I like Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere as a writer. He is opinionated, passionate, and well-informed about the horrible machinery running beneath the dream factories of Hollywood. His blog, which has, of late, been pre-occupied with politics and the horrors of bare feet, remains one of the most intelligent places for rational thought on film.
And then he goes and writes something like this.
In response to an article posted by the Vulture guys at New York Magazine, Wells flails vainly on his keyboard trying to convince everyone within his reach that WALL*E does not deserve to be considered in the Oscar race with live action films. Wells’ opinion, unfortunately shared by many of those of his generation, is that films like WALL*E – though good or even (gasp!) great – are different from live action and should therefore be considered separately. The debate has been around seemingly forever, but in the last few years Pixar has really upped the ante on this type of movie and have managed to make a solid case for the inclusion of animated films.
The entire debate balances on one important fulcrum: What is considered “film?” To someone like Wells, film involves pointing a camera and real humans and recording live events which, after editing, create the illusion of an alternate reality onscreen. In fact, he says almost exactly that:
There is an enormous high and an unfettered dignity that comes from simply aiming a camera at real people and real locations and making it all sing.
Of course, as GEORGE LUCAS pointed out the week prior to the release of each one of the STAR WARS prequels, film itself is an illusion. He made this argument time and again because his prequels, like a vast majority of today’s biggest live action films, contain copious amounts of computer generated trickery. Even though he often bragged about the 2,000 special effects shots in those films, he didn’t want his cartoony films being considered animated – to avoid, of course, the prejudices of the Hollywood old guard like Wells.
The hypocritical aspect of this entire notion is that the very same old guard that deny animated films their due heap unfettered praise on films like the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy – even bestowing a Best Picture Oscar on RETURN OF THE KING – despite the fact that those and many other so-called “live action” films are largely CGI. No, Jeffrey, Frodo and Sam were not making out on location at Mount Doom … it was filmed on a soundstage and the rest of it was added in digitally. What makes the achievement appreciably different from anything created in animation?
Anyone who has ever watched animators at their workstations knows that a tremendous amount of acting is being done by the animator beyond what is seen on the cel or in the pixels. They are there, posing in mirrors, trying to capture emotions and moods that they can translate into penciled movement. Their performance isn’t as instantaneously captured as true live action, but it is performance nonetheless.
In his story Wells tries to dance a fine line about the art created by these artisans, insulting their work while simultaneously claiming that “it’s not diminishing if (films like WALL*E) take the Best Animated Feature Oscar.” However, it is diminishing if lesser films win the Best Feature Oscar while some near-perfect Pixar films are overlooked. For instance, MILLION DOLLAR BABY won Best Picture in 2004, while racing against limp nominees like FINDING NEVERLAND and THE AVIATOR. Meanwhile, the superior THE INCREDIBLES - certainly better than the sappy, prestige-baiting films nominated – festered in the Animated Feature ghetto. This was a repeat of the previous year’s injustices, when garbage like SEABISCUIT and MASTER AND COMMANDER vied for the Best Picture Oscar, while the far superior FINDING NEMO went unnoticed.
Ultimately, one must ask themselves – is a film “great” because of the techniques used, or rather because it tells a sound and involving story? Do we want to separate and judge films based on their pixel-per-minute count, or because they create believable worlds, sympathetic characters, and imaginative plots? I, for one, would prefer every film to be more like WALL*E and less like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. I would even prefer it to so-called prestige films like the overrated SWEENEY TODD or unstructured, over-the-top misses like THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
The sad truth is that, more than all of the other studios currently producing English-speaking films, Pixar grasps the fundamentals of direction, story, character, and shot composition. In other words, the truly important basics of film. Their movies appeal to a broad audience – not just kids – who crave the opportunity to be whisked away by clever plots and amazing visual palettes. In my mind, some of the best examples of story structure, design, character development, and direction have come from Pixar films. It doesn’t matter that they’re animated, nor should that fact hinder their recognition as some of the finest achievements in FILM. Not animated film … just film.
Give Pixar its due. Perhaps it will cause the rest of Hollywood to step up their lazy, unfocused game.
7 Comments
I agree with the principle behind your editorial Ray: the best film category shouldn’t be exclusive. But the danger of allowing an animation compete in the same category is that it would make official the assumption which you seem to hold (and I don’t share) that the animation oscar is of lesser value. To call it “the animated feature ghetto” is just plain wrong.
I say just merge the two categories entirely, abolish the animated feature oscar, and just let the best films fight it out. You can’t put animation in a separate category because it’s different, what about rotoscoped films like A Scanner Darkly, or simply the difference between a massive budget Hollywood behemoth and a small independent production with minimal crew? The means of production aren’t divided there, so why single out animation at all?
Michael, how can you disagree with me calling it “Best Animated Feature ghetto”?
The category was created in the first place because many great films were being overlooked simply because they were animated. Hence, the very fact that the category was created implies a prejudice existed prior to the creation of the category.
I use the term ghetto to draw a comparison between the treatment of animated films and the treatment of African Americans in America. Both segments have been segregated and discriminated against due to their minority status and different appearance. However, neither class deserves such discrimination.
Again, if the Academy didn’t distinguish between animated and live action, then there would have been no pressing need for a separate category. In my mind, they created it for two reasons: (1) To give animated films, which have become more prevalent in recent times, a pittance as their due, and (2) To prevent them from competing against live action films, which have largely been inferior to animated features in recent times.
The prejudice against animated films has always existed. For instance, BAMBI probably deserved to be nominated in 1942, rather than films like THE INVADERS. Same goes with SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS in 1939.
We have seen it happen once, with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST in 1992. After that shock, the Academy memeber took steps to separate the films in order to preserve what they felt was an infringement and encroachment on their territory. They simply don’t like the idea that a bunch of artists can sit at their computers and draftboards and create something better than the hacks currently screwing up traditional photographic filmmaking.
Unfortunately for them, Pixar has emerged as the single greatest animation studio in history. They have, with the exception of one or possibly two, created films that can easily compete with any major live action release. These are not silly animated films like MADAGASCAR or KUNG FU PANDA; these are mature, thoughtful films with thorough stories and excellent characters.
They deserve their rightful place.
Just to reiterate, I completely agree that animations deserve their rightful place and should not be separated. My comment was simply that to label the animation category a ghetto was to suggest that the separate category had actually reduced these films to a lesser achievement than their live action counterparts, which just isn’t true. The institutionalised discrimination against the medium that this division implies has NOT reduced the achievement or public reception of the films, all it does is acknowledge that the Academy itself has an intrinsic bias.
That said, my primary gripe came from a misreading of your comment. I understood that you simply meant the films were underprivileged and didn’t have either the acclaim, resources or glamour often associated with live-action movies: which isn’t true. As a comparison for how the Academy treats films – I totally agree.
One final point, whilst Pixar are indeed one of the greatest animation studios to have existed, it is worth reminding everyone that amazing animations are not even limited to what would be largely branded family entertainment. We only have to look as far back as PERSEPOLIS to see an animation that has dealt with big issues with more sensitivity, nuance and, importantly, accessibility than any other movies dealing with the same subject matter.
Anyway, quibbling aside: totally behind the cause Ray!
Sweeney Todd is overrated and WALL•E isn’t?
Johnny Five is not alive, I suppose.
@ Phil – Please, please, please tell me you are not trying to compare SHORT CIRCUIT with WALL*E. One frame of WALL*E communicates more than the entire cast and crew of that eighties disaster ever managed to accomplish with their respective careers.
Yes, SWEENEY TODD is overrated. Please see my review for further clarification.
Cut the “Best Animation Feature” category and just make a “Best Animation” category. In that way both animated and non-animated movies will be able to win both “Best Picture/Feature” and “Best Animation”. How a movie is made shouldn’t be an argument for it to not be considered a “real” movie. Wall-E is without a doubt one of the greatest movies of the year and it would be a disgrace to not let it be able to win both best animation and best feature.
I would love it if Captain B. McCrea and all human Characters were live action. It is a bit uncomfortable having half/ half
One Trackback
[...] Can anyone deny this is the best performance by an actor, the best movie and the best direction we have seen in 2008? There is only Wall-E that could rival it for Best Picture so far, another movie not absent of it’s own contraversary over whether it deserves recognition. [...]