Analogy and Animation: Oscar 2004: Let the Techno Wars Begin!

In this fifth of a six-part series, Ellen Besen looks at Oscar-nominees Finding Nemo and The Triplets of Belleville and compares and contrasts their core analogies.

By Ellen Besen | Friday, February 20, 2004 at 12:00 am

Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: AnalogyAni


Animation Wars: CG giant Finding Nemo battles 2D feisty indie The Triplets of Bellville for the Oscar. All Finding Nemo images © Disney Enterprises Inc./Pixar Animation Studios. All rights reserved. All The Triplets of Belleville images © 2003 Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.

Welcome to Oscar 2004! Last year there really was no contest, Spirited Away was so far ahead of the pack. But this year’s competition has caught my attention, with two of the three nominees worth considering. So in this corner, we have the popular CG giant, Finding Nemo. And in this corner, the feisty, independent 2D The Triplets of Belleville. With Disney declaring that drawn animation has had its day, this is a perfectly timed Battle of the Techniques.

First, a little note to the folks who felt I was picking on Pixar in the last article, because yes, I do offer more criticism as well as some praise for Nemo here. As a fan of Pixar, I am taking the stance of loyal opposition. So I am not picking on them, I am challenging them. With that said, let’s take a look at the films.

As I discussed in some detail last time, Nemo is not a perfect film. And neither is Triplets. But both are interesting, each in its own way. And surprisingly, like you and that kid you loathed in kindergarten who later became your best friend, while these films are strikingly different from each other in most ways, underneath they actually have something in common: their core themes are almost identical.

This gives us the relatively rare opportunity to compare how two current, high profile animated features handle the same subject matter. There are some interesting things to be learned when the starting place is similar but the resulting films are so different.

So what exactly do they share? At first glance, you think, what is she talking about? Nemo is all oceans, reefs, fish tanks, dentist’s offices, sharks in denial, spoiled children, sewer systems, pelicans, clown fish. And Triplets is bikes, races, old dogs, trains, mobsters, aging singers, big cities, hot jazz. Other than that voyage across the ocean, where is the common ground?

Nemo’s discovery of how fish tank society works was a high point of the movie.

Well, if you think about it, you realize that both films are about parenthood gone wrong. Marlin loses Nemo by trying too hard to hold him back and Madame Souza loses her grandson, Champion, by pushing him too hard in the wrong direction. In both films, the adults must recognize their mistakes and change direction in order to get their children back. But from here, the films diverge.

With its underwater setting, Nemo discovers a hidden world. How fish go to school, the ride on the ocean current and the intricate workings of fish tank society are all whimsical and thoroughly delightful. The film also has two great villainous characters in Bruce the shark and the nasty niece. I would love to have seen more of both of them.

And Nemo introduces lots of potentially rewarding ideas: anxiety, forgetfulness, the difficulty of undoing one’s essential nature, the danger of both open and closed spaces. But instead of building on them -- letting them add up to something more — the film plays them for the immediate laugh or thrill, or simply uses them as plot devices.

Printer-friendly version

Comments

To Sharon: I disagree. Every technological shift changes the audience’s perceptions. We only have to look back at the special effects in older films- ones that wowed audiences in their day- to recognize that it is new technology that changes how we view the old. This effect can lead us in two directions: either to discard the old technology or to understand it more deeply in order to discover new applications for it. Think of what happened to painting after the advent of photography:freedom from the primary role of representing a technical reality fueled the art revolutions of the early twentieth century. So now is the moment to consider what 2D does that 3D cannot and begin to create content that marries with those properties.

Reply to this Comment

Ellen Besen (not verified) | Mon, 03/01/2004 - 01:00 | Permalink

The only piece of animation to approach (and in my view equal) the glory of "Duck Amuck" was Sealab 2021's "Waking Quinn." The animation style was cheap, crude, and intentionally derivative, but the sense of unlimited freedom and surrealism delivered pure enjoyment. Sealab 2021 at its best illustrated the ability of playful ideas to transcend and enhance otherwise low-quality animation methods. I can't be sure, but it appears the Sealab 2021 team used a hybrid approach with 2D art manipulated digitally. Bizarre, audience-riveting joy came through regardless of the technique, so hopefully the doors to traditional and 3D methods will remain open.

Reply to this Comment

Daniel Oines (not verified) | Fri, 02/27/2004 - 01:00 | Permalink

good article,with intresting introspectives,and i appreciate the 'theme' focus, but did anyone EVER think about the ameature(redundant)use ,for decades-now,of common 'animals'(fish dogs cats etc.) like 'fish'...all 'didgitalized-up' for visual affect?...because the animation world is sooo LAME , as-to (not) even SEE new-origional characters-which are AVALIABLE?..so they leverage -on the (weak)story line?...and YOU have to write about it? BARRFF! consider that MY concept(actual gemstone cartoons) STILL is not being 'found' by dudes like 'pixar' ..even-after amid amidi did a great write-up+graphics of my concept? and if YOU did catch the feb.02 write-up, at animation blast, you would have seen ...directly below my last character-graphic(amid praised my concept)was a picture of STEVE JOBS!!!!...and an article about pixar disconnecting from dizny.did ANYONE at pixar READ the blast article?? to sum it al up; i would say that the tech. dudes at pixar are absolute geniuses-BUT the 'BIG GIANT HEAD-HEADS'at pixar,...are still "FISHING" ...without a "BYTE", ...when it comes to focus on anything really NEW and origional-in terms of new-concept characters. you can see my images at; www.pixiport.com as dale'dawk' mc farlane , in the NEW ARTISTS page+my gallery-there.BTW, curious animation folks may want to check out this site, as helyn davenport(she is marketing my concept) is OPEN-MINDED to (many) origional kinds graphic of "ART". too bad..... dudes like PIXAR... are NOT!! dawk

Reply to this Comment

dale 'dawk' mc farlane (not verified) | Thu, 02/26/2004 - 01:00 | Permalink

Does the success of 3D cancel out 2D?....more thoughts from the author. Why, in general, do some new technologies and techniques take root, while others quickly die? And why are some established technologies virtually cancelled out by new approaches while others continue to thrive? And how much of any of this has to do with the audience? And is the question of audience to do with them simply accepting a change of approach which is advantageous to production- i.e. cheaper- or is it the audience actually rejecting one approach in favour of another as some seem to believe in this current debate? We believe that technique affects audience and sure spend a lot of time talking about it among ourselves. And the media is definitely prone to latching on to new technique: once upon a time, the first interview question was always, “How many frames does it take?”. Now it’s “So it’s all done with computers these days, right?”. But notice here that both questions are technical and isn’t that part of the bigger problem? Certainly audiences get a buzz from new techniques. But there is plenty of evidence that it is not technique that holds audiences in the long run. Instead, it’s the basic elements that create audience identification, such as story and character, in combination with the technical. When Hollywood was challenged by TV in the ‘50’s, its response was to bring on the gimmicks: Cinemascope and the other kind of 3D, for example. But this approach only succeeded if the technique opened doors for a new kind of storytelling: cinemascope turned out to be a real boon for epic filmmaking whereas 3D never really got past the “watch out cause we’re going to throw things at you!” stage (except for that great 3D Muppets movie at Disneyworld, which opened my eyes to its real possibilities....like maybe porn.). So does CG 3D open up significantly new ways to communicate? And if so, does that cancel out 2D? Sometimes old technologies survive by adapting in the face of the new challenge: Broadway musicals are a case in point. Remember when it was strictly Hollywood adapting Broadway? Now it’s a two way street. And many stage musicals are presented in a style clearly inspired by the magnitude of film. (By the way, don't take the above as an endorsement on my part- I'm not a fan, though there are modern Broadway musicals for which I will make exceptions..) And sometimes they survive by being adamantly other than the new technology. So what options does 2D have? How can it adapt? Should it adapt? What can it do that 3D can’t? And this takes us to the whole bigger issue of formula versus originality. Both Triplets and Nemo have a little of both. Where do they succeed in challenging the limits? Where do they stay in the comfort zone? Is it wrong to stay in the comfort zone? And can we afford it at this moment?