In defense of Monster House
 |
| monster_house.jpg |
Of course, none of us do it for the awards (we do it for the money!), but it is nice to be recognized for our work. I was once nominated for an Annie myself. I’m just saying. Thought I’d throw it out there.
But enough about me. Soon the red carpet will roll out for this year’s Annie Awards as well as the nominees for feature animation at the Oscars. At the top of the list are Pixar’s Cars and Columbia’s (Columbia?) Monster House. Also nominated is Happy Feet, the final nominee for the Oscars, and that film plus Over The Hedge and Open Season for the Annies.
Cars just won the Golden Globe for feature animation, the first time the Globes have had this category. And I expect it to win both the Annie and the Oscar as well. It’s a terrific movie of top-notch craftsmanship, everything we’ve come to expect from Pixar.
But there’s something about Monster House that grabbed me in a way that Cars didn’t. It was so…not Pixar. Normally when CG films aren’t Pixar, they really suck, mostly because they are trying to be Pixar and failing miserably. And let’s face it, there is only one Pixar. But Monster House was something different. It looked different. It sounded different. It felt different. And by gum, it worked.
In the interest of full disclosure, I seethe with jealousy at Gil Keene. My wife thinks it is a fault to be jealous of successful people in my field, but hey, I don’t smoke or drink so allow me this vice. I think the acting in the film is inspired. Never before have I been so convinced that the characters were in the room illustrated on screen. I know how the process works, so I can always picture the actors in their booths, wearing sweats and no make-up, behind a microphone next to a big pane of glass.
And the techniques are certainly advanced. They created the scene and the blocking and then put the camera where they wanted it using a device that mimicked a real camera. Peter Jackson used a similar device for Lord Of The Rings. It works especially well for hand-held, but it rooted the film in a reality that totally sold me. These kids were alive. They were like the modern Goonies (the fat kid bears a remarkable resemblance to Chunk) and I was swept up into the adventure.
If Pixar wins, it will deserve every award. But I hope that the voters will recognize the outstanding achievement of Monster House with the awards instead. To me, it was the best animated film of last year. Besides, do we really want Pixar firing some poor animator just to use his office to expand their awards shelf? Not me.
February 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pm e
I saw the film and it was enjoyable, but it was produced using the same motion capture technique used in Polar Express. Actors with lots of dots all over their face. The animators just tweaked the imported performance.
Motion capture will be the death of animation as we know it.
While the end product was good, the purist in me doesn’t consider this to be animation (puppetry is a better comparison) and I would happily see motion capture consigned to the depths of hell!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:31 pm e
actually, i agree with bunyip too!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pm e
I’m wondering, if you didn’t know that that it was produced with actors with dots on their faces - and there’s not any way to know that by simply watching the film - if you’d feel the same way about the movie.
In other words, is your critique simply a prejudice against a certain filmmaking technique rather than an actual critique of whether or not the animation worked for the film.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:17 pm e
Hi Megamoze,
That’s a fair call.. If I didn’t know it was motion capture I would react differently. I actually enjoyed this film, and polar express and gollum and king kong etc etc. I am also a puppeteer as well as an animator. Wearing my puppeteer hat I see this technology as a great way to explore new media and satisfy the closet actor in me. Wearing my animators hat I think of all the heart and soul, intense character study and damn hard work replaced by a software program and an actor. I guess it removes my self importance in the process and dents my ego, becuase at the end of the day the audience doesn’t give a crap how it was done.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:24 am e
Bunyip, thanks for such an honest answer!
Now here’s the $64K question. Do you consider puppeteering animation? I know at Disney they refer to movement inside the character costumes at the theme parks as “animation,” and I suppose by the dictionary definition, it is. But do YOU yourself consider your puppeteering craft to be animation?
February 12th, 2007 at 3:38 am e
Yes puppeteering is animation. “bringing the inanimate to life” My background is stopmotion and cgi where again I am animating a puppet, just a lot more slowly.
Motion capture technology is going to get cheaper and more readily available. It will become second nature for commercials to use it all the time. I could see even the likes of Pixar adopting it for their films. I know that probably sounds like heresy but they already use it (or something like it) for crowd simulation. You don’t get squash & stretch animation but I reckon some programming SOB is working on a plugin for motion capture right now!
I guess we are beginning the transition phase similar to going from horse drawn cart to automobile and we unfortunately are the wagon builders who will be out of a job in 10 - 15 years.
True animation will become a oddity that some people (arty types *smile*) indulge in to feel self important.
Okay its probably not thaaaaat bad but money is a great motivator and sadly the movers and shakers just want a product not art.
I’ll get down from my soap box now
Cheers
Neil