So late last night, standing in line for BRUNO (see my Twitter feed to the right, as of 130pm EDT, for a quick reax), I get a call from my mother asking what “mo-fo” means. Obviously she had listened to Part 1 of my Podcast interview with Craig Lindsey for his Crizzle’s Critical Condition. (This is, BTW, the only interview in recorded history to have someone say both “mo-fo” and “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”)
Thanks a million, Craig… on more counts than one.
UP (Pete Docter, USA, 2009) — 10
I think UP may be the first Disney(-ish) animated feature that actually has more for adults than children. Even at their best in THE INCREDIBLES, the TOY STORY movies, and CARS (shut up, everybody), the Pixar folks have made children’s fantasy movies; though, like the greatest of fantasies and fairy tales, the works are wise beyond their apparent years and appeal to adults too. Obviously, UP is not adults-only stuff like FRITZ THE CAT or HEAVY METAL. But its primary themes are adult matters (or at least issues that adults are likely to have first-hand knowledge of) and its central protagonist is an old man, named Carl Fredricksen. UP’s already most-famous scene is a several-minute wordless montage I hereby dub “Scenes from a Marriage,” which covers nearly Carl’s whole lifetime (for economy, eloquence and relevance in the tiniest details, it deserves comparison with the breakfast montage in CITIZEN KANE). But it concerns such adult matters as losing a child and having one’s youthful dreams, in this case to go to South America, not work out. For one reason and/or another, and not all nefarious or poor excuses.
This is a universal theme: One of my idols as a boy was Muhammad Ali, and I wanted to be heavyweight champion of the world and be as brash and funny as he was. That didn’t happen, for multiple reasons, but it’s fundamentally a realization most of us have in our 30s and 40s.¹ Things work themselves through in UP — it’s about leaving behind even disappointment itself, and accepting your “thrownness” as the grounding for new possibility. But even plugging into the problem in the first place requires an adult sensibility — the sky is not the limit, you can’t do whatever you want, believing in yourself is not enough, etc.
But … and this is the true measure of the Pixar genius here, even this very adult material doesn’t exclude children, one way or another. I’ll give two examples.
First, right at the start we get a newsreel detailing the great feats of explorer Charles Muntz, and it’s clearly a parody of “The March of Time” newsreels of the 30s and 40s, with the melodramatic narrator’s voice, the deliberately clever alliterations like Muntz “conceived the craft for canine comfort,” and tics like having the narrator say word-for-word what Muntz says right afterward. Students of 30s journalism can pat themselves on the back, but the tics Pixar is borrowing are still funny in themselves — indeed, funny because of the very anachronism if you don’t know this was once the normal style in American journalism. Similarly there’s a moment in the newsreel where Muntz unveils an enormous skeleton on a public stage for scientific review. Again, it pays homage to a famous 30s work (KING KONG), but it works on its own terms and eventually undergirds much of the to-do once the protagonists wind up in South America, rather than something just dropped in so the film-makers let us know that they’ve seen the same stuff we have. But more importantly, and unlike in “The March of Time” parody at the start of CITIZEN KANE,² UP cuts away from the newsreel repeatedly to show us the actual concern of the scene — Carl as a little boy watching the newsreel. We see him reciting its lines to himself as he walks home; “Muntz crosses the Grand Canyon,” he says as he leaps over a crack in the sidewalk. A shared love for Muntz brings Carl a new friend and a secret club — this is all prime kid-movie territory, even though it come surrounded by material children won’t “get.”
The other scene I wanna mention as an example of how Pixar gets all the details right, is really just a quick shot; if you blink, you miss it. But that’s kinda why it’s great. Late in the movie, after it’s been established that the villain has a team of trained dogs, Carl, son-figure Russell, and some animals are trying to sneak up and surprise the villain. We get a quick shot of the bad dogs keeping watch that I can’t reproduce, though I assure you it looks very VERY much like the still attached to this paragraph. That image is one of a series of about a dozen oil paintings collectively known as “Dogs Playing Poker” — a masterpiece of early 20th-century commercial American kitsch (they were commissioned for a cigar ad campaign) and immediately recognizable as such. The shot in UP is a funny homage if you recognize it; it’s also funny that, rather than poker chips in the paintings, the canine card-sharks in UP are playing for dog biscuits. But here’s what’s best — the scene in no way depends on your getting the art reference (most kids won’t, in fact), it hardly lasts more than a second, and it’s not emphasized or pushed on you. “Dogs Playing Poker” doesn’t *stop* the movie, in other words. It’s a wink and a nudge to those who get it that doesn’t baffle those who don’t. Pixar has in spades what used to be called “tact” and “touch” — the ability to give a joke the right amount of space and explanation, relative to its importance: in this case, very little. Too often in self-conscious pomo cartoons (think SHREK or some other Dreamworks titles), the humor relies on, or just IS, movie or pop-culture in-jokes.
But wait. Hold on. I’m describing details of UP without mentioning the most important point about it — its fawesomeness. By now, that hardly needs saying about the latest Pixar. I expect UP to be the best commercial American film of the year and hopefully, the expansion of the Best Picture field to 10 films will grab that first Oscar nod for the best American studio now working.³ Every easy characterization pitfall, Pixar manages to avoid — the precocious kid is not the fount of all wisdom, the elderly man isn’t pushed into Grampa Simpson or Clint Eastwood yelling “get off my lawn,” etc. UP is also thrilling and unending fun — the dogs are among the convincing animal personifications thanks to a comic device that both explains how they can talk and sets up two of the best jokes in the movie (one involving a single word, the other involving the variable voices). For Pixar’s first movie that is basically set in a world of humans, it allows speech-personification without turning the dogs into four-legged hairy men. Indeed wonder if the writers were familiar with Jonah Goldberg’s writings about his pet, Cosmo the Wonder Dog (here interviewing the Prime Minister of Pakistan).
¹ I was unusual in knowing at 10 that my dream wasn’t even possible (one reason I kept it to myself even then).
² Admittedly, in a 1941 movie, the audience would be familiar with the thing being parodied and so wouldn’t need an explanation. Pixar folks know their audience isn’t, and does. Indeed, I saw the CITIZEN KANE “News on the March” parody before I saw an actual “Time Marches On” newsreel, as I suspect is the case for most people not drawing Social Security.
³ Really though, Pixar is the only current American studio, in the sense of having a distinct corporate identity and an identifiable product style, like you can meaningfully talk about Universal in the 50s, MGM in the 40s, Warner Brothers in the 30s, etc.).
No … believe it or not, I added a lot of new material over the weekend, though mostly for list queens. I updated my screening log to the current day from early August last year (it’s a lot of tedious work, but it’s easier than it looks if you keep all your theater tickets as I do), put up my new Top 10 for the year, updated my old top 10s to reflect old movies recently seen, posted my last two Skandies ballots … in other words, I’ve updated all the ancillary pages, which are actually more intimidating than a blog itself.
Also … contrary to appearances here, I actually have been writing a LOT of film criticism lately … just on my Twitter feed. I seem to violate the rules of Twitter by having no compunction against writing several Tweets in a row to make a detailed point, and they have to be read in consecutive order (because sentences don’t break conveniently at the 140th character). So my Twitter feed is now a part of the site, available to the right. (WARNING: A lot of my Tweets are dry jokes or sarcasm-bait aimed at the people I follow, and I also Tweet a lot about sports.)
But as an example of what I’ve been doing recently on Twitter, I spent a weekend at DC’s SilverDocs festival, and what follows are based on the Insta-reviews of the films I saw there, spread over several Tweets each. There are a couple of differences here from what’s on my Twitter feed … I didn’t include the “am now standing in last-minute-ticket line for Film X” or “I saw Person Y” Tweets. I also corrected some mistakes and avoided the abbreviations designed to produce a reasonable break near 140 characters.
Also, in several places I elaborate here on points I left implicit or vague there, and everywhere I add a few words about the movie’s premise. (Only once do I actually make a brand-spanking new point.) All adds are noted in italics. Obviously, the event is past, but these are films that could be breakout hits (by doc standards) in the next year or so. The #1 movie on my 2009 Top 10 list to-date, e.g., is a film I saw at SilverDocs 2008. Here is what I saw, after the jump:
OK … my day job is not as glamorous as leading the whole united Korean people in their glorious socialist struggle to crush their imperialist foes and build an eternally shining future of Juche and frustrate the wicked designs … (stop it, Victor … stop it)
But nevertheless, I can still be interviewed as if I were a paid critic, as I was recently by Craig Lindsey of the Raleigh News-Observer for his Uncle Crizzle’s Critical Condition, a regular Podcast feature of his blog. Craig introduces me as “the coolest Republican alive!” and here’s a link to the first part of what become an hour-long discussion (we planned on 30 mins., but when Craig realized we were at 34, I deliberately egged on the conversation, because if you’re gonna cut in two anyway, you may as well have 55 minutes as 35).
Let’s just say I think I have a voice for newspapers.
I recently got the hands on the work of a great critic, destined to ranks among the Kaels, the Kauffmanns, the Sarrises. Only, this man also has a day job (making him perhaps the next Graham Greene). He also is the first major critic to come out of Korea, which makes him even more pertinent since that nation has spawned some of the world’s most interesting directors over the past decade — Kim Ki-duk, Park Chan-wook, Hong Sang-soo, Lee Myung-se, Lee Chang-dong and others. And I’m hoping now to introduce this important new critical voice to the increasingly diverse discourse on international cinema.