What Makes Pixar So Damn Special?

Typically, the story of a crotchety old man moving to South America by attaching thousands of colorful balloons to his chimney wouldn’t equal cinematic gold. However, there is very little about Pixar that people would refer to as typical. And yet, the studio has seen nothing but success.

Mark this summer’s Up as another smash hit for the northern California-based studio. The film is an absolute wonder to behold and holds its place as one of the studio’s best. This makes Pixar’s record 10 for 10. Each of the studio’s films showcase memorable characters, a strong sense of storytelling and oh yeah, breathtaking animation. Toy Story paved the way and the studio has maintained consistent quality through fourteen years.

So what’s the secret? I recently attended a talk with Pixar producer Lindsey Collins (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) at none other than my alma mater, Occidental College. It turns out Ms. Collins is an alum (’94). During her presentation she mentioned that one of the most frequent questions she fields about her work at Pixar is what the company does in order to consistently turn-out quality product.

She went through the Pixar philosophy of placing the film’s story at the forefront of all other production concerns. Collins also mentioned the way in which Pixar does not try to duplicate success by following a cookie cutter formula or business model. While she admitted that this drives some of the business execs at Pixar and Disney a little crazy, I believe this set of priorities is responsible for the company’s unparalleled success.

Pixar represents what movie making SHOULD be about. They focus on plot, not profit. The studio assumes that if they create a film that meets their quality standards, the public will enjoy it as well. Pixar makes movies for themselves and hopes that you’ll come along for the ride. So far they’ve proven that audiences are willing to have them in the driver seat.

Folks, I’ve interned in Hollywood and believe me, plot is not a top priority in the So Cal business model. Getting your ass to fork over $12.00 and watch a movie is. Studio execs care about getting you in there and could care less what you think of the film when it’s over, as long as you’ll give your friend’s a casual thumbs up so that they can get their ass in the theater too.

Hollywood assumes that we moviegoers are stupid. Flashy lights, low cut shirts and endless explosions are a sure fire way into our wallets. I have noticed that the only wide-release animated films that avoid some sort of fart or poop joke are Pixar movies. Scatological humor is a cheap and easy laugh, Pixar doesn’t take that route. Pixar proves that people really want to be engaged, and while traits mentioned above can provide a means of entertainment, nothing makes a connection with audiences like an engaging story with characters they can relate to. Why doesn’t the rest of Hollywood take a lesson from Pixar and focus on what really matters in film?

Pixar’s success proves that audiences are smart and want more than farts and flashing lights. While the animation in their films is continuously at the cutting-edge, it is hardly ever the first thing people talk about when discussing their movies. Conversations pertaining to Pixar films usually involve people talking about how much they loved the story and characters. Woody, Sully, Remy, Wall-E, Mr. Fredricksen, etc. have extended their lives beyond the silver-screen and audiences have developed sentimental attachments to them. Like I’ve said before, technology is a tool, not the sole means to an end.

Collins told an interesting story in regards to the production of Toy Story 2. About nine months before release the studio finished production. However, the directors and creative heads hated the finished product. They took a two week retreat and completely rewrote the film from square one. When they returned, they began the laborious process of reanimating and rerecording the voice overs as both animators and actors had a completely new film to make. While at the time it probably seemed suicidal for the company to attempt such an endeavor, Toy Story 2 currently holds a 100% positive rating on film review website Rotten Tomatoes. Several reviewers even make the bold, but seldom used claim that the sequel was better than the original.The film’s success proves that the creative minds at Pixar know what they are doing and showcases Pixar’s dedication to quality.

I will acknowledge that it is easy to praise Pixar and their philosophy. They have stuck with their principles and they seemingly haven’t made any sacrifices to meet the needs of the almighty dollar. However, they haven’t really had any reason to. How true the company sticks to their ideals in the face of a box-office disaster remains to be seen.

For now, Pixar continues to grow and is even branching out into live-action films. Will this larger, more ambitious Pixar keep with the studio’s traditions? After her talk, Collins convinced me that they will. The studio’s dedication to high quality filmmaking hasn’t wavered and it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Here’s to counting down the days until Toy Story 3.

This Green Day Fan Craved a Little More

If you had told me when I was in high school that Green Day would rival U2 and Coldplay as the biggest band in modern music, I would have made fun of you. Not because I dislike the band. I love them dearly and always have. However, after 1994’s Dookie, their popularity waned with each album they released. By the time I was in middle school and boasting Nimrod and Warning as two of my favorite albums, I faced people without any idea who the band was until I mentioned “Good Riddance” (the actual name of the song everyone refers to as, “Time of Your Life”).

If they did know the group, they would mock them for fading into obscurity or the fact that they had been forced to open for Blink 182 during the 2002 Pop Disaster Tour. American Idiot changed all of that and catapulted the band into unprecedented success, consolidating their place as a permanent household name.

Although the album itself is almost five years old, it wasn’t until March 25, 2009, at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, that Bay Area filmmaker John Roecker released his documentary, Heart Like a Hand Grenade. Roecker’s film showcases the recording, rehearsals and early performances of American Idiot during this pivotal stage in the band’s career.

I originally learned of the film back in 2004, when the album was first released. Roecker had mentioned in interviews that he had some intense footage of the band recording their punk rock opera. According to rumor, Warner Bros. did not want to distribute the film or even release it because it displayed controversial material. The record company was worried that the footage would curb album/ticket sales.

Roecker is mainly known for his odd and off-beat films, namely Live Freaky, Die Freaky, a dark, humourous and bizarre take on the Charles Manson crimes told through stop-motion puppets. Needless to say, as a long time fan, I was quite eager to catch a glimpse of the process that made one of my favorite bands a pop culture sensation.

Heart Like a Hand Grenade opens with an homage to D. A. Pennebaker’s film Don’t Look Back (a documentary on Bob Dylan’s tour of England in 1965). In Pennebaker’s film, Dylan holds up cue cards for the audience with words from the song on them. While staring at the camera, he flips the cards as the song plays. Roecker does the same, but uses all three members of Green Day to cycle through the lyrics for “American Idiot.”

The structure of the documentary centers around the making of the album’s thirteen tracks and more or less sticks to the three R’s of music documentaries: recording, relaxing and rehearsing. The film is comprised of several parts, some of which focus on a single song. In between songs, Roecker gives us tidbits of the band drunkenly stumbling into a pool, telling the president of Capitol Records “he can go fuck himself,” and discussing the origins of the album’s logo: a hand holding a bleeding heart grenade.

Aside from directing, Roecker also shot the film in its entirety. Rumor has it that the film was not entirely his idea. Apparently, the band called the filmmaker before the first day of recording and invited Roecker to come film them.

Aesthetically the film feels very much like cut-together home video. The camera moves from one person to another during conversations and during performances doesn’t stray from traditional music video shooting techniques. Roecker makes the best of his on-the-fly shooting schedule by choosing different angles and zooms of the band and their equipment. Roecker’s editor makes use of the abundance of footage shot for each song and cuts together different parts of the same track with bits of in-studio recording, rehearsals and live performances.

It is the discussion of the logo that offers one of the film’s most interesting moments. The genesis of the logo is derived from the band’s desire to have a symbol or icon to associate with their rock opera.

Record executives suggested using the image of George W. Bush in order make the band’s political commentary even more transparent. The band quickly shot the idea down, stating that they did not want something overtly politicized. Lead guitarist and singer Billie Joe Armstrong references his tattoo of the Jesus Christ Superstar symbol of two angels facing one another in a horse-shoe shape as a starting point for a design for their own logo. The band chooses to prioritize the story and themes of the album’s narrative over their own political ambitions and biases.

It is difficult to give a final verdict on the film. As a fan, it was extremely enjoyable to hear the band’s epic opera blared through a stereo’s surround sound system and catch footage from some key shows that I was lucky enough to attend.

However, people looking for an in-depth look at the writing of such a monumental album will be ultimately disappointed. There is no footage of the band’s rumored heated writing experiences or extensive partying.

Music documentaries seldom break new ground when it comes to covering big-name bands. In my experience, they tend to adhere to a formula — interspersing footage of bands performing with casual conversation between members.

John Roecker successfully utilizes that formula in Heart Like a Hand Grenade to the best of its ability. However, his inability to veer away from it leaves both the fan and film-lover in me craving much more.

Who Watches the Fanboys? Rethinking Critiques of Zack Snyder’s Watchmen

Opening weekend for Watchmen has come and gone, but the debate over whether or not the film is any good continues. Fanboys and film nerds across the country are discussing and picking apart the minutia of Zack Snyder’s cinematic interpretation of the Alan Moore and David Gibbons classic. In general, the film is polarizing. Several of the nation’s top critics find the film boring and fans think that Snyder and company cheapened the original story due to their unnecessary reverence to the source material and grotesque violence. While reading and listening to the critiques of the film across the interwebz I have reached some interesting conclusions. Critics probably didn’t get the graphic novel (if they actually read it), meaning they have no chance of understanding the film. Fanboys’ major criticisms of the film actually display Snyder’s prowess as a filmmaker and that the film in theaters is not Snyder’s final product.

The first point isn’t hard to prove at all. A quick look on Rotten Tomatoes brings up a wide variety of critical responses. An astute reader can usually tell which writer is familiar with the source material. Claims that the characters are unsympathetic, detached, and unlikable usually clue you in that these critics are clueless when it comes to Moore and Gibbons’ work. They don’t get the ideas in the movie and I doubt they would get the ideas in the graphic novel.

Other critics cop out. They state that Watchmen was doomed from the start and that Hollywood shouldn’t have tried to make the movie in the first place. They argue the graphic novel is much too complex for the silver screen to do it justice. Plenty of fans make the same claim, treating the book as something more scared than the Bible, Torah, and Koran combined. I must plainly state: get over yourselves.

To merely say that it should never have been made in the first place is the easiest way to dismiss it. You don’t have to engage with the work, you can sit atop your high horse and sound elitist. Fans and critics stated that Moore disapproved of Hollywood adapting his work and in their minds that should have been the final word. By that rationale Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) should never have been made due to Dahl’s disagreement with the studio’s casting and tone of the film. Now renowned as a classic, the film is a part of many people’s childhoods and boasts some of the most quotable lines in movie history. The point is, there are several movies that “should never have been made,” but they were anyway. Hollywood is going to continue making films whether or not you have a hard-on for Alan Moore. Let’s get past our moralistic and unwarranted preconceptions.

People claim that because Moore intended it to be a comic book, it should have just remained a comic book; otherwise, you would be tainting the message and intent of the original work. I guess all those Shakespeare movies taint the stage plays and the film/play adaptations of One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest do the same to the novel. This is another narrow-minded way of thinking that dismisses the film without taking into consideration the possibilities that a new medium will bring. Watching panels come to life on a 50 foot screen with a blaring sound system is different experience then sitting in your dimly lit room reading the paperback. Snyder’s work isn’t trying to make Watchmen any less special, he wants to add to its legacy in the way he knows best: through film.

Snyder has even stated that he knew comic books fans were going to be harsher on him than literary critics were on the Cohen brothers for their adaptation of No Country for Old Men. Let’s give him the common courtesy to at least acknowledge what he’s actually done and leave our nerd snobberies at the theater doors. Alan Moore isn’t God and Zack Snyder isn’t Satan.

So, to the rest of Watchmen community who has seen the film and loathed it, what did you dislike about it so much? Was it the slow motion, “300″ effect? Was it the violence and action? Wait; was it the cheesy sex scene in the Owl Ship? Oh, I got it! It’s because there was an absence of a giant vaginal squid!

I am going to assume that many of you diehard Watchmen fans said yes to at least one, if not all of those questions. However, after giving the movie a close reading I think that all those things stay true to the spirit of the comic and enhance its themes.

First, the slow-mo action effect. Why? Did Snyder do it just to please action junkies and in the process cheapen the Watchmen narrative? Was it a desperate ploy to bring more teenage males into the theater? Possibly, but if you look at the times the effect are used, well it seems as if something deeper is going on.

Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Rorschach all rely on being super heroes to give them purpose in life. Without it, they are lonely, meandering and even impotent. They quite literally “get off “ on super hero theatricality and the adrenaline that the life of a vigilante brings them. Without it, they are useless. In the original text, Moore makes it abundantly clear that people who are psychologically damaged choose to become superheroes.

So where does Snyder’s action effects fit into this? The excessive violence and slow motion are suppose to convey the cheap thrill of crime fighting that these characters derive from it. The breaking of bones and fetishization of the latex, fisticuffs, and blood reveal this part of the character’s psyche. During the alley fight and prison break Dan and Laurie look at each other to reveal childish grins. Snyder is drawing attention to the level of absurdity that the troubled psyches of the characters need to feel like they have a purpose. Snyder wants us to see how troubled the superhero protagonists are and how far removed from “normal” they would have to be in order to exist in the real world.

This technique isn’t used with Doctor Manhattan or the Comedian, two characters that don’t rely on super heroism for meaning. You may aptly point out that the Comedian does in fact have slow-mo used during the first scene when he is murdered. However, this is done because Veidt’s assassin is the one engaging with him. In a flashback, we see that the Comedian scoffed at Veidt’s idea for a perfect world brought about by a group of caped crusaders. The elaborate assassination of the Comedian displays Veidt relishing his “last laugh”. This foreshadows Veidt’s final plan to save humanity by destroying part of it. In no other scene does the Comedian become subject to the “300 effect.”

Another example: when Nite Owl cries out and accosts Veidt in the final scene, yet Veidt chooses not to fight back. While Nite Owl cycles through all the action moves in a superhero arsenal, Veidt just accepts his abuse coldly. Veidt tells Dan how useless his theatrics are, mocking his superhero antics in order to convey their futility in addressing an actual crisis. Veidt is showing Nite Owl how impotent he is, even with his costume on.

Sex in the Owl Ship. The funky bass line and Barry White type vocals make it seem like a scene in a bad 70’s porno, right? Good, that is exactly the point. Snyder, the same way Moore does, wants us to realize how absurd it is that these characters need to wear costumes and run around at three in the morning in order to get off sexually. We aren’t suppose to empathize with their sexual frustrations, we’re suppose acknowledge their absurdity.

I will admit that the actress who played Silk Spectre did not do a very good job. Her acting was flat and drew attention to the fact that we were watching a movie. It doesn’t matter how attractive she is, she detracted from scenes that contained great performances. I hope fans recognize what a great job Doctor Manhattan, Rorschach and the Comedian did.

Finally, there’s the squid, or lack thereof. Personally, I disliked the squid in the novel and found its 1950’s absurdity cheapened the realism of the world Moore created. However, I think that the presence of a giant squid destroying Manhattan in a post-9/11 world would cheapen the national tragedy and seriousness of the situation. Considering the cultural context of the times, Snyder’s decision stayed true to the spirit of the comic, while simultaneously making the tragedy more realistic for modern audiences.

After all this talk and explaining, what do I think of Zack Snyder’s Watchmen? Well, the film I saw warrants a B-/C+, however I am still reserving my final judgment. After reading different interviews with Snyder, I have discovered that the two and half-hour theatrical cut of Watchmen is not the director’s intended vision.

Due to studio pressures and the limitations of the film medium, Snyder actually wants viewers to experience the film on a DVD. This DVD would include his director’s cut of the film, the animated Tales from the Black Freighter and the Under-the-Hood documentary. Snyder wants fans to engage with his vision of the film as an interactive comic book that can be paused, reversed and fast-forwarded. Like many new directors, his end goal is not exhibted at your local multiplex. Filmmaker’s are for-going the limitations of the Hollywood system and finding new ways to display their artistic vision. This trend makes the job of a film critic increasingly difficult because they are not actually experiencing the final product. Sometimes the final product isn’t even a traditional film.

This is why I am waiting to reserve my verdict. While some of the dialogue and performances of the film were done in a less than desirable way, Snyder’s attention to detail in recreating the world of Watchmen in the film’s production design aptly fits his end medium of an interactive comic book. With all of this I am suggesting that fans not be too hard on Snyder or his vision of Watchmen, at least not until this final version is released.