Toy Story 3 - Pixar hit another home run

Tweet

I went to see Toy Story 3 last night, and before I went in, I was torn between outright trepidation and child-like excitement. I remember going to see the first one at the cinema when it first came out, and thinking it was one of the best things I'd ever seen, and when the second one was better, Pixar managed to win me over to the idea of sequels. But a third one? In my opinion, only Back to the Future ever managed to make a third film that was as good as the preceding two.

I've already spoken before about exactly why I love Pixar, but Toy Story 3 just proves my point. Yet again, they have concentrated on making a film with a good plot, plenty of adventures, and characters that you care about. Let me say that last part again - they've created characters that you can really root for, or loathe, depending on whether they're good or bad. Pixar delight in telling a good story, and they put this love of storytelling above everything else. It's good, old-fashioned escapism. They also make damn good short films, and the Day & Night short that accompanies Toy Story 3 really explores the boundaries of animation.

The Toy Story films have always been films that celebrate the power of imagination, and the wonderful worlds you can create with a handful of toys, cardboard boxes and household detritus. As a writer, this is a concept I can back 120% (meaning I could backtrack 20%, and still be completely behind it). But as a 27-year-old who has problems with the concept of 'growing up', it really speaks to me on a different level. I was the kid who didn't have any friends where I lived, and would spend hours playing with different toys by myself. They were mostly my brother's, as I favoured Lego and Micro Machines, but I also had an awesome toy farm that my dad built for me, and more stuffed animals than I knew what to do with (I am the extremely proud owner of a full set of Gummy Bears).

I freely admit that I still have a fierce attachment to a lot of my animals now. Nowadays I just collect them, getting a new one whenever I go somewhere new (and people bring them back as souvenirs for me, so my friend Mark brought me a toy Kiwi from New Zealand), but a lot of those stuffed bears and dogs mean a lot to me. In the aftermath of break-ups, or redundancy, or difficulties in social interactions, my toys were still there. The photo illustrating this post is of Aston, a cuddly dog I got in Hamley's a few years back. So where adults, particularly parents, were upset by Toy Story 3 for the concept of children growing up, and leaving home, I was more upset by the idea that you could outgrow your toys. Sure, I don't play with mine any more, but they're still there. One scene near the end even had me in tears - and I'm such a hard-hearted bitch, the last film that made me cry was probably Bambi. For Pixar to wring such emotion out of an essentially cold person is incredibly impressive, and to do so in such a mature way, using simply facial expressions on animated toys...other filmmakers need to study their methods, they really do.

In essence, I only have two problems with Toy Story 3. The first is that it made me cry - I don't like it when films make me do that, because it reminds me I have emotions and therefore vulnerabilities. The second is that there just wasn't enough Timothy Dalton! Honestly, I could listen to that guy all day. Still, there's plenty of the delightful Michael Keaton to keep me happy, who is so perfectly cast as Ken that all the other studios that make celebrity-stuffed CG suckfests should sit up and pay attention - i.e. do not cast a celebrity for their status, cast them because their voice suits the role.

I realise I haven't discussed the plot or the characters, but to be honest, I'd rather you just went to see it. Please, for my sake. Go and enjoy the stunning visuals, the sparky dialogue, the bonds between the characters, and the genuine heartfelt passion for storytelling. Then come home, fish out a childhood toy, and remember how you felt when you were little, when anything was possible in your imagination. If you think carefully, maybe it still is...

A hand drawn Disney film? It can't be!

Tweet

I just posted the first instalment of my new web serial over at my new blog, Tales from Vertigo City. Go follow the blog, or subscribe, and you'll get a new instalment every week!

In other news, I went to see The Princess and the Frog today. I bet you didn't guess that I'm a Disney fan, eh? I love their work, up until and including The Lion King (although I do have a soft spot for The Emperor's New Groove). I have to admit that I never thought I'd live to see the day when I'd be sat in a cinema in 2010, watching a hand-drawn 2D cartoon. It felt slightly surreal, but at the same time, perfectly normal. Why shouldn't Disney go back to doing what they do best, when all their efforts at 3D films have sucked?

It's somewhat surprising that the mastermind behind The Princess and the Frog should be Pixar genius John Lasseter, but then again, the man has a passion for storytelling. What he's done here is given us a fairytale with a twist, but without going down the self-indulgent Shrek route. Set in 1920s New Orleans, our 'princess' is hard-working Tiana, a waitress with dreams of running her own restaurant, while our prince is a lazy playboy out to marry a rich girl after being cut off by his royal family. Tiana is feisty, and a lot more intelligent than your typical Disney film, and once you ignore her "Hard work will get you everything you want" spiel, she's quite likeable. Naveen is spoilt and charming, and a little more like the lazy royalty we're used to reading about in the tabloids.

As ever, the boy-meets-girl plot is given a little makeover, since our girl meets our boy when he's a frog. Prince Naveen adopts this amphibian persona after a run-in with the local voodoo witch doctor, Dr Facilier. As Disney villains go, he's not bad, but he's no Ursula or Maleficent. Anyway. Prince Naveen mistakes Tiana for a princess and gets her to kiss him (thinking this will turn him back into a human), though it does little more than turn Tiana into a frog. 

The pair end up in the bayou and seek the help of the local voodoo wise woman. Aided by a Cajun firefly in love with the North Star and a jazz-loving alligator, they get into the usual scrapes and perform an assortment of musical setpieces, none of which reach the dazzling heights of The Little Mermaid's 'Under the Sea'. I won't sport with your intelligence by asking you to guess the ending, but despite its veneer of Hollywood happiness and fairytale gloss, The Princess and the Frog is actually an enjoyable little film about recognising what's really important in life, and the value in balance. Naveen is all play and no work, while Tiana is the other way around, but neither are truly happy until they realise there's a compromise in there somewhere.

The musical numbers aren't bad, and as I've already said, Tiana makes a refreshing change as a Disney heroine, although I can't help thinking the realities of life as a black woman in 1920s Louisiana weren't quite as rosy as Disney would have us believe. The characters are rounded and likeable, although not quite as iconic as those from Disney's 'classic' oeuvre, but to be honest, I don't care. I'm just glad to see Disney back doing what they do best, allowing Pixar to do what they do best, while they piss all over their competition.

Just why I love Pixar

Tweet I may have a fascination for zombies, a lifelong passion for Die Hard, and undying respect for Ripley, but in my heart of hearts, I simply adore Pixar. I've seen all of their films at the cinema, with the exception of The Incredibles, and the release of a new Pixar film fills me with the kind of childish glee normally associated with Christmas Day morning.

So it was with a lot of excitement that I saw Up last week. It's not their best film ever, and I couldn't put it in the same category as Cars or Monsters, Inc., but it's still a cracking good yarn, and just proves that Pixar are slowly moving into slightly more grown-up territory, managing to tackle such themes as miscarriage and being widowed in a short introductory session that manages to communicate such themes without being preachy, or spelling anything out.

Why can other filmmakers not manage this? So often I watch a film, or read a book, and feel like I'm being spoon-fed the plot, as if the director or writer feels I'm too moronic to get what's going on. Dan Brown is guilty of this on an epic scale with The Da Vinci Code, and Chris Colombus over-egged the pudding to such a stupid degree in Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone that it almost ruined an otherwise enjoyable film. Yet Pixar avoid this trap. Personally, I think it's because they simply enjoy telling stories, and they trust that their viewers can detect and understand the visual clues that tell the story, without having to brow-beat anyone into epiphany.

The trend towards CG films has exploded ever since Toy Story came out in 1995, with varying degrees of success. The first two Shrek films were interesting and enjoyable ventures from Dreamworks, but then they also foisted the godawful Shark Tale upon us. Such a preachy, horrible film carried the core message that you should always be happy with your station in life, and never strive to better yourself because if you do, you'll fail. What kind of ideal is that to be pushing onto people? Yet among all the dross, Pixar have always shone as an example of decent filmmaking. Some of their efforts haven't quite connected as well as others (e.g. A Bug's Life, Ratatouille), but even their 'poor' films are strides ahead of the best films released by their competitors.

I think their success is due in part to their attention to detail. Fur moves like fur, water behaves like water, objects appear to have true weight - all a testament to their partnership with Disney. Old Walt used to send his artists to draw from life, so even if the animals or birds were cartoons, they still had a level of verisimilitude that is unmatched today. Beyond that, they're happy to cast an actor based on how well they fit the role, not on their box office draw at the time of casting. If an A-lister happens to win the role, it's because they're the best person for the job. The characters thus become believeable, and not simply star vehicles.

Pixar love their craft, and it shines through in the finished film. They tell a story for the pure joy of telling a story - they leave the money-making aspect of the business to Disney. You can go into the cinema feeling burdened by the weight of the world, and come out feeling lighter, as though maybe this crazy lil thing called life isn't so bad after all. And in this day and age, that's no bad thing.