Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Commentary

For Good Animation, It's Always a Question of Character

Computer-generated effects can't save weak plots and trite dialogue. Vision and risk-taking triumph over filmmaking by committee.

May 31, 2000|CHARLES SOLOMON | SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

Many recent animated features lack the well-told stories that have traditionally been one of the medium's strengths. Live action no longer has a monopoly on superficial glitz: Disney's computer-generated "Dinosaur" and DreamWorks' traditionally animated "The Road to El Dorado" juxtapose technical flash with minimal, muddled plots.

"There are more A-level animators working today than at any time in the past, but we're not making more A-level films," noted Brad Bird, director of the critically acclaimed animated feature "The Iron Giant."

The problem, Bird and others believe, isn't the animation: Tarzan, Kala and Kerchak in "Tarzan," Shan Yu in "Mulan," and the Queen and Seti in "The Prince of Egypt" stand out as polished examples of traditional animation. John Lasseter and the artists at Pixar raised computer-generated personality animation to new heights in "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2."

In "Dinosaur," the well-meaning but awkward hero, the heroine who dismisses the hero only to discover how nice a guy he really is and the wiseacre best friend feel like they were hired from a cartoon stock company. In his Oscar-winning short, "Creature Comforts," Nick Park gives zoo animals more vivid personalities than any of the major characters in "El Dorado" or "Dinosaur."

In "El Dorado" Tulio and Miguel move nicely, but the animators don't seem to have any more idea who they are than the audience does. Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh supply their voices, but the characters say and do similar things in similar ways. Who can tell them apart?

Often, the problem lies in a story that may not be appropriate for the medium. Quasimodo's gymnastics in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" were splendidly animated, but this Hunchback was cute, rather than hideous, which drained the story of its pathos. Warner Bros.' ill-conceived "The King and I" and Don Bluth's derivative "Anastasia" were live-action stories that failed to utilize the imaginative possibilities the medium offers.

Nor are the stories particularly well told. In "Dinosaur," viewers never find out why the animals left the lush nesting valley, only to trek back to it through an endless desert. In "El Dorado" we never learn why the local beauty Chel (Rosie Perez) wants to leave the idyllic realm of El Dorado--or why she steals golden vessels when she has no knowledge of their value. And "Anastasia" doesn't bother to explain what became of the title character's family or how she survived the Russian Revolution.

A good story has never guaranteed the success of an animated feature, any more than it has for live-action films. "The Iron Giant" boasted one of the best scripts in recent years, but grossed only about one-fifth as much as the barely written "Pokemon: The First Movie." "The Land Before Time," "All Dogs Go to Heaven" and "The Swan Princess" have become direct-to-video franchises, despite their unimaginative plots.

The price of feature animation has risen dramatically in recent years: "Dinosaur" reportedly cost somewhere between $130 million and $200 million. Studio executives have understandably grown reluctant to risk $100 million or more on ideas that might be too personal or offbeat, opting instead for the tried and true, however tired. But historically the animated films that have broken records at the box office and in video sales have had the strongest stories and most memorable characters, from "Snow White" and "Pinocchio" to "Beauty and the Beast" and "Toy Story."

No one seems to remember that the Disney features now regarded as classics--"Snow White," "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," "Bambi"--were groundbreaking films when they were first released, as were "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King." But after "Lion King," a sameness began to creep into American animation. With a few bright exceptions--"Mulan," "The Iron Giant," "Toy Story 2"--many recent features feel like the artists are just reworking pieces of other films.

"Dinosaur" recalls Bluth's "The Land Before Time" (the search for the happy grazing ground) combined with elements from "Tarzan" (the outsider-hero raised by another species) and "The Lion King" (the showdown between the hero and the evil leader). Watching "Anastasia" was like flipping through an album of scenes from other films: Ariel and Eric waltzing from "Little Mermaid," Fievel's Papa from "An American Tail," the Forest of Thorns from "Sleeping Beauty," etc.

The mercurial Genie stole the show in "Aladdin," and made the wisecracking, anthropomorphic best friend a requirement in animation: the Gargoyles in "Hunchback," Mu Shu in "Mulan," Terk and Tantor in "Tarzan," Hotep and Hoy in "Prince of Egypt," Bartok in "Anastasia" and Zini, the lemur who refers to himself as "the love monkey," in "Dinosaur." The artists are trying to tell a story at the same time these characters are elbowing the viewer in the ribs and making fun of it.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|