movie musings.

daniel.* fairly recently, i saw 'bee movie.' were not gonna get into what i was doing seeing bee movie; the details are far too embarrassing. and suffice it to say, as i have in fact been fond of saying, it's not a pun; this really is a b movie. anyway, while i was watching all these personified bees flyin around and what's worse, talkin a blue streak, and additionally, observing the frankly uncomfortable relationship btwn the jerry seinfeld bee and the renée zellweger human woman, i realized something: they are using this computer animation all wrong.

dont get me wrong - i like the animation. sometimes i like it a lot. i just dont think it's being used for good.

starting off with the toys and the ogre was fitting, but do you realize that in a span of about seven years, weve had (by my count) computer-animated films about anthropomorphized chickens, ants, other assorted bugs, cars, fish, penguins, cats, rats, mammoths, sloths, smilodons (i kid you not; twas a prehistoric saber-toothed cat, and, needless to say, my new favorite animal.), various and sundry zoo animals, friggin vegetables, and a goddamn house. at least.

we. get. it.

using computer animation, you can animate inanimate things in ways you never could before. but as chris rock says about teenage girls havin babies, just cuz you can do it, doesnt mean it should be done.

i mean, what are we going to see next? here are some ideas that will, god willing, never come to light:

all the king's pens - a ragtag crew of office supplies, led by a courageous ballpoint voiced by gene hackman and a hilariously self-deprecating pink highlighter (rupert everett), travel through unknown rooms and hallways to liberate a long-lost post-it pad from the supply closet (pad voiced by emma thompson).

all about leaves - a merry gang of colorful leaves, having fallen due to, well, fall, make their way, and much mischief, through new york city. (red leaf: christian bale; yellow leaf: angela basset; brown leaf: chiwetel ejiofor)

the book, the thief, his wife, and her cover - neville, a worn-out reference book for podiatrists' assistants, is coming apart at the seams - until he's stolen by a tap dancer badly in need of a pedicure, whose wife takes pity upon neville and introduces him to a dust jacket named dusty. (book: heath ledger; dust jacket: dustin hoffman) (there are homo-erotic may-december overtones in this one...)

goodbrellas - from the five-dollar disposable eloquently voiced by bruce willis, to the 200 ducat parasol given breath by vanessa paradis, you better have 'protection' from one of em when the rain starts comin down.

on golden pon - three generations of maxi-pads reunite at their family's old summer cottage, which the audience knows is just some old broad's na-na. (elder tampons voiced by jack nicholson and faye dunaway, reprising their 'chinatown' pairing; next gen pads voiced by julia roberts and dennis quaid; youngest: dakota fanning)

you see my point, no? (i mean, i have beaten it to death and all.)

to me, bee movie was best when it featured its animated humans. it's far more interesting to see how an animator portrays a portly, or angry, or cool, or pitiable, or cruel, or tall or short person, than a talking bee. there's just so much more room to say something in the former category. (i particularly liked all the human facial expressions.)

i understand that these studios have to do movies for kids, and this necessitates all the anthropomorphizing, but there have been great animated kids' movies based almost entirely on humans (sleeping beauty, cinderella, charlie brown, etc).

i wanna see more comp-animated movies about people. waking life and its ilk are so great b.c they use animation to get us to take a fresh, perspective-changing look at human and human issues, not a needless look into the world of singing asparagus. (chaz brown, btw, was particularly adept at this, both in those movies, and in the strip.)

day. on an unrelated note, not too long ago i saw a screening of youth without youth, which, interestingly enough, is about metempsychosis. im not gonna get into the movie, or that term, b.c for one thing, im already bored of writing this post. but i will say why i bring it up:

before the movie, francis coppola, who directed the beast, got up in the front of the paris theater and, among other things, told us that he hoped the film would be like a meal for us. paraphrasing, he said, 'i dont want you to have to go home and think about whether you liked the film or not. i want it to be like a meal, where you eat it, and you know you enjoyed it immediately.' (he cooks a lot apparently.)

anyway, guess what followed? the QUINTESSENTIAL 'what-the-hell-was-that-about-and-did-i-enjoy-it-or-hate-it' movie, that's what followed. i mean, in an audience of roughly 300, i doubt there were 3 people who, after the flick ended, didnt have the exact reaction coppola wished us not to have.

(and of course, weeks removed from the event, i can now say the movie is dressed-up garbage.)

but what i loved about this experience was a) that it confirmed this psychoanalytical maxim that people are always giving themselves away with what they say. see, coppola knew his film was too inscrutable and lifeless. he couldnt not. and he also couldnt not confess this to us, via his little 'meal' disclaimer, before we saw the film. it was like a preemptive apology. b) it's nice to know that even the guy who made the friggin godfather is insecure about a new movie he makes. just makes me feel a little better about my own insecurities, ya know?

lewis. oh, lastly, i just love daniel day-lewis, and im very much looking forward to seeing him in there will be blood.

* btw, have you realized daniel is an anagram of denial? actually, you need only switch the a and the e. i love that.