Down On Up
The Oscar nominations are set to be announced early tomorrow morning in Los Angeles, and a steady stream of Oscar talk has pegged Pixar’s Up to be one of the ten films nominated for Best Picture. This is disheartening for several reasons.
First and foremost is the fact that Up is an animated film. The category Best Feature Length Animated Film was created following the confusion over Beauty and the Beast in order to prevent live action films from competing against the more manufactured charms of animated films. While I don’t necessarily agree with this in years when there was a truly special animated film – Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, for instance – this year’s crop of animated films is of a distinctly second-tier quality. Only Coraline really seemed especially worthy of such consideration. Still, why have that category only to nominate an animated film for Best Picture anyway?
But the Best Picture talk for Up bugs me even more because it simply is not worthy of consideration. Most positive reviews (including mine) mentioned the truly beautiful and wordless montage at the outset that tracked the lifelong love of Carl and Ellie. This sequence is easily among Pixar’s finest work, mixing complex emotions with a truly magnificent series of images. But twenty minutes does not a Best Picture make. Those who were blown away by the opening sequences found themselves an hour later staring at talking dogs flying airplanes. And awkward, annoying birds as comic relief. And an old man performing gravity-defying aerial gymnastics. Cartoons are not supposed to be real, of course, but they should have some sort of internal logic.
The entire last section of the film completely dumps on the idea of internal logic, something Pixar usually screws down tightly. Where did the bad guy Muntz come up with all of this technology while living in a cave in some remote jungle? Who built miniature planes for his pooches, or any of the other devices used throughout the climax? If he had that kind of technology, why was he having such a hard time finding a few stupid (and very loud) birds in the jungle? Again, I realize these are quibbles, but these are also elements that Pixar has mastered in the past.
Even worse are the unappealing characters placed at the forefront of this film. Carl is crabby and mean-spirited. Russell is an overweight and insecure kid who constantly yammers throughout the film. The bird is incredibly annoying, sounding unpleasantly like the feathered lizard creature from Revenge of the Sith. Dug the dog had some funny moments, but much of his character is just a blank representation of a dog’s mind. The other evil dogs have more personality, but their “arc” is fairly silly. Muntz has very little plausible motivation, and makes an unrealistic turn into pure, unadulterated evil near the climax. These are serious problems in character development, a disappointing first for Pixar, a studio that once carefully crafted their screenplays.
Yes, there are moments of visual wonder in Up on par with anything else seen in theaters this year. My personal favorite is the launching of the balloon house, the light scattering wild color all over the ghetto in which Carl lives. But these brief flashes of Pixar’s imaginative style cannot disguise the limp plot, terrible character development, and general silliness. Upcannot even compete against Pixar’s own catalogue, where it might rank just ahead of only Cars and A Bug’s Life in quality. It certainly should not be considered one of the finest achievements in all of film in 2009 despite the weakness of the competition.
More than anything, including Up in a list of ten Best Picture nominees means that another, more worthy film might be excluded. This is especially true in a weak year like 2009, when films are struggling to be noticed in the fray. I would be disheartened to see Up nominated while worthy films like District 9, Antichrist, The Watchmen, or Moon remain overlooked for consideration.
Hopefully the Academy realizes what a mistake it would be to nominate a film like Up simply based off of fleeting and manipulative feelings of poignancy. The purpose of voting for a Best Picture is to distill the finest composite example of craftsmanship. Up simply does not achieve such rarefied air.
21 Comments
Fair enough, you don’t like Up and don’t think it’s worthy. Whilst I don’t agree with many of your points, you at least back them up. However, “First and foremost is the fact that Up is an animated film.” is possibly one of the most pig-headedly retarded things I have ever read on this site (and that’s saying a lot). “Manufactured charms”? I cannot even begin to comment on how ridiculous such a claim is. Pixar are producing films with more genuine humanity, with more expression, with more love, and with far more storytelling-competence than anyone else, live action or not. The fact of the matter is that everything Pixar has made since 1995 (Cars being the obvious exception) has been best picture worthy, with Wall-E in particular far surpassing anything that was released in 2008. And you wanna talk about movies riding on the coattails of their opening 20 minutes? What does District 9 have to offer once it abandons it’s mockumentary style? Just another unoriginal, derivative buddy flick with obvious and uninspired apartheid undertones. If Up cannot find a place in this years line up, and dreck like Precious can, it will be an utter travesty.
@ Francis – I said that about UP being animated simply because there is a category specifically for animated films. As I said in the article, I am AGAINST segregating animated films from live action films. But the Academy has taken steps to do that, so UP should not be in contention in the live action Best Picture race. Get it? Try reading with comprehension next time.
I used the phrase “manufactured charms” to describe animated films in general because, unlike live action films, you do not need to “capture lightning in a bottle.” Animated films are hand-crafted, and are therefore “manufactured” to look and feel a certain way. You can do some of that in live action, but not nearly with the precision that you can in animation.
Nice job jumping to conclusions without reading or thinking beforehand.
Ray’s back and just as full of venom as ever.
I actually agree with Ray 100% on this. Up, while yes it is a good film, is not one of the 10 best movies that came out this year. Matter of fact when I was trying to think of the 10 best movies I saw this year it never even crossed my mind. I had even forgot about the film, and I own it on DVD. It’s just not that great of a movie compared to the rest of pixar’s library, minus Cars of course. He’s also right about the academy having a separate award for animated films. If there is an animated film up for best picture, why even have an animated film category since logically the one nominated for best picture should win by default.
@Francis – Calling District 9 a generic buddy flick is a little harsh don’t you think? Last I checked buddy flicks didn’t generally involve soldier’s getting blown into chunks by lightning cannons. Not saying D9 is best picture or anything, matter of fact I don’t think it should be nominated either, just pointing out that your view of the movie as a generic buddy flick might be a bit off base.
I think Moon was the best film of the year myself, but it has no shot to even be nominated I believe.
The Academy have the animated film category simply because they lack the balls to compare live action with animation, but they still want to acknowledge these films. There are no rules saying that animation can’t be in BP, so why should the existence of the lesser category prevent a worthy film slipping in? The whole reason they opened BP up to 10 is to allow genre fare.
How naive of you to think that live action films require lightning to be captured in a bottle. Look at David Fincher, for example. A perfectionist to the Nth degree, every single one of his films are manipulated to clinical perfection, last year’s Ben Button in particular. Film is a very manufactured medium, and an awful performance can be saved by crafty editing. The lines between animation and live action are so undestinct these days (would you nominate Avatar in the animation category?) as to completely negate the existence of the animated film category, as well as your narrow-minded views.
@ Francis – They lack the balls to nominate an animated film for Best Picture?? Have you completely forgotten BEAUTY AND THE BEAST??
Sure they want to allow genre fare. But not necessarily animation, since almost all animated films appeal to small kids, which are not their target demographic. They want ten films so that films popular with mainstream audiences can be included, raising more interest in the awards. It’s the same formula as Lady Gaga’s inclusion in the Grammy ceremony and in the nominations vastly increased viewership. The guys running these awards want mainstream audiences interested in the award show … simple as that.
Beauty and the Beast was nominated almost 20 years ago. Where are the nominations for The Lion King, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, Toy Story? Where were the noms for almost all of Disney’s pre-1980 output? Lots of snubs. Beauty and the Beast was a fluke, it’s also one of Disney’s most cinematic and mature pieces. Doesn’t excuse the exclusion of everything else.
Animation appeals to small kids, but to apply that to the work of Pixar, whether you like the product or not, is intensely naive. Their work has consistently been critically and commercially loved by all ages, and anyone with at least a working understanding of film can watch those flicks and see how rich and nuanced their work is. Family animation is simply the realm they work in – that should not interfere with objectively seeing these things as intensely well thought out and well told stories. A good story is a good story, regardless, and Pixar aren’t only making the best animated films these days, they’re making the best films period. You are right, the Academy do have their commerical interests at heart in the expansion of the category, but if that means that there is less generic prejudice, and that fantastic genre pieces are included alongside the standard Oscar staples, then more power to them. They’ve picked a shitty year to do it, I’d have a hard time to even find 5 worth films this year.
@ Francis – Of the animated films you mention, I think only TOY STORY was really robbed by not being considered in the time before there was an Animated Feature category in 2001. TOY STORY should have been considered for Best Picture because it had a perfect screenplay, and was a tremendous technical achievement. THE LION KING is a fine movie, but I don’t think it’s a better film than FORREST GUMP or PULP FICTION or SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION of the same year.
But again, I will attempt to get this point through your thick skull: I completely agree that animated films should be allowed to compete with live action films. In fact, I wrote something in support of this last year in reference to WALL-E:
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/specials/editorial-let-walle-compete-with-live-action-films.php
I think WALL-E is a better film than UP, and I would’ve liked to see it compete last year. Of course, that didn’t happen because it fell into the Best Animated Feature category.
Which is why I wrote this article. UP has been appearing on people’s predictions for Best Picture, which I think is unfair because (a) UP is inferior to other Pixar films that did not get nominated, and (b) there are better films that deserve recognition over UP.
Hopefully you finally understand the points I’m making here. I feel like I’ve had to rewrite the same damned article three times to get you to understand it properly.
I understand your point, you just don’t really have one. Sure, Up may not be Pixar’s best film. So it shouldn’t be nominated because a better film wasn’t nominated in a previous year? By that logic, the only time Pixar will ever be nominated is if they top Toy Story, and that’s only because Toy Story was snubbed 15 years ago. By that same logic, I find it ridiculous that Slumdog Millionaire won last year, because Citizen Kane is clearly the superior film. It’s just unfair on Welles.
I’d be interested to hear of 10 films this year as well directed, acted, visualised, and written as Up.
Yeah, Francis, I do have a point: UP is not one of the ten best films of the year. But if it were, then I’d love to see it nominated for Best Picture.
Here is what my list of top 10 films would approximately look like:
http://sammyray.com/967/if-i-had-a-vote/
I agree that Up should not be a contender for best picture….
not only is it an animated movie(as opposed to live action) it’s also not really that worthy of best picture. its a great story, its visuals are great, sure…but not all round best picture worthy…
the day an animated movie wins best picture is the beginning of the end for live action actors. i mean, do you know what that’s saying? that the academy/voters think that the better film is from cgi characters and virtual situations. granted, there’s more possible to do with a cgi canvas than a live action one but..
anyways, as good as Up was, it sure as hell was not as good as last year’s “Wall-E” or any of the Toy Storys or other films. ratatouille was a better film i thought.
oh and ray i noticed on your list of BEST PICTURE contenders..you had THE HANGOVER on at 10. all i have to ask is-why? when you’re complaining about a movie like UP being a best picture contender and having THE HANGOVER in its place on your list, then it makes you look retarted.
good day
The day an animated film wins Best Picture is the beginning of the end for live action actors? So by that logic, Avatar’s recent Golden Globes success spells disaster for humans. As does Benjamin Button’s nom. A large amount of Return of the King is animated, I guess we’re all fucked.
I concur with Francis. To say that the success of an animated film is somehow the death knell of cinema throws up all number of difficulties. Firstly it demonstrates a prejudice against an animated film simply due to it’s very nature of not being live action. What would happen if an animated film went up against the likes of Battlefield Earth? Would it still be deemeed inferior? The amount of skill and planning that goes into producing an animated picture far exceeds that of live action, so how exactly would Up’s win be unfair? Consider some of the pictures that HAVE won the oscars. Crash, Chicago? Mediocre films that had no effect on the industry, so why apply a different rule for animation?
As far as I’m aware, Walt Disney (y’know, the animation guy?) stills holds the record for most Oscar wins and that certainly hasn’t put an end to live action features. The point is that the moment a person starts questioning the degree of reality in films regarding animation versus live action, one is ultimately arguing a paradoxical case about which fabrication is more real; after all, all art is false. Simply because one appeals to children doesn’t register it as anything less of a viable art form. Disagreeing with the nomination of Up based on it’s quality is one thing, but discriminating against it based upon the medium is downright childish.
Who on Earth ever suggested that animated films are the death knell of cinema. Find me a quote that even comes close to suggesting that.
@ alk – I put The Hangover in there because I thought it was solidly acted and written. It had a clever premise. It also made a ton of cash, demonstrating that a vast audience loved the film.
I realize that there is a natural prejudice against awarding comedies – they’re funny, so they can’t possibly be considered “worthy” of such an award. But that kind of thinking is narrow-minded. The Hangover is the best comedy of 2009; it succeeds in its genre as well as any other film in their respective genres. Why couldn’t it be considered?
I think The Hangover is a better film than The Blind Side, and it was nominated. I think The Hangover does a better job as a film than Avatar, and it’s in there. The Hangover is much better than Invictus, but that got nominated.
Someone please give me a decent argument against The Hangover.
@Ray – Just because theirs a division named Best Animated Film doesn’t mean a film which is animated can’t, or shouldn’t, be one of the “best” pictures. Even the title of this category is BEST PICTURE, this means if it’s a film, it can, and should if worthy enough, get nominated.
@ Russell – Then what is the point of having a Best Animated Feature category??? Just let them compete with live action.
Besides, Up is not a film that is worthy anyway.
It exists so that a film can be acknowledged as being the best achievement in the animated medium of that year. The best animated film of the year might not match the best live-action film of the year in quality. Sometimes it might. It’s to give them a chance to be recognized.
I still think it’s fucking retarded, what with the quality of animation these days, but whatever.
Great thread this. I’m enjoying people debating over what has and will always be a ridiculous barometer for judging films. Past winners such as DANCES WITH WOLVES (the AVATAR script template) beating GOODFELLAS; FORREST GUMP beating PULP FICTION; SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE beating SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; CRASH beating BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN – are just a few examples of the conservative nature and poor decision making of the Academy members. BEAUTIFUL MIND and CHICAGO are also examples of why they can never be taken seriously.
The Academy Awards are just one big marketing party! The thread debates UP’s inclusion in the Best Picture category but the most ridiculous nomination must be for AVATAR – technological achievements aside – as best film. Truly plagiarised story with zero characterisation. Cameron is an amazing director who literally lost the plot with AVATAR’s screenplay.
There are some very fine and entertaining films among the – 10 is too many btw – nominees including THE HURT LOCKER, UP, DISTRICT 9, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS but have to agree 2009 is not a great year for real heavyweight filmmaking.
There’s obviously media hyperbole in pitting an ex-wife/husband Kathryn Bigelow against James Cameron – but I hope THE HURT LOCKER gets best picture, direction and best actor nods. It was an all-round fantastically shot and constructed film with real tension, emotion and narrative purpose.
Using the logic that you can’t nominate an animated feature for BP because it already has a category is flawed. If that is the case then ‘A Beautiful Life’ should not have been nominated because it already had a category ‘best foreign film’. Just my two-cents
wow Francis, I didn’t realize they allow 7th graders to post here. how else can you explain your inappropriate use of the word retarded?
Watched UP again on DVD at the weekend and on 2nd reading found Ray’s script/story deconstruction an excellent assessment.
Muntz was, as Ray rightly points out, not as convincing a villain as other Pixar bad-guys. The internal ‘rules of the world’ were not clearly established where Muntz was concerned; so I can see how flying and talking dogs seemed pretty far-fetched.
I disagree that all the characters were unappealing though. I found Carl’s and Russell’s respective motivations and arcs engaging from the start and very believable. Dug and ‘Kevin’ were simpler characters, but both were hilarious in supporting roles.
Having said that though: for sheer entertainment, humour, drama, and emotion UP is one of the best films of 2010. So many beautiful, touching scenes and laugh-out-loud moments! Is it an Oscar-worthy film? Who cares!
As a parent I am so grateful to PIXAR for creating a whole host of quality movies – of which UP is another – that work for the youth and adult audiences. I have seen many animated features and ‘kids’ movies over the last 5 years and there has been some dreadful turkeys.
By-the by – I watched FANTASTIC 4: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER by mistake on Channel 4 yesterday and THAT screenplay must have been written on the back of a matchbox in crayon; it was so poor!