Movies Archives - Page 73 of 84

Dubbing vs. Subtitles

10 Comments / Anime, Movies / Mark / December 20, 2006

One of the things movie snobs often complain about is dubbing, and when it comes to your typical live action foreign language films, I’m pretty firmly entrenched in the snob camp. However, animation is different, as it doesn’t suffer as badly from unsynchronized lip movement. Most humans find the human face engaging and are wired, seemingly from birth (faces are among the first things babies are thought to recognize), to read facial expressions and movements. So we’re very good at recognizing when someone’s voice doesn’t match their lip movements. Again, in a dubbed live action film, this produces a sort of cognitive dissonance. Animated films always have to deal with this (even when animation is matched to the voiceover, the fidelity of animation prevents an exact match), so it would make sense that a dubbed animated film would probably not be as jarring as a dubbed live action film. In short, I’m already accustomed to the cognitive dissonance caused by animated films, so dubbing should theoretically be fine. Beckonking Chasm recenty wrote about his adventures in Anime, and makes an interesting case:

I always watch the English dub versions. Not to disrespect the Japanese or their language, far from it, but I have absolutely no facility with foreign languages. (My abilities in English are bad enough.) Yes, one can read subtitles, and that’s how I always watch live-action foreign films. An actor’s voice is just as much a part of his performance as his face and the way he chooses to move.

However, when watching Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson argue about who gets to commit suicide first, I can see them in a familiar environment—I don’t have to wonder what the fantastical device is that they’re sitting on, I know it’s called a “couch.” Even in futuristic live-action films, I can still key in on what the environment represents to the characters and I don’t have to watch it continuously to figure out its nature.

In animation, however, everything is brand new. It’s all been designed deliberately from the blank page up—everything has a choice behind it. It’s also frequently imaginative and beautiful. I don’t like taking my eyes away from it in order to read subtitles—I’d much rather hear the dialogue so I can keep watching.

I’ve recently been watching more Anime, and the question of whether to use dubbing or subtitles is still up in the air for me. My live action snobbery has leaked over to animated films, so I’ve watched most everything with the original audio and subtitles, but I’ve also recently tried giving the dubs a shot as well (with varying results). However, I think Beckoning Chasm makes some interesting points. So when I started watching Ghost in the Shell, I decided that I’d give the dubbing a try. Bad move. The english voice acting was so bad that I couldn’t stand it and had to switch to subtitles. Then I noticed something interesting. The translations were completely different.

The opening scene in the movie features the Major on a rooftop, eavesdropping on some diplomatic meeting. The dubbed version goes like this:

BATOU: Major Kusanagi, Section 6 is in position and ready to move in.

BATOU: Major, are you there?

THE MAJOR: Yeah, I heard you.

BATOU: I’m surprised you could hear anything. What’s with all the noise in your brain today?

THE MAJOR: Must be a loose wire.

And the subtitled version was this:

BATOU: Major Kusanagi, Section 6 is ready to move in.

BATOU: Major!

THE MAJOR: I hear you.

BATOU: There’s a lot of static in your brain.

THE MAJOR: It’s that time of the month.

Quite a difference, and, um, a little sexist? Even disregarding that, it appears that the dubbing is a more natural translation, even if the voice actors can’t emote to save their lives. I finished the movie with subtitles on, then went back and turned on the english language audio with the english subtitles. It’s a bizzarre experience.

I didn’t watch the whole thing like that, as it’s a little distracting to be reading and hearing similar, but different text (talk about your cognitive dissonance). Oddly enough, even though I think the dubbed translation is better, I still think subtitles work reasonably well too. Some of the dialogue sounds ridiculous when voiced out loud, but reading it gives a different experience. Also, it makes sense that the subtitles would be different, as there is a limited amount of space to communicate the same information (apparently there is less space in subtitles than in the audio).

One of the problems with adapting books to movies is that an exact translation is nearly always doomed to failure. You can’t typically use the same dialogue as the book, for instance. It will sound stunted and out of place. No one talks they way people talk in books. Hell, no one talks the way they do in movies. That’s because the dialogue is adapted to the medium. You can get away with a lot more in prose, but movies need to convey a lot of the same information visually. This is why adaptations are so difficult. However, when I watched the subtitled version of Ghost in the Shell, the dialogue seemed much better when reading it than when listening to it (even though I liked the dubbed translation better). It’s almost like an accidental middle ground between a book a movie. It’s an interesting dynamic, and I’m not sure what to make of it. In the mean time, I’m going to have to experiment with dubbed versions of stuff that I’ve already seen. I wonder what Haibane Renmei is like dubbed? Is the translation different? Why do I have the feeling I’m going to spend my Christmas holiday watching anime with the audio and subtitles set to english (then again, December 25 is Anime Day, so perhaps this is appropriate)?

Animation Marathon: Ghost in the Shell

Anime, Movies / Mark / December 20, 2006

The next film in the animation marathon is Ghost in the Shell. Like the previous film in the marathon, Akira, I had already seen this movie a few times before revisiting it for the marathon. Unlike Akira, my original opinion of this film was relatively high, and this most recent viewing hasn’t changed my feelings much. Ghost in the Shell is not perfect, but it holds up well and is an excellent animated film.

Like Akira, Ghost in the Shell is often held up as one of the essential pieces of anime that anyone interested in the form needs to see. Historically, it was the first anime film released simultaneously in Japan and in other markets (notably the UK and the US), but it proved a little too complex to become a mainstream success. However, it found a market on DVD and has enjoyed cult status ever since.

The story takes place in a futuristic world where technology has advanced considerably and has begun to displace biological components of the human body (this even includes the brain). Cyborgs are common, and indeed, many people are more machine than human (those who can afford it, at least). One such cyborg is Major Motoko Kusanagi. She heads up a team that is part of section 9, an intelligence organization that tends to work more in the shadows (as opposed to their counterparts in section 6, whose role could be described more diplomatically).

All this technology comes at a price though. Increased internet connectivity and human-computer brain interfaces have introduced new vulnerabilities, and a new crime has appeared: Ghost hacking. The “Ghost” essentially represents a person’s individual identity (while the “shell” represents their physical body, be it biological or artificial), and hackers can access and manipulate a human’s ghost. A ghost hacker named “The Puppet Master” has appeared on the scene, hacking into various people, erasing their memories and programming them to do his bidding. Section 9, lead by the Major, has been chasing the Puppet Master for a while now, and some pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place…

It’s a dense story, and the technological advances pose a ton of intriguing questions about the nature of identity. The Major, whose physical body is almost all machine, is understandably a little paranoid about her identity. Is she really who she thinks she is? Is anyone really who they think they are? What makes me what I am? If my consciousness is transferred into an artificial brain, am I still me? This is the sort of thing that will stay with you long after the film has ended. After watching Ghost in the Shell, Steven Den Beste wrote a fascinating article exploring these concepts:

Ghost in the Shell challenged me to consider the question of what I actually am. What makes me what I am?

What am I? That can be answered in many ways. I am a particular human being; I am this body. But is the entire body really part of the essential me? I don’t consider myself to be different – or to have died – if I trim my fingernails or get my hair cut. If I suffered a grievous injury and had a limb amputated, I would still be me. If I received a heart transplant, I would still be me. (And the donor of that heart would still be dead.)

The whole article is great and helps illustrate the intellectually challenging aspects of the story. The film explores these questions in detailed philosophical conversations that may be a little to overt for some, but it works well in a plot that intersperses enough action and intrigue to keep the viewer’s attention. While the film does include governmental agencies and a futuristic city, I think it’s worth noting that this future isn’t a dystopia. It’s a well realized vision of the future, but it actually doesn’t feel all that different from our own world. That is to say, things aren’t perfect, but we haven’t descended to the ninth circle of hell just yet either. This is a large part of why I enjoyed this film more than I enjoyed Akira. Both movies deal with big ideas and transcendant themes, but Akira‘s characters are shallow and unsympathetic and it’s ideas are only given a superficial exploration. Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, has several sympathetic characters and it delves much deeper into it’s conceptual vision. The ending of both movies involves some ambiguity, but Ghost in the Shell‘s ending resonates deeper because I could empathize with the characters (even if the plot was a little convoluted).

Visually, Ghost in the Shell is impressive. Like Akira, it’s a spectacular piece of work, and quite engaging. The animation is extremely detailed and fluid (though I have to admit, I think I’m more impressed with Akira‘s animation). The action sequences are well orchestrated and sometimes approach a poetic feel. The soundtrack is evokative and well suited towards the subject matter, though the dubbed voiceover is amongst the worst I’ve heard. Ironically, I think subtitles may suit this script better than spoken word in some cases (see my musings on the varying translations on the dubbing and subtitled versions), as the longer monologues sound absurd when spoken aloud in a monotone voice, but don’t seem so ponderous when read by the viewer. Symbolism, such as the use of a wall charting the evolution of life in the climax of the film, is used but not abused. As previously mentioned, the juxtaposition of action sequences with philosophical musings may seem a little disjointed and jarring to some, but I was taken in by the film.

Ultimately, we’re left with a visually stunning, intellectually challenging, action packed movie. Unlike Akira, this movie had more of an emotional impact and it provoked interesting thoughts. It stuck with me, and forced me to ponder some of the great unanswerable questions. While I wouldn’t call it a perfect film, it is well worth the watch and definitely amongst the Anime essentials. Three Stars (***)

Update: Filmspotting has posted their review, and their feelings were mixed. Neither seemed to be impressed with the story (or couldn’t follow it) or the visuals, but Sam seemed to like it for the same reasons I did (though Adam did not).

More images and assorted comments below the fold…

…

Animation Marathon: Ghost in the ShellRead More »

Animation Marathon: Akira

4 Comments / Anime, Movies / Mark / December 13, 2006

There were only two movies in the Animation Marathon that I hadn’t seen before, and they were the first two. Next up is Akira, a movie that I have seen multiple times in the past. My first thoughts upon initial viewings were that it had some interesting points but that it was ultimately an incoherent mess. However, it should be noted that I originally saw the movie many years ago on a crappy VHS tape with a dubbed soundtrack and a washed out transfer. The movie has since been fully restored, digitally remastered, and perhaps most importantly, it’s recieved a new translation. As a result, the film looked great and I could follow the story much better this time around, and my opinon of the film has improved considerably. It certainly has some flaws, but it really is a spectacular experience. Spoilers ahoy.

Along with Ghost in the Shell (the next film in the marathon), this film is often held up as the pinnacle of Anime and, as such, is generally considered to be “essential” viewing for someone interested in the form. Historically, this is the film that brought Anime to America (it was my first exposure to Anime as well), so it’s certainly important in that respect. Even so, I don’t know that it really would make a good introduction to the form, unless you are really into the gritty post-apocalyptic genre.

The story begins by showing Tokyo consumed by a large explosion that apparently sets off World War III. Thirty years later, the war is over and Tokyo has been rebuilt. Like most post-apocalyptic worlds, this one ain’t pretty. The streets are overwhelmed with dissent and crime is rampant. The story follows a wimpy biker punk named Tetsuo and his friend Kaneda, who seems to be the leader of their makeshift motorcycle gang. The two get caught up in a governmental experiment that attempts to harness latent human abilities, and Tetsuo suddenly becomes endowed with psychic powers. I think Justin puts it well when he says: “As we all well know, from studying Carrie, rejected nerds with telekenetic abilities do not use their powers just for cleaning litter on the highways.” Tetsuo goes on a rampage through New Tokyo in an attempt to reach the mysterious Akira.

Adapted from a 2,000 page Manga series of the same name, Akira touches on a lot of subjects. As with most adaptations of large bodies of work, there are some scenes or characters that seem out of place and it feels like there is a lot of complexity lurking beneath the surface, especially when it comes to the social and political issues that are only touched on in the film. However, the story works well as a whole. The ending is still a little confusing, but it’s much better than the garbled mess from the original translation. Thematically, the film is obviously alluding to Japan’s relationship with technology, specifically nuclear weapons. There appear to be strong cultural themes in the film that are a little hazy to a westerner like myself, but there is clearly something going on there.

The only issue I had with the story is that the most of the characters are not very likeable. Tetsuo and Kaneda are ostensibly the center of the film, but they’re both self-interested punks and not very sympathetic. I guess you’d call Tetsuo the villain of the movie, so it’s understandable that he’s not likeable, but Kaneda is supposed to be our hero, and he comes off as goofy, ignorant and immature (granted, he is a kid, but his silly comments were often quite jarring). The only characters that show a noble side are the three kids that are part of the government project, but while they play an important role, they’re really only bit characters. However, the film is able to overcome these deficiencies because its vision is sufficiently compelling, and there are plenty of interesting and ambitious ideas to keep the viewer occupied. Action sequences are also well composed and keep the story moving briskly, which helps.

Speaking of vision, this has to be one of the finest examples of animation I’ve ever seen. It is perhaps a little dated, but when you take into account that this movie was made long before modern techniques (like CGI or digital image correction), it really is a remarkable achievement. Filled with vibrant colors and stunning imagery, the film is a rollercoaster ride from start to finish. I’ve included a bunch of screenshots from the film, but it’s worth noting that the animation itself – the actual movement of various elements on screen – is very well done (and can’t be captured in a still). The ambient soundtrack is atmospheric and evokative, with an interesting mixture of instrumentation and electronic music (that doesn’t seem at all dated and indeed, may even have been ahead of its time). Symbolic imagery (for example, Tetsuo’s growing powers are symbolized in a dream by a flood of milk… or towards the end of the movie, when Tetsuo is being consumed by his powers and regressing into a monstrous creature that engulfs everything in sight, his morphing body clearly takes on the shape of a mushroom cloud) is used, but not abused.

Ultimately, while the kinetic action of the animation and story serves to hold the viewer’s attention, the film isn’t especially involving on an emotional level (I think this is due to the lack of sympathetic characters more than anything else). It does tackle some “big” ideas, but not in a way that will have you questioning life, the universe, and everything. In many ways it is a spectacular experience, and well worth the watch, but it is also a flawed movie. Still, thanks to the restored version, I’ve come to see why it’s considered an “essential” film for anyone interested in Anime (though I’m not sure it would be played on the traditional Otaku holiday known as Anime Day). Three stars (***)

More images and assorted comments below the fold…

…

Animation Marathon: AkiraRead More »

Aliens Board Game

Best Entries, Movies / Mark / December 3, 2006

A little while ago, I became reaquanted with a game that I used to play often – the Aliens board game. I haven’t played the game in about ten years or so, and I found it interesting for a number of reasons. Gameplay is a bit of a mixture of other gaming styles, combining the arbitrary nature and futility of board games with the wonky dice and damage-table style of RPGs (Ok, you shot the alien with your pulse rifle. Roll for acid!) I noticed a few things about the game that I never did before, some good, some bad.

Before I get into those observations, I’ll have to explain the mechanics of the game a bit. The game comes with a few maps and there are a couple of scenarios that you can play, each of which is basically re-enacting a memorable scene where the colonial marines get their asses handed to them from the movie (i.e. the initial encounter with the aliens under the reactor, the later encounter and retreat through the air ducts, and a single player scenario where Ripley rescues Newt and fights the alien queen). There was also an expansion pack which featured an additional scenario. Since we’d all played the game countless times in our youth, we decided to mix things up a little and combine the regular map with the expansion map. Basically, we start at one end of the map and have to make ourselfs to the other end. This is easier said than done.

We hand out all the player cards randomly. Most of the characters are colonial marines, but there is a surprising amount of variability between characters and their abilities. Most characters are given two moves per turn, though Ripley, Apone, and Bishop have three. In terms of weaponry, some of the characters are significantly better than others. Hicks, Ripley and Apone have quality weapons to choose from. Drake and Vasquez have those awesome smart guns. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there’s the Burke character, who has no weapons (he’s essentially used as alien bait, as he should). Since there were only a few of us, we each got multiple characters to play with (which is a good thing, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment). I ended up with three relatively lame characters: Corporal Dietrich (who was armed with only a pistol), Lieutenant Gorman (whose Pulse Rifle was the most powerful weapon in my group), and Private Wierzbowski (who was armed with an incinerator). Gorman’s an ok character to play, except he’s a tool in the movie. Dietrich isn’t quite as useless as Burke, but damn near so. Wierzbowski isn’t the greatest character to play, but he’s awesome in the movie (The Wierzbowski Hunters are one of those wonderful phenomenons that could only be possible on the internet).

That’s it man, game over man, game over! *

As already mentioned, our goal is to make our way from one side of the map to the other. Every turn, four aliens are added to the board in semi-random places (as the game proceeds, more aliens are added per turn). While most of the players only have two moves per turn, the aliens have four moves. If an alien enters on or next to your position, you have to roll a ten sided die. Most of the time, the result is that you are “grabbed” by the alien. Essentially, you need to be rescued by one of the other players, illustrating the cooperative nature of the game.

So the game begins, and the initial four aliens are inserted onto the board. The way the game goes for a while is that we take out all of the aliens, and move forward if possible. Eventually my characters are leading the pack and make it to the next map (half way there!), and the DM equivalent decides that we need to start adding more aliens per turn. At this point, we’re fending off aliens from all directions, and we start to take on more and more casualties. Some aspects of the game were becoming clearer to me:

Weapons & Range: As I previously noted, my three characters were armed with a pistol, a pulse rifle, and an incinerator. The pistol is next to useless (if you ever play the game, don’t choose the pistol – use the incinerator) as it’s range is absurdly low and even then, you have to make a tough role to hit your target. The pulse rifle is actually a decent weapon with a good, long range. The incinerator is another short range weapon, and I cannot use it to rescue any of my teammates (I could kill the alien, but I’d also be burning my teammate).
Turns: As it turns out, I’m the last person to go each turn, so in addition to my mostly short range, there usually aren’t any aliens left for me to shoot at. So every turn, I end up moving forward, while everyone else is stuck rescuing their teammates (sometimes me, even though I can’t return the favor).
The Aliens: Even if you don’t start adding more and more aliens per turn, the game becomes more challenging because as you progress throughout the map, the aliens begin to surround you and they’re more difficult to attack when they’re coming from multiple directions (if you can get two aliens lined up in a row, a single shot can kill both aliens…)

As a result of my turn placement and my characters’ lame short-range weapons, I ended up leading the pack. Lieutenant Gorman, my only decent combat soldier, got attacked by an alien relatively early on, and when a teammate shot the alien, Gorman got sprayed by acid and died. This left me with Dietrich (pistol) and Wierzbowski (incinerator).

We had come to a standoff. The second map had more walls and obstructed views, so it took the aliens longer to reach us, but we also couldn’t pick them off from afar. Wierzbowski finally proved useful, as you can use the incinerator to set up a “fire wall” that the aliens can’t cross for a turn (This ability is particularly useful on the second map because of all the choke points). Still, our ranks were being worn down. I was able to block the forward onslaught, but the aliens came in on the flank and mounted a devestating attack. More than 50% of the original team had perished, and some of us were wounded (which makes it harder to hit targets). Dietrich had become completely disabled, so I had Wierzbowski pick her up in the hopes of feeding her to an alien if I got into trouble.

The game was running a little long at this point, so the DM decided to insert the alien queen (this isn’t really supposed to happen, but we like a challenge). The queen is significantly more difficult to deal with, and she managed to kill the remainder of our team… except Wierzbowski who had made his way into a room with a single block choke point. Using the firewall ability, I was able to make it to the final hallway before being attacked. I managed to take out a couple of aliens with my incinerator, but I had to sacrifice Dietrich in order to get away. Alas, the queen had made her way around, and the valiant Wierzbowski finally succumbed to her deadly advance.

Our variations on the rules aside, it’s actually a pretty well balanced game. The aliens are appropriately formidable, and they only become moreso as the game progresses. As in the movie, you can’t really complete a scenario without taking significant casualties, and even though our team did pretty well, there’s no guarantee that we’d have made it (even if we didn’t add the queen). The game was made in 1989, and is no longer available. You can find it on eBay, but it commands a relatively high price tag… It’s an interesting game, but it’s not really worth the high price these days. In the 90s, the game was a lot of fun. These days, other games have far surpassed it (especially video games). Still, it’s nice to play an old favorite every now and again.

* I should note that the game does not come with those nice figurines in the picture above. The game has these chinsy cardboard pieces with pictures of the characters and aliens. Functional, but not as nice as the figurines. Also, yes, I’m a huge nerd and can name all the colonial marines without having to look them up.

Animation Marathon: Grave of the Fireflies

4 Comments / Anime, Best Entries, Movies / Mark / November 29, 2006

Of the six films chosen for the Animation Marathon, Grave of the Fireflies was the only one that I hadn’t heard much about. The only thing I knew about it was that it was sad. Infamously sad. After watching the movie, I can say that it certainly does live up to those expecations. It’s a heartbreaking movie, all the moreso because it’s animated. Spoilers ahead…

The film begins by showing us a 14 year old boy lying dead on a subway platform, so you can’t really say that the filmmakers were trying to hide the tragedy in this film. The boy’s name is Seita, and through flashbacks, we learn how he came to meet his end. Set during the last days of World War II, the story is kicked off by the American firebombing of Seita’s city. Seita’s father is in the Japanese Navy and Seita’s mother is horribly wounded by bombing, eventually succumbing to her wounds. The entire city is destroyed, leaving Seita and his little 4 year old sister Setsuko homeless. For a time, they take refuge with an Aunt, who seems nice at first, but gets grumpier as she realizes that Seita isn’t willing to contribute to the war effort, or to help around the house. Eventually, Seita finds an unused bomb shelter where he can live with his sister without being a burden on their Aunt. It being wartime, food is scarce, and Seita struggles and ultimately fails to support his sister.

This isn’t quite like any other animated movie I’ve ever seen. It’s a powerful and evocative film. It has moments of great beauty, even though it’s also quite sad. It displays a patience that’s not common in animated movies. There are contemplative pauses. Characters and their actions are allowed time to breath. The animations are often visually striking, even when they’re used in service of less-than-pleasant events (such as the landscape shot of the city as it burns).

After I finished the film, I was infurated. Obviously no one really enjoys watching two kids starve, suffer, and die after losing their family and home to a war, but it’s not just sad. As I said before, it’s infuriating. I was so pissed off at Seita because he made a lot of boneheaded, prideful decisions that were ultimately responsible for the death of his sister (and eventually, himself). At one point in the film, as Seita begs a farmer for food, the farmer tells him to swallow his pride and go back to his aunt. Seita refuses, and hence the tragedy. But at least he’s young and thus reckless, which is understandable. While I was upset at Seita’s actions, I really couldn’t blame only him and the film did prompt some empathy for that character. I can’t say the same of the Aunt. Who lets two young kids go off to live by themselves in wartime? Yeah, Seita wasn’t pulling his weight, but hell, your job as an adult is to teach children about responsibilities… It was wartime for crying out loud. There had to be plenty to do. Yeah, it’s sad. Especially when it comes to Setsuko, who was only 4 years old. But other than that, it was infuriating, and I wasn’t sure how I was going to rate the movie. Then I read about some context in the Onion A.V. Club review of the movie (emphasis mine):

Adapting a semi-autobiographical book by Akiyuki Nosaka, Takahata scripted and directed Fireflies while his Studio Ghibli partner, Hayao Miyazaki, was scripting and directing his own classic, My Neighbor Totoro. The two films were produced and screened as a package, because Totoro was considered a difficult sell, while Fireflies, as an “educational” adaptation of a well-known historical book, had a guaranteed audience. But while both films won high praise at home and abroad, it’s hard to imagine the initial impact of watching them back to back. Totoro is a bubbly, joyous film about the wonders of childhood, while Fireflies follows two children as they starve, suffer, and die after American planes firebomb their town.

…Nosaka, who lost his own young sister under similar circumstances, apparently intended his book in part to chronicle his shameful pride, while Takahata explains … that he wanted viewers to learn a moral lesson from Seita’s hubris. Instead, he reports, they mostly sympathized with the boy, which is easy to do.

It turns out that my feelings about the film were exactly what the filmmakers were going for, which kinda turned me around and made me realize that the film really is brilliant (in other words, my expecation of the film as having to be “Sad” made me feel strange because, while it was certainly sad, it was also infuriating. Now that I know the infurating part was intentional, it makes a lot more sense.) As the Onion article brilliantly summarizes, “not so much an anti-war statement as it is a protest against basic human selfishness, and the way it only worsens during trying times.” And that’s sad, but it’s also quite annoying.

The animation is very well done, and while some might think that something this serious would not be appropriate in animation, I’m not sure it would work any other way. One of the most beautiful scenes in the film shows the two children using fireflies to light their abandoned bomb shelter. It’s a scene I think would look cheesy and fake in a live action film, but which works wonderfully in an animated film. Roger Ebert describes it well:

It isn’t the typical material of animation. But for “Grave of the Fireflies,” I think animation was the right choice. Live action would have been burdened by the weight of special effects, violence and action. Animation allows Takahata to concentrate on the essence of the story, and the lack of visual realism in his animated characters allows our imagination more play; freed from the literal fact of real actors, we can more easily merge the characters with our own associations.

In the end, while this is definitely an excellent film, I find it difficult to actually recommend it (for what I hope are obvious reasons). This type of movie is not for everyone, and while I do think it is brilliantly executed, I don’t especially want to watch it again. Ever. In an odd sort of way, that’s a testament to how well the film does what it does. (***1/2)

Filmspotting‘s review is not up yet, but should be up tomorrow. Check it out, as they are also reviewing The Fountain (which I reviewed on Monday).

(In a strange stroke of coincidence, I had actually watched Miyazaki’s My Neighbor Totoro just a few days before Fireflies, not quite mimicking the back to back screenings mentioned in the Onion article, but close enough to know that it was an odd combo indeed (and I can’t imagine the playful and fun Totoro being a “harder sell” than the gut-punch of Fireflies.))

The Fountain

2 Comments / Movies / Mark / November 27, 2006

Emergent systems fascinate me. Systems comprised of a number of simpler parts acting together often develop more complex behaviours as a collective than they would by themselves. In simple terms, these systems are more than the sum of their parts.

After watching Darren Aronofsky’s long-awaited The Fountain, I couldn’t help but think that it is less than the sum of its parts. If you break the film down into its various pieces, you’ll find some technically impressive work. Almost every aspect of this film is done incredibly well. Yet somehow, when you add it all up, something is missing. It’s one of the most visually stunning films I’ve seen in years, and all the technical aspects of that (cinematography, photography, special effects (which were not CGI) etc…) are exceptionally well done. I was seriously slack-jawed at the visual compositions for much of the movie (the same way I am when I watch 2001: A Space Odyssey – a film that The Fountain owes a great debt to). In short, it’s an absolutely gorgeous film (watch the trailer for a taste – interestingly, the trailer is almost a microcosm of the film itself – it’s also gorgeous, but I can’t imagine most people being swayed by anything by the visuals). The music was fantastic. The acting was great. The story was rather simplistic, but it’s not like a traditonal love story can’t be interesting. Ultimately, it’s probably the story and the characterization that is at fault here, though I’m not really sure why. Spoilers ahead, for those who care…

The story’s science fiction elements have been played up in the marketing, which stresses the three major time periods in which the film takes place (1500 A.D., 2000 A.D., and 2500 A.D.) and asks “What if you could live forever?” But the film’s primary focus is on the contemporary setting, where Tommy Creo (Hugh Jackman) is a scientist working to find a way to treat his wife, Izzie (Rachel Weisz), who has an inoperable brain tumor. Izzy, it turns out, is writing a novel about a Spanish Queen (also played by Weisz) who sends a Conquistador (also played by Jackman) on a quest to find the Fountain of Youth. And the future plot thread shows a bald man (also Jackman) travelling through space in a neat looking orb (his only passenger being a neat looking tree). It’s unclear if the futuristic portion of the film is a continuation of Izzie’s novel, or if it is really happening. In any case, both the past and future portions of the film exist to emphasise what happens in the contemporary portion of the film. There are obvious parallels in each of the narratives.

There’s a lot to chew on here, which is part of why my feelings are mixed. On the one hand, the film displays such a rich and ambitious vision that’s difficult to deny. On the other hand, the rampant symbolism and split narrative structure seems to distract from the story rather than enhance it. In an interview, Aronofsky described the story thusly:

I think it’s a really simple love story at the core. It’s really about a man and a woman in love. One of them is going away and the other one’s not coming to terms with it. Eventually he does come to terms with it. There’s sort of a big anti-thinking, anti-intellectual message in the film even though it’s kind of told in a very different way that you think it makes you think. It’s really very simple the film and that’s why I kind of messed with the structure, taking a very simple idea but then encasing it in a puzzle structure that makes people think about how it all fits together and talk about how it fits together. But at the core it’s a very simple emotional story I think.

I think perhaps he got a bit carried away messing with the structure, as I found myself more interested in decoding the visual language of the film than the actual characters in the film. There are some moments of levity in which you see the love these characters have for one another and there are some interesting dynamics to their relationship, but these details aren’t fleshed out very much. Maybe because of that, I didn’t really connect on an emotional level (though there are instances in which I do, they are ultimately fleeting). I could recognize the emotion on an intellectual level, but I wasn’t able to fully lose myself in the story.

This movie is certainly not for everyone. Lots of people will see it as a pretentious art film filled with pompous, but beautiful, imagery (I think even the films detractors recognize Aronofsky’s visual flare). Some will note that they didn’t want to see Hugh Jackman cry for an hour and a half. However, I’m willing to bet that it will make lots of critics’ best of the year lists, and despite my objections, I’m not sure they’re wrong to include it. The film snob in me acknowledges the technical brilliance of the film, but the populist in me simply doesn’t buy it. Symbolism, visual density, ambition, and ambiguity are good things, and they’re all evident in this film, but it’s possible to go overboard and you need something more than just those things. I feel like something is definitely missing. Maybe after repeated viewings, I won’t feel that way. There are a lot of visuals to parse in the film, moreso than in others, but I’m not sure that will be enough.

This is Aronofsky’s third feature film and even though I don’t think The Fountain is as much of a success as his first two films, my opinion of him hasn’t changed much. I’m still looking forward to whatever he makes next, and I’m confident that it will be worth seeing. If I were to consider it a strike, it would be a foul ball – one that narrowly missed the pole in left field too (so close that I had trouble seeing it at first). He definitely made solid contact, but something was just a little off. Otherwise, it would have been out of the park. (**1/2)

Animation Marathon: Watership Down

2 Comments / Movies / Mark / November 26, 2006

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Filmspotting (a great movie themed podcast) was going to do an Animation Marathon where they viewed six important animation films that they have not yet seen (see my original post for the full list of movies and my initial thoughts). (I meant to post this around the same time Filmspotting posted their review (the review doesn’t start until about 1 hour into that episode), but the holiday complicated matters a bit, so this is actually a few days after their review.)

The first film in the marathon was Watership Down, an adaptation of the novel by Richard Adams. With a glance at the plot summary, this looks to be a little like a typical Disney animated feature. It’s the cute & cuddly bunnies who play the protagonists that gave me that feeling, but it didn’t take long for the film to eschew normal Disney traditions. Indeed, it starts by recounting the rabbits’ mythology, which is unconventional not only because of it’s animation style, but also because of its rather violent nature. The mythology tells the story of how the rabbits came to be and how they came to be hunted, and it concludes with this memorable quote:

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and when ever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you: digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

This prologue actually captures the feel of mythology while still relating it to rabbits, which is an interesting feat. By the end of the film, it’s pretty clear that it isn’t meant for young children (though there is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about that).

As I already mentioned, the story follows a band of rabbits. At the start of the story, a bunny has a rather disturbing vision of the future (which basically shows humans developing the land thus killing many rabbits), so a bunch of bunnies resolve to avoid that fate and set off on a quest to build a new warren. But the world is a dangerous place, and they encounter many challenges along the way. It sounds pretty simple, but it ends up being somewhat complex. There are obvious correllations between the rabbits and human beings, and some vague social/political themes can be seen in the story (especially with respect to fascism). The other major theme seems to be dealing with death (both avoiding it and accepting it).

The thing that was really shocking, though, was the violence. It’s hard to describe, because we’re so used to the typical Disney way, where violence is only really hinted at or dealt with tangentially. Watership Down faces the violence of the animal kingdom head on and it doesn’t flinch. It gets vicious and bloody, which is certainly something you don’t normally see in animated films featuring fluffy bunnies and which can be a little unsettling if you’re not prepared for it.

Not your typical Disney movie

The animation is a bit simplistic, but well done and better than most animation I’ve seen from the era (which is probably not that much, but still). The voices are comprised of mostly British actors, and they do a well enough job (though, as they mentioned on Filmspotting, there is something a bit odd about it). All in all, they do a good job visually, though it’s nothing truly breathtaking.

There are many people who seem to be profoundly affected by this movie. Personally, I don’t think it reached that level. While I did enjoy it and I could recognize it’s many admirable traits, I wasn’t tremendously moved by the story either. In the end, I think it actually kicks off the marathon on a good note, as it has a style all its own (i.e. not like Disney and not quite like Anime either). The next film in the marathon will be Grave of the Fireflies, a 1988 Anime film. I’m going to try to watch that in the next few days and get my review up by Wednesday.

I’ve actually seen quite a few movies recently that I’d like to post about, including the new Bond flick (which was great) and Darren Aronofsky’s much-anticipated The Fountain (which was a visually stunning and intriguing… failure? My thoughts are mixed.) Look for at least one other post this week in addition to the animation review and the regular Sunday entry. [a hat tip must go to Catherine, as I lifted the above screenshots from her post]

Link Dump

2 Comments / Computers & Internet, Movies, Science & Technology / Mark / November 19, 2006

Time is short this week, so a few quick links:

The 1,000 Greatest Films: Aggregated from 1,193 individual critics’ and filmmakers’ top-ten lists. They’ve got all sorts of different ways to look at the numbers, including a way to keep track of which ones you have seen. As you might expect, the list is diverse and somewhat contentious, with lots of foriegn films and some very questionable choices. There are tons of films I’ve never even heard of. The list is somewhat skewed towards older films, as they use some older lists (some of the lists used are as old as 1952), but then, that’s still to be expected. Older films tend to get credit for their importance, and not as much because of their entertainment value today (I’m horribly understating this issue, which could probably use a blog entry of its own). As an aside, the list sometimes reads like the Criterion Collection catalog, which is pretty funny. I used the listkeeper site (which is pretty neat and might help make these type of memes a little easier to deal with), and I’ve apparently seen somewhere around 16% of the list. Given the breadth of the films covered in the list, I think that’s pretty impressive (though I’ll probably never get past 30%).
Shuttle Launch Seen From ISS: Photos of a Space Shuttle launch as seen from the International Space Station. Neato.
A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates: Ok, so this is a book comprised solely of a bunch of random numbers, and that’s it. Nothing funny or entertaining there, except the Amazon reviewers are having a field day with it. My favorite review:

The book is a promising reference concept, but the execution is somewhat sloppy. Whatever algorithm they used was not fully tested. The bulk of each page seems random enough. However at the lower left and lower right of alternate pages, the number is found to increment directly.

Ahhh, geek humor. [via Schneier]
BuzzFeed: A new aggregator that features “movies, music, fashion, ideas, technology, and culture” that are generating buzz (in the form of news stories and blog posts, etc…). It’s an interesting idea as it’s not really a breaking news site, but it seems to have it’s finger on the pulse of what folks are talking about (on the homepage now are sections on the Wii, PS3, Borat, and (of course Snoop Dogg’s new line of pet clothing). It’s not like Digg or Reddit, and thus it doesn’t suffer from a lot of their issues (unless they branch out into politics and religion). I’m sure some people will try to game the system, but it seems inherently more secure against such abuse.

That’s all for now.

Update: This Lists of Bests website is neat. It remembers what movies you’ve seen, and applies them to other lists. For example, without even going through the AFI top 100, I know that I’ve seen at least 41% of the list (because of all the stuff I noted when going through the top 1000). You can also compare yourself with other people on the site, and invite others to do so as well. Cool stuff.

Stupid T-Shirt

Computers & Internet, Movies / Mark / November 12, 2006

How awesome is the internet? A little while ago, I was watching David Fincher’s far-fetched but entertaining thriller, The Game. If you haven’t seen the film, there are spoilers ahead.

At the end of the movie, some pretty unlikely things happen, but it’s a lot of fun, and I think most audiences let it slide. One of the funny moments at the end is when a character gives Michael Douglas’ character a t-shirt which describes his experiences. After watching the movie, I thought it would make a pretty funny t-shirt… but I couldn’t remember exactly what the shirt said. Naturally, I turned to the internet. Not only was I able to figure out what it said (from multiple sites), I also found a site that actually sells the shirt.

They’ve even got a screenshot from the movie. Alas, it’s a bit pricey for such a simplistic shirt. Still, the idea that such a shirt would be anything more than some custom thing a film nerd whipped up is pretty funny. I mean, how many people would even get the reference?