2009 best animated featureRating: 18/20 (Kayla: 14/20; Steven: 16/20; Dillon: 14/20; Rachel 15/20; Cameron: 17/20; Mariana: 9/20; Etzlin: 10/20; Antwana: 20/20; Alivia: 11/20; Courtlyn: 14/20; Wendy: 20/20; Cody: 15/20; Anthony: 13/20; Bradley: 12/20; Yoselin: 17/20; LaDon: 19/20; Ashley: 15/20; Darrian: 20/20; DeArion: 15/20; Brenna: 17/20; Jeremiah: 19/20)
This is already in the blog, but I got paid to watch it last week. I like it even more each time I watch it, something I wasn't sure would be the case when I first saw it in the theater. It's so beautifully constructed, especially if you buy into my "reading" of the story. It shakes you up, it excites you, it makes you laugh. It's poetic, it's mature, it's silly, it's graceful, it's magical. It's fun for little kids, it's fun for teenagers, and it's fun for adults. Great music, great voice acting, and great animation. It's a work of art, and in Pixar's top three.
Side note: It was standardized testing week, and my grade was finished. I had a choice to show this or The Pacifier with The Rock. The kids voted for The Rock, but then I told them that their vote didn't even matter and to shut their mouths and stop whining about things.
56 comments:
Dillon gets this.
Its a 14 movie. If it was a live action movie it would have been strictly made for TV and have been forgotten almost immediately.
Much like Wall-E there is almost no script here....its ten minutes of actual story stretched out to an hour and a half.
Middle of the road Pixar film that once again plays more with emotion than any real story.
I doubt you'd like Dillon. He reminds me of a squirrel.
You're so far off on this, Barry. This easily deserves a 15. It's pretty. I agree it is mid-level Pixar that tries to please everyone (I've said that before). The first half-hour is great and it's all down hill from there. They had the chance to make a complex villian, and made him a cardboard bad guy, instead. By the way, does it really just take one day to get from North to South America by balloon. Here I've been wasting my time with airplanes.
Nobody went to South America!
That's right... I forgot your mental illness take on this. The movie "says" they went to South America. A 15 either way.
Mental illness? And you call me cynical? It's not mental illness. It's a sad old man and a young fatherless boy connecting through imaginative playtime. I never said anything about mental illness.
I still agree with Dillon that its a 14......but I can give it an extra point just for being able to use Ed Asner in a meaningful way.
And yes...the villain is weak, the story is almost non-existant, and the talking dogs are annoying.
Why does Shane think they dont go to South America? Is there somewhere else with massive waterfalls, Gigantic mountains and tropical rain forests?
11/20
Muddy Shoes
So Barry...any time there's a fantasy/dream sequence in a movie, you automatically assume that it's really happening? It must make certain movies very confusing for you. Haven't you ever heard of imagination?
I used to run around the farm swinging sticks at weeds. Only it wasn't my yard, it wasn't a stick, and they weren't weeds. No, I was in a mythical land with my trusty sword fighting monsters. My bland world came alive around me, and I got to be a hero.
The old man and the kid's imaginative playtime takes them to South America to have a harrowing adventure and be heroes. As you've mentioned, the journey is an impossible one. Anybody with common sense knows that a house that size could never be torn from its foundation and lifted into the air, that it could be steered with shower curtains, and that it could have a lucky landing within walking distance of exactly where the old man and his wife always wanted to go. The old man eventually lets the scout into his life and they use their imaginations (just like the old man did as a child when he met his wife) and the stuff around them (most obviously, the bird knick knack on the mantle) to have an adventure. Just look at that flying house...the steering mechanism, etc. is set up just like it was when they played as children.
They both get something out of the relationship--the boy gets a father figure and the old man starts to heal after the loss of his wife. It's a beautiful story of an unlikely friendship, and the way Pixar brings the playtime to life with its typically brilliant animation is wonderful.
I can't argue that the talking dogs aren't annoying, but no plot? What was missing to make this plotless?
You guys are so literal.
Kairow...how can you give this an 11 and then compare it to the greatest haiku ever written?
Its just an Eh movie for me. It has some sweet moments, but it really doesnt do anything for me.
I firmly believe if this had been a live action movie, not made by Pixar, you would give it an 11 or so. But because it has the cool animation, plus the goodwill of that studio, it gets graded a lot higher than it really should.
Its simply not that good a movie....its just kind of direction less, and pointless. A blah movie.
I liked it better than Wall-E....and about the same as Cars...but I thought every other Pixar movie was better than this one.
Your theory and take are wrong. This film is "literal". I am now going to have to watch this flawed film tomorrow to prove my point. Thanks a lot. I'm calling my shot (Sunday morning). Now I need to sleep.
No way this film is literal. The old man needs a walker to get around when we first meet him. By the end of the movie, he's sprinting around the outside of a blimp? Come on!
When you watch 'Up' tomorrow, try to look for objects around the house that inspire the playtime. I mentioned the bird, but I think there are others.
I imagine conversations between the kid and the old guy after the old guy finally lets the kid into his life. Things like the old man showing the kid a picture of Muntz and talking about how much of a hero he was to him and his wife when they met and the kid saying, "I think he looks mean," and then him becoming a part of their imaginative playtime.
I'm glad the movie doesn't have scenes like that. It would have made things too obvious.
I don't like 'Cars' and would probably put 'Monsters' as the second worst. I really like half of 'Wall-E' and I'd probably rate it lower than I did if I saw it again.
At no point of the movie are we told that it was a story. Plus other people are affected by the balloon house. In addition the ending has the damn talking dog still there......he is consistently presented as being a part of the South America world. Again, at no point are we shown the old man telling stories to the fat kid.....its presented in a purely linear fashion, and never are we shown any Princess Bride moment of grandpa reading to the kid.
You seem to be willing to create your own story to make UP for the deficits of the one presented. Ah ha....How SERIOUS of you.
No, Pixar has enough respect for its audience to not feel the need to tell us every little thing. That's part of what makes this movie brilliant and something with a lot of rewatchability. It's what makes it fun for both children (they can watch it as nee a fantasy) and adults (they can appreciate it in an entirely different context).
Maybe you're watching this movie too much like a child would, Barry...you're a big boy. You don't need (or want!) everything spelled out for you.
You're telling me what the film does NOT have that makes you believe I'm wrong...specifically any obvious references to the adventure being imaginary. Anything specific that's IN the movie that tears a hole in my theory? I don't think so. The dog talking at the end? Nah. Do you see other characters talking to the dog? I had a dog for a while, and I used to talk to her all the time. I'd even talk FOR her in a comical little voice. Other people affected by the balloon house? Who? You mean when it's flying out of the city? When I was a kid, I used to play wiffleball in my backyard. By myself. I was lonely. I'd throw the ball up, hit it as hard as I could (approximately 12 1/2 feet) and then run around the bases. Did I imagine chicks in the crowd digging my home run trot (I was 17 years old when I did this, by the way)? Absolutely! Did I imagine a crowd cheering my name? Yep! Does that mean actual people were affected by my elaborate sports hero daydreams? Of course not!
Come on, people! Surely I'm not the only person who gets this.
But you are the only one. Yesterday I spent some time reading reviews of "Up" and nobody sees thmilsde adventure as imaginary. I also read a few Pete Docter (screenwriter) interviews, and nothing is even implied. I appreciate your imagination almost more than the makers'. Your view also has a huge downside. If it is all play, then he never really travels or has any real adventure, breaking his corpse-wife's heart.
What the hell is thmilsde? mention that one to Jennifer.
Oh, and I'll just say what we're all thinking... you were a strange kid.
But he does have an adventure. You ever spend time with a hyperactive ten year old? Or however old that kid is.
The point is that he's continuing to live his life. Life is the adventure. Lots of old people just decide to begin the expiration process once their spouse has passed on. It would have been very easy for the old guy to just live out his remaining days in despair and die soon after his wife. Instead, he's able to enjoy the adventure of life while continuing to connect to his dead wife.
And I'll just go ahead and say what most people are thinking...strange kid? He's a strange adult!
thmilsde!
I don't know why, but your arguments are starting to remind me of Peter Graves in "Airplane"... "have you ever seen a grown man naked?".
Again, interesting ideas, unconvincing arguments. Right-center bleachers, Wrigley Field, 1932. Coming your way.
Alrighty, Babe...I look forward to hearing the crack of your bat.
Is the boy going to completely replace the wife, then? Pedophilia? Does "Up" have a double-meaning? Old man sinking into fantasy life with young fat boy does not seem like a healthy message Pixar would be comfortable with.
This is fun.
No, now you're just being ridiculous.
I can't believe you'd try to distort such a beautiful story with your thmilsde perversions.
I have to ask the question... do you really believe your "alternate" theory, or are you just being playful, Shane-style? The latter would save me a lot of typing and useful time.
I really believe, playfully.
What does that mean, exactly? Time change is making my brain fuzzy. Do I have to type 500 words assualting your theory, or is it not necessary?
400-450 words.
I really believe my theory. I'm not really as passionate about it as the above comments might seem. It doesn't really matter all that much to me if everybody else is wrong about this movie.
DEBUNKING SHANE'S UNSUPPORTABLE ALTERNATE "UP" THEORY or 9 REASONS SHANE IS FULL OF IT
1. Carl and play.
The first 20 minutes of "Up" is some of the best animated filmmaking I have seen. Carl's play is sweet and innocent (later including Ellie). He seeks fun and excitement in a simple way. His imagination is never dark. He just wants to be a great explorer. As he ages (and Ellie dies), he loses all whimsy and imagination. You would have him imagining the most complicated story ever, that lasts uninterrupted for 80 minutes of screen time, and combating a truly evil villain that repeatedly and realistically endangers his life and the life of an innocent child he BARELY KNOWS. There is nothing in the film to base this sudden imersion into a wildly complicated and dark imaginary world unless you want to credit him with a total psychotic break.
2. Carl and Muntz.
As a boy, Carl loves and idolizes Muntz. Even after Muntz is accused of being a fraud, Carl and Ellie still adore him, and want to be like him. He has done nothing to Carl and there is no more mention of him until they meet. Now Muntz is evil and the film explains this in a very adult, non-playful way. Muntz is incredibly cruel, obsessed, and is willing to kill or maim Carl, Russell, the freakin' bird or anyone else that stands in his way. Why? There is no moment in the film that would explain why or when Carl would "imagine" his idol as a horrible monster with no redeeming qualities. Muntz did nothing to little Carl, and Carl is thrilled to meet him. Muntz makes NO sense unless he is real... or Carl has gone nuts.
3. Logistics: where do they "play"?
Do we agree that the story is literal up to the point where the house flies away? Carl is being shipped off to Shady Oaks THAT DAY. The bad guys are taking his house. Where do the van guys go? Where are he and the boy he JUST MET the day before, and whom he doesn't like or know, going to act out this incredibly complicated, long, and thematically mature story? As I am finding out, it takes times to descibe and discuss anything. How long would this story take in "play time". How would the old man and innocent child relate over such a story? It would take forever. Literally, where would all of this happen? Do the van guys and the heartless developer watch while they are waiting? Again, there is nothing actually in the film to support your view, unless, all together now, Carl has lost his mind.
to be continued...
4. Transitions, or lack thereof.
In any fanasty sequence that is part of a literal movie, there is a point of transition into and out of "reality" (like in "Alice in Wonderland"). Where is the beginning of Carl and Russell's play? Carl goes into the house for one last look and the NEXT thing we see is the balloons, which you say are unreal. At this point, Carl barely knows Russell and doesn't even know he is under the house. In fact, Carl is happily on his way for several minutes before he hears the knocks from the terrified child (whom he then wants to get rid of). This is part of an agreed upon game? HOW? Soon after, Carl is knocked out during the storm that nearly kills them (some game) and they are in South America when he wakes up. How does Russell know anything about South America? Was it all magically communicated to him, offscreen? It would have to all be in Carl's head.
There is also no transition back to the real life part of the film. The final scene is of them sitting on a curb, eating ice cream, with the dirigible floating above them! Then the credits begin. There is no start or stop to their play because it never happens.
If they never stop "playing" in Carl's mind, then he simply escaped the traumatic reality of losing his house and freedom, and has retreated completely into his own universe... and psychosis.
to be continued tomorrow...
Now look what you've done. You mention Peter Graves in my blog comments and he dies. You killed Peter Graves!
Should I wait for all nine (!) debunkerinos?
Shane...come on...if you have to create a completely unsupported therom into a movie to make it more enjoyable, then the movie has major problems.
You are, literally, the only person that I have ever heard of that has come up with this dream sequence theory for being able to explain certain things in the film. I have never seen a single review, or filmmakers comment to suggest this. Nothing in the movie points to this either, yet you cling to it, and then claim that its because the filmmakers dont want to have to explain everything to their audience.
I think Corys best point is the deconstruction of the Muntz character. There is no way that you have a hero like that, and willingly tear him down just to tell a lame story to some fat kid. And when and where is this storytelling occurring anyway? When do the old man and chubby kid become friends, where he is now sitting down and telling stories?
Oh and where does the story end? Is the badge ceremony at the end fantasy too? The dog is there, so it must be....is there any point of the story where we are actually dealing with real characters, or is the entire movie some old mans delusion?
It never happens Shane....you talk about there being a fantasy/dream sequence but there ISNT......it never happens. You are just making it up to give the movie some imagined depth it obviously does not have.
i agree with shane's thoughts. i am not going to defend them, though. you people can make up your own mind and be driven crazy by the thought that someone else was the first one to think of it ;) the funny thing is that shane could really care less if someone agrees with him.
nice going, cory, killing peter graves, just like i killed harry caray.
You or anyone can comment about any of it, whenever. I won't respond until the end, though. They changed our work computers and it messed up my ability to comment from there. I can't be as responsive, these days.
5. Russell.
In the same way that evil Muntz has no precedent, there is nothing in the movie to establish Russell as Carl's friend and playmate, or that Russell wants or needs this massive adventure. Carl knows next to nothing about him (except that the poor little bugger just wants to earn a badge), and Russell only knows that Carl is old. That's it. Does Russell say or imply that he wants to play at anything? He needs a father figure, but this is only established while camping, 25 minutes into their REAL adventure.
How fun is your "play" from Russell's perspective? He nearly dies in the house. In South America he isn't having any fun. He is tired, his knee hurts, he needs to pee, all before his life is put in danger and he sees truly ugly human nature. Seeing Kevin injured and seperated from her babies is horrible. Russell hasn't the ability to make up or relate to any of this on his own, so what kind of monstrous, perverted "playmate" would that make Carl in your movie? You also take away Russell's greatest happiness. He really does help save Kevin, Carl, and Dug, and he really does get his badge and find a father figure. You take all of that away from him because it is all a fantasy (except gaining a pathetic old playmate). In one movie, Russell grows. It the other, he only imagines he grows. Which version fits into a children's movie from Pixar?
6. What makes any sense at all?
Some movies don't necessarily want to make sense to the average audience. They are surreal, or they are experimental, or they are just shitty. They are independent films or they are completely botched mainstream films. Those films can or may do virtually anything.
A popular(ist) film like "Up" is going to give you a set-up and then a payoff. It is not going to require the viewer to create an entire backstory and alternate reality from scratch, requiring the viewers (half of them children) to understand the hidden meaning through symbolism.
"Up" is simple linear storytelling of a real adventure. It never deviates or requires anyone to fill in the blanks. There is not even any real subtext to the story. It is made to be readily understood and enjoyed by the masses.
The surface plot makes sense... Sweet Carl grows old and never gets his adventure. He is to lose everything is he doesn't fly away.
Note: He goes into the house for one last look. He looks at their photo album where it has her picture, the words "stuff I'm going to do", and a picture of Paradise Falls. He then crosses his heart. Do you believe this is when he and Russell start to play together instead of it being the moment he decides he is going to follow through with his real commitment to Ellie? This moment is a key turning point in the movie and your view has no merit at all.
Things get complicated when he accidentally kidnaps a child. They have an adventure where they both grow and bond. Carl doesn't even accept participation with Russell until he sees the note from Ellie that says thanks for their adventure, "now go have another one". Do you think it would be satisfying to her, Carl, or the audience if that just meant more play stuff? Carl is energized by his participation in real life and new relationship. Happy ending.
You base your version on the fact that Carl is lonely and needs fun (play). The real "Up" gives him just that. Your version would be LESS satisfying to Carl. What does Carl do when Russell has to go home at the end of their day of playing? His house is gone, so where does he sleep? Does he just lay in the street and replay that day's games? Your idea is one giant logical hole and would require the unhappy audience to fill it with imaginary details. It makes no sense and it is not how the vast majority of movies work.
to be continued tomorrow...
I think Cory has worked on this one novel about UP more than any single thing in his entire life.
I gotta admit, its really good reading.
Thanks Cory.
7. Downsides.
Which reality is better for the good characters?
Carl- Honors his wife's dying wish... experiences real life... is true father figure to Russell (the child they never had) OR, pretends to do stuff no more real than it is was when he was a kid. His play as a child was fun because it was based on that fact that he would do stuff, and life was full of possibilities. As an adult, play is wishing he was someone or had done something, because he is too old to have much of a future.
Russell- Has an adventure that is a true experience... gets a dog... earns his badge... has a second father figure for 24 hours a day OR, introduces a creepy old fantasy-mate that his family bans him from seeing (unless he keeps his playmate a secret).
Kevin- Exists and has babies and is rid of the jerk that has been tracking him OR, he never existed.
Dug- Exists and is a happy dog OR, never existed.
Dead Ellie (from heaven)- Sees her husband happy, as healthy as he can be, and content that he went to South America and had an adventure OR, watches as he spins tale tales with some kid.
Which version would we all prefer? The people who made this know which one, and would do everything they could to give it, and ONLY it, to the audience so we would give them all of our money. One version is upbeat, the other is pretty damned depressing.
You're welcome, Barry. Glad this is more fun to read than it is to write.
Sadly, it had to be done.
8. The Pixar way.
Three men in a Pixar office,in the recent past...
Pitchman (wearing a Cubs cap):
...so the robot never really went into to space, or saved the girl robot, or the people on the big spaceship.
Newman (confused): But that's not the way I remember it. Wasn't all of that real?
Pitchman: You guys are always so literal, watching these movies like a child would. Don't you remember when he is pooping out one of those garbage cubes, and you see a piece of trash that looks a little like a crushed spaceship?
Newman (hesistantly): Yeah.
Pitchman: Well, there you go. The robot wants to stop collecting garbage so much that he and the cockroach dream up this story where he gets to be a hero and brings back humanity.
Newman (unconvinced): Oh.
Pitchman (irritated): You still don't get it. Do you believe the rat really sat on a guy's head and made him a world-class Parisian Chef? We gave the clue. One of the cans he was sniffing had the Mongolian symbol for hallucinagenics. They were high from then trough the end of the movie.
Newman: Well, kind of.
Pitchman (pacing): You are better than that. You are a big boy! You don't need everything spelled out for you. Haven't you heard of imagination? Pixar movies are DEEP! On a kid's level they are fun, but we are trying to appeal to the moviegoer that sees things and ideas normal people don't even entertain. It's the Thmildsde Principle at work!
Newman: Thmlles...?
Pitchman (waving his hands about):
How new are you? The Thmilsde Principle. Thematically hidden messages idiotic laymen simply don't entertain. Duh.
Newman: But why do we...
Pitchman (cutting him off): It makes our movies extra entertaining for the exceptionally perceptive. It's like a game where the first people to see the symbols and get the real meaning win, and all the other pretend-smart people can be driven crazy by the thought that someone else thought of it first;).
Newman: But wouldn't our movies be just as successful without hidden meanings and all of this offscreen stuff?
Pitchman: Shut up!
Moneyman (clearing his throat): I just want to keep raking in hundreds of millions of dollars and raking in Oscars. We at Pixar have not had a single failure. Heck, I just bought a country. I don't care what you do with your artsy-fartsy ideas, just keep making crowd pleasers.
Newman: Don't you think normal medium-smart people might be offended if they suddenly realize that none of them were understanding the real meaning of any of our movies?
Pitchman: I could care less.
Newman (stage whisper): Couldn't care less.
Pitchman: What?
Newman: It's couldn't care less. Could care less doesn't make sense because it means you must still care, at least a little. Couldn't care less means you don't care at all.
Pitchman (pissed): Listen, you little know-it-all. I COULDN'T care less if you are employed tomorrow.
Moneyman: OK, OK. That will be quite enough. We are doing great and if Pitchman wants to add exra stuff into our films for some ticket-buyers, that's fine. Now that I think of it, it's kind of cool. It's like those people see an extra movie, and I don't have to pay a dime to get it made. Hah!
Pitchman (happy): Yes, Sir. Right you are, Sir.
Moneyman (looking at his watch): Well, I gotta go. Good meeting. I'm having some trouble buying some more property and I need to take care of it. That Peter Graves is really pissing me off.
End.
9. Alone.
With the possible exception of loyal people whom you support financially, NO one else is seeing what you are seeing.
Is everyone, including the people who actually made "Up", stupid? I have seen thousands of films and watched this one specifically looking for your point of view. There isn't a bit of real evidence to support it. You are seeing what you want to see.
The following doesn't quite fit, but it still cracks me up:
"One out of three Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of two of your best friends. If they are OK, then it must be you". - George Carlin
I didn't want to find nine reasons and really didn't enjoy myself (except maybe for number 8). It was kind of a waste of time and a little mean attacking an irrational opinion that really can't defend itself. I love your blog and respect most of your ideas, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why you stuck with your theory after seeing "Up" a second time. After attacking me, and especially Barry so directly, I decided to shoot the works. Maybe you were too busy with the kids or with an imaginary friend to see the flaws in your theory. Maybe your review of "The Pacifier" would have been better.
First off, "attacking [you] and especially Barry directly"? When did that happen? I only "attacked" Dillon, but that's ok because he's only a child who doesn't read this blog and this is all behind his back anyway. And he's squirrel-like.
1) Carl's been through quite a bit. He's losing his house, he's lost his Ellie...he's much, much older than the Carl we meet at the very beginning of the film. Of course he's going to be a little darker. And right from point 1, you start making the mistake of crediting only Carl with the imaginative meanderings of the story. The kid surely has some input, too, and kids can get prety dark. There's nothing that happens in Carl and Russell's stor1y that is any more dangerous than 10 year old kids playing army or cowboys & indians or super ninja attack. I once broke my arm playing a not-so-complicated game of war. Most of their imagined trip to South America, by the way, isn't dark. There's a scary storm. There's a bad guy. But both Carl and Russell are going to realize that their story needs a bad guy, right? Why can't it be Muntz?
2) Nothing in the film that explains why Carl would imagine his idol as a horrible monster? It's a simple imagining of how Carl sees the current world. Muntz is a guy who wants it all for himself. The bird's his and the skies are his and nothing's going to stand in his way. There are people in Carl's real world who are just like that with a city expanding around him, guys with walkie talkies trying to take the property that has so much sentimental value to him. In the imagined playtime, Carl's real "bad guys" are replaced by a fictional version of Muntz who Russell could easily have seen a picture of and said, "He looks kind of mean."
3) Shady Oaks ain't a jail. I'm sure Carl is allowed to come and go as he pleases.
The day before? I'm not sure we know how much time takes place between the time Carl and Russell first meet and the time the house "takes off"
But this is a good point. Carl won't have his house any more which makes it difficult for the stuff in his house (the bird on the mantle, etc.) or the mechanisms (the steering, etc.) to be used.
4) Why is a "point of transition" needed? You don't have one in 'The Wizard of Oz' and you don't really have one in 'Alice in Wonderland' either. As I recall, Carl closes his curtain and the screen goes black for a moment. Then, you get the scene with the balloons. Black screen...bingo. Transition. I think there might even be a moment of nothingness between the scene where they win and the award ceremony.
What would Russell have to know about South America in order for this story to take place? That there's a big waterfall and rocks? Can't he get that from the picture that Carl has? I'm not sure why extensive knowledge about South America is necessary for this playtime to exist.
Oh, still 4)
I don't think you're allowed to fly a dirigible to an ice cream shop without a license, are you? Again, I think showing the dirigible floating above them in that final scene is just an artistic way to show that their playtime continues.
Barry, the badge ceremony is real and the dog is real. Either Carl or Russell could have gotten a real dog. I've even done that before. The dog's real (the bird isn't) and they use it as a character in their playtime.
5) If the movie established the friendly relationship between Russell and Carl, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun. You're still not giving Russell enough credit. There's no reason why a kid his age wouldn't be able to not only contribute to the story but maybe even be responsible for most of the ideas. There's nothing suggested when we first meet Russell that would make it seem like he's a kid who wants to save birds. That part of his adventure is imaginary. I'm not taking the badge and the father figure away from him. Those are real things that he gets to keep long after the playtime is finished. I don't think the fact that this all takes place in their imaginations really means he can't grow. Can't he develop skills to climb a rope while imagining he's flying through the air on an out-of-control house just as well as he could if he was really flying through the air on an out-of-control house?
6) All Pixar films have two distinct audiences. There's stuff for the adults (nothing inappropriate like in other animated movies but something a little deeper thematically) and there's stuff for the children. Nothing about my theory makes 'Up' any different. There's a linear story for the kids and there's a subtext for the adults, filled with more abstract ideas, symbolism, metaphor.
Do I believe that my theory means that Carl doesn't follow through with his commitment to Ellie? Absolutely not. If you think that Ellie's "Have an adventure" or whatever she wrote (words Carl doesn't see until later) means that she literally wants him to go to South America and nearly be killed, then you're missing one of the main points of the movie--life is the adventure. Look at that book of theirs. It's filled with wedding pictures, pictures of the couple having picnics, pictures of them hanging around their home. There aren't a lot of people who would see those pictures and think, "Wow! How adventurous!" The point is that life is the adventure. When Carl crosses his heart, he's not saying he's literally going to travel the world. He's promising his late wife that he is going to continue living the adventure of everyday life, that he's going to find something to inspire him, and that he is going to not give up and live the rest of his life out in despair.
Carl is energized, yes. But he could be just as energized by forming a relationship with a kid who really needs a father figure, a kid who helps him connect with a part of him that he felt was lost, a kid who can help him be a kid again himself. Happy ending.
Why does Carl have to sleep in the street? I can't think of that question of yours without laughing.
7) Again, one of the major points of this movie is that your relationships with loved ones and the ordinary everyday stuff you do with those loved ones (i.e. picnics) is the adventure. Carl doesn't need a literal adventure in South America to be fulfilled any more than you don't need an exciting adventure in order to have a fulfilling life. Isn't being a husband and a father of two daughters enough of an adventure?
Same with Russell, of course. Again, I think the dog is literal (although not a talking dog...do we see any other real characters interacting with the dog or looking over at the dog and saying, "What the heck? A talking dog?")...I'm not sure I see much difference between a real adventure or a fake adventure with Russell. He gets what he wants in the end.
Kevin doesn't exist. He's nothing but a bauble on the mantle.
Is it Dug? I would have guessed Doug. And yes, he exists and is a happy dog. He gets to play with an old man and a kid who love him. What dog wouldn't want that?
Dead Ellie? See above. And I'm not sure she's in heaven. In Pixar's prequel, we'll find out that she was actually an abusive wife, a drug user, and a pornographer. And that she burned flags.
I don't see how my version of the story is depressing either. Either way, you get a happy ending where a character has decided to go on living following the death of his spouse, where another character finds that father figure, and where two characters find a new best friend.
8) Seriously? Is that a point?
You're making quite a few assumptions in this "point" and not all of them are fair. I really don't care if anybody else agrees with what I think. You asked if I was being serious and actually believed my theory, and I answered that I was. You seem to be making it out to be something more serious than that. You also seem to be insinuating that I'm some kind of pretentious egomaniac who thinks I'm smarter than everybody else and who is going to look down on people who don't see things my way. I don't think that's fair at all. My favorite movies are ones that I can have a relationship with, ones that I can watch again and again and continually unravel. No two people are going to watch a movie the same way. I attempted to justify my ideas about 'Up' and I'm not criticizing you or Barry or Kairow or anybody else for not seeing things my way. It just doesn't matter to me. What's wrong with looking at something from a different perspective? Personally, I hate when things are spelled out for me in cliches ('It's a Wonderful Life') and would much rather enjoy the depth of a film, even if it's all in my head. If that makes me a pretentious egomaniac [. . .] then I apologize. I haven't looked back through all forty billion of these 'Up' comments, but I'd be willing to bet you and Barry have said something like "You're wrong" a lot more than I have.
And why the jab at my wife? What the hell was that?
9) Once again, there's a huge difference between me having an opinion and me saying I'm right. If I said anything like "I am right and you are wrong, na na na na boo boo," then I apologize. I probably meant it in jest.
Nothing you typed changed my mind. Sorry. I did enjoy reading most of it though.
Wow...I just read through all the UP comments and it is quite entertaining. I will preface my remarks with this: I am a dumb guy that likes mainstream movies and struggles to find the meaning in many of the more independent and art oriented films. With that said, I can very much appreciate directors who choose to use film as an art and worry less about the financial viability of their picture. I am just flat out not smart enough to get most of what they are trying to say, however, I do enjoy trying to figure it out.
Now, onto UP. I do not know, nor do I care, what the people at Pixar were trying to do when they created their film. I do know that as soon as you put it into the hands of an audience you handing over the license for interpretation. When I look at a work of art on the wall, I don't need the artist's permission to be impacted by a painting in a particular fashion. As a viewer of this film, I never saw the "imaginative play" idea Shane proposed, however, viewing the film in that way makes it vastly more appealing to me, making me want to find all the trinkets that end up in the "make believe (aka the bird on the mantel, etc)." As far as all the "absurd" things that come with watching the film in that way, I would say there are just as many - if not more - absurd things that come with viewing it as a literal linear progression. How could a house fly, where did the balloons and helium come from, how did he fix up his house to be "flight ready" so fast, why was south america so bizarrely not south america, how could the dogs talk, what was up with cuckoo Muntz, how did they fly the blimp back home? Again, though, I don't really care what Pixar had in mind when they created the film, I like looking at it the way Shane suggests and that interpretation actually makes me want to watch, what I previously thought was a very sub-par movie, again.
What I don't understand is how many of the comments on here got to be so mean. One of the cool things for me about this site has been being able to read all the various thoughts of the many authors on here. You seldom seem to agree but you all seem smart and knowledgeable about film. As someone who desires to learn more and get more out of movies I watch, this has been a very helpful site for me. It has caused me to examine film more closely and watch many movies I would not have otherwise watched or even known about. All of this has taken place while not viewing any of you as jerks or people who think you are so superior because of how "smart" you are when it comes to understanding films. Cory, your long attack of Shane came across - to a third party, uninvolved observer - as very elitist and condescending. I point this out not to take sides with Shane, but to say that somewhere in those posts you seemed to transform from someone who I enjoy reading your ideas and interpretations of film (and even your disagreements with Shane), into someone who was being vindictive and snobbish. I know my opinion doesn't matter in the least and you could probably care less, but I had to speak up because I felt you just tried to belittle someone for something that I have seen you do several times - interpret a film differently from someone else.
I do look forward to reading more reviews and comments, but I hope none quite as harsh as those.
Rubber Duck
PS...I dont proofread and dont care...feel free to take shots at my spelling and grammar
I've written so much about this movie that I'm getting sick of reading my own stuff. To save words, I will write in declarative statements.
-That was a very well put, Anonymous.
-I was a little mean, condescending and spiteful.
-I am sorry.
-It may have been overkill, but I felt like Shane, and then Jennifer, started down that road first.
-I will explain soon.
-Shane reviews films and compares them.
-I thought he got this wrong.
-He didn't adopt a "that's the way I like to see it" attitude until the most recent comment.
-He was right, so others were wrong.
-Shane is not being objective and should say so up front.
-Hypotheticals and apocraphal(?) evidence is no substitute for facts.
-"Could be"'s and "I know of"'s are not convincing.
-Alternate "Up" may be more of a challenge depending how much imagination a viewer is applying.
-Real "Up" is more satisfying.
-Having kids is more meaningful than imagining having kids.
-Going to Paris is more satisfying than imagining a Paris trip.
-There is no background on Russell.
-The imagine movie is very dark.
-They are chased by mean dogs, repeatedly.
-Russell nearly dies, repeatedly.
-Kevin is hurt and then seperated from three crying babies.
-There is nothing to base Russell's part, or even dominant participation, actually shown in "Up".
-No recent Pixar movie makes logical sense.
-We have had scream power for monster city, talking cars, a rat-chef pulling hair strings, etc.
-This is a cartoon.
-Alice clearly goes to sleep and wakes up.
-Dorothy gets conked on the head, and then shaken into consciousness.
-There is no such evidence in "Up" to support a real to imagined to real and back to imagined.
-Points 5 and 6 can be summed up as "this could be happening" and "this is what I lke to think".
-The film is not saying any of these things.
-Shane has never said where and when the play.
-This is relevent.
-Every good character is better off in the end having the real adventure.
-Number 8 was a little harsh.
-The point was Pixar has never made Shane's type of movie.
-They make linear adventure and buddy pictures.
-They have been wildly successful.
-They would not need to change.
-There is no real evidence that they did change.
-You could imagine and suppose anything about any of their previous movies.
-That wouldn't make your view right.
-I used a lot of direct Shane and Jennifer quotes in number 8.
-Jennifer's comment could read as "Shane is right, but I'm not going to explain how. You are wrong. You are jealous that he gets things from movies that you don't. He(we) don't care if you don't get it"
-It was loyal, but that seemed a little out of line, personal and very condescending.
-"Could care less" is a pet peeve comparable to Shane's "bad chess".
-Saying "you're wrong" is not mean or condescending.
-It is not personal.
-Saying "you don't need things spelled out for you", "you're a big boy" and use your imaginations is a little mean and condescending.
-I'll try to stay professional (couldn't think of a better word), but I do react to stuff.
-I am flawed.
-Shane's chivalry was cute
-My computer went weird.
-I have not changed my name to jrpf.
-I think Shane is nice and far from egomaniacal.
-Sometimes I can't say the same.
-I think Shane is quirky, but I am literal.
-Shane gave "Up" an 18.
-Without his extra credit,"Up" is not one of Pixar's three best.
-I like Shane and his blog.
-I like Anonymous' point of view.
-Subjectivity, cartoons, and 30's movies continue to be problematic.
From my original post: "It's so beautifully constructed, especially if you BUY INTO MY "READING" of the story. Right from the get-go, I'm willing to admit that this is MY idea and that not everybody is going to agree with me. Where's the "I'm right and others are wrong" at?
--"Having real kids is more meaningful than imagining having kids." Well, sir, you've not met the kids I teach. And I still think the point is that the real things (like the friendship) are more important than the things I'm taking away from them by saying it's not a real adventure (like the bird)
--"No recent Pixar movie makes logical sense." Fine, but I don't think you should put the Pixar people in a box. Why can't they make a different movie? 'Monsters' and 'Cars' and 'Rat' are all consistently illogical or fantastic. The thing about 'Up' is that there's such a striking difference between the real stuff (my opinion) that bookend the adventure and the wacky adventure itself. The talking animals and toys and cars in the other Pixar movies do their thang throughout the movie. The old man is only Super Old Man for the middle 2/3 of the movie.
--You're really misquoting Jennifer which is bound to piss her off. She didn't say I was right. She said that she agreed with me. She didn't say you were wrong. She said that you could make up your own mind about it. She did say that you might be driven crazy that somebody else thought of this before you, but she punctuated that with a winky. --> ;) Without the winky, I could see that as condescending. With it though? I don't see how she got personal or typed anything out of line.
--Saying "you're wrong" might not be mean. It isn't exactly objective, however.
--I don't want to turn this into a "He started it!" thing, but reread a few of Barry's early comments. Now I like Barry, and I've enjoyed every single comment he's left on the blog, but the guy doesn't pull his punches. Go find some of his oldest comments. I don't really think my comments to him in that comment ("you don't need things spelled out for you" and "you're a big boy" and [I'll add] "maybe you're watching the movie too much like a child") are really all that mean or condescending anyway, especially the way they sounded in my head. In fact, they're complimentary. I don't know Barry well, but everything I do know about him makes me believe he's an intelligent guy who would be offended if the makers of a movie treated him like a child. And I really do think he's a big boy and can probably take whatever my fingers can dish out.
--Let's not forget that this is written communication. It's hard to judge tone and intent without the all-important non-verbal stuff and tone of voice. I didn't really mean to be condescending or harsh with my comment, but rereading it, I can see how it could be taken that way. For that, Barry, I'm sorry.
--Your chivalry was cute, by the way...
--I have attempted to email Pete Docter. Here's what I think he'll say. Ok, actually I don't think he'll respond at all because it's a complete waste of his time. But here's what I think he might say if he didn't have anything better to do with this time: "Your ideas are really interesting, Shane. I'm glad you liked the movie so much. It wasn't our intent for the trip to South America to seem imaginary, but it does add an interesting layer to our film. Thanks for giving us your money and watch out in 2012 for our unnecessary sequel to our second worst movie, 'Monsters Inc.' Love, Pete"
--And Pete Docter will be wrong.
--I'll still be right. I'm the customer, and the customer is always right. That's the first rule of animation.
--I like you too, Cory, and I'm glad you're a frequent contributor to my little blog.
1-I am not offended if people like or dislike a movie that I like or dislike.
2-If I offended anyone for disliking or liking a movie they disliked or liked, I apologize.
3-Shane has never offended me. Cory has offended me plenty of times, but thats real life. Out here in this world of talking movies, I have not been offended by him. Anonymous, and anyone else? They have not offended me at all.
4-Up is still a mediocre Pixar movie, and I am OFFENDED it has gotten all the accolades it has received.
5-Is this the longest series of comments to any movie, Shane?
The only reason I put my 2 cents in about Shane's view --- because cory said shane was the only one who viewed Up in the imaginary/never happened way.
I apologize for any grammar mistakes I have made and will make in the future, on this blog or in real life. I married an English major to make up for my deficiencies.
The whole housewife/Shane supporting me financially is a bit personal. While there is tons I could point out on this subject, I won't get into it here. Basically, though, I make my own choices. No, I don't receive a yearly salary, not even an hourly wage. I am fully dependent at this time on Shane's salary. However, I am not forced to agree with Shane. And he's okay with that. So, I did go into it a bit more than I wanted to.
This is a movie blog, go watch a movie. :)
My last "Up" comment, ever.
Hi Jennifer.
The support comment was meant to be a funny way of saying you were biased. I could have said "people who live with you" (maybe Dylan would be next), but that wouldn't have been as pithy or smart-assed. Sorry. No shot at financial, educational, physical, heritage... any low blows will ever intentionally come from me. Generally, I did see your comment how I paraphrased it (especially since you weren't saying why you felt that way), so I kind of felt like it was OK to include you in a small way, but maybe I should have accepted the :) and moved on.
The "could care less" shot is my only grammatical pet peeve and I tried to be a little funny (I called my man a little know-it-all), but I should not have included it. I AM amazed how common it is with media-types that should know better.
Now I hope to never see of talk about "Up" again. I will take your advice and go watch a movie... or maybe a TV show.
Post a Comment