Orange County: 13:34

There are six entries on which for you to comment. Here's the first. It's comedy time, thanks to Ben.

In director Jake Kasdan's movie Orange County(2002) the story takes place in Southern California in character Shaun Brumder’s (Colin Hanks) senior year of high school. He wants to become a professional surfer until one day he finds a book in the sand which makes him want to be a writer. The author of this book is a professor at Stanford and this makes Shaun aspire to go there to become a writer. The problem is though, that the college counselor mixes his application with another kid and he gets stuck in Orange County. This sets Shaun on an adventure to find a way into Stanford.

At 13 minutes and 34 seconds, Shaun is running away from the college counselor’s office right after he finds out that his transcript was mixed up. He thinks his life is ruined because now he can’t become a writer. He believes the only way to become a successful writer is to get into Stanford where his idol is a professor at.

This shot shows how Shaun is “trapped” in Orange County. Others around him encourage him to just go to the community college in the area like everyone else does, but Shaun doesn’t want to be “everyone else”. If he can’t go to Stanford he feels like there’s no way for him to get out of Orange County.

It was a good choice by the director to choose this narrow passage for this part in the movie. With the walls presence dominating over Shaun, it depicts how he’s trapped in Orange County with the rest of the kids there. With the walls being so tall it signifies how there is no way out, at least that’s what Shaun thinks. The long corridor makes it seem like Shaun’s been running forever or is running away from Orange County.

This long shot of Shaun running depicts how far away he is from what he wants to do in life. It also shows how small Shaun is to the world around him along with the walls of the corridor towering over him. As Shaun runs towards the camera it represents that by the end of the movie he’ll overcome his problem and get closer to the world around him. The director uses a wide angle lens to make Shaun seem smaller and to make the walls seem way bigger than him. Shaun is far away so it makes it so he has less power since he just got rejected from college.

When I was picking which shot to use for this I was assuming I would pick a shot with a lot going on. Then I saw this shot and it shocked me how much was in it. It’s a pretty plain shot and to the naked eye there isn’t much going, but because of the circumstances in the movie it makes perfect sense. It’s the perfect shot for a kid trying to escape his current situation.

Alright honestly, does anyone see this shot in the way I do? Or am I just blowing it out of proportion?

Mr. Cowlin here. Ben's last question got me thinking...How do we know when we've blown things out of proportion? How much is 'too much' when it comes to analyzing movies? Any ideas?

Becoming Jane: 22:45

Stephanie submitted this entry. I especially like the off-center nature of the frame's subject.

The 2007 movie Becoming Jane, directed by Julian Jarrold, is a historical film inspired by the early life of famous novelist Jane Austen (played by Anne Hathaway) and her relationship with Tom Lefroy (portrayed by James McAvoy). Jane Austen is the youngest daughter of Reverend Austen (James Cromwell) and his wife (Julie Walters). She has yet to find a suitable husband. Jane desires to become a write, to her mother’s dismay, and the delight of her father. Thomas Lefroy is a promising lawyer but has a bad reputation that he describes as “typical” for companions of that era. His wealthy uncle is unhappy with his behavior and sends him to the countryside to learn his lesson. After a bad first impression upon meeting Mr. Lefroy, Jane cannot stand the arrogant Irishman.

Throughout the movie, Jane turns down the affections of numerous men including Mr. Wisley (Laurence Fox), the nephew of Lady Gresham (Maggie Smith). She denies his proposal. Tom and Jane’s hate soon begins to turn into a growing affection. The mischievous Tom continues his advances and Jane begins to take the idea of marriage seriously. They get to know each other gradually, and eventually fall in love.

Tom, Jane, her brother and cousin receive an invitation from Tom’s uncle and benefactor (the Lord Chief Judge Langlois of London). The judge was about to give his blessing for Tom and Jane’s marriage when he received an anonymous letter informing him that Jane’s family was poor and refuses to give the blessing. Jane is upset when Tom tells her that he can’t marry her, not knowing that Tom had a good reason; he is his family’s only hope for survival. Jane goes back home and accepts Mr. Wisley’s proposal that she earlier turned down.

Tom soon realizes that he cannot live without Jane and comes back suggesting that they should runaway. Jane agrees and leaves with only her sister Cassandra knowing. On the way, Jane stumbles upon a letter from Tom’s mother, and realizes his situation. She tells Tome that they can’t do this with so many people depending on him. Tom insists otherwise but Jane says that he won’t be able to support his family if he runs away. Jane says that she loves him, but that if their love destroys his family, it would destroy itself with guilt, regret, and blame.

Tom was an inspiration for some of Austen’s writing (Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice). Jane destroyed most of the evidence of their relationship. Twenty years later Jane encounters Thomas Lefroy at a social function. He is with his eldest daughter also named Jane, who turns out to be a big fan of Jane’s writing.

At 22 minutes and 45 seconds into the movie, Jane and Tom both meet unexpectedly in the woods. Tom was sent by his uncle (that lives in the country) into the woods to learn a few things about the beauty of the country. Tom was struggling to make his way through while Jane was taking a pleasant walk and was unhappy when she saw the arrogant man who had insulted her writing. In this shot we see Hathaway’s character on the complete opposite side of the screen compared to McAvoy. We get something between a full or medium shot of Jane and a long distance shot of Tom. He is emerging from the thicket to the trail and trying to get to Jane, whereas she is walking away, not wanting to be in his presence. The depth of field shows that the two are deep inside of the forest because each side of the shot is surrounded by green shrubbery and trees. Though you see the two on opposite ends on the screen, you are forced to look at the space between them. In this shot you see the open gap occupied by only the green and brown path. This empty space will fill up in the next few shots as Tom gets closer to Jane. It shows the aversion between the two, but also the developing chemistry (each step they take to get closer is filling up that empty gap). In my opinion this is an eye level shot. When you watch this scene, at the time Jane is closer to you but soon Tom is right next to her and it becomes a full and then medium shot. It’s as if you are standing on the path, watching this happen.

This shot is in the perfect spot in the forest. There is a peaceful path that Jane is walking on in her casual but nice blue dress with a white collar. The dress is very plain but you can tell it’s something that might have been worn in the 1800s for an average person. Even her hair is up the way a woman might have worn it then. Tom is dressed in a very elegant black suit with a nice waste coat, white shirt, top hat, and cane. It’s ironic. We can tell that he is from the city and doesn’t fit into the country style.

How do you think the character’s positioning (where they are and how they’re standing) affects the mood and point of this shot? If you didn’t know what this movie is about, what would you conclude by just seeing this shot?

Old Boy: 92:05

I agree with Jessica. Old Boy is a great movie. For those of you who have not yet discovered the intesity and beauty of Korean films, hop to it.

Korean director Chan Wook Park’s Old Boy (2003) tells the story of a man, Dae Su Oh, who for fifteen years is imprisoned in a gloomy, lonely, motel-like room. During these fifteen years he has no idea who his kidnapper is or for that matter, why he is even kidnapped. But he trains daily in hopes that on the day that he is freed, he will be able tear his captors limb from limb. Through this long imprisonment, the desire for revenge begins to change Dae Su from the inside out; vengeance begins consumes his old playful, immature character. Fifteen years later, he is released, and is given an opportunity to play a game with his kidnapper (with a time limit, of course) -Objective: Figure out the reason behind the imprisonment and figure out who the captor is. Reward: A chance to kill the person who held him captive for fifteen years. And if he fails, his kidnapper gets to kill the woman who Dae Su loves. The film follows Dae Su on his quest for vengeance. His quest for revenge brings him to his forgotten memories in which lies the motive to why he was kidnapped.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead!

At 1 hour 32 minutes and 5 seconds, Dae Su thinks he has figured out why he was kidnapped, and has come to kill his kidnapper, Woo-Jin. The scene is very contradicting because Dae Su is the one who is going to kill Woo-Jin yet Dae Su is the one who is pushed back, and made smaller in this medium-close up shot. The close up of Woo-Jin shows that he still has power over Dae Su, and the smirk on his face gives the audience a slight indication that he has a few more tricks up his sleeve. This scene continues to become even more contradictory because throughout the whole film the audience has assumed Woo-Jin to be the antagonist and Dae Su to be the protagonist. But the costumes of the characters say otherwise. Woo-Jin is the one in the white, clean dress shirt, while Dae Su is the one in the black suit. Dae Su is no longer perceived as the victim, but the audience begins to understand Woo-Jin’s heart motive for kidnapping Dae Su. But his plans for Dae Su still remain vague.

The overall set design of Woo-Jin’s house is very murky and mysterious. It tells a lot about the tone of the film but also about Woo-Jin as well. Woo-Jin is a very wealthy man, who is haunted by the death of his sister, whom he loved. Woo-Jin’s penthouse is very simple and impersonal, except for the wall of photos of his sister. It shows how his sister was the only person he truly cared for in his life, and it also shows a reason for why vengeance was so important to him. This film uses the concept of an eye for an eye, but takes it to a whole other level.

Dae Su and Woo-Jin act with strong conviction for their characters that are driven by their need for revenge. To me, Dae Su seems a lot more foolish because he is driven by his need for revenge through rage and violence, while Woo-Jin is calm, collected and cool, and rarely shows any serious emotional side, but it’s clear that Woo-Jin hides all his emotions and feelings of loss. Old Boy is a very different from most revenge themed films because not only does it show the minds of both the victim and the avenger, but also in the end, they both turn out to be victims.

Mr Cowlin: What do the rest of you have to say about Jessica's analysis? Agree? Disagree?  And Jessica, I'm not so sure I agree about your use of the word "murky"... Care to elaborate?

Escape from New York: 29:18

Okay, here's one from Zach. I've got to be honest, it's a pretty good one. Zach shares with us some pretty good analysis in it. But that's not the reason I included it. I probably would have included this entry even if was written by a monkey with a broken typewriter because...I...love...this...movie.

(Yes, there was a sequel - Escape from L.A. Good but not great.)

Side note: This movie takes place in 1997, and back when I saw it 1997 was still the future. That's how old I am.

John Carpenter’s cult classic Escape from New York (1981) is set in the future dystopia that is 1997 and America and the Soviets are still entrenched in battle. The president of the United States (Donald Pleasance) is traveling aboard Air Force one to a meeting between the US, Russia and China to hopefully end the conflict. Before he can reach his destination, Air Force one must travel over Manhattan, which has been turned into a prison-island surrounded by military on all sides. As this occurs, the plane is hijacked and is directed into the prison and all radio connection between the plane and the nearby military base is lost. Eventually the army goes in looking for the president to discover an escape pod and to be told that the president is being held captive by the Duke (Isaac Hayes) and his cronies. It is at this point that military leader Bob Hauk (Lee Van Cleef) sends in the onetime war hero and now captured criminal Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) to save the president along with a briefcase containing secret nuclear formulas. If he succeeds, Snake will be given a full pardon and his life will be spared. So it is now that Snake ventures into this hellhole and must complete his mission before it is too late.

This scene at 29 minutes and 18 seconds in the film, Snake Plissken has flown a small plane onto the top of the World Trade Center to infiltrate the city and is now walking down a hallway of the WTC on his way onto the city streets. Cinematography wise this moment uses a full body and eye level shot to show the audience that Snake may be part of something bigger than just himself. It is also somewhat eyelevel to insinuate the true height and length of the buildings hallways. This shot is in a short depth of field to allow the audience to focus on the closest area to make the audience believe the hallway is longer than it may be, possibly to reference the bridge scene towards the end of the film as well as to possibly symbolize the difficult struggle that this mission will entail.

Mise-en-scene wise, this shot has the workings of brilliance. First of all, the way Kurt Russell plays Snake is perfect. The way Kurt is walking with such a cocky attitude makes his character even better. Rather than trying to sneak by and be stealthy, Snake just walks down the hall almost daring anyone or thing to just try to jump him.

Along with acting comes the set design. Along with the long hallways theory presented earlier, it can be seen by the doorway of the closest room that there are rain clouds. This is just an even less subtle reminder that this job is no sunny walk in the park.

Even further down we see an orange crucifix. This has really no religious connotations, but rather is a symbol for Snake’s redemption (and later on that of Brain’s). By being a war hero, Snake had honor. He then became a criminal and has lost the respect he had earned. This “suicide-mission” is the way Snake can return to his former standing in the eye of the government, the eyes of other humans and in his own mind.

The prop design of this shot mainly consists of strewn about papers on the floor along with the occasional chair or other item of debris. This allows the scene to be all the more believable as one would expect a rundown building where basically “hobo-prisoners” are the only occupants to be the epitome of a dilapidated home. Each paper is placed with a purpose, to seem as if abandoned in a hurry by the decent civilians who lived there ten years before.

The lighting is also a key aspect of making this scene perfect. Even though it is an office building, the fluorescent lights are not on. The only lighting comes from places that are either off camera, giving the air of eeriness and a lonesome quality to the setting and to Snake. Having no true light source shown also allows the audience to further believe the story by having the notion that since Manhattan is a prison, it could be dangerous to leave electricity on for these violent human beings.

In conclusion, I have several questions to ask:

1. From this scene do you feel if Snake was completely or partly successful in his mission?
2. Does anything of the scene (mise-en-scene wise) make you believe the scene, if so which part? If not, why is it not believable?
3. Why you cry?

Seven: 120:44

Here's one from Brandon.

David Fincher’s 1995 classic Seven tells of two detectives, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, who are after a serial killer who bases his killings by man’s seven deadly sins.

At the near end of the movie, Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt) and Detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) are re-entering the police station trying to figure out where to look next for the killer John Doe. All of a sudden behind them comes John Doe the killer (portrayed by Kevin Spacey) into the police station, turning himself in. He later talks to the authorities and his lawyer that he can take Detective Mills and Somerset to two more bodies and will plead guilty in court or if they don’t take cooperate with him he will plead insanity. The detectives agree to the request so that they can end this long and defiant case of murders.

The three, Doe, Mills and Somerset travel out to the desert too find the two bodies with an S.W.A.T helicopter above them tracking all their movements. In the car, Doe explains his reasons for his killings and claims they were wicked people and wanted to show the world its own corruption. They get to the desert and wait for Doe to show them the whereabouts of the other two bodies. But a delivery van pulls up claiming the driver was paid $500 if he was to deliver a package out to the desert. Somerset goes over to open the package to see what’s inside. He opens the box to discover the decapitated head of Mills’ wife. He yells over to Mills to ignore whatever Doe tells him as he rushes over to stop Mills from shooting Doe. Doe starts telling Mills how he admires his life and wanted to be part of it. He confesses that killed his wife in the process also telling Mills that he had an unborn child of which he didn’t know. Due to all the rage built within Mills which he tries to hold back but soon gives in, he shoots Doe, unleashing every bullet in his gun upon him. Somerset stands their helpless knowing that Mills gave in to Doe’s plan and that Mills and himself lost and Doe won. Mills becomes the sin of wrath by killing Doe. Somerset finds out before Mill’s shoot him that this was Doe’s plan all along of being killed by Mills as a part of his seven deadly sins act.

At time 120 minutes and 14 seconds, there is the shot of detective Mills unleashing the bullets upon Doe’s body with Somerset standing with his body looking the other way showing defeat. The sky is a shade of dark green, this very eerie to me, because it shows the evil that has consumed the sky. The camera is at a low angle showing the power of Detective Mills and Somerset over Doe’s power. They’re supposed to be the justice in the movie; usually it’s the police vs. criminals, good vs. evil. Mills thinks by killing Doe he has over powered him and has won. Actually though, in a way Mills is the weakest one of the whole shot. The only thing the electrical tower can be represented as Doe himself and how powerful he actually is compared to the detectives. The electrical tower has two handles on each side of it. One side has wires crossing through Mills but on the other side no wires are seen or going through Somerset. This represents Mills still a puppet being part of the act, controlled by Doe and not being able to do the right thing or be free. He has given in and been consumed by Doe’s wrath. Doe was the puppet master, the whole show was under his control to show the world its own reflection it the mirror. Mill was always the weak minded one and played into Doe’s hands. But Somerset broke through the strings and relied on his own senses to not be controlled by Doe. He was the second strongest one of the shot. He tried to help Mills to make the right choice but Mills was too blinded by vengeance to do that. By Somerset being turned away it shows his disappointment within Mills and how he admits their defeat.

What else can the three figures (including the electrical tower) represent?

Mr. Cowlin here. Are there any points Brandon makes that you find particularly engaging? How about anything you disagree with?

Freaky Friday: 24:43

Here's Sylwia's analysis of a frame from Freaky Friday.

Director Mark Water’s Freaky Friday (2003) displays the relationship between an overworked mother and her rebellious daughter. Dr. Tess Coleman is a widow that is about to remarry. Her young daughter, Anna, is a teenager with musical aspirations. There are many reasons why the two of them do not get along, the main reason being the different paths that they took in order to cope with the death of the father in the family. There is a wide gap between the mother and daughter and the two simply cannot find a way to stop their personal hectic stress and learn how to understand each other. These problems soon change at a night in a Chinese restaurant when the two reach a raging argument and a woman hands them two fortune cookies; however, these aren’t ordinary fortune cookies. Anna and Tess fall into a mystical switch and wake up only to find themselves in the wrong bodies. They are literally forced to learn how to live in each other’s shoes and soon develop a new respect for their views on life.

Before this mystical switch happens, the scene at 24 minutes and 43 seconds reveals the principle conflict in the film. The director uses an over-the-shoulder shot to pull all the attention on the heated argument between the mother and her daughter. This focus on the two characters displays the most crucial conflict in the film which is the way that Dr. Tess and Anna do not understand each other and do not share a healthy parent -child bond.

There is another character in the background of the scene, but he stands far away from the conversation. It is clear that he is not part of the conversation and therefore he cannot interfere or solve the conflict. This is evident because of the staging in the scene. Dr. Tess sits in the left corner and the shot of her is a medium shot. She becomes the largest figure in the scene, essentially facing the two smaller characters and she becomes the character with the most power. In fact, it is at this point in the scene that she is taking away Anna’s door to her room because Anna managed to land herself into detention twice in one day. Her final remark to Anna is, “Privacy is a privilege.” The second largest character is Anna and the shot of her is a medium shot. She also has slight power in the conversation because she challenges the way that her mom is approaching her. The character with the least power is the step-father and the shot of him is a long shot. He stands life-size and almost appears to be hiding behind the counter, meekly and awkwardly, too afraid of challenging Dr. Tess’s or Anna’s power.

The set design and costume/make-up illustrates the conflict because it shows what differences cause the two characters to fight and why the character standing in the back is the least assertive. Dr. Tess sits at a table that is neatly organized. There are no flaws, everything seems perfect and clean; however, her daughter in front of her appears to be the one thing that she cannot fix or clean-up. Anna’s clothing is rebellious, grungy and dark. Her hair is messy and she is wearing studs that chaotic punks wear. She defies Dr. Tess’s “perfect world” just by the way that she dresses. The step-father that stands in the background is behind a large counter that separates him from Dr. Tess and Anna. This kitchen counter becomes the barrier between him and his future family. Anna cannot accept him because she still misses her real father and she builds a wall around her that does not let her step-father reach her. The kitchen counter also separates the step-father and Dr. Tess. Dr. Tess does not want him to help her with the problems she shares with her daughter, and that becomes her way of pushing him away and building a wall in front of him. It becomes harder for him to fit into the chaotic family.

How do you think the scene would work without the kitchen counter?

Mr. Cowlin here again. I'd like to add to Sylwia's quesion. How about the chair and the kitchen table? Also, what about the staging, with the mother sitting down and the dad standing up?

The Deer Hunter: 58:48

Director Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter (1978) tells the story of three good friends - Michael, Nick, and Steven – about to head off to the war in Vietnam. The eve before they are to ship out, Steven, perhaps in an effort to solidify his position as a member of the community in his steel mill Pennsylvanian hometown, marries his pregnant girlfriend. “If I have a wife and kid to come home to,” he may be thinking, “then maybe I’ll actually be coming home.” The next morning, while Steven is off on a short, one-night honeymoon, Michael and Nick go hunting along with their friends John, Axle and Stan. Together, these five men will spend one more day hunting deer and, in their own way, saying goodbye to each other.

At 58 minutes and 48 seconds, the men pull off the road partway up the mountain and have a quick meal of bread, mustard, bologna, beer, and Twinkies. There, while Michael, the natural leader, prepares his rifle, and while the other men lounge and rest and snack, Stan wanders over to the other side of the road wondering how “they changed” the road.

This shot illustrates not only the individual nature of each character involved, but uses Nature as a looming backdrop, foreshadowing the hardship and tragedy that lay just ahead for the soon-to-be soldiers.

Axle and John stand behind the car, eating. They’re not ready to hunt, they’re not ready to help, and they are most certainly not ready to go to war with their buddies. Nick lays on the hood of the car, not sleeping, but waiting. He refuses to eat in an effort to “keep the fear up,” as he puts it. He is in a constant state of readiness, always contemplating, always thinking. Michael, however, is the only one already in his hunting gear and preparing his rifle, demonstrating that he is indeed that man of action that will, before movie’s end, save his friends to whatever degree he is able. Then he looks back at Stan, disgusted by Stan's insolence and stupidity.

Stan, foolishly decked out in a tuxedo and fur hat, separated from the others, complains that “they changed the road,” whatever that means. He becomes the epitome of the know-it-all complainer, that guy who knows what’s wrong, isn’t afraid to let everyone know, and yet is unable to do anything about it or take responsibility for his own mistakes.

And then there are the mountains looming behind. Foreboding. Indomitable. Ruthless. Harsh. Unforgiving. The wide angle shot allows those mountains to take up the entire sky, the entire background. There is, quite simply, no escaping them, nor can Michael and Nick hope to escape their future.

When I first looked at the shot, my natural inclination was that Stan is the subject of the frame, but now I wonder. The men at the car on the left seem equally balanced with Stan off by himself on the right. Add those mountains into the mix, and the subject of the shot almost becomes Micael's relationship with the three– what he has, what he is leaving behind, and what he will soon encounter.

I'm not sure, though. Am I over thinking this last part? What do you think?

80 Years of Popeye in 30 Minutes

If you're interested in seeing the history of American animation, all you need to do is watch a handful of Popeye cartoons. Created in 1929, Popeye ran as a newspaper cartoon strip before Fleischer Studios, in 1933, put Popeye in his first animated adventure. "Popeye the Sailor" was actually a Betty Boop short, and Betty makes a cameo about 2/3 the way through the film. Various studios have been making Popeye cartoons off and on for roughly 75 years ever since. Watching these cartoons in chronological order is like watching an animated living history of Amiercan cartoons.

I.  "Popeye the Sailor" (1933)

[The first ever Popeye cartoon]

II.  "Parlez Vous Woo" (1956)

III.  "Popeye's Hypnotic Glance" (circa 1961)

IV.  "Ain't Mythbehavin'" (circa 1987)

V.  Popeye's Voyage: The Quest for Pappy  (2004)

The trailer can be found here.

Two questions:  1. Which of the above is your favorite, and why?  2. How are each of these cartoons indicative of the era in which they were created?

The Modern Animation 'Arena'

John Kricfalusi, renegade animator and creator of Ren and Stimpy, has a blog in whcih he shares his musings on animation theory and history, as well as discusses his career as a lifelong cartoonist. I suppose you could call him an animation purist, or classicist, or something like that. It's pretty interesting stuff if you're interested in where cartoons come from and the theoretical structures behind traditional hand-drawn animation.

One story he's shared is about being invited by Dreamworks to come in and pitch an idea for an animated feature film. Unfortunately, it didn't go well. You can find Kricfalusi's blog entry recounting the incident here. (Be sure to read his entry before you continue on with this one.)

Here are a few of the films Dreamworks has put out over the years. Notice any of those 'arenas' the Dreamworks executives were describing to Kricfalusi?

An ant hill.

A bee hive.

A zoo.

An ocean.

Pretty groundbreaking and original, right? You get the right 'arena,' and this stuff writes itself.

Quick! We need an arena, stat! How About a fire station? Queue the clumsy Dalmatian with a heart of gold trying to earn his spots as the company's fire dog; queue the grouchy old pidgeon who lives up above the garage door and gets ticked off every time the the door opens and the trucks roll out; queue the sweet poodle who lives across the street at the nail salon and just knows the Dalmatian has it inside him to become a hero when – at the end of the movie – the fire station itself gets set on fire by - get this irony - a human fireman who leaves the oven one - and the dalmation must save all of the fire fighters who've treated him poorly the whole movie; queue the wacky feline sidekick who's always mocking the dalmation for not having spots; maybe throw in an organ-grinder monkey who’s always climbing a nearby apartment building and asking for quarters. Bingo! We've got our movie, gentlemen!

But I digress.

As you probably noticed in Kricfalusi's blog entry, that "desert arena with the plot of Casablanca" was already made...in the 1990s. Kricfalusi had a picture of the poster - Bugs Bunny in "Carrotblanca" (1995). Yes, it was a real theatrical short cartoon. So the execs at Dreamworks brought in a talented animator to get his ideas for a new movie, but instead ended up telling him to write a story that had already been made. And here it is. Give it a look.

Two questions:  1. What animated films from the past ten years or so, lackluster or otherwise, can you think of that were likely created using the 'arena method' of cartoon writing? (In other words, films in which the the setting came first, celebrity voices came second, and characters and story came in a distant third.)  2. Do you like "Carrotblanca"? Is it funny, original, engaging, and/or entertaining? Let me know what you think.

Saturday Morning Cartoons - 80s Style!

Check out these 1980s cartoon title sequences. They're pretty indicative of what you were going to find after school or early Saturday morning circa 1983. There's not a lot of innovation going on in these. Just a bunch of repetition. Here's the basic formula:

1. Pick a subject everyone already knows. (celebrities and video games work best)

2. Steal a formula from an already successful show. (crime fightin' was the preference, crazy adventures came in a close second)

3. Crowbar a wacky pet in there. (preferably one that can talk)

4. Only pick subjects that you can make into toys.

For example: Hey, everyone knows Mr. T, right? And since Mary Lou Retton just won a fistful of Olympic gold metals, let's team Mr. T up with a van load (ala Scooby Doo) of gymnasts and have them...what else...fight crime!



Good thing they remembered to throw in a dog with a mohawk! Wacky pet, check! Here's another classic:



Popular character? Check! Darth Vader looking bad guy? Check! Stupid lookin' pets? Check! We've got a winner here, folks. Hmm, what other popular brand name can we exploit? Oh, I don't know...How about...



Or maybe...



Do you guys even remember Happy Days? Ever think to yourself, "You know what this live aciton sit-com about grouwing up in Miwaukee in the 1950s is missing? A time machine!" And did you notice Fonzie's dog, Mr. Cool? He IS cool! We're not done yet...



Remember now, Star Wars was pretty popular at the time. So get yourself a Chewbacca-looking dude, a princess, and a guy with a lazer sword. You know what else was popular? Transformers! And if it ain't fixed, don't break it...



Did you notice the robot? He's an R2-D2 rip-off PLUS a wacky pet! We in the cartoon business call that a two-fer! I also love it how the helicopter turns into an airplane. Like you would need that to happen. Like you're chasing a guy in your helicopter, but the chopper ain't gonna cut the mustard, so you up the ante with some wings...

Here's one that doesn't make any sense whatsoever...



I don't know what's crazier - the solid gold space station; the airplane with the olympic size pool that doesn't spill when the plane banks; or the way the girl can swing from a rope upsidedown by just pressing her ankle bones together. Wow.

You know, watching that video for the, I don't know, millionth time, I just realized something. It's pretty much the Paris Hilton story. Only Goldi Gold's life seems to make more logical sense. Anyhow. This next one came out in the early 90s, but it still has that cheesy 80s feel...



Can't get enough, huh? How about some Chuck Norris and Hulk Hogan?





Even girls got cartoons in the 1980s!





So did ultra-violent, R-rated movies!





Don't get me wrong. As corny as this stuff was, I loved it as a kid. Couldn't get enough. This next one was probably my favorite. Check out the wicked rotoscoping on the spaceship...



In 1991, however, something happened that would change the world of television cartoons forever. It was a game changer, and things would never be the same. The Nickelodeon channel did something no other cable channel had ever done before - they actually made original cartoons for their network! See, up until then, Disney and Nickelodeon merely played old cartoons that already existed. But now, under their 'Nicktoons' label, Nickelodeon came out with three cartoons, playing on a Sunday morning block. Rugrats, Doug, and Ren and Stimpy.







If you're wondering which is my favorite, the answer is easy - Ren and Stimpy. And here's a classic. "Space Madness." One thing you'll notice about Ren and Stimpy in general is the filmmaker's love and respect for all of the cartoons that have come before it. It's a great mix of 40sm 50s, and 60s animation wrapped up with a modern sensibility. (Note: It runs 11 minutes, so make sure you get the rest of your work done before you watch this one. Thanks.)


Watch Space Madness in Animation  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Since these three cable-made cartoos aired, network cartoons have pretty much gone goodbye, and cable cartoons have become big business. Goodbye Superfriends, hello Jimmy Neutron.

Animation Week - How They Did That

A few weeks ago, I shared two clips from "Popeye the Sailor Meets Sinbad the Sailor," and asked you to pay close attention to the background.

(Go ahead and review the clip, if you need to...I'll wait...Okay, you're back.)

I then asked how you thought they created such incredible 3-dimensional backgrounds, that change and shift as if existing in real space, while only using 1930s technology. Caleb and Will got pretty close.

Well, here's the complete answer...

That's right. They filmed the animation cels in front of a 3D model, then shift the model slightly one direction each time they photographed a new animation cel. That's why you can see shadows shift across the mountains in the background -  the model was being rotated, thus changing the angle of the light in relation to the set.

This process was invented by Fleischer Studios, and they used in quite a few of their Popeye cartoons. It was a pretty expensive process, however, so the shots were usally limited to one or two short scenes in the cartoons in which the process was utilized.

I know computer animation has re-defined the way cartoons are made and viewed, but tell me you wouldn't like seeing Spongebob walking around in a 3D Fleisherized model background. I honestly think that if they brought this kind of hands-on craft to animation, it would invigorate modern cartoons as much as computer animation did a decade ago.

Yes or no?

Captured by the Frame - Part II

A few posts ago we were discussion how in his Invasion of the Body Snatchers Don Siegel used the frame itself to create a sense of paranoia and claustrophobia. There is literally no way out for the characters – they are hunted by the camera and blocked in by the image itself. In the comments, someone mentioned that The Descent did a good job of this as well, and I said I’d get some images up. Well, here they are. (Click on them to make them bigger.)

Pretty scrunched in, huh? She's not merely in a cave, she's being crushed by its mass. But it gets better. check these out...

See how the darkness just literally crushes them with black? Most filmmakers don't have the nerve to show this much black on the screen for this amount of time. In most cave movies, there's lots of blue light, and lots of close ups and medium shots. Heck,  I bet most filmmakers wouldn't even have enough imagination to consider showing long shots in a cave. Also, notice how the characters in these shots are far off center. I'm not sure, but I almost think the negative space becomes the subject of these shots, not the characters themselves.

Here's my favorite shot of the movie. A woman climbing a hill of bones towards the light.

I've watched the movie in the theater and at home. I have to say, this is definately one film in which the lardgess and darkness of a theater adds to effect of the film - that sense of despair and hopelessness. I'd be curious, have any of you seen The Descent? And if so, did you find the cinematography effective in terms of creating a sense of dread and fear? The rest of you, do these shots make you want to see the film, or are you put off by how much you don't get to see?

P.S. Yes, this is a monster movie. And yes, there are monsters. And they're everywhere...in the dark...where you can't see them. That's another reason why there's so much dark - because there are so many monsters.