It always used to set my teeth on edge when a Disney muckymuck would tell us: "Guys, we're doing movies for kids. We're babysitters."
I don't think animated features started out being "for kids." That's just the way it ended up. But I don't ascribe to the notion that the current crop of animated pics are tools for baby-sitting, so I have mixed emotions regarding the Independent's details about new animated features for parents:
Sex and surrealism: The next wave of adult animation
'Howl': Opening Sundance earlier this year, Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman's film about the obscenity trial surrounding Allen Ginsberg's infamous 1956 poem "Howl" blends live action with remarkable animation.
'The Rabbi's Cat': First published in 2003, Joann Sfar's whimsical 1930s Algeria-set comic book series about a rabbi and his talking cat (which eats a parrot and insists on studying the Kabbalah) has sold 700,000 copies in France alone ... Sfar is now leading a 100-strong animation team adapting his script for the big screen.
'Heavy Metal': ...[T]he cult sci-fi/fantasy magazine defined by its dark blend of violence and erotica has already spawned two animated portmanteau films – the much-lauded 1981 original and the widely trashed 2000 sequel. ... David Fincher is trying to get a third off the ground – with such heavyweights as Avatar 's James Cameron and Watchmen 's Zack Synder all set to direct segments, in 3-D ...
'The Goon': Another Fincher project ... set to be animated at Blur Studios, The Goon is based on the paranormal Dark Horse comic-book series by Eric Powell.
'Mary and Max': ... [A]n eight-year-old girl with an alcoholic mother and an obese 44-year-old prone to anxiety attacks become pen pals ...
Frankly, I think "Adult Animated Features" is a phony construct. Up a kids movie? How To Train Your Dragon or Toy Story 3 features for the elementary school set? 2010's mainstream animation is designed for the audiences that live-action releases from the major film studios were once made for: Everybody.
Animated features that fall into the "baby-sitting device" category are the Disney Toons product. There's no need for the Independent to smear the rest.
Posts
11 comments:
Frankly, I think "Adult Animated Features" is a phony construct. Up a kids movie? How To Train Your Dragon or Toy Story 3 features for the elementary school set? 2010's mainstream animation is designed for the audiences that live-action releases from the major film studios were once made for: Everybody.
Exactly: Among some animators and MOSTLY fanboys, there's this love affair with the idea that some new reincarnation of Ralph Bakshi will rise up like the slumbering King Arthur and deliver another Fritz the Cat to show all us complacent folk What Adult Animation Looks Like. (Even though they freely admit that the real one did come back in '92, and "Cool World" looked like a dyspeptic brontosaurus.)
They're in love with the IDEA that Something Different Will Happen, but they don't seem to know how much of the original was a product of its time: It was easy to make Disney a paper target thirty-five years ago, since they were a feature monopoly at the time, and still stuck in Ron Miller's Critter mode for us all to shake our heads at.
To fight the battles of 1975, you have to dig up the enemies of 1975, and they're just not there: Disney is no longer a feature monopoly, grown adults are trying to give Oscars to Pixar hits, commercialized Saturday-morning no longer exists to be an adjective, there are no freelance Bakshis or Richard Williams working between the indies and the studios, and anyone who wants blood 'n boobs can find any degree of it in Japanese anime any time they like.
It's like frustrated activists during peacetime, who miss having a dedicated "underground" to unite their sense of cause now that they'd already won.
Which is why, from the article, our concept of "Adult animation" (meaning cool underground stuff, since Pixar clearly isn't) now consists of one animation-embellished documentary, one indie, one feature-extended Oscar short, one cult-comic by a slumming "big" director, and...the same slumming big-director who wishes Heavy Metal would come back from 1981.
That's one of the most perceptive comments I've ever read on this blog. You described the situation quite well in this line and the rest of your post --
"Exactly: Among some animators and MOSTLY
fanboys, there's this love affair with the idea that some new reincarnation of Ralph Bakshi will rise up..."
"They're in love with the IDEA that Something Different Will Happen .... To fight the battles of 1975, you have to dig up the enemies of 1975, and they're just not there"
Yes, stuck in the mentality from that dear, departed era from the mid-70's to the late 80's .
Boys, something different has happened : animation is mainstream. Who'd you rather have : a "niche" audience , whether it's little kids or big kids ( i.e. 16 - 22 year old males) OR appeal to a "General Audience" (i.e everyone)
Steve, you're always harping that animation is a form not a genre. Well live action has kid/family friendly movies (Karate Kid) and movies not so kid/family friendly (Hurt Locker) so why not animation? Personally I would like to see more animated films like Persepolis which I don't think you would label as a kid's film.
Problem with most so-called "adlut" animation is they're juvenile. Just look at 99% of all those horrible Japanese cartoons, or almost all of Bakshi's output (save American Pop).
And while David Fincher might be able to deal with adult issues in film, neither James Cameron or Zack Snyder have ever shown an ability to make a film for kids over the age of 11.
Steve, you're always harping that animation is a form not a genre. Well live action has kid/family friendly movies (Karate Kid) and movies not so kid/family friendly (Hurt Locker) so why not animation?
My point is that animation, even "mainstream" animation, DOES tackle adult themes. William Goldman (the screenwriter) pointed out years ago that Bambi tackles death, the loss of a parent, (etc) in a far more adult way than a lot of live action films. But tiny-brained critics continue to prattle on about the feature being "for kids" because it has cute rabbits in it.
Having said that, you're right about there being room for other types of animation, and it's being made.
My gripe is that when it comes to animation, critics are quick to label something a "kiddie film" that isn't a kiddie film at at all.
I strongly disagree with the definition of adult animation as, "cool underground stuff."
I would say it is any film aimed at an adult sensibility that has elements that lend themselves to a graphic interpretation. "Triplets of Bellville" was a great example. There was no attempt to be comic book hip or underground, just adult and freely graphic. It wouldn't even occur to American producers to make a film like that.
They recently showed "Max and Mary" on cable. It was clever, surprising, whimsical in a sophisticated quirky and adult way and very satisfying. It was made in Australia. What it was not was "blockbuster" material, so it would never have been made in the U.S.
I'm with Mike - Some of us like to explore "R" rated content with animation, withbout it having to be fanboyish idolation of Bakshi.
That mentality of what adult themed animation can be is as narrowminded as pigeonholing Pixar and Dreamworks as just kiddie fair.
Terry Gilliam and Bill Plympton and Nina Paley, plus Perosopolis and Waltz with Bashir have started scratching the surface of what themes can be explored with animation, without having to worry about appeasing the mainstream audience.
Some of us prefer niche audiences, the trick is making something profitable so we can get more funding.
But tiny-brained critics continue to prattle on about the feature being "for kids" because it has cute rabbits in it.
And while we're busting the cliche's that we use as an auto-reflex, Lion King aside, just what "G-rated Disney kiddie feature" HAS had "cute bunnies", or any abundance of talking animals in it at all, for the last, oh....THIRTY YEARS since "Fox & the Hound"? (I was going to say the thirty-five years since "Robin Hood", but you get the point.)
Which shows you just how much Ron Miller has traumatized a generation into intolerance and stereotype: Okay, I know there are the older folks who remember him (sorry, Floyd), and I'm not dissing him personally--But twenty years of 100 Ways To Remake Jungle Book, and resurrecting 40's movies (like, say, Bambi) created a paper target in the public subconscious for the uninformed to take potshots long after it was buried...I'm just saying it's time to update our psychological memos.
(You'd think we get a nice old-fashioned "All Disney makes are mermaids and princesses!" once in a while, just to switch cliche's.)
People who complain about Disney films being full of "bunnies and butterflies" seem to be complaining more about their own childhoods than about a studio, and haven't taken a recent look at either in many a decade.
It's fun to listen to people bring up old whines from the Nixon era, but sad to listen to those who still believe them.
I don't disagree, and I'm ready to move forward. But, I wonder if Disney is?
Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon were family films. Suitable for people of all ages. There aren't too many animated films that could be considered "adult", or only appropriate for adults. I wonder if there is a market at all for adult animated films. Why watch animated blood and sex when live action blood and sex is so much cooler?
@Justin,
So, that's your definition of adult material? Whatever kids are not allowed to see? Adult doesn't necessarily mean, "adults only." It also could mean sophisticated conceptual themes. Psychologically and emotionally complex characters, parody, symbolism and yes, occasionally sex and violence when appropriate.
Just as adults create more traditional forms of fine art, they can create animation on the same level, and if it's good, and interesting, people will want to see it.
Post a Comment