Defining a classic: An analysis of Pixar's Up

Up (2009)

It seems the term classic is banded around far too hastily these days. Disney has deemed the entirety of its animated feature film catalogue as ‘classic’ despite entries that range from the mediocre (Mulan) to the downright disastrous (The Black Cauldron). ‘Classic’ status is given to movies that have just a few lines of dialogue and/or memorable moments that highlight an otherwise unremarkable feature (Scarface) . Even movies which are devoid of any remarkable quality whatsoever can be deemed ‘classic’, just ask Ed Wood. It seems the term has become more of a marketing tool, rather than a unanimous recognition of achievement. Of course, to then proclaim Pixar’s magnificent animation Up as a classic may seem hypocritical and an example of individual hyperbole, how is then that Up deserves to the controversial title of Classic?

The film’s opening sequences appear to situate the film in familiar territory, Pixar’s fondness for sending up old public service broadcasts and the exploration of childhood innocence and desire for adventure, as well as that familiar movie staple, budding romance. We are introduced to our protagonist Carl Fredrickson,a young boy who dreams of being the, somewhat dubious in his integrity, explorer Charles Muntz, on his way home one day he stumbles into an abandoned house where he meets kindred spirit Ellie, who too wants to travel to South America. What follows is a short but touching montage showing the children’s blossoming romance transition into elderly contentment, a life marked by more than one tragedy, not least that by the time of Ellie’s death the couple were never able to fulfil one of their lifelong dreams and travel. Carl, now elderly and living alone, unable to function in a modern world that is rapidly moving away from him, up and moves away to South America, taking his entire house with him, with the help of a thousand helium balloons.

As with all Pixar films there is plenty to enjoy visually, with the film boasting some of the richest animation and fully realized worlds seen in the genre. The narrative is particularly quirky even for a Pixar outing. Aside from the unique storybook nature of the main narrative, there are plenty of quirky twists throughout, with South America realised like somewhere from a Roald Dahl book and an army of dogs who communicate through collar translators. For as playfully imaginative and visually rich as the picture is, it is in the film’s characterization that the film truly shines. Writing and directing the film, Pete Dochter and Bob Peterson in true Pixar fashion have created some of the most memorable and likeable characters seen in any film in recent memory, with supporting players such as naive pooch Dug and overweight boy scout Russell rising above the one-note comic relief they could easily have become and into real characters an audience can emotionally invest in. Then of course there is the film’s central figure and protagonist, Carl Fredrickson (Voiced perfectly by Ed Asner).

Pixar has a track record of unlikely heroes and Carl is no exception modelled after the late Spencer Tracy, Carl is old and cantankerous, he refers to his house by the name of his deceased wife and cannot walk without aid. Yet he is endearing and a character we care about the moment we see him and of all of Pixar’s work he is perhaps the truest 3 dimensional character they have ever put forth. Aside from the nature of Carl’s quest, which itself is an attempt to fulfil the dream he shared with his wife, we understand Carl’s inner guilt, sense of loss and obsessions through delicate dialogue exchanges and subtle nuances. A key scene within the film in which Carl is able to find some inner solace and realise the consequences of his obsessions is achieved not through hack dialogue, but by body language and a simple gesture, in a scene that is both touching and true to the character, as is his eventual transformation to loving patriarch and unlikely action hero. Carl’s journey is indeed a sentimental one and more than one scene will tug at the toughest of heart strings.

Themes of loss, abandonment and obsession are all present within the film. It is all three that drive Carl to journey to South America and his ability to overcome his obsession that sets him apart from the villainous and warped Charles Muntz (Voiced by veteran villain actor Christopher Plummer). Like Carl, Charles too is obsessive, after losing public affection many years ago; Charles seeks a rare flightless bird which he believes will prove his innocence. His obsession has lead him to a murderous sense of entitlement, having spent the last 70 years in living in South Africa in an airship filled with fossils and relics from the past. Charles personifies the perils of obsession and loss, afflictions Carl must overcome to avoid a similar fate, something he does and in doing so reunites one family and founds a new one with Dug and Russell. With such dark subject matter there is always the risk of overshooting the mark, thankfully this is not the case here. Whereas films such as Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc laid on the sentiment just a little too heavy, Up ‘s moments of sentiment and inclusion of more adult themes and subject matter are perfectly judged and a tear of sadness can quickly be turned into tears of joy and laughter without causing awkward bumps in the flow of the narrative. Ultimately the film’s message seems to be that happiness is not constrained by age and more often than not, the most rewarding happiness can be found not in some distant land but in the bonds of friendship and family.

For all the impressive characterization and as moving as Up is, it is also tremendously exciting and very funny, with a reoccurring gag involving dog translators and the interaction between Carl and Russell being particularly worthy of mention. Up is also full of inventive set pieces and whether it involves Carl’s house taking flight for the first time or the climactic battle on Muntz’s flying fortress, Up provides excitement in spades, with the set pieces bridged with a fine balance of hilarity and poignancy.

For years it seems Pixar have been on the cusp of making the perfect animated film, some would argue that they already did and indeed, films such as Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy are perhaps close to attaining that status. Up, however, floats high above the rest in terms of narrative innovation and most notably its 3 dimensional and believable characterization, which sets a benchmark for any animation that will follow it, a film that will prove to be as timeless as its message and in the not so distant future, fully deserving the title of classic.

Different sort of entry.

Ok. So this is an attempt at a more professional and formal (And therefore pretentious) review. Posted here in all of its glory for your enjoyment. Be nice yeah?


Paul (2011)

To boldly go where many have tried and failed before.

The track record of successful British comedy acts transitioning overseas has been less than stellar, either appeasing the masses by resting on their laurels and riding out their shelf life or fading into B-movie obscurity. It is a pleasant surprise then that the latest offering from comedy double act Nick Frost and Simon Pegg have made something that is fresh and yet does not stray too far from what makes them so likeable in the first place.

In roles that surely did not require too much background research, Pegg and Frost play, Clive and Graeme, a pair of self professed comic book geeks who, one their tour of paranormal hotspots, encounter lost extra-terrestrial Paul (Seth Rogen) who enlists them to help him return home. All the while evading a squad of special agents hot on their trail, this may all sound vaguely familiar.

Rather than rely solely on the charms of its leads, the film boasts a variety of supporting characters, not least of all is the film titular character Paul, of whom the film’s ability to sink or swim truly rests upon. On first impressions (not least the trailer) Paul may seem like a crude and repellent character but he quickly charms and ends up being a welcome addition to the troupe adding a new dynamic to the comedy styling’s of the film’s leads. Other supporting players include the ever charming Kristen Wiig, whose transformation from bible thumper to teenage delinquent/potential love interest is perfectly acceptable and Jason Bateman’s seemingly psychotic special agent in an amusing against type performance. Less successful are the double act of Jo Trugilo and Bill Hader as a couple of hapless agents who provide some uninspired slapstick comedy.

The film plays out as an affectionate pastiche of many of cinemas most beloved and quotable science fiction films and the film boasts an onslaught of references and cameos which fans of the Pegg/Frost formula will no doubt relish. Notable by his absence is director Edgar Wright, whose unique editing and directorial style contributed greatly to the success and subsequent cult following of both Shaun of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. Stepping into these well worn shoes is experienced comedy director Greg Mottola who brings his own unique, deft approach of directing, less frenetic then Wright’s, an approach that actually benefits the film.

The film is not devoid of criticisms however, the script is a little overstretched at times, with a subplot involving Paul and a young girl who once saved his life (now an elderly woman played by Blythe Danner) not given the time it needs to allow audiences emotional investment and a reliance on foul language (From one of the films big cameos no less) quickly becomes overkill. The transition from independent British films to a big studio production has also seen some of the harder edged comedy synonymous with Pegg and Frost’s earlier work become softened and more accessible to the masses, for instance, an amusing debate regarding creationism Vs evolution is only given brief screen time.

However, this a film that will please both established and new audiences that for all its faults and occasional vulgarities manages to still be both amusing and ultimately rather charming. A bold step in the right direction.

4/5

Making it up as I go along

I enjoyed vent spleening so much yesterday that I thought I'd come online and start writing, as I write this I have no idea where this is going. This should be fun. For me.

I suppose at some point I shall write about University and how it affected me, recount all the amusing and interesting anecdotes I have, and yes there are many. It is perhaps too epic a task to do tonight though and would actually require me to do attempt some skillful writing and not rely on familiar cheap jokes. Maybe.

The Wire is my new favorite TV show. There is little to fault with this show, it is perhaps the best television show I have ever watched, masterfully scripted and skillfully acted, it's gritty, gripping, shocking and at times genuinely moving. The show tackles the war on crime, specifically drug related crime, in the Baltimore area. What sets it apart from other shows is that the narrative is told from both the viewpoint of the police and those living in the projects. Like most shows that get broadcast on HBO, one of the key themes is no such thing as plain good and evil, black and white, there are merely shades of grey. It's important to start from the beginning and stick through the first 2 episodes as the show has multiple narrative arcs right from the get go, but stick with it and you'll soon find there's nothing better. Oh and Stringer Bell is one of the coolest characters ever to grace a television set.

I'm sure this is littered with spelling and grammar errors and I would like to have given the show a better write up but right now I don't care, I'm off to bed. I intend to lighten up and fall asleep on a cheerful note. I'm reading some book, it's told from a first person perspective and, what sets it apart is that it's narrative is told entirely through diary entires. About some girl who's gone into hiding with her family to avoid persecution and perhaps a fate worse then death.

I think her name is Anne.

Sweet dreams.