Originally published at The House Next Door. It has been edited and expanded.
In 1995, with the release of the first fully computer-generated feature film, Pixar took the first steps into the virgin territory of a new medium. However, they have not made the most of these advances.
Pixar's films, regardless of writer or director, have always had a big idea: a chef who's a rat, a flying house, toys that are alive — but they rarely go beyond that one idea. While Studio Ghibli*, their Japanese hand-drawn friends, show the magical in the everyday and mine joy from the details of life, Pixar routinely make less from more and reduce their grand fantastical concepts to the mundane.
When the balloons rose majestically to free Carl's house from its foundations in Up, I couldn't wait to see what bewitching sights from our world I would be treated to. I expected an exciting and profound journey both outward and inward. Instead, I got a big bird and talking dogs. This, in my mind, is bankruptcy of imagination.
Do we see anything in Pixar that makes us see the world afresh and marvel at its beauty? In a Ghibli film something as simple as a lamp being turned on, transforming a space with color and shadow, can be breathtaking. In addition, Pixar's stories go nowhere. The characters, often needy or damaged, don't progress. They are not challenged to become stronger or better people as in the greatest children's novels but instead discover, via banal life lessons, that they were fine all along. And so it is as if we are returned to a dramatic zero point, two hours before, standing in the queue looking forward to the latest candy-colored sensation. If things do alter in some small way these arcs take the path of least dramatic resistance, conforming to what the viewer is most likely to anticipate.
Pixar's characters are pawns not people. In Up, how contrived does the pain of Russell's broken background seem, stuck on like an elastoplast? How artificial and insincere is the tragic veneer applied to the opening montage of a life led in near-perfect happiness? This is transparently manipulative storytelling and for that reason it is hard to relate to.
Pixar's weak depiction of people is well illuminated by their anthropomorphism of objects. It is telling what traits they inject into these things in order to make them 'human' - in other words the soul they give the inanimate. See how the cars in Cars are obnoxious and goofy and fart out of their exhaust.
Pixar's writers paint with a limited emotional palette. Things are HAPPY or they are SAD, Furthermore, there is a reliance on marquee 'emotional moments' that seem to want to teach us how to feel. Think of Jesse in Toy Story 2 staring out of the window as she remembers her former owner. The moment briefly echoes with meaning —the mutable relationships between children and parents, growing up, the pain of rejection. Yet the message must be hammered home. And so, over this delicate concoction is poured a sickly syrup - a pop song and a maudlin flashback.
Like so much of modern day cinema, emotion is perceived to be something that need be added rather than ever-present. Instead of sentiment there is sentimentality. It is like the difference between feeling scared and being startled. In Kiki's Delivery Service, Whisper of the Heart and especially Spirited Away, the growth of young people into independence, maturity and love are given the respect and the subtlety they deserve, far beyond the formulaic binary of their American counterparts. Isn't this the same growth that most film-makers and storytellers want to encourage in their young viewers?
Maybe a deeper lying factor is the limits of computer-generated animation. Pixar can animate the thousands of hairs on Sully's back in Monster's Inc., but they cannot animate a person's soul on hard, plasticized faces. They miss the literal human touch of the artist's pen. An artist may unconsciously add nuances that we can only pick up on unconsciously. Once the hand is divorced from the page by a mouse or a keyboard**...
This raises the question of what the purpose of animation is, or what Pixar believe it to be. There is much talk from critics of the realism in their designs, and yet, nothing feels real. If you want something to look completely real, why should one animate it. Animation is at its best when it is impressionistic and expressionistic; as I said about Lotte Reiniger's Cinderella: 'touching more sensitively upon emotional realities than physical ones'.
Furthermore, there is a mean-spirited and simple-minded good/evil dichotomy at work in Pixar's films. Given that these types of film appeal most to children, this bothers me. One must ask: Why does Muntz fall from the zeppelin to his death in Up? Is it what he deserves? Or is it, in some convoluted morality, proof of his badness? Why are the housing developers so faceless and robotic? Why are the humans in Wall-E such fat, babyish oafs? The satire and the stereotypes are not well-intentioned or intelligently articulated, they are snarky.
Compare this to the big-hearted treatment of the Witch of the Waste in Howl's Moving Castle, who, having lost her powers, is not punished or humiliated but welcomed into the castle as a member of the 'good' characters' family. Even if humans are reproached for their bad acts towards the natural world in Princess Mononoke, it is in the light of their capacity for even greater good.
In the end, Pixar's output comes close to fulfilling the view of Hollywood cinema still held in much of the world: predictable, disposable and dumb.
*Given animation is a medium and not a genre one could say that comparing Pixar to Ghibli may be comparing apples to oranges. Nevertheless the comparison is unavoidable: they are the two studios who play to and hold the attention of children the most, two studios who themselves use the other as something of a yardstick.
**How can the style of animation not have a bearing on how the script is written and (seeing as the writer knows that they are writing for that style of animation with its particular characteristics) and then communicated? All these elements are interlinked. Film is not a triptych of a theatre play, a painting and an orchestral work, prepared and received as discrete entities. They inform one another.
I agree with some, like the (obvious) superiority of Ghibli, but not all.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is one big idea, but that doesn't in any way devalue the films, because the charm of the films is in the details. Did I enjoy Ratatouille because it involved a mouse cooking? No, I enjoyed it because it was fun. For example, its clever satirisation of Hollywood cliches without actually subverting them (the Toy Stories are, to my mind, enormous failures in this area, making them the ones most vulnerable to your criticism).
As for Wall-E, you do realise that it is set in a dystopia of over-consumption, right? That the fat babyish humans are the point?
And a word for Up, my favourite, too: the dogs were there for fun, like a set of Shakespearan clowns (one request: don't say that comparisons to Shakespeare are not valid on the basis of quality -- as people on the net are so wont to do --, just judge the quality of the comparison). That would life and old age and all that. I'm no stranger to these lessons myself, but I was crying during the climax (because even these themes climax in the midst of all that action); art isn't only about what it is about, but also about how it is about it. And the Muntz guy tried to kill them; I won't defend the idea itself, but killing a guy in self-defence -- and even the good/bad dichotomy -- isn't exactly a new idea in Hollywood, and it's absurd to lay the blame at Pixar's feet.
I haven't seen Cars, but from Wall-E it would seem that their anthropomorphisation is fine. The robots have love and the ability to see beauty in life.
Final word: is it necessary that a film "make us see the world afresh and marvel at its beauty?" I'd strongly disagree. I personally love Kill Bill and Chinatown (and you've linked to a great article about the former too so I assume even you have some respect for it), but I'll be damned if they do that.
Besides, did you not see Wall-E pick up the plant?
Yes, many of your criticisms are valid, but give me a ticket for Up and one for that Cheeseballs movie, and I'll send my kid to the first, any day, any time.
I, I hope, have made the beginnings of a case for the idea that Pixar is an uncommonly intelligent one among Hollywood studios, though (again, obviously) not a perfect one, like Ghibli.
Thanks, Ronak, for the comments.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I had was that this 'fun' that you got from it, I didn't - and for the reasons I put forth here.
"As for Wall-E, you do realise that it is set in a dystopia of over-consumption, right? That the fat babyish humans are the point?"
I certainly do realise this. But, as I said, the satire is never intelligent or intriguing, it is snarky. Pixar are happiest when they are dealing with caricatures.
"...one request: don't say that comparisons to Shakespeare are not valid on the basis of quality -- as people on the net are so wont to do --, just judge the quality of the comparison"
Shakespeare's fools serve far greater purpose - echo, expansion, counterpoint of the protagonist's mind; a Greek chorus with one voice - in a Shakespeare play than the dogs do here. The dogs are henchmen pure and simple, good for a couple of lame jokes.
"...art isn't only about what it is about, but also about how it is about it. And the Muntz guy tried to kill them; I won't defend the idea itself, but killing a guy in self-defence -- and even the good/bad dichotomy -- isn't exactly a new idea in Hollywood, and it's absurd to lay the blame at Pixar's feet."
Well, don't Pixar also create the situation where the killing becomes a valid option?
Who said I was laying blame at Pixar's feet for Hollywood's 'good/bad dichotomy'? I just think it damages their films.
"Final word: is it necessary that a film "make us see the world afresh and marvel at its beauty?" I'd strongly disagree."
I think Pixar AIM to do this.
Within the parameters of an albeit potentially strained comparison to Ghibli, I felt I had to point out this difference. Isn't this what so many great films do? Have us see the world differently?
Ronak,
ReplyDeleteIt all comes down to one's personal reaction.
You enjoyed these films. I didn't. The things I point out here are the reasons for which I think I didn't. I know how many people find them thoroughly enjoyable and "uncommonly intelligent".
Oh, I know it's subjective, but we can still discuss our explanations of our opinions, which is what I aim to do with you.
ReplyDeleteWhile I wouldn't use the word 'uncommonly', I do find they are more intelligent than the other shite we get. (Or is that the same thing?)
I'll come back later for a more detailed comment.
"While I wouldn't use the word 'uncommonly', I do find they are more intelligent than the other shite we get. (Or is that the same thing?)"
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if you think I was putting words in your mouth but I was quoting your first comment in which you said they were 'uncommonly intelligent'.
And yes, if they are different from the rest I suppose they are uncommon(!),
Foot in mouth!
ReplyDeleteI think what I disagree with in my own use of the word 'uncommon' is the implication that it's better than you have a right to expect. Yes, I do think they are more intelligent than other animation studios (like James Cameron's), but I too wish they did better.
In fact, reconsidering, it would seem that you're making good sense. That's the first time my opinion on an article has turned on its head within the span of a day.
Finally, though, I'd like to ask you what you found snarky about the satire in Wall-E, because I've got no indication about that.
There is nothing gentle about the satire, nothing that may make a point about these humans with sympathy. They are lazy, greedy (of course Greedy = Fat) and, of course, have destroyed the planet.
ReplyDeleteIt feels like the plant Wall E finds amongst the trash is a tiny, trite symbol of hope that requires a mountain of garbage to make it work. In other words, these humans are so selfish and inane and useless but, you know, they're still beautiful and can grow again.
And it is robots (simple and childlike in a sort of mentally stultified way) who make them see the error of their ways.
This is all patronising and snarky in the extreme. I know it's a fiction but it does jump off from topical concerns. And even as fictional characters they are tarred with such a massive, dripping brush.
At the end we see art and life reborn - but the lesson is a harsh and distasteful one and the rebirth cast in the oblique light of distrust and dislike.
I know I may be exaggerating, but I would like to see some compassion, some light and shade. The bigheartedness that seems to spread at the end is only skin deep.
Wasn't it the same in Avatar? I don't mind human fictional characters being portrayed as bad or heartless but when you feel like you aren't being told WHY they are like that, and you are never allowed to see past the facade, it can be annoying.
ReplyDeleteI didn't find it odd at all, because we are increasingly becoming like the humans in Wall-E. We are greedy (though hedonistic would be a better word), over-consuming in a way which when taken to the extreme shown there would mean fat, and are destroying the earth.
ReplyDeleteLook here.
"It feels like the plant Wall E finds amongst the trash is a tiny, trite symbol of hope that requires a mountain of garbage to make it work."
To me, it feels like the plant is a symbol of hope that the mountains of garbage requires to work.
"In other words, these humans are so selfish and inane and useless but, you know, they're still beautiful and can grow again."
How true. Sorry for taking it out of context, but it is true.
"And it is robots (simple and childlike in a sort of mentally stultified way) who make them see the error of their ways."
To me, rather than patronising and snarky, it seems like a case of poetic justice, that the very epitomes of un-humanity teach the humans humanity.
Your whole attitude springs from your conviction that the portrayal of humans is snarky, which is basically where I disagree. That is where our differences spring from.
I mean, isn't that what good science fiction is for, pointing out logical extremities and the like?
"I didn't find it odd at all, because we are increasingly becoming like the humans in Wall-E. We are greedy (though hedonistic would be a better word), over-consuming in a way which when taken to the extreme shown there would mean fat, and are destroying the earth."
ReplyDeleteAh. Well, I am not of the same low opinion of people and society that many seem to hold at the moment. Hedonistic? We've always tried to get the most out of our lives. People talk about how in the old days they were happy with what they had. That's because that's all they knew or could have. It is exactly the same now.
Anyway, we can't destroy the Earth. We can destabilise or rebalance ecosystems (which we are part of, not outside of, manipulating) and cause ourselves a few problems for the future environmentally (though not nearly as many as people say) but only the Sun or a Meteorite could destroy the Earth.
"To me, rather than patronising and snarky, it seems like a case of poetic justice, that the very epitomes of un-humanity teach the humans humanity."
The fact you say 'poetic justice' rather than 'gentle irony' says a lot. The film has a punishing feel. It looks down and talks down on its characters. It says these people are bad but still shows its own glorious magnanimity to give these poor beggars another chance.
Are Eve and Wall E all that un-human? They seem to be innocent, childlike proto-humans - in a pre-corrupt state.
The film can stretch logical extremities and make points but all I ask is for Pixar to do so with a smile instead of with a scowl.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting review..........funny, we passed on Wall E and Up, although we had wanted or at least interested in seeing them at some point.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, anime is still up there for us, and if you know of any new films, I'd be glad to hear about them.
And Thanks for stopping by a few weeks ago. Don't know if I ever Thanks ya!
Cheers!
Pixar has done their best work in this decade-- Bird's "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" helped them break out of that suffocating box of childish simplicity and helped them reach some of the more mature, more sophisticated areas of fairy-tale mentality. I especially liked how "Ratatouille" essentially became a pseudo-parody of a few core Disney narrative staples, with all the rats cooking five-star French cuisine like the mice stitching up a dress for Cinderella. "Wall-E" took the idea of parody and turned it all the way into satire with its smart sci-fi trappings of consumerist dystopia-- yeah, the big-babies of humanity does hammer the point a little heavily, but it's refreshing to see a Disney movie concerned with any legitimate social message other than "dreams do come true" or "turning dalmation puppies into a fur coat is wrong".
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I can't stomach a lot of their work, either-- the "Toy Story" movies are cute, but none too bright. "Monsters Inc." is fun, but strains itself way too hard with its premise to call it clever. Stuff like "Cars" and "Finding Nemo" are utterly forgettable, complete fluff. "Up" is sad to look at, as it's the biggest missed opportunity for them, artistically. What could've been a sweet, simple fable about an old man and his balloon-house turns into an eye-rollingly derivative "adventure" full of dodo birds, talking dogs and the obligatory zeppelin. Even "The Incredibles" bothers me at times with its conservative, Eisenhower-era family values ending, but it's Disney, so I'm not expecting anything too radical.
With the exception of the smarmy "Shrek" and "Madagascar" movies, I think that DreamWorks animation has actually proven themselves to be one of the more inventive and impressive animation houses out there. "Kung Fu Panda" was incredible, and I've heard nothing but good things about "How to Train Your Dragon". They capture fun in stridently creative ways, and don't force themselves to fit the same old patterns that have been in practice since the foundations were laid for the house that Walt built.
Thanks Coffee Messiah.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thanks too(!). I'm afraid I can't remember if you responded or not.
I'll be sure to pass on any recommendations.
I'm not writing off Pixar's work point blank - there are always moments in any film that make an impact in some way. Don't take my review as an un-recommendation! Most people love their films.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments.
"...it's refreshing to see a Disney movie concerned with any legitimate social message other than "dreams do come true" or "turning dalmation puppies into a fur coat is wrong"."
I suppose so. Yet I don't think they've yet tackled these topics in a mature way. It's quite easy and predictable to take an issue in the news and push the majority line without particular nuance or exploration.
""Kung Fu Panda" was incredible, and I've heard nothing but good things about "How to Train Your Dragon"."
I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda. It came across to me as more of the same in the trailers but they can be misleading.
I did like Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. Inventive, no in-jokes, fun without always feeling the need to be funny.
Touche. I wouldn't be so harsh on Pixar's films, but I'm sure I can take the criticism that the pander and over-simplify. Yet to watch many films of Studio Ghilbi though...
ReplyDeleteTerrific article, Stephen. Rivaled only by the one on Kane!
Thanks very much, JAFB!
ReplyDeleteYou're a fan of Ghibli, then? Which ones do you think are the best?
Stephen, I highly recommend KFP. It's a great fairy-tale movie, and has a great cultural authenticity to it that makes everything feel truly earned. Anthropomorphising the five schools of martial-arts with their respective creatures might seem like an easy creative choice, but they pull it off with flying colors. Turning the panda into a drunken-master style fighter, whose telltale weakness and strength is comfort food rather than drink, is a great move as well. Altogether the action is impressive, the visual style is spectacular, and the story is at once simple yet moving. It all works with the same efficiency and grace of an old animal fable. I really dig it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Thanks for the recommendation, Bob.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I'd written it off. What was your take on Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs?
JAFB,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I completely misunderstood what you wrote.
Which Ghibli films have you seen? What did you think of them?
I'm gonna fall flat on my face and say that I've only watched Spirited Away, which I thought was very good.
ReplyDeleteAha.
ReplyDeleteSpirited Away is my second favourite ghibli film (2nd favourite animation too) behind My Neighbour Totoro. I recommend all of them. Great stories, great films.
No problem.....I find that as a rule, most films that people flock too, leave me cold and wondering why I even stayed until the end.
ReplyDeleteI simply find, as I get older, although I do enjoy some kid films, they do have to be more creative, otherwise, they lose my attention.
Cheers!
Coffee Messiah,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen 'The Girl Who Leapt Through Time'? It's a good Japanese animation from a few years ago.
Thanks, No, will keep an eye out for it!
ReplyDelete