As I'm watching cartoons with my kids I often wonder what the assumptions are for the writers. Because there's some strange things going on if you stop to ponder, for example, The Man in the Yellow Hat (TMITYH) from Curious George.
First of all, why does TMITYH live with a sentient monkey? Is Curious George the love child of TMITYH? Is there any other possible reason TMITYH has a hip hop name? Is Curious George an example of post-singularity gene manipulation?
I can't stop from having these thoughts as I watch the improbable narrative. The most obvious explanation is that the entire story is taking place inside TMITYH's drug trippin' head. It explains the bright colors, the semi-talking monkey, the journey's to space, the ocean and beyond.
Or maybe Curious George is a form of future shock when we'll all own Curious George's and wonder around NYC in clown suits.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Wolf Children (2012, Studio Chizu/Madhouse)
I was finally able to get a copy of Wolf Children, a 2012 film by Mamoru Hosoda (Summer Wars). Wolf Children won the 2013 Japan Academy Prize for Animation of the Year and I had been anticipating it's US Blu-Ray release for a year.
Mamoru Hosoda is certainly the new Hayao Miyazaki. Hosoda's films contain many of the same themes found in Miyazaki's films: rejection of urbanization, celebration of naturalism, character transformation. And all of those themes are present in Wolf Children. Only Hosoda's characters are somewhat more human and relateable.
***Spoilers***
The story follows college student Hana who falls in love with a wolfman. They have two children together, daughter Yuki and brother Ame. The wolfman is killed shortly after his children are born and Hana has increasing trouble raising her half wolf children. She is eventually forced to move the family to rural Japan to give her children the space they need to grow-up.The rest of the film follows Hana's children as they grow and are forced to join either the animal or the human world.
Wolf Children reminds me of 1991's Only Yesterday by Studio Ghibli co-founder Isao Takahata. In Only Yesterday Taeko leaves Tokyo to visit the countryside where she falls in love with rural life and rejects Japan's urban living as unfulfilling. Only Wolf Children adds adolescent angst to the mix.
Wolf Children continues Hosoda's mixed media approach to film making. So we once again were treated to amazing CG backgrounds with clunky 2-D characters superimposed over them. It's a look that I find distasteful and I wish would go out of style. But it's still a gorgeous film and worth the price of the Blu-Ray.
Wolf Children is a decent film. But it's not the great film that Summer Wars was for Hosoda in 2009.
Without getting into spoilers, I'll just say that the ending left me unsatisfied.All three main characters had to make life deciding choices but only one of them receives a proper resolution.Thankfully, Hosoda's still early in his career. And even though Wolf Children won the Japan Academy Prize for Animation, he has better films in him than this.
3/4 stars
Mamoru Hosoda is certainly the new Hayao Miyazaki. Hosoda's films contain many of the same themes found in Miyazaki's films: rejection of urbanization, celebration of naturalism, character transformation. And all of those themes are present in Wolf Children. Only Hosoda's characters are somewhat more human and relateable.
***Spoilers***
The story follows college student Hana who falls in love with a wolfman. They have two children together, daughter Yuki and brother Ame. The wolfman is killed shortly after his children are born and Hana has increasing trouble raising her half wolf children. She is eventually forced to move the family to rural Japan to give her children the space they need to grow-up.The rest of the film follows Hana's children as they grow and are forced to join either the animal or the human world.
Wolf Children reminds me of 1991's Only Yesterday by Studio Ghibli co-founder Isao Takahata. In Only Yesterday Taeko leaves Tokyo to visit the countryside where she falls in love with rural life and rejects Japan's urban living as unfulfilling. Only Wolf Children adds adolescent angst to the mix.
Wolf Children continues Hosoda's mixed media approach to film making. So we once again were treated to amazing CG backgrounds with clunky 2-D characters superimposed over them. It's a look that I find distasteful and I wish would go out of style. But it's still a gorgeous film and worth the price of the Blu-Ray.
Wolf Children is a decent film. But it's not the great film that Summer Wars was for Hosoda in 2009.
Without getting into spoilers, I'll just say that the ending left me unsatisfied.All three main characters had to make life deciding choices but only one of them receives a proper resolution.Thankfully, Hosoda's still early in his career. And even though Wolf Children won the Japan Academy Prize for Animation, he has better films in him than this.
3/4 stars
Monday, March 24, 2014
The Fall of the House of Pixar
So sad to see many of the upcoming films planned by Pixar:
Finding Dory
The Incredibles 2
Cars 3
Pixar used to make unique films with moving stories that could stand on their own. But now it's Disney that makes unique films each year and Pixar has to spend half their efforts on sequels. Films that are often of poor story quality; Cars 2, Monsters U.
Pixar is turning into DisneyToon-2. And they seem to have as much control over their own fates as DisneyToon. At some point, it will no longer make economic sense for Pixar to have their own studios. And then Pixar will be rolled into Disney. Only the name will be left for branding and marketing purposes. Unless Pixar gets spun off to have more creative freedom I don't see a way to stop the decline.
Update
I wasn't expecting so many people to see this short post. So let me add another point. Disney already has a second unit for handling sequels and spinoff films, DisneyToon. Pixar doesn't. Pixar has to do both the new original movies and handle to sequels that Disney demands. Pixar really needs it's own version of DisneyToon. As it is, Pixar is having to spend half their focus on the sequels.
Finding Dory
The Incredibles 2
Cars 3
Pixar used to make unique films with moving stories that could stand on their own. But now it's Disney that makes unique films each year and Pixar has to spend half their efforts on sequels. Films that are often of poor story quality; Cars 2, Monsters U.
Pixar is turning into DisneyToon-2. And they seem to have as much control over their own fates as DisneyToon. At some point, it will no longer make economic sense for Pixar to have their own studios. And then Pixar will be rolled into Disney. Only the name will be left for branding and marketing purposes. Unless Pixar gets spun off to have more creative freedom I don't see a way to stop the decline.
Update
I wasn't expecting so many people to see this short post. So let me add another point. Disney already has a second unit for handling sequels and spinoff films, DisneyToon. Pixar doesn't. Pixar has to do both the new original movies and handle to sequels that Disney demands. Pixar really needs it's own version of DisneyToon. As it is, Pixar is having to spend half their focus on the sequels.
Disney Movies Anywhere vs Blu-Ray
A curious thing happened with the latest Disney Blu-rays. The Jungle Book, Frozen and Planes all included a digital copy of the film. The digital copy used to come at a $15 premium. No more. Now you get the DVD/Blu-ray combo and a digital copy packaged together for around $20 (through national sellers like Target and Amazon).
The BD comes loaded with extras that were not included on a streaming purchase of the film. At least not until the Disney Movies Anywhere app came out for iOS. When you register a digital copy or purchase the film through iTunes you'll now get all the extras from the BD. As long as you view the film through the Disney app.
It's refreshing that the bonus content is now included with the streaming purchase or included with the BD digital copy. But unless you have Apple TV you'll have to find a way to convert your iPhone or iPad signal into HDMI to watch the streaming on your TV. If you buy the identically priced BD then you'll have both options without hunting down cables. And to my eye the BD still offers higher quality HD than the stream.
The digital stream should still be priced below the physical BD because it costs so much less to package and sell it. Otherwise, it's less green to buy the BD but the BD offers higher value. And I really don't get why Disney has locked the app down to iOS. To be a true game changer it needs to be available on all major platforms like Android and Roku.
The BD comes loaded with extras that were not included on a streaming purchase of the film. At least not until the Disney Movies Anywhere app came out for iOS. When you register a digital copy or purchase the film through iTunes you'll now get all the extras from the BD. As long as you view the film through the Disney app.
It's refreshing that the bonus content is now included with the streaming purchase or included with the BD digital copy. But unless you have Apple TV you'll have to find a way to convert your iPhone or iPad signal into HDMI to watch the streaming on your TV. If you buy the identically priced BD then you'll have both options without hunting down cables. And to my eye the BD still offers higher quality HD than the stream.
The digital stream should still be priced below the physical BD because it costs so much less to package and sell it. Otherwise, it's less green to buy the BD but the BD offers higher value. And I really don't get why Disney has locked the app down to iOS. To be a true game changer it needs to be available on all major platforms like Android and Roku.
The HD Battle
So I've been comparing my HD feeds from cable, Blu-Ray, streaming and my HD antenna in my home theater.
For live events, nothing beats the HD antenna. It's much better than the HD feed I used to get from cable. This is because the signal isn't compressed like it is over cable. So if the choice is between cable or antenna, antenna wins. For movies, streaming or BD is a better choice.
I'm streaming HD using a Roku. I have it hooked into my LAN and it still glitches or jumps on occasion. It's better than cable for movies and doesn't have the ads from using an antenna. The surround works well. But it uses more bandwidth and when turned on can cause the picture to jump.
My Blu-ray has the clearest picture and best sound quality. The UI isn't as easy as the Roku and when the disc is spinning it does create a bit of sound vibration.
Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. Except for cable which seems so 20th century at this point. If it's a live event like a sporting event, use the HD antenna. If it's a TV show use the Roku. For cinematic experience, the Blu-ray is the best.
For live events, nothing beats the HD antenna. It's much better than the HD feed I used to get from cable. This is because the signal isn't compressed like it is over cable. So if the choice is between cable or antenna, antenna wins. For movies, streaming or BD is a better choice.
I'm streaming HD using a Roku. I have it hooked into my LAN and it still glitches or jumps on occasion. It's better than cable for movies and doesn't have the ads from using an antenna. The surround works well. But it uses more bandwidth and when turned on can cause the picture to jump.
My Blu-ray has the clearest picture and best sound quality. The UI isn't as easy as the Roku and when the disc is spinning it does create a bit of sound vibration.
Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. Except for cable which seems so 20th century at this point. If it's a live event like a sporting event, use the HD antenna. If it's a TV show use the Roku. For cinematic experience, the Blu-ray is the best.
Frozen (2013, Disney)
Frozen is a huge hit for Disney. It has currently made a billion dollars. Recent Disney films Tangled and Wreck-It-Ralph were better in my opinion. I'm not saying it's horrible. It just lacked that special wonder of the great Disney films. Because Frozen is focused more on being what it's not, a princess film.
Frozen, of course, is a go-girl, self- rescuing princess film. It stands in rebuke of all those waiting on a male savoir Disney princess films. It could have been ground breaking. 40 years ago. My biggest fault with the film is that it was so focused on being pro-girl that it failed to do justice to the story.
The relationship between the two princesses, Elsa and Anna, is the heart of the story. And the only part of the story with any real emotional component. All the other characters are cut outs who lack souls or imagination. And in the rush to be pro-girl, Disney did to the males exactly what they used to do to females: it relied on negative stereotypes.
Hans is the evil man out to take away all the princess holds dear. He's your basic frat boy rape culture cliché. Kristoff is a loser who will do anything a pretty girl asks of him. The comic relief Olaf snowman is a stoner. And the Duke of Weselton is your basic Jewish miser. The only positive male in the story is the King and he's killed off early on.
The basic lesson to girls watching Frozen is that men are evil and out to get your stuff or they're tools that can be used to get what you want just by giving them a big smile. I contrast that to the Hunger Game films which show how men and women can work together based upon their strengths and weakness as individuals.
As for the plot it is clearly written to spec. The spec being "Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need" by Blake Snyder. The person most responsible for the boring predictable blockbuster action films. In Frozen they just replaced the males with females and added a veneer of male bashing.
As for the visuals, it was stunning. It shifted between cartoonish and hyper real seamlessly. Disney has internalized all the work that went into Tangled and managed to recreate the same feel for about half the price. But visuals can't save a cut-out action flick sexist musical from itself.
2/4 stars.
Frozen, of course, is a go-girl, self- rescuing princess film. It stands in rebuke of all those waiting on a male savoir Disney princess films. It could have been ground breaking. 40 years ago. My biggest fault with the film is that it was so focused on being pro-girl that it failed to do justice to the story.
The relationship between the two princesses, Elsa and Anna, is the heart of the story. And the only part of the story with any real emotional component. All the other characters are cut outs who lack souls or imagination. And in the rush to be pro-girl, Disney did to the males exactly what they used to do to females: it relied on negative stereotypes.
Hans is the evil man out to take away all the princess holds dear. He's your basic frat boy rape culture cliché. Kristoff is a loser who will do anything a pretty girl asks of him. The comic relief Olaf snowman is a stoner. And the Duke of Weselton is your basic Jewish miser. The only positive male in the story is the King and he's killed off early on.
The basic lesson to girls watching Frozen is that men are evil and out to get your stuff or they're tools that can be used to get what you want just by giving them a big smile. I contrast that to the Hunger Game films which show how men and women can work together based upon their strengths and weakness as individuals.
As for the plot it is clearly written to spec. The spec being "Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need" by Blake Snyder. The person most responsible for the boring predictable blockbuster action films. In Frozen they just replaced the males with females and added a veneer of male bashing.
As for the visuals, it was stunning. It shifted between cartoonish and hyper real seamlessly. Disney has internalized all the work that went into Tangled and managed to recreate the same feel for about half the price. But visuals can't save a cut-out action flick sexist musical from itself.
2/4 stars.
Friday, March 21, 2014
The Wind Rises (2013, Studio Ghibli)
The Wind Rises is a mostly hand drawn film by famed Studio Ghibli cofounder
Hayao Miyazaki. The art is decent but not up to par with previous Ghibli works
Arriety and Ponyo. But much like From Up
On Poppy Hill, I have no idea why this film needed to be animated. It doesn't
use the format to add anything to the story.
I have nothing really good to say about this film, which I find maddening.
The pacing is slow, the soundtrack dull and the film exhibits Miyazaki's well
intentioned chauvinism. And unlike most Studio Ghibli films, the characters do
not go through a transformation of any sort, there is no naturalism or strong Japanese
cultural references.
The plot consists of following engineer Jiro Horikoshi around the world as he
learns how to become a world class aircraft designer. Jiro eventually returns
to Japan to put his knowledge to use in creating war machines for the
Japanese military. There are no other significant characters in the film and no
one else gets more than passing characterization.
Even more damning was the message. Which was, as I could unpack it, to
be true to your artistic vision and damn the consequences. Even when your form
of art is to design a fighter plane that would be used in Japan's wars of aggression
leading up to WWII. One could imagine a film about a German architect designing
concentration camps. But as long as the buildings he designed were to his
utmost artistic vision then it would be okay with Miyazaki. I'm sure that was
not his intention. But that's the mess his film left us with.
1/4 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)