A new Ghibli film ?

[Fabrice]

Compare this with the state of contemporary animation design. Sadly, 95% of feature animation haven't stepped any further from 19th century landscape painting, and Ghibli is one of those. Not that they do bad landscapes, mind you. But I'm a bit fed up with critics who predictably praise every new Ghibli film as the top of the art of animation. It's not. They're all nice, and of course above average, but they're by no means artistic revelations, especially not in the visuals.

That's why I have also posted some exemples from "La maison de petit cubes", which are really different from classical landscapes.
I can easily find other very different exemples from other japanese animations if you are interested

[malcooning]

Compare this with the state of contemporary animation design. Sadly, 95% of feature animation haven't stepped any further from 19th century landscape painting, and Ghibli is one of those. Not that they do bad landscapes, mind you. But I'm a bit fed up with critics who predictably praise every new Ghibli film as the top of the art of animation. It's not. They're all nice, and of course above average, but they're by no means artistic revelations, especially not in the visuals.

I agree (I join in discussion late).

Visually, Ghibli films are nothing to take a second look at. They are pretty, but in just the same way that Disney work is something that you can drink up with thirst if you are a fan of such stuff, and if you are not - you dismiss it along with the zillion other background works that left their factory. Such visuals are nothing to inspire but your classic fancies, and even then only if you are used to drink your drinks with quite many spoons of sugar.

But I do understand the purpose of them - they are there to be transparent to our cognition. They intend for your viewer eyes to not spend a moment of thought that might deviate you from the flow of the film, namely, the story. Those film are rendered in the way that shall not visually challenge you - contrary, you are supposed to unobtrusively confirm that the art in the image is aesthetically pleasant, and henceforth contributes to driving the story forward. Such aesthetics have been standardized and are now a ready made.

Considering what ART in the animation world is comprised of, these films are closer to the bottom of the ladder than to top of it. Indeed they are achievements of magnitude in themselves, and are well crafted entertainment gems, but they rape the majority of the audiences to believe that this is mainly what animation has to offer. Under the squeeze of the entertainment and mass media pipes, the potential of artistic animation is being shunned away, even (and more frighteningly) from the visions of new animators.

[slowtiger]

I think it's even possible to further extend this critique to cover the choice of stories as well.

Of course I don't know all animation in the world - I might not even know 5% of it. But from what I know I claim that the bigger part of it has stories which unfold in rural (if not fantastic) settings, and only a smaller part tells stories which happen in modern cities. Compare this with the fact that the biggest part of mankind nowadays lives in big cities, rather than on the countryside.

There are many reasons for it, I'll try to name some obvious ones. First, any rural setting makes it easier to nicely stage actions. Trees, bushes, flowers, hills, and all other props, can be easily arranged to form a nice picture. There's literally no reference to any existing landscape, it's even not necessary to really decide upon which kind of tree or flower the artist has to paint (it's much like a Bob Ross painting). And with a big brush any tree is painted much faster than any kind of big city street.

Second, rural settings lead to simple rural stories, especially if we have a look at animation for children. There is a whole universe of an ideal countryside world inhabited by friendly people (expect the unavoidable villain) and cute, if not talking animals. None of that has any foundation in reality. In reality, there would be not enough water for all, or too much water = floods, or some war devastating your fields, or Monsanto claiming absurdly high licence fees for their seeds, or ... whatever.

So the green hills of animation are clearly the hills of an idealized past.

City settings, OTOH, mostly happen in some dystopian future. Japanese animation dominates this kind of story, and again there's not much foundation in today's reality. It's just off-the-shelf juvenile love story with lots of Western (the movie genre) cliché combat and a flavour of "magic" which solely consists of neon light SFX.

There's only a minority of films which put their characters into some representation of today's (urban) world. Of course this doesn't automatically create a better movie, I think it's even harder to create something believable this way, because the audience will compare what's on the screen to its own experience of the world. But the few successful examples of this kind satisfy my constant need for "contemporary" themes and places in animation.

[Paul Fierlinger]

It's escapism, pure and simple and that's what children and the larger part of their parent audiences want for themselves. If animators can draw anything they want, they should draw non-existing life, goes the simplistic reasoning of escapists. So the films crowded with monsters and aliens and spaceships are all created along the same lines as both pretty and scary woodlands and ancient countrysides, just to satisfy the escapists. They are all Disneylands for the afternoon and they bring in the money.

The audiences rule producers as they themselves are ruled on their jobs; by money. I made Tulip, a story about a real person in a real city setting (with trips to real country settings) and his real dog who does real dog things like dump crap everywhere they go and hump anything with legs. That's instantly labeled art house stuff and predestined for the dog house -- no distributor will take a chance with something that pleases only a small segment of the general population.

So my next film goes back in time, a sea adventure story with pirates and strange lands (albeit a real story, but history is also fantasy land so I allow myself to surrender to common taste with that excuse) because my producer and I need money like everyone else. The audience has us by the nuts and do you now wonder why I get impatient with people who keep pointing out to me more of that sweet escapism junk? But I still have fight in me and sneak in mature thoughts to ponder because I cannot pretend that I am brain dead.

I admire my producer for feeling the same way; he said, "let's make it a family film but let's not pander to the children". We independents have to be the opposition party in this entertainment business just for the sake of checks and balances. so lets not pander to the children.

[Sierra Rose]

Wasn't Grave of the Fireflies a real story about real problems faced by real children? The dark side of human life.

My own stories are about the dark side of childhood, one hopes it wouldn't be any darker for them.

"My brother's going to tell on me" "My father caught me in a lie." "My mother has a million eyes." "I meant to put my toys away".

I use a suburban setting (mostly the kids' back yards). The children are not cutesy. It will be interesting if this has any audience at all when I finally put it out there. But children in my life have watched some of it and do seem to recognize and take delight in seeing themselves--inside out. At least they giggle.

[malcooning]

I think it's even possible to further extend this critique to cover the choice of stories as well.

This is a different territory I believe. The basis for some of the stories, or let's say contexts, is often epic, sensitive and deep. Too often There is a problem with the delivery, in which surface suppresses substance, but the core of the story is good still. In the case of "Grave of the Fireflies" the story is deeply affecting and highly humane. Personally I find it one of the saddest renditions of a story to ever come on screen.
Other examples exist.

[Paul Fierlinger]

Little Nemo is a perfect example of a wonderful, witty, sensitive story filled with early 20th century Americana which the Japanese producers turned into absolute garbage, starting with assigning Ray Bradbury to write the screenplay(???) and finishing with assigning a committee of Japanese scriptwriters to rewrite everything from scratch. After pouring millions of dollars into insensitive preproduction machinations they made a final dive into disaster by not allotting enough money for the actual animation process. Whatever the detailed reasons for turning this charming story into waste, from the upstart the culprit was total ignorance of a foreign culture and the arrogance of money.

[Fabrice]

Little Nemo is a perfect example of a wonderful, witty, sensitive story filled with early 20th century Americana which the Japanese producers turned into absolute garbage, starting with assigning Ray Bradbury to write the screenplay(???) and finishing with assigning a committee of Japanese scriptwriters to rewrite everything from scratch. After pouring millions of dollars into insensitive preproduction machinations they made a final dive into disaster by not allotting enough money for the actual animation process. Whatever the detailed reasons for turning this charming story into waste, from the upstart the culprit was total ignorance of a foreign culture and the arrogance of money.

It's the same with the Lion King of Disney studios, which was complete and bad copy of The King Leo from Tezuka ...

[slowtiger]

Little Nemo [...] turned into absolute garbage

Yes. I saw it. Even hiring Moebius as character (or better: costume) designer didn't help.

Funnily enough I found a music video some years later which captured the spirit of Little Nemo much more faithfully. It lacked inbetweens and money, and it was just for a mediocre rock song, but it was more Nemo than that multi million dollar debacle. (Maybe someone remembers the name of the band, I don't.)

[Paul Fierlinger]

It's the same with the Lion King of Disney studios, which was complete and bad copy of The King Leo from Tezuka ...

Among the big studios there are no innocents.

[malcooning]

Disney have even shamelessly went a step further and signed Ghibli a western distribution deal. This gives them the freedom to completely remove whatever they fancy from the soundtrack, and pack the films (which have localized sensitivities) with star-studded OTT voice overs, and uber melodramatic americanskilled orchestrated tunes. When I have a DVD of a Miazaki film, I often find myself switching to the English audio track to briefly fill myself with that reassurance that it is nothing but horrific, pure insult to the original piece. Like playing with a soar tooth, to check the pain is still abound, and your reasons of complaint are just!

[Paul Fierlinger]

So now we know what to avoid as independents who are still left with choices (although never 100% of all choices). My golden rule is to never attempt to make a film on a topic I have no personal experiences with (therefore a film about an old man and his dog and another about an old man and his sailboat, one a European, the other a New Englander; both cultures and objects I am very familiar with.) This is something you cannot expect from a mega studio. The Japanese will dive into Americana without hesitations and the Anglos will dive into Nipponia without losing a beat. I hate tribalism and nationalism in politics but there is something to be said about both when it comes to the arts.

[malcooning]

My golden rule is to never attempt to make a film on a topic I have no personal experiences with

EXACTLY my no.1 rule too!
It all starts there. It is where the spring begins.

[ten_zero]

I hate tribalism and nationalism in politics but there is something to be said about both when it comes to the arts.

Sometimes, the heart's letter is read in the artworks as same as eyes.

[User 767]

I remember seeing some pencil looking Little Nemo (modern) thing that wasn't bad. This new thing seems a bit lacking. Even Winsor McCay's Little Nemo held more interest than the more current one released.

This Ghibli fan thing is interesting. I've seen a few [Ghibli] films that I enjoyed, and some that weren't so enjoyable. Who cares what's coming next? Certainly, the Disney-fied versions are generally appalling. Humm. Disney fan thing too-now combined into one great, multi-national entity.

Ponyo was really lacking (in Japanese and English). The Disney dubbed version of Totoro is vastly different from the earlier 'Streamline' dub. I don't know what the rest of the world gets, but things American-ized are often pretty bad.

Regardless, don't most people watch movies, television, etc. mostly as entertainment? The only time I notice 'the animation' in a film is when there's something exceptional about it. Whether it's particularly good, or bad, or something doesn't work. When I'm taken out of the moment, I notice. I can almost enjoy Fantastic Planet, even though it's got a phenomenally low frame count-it at least [mostly] works with the portrayal, and the story (I did say almost). If you're an animator watching a film, are you watching for the technical aspects of it as a professional, or are you watching as an audience member for entertainment value? If it's the former, then you're a critic, and not really the target audience. If it's the latter, then your opinion counts.

Why try to push Paul into an opinion on something where he's not the target audience? He doesn't want to see it, let him be. Of course, for someone who avoids films to avoid their influence, I think he's seen more than most of us who actually seek them out. Now, when there's a movie about a grumpy old man with dogs, you're probably safe in pushing for him seeing that...

Elodie, why can't you be a storyboard artist?