Wall-E for Best Picture?

The New York Times is reporting that the Hollywood studios have decided to push box offices success for the Academy Awards this year. With the viewership of the awards telecast falling every year for the past several years, the thinking is that the TV audience has no rooting interest in the independent, small films that the Academy usually honors. The way to higher TV ratings is to nominate films that the audience has actually seen.

Disney will be campaigning for Wall-E in the best picture category.

As early as midsummer Joe Morgenstern, The Wall Street Journal’s film critic, was arguing that “Wall-E” should be considered for best picture. “The time to start the drumbeat is now,” he wrote in a July 12 essay, noting the extreme difficulty animated films, while hugely popular, have faced in vying for the most prestigious Oscar. Only one, Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast,” released in 1991, has ever been nominated for best picture.

“If we didn’t do it, I don’t think we’d be giving the movie its due,” Richard Cook, chairman of Walt Disney Studios, said of the decision to promote “Wall-E” for the top prize, even if that complicates the movie’s simultaneous bid for the more easily won award as best animated feature. One problem is a presumed tendency to split votes. Academy members can vote for a film in both the best picture and best animated feature categories. But they may not be inclined to do that or even know that the rules permit it.

The awards are often a rebuke to mainstream Hollywood, where the creative community gets to place art over business. The big question is whether the Academy membership, whose votes determine the nominees and the winners, will go along with this approach.

A Grab Bag of Worthwhile Reading

I've been catching up with various sites since getting back from vacation and have found several articles that are thought provoking.

Peter Emslie has done two very interesting posts about how generic designs often are. In this one, he shows how he redesigned some characters and explains his thought process. In the second part, he zeros in on how ethnicity has been handled in various places and offers an alternative to the Disney Fairies that are now Tinker Bell's sidekicks. I've known Peter for years and I've come to realize that behind his talented draftsmanship is a very perceptive and articulate artist.

I have to admit to not being a fan of John K's work, but I check his blog regularly and do admire his ability to analyze the work of various artists and animation disciplines. As an example, here is an analysis of the work of cartoonist and animation layout artist Owen Fitzgerald and a follow up on Mort Drucker, both of whom illustrated the comic book based on Bob Hope.

(Speaking of Owen Fitzgerald, Cartoon Snap makes an entire Fitzgerald issue of Bob Hope comics available and Thad K reproduces a Fitzgerald Fox and Crow story.)

Lots of people have written about the Warner animation directors and more recently, there's been material about the various Warner animators. Jaime Weinman has written an interesting piece about the various Warner writers and how their stories were suited (or not) to the various directors.

Keith Lango has an entry on timing animation to music illustrated by a clip from Bad Luck Blackie. For this section, director Tex Avery was working on a 9 beat (meaning a beat every 9 frames) and Lango's version of the clip makes it obvious that the animation was pre-timed to work with the music track that wasn't composed until the animation was finished. I've talked about this previously, as has Hans Perk (here, here and here). It's a very powerful tool that used to be standard in animation but has fallen by the wayside except for sequences that are musical numbers. Animators need to understand this approach so they can take advantage of the foundation it provides for timing.

Keith also points to Tim Hodges review of Wall-E, which includes this statement: "The setting was epic and the story was small." That statement is similar to one found in Stephan Rowley's review of Kung Fu Panda. He writes, "animated filmmakers need to learn to get their subject and visuals working in harmony." When two critics who are continents apart make the same observation about current animated features, there's definitely something to it. Rowley uses Kung Fu Panda as a "meditation on the current state of the animation industry" and he has interesting things to say.

Michael Sporn has written about how special effects are severing performers from their surroundings and the lack of reality is having an impact on performances and how audiences perceive films. I have been slow to realize the significance of setting in films but having just spent a week in the American southwest, I'm more convinced than ever of the importance of time, place and culture on a story.

In part 2 of the article, Michael says, "You have to find the book or the film or the charge that’s going to keep you going." That's good advice for anyone working in the animation business. There have been times, and now might be one of them, when animation can be disappointing, failing to provide the excitement the best of it can provide. Artists have to stay focused on what they love or they can fall prey to disenchantment. I remember in 1984, animation was going through a rough patch in Toronto and I returned to school to study computer animation, not because I had any particular love for it, simply because I was looking for a way to stay employed. That summer, I saw Børge Ring's Anna and Bella and had an epiphany: the problem was not the medium, the problem was the industry. I've tried to keep that in mind.

Finally, something about the copyright situation in Canada. The federal government has introduced bill C-61, amending the copyright law. Unfortunately, many perceive it as caving in to American industrial interests. One of the main problems is that breaking digital locks for any reason is a violation of copyright. So if you buy a DVD and rip it to put on your laptop hard drive, even if you don't sell, trade, or show anyone else the movie, you're a criminal. In short, it gives the manufacturer control over how you use products that you pay for. It's the equivalent of saying that you're a criminal if you use a hammer as a doorstop. Anyone interested in more details about this should visit Michael Geist's site.

There is also an interesting article by Brad Fox (sent to me by friends Paul Teolis and Chuck Scott) that argues that this law is even bad for producers. "By restricting what consumers can do with their purchased media, the distributors who control these platforms also limit producers to how they can access these markets....Under this situation distribution channels would essentially be given a monopoly on certain audiences and producers would have no choice but to accept whatever terms these corporations impose."

As I am someone with a pathological dislike of gate-keepers, I have yet another reason to be against C-61. With luck, the current minority government will fall before this bill can be passed.

Wall-E

(There are spoilers galore here, so be warned.)

The last thing I'm going to do is try to make a message movie!

-Andrew Stanton

Andrew Stanton may not be trying to send a message, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. Unfortunately, it overwhelms the main character and the message itself is only half-baked. The half that's there describes the problem; the missing half has to do with responsibility and offering a solution.

The film presents the audience with a monopoly capitalist economy gone mad. Buy N Large seems to be the only remaining business on the planet and it is so blind to the effects of its way of doing business that it finds it easier to transport its customers and system into space than to change its ways. The people who consume in this society are sheep. So long as they are entertained and distracted, they give no thought to the waste building up around them.

There is apparently no moral price to pay for this. The business isn't condemned for polluting the Earth and the consumers are not condemned for their willingness to attach themelves to the corporate teat. If the film has a villain, it's a ship's computer system that isn't flexible enough to deal with altered circumstances. Once the ship returns to Earth, there is no awareness of what got the humans into trouble in the first place or any plan for avoiding the problem in the future. No one takes responsibility, and that seems okay with Andrew Stanton. The humans get home, Wall-E gets a girl friend and that's all that seems to matter.

This isn't the first time that an animated feature has flirted with a message and then backed away from it. Chicken Run and Madagascar both deal with meat-eating as a threat but can't indict the meat-eating audience. Wall-E can't indict mindless consumption when Disney and Pixar are asking the audience to buy the DVD and whatever merchandise that this (and previous) movies have deposited on store shelves. When the point of a film is to generate profit, you can't expect the film to criticize the process by which the profit is made. That puts the film in an impossible situation.

And the strange thing is that it didn't have to be there. The film is called Wall-E, but the film seems to lose interest in him once the humans show up. The humans' situation overwhelms his love story, and the humans are not well-developed characters. The film abandons character for plot. Wall-E isn't even aware of what the plant means for the humans; he just wants to make sure Eve gets it, hoping that the gift will bring them closer emotionally. She also doesn't understand why it's important, simply that it's her prime directive.

That means there's a giant disconnect between the robots' and human's motivations. Had Wall-E understood the larger repercussions of the plant, at least the two stories would have been tied together. Instead they're separate and neither is particularly satisfying. Wall-E is treated as a child-like character, so his feelings for Eve can't go beyond the limits of puppy love. The humans have fouled their own nest and lack any initiative, so why should the audience care about them?

Science fiction requires that any novel ideas make sense, but there are big logic flaws in this film. If the Axiom's computers know that they've been directed not to return to Earth, why are they bothering to send the space probes there? What possible reason would the computers have for not notifying the humans that the Earth can't be rehabilitated? The humans seem totally satisfied on the ship, so what difference would it make?

Why, when the Axiom tilts, do people slide to the side? Either the ship has artificial gravity, in which case the people will be pulled towards the floors regardless of the ship's orientation (there is no 'up' in space), or the ship has no gravity, in which case the room would shift but the people would stay stationary.

It appears when two of the humans touch, it's a novel experience for them. So where do the babies on board come from?

If the ship disposal unit hurls tons of garbage into space, where does the ship get the raw material to keep manufacturing the crap that it sells to humans? Where are they getting all that rocket fuel for repeated probe trips, since there are several Eves on the probe mother ship and I assume that they've been sending probes for several hundred years?

A film that wants to be taken seriously has to do more than choose a serious subject. Wall-E flirts with big issues, but doesn't do them justice. The film is getting good reviews and will undoubtedly make money, but I found it to be a major disappointment.