having anything resembling character development, or even a personality. Alice is bored and rather impetuous, but not much else. The White Rabbit frets a lot and makes demands, but has no characterization beyond this. The rest of the puppet cast is even flatter. As a side note, why does Alice start out wanting to follow the Rabbit, then trying to kill him, then wanting to follow him again? It makes no sense. 3/20
Voices: I actually have to talk about this one in the singular: there’s only one voice. Now, this film is originally in Czech, and I watched it in English. This wouldn’t seem like a problem but for the fact that part of the film (and all of the dialogue) is live-action. The bottom line about dubbing voices onto live-action film is, it doesn’t work. There’s very little talking, but all of the dialogue, no matter who it’s attributed to, is spoken by Alice, in uncomfortable close-ups of her lips. Having Alice say, “oh my, said that White Rabbit” gets tiresome very quickly, and the English-speaking actress isn’t that good. 1/20
Music: There isn’t any, oddly enough. n/a
Visuals: One might assume that this is the real reason to see this film, as macabre stop-motion always seems to find an audience. However, neither the designs nor the physical animation are anything to write home about. Some of the puppets are very creative in appearance, but most of them are pretty damn ugly. The backgrounds and settings are intentionally gross and sinister, but none of them are terribly interesting. The frame-by-frame animation is extremely jerky and looks astoundingly amateur in places. Furthermore, the combination of live-action and stop-motion doesn’t work at all. The transitions between the two are glaringly obvious, and the difference in frame rates only makes the animated parts look worse. I can’t imagine that this was anything but a labor of love for the creators, but the film seems somehow unfinished, and since the visuals can’t make up for the film’s other shortcomings, I have to recommend that you skip this one. 7/20
Overall grade: 15/80 = about 19/100 (F)
Country: Czechoslovakia
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Watched through: library VHS
Also known as: Neco z Alenky
The scenario: A very bored Alice falls asleep in her room and then follows the elusive White Rabbit through a desk drawer into a sinister, surreal dream land.
First impressions: This is one of the innumerable film versions of Lewis Carroll’s famous book. So, my first impression was, why bother? This story has been done almost as many times as Cinderella and Peter Pan; what’s different about this version? Well, the atmosphere is certainly different. The whimsy of the original is replaced here with a vague sense of dread, and the grotesque aspects of the dream land are played up in every scene. While it seems like a creative approach to a familiar story, the film itself is actually very dull. I’m aware that this film has a large cult following, but I don’t see anything likeable in it. Also, though it claims to be for children, any kid who watched it would probably alternate between being bored and being grossed out.
Plot and story: While it would seem obvious that this film has a story, since it is, after all, based on a book, it can’t hold a narrative thread to save its life. Alice enters the dream world while chasing the White Rabbit, and what follows is a series of long, dull, and ultimately pointless scenes showing how she navigates the dream world (all white fruitlessly pleading for the Rabbit to wait for her). The scenes have little to no bearing on each other, and could probably be re-arranged in any order without affecting the conclusion. I don’t know how faithful the plot is to the book, and I don’t care. When it comes down to it, there is no suspense, no meaningful connections between the individual scenes, and no real narrative. The result is a ridiculously dull movie that feels like twice its 85 minute running time. 4/20
Characters: What characters? Sure, we have our protagonist and the bizarre inhabitants of the dream world, but none of them come close to having anything resembling character development, or even a personality. Alice is bored and rather impetuous, but not much else. The White Rabbit frets a lot and makes demands, but has no characterization beyond this. The rest of the puppet cast is even flatter. As a side note, why does Alice start out wanting to follow the Rabbit, then trying to kill him, then wanting to follow him again? It makes no sense. 3/20
Voices: I actually have to talk about this one in the singular: there’s only one voice. Now, this film is originally in Czech, and I watched it in English. This wouldn’t seem like a problem but for the fact that part of the film (and all of the dialogue) is live-action. The bottom line about dubbing voices onto live-action film is, it doesn’t work. There’s very little talking, but all of the dialogue, no matter who it’s attributed to, is spoken by Alice, in uncomfortable close-ups of her lips. Having Alice say, “oh my, said that White Rabbit” gets tiresome very quickly, and the English-speaking actress isn’t that good. 1/20
Music: There isn’t any, oddly enough. n/a
Visuals: One might assume that this is the real reason to see this film, as macabre stop-motion always seems to find an audience. However, neither the designs nor the physical animation are anything to write home about. Some of the puppets are very creative in appearance, but most of them are pretty damn ugly. The backgrounds and settings are intentionally gross and sinister, but none of them are terribly interesting. The frame-by-frame animation is extremely jerky and looks astoundingly amateur in places. Furthermore, the combination of live-action and stop-motion doesn’t work at all. The transitions between the two are glaringly obvious, and the difference in frame rates only makes the animated parts look worse. I can’t imagine that this was anything but a labor of love for the creators, but the film seems somehow unfinished, and since the visuals can’t make up for the film’s other shortcomings, I have to recommend that you skip this one. 7/20
Overall grade: 15/80 = about 19/100 (F)
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Waking Life
Year: 2001
Country: United States
Director: Richard Linklater
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: An unnamed young man is hit by a car, then is trapped in a frustratingly long dream sequence where pretentious thinkers bombard him with dreary, self-indulgent monologues on topics including evolution, the question of free will, and the imprecise nature of language.
First impressions: Having been looking forward to seeing this film for quite some time, I have to say it was a huge letdown. The synopses I read in various places made it sound interesting; a man has a series of quirky conversations with various people, while not knowing if he is conscious or dreaming. Well, the film isn’t like that. Nowhere in the 100 minute running time does the protagonist actually “converse” with anyone. People just chatter at him endlessly, in one boring, overwrought talking head sequence after another. The people who love this film claim it is eye-opening, thought-provoking, worldview-changing. Its detractors say it’s a load of pretentious twaddle. I am in the latter category.
Plot and story: At first, I thought I would have to leave this category out and score the film out of 80 instead of my usual 100, because there didn’t really seem to be any story to critique. Well, there is sort of a story thread, but it’s barely there and doesn’t affect anything that happens. Wait, maybe I should take that back. There’s a story, but nothing happens. The protagonist is hit by a car, listens to some boring monologues, learns some stuff about lucid dreaming, and continually wakes up only to find that he’s still in a dream. After a while, he begins to wonder if he is actually dead and will never wake up. If this is what death is really like, then I plan to stay alive for a very, very long time. Oh, and there’s no conclusion. Don’t you just love that? 3/20
Characters: Well, the people in this film are definitely “characters” in the sense of being eccentric, but none of them are the least bit interesting. Most of them just come across as self-important twits or blowhards. Beyond that, there’s really not that much to say. Though they talk a lot, the monologue-givers have no characterization, and the protagonist is bland beyond belief. He has barely any dialogue, and most of what he does say contains the phrase, “hey, man.” Fascinating. Not. 5/20
Voices: The only remotely famous actor cast in this film is Ethan Hawke, who gets passing marks for his role as a chatty boyfriend. In spite of the boring-ness of the characters, most of the voice deliveries are pretty good. Since this film is supposed to feel like a candid conversation, most of the performances sound very relaxed and natural, rather than sound like “acting.” So, this category rates highly in comparison to the rest of the film. 10/20
Music: Let’s see, music. . . there’s barely any. Most of it is dull, just like the story and the people. There is some pleasant and fitting ukulele music during the scene that pertains to lucid dreams, though. 6/20
Visuals: Oh, good god. Rotoscoping. This process is one of the dirty little secrets of animation; it’s always there as an option, but it’s rarely used. And when it is used, it’s hardly ever used well. The rotoscoped animation in this film alternated between looking pixilated and sloppy, and being so unnaturally, off-puttingly “right” that it entered the Uncanny Valley. Some of the characters were creatively distorted, but most of them were either ugly or were so realistic it was hard to look at them. Worse than the character designs was the frequency with which the backgrounds moved. Yes, most of the film is supposed to be a dream, but the moving backgrounds were distracting and even made me feel nauseous in places. What were they thinking?? In fact, this whole film is just one big “what were they thinking?” I think I’ll leave it at that. 4/20
Overall grade: 28/100 (D)
Country: United States
Director: Richard Linklater
Watched through: Netflix
The scenario: An unnamed young man is hit by a car, then is trapped in a frustratingly long dream sequence where pretentious thinkers bombard him with dreary, self-indulgent monologues on topics including evolution, the question of free will, and the imprecise nature of language.
First impressions: Having been looking forward to seeing this film for quite some time, I have to say it was a huge letdown. The synopses I read in various places made it sound interesting; a man has a series of quirky conversations with various people, while not knowing if he is conscious or dreaming. Well, the film isn’t like that. Nowhere in the 100 minute running time does the protagonist actually “converse” with anyone. People just chatter at him endlessly, in one boring, overwrought talking head sequence after another. The people who love this film claim it is eye-opening, thought-provoking, worldview-changing. Its detractors say it’s a load of pretentious twaddle. I am in the latter category.
Plot and story: At first, I thought I would have to leave this category out and score the film out of 80 instead of my usual 100, because there didn’t really seem to be any story to critique. Well, there is sort of a story thread, but it’s barely there and doesn’t affect anything that happens. Wait, maybe I should take that back. There’s a story, but nothing happens. The protagonist is hit by a car, listens to some boring monologues, learns some stuff about lucid dreaming, and continually wakes up only to find that he’s still in a dream. After a while, he begins to wonder if he is actually dead and will never wake up. If this is what death is really like, then I plan to stay alive for a very, very long time. Oh, and there’s no conclusion. Don’t you just love that? 3/20
Characters: Well, the people in this film are definitely “characters” in the sense of being eccentric, but none of them are the least bit interesting. Most of them just come across as self-important twits or blowhards. Beyond that, there’s really not that much to say. Though they talk a lot, the monologue-givers have no characterization, and the protagonist is bland beyond belief. He has barely any dialogue, and most of what he does say contains the phrase, “hey, man.” Fascinating. Not. 5/20
Voices: The only remotely famous actor cast in this film is Ethan Hawke, who gets passing marks for his role as a chatty boyfriend. In spite of the boring-ness of the characters, most of the voice deliveries are pretty good. Since this film is supposed to feel like a candid conversation, most of the performances sound very relaxed and natural, rather than sound like “acting.” So, this category rates highly in comparison to the rest of the film. 10/20
Music: Let’s see, music. . . there’s barely any. Most of it is dull, just like the story and the people. There is some pleasant and fitting ukulele music during the scene that pertains to lucid dreams, though. 6/20
Visuals: Oh, good god. Rotoscoping. This process is one of the dirty little secrets of animation; it’s always there as an option, but it’s rarely used. And when it is used, it’s hardly ever used well. The rotoscoped animation in this film alternated between looking pixilated and sloppy, and being so unnaturally, off-puttingly “right” that it entered the Uncanny Valley. Some of the characters were creatively distorted, but most of them were either ugly or were so realistic it was hard to look at them. Worse than the character designs was the frequency with which the backgrounds moved. Yes, most of the film is supposed to be a dream, but the moving backgrounds were distracting and even made me feel nauseous in places. What were they thinking?? In fact, this whole film is just one big “what were they thinking?” I think I’ll leave it at that. 4/20
Overall grade: 28/100 (D)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)