Peace on Earth and Good Will to Men

Every once in a while, independent forces come together to create a perfect storm of meaning.  That's why this week I'm featuring two classic shorts from the MGM cartoon studio.  The first is "Peace on Earth" from 1939, directed by Hugh Harman.  The themes of the end of mankind, anti-violence, and the joy of Christmas feel all too relevant right now in the wake of the tragic events in Connecticut and supposedly imminent Mayan apocalypse.  

You won't see me sing the praises of Hugh Harman or his partner Rudolph Ising very often.  Even though their careers spanned the length of the Golden Age of Animation, the majority of their work is little more than a pale imitation of what Disney was producing at the same time.  It was all cutesy stuff with little humor unless you count the over-the-top innocence of it all.  In 1939 however, Harman created "Peace on Earth," an inspired short recounting the self-destruction of mankind told against the backdrop of the Christmas season.  While some of the scenes come off as silly and typically Harman-esque, others are nothing short of chilling.  The deaths of the last two men on Earth was shocking in 1939 and still sends a chill up my spine to watch. 

In 1955, Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera (creators of Tom & Jerry, The Flintstones, and countless other classic characters) remade "Peace on Earth" and tilted it "Good Will to Men."  The new version featured modernized violence that incorporated Cold War fears and the increased arsenal of World War II.  The grander scope creates a much stronger short than the original for modern audiences, even if the ending is a little religious by today's standards.  The climax of nuclear annihilation however does not impact me as much as seeing the last man drown in a mixture of mud and his own blood.  

Both shorts were widely praised and were nominated for Academy Awards in their respective years.  The bittersweet message of both shorts reminds us to be mindful of ourselves and each other, especially in times when the almost comical juxtaposition of seasonal joy and unimaginable cruelty make us question who we are and what we are to become.

The Perils of Fandom: A Case Study of "Adventure Time" Part Deux

In case you missed it last week, I began my two-part examination of some trends developing in the hit Cartoon Network show Adventure Time that, if left unchecked, may lead to an untimely demise.  I've already looked at the shows attempts to establish continuity, and now it's time to look at an even more insidious force at work:  the fandom.

The fact that "fan" derives from the word "fanatic" is not lost on me, and with the uniting efforts of the internet, fandom has reached an unparalleled level in popular culture.  This is not a bad thing unto itself; what other people choose to be enthusiastic about is their own business. This is not to say that they are a perfect bunch.  Fans are never completely satisfied with the thing they love and always crave more of it.  It's less about appreciating the product that is being produced, and getting the next hit of their popular life-blood.

Adventure Time's immense popularity has naturally spawned legions of fans that celebrate the show through fanart, fanfic, and fan-everything-else.  They love the show and the show loves them.  The best expression of this is the creation of characters Fiona and Cake, gender-swapped versions of Finn and Jake that feature in a fanfic written by the Ice King.  The single episode that stars these two has made them as popular as the two actual stars of the series.  Now, there is a second one in the coming weeks that feels like nothing less than fanservice with it coming out so soon after the first one.

The problem here is not that there are fans.  The show deserves fans because it is a great cartoon.  The problem is what happens when fans become the central focus and the core of the audience.  Too many in-jokes and other efforts to please fans is a surefire way to turn off the casual viewer, the most crucial demographic for keeping a show afloat.  Don't believe me?  Ask a fan of Doctor Who.  One of the reasons that the show's original run was cancelled back in the 80's is that it became more concerned with its own continuity and pleasing fans rather than staying in touch with contemporary issues and keeping a broad audience.  It's why the show's revival has only increased in popularity every year. Not every program gets that lucky though, and most simply fade away forever.

It seems though that the Adventure Time crew is aware of the perils of fandom.  A recent episode titled "All the Little People" is a deliberate jab at the obsessive and self-serving nature of many hardcore fans.  Finn discovers a bag of miniature sentient versions of himself and every other character from the show.  He then spends literally every waking moment manipulating each one into bizarre dramas featuring ridiculous and completely illogical pairings, ignorant of his own slow descent into madness.  "OTP" run amok much?

Pretty much sums it up.

My theory is that Pen Ward and the rest of the Adventure Time gang are acutely aware of what is going on, hence the making of "All the Little People."  We're starting to get a new generation of animators that are a part of the millennial generation.  They're just as into Twitter and internet memes as many of their fans, and it shows in their work.  YouTube is full of shorts that they make "just for the lulz." Need proof, check out this funny bit featuring Pokemon.  Maybe there's hope yet.  I just hope they don't overdo it.

The Perils of Fandom: A Case Study of "Adventure Time"

There are two trends that are increasing in popularity that have me worried about one of the best animated shows on TV right now. I'm talking about Adventure Time, the zany, incredibly original series from the mind of Pendleton Ward. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and check out one of the funniest, most unique animated shows in a long time. You'll probably want to do so sooner rather than later, because I fear that the show may be approaching the dreaded shark that many an acclaimed series have jumped.

Season three kicked off not too long ago, and I've seen some worrying trends start to occur.  The show is starting to flirt with two of the deadliest trends in popular storytelling: story arcs and fan service. There is nothing wrong with either of these devices per se, but all too often they spell doom. The Land of Ooo has not yet been fully overrun by these menaces, so hopefully my observations may nip things in the bud, or at least spread the awareness. This week I'll be discussing continuity and next week I'll conclude with catering to the fandom.

My concern here is not simply me complaining that a show I love has changed in a way that I don't like. These sorts of behaviors can lead down a slippery slope that slowly but surely turns away the casual viewer, which is the key demograhic for keeping a program on the air. My goal is to try and keep Adventure Time  on the air as long as possible, because shows like this need to stick around for a while.

Perhaps the lesser of these two evils is establishing a story arc. It works for several shows and is a startlingly effective way to keep viewers tuning in.  It's kind of an all-or-nothing game; either establish the arc early and stick with it (occasionally allowing a standalone episode is fine), or keep each episode unique. Adventure Time started out as the latter. Finn and Jake would just have random adventures involving manly minotaurs, crying mountains, and princesses of every imaginable shape and demeanor. There would be occasional flashbacks, but they were usually just a means to make a poop joke and not be taken too seriously.  

More recently, plot elements are introduced, and sometimes even retconned, to contribute to a larger story. There are cliff-hangers that create a backstory to the Land of Ooo, referred to in whispers as "The War." The Ice King, previously a ridiculous and incompetent foil/villain has become a tragic hero and popular subject of fanart.  

This shot has inspired more internet artists than that angry-looking cat.

Cartoons that are largely comic in nature don't need to worry about continuity. You don't need to know the chicken's backstory and prior relationships, all you need to know is why he's crossing the road. The argument can be made that these types of plots are aimed more towards the adult viewers, but my rebuttal is why not just enjoy the funny action and jokes without worrying about complex character relationships and why the world is the way it is?  

These are all of the ingredients of canon, the dirty word of continuity, and leads directly to...

The topic of next week's post. I'm not trying to create a cliffhanger, I just don't have the time or space to focus on both topics this week.  Stay tuned and share your thoughts!

"Rise of the Guardians" Is A Holiday Treat

Last week, Dreamworks premiered its latest animated film, Rise of the Guardians, based on The Guardians of Childhood children's book series by William Joyce.  I've been excited since the studio first announced this one, and it really is a great movie to kick off the holidays.

The movie is clearly aimed at children, emotionally stunted millennials like myself, and the young at heart.  The plot can be boiled down to, "It's The Avengers, but with Santa Claus."  Anyone who is not tickled inside by that concept even just a little bit though either has no soul or did not grow up in the western world where these characters have a level of fame that any Hollywood star would do awful, awful things to attain.  I love superheroes, but I'm reasonably convinced that Santa could take Batman in a fight if he needed to throw down.

The film is a treat visually, and I love how each Guardian has unique look and feel.  My favorite was the mute Sandman, whose look, effects, and overall theme was absolutely breathtaking.  Santa (aka Nicolas St. North) is a close second, mostly because of his awesome gear and surprisingly funny Yeti workforce (the elves just think they do all the work).  The Tooth Fairy looks great and I love the hummingbird motif that they use for her and her adorable fairy helpers.  The Easter Bunny gets an honorable mention because Hugh Jackman gets to use his Australian accent and the artists manages to work in some Wolverine-like sideburns without looking overly ridiculous.  I was less impressed by the design of Pitch Black, the villain.  I get that fear is a simple concept, and therefore the Bogeyman should have a similarly spartan look, but he looks like he's wearing one of Voldemort's old robes from the ephemeral thrift store.  Similarly, Jack Frost has plenty of fun and style, but why does a 300-year old character wear a hoodie the whole time?

For a movie about defending the world, there is a surprisingly little amount of actual fighting, which is kind of a shame because watching St. Nick wield two huge sabers and slice at nightmares in the form of evil stallions made my inner child convulse with delight.  Most of the action seems to be reserved for each character's preferred means of travelling, whether it be flight, teleporting, or travelling through the Easter Bunny's rabbit holes.  The action comes so quickly and frantically that it is sometimes a little jarring, but not so much as to take you out of the moment.

There is a lot to focus on in this movie, and I think that is its biggest weak point.  Each Guardian could carry his or her own movie (much like the actual book series) so the audience just gets a little taste of each character's backstory, motivations, and personality.  With many of Dreamworks' other franchises coming to a close, it would seem that Guardians may be poised to start a new line of movies, hopefully with a bit more character exploration along the way.  I would especially like to see them in some shorts like the ones that usually roll out around the holidays, and this time it won't feel forced like Shrek the Halls because one of the characters this time is freakin' Santa Claus.

Happy Early Turducken Day!

No major breaking news or reviews this week, folks.  Just follow the example set here by ol' Huck back in the 1600's and enjoy your Thanksgiving.  I'll be back next week, so be thankful for that.

Cartoon Shorts On The Rise (Hopefully)

Last week, the Motion Picture Academy announced its short list for the Best Animated Short category.  The news got me thinking: how often do people these days think about animated shorts?  If you showed a copy of the nominees list this year to the average person, I'd wager that most people would not recognize more than one or two of the entries.  

Even as an aspiring animation professional, I haven't had the opportunity to see most of the nominees since they usually only make the rounds on film festivals and art house theaters, and Orlando is seriously lacking in both when compared to New York, Los Angeles, or Toronto.  This troubles me because I love animated shorts.  They are my favorite form of animation and the fact they they no longer occupy the same level of notoriety in the popular consciousness that they once did bothers me.  Back in the Golden Age of Animation, shorts were a staple for the movie-going audience.  Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Betty Boop, and Tom & Jerry, as well as many other classic cartoon characters, were born and reached their creative peak in theatrical shorts.

Disney and Pixar are perhaps the two best  places for quality shorts to be made and get a reasonable amount of exposure.  Both studios,  under the leadership of John Lasseter, have encouraged artists to come forward with their pet project ideas and to use studio resources to make them a reality.  Last year there was Enrico Casarosa's deeply personal La Luna from Pixar, and this year there is Disney's Paperman.  

The short, directed by John Kahrs and playing in theaters before Wreck-It Ralph, is a sweet little boy-meets-girl story, but where it really succeeds is the visuals.  A new blend of CG and traditional hand-drawn animation makes for a final product that has all of the expressiveness and artistry of traditional techniques, but also the depth and complexity of the new school.  Still images (like the one at the top of this post) do not do the film justice.  It must be seen on the big screen to truly appreciate its value.  It is truly remarkable to watch, and I sincerely hope that it breathes some new life into more classical ways of producing animation.

There has been a growing trend in playing animated shorts before films.  In the last year or so, it seems that most animated films have been preceded by some kind of short, be it Maggie Simpson in the Longest Daycare, I Tawt I Taw A Puddy Tat, or Paperman. Even TV seems to be gravitating towards shorter programming with many of Cartoon Network's shows now being broken up into 15-minute segments.  Maybe studios are starting to see the viability of making shorts, and while we will almost certainly not be able to get back to the state of cartoon shorts were in their heyday, it's at least nice to see that they are starting to come back.  Hopefully some of the wonderful shorts that were not released with major films will also one day find a way to reach a larger audience as well.  Now all we need to do is get out and watch them!

"Wreck-It Ralph" Gets a High Score at the Box Office

As a modern twenty-something, naturally two of my loves are cartoons and video games.  While there has been the occasional Super Mario Brothers Super Show or Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAm version), those two things have generally remained separate but equal. Now Disney has smashed them together in Wreck-It Ralph, the studio's newest animated movie.  It's currently number one at the box office, so do yourself a favor and go see a fun cartoon of a movie.

The film is about Ralph, the Donkey Kong-like antagonist of the fictional arcade game, Felix Fix-It Jr.  Fed up with his lot in life, Ralph decides to leave his game to try and find recognition for something other than being a bad guy. The whole "villain proves himself to not be so bad," thing isn't new, but Ralph takes the idea and adds a level of freshness to it.  It does start to sag in the middle and the climax goes a little over the top, but the story as a whole works and manages to find a happy medium between "be your own person" and "accept your responsibilities."

My favorite part of this movie was the earnestness with which it approaches video games.  The movie goes to great lengths to maintain the feel of arcade games both old and new.  Characters move like they would in their respective games, various visual effects take on a pixelated quality, and there are cameos galore.  There are appearances from Street Fighter, Sonic the Hedgehog, and too many classic arcade games to mention here.  My personal favorite is a throwaway Metal Gear Solid gag that you might miss if you aren't paying attention.  The only truly notable absence is Mario, but even he gets a mention early on, even if he never actually shows up.  Even the fake first-person shooter Hero's Duty feels like an actual arcade shooter thanks to the way Jane Lynch narrates the play through as Calhoun, the tough-as-nails squad leader with, "the most tragic backstory ever."  It reminded me of the old days playing Area 51 and House of the Dead.

What true gamer doesn't get giddy from this scene alone?

Other characters that stand out for me are Ralph and the Candy King, ruler of the saccharine racing game, Sugar Rush.  John C. Reilly is one of those actors that I really love because of the diversity of his work.  He can go from a dramatic role in Gangs of New York to making stoners chuckle on Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!  If Donkey Kong had been as relatable as Ralph, I would have felt much worse about hitting him with hammers and locking him up in a cage.  Inversely, Alan Tudyk plays the Candy King like someone straight out of a Disney movie during the studio's animated heyday.  The whole character felt like a more twisted version of the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland, and I loved him for it.

Some viewers who are not as familiar with classic gaming may not be as engrossed as the younger crowd, but the movie is strong enough to stay enjoyable.  Plus, any movie that makes me like both Jane Lynch and Sarah Silverman has to be doing something right.  Between Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph, I'm really excited to see if next year's Frozen will keep the momentum going.

As a final note:  if you go see Ralph (and you should), get there on time so you can catch John Kahrs' wonderful fabulous short, Paperman.  Full analysis on that short (and possibly others) next week.