Wild Strawberries - Dream Sequence

(Update: This video has since been removed from Youtube.  Sorry.)

For the benefit of movie lovers, and in memory of the great Igmar Bergman, I present one of his signature scenes, the surrealist dream sequence from the beginning of Wild Strawberries. It's a magnificent example of his skills, and a damn fine piece of movie making. See, kids? This is what the old-timers talk about when they talk about, "movies." No fart jokes, no endless explosions, no torture porn. Real movies.

To the video store!

Igmar Bergman Parody on MST3K

I just had to post this here, since I'm such a die-hard Mystery Science Theater junkie. It's a Bergman parody-slash-homage, which is all you need to know. Enjoy.

Igmar Bergman, Tom Snyder Have Died

Learned about Bergman's passing this morning, and Tom Snyder this evening while reading Atrios. It's always sad when anyone dies. I, and most movie lovers, are grateful that Bergman came out of cinematic retirement to make what would be his final movie. I don't know about anyone else, but I for one was thrilled that the greatest living director had returned from his generation-long seclusion, if only for one more run.

I don't know if the name Igmar Bergman registers with moviegoers anymore. Likely not, particularly with the multiplex lemmings who mindlessly obey whatever the tv ads tell them. Ooh, another Adam Sandler movie! And he hits people, an' stuff! Duuuude!

Don't be like the suckers. Don't be like the mindless losers whose fate it is to be manipulated and contorted like a puppet. Theirs is the way of suburban hell, consumerism, decaying democracy, and permanent war. You were meant for better things. Believe in that.

If you're not familiar with Bergman's movies, there has never been a better time to start. The Criterion Collection has served the master superbly, with is many masterpieces available on DVD, and often with commentaries, documentaries, and extras that were once the domain of college courses. Everyone has their favorites, and I'd recommend pretty much everything, but if you have to start someplace...I'd say your first Bergman movie should be The Seventh Seal. Widely regarded as among the greatest of movies, and it probably remains the quintessential Bergman.

After that, I'd suggest Wild Strawberries, if only because it's tone is so completely different. Bergman has always been parodied as the purveyor of gloom, sort of a 1950's cinema answer to Black Sabbath. But I find a lot of humor in his work, and Wild Strawberries is a good choice. It also reminds me greatly of Omohide Poro Poro - Takahata certainly draws inspiration from him, and Poro Poro even quotes a shot from Bergman. Perhaps Grave of the Fireflies owes something as well, with Strawberries' use of narrative flashbacks, as the main character revisits the ghosts of his past.

After that, there are all the doom and gloom movies, and if you're carefully observant you may learn a thing or two. Or maybe you'll just understand what all those parodies - from Woody Allen to SCTV to MST3K - were all about.

Igmar Bergman was the world's greatest living filmmaker. No other person walking the Earth could make that claim. Now he's gone, hopefully to meet God and settle things once and for all. That's bound to be an event.

Tom Snyder was a radio and television personality. He hosted a show called, simply, Tomorrow, which followed Johnny Carson, many years ago. I have fond memories of sleeping on my grandparents' couch with the tv on, and Tom Snyder coming on. I felt so grown up and lucky to stay up late enough to watch it. Remember when staying up way past your bedtime was a real thrill? You were a rebel. You don't get too many thrills like that once you grow up; certainly not after you're legally old enough to drink.

When Snyder's show was canceled, he was replaced by a young hotshot named Dave Letterman. When Letterman moved to CBS, he brought Snyder back with him for The Late, Late Show, a triumphant return to form. It was, as always, a terrific show, fun and free and extremely intelligent. This was an adult program for real adults - the Charlie Rose of his time.

Tom Snyder had been battling leukemia for the past few years, possibly a consequence of his smoking. How I hate those damned cigarettes. They're the worst poison, that and alcohol. Cannibis and psychedelics are illegal because, why again? Don't let the tobacco and alcohol industries destroy you, children. You'll get to touch the face of God soon enough - there's no need to enslave yourselves to puppet masters in the process.


Not a Bad Little Screening

If I do say so myself. Turns out the U of M's Asian Film series is related to summer classes, so most of the attendies to Pom Poko on Wednesday were students. It was a nice little turnout, about 30 or so. I told myself to expect, at best, ten. Twenty would mean a great success. So I was pretty pleasantly impressed by things.

I was also able to talk for some time with the teacher, a woman who's a fervent Ghibli fan, and also lived in Japan for five years. It was nice to finally be able to talk to someone about these films; someone who actually has a clue what they're about. I still win on points, though - I've seen everything in the pre-Ghibli era. Hah!

As for any discussions afterword, that was pretty much a lost cause. Most everyone split once the credits rolled, and I found myself struck with a case of stage fright that was extremely frustrating. Perhaps it was the lack of sleep that brought it on. Next time, we'll make sure to do the talking before the picture.

But I did promise to spend this next week blogging on Pom Poko, which I haven't really gone into much yet. The weekend should offer that opportunity.

The University of Minnesota is a perfect place for these movie screenings. I should find ways to show more of these films there in the future. We'll see what happens.


Pom Poko Screening at U of M

This evening, there will be a 7pm screening of Pom Poko at Nicholson Hall at the University of Minnesota. The movie is part of the Asian Film Society's summer run of films. A good time is had by all.

There should be time for a discussion, roughly a half-hour by my guess. I wanted to help out on that, but I've been far too overwhelmed by sleep this week to be of any use. In any event, I'll be there early enough to see if I can participate. Then again, maybe it would be best to keep me out of it. I'll wind up giving a night-long lecture on Takahata's career.

I'll cross my fingers and hope for a decent turnout.
As a final addendum, it appears I've already helped out. Turns out they're using my screenshot above, the shot from the Pom Poko page on Isn't that nice. I'll be sure to say "you're welcome" to the folks in charge.


Movie Review: Ratatouille - A Few Rambling Thoughts Posing as Some Sort of Movie Review

Review: Ratatouille

I've been following the box office numbers for Pixar's Ratatouille on Box Office Mojo, hopeful that the movie's fortunes turn out to surprise us. It's a common assumption that this movie would not be a big hit with audiences, certainly not when compared to Pixar's other hits. I've kept my hopes up that people would defy the suits and marketers who run Hollywood, and turn out in solid numbers. It hasn't really happened, and at this point I don't know if those numbers will ever arrive.

I'm really not sure why this is the case. Pixar is about as reliable a brand you can find for movies today. They've never made a bad picture, although a couple of them were weaker than the others. But you have to struggle to explain what will now become Hollywood conventional wisdom - that Pixar is now a fading brand.

I'm not eager to accept such a pessimistic view just yet, but there's no denying the numbers. Ever since Finding Nemo hit the peak, every Pixar movie since has grossed steadily smaller numbers; first with The Incredibles, then Cars, and now (almost certainly) Ratatouille. Surely this would be a concern, but add in the immensely expensive Disney buyout from last year, and you can see the stakes involved. The knives will be out for John Lasseter and Pixar's generals, and that battle is really only just beginning.

So what's wrong here? Is it simply that the market is oversaturated with cgi cartoons? Are parents reaching the burnout point, tiring of having to drag their children to more and more animated animal movies? Has the public become burned from an endless durge of second-rate movies, cheap cash-ins and cynical sequels? Or is it the rats? Are folks really just turned off by rats?

I don't know, I really don't. I have my own pet theory, which also happens to be the running theme of the Conversations on Ghibli blog. And here it is, in case you've missed it - Americans don't think of animation as an artform or a facet of the movies; they see animation as a babysitter. The idea that the medium could be capable of anything more, or serve any greater purpose, is lost on these poor souls.

Little surprise that anyone would think this way, since that's what they've been served for decades. And movies and the American public in general have been steadily dumbing down for a generation. Movies are expected to provide lots of big, loud noises, cheap gags, and lots and lots of explosions. The rise of corporate consolidation has only exacerbated things.

So I can understand the challenge in making a smart, subtle movie like Ratatouille a big hit. Too many people don't understand that such a thing is possible; and the suits have no incentive to show them otherwise.


Brad Bird is among the smartest filmmakers in America today. If you were really perceptive, you were likely telling anyone within earshot about a little movie called The Iron Giant, a charming and humane movie that no one ever saw. And you likely had a difficult time explaining why it was a better form of animation than, say, the latest Disney picture. That's largely because it's strength lies in its heart, in its storytelling, not necessarily in the moving drawings themselves.

Again, I really don't know. I'm just scrambling for understanding. Bird seems destined to become one of those gifted filmmakers who earns great respect and praise, without really connecting to the greater public. Yes, The Incredibles was a great success, and it's a terrific movie, but sometimes I wonder if that success had to do with its aping of superhero comics and James Bond spy movies. Did people register with the human emotions of the characters, or were they just conditioned to watch yet another Bond spoof with big explosions?

Maybe that's the challenge of Ratatouille. It's a movie that continues to push the human drama we saw in The Incredibles, but without the enormous, action blockbuster set-pieces to keep the kiddies from becoming distracted. It's almost as though this movie were Bird's gambit. Okay, folks, you say you like my movies for their heart; well, have a load of this.

That's not to say that I believe he's being confrontational. But he does show a great confidence, a willingness to take the audiences' preconceived notions, including their anxieties, and challenge them. The basic framework of what became Ratatouille was already in place by the time Bird took over the project. It's the story of a rat who dreams of becoming a famous French cook. That premise was already in the public consciousness, but no one knew how he would handle the material. It is, after all, a delicate subject, mixing two ideas together that are polar opposites, rats and cooking.

The temptation, I suppose, would have been to turn Remy and his fellow rodents into another batch of cuddly, wuddly cartoon animals, just like 'ol Mickey, just like every other animated cartoon to hit the pike this decade. But that doesn't happen. Bird knows our squeamishness about rats, and he doesn't shy away from it. He faces it head on. There are some sequences in the movie, particularly at the beginning and the end, when packs of rats overwhelm an environment. In these moments, what we see are essentially rats. They swarm and scuttle with a fluidity that is downright alien. And a little unsettling, too.

I'm reminded of the way Isao Takahata stylistically changed the appearances of the tanuki in Pom Poko, from real-life naturalism to cartoon caricature. Brad Bird achieves something like this in his movie, but without the visual shifts. His rats pretty much look the same, apart from the necessary lighting and compositions.

I don't think the goal is to unsettle or scare us. If anything, Bird shows a great deal of respect for his audience, by acknowledging those fears. But he likewise doesn't shy away from being honest. This is they story we've chosen to tell, and these are they players. They are who they are.

For me, this approach - more subtle, more honest - is just what makes Remy such a likable character. It makes him more believable. It helps, of course, that he isn't banding about the screen, shouting at the top of his lungs, or offering yet another batch of lazy movie quotes to keep the stupids happy.

Ratatouille isn't merely the story of a character with a crazy dream, but a portrait of an artist, a character who pursues his muse wherever it leads him. Conventions be damned. It takes any old cartoon rat to be zapped by lightning while cooking on a rooftop. It takes an artist to get zapped, and then rush back for an encore. That's dedication.


I don't want to spend forever retelling everything in Ratatouille that I enjoyed, because we'd be here all day, and I'd be reciting the entire show. I just want to share a couple thoughts and impressions that have stayed with me this past week.

I think that emotional honesty, that respect for the audience, is Brad Bird's best gift. I hope the movie business never beats it out of him. American animation needs his sensibilities, and the artform is far better for it. It seems that he and Pixar met at just the right time. The studio has been steadily growing, pushing the boundaries of computer animation. And now, it seems as though they've finally mastered the tools. They're finally making animation that is as expressive, fluid, and emotional as the hand-drawn style. This is a tremendously beautiful movie, full of subtle hues and shades and textures. All that is needed for great art is a capable mind, a director with the humanity to match. And I think that's just what has happened here.

I'll be honest; I was tremendously moved by this movie. It felt as though a new plateau had been reached, especially in the character animation. Animators always talk about "acting," from their perspective, and apart from a few notable moments (Pinocchio, for one), their ideas have been lost on me. Ratatouille shows what is really meant by "acting" in animation. There's a gracefulness to movements, large and small. The characters don't move; they dance, like Fred Astaire in all of his wonderful movies. I remember reading how Fellini would play music for his actors while filming, to set the proper mood. In Ratatouille, you can hear the music in everyone's heads, because it's playing in yours as well.

What's striking is that this rhythm translates to the chase sequences so effectively. Brad Bird has always been a great student of the classic cartoon chase, as his 1987 Family Dog demonstrates. For me, those were the cartoons I loved the most. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote. Not Disney. Disney cartoons were stale and lifeless and preachy, always so puritanical. Even by the time I was eight I felt embarrassed by them. Give me Tom and Jerry instead. And where, I lament, is today's answer to those great American cartoons? Hardly anybody does it anymore; or perhaps, to be fair, hardly anybody knows how to pull it off. Well, Bird sure knows. He knows better than anyone.

The problem with everything post-Star Wars is that every movie treats action like an assault on the senses. You, the public, are too stupid to grasp anything more than endless explosions and rapid-fire cutting, set to blaring pop songs that were never really any good (why are Counting Crows still around, I ask?). This weakness affects nearly every big-budget movie in this country. Even The Incredibles was shackled needlessly with a noisy action sequence in its final 20 minutes. Everything, as I've said, comes down to the Death Star Battle. Boom boom boom show's over.

Ratatouille is loaded with terrific action sequences, but a wonderful thing happens in the movie's final act. It stops. The conclusion is not dependent upon anything but it's original premises: food, cooking, the passion of pursuing one's art. I was overwhelmed by the final 30 minutes, because it just felt so right. It felt honest. I wasn't being mugged by the theatre's sound system. I wasn't being mugged by the movie for cheap, preachy moral lessons. I wasn't being suckered with a cheap, happy conclusion. Have I mentioned this is a beautiful movie?



I want to finish with a couple observations from Ratatouille that have stayed with me. It all relates to what I've been saying and writing about. There's a scene near the end when Linguini, the shy, lanky cook who is both Remy's collaborator and puppet, has to give the big rousing speech to his fellow cooks. This is the big pep speech at the climax of so many movies, one where the hero wins back the respect of his peers, and they all roll up their sleeves for the big fight/big game/big finish.

This time, Remy's secret role as the restaurant's star talent is revealed, and poor Linguini appeals to his chefs to come together, not to abandon him in their hour of need. And then something remarkable happens.

The cooks walk out. Every one of them.

And the movie stays with that. Sure, Colette, the tough romantic lead, does return to Linguini's side, but the rest? They're gone for good. There is no cheap reconciliation, no tired cliches to be played out. The conclusion to the movie will be performed without them, and they will never be heard from again.

The second thing is a moment that was horribly mis-read by the audience I sat with. This comes back to all that dumbing down. It's the moment when the infamous and dreaded food critic Anton Ego (voiced by Peter O'Toole masterfully, as a character who is not villainous but plays the part) is handed the titular meal.

When he takes his first bite, he is immediately hurled back into his childhood. There, as a young boy with tears in his eyes, he is comforted by his mother with a hot meal. Ego is reminded, in a flash, of what it was about food that he loved so much, and why he pursed a career as a food critic. It's probably the most touching and humane and deeply personal moment in the entire film.

How did the audience react? Bowling laughter. Haw haw haw haw haw haw haw!!! It was enough to make me want to throw things at them, for being so crass and so damned stupid.

This is why I don't like watching movies with college kids anymore, you see. They can't react to anything on the screen except with laughter, especially violence. Uh, fast movement mean laugh. Or somethin'.

Which came first, the smarter movies or the smarter viewers? Remember the words, dear readers, of Saint John Lennon the Divine: War is over, if you want it.


Photos: Pixar's Ratatouille

Photos: Pixar's Ratatouille
Photos: Pixar's Ratatouille
Photos: Pixar's Ratatouille
Photos: Pixar's Ratatouille
Some official screenshots from the excellent new Pixar movie Ratatouille. I've been meaning to sit down and write a lengthy review, but there just hasn't been time enough this week. On the upside, I did finally manage to change by flat bicycle tire. Oh, and I made headway on getting caught up at my other blog, Videogames of the Damned. These 6:45 am commutes to work are terrible! Ugh!

Anyway, enjoy the screenshots, especially if you haven't seen the movie yet. You really should. I think I'll go back for an encore this weekend.


Joel Siegel Passes On

I wanted to pass along my condolences on the passing of movie critic Joel Siegel. I hadn't even realized he was battling serious illness, although I understand he's been fighting for some time. For those who don't know, he was the movie critic on ABC's Good Morning America, and one of the more popular American movie critics.

It's always sad when anyone dies. I'm not a fan of this whole death concept. So I'll just be an optimist instead, and hope Mr. Siegel has been unplugged from the holographic universe and is now chatting away with God and Orson Welles. Hopefully, he'll be able to distinguish the two.

Brad Bird's Family Dog

(Update: This video has since been removed from Youtube.  Sorry.)

Scouring around YouTube, I found this little gem. Back in the '80s, Steven Spielberg started a popular weekly anthology series on NBC called "Amazing Stories." Some shows were good, some were not-so-good. In 1987, this Tim Burton-produced cartoon aired. It's a half-hour cartoon called Family Dog, and it was written and directed by one Brad Bird.

It's important to remind ourselves that something like Family Dog was pretty cutting edge for tv animation 20 years ago. The Simpsons were still just short clips on Tracy Ullman. There was no Ren and Stimpy. Was Beavis and Butthead on MTV yet? Don't think so. Oh, and you're still years away from Animaniacs.

So while a cartoon that takes a satirical swipe at the surburban family, and with a slightly grown-up appeal, has become a horribly tired cliche in 2007, in 1987 it was exciting, daring, and in the hands of Brad Bird, endlessly entertaining. All of his traits as a movie director are here in abundance, from his love of classic cartoon chases, to a nuanced and humane view of family life. In fact, there's probably bits in here that feel as though they were lifted right out of The Incredibles or Ratatouille.

So, anyway, here's the 1987 Family Dog. The short was later revived several years later, again with Tim Burton's input and Spielberg's drive, but no Brad Bird in sight. Predictibly, the new tv series tanked almost immediately.

Oh, and I caught Ratatouille at the Megamall Saturday night. It was a fantastic movie; transcendent and wonderful. It's an American animation classic, and Pixar's best film. I'll probably go see it again before the weekend's out. Full-length review to come later; hopefully, it won't prove too long-winded.

More Ghibli Blog Posts To Discover