Beyond the Oscars: The Many Faces of Animated Films

The Oscars were more than a week ago, and rather than actually WATCHING all of the nominees and making an informed voting decision the awards for both Best Animated Feature and Short both went to Disney for Big Hero 6 and Feast respectively. This type of uninformed decision is par for the course unfortunately.

But I'm not here to dwell on the ignorant apathy of the Hollywood elite. While there isn't much I can do to change the lazy voting habits of the Academy, I can at least inform the movie-viewing audience what animation has to offer besides the run-of-the-mill family friendly film that has pigeonholed animation as safe kiddie fare. All of these movies are available on Netflix, so take some time to check them out if you haven't already.

The Secret of Kells (Tom Moore/Erin Twomey; 2009)

The first word that comes to my mind when I think of this film is gorgeous. The sweeping, elegant artwork perfectly matches the story about a young Irish monk tasked with completing and preserving the historic Book of Kells, a Christian tome known the world over for its beautifully detailed illustrations and ornamentation. The film itself is a French, Belgian, and Irish production and it sheds some light onto the more mature approach that many European studios have toward animation. The Old World fairy-tale atmosphere is the perfect complement to the movie's themes of preservation of self and culture in the face of destruction. If you really enjoy Book of Kells, Cartoon Saloon's second movie, Song of the Sea, was also nominated for an Oscar this year.

The Triplets of Belleville (Sylvain Chomet; 2003)

Where Book of Kells is fantastic and elegant, French animator Sylvain Comet's work is quirky and intimate. His (arguably) best film is The Triplets of Belleville. An elderly woman, Madame Souza, embarks on a journey to rescue her grandson Champion who has been kidnapped in a plot to exploit his professional cycling skills. In the city of Belleville, her and her dog Bruno meet the eponymous triplets who were a formerly famous music hall act from the 1930s. There is virtually no dialogue, and while this may at first seem tedious, the physical acting is so strong and funny that eventually you don't even miss it. Each character brings their personality, warts and all, to life brilliantly. You may spend parts of the movie wondering whether or not you should laugh. Go ahead by all means, this is one of the subtlest animated comedies out there.

Fantasia (Disney; 1940)

This one is included on the list because it shows that the big studios were not always factories for cranking out predictable family films. Earlier in his studio's history, Walt Disney was a trailblazer for showing the potential of what animated films could be. Fantasia is the third movie produced by the studio, but it remains the most ambitious feature the studio has ever attempted. The film itself is a series of vignettes based on various pieces of classical music that range from solid and literal to wildly abstract; from saccharine to haunting. It is a tour-de-force of what top-tier Hollywood animation is capable of when not restrained by decades of tropes and cliches. The fact that this movie was unsuccessful (largely because of WWII raging in Europe at the time) remains one of the greatest disappointments in the history of the studio. Plus, the version on Netflix has restored interstitial segments by master of ceremonies Deems Taylor (well I think it's exciting)!

Fritz the Cat (Ralph Bakshi; 1972)

Ralph Bakshi is one of the most influential animation directors following the end of the Golden Age of Animation. His work combines the long tradition of wacky surrealism with the poignant counterculture of the '70s underground. Perhaps his most well known feature is Fritz the Cat, based off of the Robert Crumb comic of the same name. It has offbeat characters in Bakshi's trademark design that are acutely tapped into to the social issues of urban America during the '70s. Drugs, sex, and racial tension all take center stage as the tuned-out Fritz goes about his life wandering from one existential antic to the next. Bakshi's work can be a little intense and off putting to those not used to it, but as the first animated film to receive an X rating, it is definitely worth a watch.

The Adventures of Mark Twain (Will Vinton; 1985)

Before there was Laika (Coraline, ParaNorman, Boxtrolls), there was Will Vinton and his stop-motion Claymation. One of his few features, The Adventures of Mark Twain is about three youngsters (Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and Becky Thatcher) who travel with the famous author on his fantastic flying machine as he strives to keep an, "appointment," with Halley's Comet. As the kids explore the ship and talk with Mr. Twain they experience adaptations of some of his best known works. The segment based on "The Mysterious Stranger" stands out in particular as one of the most chilling animated sequences I've ever seen. It is equal parts unnerving and introspective, utilizing simple clay figures to explore the nature of good and evil and the sobering effect of man's mortality. Heady stuff from the same guy who brought us The California Raisins.

It's Such A Beautiful Day (Don Hertzfeldt; 2012)

Don Hertzfeldt is advanced animation appreciation. He is a virtual rock star of the independent film/animation community, and his work is utterly unique and deserving of its reputation. This movie is actually a collection of three short films (Everything Will Be Ok, I Am So Proud of You, and It's A Wonderful Day) that follow the daily life of a young man named Bill who struggles with daily life and finding inspiration. It will make you laugh one minute with its acute observation of everyday foibles, and will shock you into silence with its stark realism the next. All of this is accomplished using Hertzfeldt's trademark use of simple pen and paper drawings and split-screen windows that, while they appear crude, possess a level of beauty and appropriateness for the subject matter. If all of that sounds like high-brow indie film talk, that's because it is. Much like how the work of Alan Moore can only be presented as a comic book, so too can Hertzfeldt's vision only being accomplished using old fashioned paper and ink. If you're only used to animated films that are super polished and like to brag about their ability to render water and hair, then this is definitely worth a watch.

This is of course but a sampling of what the animation medium has to offer. Have any other must-see films? Let me know in the comments, or better yet let your friends know so we can all spread the good word!

No Thaw in Sight for the "Frozen" Ice Age

Photo by twoworldsonekingdom on deviantART

Because the Frozen train is still going full speed it seems, Disney World has announced that it will be building a Frozen attraction at Epcot in the Norway Pavilion. I've been mostly silent about the whole Frozen phenomenon, but I say to myself, "Hey, if everyone else is still milking this thing, why not me too!" 

I will qualify my following commentary with this: I do not think Frozen is a bad movie. It looks great, has some good music, and some of the characters that I thought would be incredibly annoying animated tropes and stereotypes were much more palatable. HOWEVER, it is also not as good as its rabid fan base may lead you to believe. At its core, Frozen is another paint-by-numbers Disney fairy-tale musical. It does plenty well enough, but besides some if its visuals it doesn't do anything remarkable. 

I could pontificate on this topic at some length, but instead I thought I would try something a little different. This will be short philosophical dialogue in the tradition of Plato that utilizes an adapted scene from Jurassic Park. For tonight's performance, John Hammond will be playing the role of Disney Animation CEO John Lasseter, and for the role of myself, his co-star Dr. Ian Malcolm. Enjoy...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the [animated] power that you're using here [in Frozen]: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now

[bangs on the table] 

Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well... 

John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our [artists] have done things which nobody's ever done before... 

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your [artists] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

John Hammond: [Wreck-It Ralph]. [Wreck-It Ralph] is on the verge of extinction... 

Dr. Ian Malcolm: [shaking his head] No...

John Hammond: If I was to create a [Wreck-It Ralph sequel] on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.

Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some [film] that was obliterated by [bad marketing], or the building of a [franchise]. [Musical fairy tales] had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.

There you have it.  Let's hope that animation, uh, finds a way.

Why A "Dumbo" Remake Reveals Everything Wrong With Animation Today

I've been gone for more than a year now, but I'm finally back to bring you more from around the world of cartoons and animation.  First up, the thing that finally got me off of my lazy ass and into writing again.

Earlier this week, the Hollywood Reporter announced that Disney is planning a live-action/CGI version of its 1941 classic, Dumbo. The film is to be written by Transformers franchise writer Ehren Kruger, but no projected release date has been announced.  

I can only hope that this turns out to be a hoax, but given the current direction that Disney is taking regarding its movies, I feel like I am only going to be disappointed. The studio has already cranked out Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent, both of which have been well-received at the box-office. In addition, there are live-action adaptations of Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, and (a rumored) The Little Mermaid in the pipeline.

This crap needs to stop. Remaking these already classic films robs the originals of their legitimacy as honest works of cinematic art. Dumbo is one of the tightest and most emotional entries of the Disney canon, Sleeping Beauty is perhaps the most sophisticated, and The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast were instrumental in kicking off the Animation Renaissance of the '90s. Hell, the latter of those two was the first animated film nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.  

So what is the problem here? Lots of things to be sure. Perhaps the first major issue was the ghettoizing of animation to children's television. With the film industry's deconstruction in the '50s, TV started to become the only marketable home for animation. In order to easily create weekly programming, many TV studios would create half-hour shows out of old theatrical cartoons shorts and play them for kids on Saturday mornings. This is the hurdle that we as a culture have been unable to overcome and it has resulted in the stigmatization that all animations are simply, "kid stuff."

This leads to my next point on why these live-action adaptations exist. I place much of the blame on the shoulders of Generation Y. Ours is a generation that is obsessed with nostalgia. Facebook news feeds and other social media sites are flooded daily with reminders of our childhood, from the foods we used to eat, the clothes we used to wear, and especially the movies we used to watch. As a side effect of the cornucopia of information on the internet, many of these movies, shows, and other material are readily available to watch and relive. In addition to leading many young people to strive and capture their lost youth, it also causes older generations to perceive us as the generation that can't let go of our childhoods, furthering the kiddy stigma of cartoons.

Enter the corporate suits. They know what is trending on Twitter and Facebook. Marketing firms collect data to show that these older animated films are still popular today, so the CEOs ask themselves, "How can I make money off of this without taking a huge financial risk?" The answer: remake an already established brand, but alter it slightly to make it fit with contemporary tastes and to give it the illusion of being a more mature story (just for fun, let's say it's a dark fantasy setting). Next, you find bankable names to write, direct, and star in them. After all, who doesn't love Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie?  The end result is the cinematic equivalent of a hot dog; manufactured and only slightly reminiscent of the steak of burger that once was. Certainly in Hollywood money needs to be made, but if you're in animation to get rich, you're in it for the wrong reasons. Walt Disney took every dollar he made off of his movies and cranked them back into the company to do even better next time. Recent investigations into the tech and computer animation industries have proven just how far we have fallen.

The bottom line is this: animation does not get the respect that it deserves as an art form. When it was first being pioneered in the early decades of the twentieth century, it was regarded as the top tier of movie magic. When Walt Disney stepped onto the scene, he blew everyone away with his passion, work ethic, and willingness to go beyond what was considered possible and brought the medium to an entirely new level. Mickey Mouse was a bigger star than many of the real-world figures of the silver screen. Critics were astounded that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was able to engage the emotions of an entire theater audience for a feature-length animated film.  People are still moved today by the honesty and emotion of a movie that was made in 1937. How many other films can truly claim to have that kind of lasting power?

Animation is not simply the dominion of princesses and talking animals with attitude. It is a medium in which the only limitations are the imaginations if the people who create it. It can be so much better than it is if people would stop worrying about only finding something for your kids or making money on an investment. Embrace it. Enjoy it. Let go of any preconceived notions about Pollyanna endings and stupid sing-alongs. Animation is a medium as old as film itself.  Many of our most cherished films are animated. Don't let the cynics and bean counters take those memories away from you and twist them to suit their own desires.  If we allow these films to be lost, we lose a part of who we are.

The Lonely Boy: A Psychological Case Study of Christopher Robin

This week I've got something a little different in store.  I went digging around some old writings of mine and stumbled across a post from an older blog that I used to write a few years ago.  I've reworked some of the wording to make it sound less like a pretentious college kid wrote it, but it is some interesting food for thought.

I have a theory that the whole Winnie the Pooh universe is actually a psychological case study. Christopher Robin (CR) is the central figure of the whole affair, and each of the Hundred Acre Wood inhabitants is actually a metaphor for some part of Christopher’s damaged psyche.  There have been a few instances on the internet recently of labeling each character as a specific disorder, but this is an attempt to unify each character as a piece of a single, disturbing image.  I present the evidence:

Winnie the Pooh - The main character and perhaps the most dominant of Robin’s neuroses. He is fat, lazy, naive, and focused only on obtaining honey. Pooh is the reptile brain, the most basic part of our brain and is concerned only with instinctual drives and self-preservation.  Since the rest of the personalities tend towards the dynamic, and even the dangerous, Pooh is a safe port in the storm. This explains his position as the main character of many stories.

Tigger – Tigger is in part of an extension of the Pooh personality. Tigger is just as basic as Pooh, but where the bear is slow and passive, the bouncing tig[g]er is active and behaves in a manner that defies any sort of outside constraint. Today, he might be diagnosed as the personification of ADHD, but another interpretation is that Tigger serves as the child’s id; raw and impatient passion that does what he wants when he wants. He is also an extension of the child’s still forming libido. If CR were a few years older, Tigger's behavior could become more violent and rapacious and would require immediate action to prevent harm to others.

Piglet – CR’s low self-worth is embodied by a diminutive pig in a sweater. Piglet is unsure of himself and lives in his grandfather’s house, clearly an indication that CR feels pressure from his family who impose unrealistic standards on the child.  This shows up as severe anxiety, possibly mitigated by the soothing softness of Piglet's sweater.  The character's stuttering may be an actual speech impediment, or it is simply another symptom of his anxiety.  The Piglet personality is unable to make decisions and values himself too little to ever try and make something of himself, leading to a cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Eeyore – Just as Tigger is the companion personality of Pooh, so too is Eeyore to Piglet. Whereas Piglet is in a constant state of anxiety over his inability, Eeyore instead has descended into a deep depression that has reached the point of apathy. A diet of thistles and a tail that needs to be nailed back on indicates a tendency toward masochistic behavior, perhaps as a form of self-inflicted punishment as a result of poor self-esteem.

Kanga – This is the CR’s largely dormant anima, or female side. Here it is presented as a maternal figure as CR's mother is perhaps the only female influence in his life. The fact that she is a kangaroo is interesting in that her pouch allows for the juvenile Roo personality to retreat there whenever the harshness of life becomes too unbearable. It would be interesting to see how this personality develops as the child matures.  Kanga could either remain maternal or, like Tigger, become more sexualized with the onset of puberty.

Roo – Roo is perhaps CR’s emotional avatar that most resembles himself. A childish Everyman personality, he is largely the manifestation of CR’s still immature personality and desires. His friendship with Tigger is tied to a child’s innate tendency toward chaos and lack of control, yet he is helpless without the Kanga figure. As CR matures, the Roo personality should gradually become less and less prominent, indicated by Roo’s second-string status among the characters in the story.

Rabbit – This character is a more sophisticated expression of the neuroses expressed by the Piglet personality. Rabbit is an agitated perfectionist and is easily distraught by change or dominant personalities such as Tigger. The strong desire towards the status quo and disdain of extreme passion with overtones of OCD seems to show that CR is the victim of some form of abuse.

Owl – This is an interesting contradiction of a character.  The wisdom and malapropisms of Owl are the representations of CR’s shaky intellectual abilities. Although much respected by the other personalities, this is only because of their own ignorance and failure to recognize that much of the information presented is false. The constant references to relatives again hint at stress stemming from some sort of family-related pressure. Owl is CR’s main source of empowerment, but its overall lack of solid grounding will result in confidence without any skills to reinforce it.

Heffalumps and Woozles – I group these two together because they are different expressions of the same psychological themes. Unseen and mostly regarded as dangerous beasts, these two abstract creatures are perhaps the most frightening aspect of CR’s personality. This is a warped perspective on the abuse hinted at by many of the other personalities. The difference however is that the horrors of the abuse itself have been almost completely suppressed in the mind’s effort at self-preservation. Importantly, the phallic nature of the Heffalump's "trunk" and the Woozle's elongated body may hint at sexual abuse.  If the Heffalumps and Woozles were to gain control, CR would undoubtedly descend into extreme psychosis and potentially dangerous behavior, both to the child and to others.

So there you have it.  If true, Christopher Robin is a profoundly disturbed individual who requires immediate psychological treatment.  And even if it is just a fun children's book/movie, it still makes for some fun theories.  Maybe a creepypasta is next?

Better Know A Studio Part II: Pixar

My ongoing series about animation studios continues with Disney's new right hand man in feature films, Pixar.

Pixar's first film was Toy Story in 1995, but the company's history reaches back much farther.  Founded in 1979 by Ed Catmull, Alvy Ray Smith, and Steve Jobs, The Graphics Group, as it was originally known, was part of Lucasfilm and developed rendering software and special effects along with Industrial Light & Magic.  In 1983, Jobs bought the company outright from George Lucas who was starting to lose steam after Return of the Jedi.  The name Pixar derives from the Pixar Image Computer that the company produced and sold to high-end clients, including Walt Disney Studios which was at the time experimenting with computer animation to replace the traditional ink-and-paint system.  John Lasseter, a Pixar employee, had been creating short animated segments to show off the computers capabilities.  The first of these, Luxo Jr., features the hopping desk lamp that has since become the company's mascot. This is a much better mascot than the hideous baby that starred in Tin Toy.

Oh, God!  It has come to take our cute children!

After a few years of struggling to stay afloat, Pixar finally struck a deal with Disney to produce three computer-animated films.  The success of Toy Story started to build faith in the company, but the relationship between Pixar and Disney was often contentious until the former was purchased in full in 2006.

Pixar is the current critical darling of the animation scene.  Over the last ten years, they have produced some of the most acclaimed animated films ever and are always the horse to watch when award season rolls around.  This is partly due to the company's emphasis on nurturing creativity and story.  Employees are encouraged to work on their own projects using company resources when available, and the results are breath-taking.  My personal favorite is Enrico Casarosa'a La Luna.  The short is like a children's book come to life and fills me with a sense of wonder that only animation can achieve.

Story is king at Pixar.  Rather than cram in pop culture references and memorable one-liners, Pixar strives to create strong, believable narratives with rich characters that connect with audiences.  Several of them feel like folktales in the way they portray simple messages like love, family, and loneliness and touch something basic in the spirit of the audience.  If you have never felt a swell of emotion watching at least one Pixar movie, you have no soul.

After 25 years of success though, Pixar is starting to wander over a few speed bumps. For one, even though early on the studio had an unofficial policy about not cranking out loads of sequels, that's pretty much what we're getting now.  We've already had three Toy Story movies (with a rumored fourth) and Cars 2, plus a Monsters Inc. prequel later this year and a sequel to Finding Nemo called Finding Dory in the works.  I'm not saying all of these are bad; I'm excited for Monsters University and Toy Story 3 made me cry like Santa Claus just killed my dog in front of me.  Pixar just needs to make sure that they don't just become a franchise factory.

There have also been some issues about the studio being a boy's club.  This isn't unique to Pixar, but the controversy surrounding Brave, its hero Merida, and Brenda Chapman being fired as director all cast a bit of doubt over the studio's ability to embrace a female point-of-view.  Also, with John Lasseter now serving as the chief creative officer of both Walt Disney Animation and Pixar, the lines between the two companies have started to blur slightly.  Compare Brave, from Pixar, and Disney's Wreck-It Ralph.  The two have a slight feel of switched-at-birth syndrome.  I'm even concerned that Disney is placing all of its animation stock in Pixar so that it doesn't have to worry about making animated movies anymore.

The story of Pixar, much like a fairy tale, is the story of a young beautiful princess who goes to live with the successful prince.  The marriage is happy, but after a while, the politics of ruling start to change the way the princess looks at the world.  She's still beautiful, but she has to decide whether she wants to rule with grace or with power. Hopefully, Pixar will make the right choice.

The Real Housewives of Magic Kingdom

The Disney Princess product line has been a major cash cow for the Walt Disney Company ever since it was created.  Today, the sorority welcomes its newest member, Princess Merida from Pixar's original fairy tale, Brave.  Disney is pulling out all of the stops in honor of the fiery-haired Scot, including a coronation ceremony at the Magic Kingdom in Orlando.  With her new status also comes a new look so that she can fit in with Snow White, Cinderella, and the rest of the Stepford Princesses

Here is Merida as she appeared in Brave:

And here's the redesign:

Holy HGH, Batman!

Some family and progressive groups have been up in arms over the changes claiming that Merida has been made sexier, more mature, and robbed of her sporty self-reliance. I'm not going to get into the gender politics of the Disney Princess franchise. The issue is a big enough quagmire already and I don't feel like wading in and soiling my good sandals with summer right around the corner.  Plus, it obfuscates the real issue here: the redesign looks AWFUL and adds to the detrimental legacy of the entire Disney Princess concept.

Judging art may be largely subjective, but I really don't feel like this is the same character.  Obviously Merida would have to be redesigned for two dimensions, but there is a right and wrong way to do it.  The red hair and the styling of the dress are the only indicators that this is supposed to be Merida, but even those have been changed to look sleeker and more stylish.  Her hair was a primary symbol of her personality, and to limit that is a crucial mistake in her characterization.  This isn't new though.  Go check out the rest of the Princesses here.  They've even included pictures from their respective movies so you can see just how badly they screwed up when adapting their character models.

My male gonads may be showing here, but I just don't see the Princess line as anything other than a cheap marketing ploy.  I won't deny that there are legions of kids who want to be able to dress up and play with their favorite Disney characters.  That is a fair enough point and there was very likely a market for it prior to its conception.  I'm not even going to fault the company for doing something that is designed to make money. As much as I love prestige pieces and have a strong "ars gratia artis" attitude towards animation as a whole, it is show business.  My beef stems from the fact that these ladies have forced a creative bottleneck in the output of the studio.

As an example: of the current eleven princesses, only three of them are from the classic Disney era (Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora).  The rest were all created after 1989. Nine princesses in the last twenty-four years versus three in the first fifty!  Because of the company's insistence on perpetuating this brand, great original movies like Lilo & Stitch don't get the same level of recognition because they lack a princess.  It's gotten so bad that when I saw the first preview glimpses of Big Hero 6 earlier this week, my first thought was, "this really doesn't feel like a Disney movie."  Me...whose favorite Disney film is Fantasia!  

Disney needs to start experimenting again.  Wreck-It Ralph was fantastic as well as completely different from anything else in the studio's library.  Big Hero 6 is the first Marvel-based animated film since the comic company was purchased outright and also looks refreshingly different.  We need more of these and less princesses.  Go back to the way the studio was in its heyday, and even the few decades afterwards if necessary. Kids will still buy the toys even of they don't pander to the Pretty Pretty Princess crowd.

Better Know A Studio Part I: Walt Disney Studios

With animated features becoming more and more successful and prevalent, it can sometimes get confusing about who makes which movie.  In this recurring series I'll cast some light onto each studio, it's history, and where it stands in the landscape of animated films today.  My other, slightly more selfish purpose for this series of articles is to try and teach that not every animated film is done by Disney, nor is every CGI one from Pixar or Dreamworks.  It's a serious pet peeve of mine, and dammit if I'm not going to try and do my part to educate the public.  Now then, onto the first (ironically enough): Walt Disney Animation.

Started by brothers Walt and Roy O. Disney in Kansas City in 1923, Disney is the oldest, the largest, and for decades was THE standard by which all other works of animation were measured.  The studio pioneered many early technological and artistic breakthroughs, including sound, color, the multi-plane camera, and the so called, "imitation of life," school of animation.  It was this ambition that led to the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in 1937, the first cel-animated feature length film.  

Snow White was, of course, only the first in a long line of animated films produced by the studio. I have lumped the long history of the studio into three rough periods.  The first, and arguably the best artistically, extended from Snow White in 1937 to Sleeping Beauty in 1959.  This era contained some of the most beloved films (Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, and Bambi) as well as some of the most experimental (Fantasia, Saludos Amigos).  These films had some of the best artists in the history of the medium working on them and they had no stifling limitations in regards to what was expected of them since they were the first.  The results were some of the best crafted and innovative films ever made.

The next era that I half-jokingly refer to as "The Disney Dark Ages" runs from One Hundred and One Dalmatians in 1961 all the way to Oliver & Company in 1988. Starting in the 60's, the quality of the films started to drop for a myriad of reasons. Walt's death in 1966 left the company and studio without his strong leadership and vision.  Additionally, the scores of talented animators who had worked on the earlier films had either moved on to other studios or were starting to get older and their skill had started to diminish. Finally the new, more efficient, method of xeroxing animation cels made production easier, but the image quality suffered, creating a signature look of slightly scratchy line work.  Not all of the movies produced in this time were not bad per se, and you definitely start to see an uptick in quality later on as the studio moved towards it's next big era.

The last major Disney epoch extends from The Little Mermaid in 1989 to the present. This is perhaps the most beloved era and contains some of the biggest and most popular Disney movies.  My generation was raised with these films.  Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Mulan...I could go on and on.  After Tarzan, the studio started playing around again with less conventional stories (Lilo & Stitch, The Emperor's New Groove), all-CGI films (Dinosaur, Chicken Litttle), and some that we have collectively chosen to forget (Home on the Range, Treasure Planet).

After a few real misses in the last few years, the studio seems to be headed back in the right direction with Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph.  Pixar founder John Lasseter (more on him in a later post) is now in charge of the studio, and I had high hopes for what else is coming.  However, recent news about Disney laying off hundreds of employees has me worried that the company may in fact be moving away from producing animated films, or even original films at all.

I could do a separate article about each of the studio's fifty-two animated films, but for now this is where the studio is today.  Aside from Mickey Mouse & Friends, animated films are still the company's hallmark even though it has grown to be one of the largest corporations in the world. While the playing field has grown and more teams are springing up, Disney continues to be the Yankees of animation.  Love 'em or hate 'em the House of Mouse earned its place on the top of the pile, now they just have to not fall off.

"Croissant de Triomphe" Gives Hope to Disney Shorts

This past week Disney released Croissant de Triomphe, the first in a new series of animated shorts featuring Mickey and Minnie Mouse.  You can watch the short HERE on Disney's website.  This is part of a series of 19 shorts that are going to be produced and aired on TV and online starting this summer.

I love the short.  First off, it looks great.  It blends design elements from classic thirties Disney cartoons (the "sliced pie" eyes being the most obvious one), modern design and backgrounds, and fun cartoon action. The dialogue is in French, but that's alright because the action speaks for itself. Sometimes things get a little too hectic, but the character movement is loose, fun, and looks fantastic.

Secondly, it's entertaining; something that I wasn't sure that I'd ever say about a Disney short.  Walt and his band of merry men were early pioneers of many aspects of animation as we know it. Sound, color, feature length animated films, and using different planes to create the illusion of depth were all techniques that, if not started by the studio, were definitely perfected there. Unfortunately, many shorts and longer films produced by Disney were more about showing off this technology or the quality of the art itself rather than to be entertaining.  

Most people who claim to be "Disney fans" are really just fans of the animated feature films that have become the studio's hallmark, not the animated shorts that preceded them.  In fact, once Walt Disney saw the possibility of animated features, he started devoting less and less studio time and resources to shorts until they were eventually phased out entirely.  It's a shame that these shorts don't get more airplay.  They hearken back to an era when Mickey was much more impish (lecherous even!), Goofy went full retard, and Donald Duck was a straight-up (albeit hilarious) asshole.

It's refreshing to see the Disney characters go back to their roots rather than stay in the bizarre mixed roles of marketing icons and preschool kiddie fodder.  At around three and a half minutes in length, Croissant doesn't overstay its welcome, has some good gags and action, and should hopefully just be the beginning of things to come.  The shorts have some strong talent behind them with directors that have worked on Dexter's Laboratory, Syn-Bionic Titan, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Chowder!, and SpongeBob SquarePants.  I'm hoping to see some of these shorts feature Donald and Goofy as well as some more of the other characters' personalities, but this is a fabulous inaugural effort and I can't wait for more.

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.

Walt Disney Company Buys Lucasfilm for $4 Billion

The nerd universe was shocked to its very core today with the announcement that George Lucas sold his film production company to the Walt Disney Company for $4 billion.  That last sentence was not a joke.  The House of Mouse now owns Star Wars lock-stock-and-barrel.  I'm not going to jump too far into detail or post a rant from a lifelong Star Wars nerd (since literally the rest of the internet will be doing that very same thing).  I do however have a few thoughts that I will share as it relates to animation and the two respective companies.

My primary concern is the fate of the Star wars franchise as a whole.  While the latest efforts to keep the galaxy rolling like Star Wars: The Clone Wars have been less than stellar, this acquisition was purely for financial gain.  Disney CFO Bob Iger stated in a press release that this is the culmination of an 18-month pursuit of George Lucas.  Some of the reasoning is that there is still untapped revenue to be wrung out of the 35 year-old franchise.  The most unsettling portion is the statement that Star Wars 7 will be released in 2015 and subsequent films released every two years.  While some fans have written off anything after Return of the Jedi, there was still some semblance of integrity and narrative merit left with the prequels.  Anything now simply feels like trying to squeeze out money rather than making an effort to expand the fictional universe.

I also worry slightly about the fate of the Star Wars fandom.  One of the neatest aspects of being a Star Wars fan has been how cool George Lucas has been about letting people use his characters, music, and films in fun, innovative, and completely unlicensed ways.  Can we expect the company that shut down pediatricians' offices for painting Mickey Mouse on their walls to be this cool about it?  Lucas is staying attached for now as a creative consultant, but at 68 he won't be around for much longer to keep an eye on his brainchild.

Pictured: Disney's Board of Directors

Ultimately, what I'm feeling is shock and strong bipolar feelings about the whole thing.  I wouldn't expect Leia to become a Disney Princess any time soon, and even though Disney bought Marvel a few years back, it has gone on to bigger and better heights that has culminated in The Avengers this summer.  With some of the creative talent over at Disney, we may even get some really cool projects out of it, especially on the animation side of things.  Still, the nerd in me just can't fully accept the scope of it and part of me wants the legions of Star Wars fans to rise up and protest this shameless cash grab.  

The most fascinating aspect of this is how Pixar fits into place and tracing its development.  Originally an offshoot of LucasArts and ILM, it was acquired by Apple and then Disney until developing into the animation studio we know today and being reabsorbed by Disney.  I guess the best I can hope for now is that Apple doesn't get into talks with Disney any time soon.

"Hotel Translyvania" Full of Monstrous Cartoon Fun

One of the great quandaries I have wrestled with for several years is whether or not it was possible to make a feature-length animated movie that contains the same level of hilarity and frantic energy as classic cartoon shorts.  After seeing Hotel Transylvania, I am happy to report that it is not only possible, but utterly fantastic to watch.

Any cartoon fan or kid who grew up in the 90's should recognize the name Genndy Tartakovsky.  Even if you don't recognize his deliciously Russian name, you'll know his work as director of Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack, Star Wars: Clone Wars, and Sym-Bionic Titan on Cartoon Network.  In 2011, he moved on to Sony Pictures Animation and Hotel Transylvania is his debut directing animated features.

After initially hearing about this film, I had very mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I love the director's work, especially Samurai Jack since it is a nearly flawless example of storytelling and superb animation.  On the other hand, it is a movie starring Adam Sandler as Dracula and Andy Samberg as a human who wanders into his monsters-only hotel and ends up wooing the Count's daughter, played by Selena Gomez.  Not a great premise and a voice cast about whom I was less than enthusiastic. Even the contrived-looking trailers made me question whether or not it would be any good.

Yes, the story is sweet if a bit dull, and there is nothing really shocking or innovative in a narrative sense. That is not why you should go see this movie.  The reason you need to see it is because it is mind-blowingly cartoony.  Scroll back up and look at that picture of the supporting cast.  Rather than play up conventional monster designs, each of these guys has a unique look to match their personality.  My personal favorite is the Mummy.  He is basically a squashy pear wrapped in gauze, but that construction fits perfectly as he bounds around the screen like something out of a Bob Clampett cartoon.  I don't even mind that Ceelo Green does his voice because it works.  Every character design is striking and their actions feel animated.

Genndy comes from making cartoons for TV and he's not ashamed to show it.  Rather than ground itself in a sort of reality like Disney or Pixar, this film revels in the fact that it is animated.  Everything from the poses to the impossible sight gags show off the utter silliness on the screen.  I hesitate to call it a 90-minute cartoon because that sounds a bit derogatory, but that's really what it is.  You won't be moved to tears or blown away by the advancements in 3D rendering, but you will laugh.  Like a cartoon short, every scene is crammed with funny bits and characters.  Even the doors signs on the hotel rooms are sassy shrunken heads!

There need to be more animated movies like this.  I have nothing against the stuff that other studios are doing, but they all draw from the Disney tradition of classical art training and setting the work in a world with laws and rules.  There is a need for more movies that just chuck all of that and embrace the sheer comical impossibility of animation.  Now that Hotel Transylvania is done, Genndy is getting ready to tackle a proposed new Popeye film.  Hearing this should make me shudder, but knowing that it's in the hands of one of the best animation directors around, I'm able to rest easy.

Why You Should Be Watching "Gravity Falls"

I was never a fan of the Disney Channel growing up.  It was most likely due to the fact that it didn't have cartoons that could compete with Nickelodeon or Kids' WB.  My mind has started to change now that Gravity Falls has hit the airwaves. Even though it has only been on for about a month, there is already a growing fan base on the internet.  It's good to see that the My Little Pony principle can work for other channels.

The shows follows 12 year-old twins Dipper and Mabel Pines as they spend the summer with their great uncle (or "grunkle" as they call him) in the unusual town of Gravity Falls, Oregon.  Every episode, some new bizarre creature turns up to cause mischief and it's up to Dipper and Mabel to get to the bottom of things.

The supernatural setting is nothing new, but like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural, there is plenty of humor to level out the toned-down-for-the-kids creepy factor.  First off is the dynamic between the two main characters.  Dipper is a good straight man whose investigations usually serve as the impetus for each episode.  It sometimes feels weird hearing Jason Ritter's voice coming out of a 12 year-old, but he still manages to be entertaining and believable without becoming a cardboard cutout when compared to the wackier characters around him.  This is most noticeable around his sister, Mabel.  Always the eternal optimist, Mabel and her rainbow of baggy sweaters are always a delight to watch, and she is a pitch-perfect satire of tween culture as she looks for the boy of her dreams (and secretly hopes he's a vampire) and fantasizes about owning a man-sized hamster ball.

The writing itself is very witty and reminds me of a lot of Jay Ward's work like Rocky and Bullwinkle.  In the pilot episode for example, Mabel meets a boy who Dipper suspects may be a zombie because he's pale, quiet, and uncoordinated.  I won't ruin the twist, but the big reveal had me laughing hysterically. That's not to say however that the show doesn't have its moments of occasional and utter ridiculousness that can't help but provoke a laugh or two.

Pictured: Comedy Gold (also Red, Green, and Blue)

The character design is a bit simple and reminiscent of most of what's on TV now, but the backgrounds are great and the style fits the quirky, cerebral nature of the show. Kids will love it, and thankfully adults should too.

I never would have expected such an entertaining show to come from the House of Mouse these days, but Alex Hirsch (from The Misadventures of Flapjack and Fish Hooks) has created truly funny, creator-driven program that hopefully will stick around for a while.

"Finding Nemo 2" promising to be 20% Nemo-ier

Breaking news from Pixar:  the studio has announced plans to make Finding Nemo 2.  The film will be directed by Andrew Stanton, the director of hits Finding Nemo and Wall-E, as well as the already legendary flop John Carter.


Damn it, Pixar.  Is this what is has come to?  Cranking out sequels to already great stand-alone movies?  Finding Nemo, while not my favorite Pixar flick, was a perfect self-contained story.  Nemo gets lost, Nemo gets found, roll credits.  It was a sweet and entertaining story about love, freedom versus security, and the bond between parent and child.  What is supposed to happen next: Nemo gets lost again?  Marlin gets lost this time around and Nemo has to find HIM?  Nemo has an existential crisis and has to find himself?  If any of these scenarios turn out to be the actual story, I will personally write a letter to John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton pledging to be their in-office manservant.


I am really hoping that this is not the new direction for Pixar as a studio.  They've made some of the best original stories in Hollywood recently.  I'll grant them that the Toy Story sequels were pretty good, but that doesn't mean each film needs a sequel.  We just had Cars 2 and Monsters University is due out next year (although I'll admit the teaser trailer makes me chuckle).  Do we really need to keep this trend going?  They're even playing around with the possibility of Toy Story 4 again even though the third one ends on a perfect note of closure.  Pixar is now consistently ignoring its own stance of producing quality films with genuine, original story telling.  Brad Bird seems to be the last holdout since there isn't anything in the works yet about a sequel for The Incredibles.


It kind of feels like Pixar and Disney Animation are switching roles.  Tangled was the best animated picture to come out of there in years, and Wreck-It Ralph is showing promise as well.  All of these sequels and the lukewarm reception to Brave make me wonder where the creative energy is going these days.


Perhaps I'm being to cynical towards the house that toys built.  Maybe the Nemo sequel is recompense to Disney for John Carter.  They took a shot, lost (on a hilariously epic scale), and now they want a safe money-maker to try and recoup their losses.  With Finding Nemo 3-D out this fall and the film serving as a section of the new Art of Animation Resort in Florida, the fishy franchise is still a popular property for families.  


The endless sequels, coupled with the shameless amount of switching directors mid-production, really make me fear for the future of Pixar.  Maybe its just a phase that comes with the rapid growth they've enjoyed, or maybe they just need some new blood in the story department, but whatever the reason, they need to get it together if they don't want to become just another movie studio.