Rockwell's War News...

Most people that know me know that I'm a huge Rockwell fan, so this post is not a shocker.  I was reading the news the other day (something that I really don't enjoy, and often think it's a complete waste of time) and I thought of "War News".. always fitting in these times of seemingly endless conflict..This has got to be one of my favorite quotes:

“May God deliver us from the worst of all sins: Man's own religious hypocritical self-righteousness, evil knowledge, and greed for power through every form of cruelty, including war!”  -Norman Rockwell

Despite the hostel reception to my past praise of Norman Rockwell, I wanted to share with you a painting that exemplifies Rockwells skill and social insight.  "War News" was completed in 1945, but never published.  Critics often dismiss Rockwell paintings as "Simplified unmercifully and reassured inappropriately", but I see him as a master that captured a great era with great skill, perhaps idealistically, but I think that makes his work even more important in this age of cynisym and elitism (especially within the art world, excuse my generalization).

This piece is wonderfullly constructed and composed. Through expert characterization Rockwell captured an apprehension and severe concern in the figures. I appreciate this work even more so as an animator, i almost see them as actors within a story. As far as content ... it's dead on. we've all experienced that severe concern to war news. In this same year Rockwell painted other great pieces like "Thanksgiving: Mother and Son Peeling Potatoes" and "The Homecoming".  For the cynics, it's interesting to point out that Rockwells "Four Freedoms" was viewed by 1.2 million people, and raised over 135 million dollars in war bonds. If this isn't an example of how art is an integral part of the world, I don't know what is. It's great that the humble master felt he "held a low rung" on the ladder of fine art. He considered Pablo Picasso the greatest, going so far as to add a bit of cubism into several of his paintings. He also held Mondrian in the highest regard.

RIO... Patrick's review..

Rio was a blast, it opened here in Singapore last weekend, and I rushed out to see it. Very fun film, that's the best way to describe it. The fluffy and colorful birds are addictive to look at (especially in 3D, which I love.. yes I said it.. I love 3D), and the antagonist bird, Nigel, is just awesomely scary. The movie can be formulaic at times, but the fact that it's hilarious saves it. No major spoilers in this review btw.

It's hard to fully critique Rio, due to the fact that one of my best friends Karen Disher was head of story.. but I will. So... I wished it had slowed down and concerned itself less with "problems"..  there were so many "problems" that one began to forget the main thrust of the story! and often times these problems, or challenges didn't line up to other characters problems or challenges. for example, there is quite a bit of time spent on the two human characters trying to get to a location that has already been vacated by what they were looking for (namely the birds).. as an audience member, the story was complicated and exhausting.  Now for all the story problem solving, they forgot to give the main female, Jewel, a REASON to fall for the boy bird, Blu. Blu is a clumsy, un-charming dork.. it's hard to believe ANY girl bird would go for him.  His only skill is walking, and climbing with his beak. The hipster clique loves weak male characters, but even in "Social Network" the geek was a Genius. Blu isn't even all that smart.. he reminds me of Miles from "Sideways".. without the knowledge of wine (or anything really).  The fact that Blu is a natural dancer ALMOST was a reason for Jewel to fall for him, but he fell short of looking attractive on the dance floor, THEN they ruined even that trace of that attraction by having him proclaim that he hates Samba music! (I think they were going for a "I'm not drinking fucking Merlot" moment). Fortunately, the film was so damn pretty, filled with fantastic and intricate dance and chase sequences, and animated so well, that as a whole, it ends up working.

I know I talk a lot about story, and how it gets in the way, but this is a great example. Movies like Rio lack confidence in their characters, and feel the need to fill up the audiences time with story tricks and clever circumstances that click too nicely into resolutions, right before it's time for ANOTHER little twist or circumstance that .. you guessed it.. works neatly into ANOTHER resolution. They could have been giving us subtle character traits and insights to move a simple story along.. but no, why all the complications?? just tell us a simple story, and let us watch and love the interesting characters!

One other note, something that almost every animated film suffers from.. STOP TALKING SO MUCH.. just stop. these films treat us like we can't figure out even the most basic thing! on the nose dialogue is a plague. matter of fact, dialogue itself is a plague.. it represents writers hijacking of the medium. writers upset me (generally speaking) because they don't think visually enough.. they feel a need to talk.. ALL THE TIME.  A film should work with the sound switched off.. all the masters know this.  In Rio, the truly great gags and moments are when the characters are not talking.

Again, no doubt this film will do well.. and despite all my ranting, I think it really does work. The songs are great and, again, the gags are LOL.

I give it a B-.. the kiddies will give it an A.
But then again, I loved the Illusionist.. so what do I know.

Michael Barrier..

I've known the name Michael Barrier for a while as a recognized and dependable historian and critic of animation, but I'm a bit ashamed to admit that this morning was the first time I ever actually READ anything he's written. If you fall into my sad category, please do yourself a favor and dig into his site, dig deep, this guy is awesome.

Do you ever read something that states exactly how you feel, but would never be able to say it as eloquently or support it enough basic knowledge? Happens to me once in a while (more than I care to admit), and I never forget the person after. Check out Michael Barriers site, and especially his "Commentary" section. Good stuff, enjoy... wow look at that, we're fb friends.

Tangled or Rapunzel

Here in Asia, it's called "Rapunzel".. when you have two titles for a film, it begins to smell like you don't believe if yourself, no matter the executives explanations of target audience etc.. Matter of fact, self consciousness at Disney has been a problem for a while now. The audience can FEEL when a film isn't sure of itself.. The gags become a way of saying "well don't judge me too harshly, you see, I'm just a silly film".. Instead of boldly telling a powerful and emotional story, they tread lightly. Like a teenager moving the first move, they are nervous if they are doing it right. The multiple title is one of many symptoms of this hesitation and lack of confidence. They don't seem to know what it means to tell an unapologetic, confident, and decisive story. Princess and the Frog was a big mess in this way. That said.. dang Rapunzel sure does look incredible visually!! I hope it's as good as it looks!

Bakshi Posters..

The Vaughn Bodé inspired movie poster for Bakshi's "Wizards"(1977) is a centrally composed masterpiece! I picked this non-repro bad boy up on Ebay for 20 dollars. Granted, the movie leaves a bit to be desired for the non-bakshi fan (I myself think it's brilliant). I'm not entirely sure about the Bode inspiration, to me it just seems obvious, perhaps one of our readers can chime in on that. I also have two drawings from the movie, one of the assassin, Necron 99, and one of the wizard Avatar lightin' up.In Contrast, I think the poster for "Cool World" is possibly one of the worst of all time. I got this one from Bakshi himself, but I was a little confused about how he "numbered" it with his signature.. I mean, there must have been thousands of these printed. hmmm. anyway, I'm actually one of the few people who liked "Cool World", my ridicule stops with the poster.

Just DRAW!!.. wussies..

As I finish up my next hand drawn film, a popular comment I get when people visit my office at NYU is.. "wow.. I didn't know anyone did that anymore".. the comment gives me mixed feelings. As I draw, I'm well aware that I'm practicing a method that not many do anymore.. but.. allow me to submit that we will see more and more of it. I had several students comment the other day that they wished the school had more hand drawn curriculum. (below: the beast from my personal animation art collection.. rad)The reason it resonates is because people are yearning for something REAL in animation.. How many regurgitated formulas and polished digital techno puppets can people take? This is why Coraline rocked.. it looked real! it had living texture. "Princess and the Frog" looks like crap because Disney refuses to embrace the hand drawn medium, like they did with their older films, especially the xerography films like Jungle book and 101 Dalmatians. Those master works were un-apologetically DRAWN. "Princess and the Frog" may as well be Computer Generated! I feel like it's trying to compete with CG.. when in reality, drawn animation is an entirely different medium!! Why would they polish good drawings to the point where all the soul is removed from the line?? At the end of the day, drawings look cool.. and they're even cooler if you know that they actually exist as drawings. (Below: Drawing of a masked man still on the pegs, light on)
The simple fact: A drawing is REAL. It exists. You can pick it up and handle it. It is a one of a kind artifact. A digital drawing can be reproduced to infinity, thereby decreasing it's value. It lacks true texture and real touch. When the power is off, a digital piece of artwork literally ceases to exist. A film that depends on digital images is built on something weak, no matter how good the result is (just look at how much the Pixar books tout the hand drawn development art). Everybody knows the value of hand drawn, but everybody is also intimidated by drawing.. so most love the fact that computers have put their imprint onto something they couldn't comprehend anyway. (Below: Drawing from "The Wall")In the immortal words of Danny Antonucci (tattooed on his arm) "F--- DIGITAL, DRAW!"

The Story Myth- Bill

How many times have you heard the expression "all great films start with a great story"?

Talk about clichés! Well, I'm sick and tired of hearing that bull. Sure there are a wonderful films that are wonderful because of the story, but please give me a break! First of all, people describe great films as cinematic. What does it mean? It means it's a visual experience, something that has nothing to do with words. In fact, I love many films that have either no words, or very minimal script. For example, Jacques Tati films, or Triplets of Belleville, Georges Méliès, Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Busby Berkeley. Or, for example, the films of the Marx Brothers or W.C. Fields are essentially plotless, they are cavalcade of gag sequences strung together by a weak plot. Or take John Cassavetes, his films were essentially improvised in front of the camera.

And what the hell was the story for such classics as 2001, The Space Odyssey or Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke or Howl's Moving Castle? Did you understand anything in these films?

Some other great films that had no real story Citizen Kane (very cinematic), Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Woodstock. Yellow Submarine, the animated classic was begun without a script.

I could go on and on, but why beat a dead script? If I hear the expression "story is everything" one more time, I'll stick their tongue in my electric pencil sharpener - now that's cinematic!

The Story Myth -Patrick

It has grown tiresome and frustrating to me... People talking about the importance of story. It seems like a reflex answer.. making a film? better have a good story! Now, how many have ever contemplated the overwhelming importance of CHARACTER and IMAGERY. I will go as far to say that you don't need much of a story at all, especially within a short film. As long as the characters breath an essence of life that supports the overall CONCEPT, and the IMAGERY is appealing and accurately supports the characters. Stories, especially complex ones, can actually hinder the characters, that often just want to go about their business being AWESOME. Below.. the character of Travis Bickle and the warped world he perceives carries the 1976 film "Taxi Driver." The story is interesting, but that's not why the audience is attached.Have you ever not wanted a movie to end? That's due to rich and believable characters, not to the story. Sure.. why not give them a simple story to play in, but in the end.. it doesn't matter. It's ALL THE CHARACTER.
One of the best examples of this is Richard Linklater's "Dazed and Confused", where there is NOTHING to the story. It's a great movie because of the characters, the story itself is simple to say the least. Another tell tale sign of a movie that rides on Character and not story, is that if you can imagine the characters still living and interacting after the film is over, and you're curious about them.
Above, an image from one of my favorite films of all time, Ron Frick's "Baraka", a film that has no story, just beautiful mind blowing IMAGERY of our world and it's people. The film holds your attention the very same way a beautiful painting would.

I know that a lot of people will argue with me on this one, and often times it comes down to semantics. Some would counter that "Idea" and "Concept" are the same as story. But so often I've talked to short filmmakers struggling to figure out their complex stories, when all along they should have just been focusing on "framing an idea", and representing that idea with a strong imagery and characters... the story will take care of itself if the idea is strong and the audience can relate to it, especially within a short format. wussies.