Pete Docter
The opening of Up, on its own, stands as a masterpiece. In less than fifteen minutes, Pixar doesn’t just up the ante of what an animated film can be, it throws its cards down on the table (all aces), then proceeds to shoot the dealer dead and clear out the casino in a dashing, daring robbery; stopping only to threaten the loudmouth female hostage and break the fingers of a security guard who tries to play cowboy.
Up, quite frankly, is Pixar’s finest hour. Other, lesser, Internet film critics have debated the merit of the previous statement, and I tell you, those sluts (“hack” is such a blasé’, overused term) aren’t worth their almost-but-not-quite degrees in film theory, which, to a man, were only “one last credit/course” away, only failing to be awarded after Dipshit McGee* had a last minute revelation (and subsequent mental breakdown/crisis) that one can start asking “would you like whipped cream on that mocha?” without a high-five-or-six figure piece of dead tree to his or her** name.
* This is the name they should automatically change your legal birth certificate to once you declare your major in film theory, or if you’re a sex worker who calls your daily grind “performance art.” Hey, that reminds me, you kids need to badger yours truly with emails reminding me to review The Girlfriend Experience!
** This sentence is pure folly. There are no female film theory majors writing gratis on the Internet. They all land cushy jobs at New York publications and wear oversized sweaters to work with opaque leggings because TV leads me to believe that’s both smart and sassy.
Perhaps Toy Story was more whimsical. And, okay, yes, Finding Nemo was adorable. But Up isn’t a film content to entertain your spawn, it wants to move the heart of a motherf**ker. Remember when you were a tyke, and you cried like a bitch when the hunter killed Bambi’s mom? That’s this, but cranked up to 11.
In fact, I’m throwing down the gauntlet and saying that Up is the perfect date movie. Not for a first outing with someone you met off Craigslist, perhaps, but when you’re thinking of transitioning from “renting” to “buying,” you take that lass to see this film, and if she doesn’t bury her head in your shoulder and sob until she’s hyperventilating, you don’t marry that woman until she goes on a long, excruciating vision quest and finds a soul. I don’t know what kind of human being doesn’t get misty-eyed watching Up, but I’m pretty sure that if he were alive today, Hitler wouldn’t have needed a tissue either.
Up is not the kind of movie you’d expect from Pixar in a million years. It won’t sell merchandise, as it’s too complex for the kids. The animation is top notch, and the main character flies around in a house attached to a rainbow of balloons, so they’ll like it, but they won’t understand it. And that’s fine.
I realize this “review” is more along the lines of “gushing praise,” and there’s a reason for that. The less you know about this film going in, the better the ride. Pixar’s advertising for Up was minimalist, almost cryptic in nature, because this isn’t a story you can easily sell for a family night at the cinema. This is a story about facing your own mortality and dealing with life-changing loss. I never thought I’d write that sentence in regards to a studio whose first film was about a toy cowboy and spaceman. Pixar’s always been good at what it does, but between this and Wall-E, it’s starting to take risks nobody else would touch. Who knows if the long-term returns will justify similar chances in the future, but for now, with Up, any new Pixar film gets bumped up from “solid summer entertainment” to “a potential medium-changing event.” Go see it, or you’re a bad person who hates movies.
Comments (6)
I know many like to assert
I know many like to assert that the Pixar all stars are the real heirs to the visionary family art of Walt Disney, but dude, seriously, Pixar has grown so much better than Walt Disney or even Jeffrey Katzenberg ever was.
Huh?
"...aren’t worth their almost-but-not-quite degrees in film theory, which, to a man, were only “one last credit/course” away, only failing to be awarded after Dipshit McGee* had a last minute revelation (and subsequent mental breakdown/crisis) that one can start asking “would you like whipped cream on that mocha?” without a high-five-or-six figure piece of dead tree to his or her** name."
I've read this through five times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say. "To a man"? What man? What the hell are you talking about? "Piece of dead tree", as in a paycheck? One of the first things they'll teach you in school is to not add superfluous vocabulary in situations that don't require it. You see, this after-dawn when I engaged my electronic information box, I letter-clicked your website into the Uniform Resource Locator code bar, found this paragraph collection concerning Pixar's Digitally Animated Balloon Movie, expected to peruse a critical dialogue, and found a hack (slut? your call) vomiting his nerd-based wordings on my visual screen.
I have a film theory degree, it got me a writing/editing job with a very decent salary. If I can do it, there's no reason why thousands of eager, capable undergrads can't. Does that make your weird argument (which I may be totally misunderstanding, who knows, I think you'd agree that's hardly the point with this kind of shit) invalid?
a film theory degree got you
a film theory degree got you a writing job?
unlikely, it was probably yr writing. yr good at that.
we're probably having a difference of term use, or a "failure to communicate" which is a snappy phrase never heard before or used in a movie that i just made up myself.
i like good film reviews. i love good film criticism. i jizz over a fine film essay.
i'm afraid i may have influenced my fellow george a bit on this florid rant that angered you so. see, george is one of my best friends and has earned my respect by actually completing screenplays, winning the occasional award for them, and actually finishing production on one of them (took two tries...water under the bridge)
anyway, i have a film minor i haven't done shit with and he has actually applied himself to the active pursuit of writing and making movies, so even though i don't always agree with him (and find some of his enthusiasms to be regressive idiocy), he has my respect as an active mind on the making of movies.
anyway, i've been renting a room in george's house for the last few months, so he's gotten plenty of time to soak in my whiskey drenched ramblings about movies and film writing.
one of my most active loathings is "film theory". i understand this can mean a lot of things, so let me explain what i mean. smitty can give you his version later.
"film theory" as i think of it was the purest at the beginning and the rest has all been diminishing and more meaningless results. it was great when cats like eisenstein who actually made effective movies were explaining how to use the medium effectively.
what i think of now is the cinema's own slice of the irrelevance of 90% of academic writing...exclusionary and obscure vocabulary and redundant over-writing (both of which i've been guilty and confused of, but then again i had to write a lot of papers in college where i was rewarded for these flaws) that express simple and often capricious ideas that don't scratch the surface or thoughtfully analyze a damn thing.
what was presented and written after 1980 as "film theory" to us when i was in school was a wanky formula...attach a perpetual hot button academic subject of discourse (feminism, socialism, race, sexuality, whatever) and make a novel thesis before you watch any movies...then write an article or book about it by stringing together referents with big words and only addressing content...never, and i repeat NEVER, examine the aesthetics of the film or what the movie and it's style were trying to say.
i'm sure some great work has come out under the umbrella of "film theory" since 1980, but most of what i was served in school fell under another umbrella that could be described as "people who don't even like movies superficially skimming content to advance a hackneyed academic idea they were enamored of."
note to self:
watch "up" soon in order to drop a comment getting back to discussing the movie.
Quotes and Replies
"one of my most active loathings is 'film theory'. i understand this can mean a lot of things, so let me explain what i mean. "
I think it mainly means two things, both equally important: noticing the structure of a film (editing, camera position, etc.) and how that structure communicates something to the audience, and the relationship of one film to the rest of film history.
"film theory as i think of it was the purest at the beginning and the rest has all been diminishing and more meaningless results."
Of course, the desired result of studying theory is self-contained; you need only study it if you would like some assistance in understanding the choices that are made when it comes to making a film. You could use those skills to become a better critic, screenwriter, director, whatever you'd like. Few people should expect theory, and the learning of it, to have a point without another, primary, creative profession.
"What i think of now is the cinema's own slice of the irrelevance of 90% of academic writing...express simple and often capricious ideas that don't scratch the surface or thoughtfully analyze a damn thing."
Because film theory is an open-ended subject, which thrives on debate as much as canonization, there should be a wide range of different approaches to it, which is thankfully true. The most important film book I've read my own path, for various reasons, is Roger Ebert's The Great Movies, which is relatively easy to read, though it is not a part of what you'd called academic writing. I suspect that kind of accessible material is kept outside of the classroom because it's ideas are extremely clear, and thus too easy to fall back on without the necessary examination. We want students to be challenged, after all. Even at the academic level, there is a lot of engaging, accessible material, and if a student is not exposed to it, their teacher is not doing their job properly. I can't imagine a college professor finding something like Easy Riders, Raging Bulls without merit simply because it is a readable book.
When you say "analyze", what do you mean? What elements of a film would you like to see more exploration of? You may find it just as useful to find these things out for yourself, rejecting previous theories. That is very important.
"feminism, socialism, race, sexuality, whatever..."
Again, if a professor/theorist relies too heavily on these either esoteric or intentionally provocative subjects, they are missing part of the point. It may just be true that a lot of canon films simply deal with these subjects a great deal.
"never, and i repeat NEVER, examine the aesthetics of the film or what the movie and it's style were trying to say."
If you are saying that trying to determine what a film is saying should be the most important part of film theory, I would agree with you. No film ever made has not had an inherent ideology and purpose. No matter what Lars von Trier tells you.
"people who don't even like movies superficially skimming content to advance a hackneyed academic idea they were enamored of."
People, especially those in academic environments, watch films for different reasons, sometimes vastly different. In my experience, an audience in an academic environment would be made up of: 75% people who expect to be amused and entertained, and feel disappointed if they are not, and 25% people who come to see something they can feel passionate about, whether they express it through enjoyment, dislike, support or derision. Sometimes a person's dislike of something that you like may cause you to view them so negatively, you feel they are trying to sabotage the medium at large. I doubt there are non-film-liking people in theory any more than there are football-hating people watching and talking about football.
Film Theory is not immune to the stain of pretension - because unlike a lot of things, there is no way to decide who is right, ever.
i think we agree quite a bit
i think we agree quite a bit and use terms quite differently. my academic study of film (it was my minor) is kind of limited and generalized, mostly historical survey courses of nations and genres, so i never had any specific definitions of the term "film theory" but have kind of defined it for myself against other things.
for instance, roger ebert is also one of my favorite writers, but i always self placed him in categories like criticism or essay. ebert is a deep, inviting, clear thinking and explanatory writer. he can explain ideas about film and how and why it works in a clear and fascinating way, and in his own recognizable voice.
its clear you have a broader and more clearly defined swath of what "film theory" can mean. i, pretty unfairly but also pleasurably, hold the term responsible for some of the more odious texts and infuriating people i knew in school.
i just remember the people who made the point of using that term "film theory" specifically and the works they promoted ran counter to my love of movies. instead of engaging passionately with movies and wanting to learn more about what made them tick, they were more interested in superficially skimming content in order to attach movies to their own academic, ideological theories.
of course this is valid, because film can certainly be analyzed endlessly and thoughtfully along sociopolitical lines, but it seemed to have gotten to a point where they couldn't see the forest for the trees, or honestly engage with and experience a movie because they went into everything with an academic opinion that they filtered everything through.
i'm sure you must have some idea of the type of writing i'm referring to, and it was probably ignorant of me to attach the broad term "film theory" to it. so what would you call it? just "poor academic film writing?"
i think what it strives to be, and a great example of what it should be, are things like laura mulvey's writing on the male gaze in cinema. that is a case of great analysis of movies, how they're made, and what they express in relation to a broader sociopolitical idea. that was also a very influential work, and over the years i think great writing like that led to diminishing results, where you had more work along those lines, but getting more obscure, facile, and academic, and interacting less with the movies themselves, until it becomes a game of manufacturing academic journal articles that can be generalized with the title "(insert trendy academic sociopolitical idea) in (insert trendy movie, series of movies, or popular genre)".
anyway, sorry for debasing the term "film theory", but i think it's even more abused by poor academic film writers.
More Thoughts
(Apologies if you find my style of taking direct quotes obnoxious; I haven't found a better way to structure my words on the internet yet. Anyways...)
"for instance, roger ebert is also one of my favorite writers, but i always self placed him in categories like criticism or essay."
I think I'm getting a better understanding of what you mean by "theory": the use of esoteric, abstract or sociopolitical concepts to discuss a film. Fair enough. I think, at the end of the day, most writing on film fits most comfortably under "criticism". I haven't met anyone who can talk about a movie without leaning on whether they actually liked it or not, and why. As such, this will become the focus of most writing.
"hold the term responsible for some of the more odious texts and infuriating people i knew in school."
Some people, myself included, really are out to point out why something that is generally liked is in fact of poor quality, and to use flowery, dense vocabulary to one-up whoever they happen to be debating. If discussion about art is naturally debate-based, and naturally competitive, I will come armed with as much information and as many angles as I can, no matter how frustrating it can be for some. Which one of us takes the art too seriously?
"or honestly engage with and experience a movie because they went into everything with an academic opinion that they filtered everything through."
Not sure what you mean by 'honestly engage'. Again I think there is a divide between people who go to a movie to feel "lost" and just want to sit, watch, and enjoy, and people who want something to sink their teeth into, pick apart, and examine with exacting intentions. 'Entertaining' films, let's say something like Star Wars, aren't going to get much favor from academic types because their purpose is primarily superficial, so it provides no great challenge to them.
Part of the reason this argument is interesting to me is because I think I would be the kind of film person you would find disagreeable; I want to play devil's advocate, and provoke people into questioning why they liked something. Even if I mildly enjoyed something, I will make it a point to go against the grain of the majority opinion. This isn't because I value my own individuality or want to be different, I just think every environment needs dissent, and if I have to be that dissent at the cost of my own temporary popularity, so be it.
"i'm sure you must have some idea of the type of writing i'm referring to, and it was probably ignorant of me to attach the broad term "film theory" to it. so what would you call it? just "poor academic film writing?"
I have some idea of what you mean, though I am suspicious that what you would consider objectionable may just be beyond your current capacity. I don't know you so I don't know what that capacity is, but in my view people tend to consider anything they feel threatened by intellectually "pretentious", as if it was purposefully made to confuse them. "Poor" academic film writing is the same as all kinds of poor writing. It would be repetitive, offensive, cliched, or show something basic like a use of bad grammar.
"interacting less with the movies themselves, until it becomes a game of manufacturing academic journal articles that can be generalized with the title "(insert trendy academic sociopolitical idea) in (insert trendy movie, series of movies, or popular genre)".
By interacting I think you mean using concrete examples drawn from the films. This was encouraged in every academic class I studied in, and was apparent in most texts that I was required to read. Any academic film writing that veers too sharply off point should of course be considered "poor", but it is rare that you will find such things published and distributed to educational institutions. You can rest assured that everything will be at least understood by the professor, or they would probably not have the nerve to try and discuss it. If heavily abstract, modern film writing is all you were exposed to, you were not in a very effective environment.
Feel free to reply further, thank you for your time.
J. Skinner
jesse (at) toromagazine (dot) com