WHAT IS A STORY?

Julie: "What's all this talk about animated features needing a good story? What is a good story anyway?"

Ray; "A good story? Well, that artsy stuff is hard to define. Good stories in the modern sense are a fairly recent invention, maybe...um...maybe only a few hundred years old! Greek and Norse mythology, Homer, Tristan and Isolde, The Death of Arthur -- they're all good stories alright, but they're not good in the sense that "Hamlet" or "The Maltese Falcon" is good."

Betty: "Outside of plays I'm not aware of any truly compelling stories, ones that keep the reader on the edge of his seat wondering what will happen next, till the 1800s."

Montgomery: "Sorry! I have to answer the call of nature! If you can still hear me outside the door, I think that episodic, rambling stories like "Tom Jones" were good stories. Jones was written somewhere around 1750.

Modern stories are more streamlined and goal-oriented but for me they have to have some of the "you are there" feel of Jones or else they feel too contrived. That's why Dickens was such a good storyteller. He had strong plots but he mixed them with the gritty, first-person feel that the 18th century novels had."

Ann: "Ah, we're getting to something interesting here! How does an animated film like say, "Ratatouille", fit Montgomery's criterion? Does Ratatouille combine a real page-turner 0f a plot with folksy, real-life experience like the kind you find in Tom Jones?

George: "Ann, I'm sorry to turn my back on you but you're talking nonsense! Comedy is more anarchic than that. It follows rules that are intuitive and...well... musical! Your Tom-Jones-plus- Maltese-Falcon formula doesn't fit comedy. Either do comedy pure or figure out some way to merge it with the other two things! Just don't water it down!"

Eleanor: "But Ratatouille is a cartoon. Cartoons have to follow structures that lend themselves to funny drawings. Maybe cartoons shouldn't try to tell dramatic stories."

Burt: "I think the guy writing this is getting sleepy. Let's pick this up later. Um... Montgomery, you're gonna open a window in there, right?"

70s WEIRDNESS

One day an asteroid might hit the Earth and all records of the 1970s might be wiped out except for the references to it in my blog. I figure if that's the case, then I better give some serious thought as to what should be preserved. For the sake of posterity I've chosen two phenomena that I believe the future will be interested in:

1) In the 70s men wore middle-aged ladies' hairstyles!!!!!!!!!! The housewives you used to see on Monty Python...the ones with purses that they used to use to hit people with?...they were visionary trendsetters, way ahead of their time. All over America men longed to have hair like they had. No, it wasn't just Ronald MacDonald (above)...

...it was everybody! Why should little old ladies have all the fun?!

The middle-aged lady hair styles were believed to work best with plaid pants and package-revealing crotches (above)! The wall paper the guy is leaning on was everywhere. It was believed to go well with floppy, leatherette sofas and rounded coffee tables. You still see this paper in barber shops and men's rooms.

2) In the 70s women developed a way to show their packages too! I guess women were dismayed because they had no packages to show off. They wanted to have fun too! This was remedied with the invention of camel-toe pants. At first camel-toes were found only on leisure wear...

...then the formal camel toe appeared. Now you could be a hard-hitting executive and still let the guys in the boardroom know you're a girl!

Over time camel toes could be found everywhere: In TV audiences, in supermarkets, even in church.

I hope somebody seals a hard copy of this in a time capsule and buries it in their backyard.

INTERESTING ACTING VIDEOS

How about a couple more theater videos then I'll lay it to rest for a bit? "Method Actor Boyfriend" (above) is a really terrible clip, even though it was probably fun to watch live. It's a skit about a girl who invites her method actor boyfriend to a party. The reason I put it up is that, flaws and all, it raises interesting questions about stage movement.

Looking at it, I wonder why the method guy fails to dominate the scene. The actor could be better but let's put that aside. The method guy shouts and has all the funny lines and yet his girlfriend is the one our eyes keep coming back to. Why is that? Why doesn't the method guy steal the show?

I'm not an actor so I can only guess at the answer, but it was probably a mistake to allow some of the party people to move around more than the the star. Also the background design and lighting might have directed attention better. The girlfriend is the best actor in the film and I think it would have been a mistake to deliberately diminish her role to make the boyfriend look good. If anything I would have given her a little more to do because she's such an interesting contrast to the guy.

It seems to me that what the boyfriend needed (apart from voice control)was better stage movement. When he leaned into the character he was threatening the two of them should have backed up for a couple of steps as if his glance had the power to push. He should have showed us the hand before he licked it. In short, he should have given more thought to his stage movement. The people reacting to him should also have paid more attention to theirs. I always thought animators would benefit from a careful study of live action stage movement.




Above is a short interview with Stanislavski himself! I'm amazed! I didn't know he was ever filmed. Well, he has charisma, you have to give him that. He completely dominated the interviewer without ever moving from his seat.




Here's (above) David Beckham talking to another actor who does a great imitation of Al Pacino. I love the rhythm these guys have going.

I JUST SAW "RATATOUILLE!"

Before I get to "Ratatouille" I can't help but comment on the audience I saw it with. I saw the film at The Los Angeles Film School, across the street from the old Cinerama Dome in Hollywood.

I'd never been to that school before and I was amazed to see how Godawful tasteful and intelligent everyone looked. All the students looked like they were Harvard Phi Beta Kappas. I couldn't help thinking, "Is this a good thing? Should IQ points determine who gets to make films? Doesn't creativity and street smarts enter into it?" How would Rock and Roll have fared if only Julliard grads had been allowed to make records? Anyway, I was still glad to be there.

This review is going to come across as negative. It's not. The film represents a big advance and I'm glad I saw it. If I sound negative it's because the film's many good points have been covered in countless other reviews and I don't see the point in repeating them. I only have a few paragraphs so I'll limit myself to talking about what might have been done better in the film. Nitpickers and curmudgeons, this is for you!

One of the biggest flaws in the film is that it doesn't contain memorable characters. The characters aren't bad, they're better than average for 3D, but they're supporting actors trying to do the job of leading actors. They just don't have the weight to carry a film. Memorable characters used to be a Disney specialty: The Witch and the Dwarfs in "Snow White," Pinnochio, Jimminy Cricket (spelled right?), Peter Pan and Captain Hook were all heavy hitters. What happened?

On another point, the writing contained too much exposition and too often sounded like a fleshed-out story bible. You get the feeling that an elaborate ending was figured out, then the rest of the the film evolved in logical steps backwards from the ending. In my opinion that's a mistake. It's a good idea to know where you're going but a good story is more organic than that. Writers (hopefully artist writers) shouldn't sit down at a table and say, "What logical step are we going to flesh out today?" They should be saying, "What can we do at this point to wow the audience!? "

On another point, Ratatouille is skimpy on set pieces. What's a set piece? The Mad Tea Party in "Alice in Wonderland" was a set piece. The giant cactus dance in "Three Caballeros" was one. Groucho and Chico's "party of the first part" sketch in "Night at the Opera" was a set piece. Olivier's speech at the opening of "Richard III" was a set piece. It's an almost self-contained sketch or musical number within a larger story that's an excuse for tour-de-force writing and performance. Set pieces are the reason a film exists. In a way the rest of the story is just binder to hold the set pieces together.

And where were the funny scenes? I saw plenty of humorous scenes but only a few funny ones. The film needed a character that could support broad comedy. Maybe Remy's undiscriminating friend could have done it.

And why was the dialogue so normal? I expect films to have memorable dialogue. Aren't you glad Bogart said, "We'll always have Paris," rather than "Think of the memories we'll have of Paris" ? Aren't you glad Anthony Hopkins said, "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti" rather than "He bothered me so I had to eat him"? Some writers and artists are specialists at dialogue and every filmmaker should have their addresses on hand. You hire them as consultants.

Last but not least, the film was 3D which is wildly expensive and extremely limiting. I hate to say it but in 2007 you can still get more funny acting with a ten cent pencil than a top of the line desktop.

But acting isn't the only way 3D is limiting. Suppose one of the Ratatouille artists had come up with really hilarious gags involving passers-by on the street?* You couldn't do them. You'd have to throw them out. It would take 3D artists forever to construct each new character and it would cost a mint. That's why 3D films are so infuriatingly claustrophobic. The limitations of the medium force you to be nose to nose with the same small set of characters for an entire film.


* The one gag that did involve a passer-by, a bicyclist, got a big laugh. Wouldn't it have been great to see more gags like that?

WHAT GOES ON IN ACTING CLASSES?

These are doodles from a live action film about acting called "Method Madness" by Peter Linder. I've heard that acting classes can get pretty brutal and Linder has confirmed my worst fears.

ACTING THEORIES

I thought I'd talk about dramatic acting theories. I should warn you that I've never had an acting class in my life. I'm interested in slapstick comedy and I know of no school where you can learn to fall flat on your face the way Buster Keaton did. Anyway I still have opinions about drama and I'll talk about one or two of them here.


Uta Hagen (in the first video, above) is a terrific actress! You might have seen her in "Boys from Brazil" where she played an imprisoned German nurse. She had a sequence with Laurence Olivier -- Laurence Olivier! -- and your eyes were on her the whole time, not Olivier! Not too shabby! Anyway she's a leading acting theorist. She's always talking about how actions are the result of conscious decisions and I use that insight all the time in storyboarding.

In the video above Uta says she hates to see acting that looks like acting. Aaaargh! With much humility I have to beg to differ. I like acting that does look like acting. Think of Olivier's opening speech in "Richard III" or the way Laurel and Hardy used to act. It was artifice: beautiful, stylized artifice.






Here's (above) a film about Sanford Meisner's Russian-influenced technique. Meisner in his old age had the world's funniest voice. It was gravelly and gulpey like Janice Joplin trying to talk while drinking from a water cooler. Meisner was famous for yelling at students and for promoting the full-strength Stanislavsky Method. This is fine for dramatic actors but I think funny people should be wary of it. Look at how good Marilyn Monroe was in her pre-Method days ("Some Like it Hot") and how horrible she was after the Method ("The Misfits").






Here's (above)Ian Mckellan explaining his acting method. He says he just pretends. MCKellan is just kidding here and his dialogue is scripted, but I've heard Olivier say the same thing and he really meant it. British actors used to be puzzled by the American Method theories. They were more interested in training the voice and in finding rhythms in the text. I feel the same way. If I was an actor I'd want to study elocution for a few years before studying acting. I'd want to do Cicely Barry (famous author and voice coach) before doing Uta hagen.





This last video (above) is by Michael Caine. It's about film acting exclusively. Caine did a terrific job here but it assumes the student has already learned the fundamentals of stage acting somewhere else. It's still worth watching. Caine is remarkably clear and has a real knack for teaching. Watch all six parts on YouTube if you have the time.

SUBLIMINAL SEDUCTION

These examples of subliminal advertising are mostly from the 70s. How do you like the word "sex" airbrushed into the ice cubes in the gin glass (above)? Some people say they can see a man standing upright in the gin bottle. The reflections on the table are his legs and the cork is his penis.

More airbrushing (above). Benson & Hedges were accused of deliberately showing their ad characters in hell. That's because smokers were believed to have had an unconscious death wish and maybe yearned to be punished by death for smoking.


An airbrushed penis (above) in the hell girl's back.

The rest of the pictures need no comment. Subliminal sex images and words were believed to add appeal to a picture, even to pictures that weren't trying to sell anything.