I've been a Pixar fan for a long time. The animation studio's knack for creating a truly engaging story out of unlikely premises is essentially unparalleled in today's film industry. And (my apologies to all of you who like the two "Toy Story" movies the best) they've generally just continued to improve.
However, none of their movies have been able to match the perfect blend of good writing, visual impressiveness, humor and message that was concocted in 2004's "The Incredibles." That movie, a tale of a family of discontented superheroes forced to keep their powers under wraps, is sharply written, animated with lush colors, funny at all the right times and able to deliver important messages about the importance of family and the need to keep the world from downplaying uniqueness (it also goes out of its way to pay some fun homages to several comics, most notably "Watchmen" and The Fantastic Four). While Pixar has served up genius both before (the "Toy Story" films, "Monsters Inc.") and after ("Ratatouille," "Wall-E") "The Incredibles," Brad Bird's directorial debut remained my favorite entry in the studio's lineup.
Until, possibly, now.
After the disappointing "Cars" (arguably even after the solid "Finding Nemo," with the exception of "Cars") Pixar has been less about making high-quality family entertainment and more about making high-quality, meaningful movies that will also entertain children. This shift saw the production of "Ratatouille," another Brad Bird movie about the proper treatment of greatness (also about a rat cooking things), and "Wall-E," an almost avant-garde work that belies the importance of human connection in an increasingly digital world. Both were well written and exquisitely animated ("Ratatouille" even received an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay, and I have a quote from that film adorning the top of my blog), but Pixar's latest feature, "Up," manages to not only best the studio's last two outings, but perhaps even "The Incredibles."
I've never quite seen a movie like it. It attempts from start to finish to place one foot firmly in reality and the other just as solidly in fantasy, and it succeeds wholeheartedly. I'll attempt to give a brief synopsis without giving away any too much of the plot.
Carl Fredricksen was just a young, quiet, pudgy boy who dreamed of one day being an explorer in the vein of his childhood hero, a brilliant, fantastical (and apparently discredited) explorer named Charles Muntz. On the way back from a theatre newsreel detailing Muntz's latest exploits, Carl meets a girl who is, in many ways, his opposite: a tall, skinny, outgoing and loud girl named Ellie. Although the two couldn't be more different, they are united by Ellie's unabashed friendliness and a mutual love of Muntz and adventure stories in general. Following this childhood meeting, the film presents a touching montage of Carl and Ellie's life together, including their marriage, a tragedy and the bumps and pleasures of life. Carl is a balloon salesman, Ellie is a zookeeper, and the pair lives in the house in which they met. They are happy. Throughout it all, the couple attempts to save money to visit Paradise Falls, Peru, the site of the most legendary of Muntz's exploits.
Unfortunately, life repeatedly gets in the way of their dreams, and Ellie dies before such a trip can be taken. Carl becomes a grumpy recluse, content only while basking in the memory of his wife. Even this is bittersweet, as he feels just a bit guilty for not taking her to Paradise Falls like they'd always planned. Then, an uncomfortable accident occurs, and people begin to question whether the octogenarian can live on his own anymore, in his treasured house that is the last remaining symbol of his former happiness. It's very heady stuff for an animated film, but it's handled very skillfully here.
However, all of the above lays the groundwork for the actual events of the movie, which manage to simultaneously be one of the more outlandish yet simple stories Pixar has presented: Carl, faced with a nursing home, opts instead to rig a large amount of balloons to his house and fly to Paradise Falls as a tribute to Ellie. A young boy scout accidentally stows away, and the two embark on a series of jungle adventures, Carl most begrudgingly.
Even that brief description belies one of the most striking things about this film: its interplay between fantasy and reality. While Carl's tragedy and personality are presented as very serious and real, the vibrant colors and crazy characters surrounding him recall the Looney Tunes classics of old. He behaves like a man who has suffered real loss, but he attempts physical feats in the film that very few people, and certainly no one his age, would be able to do. So too, is the animation scaled back from the hyper-realism of the last two Pixar offerings. Here, the landscape is unbelievably lush, and the characters' appearances are clearly designed to accentuate personality traits.
However, rather than creating an awkward juxtaposition, the film benefits from the hodgepodge of styles. Carl's adventures serve as object lessons and metaphors for the way his life has turned out, but they also function as tributes to old adventure flicks and classic children's animation. At times, they become almost allegorical, because the film never loses sight of the fact that the real story to be told is the story of Carl's life: the beautiful love of a dedicated marriage, the sadness that comes when that union ends, and a reflection on what is really important. Ultimately, Carl's journey to Paradise Falls reveals to him that he didn't need to become an explorer to find fulfillment; rather, being thankful for what has passed and willing to embrace the future becomes an exciting exploration all its own.
"Up" is truly a well-made, touching film. I even cried during a couple of parts (you'll probably be able to guess where once you see it), and I rarely ever do that during a movie. Do I like it better than "The Incredibles"? I don't know; further viewings may tell.
Either way, it's simply great.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Excitement meets nostalgia in "State of Play"
This is reposted from the April 23 issue of The Column.
I wasn’t expecting a lot. I had seen the trailer for “State of Play” a few times, and it looked interesting enough. There was a passing (and, I assumed, token) reference to journalism, so I told our feature editor Ben that we should go see it. Shortly thereafter, we got two free passes to a prescreening (just one perk of our prestigious – OK, not really – Column jobs), and soon we were waiting expectantly for the movie to begin.
What followed was a lot more than I had expected.
In the first few minutes of the film, two people in Washington D.C. are shot dead by a mysterious man with a metal briefcase. Soon thereafter, an important aide to a congressman is found dead, ruled suicide. The congressman tears up during his announcement of her death, and it soon becomes clear that the two were having an affair. All things considered, it is a busy day for The Washington Globe, where the scruffy but clever Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) works as an old school investigative journalist.
McAffrey is originally in charge of reporting the double murder (thought to be a routine drug killing), but the congressman in question, Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), is an old college friend of his, and, after Collins comes to him with a claim that the aide was murdered, McAffrey wants the story covered properly. By properly, he mostly means “not by a blogger,” namely Della Frye (Rachel McAdams). Frye is a young “online journalist,” who sometimes annoys McAffrey because she’s more interested in the quick scoop than in fact checking. However, he senses some genuine enthusiasm for the truth in Frye, so he allows her to partner with him on the story while he teaches her some good old-fashioned journalistic method. Meanwhile, Collins is attempting to reconcile with his wife, all the while trying to hold down his position on a committee investigating alleged atrocities committed by a military contracting company. Are these events connected in any way? If so, who’s behind it all, and what will the consequences be for those who dare to uncover the plot?
To tell you much more about the film’s story would be both unnecessary and unfortunate, as “State of Play” is a movie best experienced with little sense of what’s going to happen next. Its circuitous plot twists and turns right through to the conclusion, but it also never stops making sense if you’re paying attention.
It’s clearly an intelligent film, and it’s one that expects its viewers to be intelligent as well. Terms like “collusive” pop up, and the viewer is expected to know or figure out what they mean. Ethical questions appear from time to time as well. Is McAffrey’s involvement a conflict of interest? If so, where does he cross the line? We’re encouraged to think it through.
The ethical questions are only compounded by the fact that even McAffrey has been prone to misdeeds in the past. The movie creates very real characters as sure to develop viewer attachment as they are to make you think. Overall, “State of Play” is a fast-paced, cerebral thriller, sure to excite and surprise. However, there was another reason that I liked it even more.
The movie plays like a sort of love song to journalism and newspapers. McAffrey and his cranky editor (Helen Mirren) bemoan the fact that The Globe is losing money, and much is made of the conflict between print newspapers and online sources.
The film’s conclusion? Blogs might get you a story faster, but newspapers deliver the complete – and accurate – report. The newsroom is presented as that lovable, noisy place where hard-working but fun-loving journalists pound out their stories on deadline, not caring much about decorum or cleanliness.
It’s obvious that the film owes much of its inspiration to “All the President’s Men,” the classic Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman flick chronicling the true story behind Woodward and Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate cover-up. They are obviously held in high regard by the filmmakers of State of Play, as are all journalists who strive for the truth.
However, “State of Play” is not ignorant of the fact that newspapers are not in the best of shape these days. The Globe’s ownership is trying all sorts of gimmicks to increase its readership, and it’s up to the down-to-earth journalists like McAffrey to keep the press from being a non-mobile version of TV.
I appreciate that in a film. In today’s world of hustle and bustle, instant news, constant channel flipping and tab switching, I think that the focused information and perspective found in newspapers is still a worthwhile pursuit. And, if you made it to the end of this review, thanks.
Who knows? Perhaps you think that newspapers are worth something too.
I wasn’t expecting a lot. I had seen the trailer for “State of Play” a few times, and it looked interesting enough. There was a passing (and, I assumed, token) reference to journalism, so I told our feature editor Ben that we should go see it. Shortly thereafter, we got two free passes to a prescreening (just one perk of our prestigious – OK, not really – Column jobs), and soon we were waiting expectantly for the movie to begin.
What followed was a lot more than I had expected.
In the first few minutes of the film, two people in Washington D.C. are shot dead by a mysterious man with a metal briefcase. Soon thereafter, an important aide to a congressman is found dead, ruled suicide. The congressman tears up during his announcement of her death, and it soon becomes clear that the two were having an affair. All things considered, it is a busy day for The Washington Globe, where the scruffy but clever Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) works as an old school investigative journalist.
McAffrey is originally in charge of reporting the double murder (thought to be a routine drug killing), but the congressman in question, Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), is an old college friend of his, and, after Collins comes to him with a claim that the aide was murdered, McAffrey wants the story covered properly. By properly, he mostly means “not by a blogger,” namely Della Frye (Rachel McAdams). Frye is a young “online journalist,” who sometimes annoys McAffrey because she’s more interested in the quick scoop than in fact checking. However, he senses some genuine enthusiasm for the truth in Frye, so he allows her to partner with him on the story while he teaches her some good old-fashioned journalistic method. Meanwhile, Collins is attempting to reconcile with his wife, all the while trying to hold down his position on a committee investigating alleged atrocities committed by a military contracting company. Are these events connected in any way? If so, who’s behind it all, and what will the consequences be for those who dare to uncover the plot?
To tell you much more about the film’s story would be both unnecessary and unfortunate, as “State of Play” is a movie best experienced with little sense of what’s going to happen next. Its circuitous plot twists and turns right through to the conclusion, but it also never stops making sense if you’re paying attention.
It’s clearly an intelligent film, and it’s one that expects its viewers to be intelligent as well. Terms like “collusive” pop up, and the viewer is expected to know or figure out what they mean. Ethical questions appear from time to time as well. Is McAffrey’s involvement a conflict of interest? If so, where does he cross the line? We’re encouraged to think it through.
The ethical questions are only compounded by the fact that even McAffrey has been prone to misdeeds in the past. The movie creates very real characters as sure to develop viewer attachment as they are to make you think. Overall, “State of Play” is a fast-paced, cerebral thriller, sure to excite and surprise. However, there was another reason that I liked it even more.
The movie plays like a sort of love song to journalism and newspapers. McAffrey and his cranky editor (Helen Mirren) bemoan the fact that The Globe is losing money, and much is made of the conflict between print newspapers and online sources.
The film’s conclusion? Blogs might get you a story faster, but newspapers deliver the complete – and accurate – report. The newsroom is presented as that lovable, noisy place where hard-working but fun-loving journalists pound out their stories on deadline, not caring much about decorum or cleanliness.
It’s obvious that the film owes much of its inspiration to “All the President’s Men,” the classic Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman flick chronicling the true story behind Woodward and Bernstein’s uncovering of the Watergate cover-up. They are obviously held in high regard by the filmmakers of State of Play, as are all journalists who strive for the truth.
However, “State of Play” is not ignorant of the fact that newspapers are not in the best of shape these days. The Globe’s ownership is trying all sorts of gimmicks to increase its readership, and it’s up to the down-to-earth journalists like McAffrey to keep the press from being a non-mobile version of TV.
I appreciate that in a film. In today’s world of hustle and bustle, instant news, constant channel flipping and tab switching, I think that the focused information and perspective found in newspapers is still a worthwhile pursuit. And, if you made it to the end of this review, thanks.
Who knows? Perhaps you think that newspapers are worth something too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
