Saturday, 24 October 2009

On the advent of 3-D and contemporary animation in general

3-D, revolution or gimick

So, if you’ve been following the recent development in animation lately you will probably have noticed that the titles in the theatres now either 3-D or 2-D, in the case of animation anyway. 3-D is not a new thing, though, with the craze in the 50’s, which eventually failed in any case. Now we’re ready for a new round, but without the old fashioned red and blue tinted glasses, but with some new technological advent which makes the experience much more realistic and immersive.

I don’t really know the technology behind the new glasses, but that’s not really relevant, what matters is how and if they work. I went with some chumps to see Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, which we will refer to from now on simply as Meatballs. What was clear early, though, is that Meatballs simply was a vehicle for the new technology. Clichéd, predictable and very disgusting in terms of its shallow emotions, the film was terrible, obviously only a person with serious mental problems or children could have enjoyed it. But this wasn’t a surprise; I didn’t go to the cinema to watch a film, but to see the new technology of 3-D. In terms of technology, it was fairly impressive, showing off a multitude of layers and depth. Of course, in the end the film ultimately failed because of its lack in quality in general, nice visuals still doesn’t make a movie good.

On the whole, I was left strangely underwhelmed, the film and its effects soon forgotten.


Up, is Pixar just going through the motions?

Some weeks later, though, I decided to go watch the new Pixar film Up, this time as well in 3-D. As the formula of Pixar films have become painfully predictable, I unsurprisingly enjoyed the film a whole lot. Most interestingly though was the fact that I found the 3-D element much more effective, despite them being much less showy than in Meatballs. And this was the first point in which I actually found myself intrigued by the idea of 3-D. It allows for some interesting cinematography where in deep focus and layered mis-en-scene can have much greater effect and meaning. Imagine Citizen Kane in 3-D. But make no mistake though; 3-D is still very much a gimmick, attempting to regain cinema’s status as a spectacle.

With people being able to create their own cinema’s at home with HD screens and surround sound, the act of actually going to cinema has diminished somewhat in its powers the last couple of years. 3-D, the technology used by recent animation, is very much still only available in the cinema, increasing again its novelty and spectacle. I recently bought Coraline on blu-ray and tested its 3-D feature on my own TV. While retaining much of the depth levels and sense of space, the red and blue tinted glasses distorts the colours and ruin much of the cinematography, meaning that we are still some way away from gaining the full 3-D experience in our own living room.

Of the meagre three films I have seen using 3-D, Coraline was probably the film that utilized the effect the best and in the most significant way, creating a strange and hostile atmosphere with its deep focus and layered backgrounds, really showing how 3-D can be used in a significant way. Up, on the other hand, merely added 3-D in its process, to make it look nicer. Meatballs was just made for 3-D.


Coraline, a great alternative to other animations

Now, pushing away the whole 3-D issue, animation seems to be creating some interesting stuff as of late. Coraline, which I was strangely unaware of for the better parts of five months, was a wonderful surprise, really standing out from the other mainstream animations made lately. Pixar is starting to get boring though. Up was a very good animated film, make no mistake about it, but that seems to be all that Pixar can achieve. With the exception of the odd mistake, Pixar always make strong animated films, but never manage to really reach the top, always falling short in some way. Wall-E was absolutely fantastic for the first 45 minutes, before dwindling away into mediocrity. Still, it was a very positive sign and hopeful.

Sadly, though, Up seems to be a step backwards in terms of ambition regarding Pixar, but of course I hope they continue to develop and hopefully they will one day make a true animated masterpiece. On that note, of course, Toy Story 3 is on its way, in full blown 3-D. I don’t really have much to say on that, other than that I might actually have to watch Toy Story 2 now. 9 Looks interesting, although it might be one of those films that take itself too seriously. I’m more looking forward to Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I might see tomorrow. It is good that we are at least seeing some variety in the style and types of animations we’re getting now, now that the technology has really settled in. I also read somewhere about Disney making a new animated feature which is actually DRAWN. I love the old style, so I will probably see it, although I reserve the right to be very disappointed.

By the way, I read somewhere that some parent had complained that Coraline was too scary for their kids, and I’m wondering what’s gone completely wrong with the consumer-culture surrounding animation. On the info page of 9 in the cinema’s webpage it says: “Consumer Advice: Contains Moderate Sustained Threat.” Are you kidding me, is this a joke? Have kids become this sensitive. Anyway, 9 received a 12a rating, which is also quite surprising. A good example of this kind of mentality is my sister, whose favourite animation is The Little Mermaid. When I was little, she showed it to me, although I never really became a big fan. When some years ago I wanted to show it to her kids, she was concerned about it being too scary for them. Anyway, I’ll get my darling nephews a Coraline DVD for Christmas.

I will stress that I have only focused on western animation, ignoring non-English animation, but I thought it better to concentrate my efforts, maybe some other time I’ll discuss anime or whatever. But I am aware of it.

Friday, 9 October 2009

Weekly Top Ten: Actresses performances



I’m trying now, laboriously, to keep this blog alive, but the heavy workload has made it hard to continue, especially since I agreed recently to help someone out with their own work. I won’t write reviews anymore though, as I have tired of the same formula I’ve been using for too long. Instead, I want to write fewer and more substantial articles. To start off with, though my personal best acting performances by actresses. Male actors to come next. Only rule is that no actress can be mentioned more than once, to make it as varied as possible.


10. Anne Baxter as Eve in All About Eve (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)


Not maybe the most talked about performance to start off with, but I really like Anne Baxter in All About Eve. She plays the ‘nice girl’ part perfectly, and shifts at command. But there is always something uncanny, ambiguous and uncertain about her ‘niceness’ and this is where I find the value in her performance. She plays very well off the other characters, and even though the film is not from her point of view, and at times she doesn’t really seem like the main character even, she indeed steals the show, and it is just All About Eve.

9. Gena Rowlands as Mabel in A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)


Powerful and energetic performance to say the least, Rowlands bring all that we perhaps wouldn’t want in a wife to the screen, but still manages to convey profound humanity in her character. As I have experience with others who watched this film, she is a character who quickly becomes one that the viewer might hate, but she removes these issues with a truly heartbreaking performance.

8. Hideko Takamine as Hisako in Nijushi no hitomi (Keisuke Kinoshita, 1954)


There is a moment in this film, where Hideko Takamine looks towards the screen with a face that so perfectly expresses her sadness that it was almost impossible to look at the screen. It is often very easy to be alienated from Asian performances as their style is so foreign to the west, but Hideko Takamine’s humanistic and honest character brings so much life to this film. Great example of how in some films the actor is essential to how the story works.

7. Ingrid Thulin as Marianne in Smultronstället (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)


An understated performance, Marianne is the perfect companion piece to the main character Isak. She seems to bring a softer side to the film, but ultimately suffers from her own anxieties and personal demons, particularly in her marriage. At times impenetrable and distanced, others the seemingly only glow of humanity in the film. A very mature performance.

6. Gloria Swanson as Norma in Sunset Blvd. (Billy Wilder, 1950)


Gloria Swanson literally brings herself to life as the ageing queen of silent cinema in Billy Wilder’s effectual film on Hollywood. Perhaps overstated, but it works in perfect context with her characters. She gives close attention to every word she speaks; every move she makes, her long slender fingers an all too literal manifestation of the grasping power she uses to ensnare the protagonist.

5. Bibi Andersson as Alma in Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)


Bibi Andersson might have been much more humanitarian, charming and affectionate in her other Bergman films, but it is here that she brings out her most remarkable performance. The power play between her and Liv Ullmann is excellent, cold and calculating. She brings something different to her personality than is usually exhibited in the work she did with Bergman, and ultimately it is her most devastating role.

4. Elizabeth Taylor as Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols, 1966)


Devastating performance piece this film and the entire cast is superb. But Elizabeth Taylor’s interplay and explosive dialogue with Richard Burton is where the films real power lies. She walks through almost all emotions a character can show in this fairly short film, and as a character study it is remarkably powerful.

3. Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967)


Well, another film by Nichols, and this time it is Bancroft in her iconic performance as Mrs. Robinson, who seduces a young and naive Dustin Hoffman. Despite somewhat advance age, she is still wonderfully sexy, seductive and alluring, playing off with consummate ease on Ben’s uncertainty of his own manhood and future. The later scenes she is also powerful, but in a much more remarkable way. Easily steals the show.

2. Madhabi Mukherjee as Charulata in Charulata (Satyajit Ray, 1964)


Ray is an excellent director of actors, and in my opinion the best performance he gets is Mukherjee as Charulata in the film of the same name. She did some other exceptional performances for Ray, but here she is at her finest. Subtle and calm, she can express so much with just the look of her face. She does things slowly, but effectively, and her portrayal remains profound and forever infatuating. Filmmaker, film and actress remain criminally underrated.

1. Louise Brooks as Lulu in Die Büsche der Pandora (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)


Here we are at the nr. 1. This is acting as it’s purest. Louise Brooks was a natural for the screen, who didn’t need dialogue to express her feelings and emotions. The way she uses her whole character; her face, her body, her sexuality and her charisma is wonderfully blended in this film. She finds the simplest ways to portray the most complex of emotions, and in her performance, shows just how simple effective acting can be. An almost ridiculously clear nr. 1 for this list.