Magic powers

My first thought on seeing Tim Burton's new interpretation of Alice in Wonderland (2010) is that although the Disney company was not integrally involved, (as far as they know the project was largely developed by Joe Roth, who has a production deal at Disney, but is not an employee) it achieves one of Walt Disney's personal goals: to seamlessly integrate animation and live action. Here the animation is 3D (that is, the figures are modeled by computer rather than drawn--the 3D exhibition is a separate issue), and the blending of live-action performance skills with traditional animation performance and movement skills seems absolutely complete. In some cases, such as Helena Bonham-Carter's Red Queen, the actress herself has been turned into a partial cartoon, recognizable yet distorted (reminiscent of what Disney animators did with Ed Wynn's appearance in their version of the Mad Hatter in the 1951 film.)

I can hardly fault Roth and Burton for concocting an actual plot to guide the film. Carroll's books neither had nor needed plot. They are odd improvisations in nonsense and veiled satire, never meant to be anything other than an intriguing diversion. It is hardly novel to note that while dramatic structure is virtually a necessity in works which unfold over time (theater, films, music) it is not a sine qua non for the printed word. The hinge seems to have been a look at Tenniel's illustration of "Jabberwocky." While Carroll's poem refers to an unnamed, but male hero, the film's creators could have looked at this view and said, "Why couldn't this be a teen-aged Alice?" (Note "Joan of Arc" imagery in the illustration at top.)

Not surprisingly, what they came up with is a coming-of-age story, and a female empowerment one as well. Again, the purists are upset that Burton's Alice is a 19-year-old who knows a few things and is unwilling to accept arbitrary authority. Personally, I found it refreshing. Carroll's Alice is a tedious little literalist, constantly battling the enchanting nonsense all around her (in exactly the way a 6 or 7 year-old would), which pits her against what little narrative thrust the stories have. At least in "Looking Glass" she has a clear goal of trying to find her way back (and trying to find out what "Jabberwocky" means).

The motor underlying Alice's quest journey in the Burton film is an understanding of the use and misuse of power. The Red Queen (who is an amalgam of Carroll's Red Queen and Queen of Hearts) attempts to use power arbitrarily and cruelly. The Mad Hatter has abdicated his; the Dormouse acts as if he can wield power when he has none; the list goes on. Finally, the Jabberwocky derives most of its power from the fear of those observing it. Alice conquers that, and she conquers the fear of being different or disruptive in her own buttoned-up Victorian era. Yes, the conclusion is improbable, but consistent and satisfying.

The 3D projection resembles Viewmaster. It is fun, but I suspect the film's imagery is perfectly enjoyable "flat" which could not be said for Avatar, which was clearly conceived to be be immersive.

A quibble: I enjoyed the Mad Hatter's silly dance of victory, but did it have to be done to a contemporary beat track, which nails the film down to a particular time? Foolish mistake.

An appreciation: The frabjous day and the frumious bandersnatch (which figure prominently in the film) have been rescued from semi-obscurity. The mome raths outgrabe!

Is the future here yet?

Together with the billions of dollars spent on tickets, doubtless billions of barrels of ink or electrons or what-have-you have been spilled on the aesthetics of Avatar (2009). Certainly there is no reason to attend the film to see great acting, groundbreaking themes or surprising storytelling. All of these elements are run-of-the-mill Hollywood quality--good, mind you, but not innovative. There is only one reason to attend the movie, which is to see the quality of the 3D imaging and the extent to which it is an integral part of the narrative scheme.

On the basis of Avatar, I would rate 3D as significant a development in film storytelling as the arrival of color. Not as great a change as sound, which changed nearly all the rules--except that film is still composed of the juxtaposition of images. But the grammar and syntax of those images was drastically amended. Color, on the other hand, simply changed the conventions by which the world is abstracted in film. Color, as we see it on film, is not identical to color in real life. Moreover, the most skilled artists manipulate it, both during and after production, for the greatest expressivity. Lately filmmakers are deliberately limiting the palate, draining the image of color (often electronically) to literally set a tone.

I would argue that 3D accomplishes the same thing for the illusion of depth. The present-day 3D camera still does not perceive the world the way we do. Avatar, in fact, uses fairly shallow depths of field to strengthen the perceived distance between foreground and background objects. In life, we see everything more or less in focus unless we are concentrating on an object within about 18 inches of our eyes. Yet no one, not even the people who object to music in movies because they want to know where the orchestra is, balks at an image like the one on the right because it is "unrealistic." It is simply a convention to which one has become adjusted.

Avatar gives the lovely sense of peeking into a shoebox diorama of a strange world. It makes perfect sense for the story being told, this sense of peering or probing into an alien world--a world which can occasionally touch us in the form of falling cinders or blossoms, but in which we are fundamentally an observer. (Some writers say that 3D makes one feel more involved and integrated in the action, but I had the opposite feeling. The action was visceral, yes, but I was keenly aware that it was happening somewhere else.)

Moreover, 3D is approximately at the stage of aesthetic development that color was at the time of Gone With The Wind. GWTW has very good and very expressive color, but it is nearly always throwing the color up in your face--most notably the lurid sunset over the twisted tree that closes each half of the film. Avatar feels the need to assert its qualities of depth nearly all the time. It will be interesting to see how this develops when 3D becomes as ho-hum and everyday as color is now. I expect the advent of 3D television will hasten this development. As of this post, Direct TV, Discovery Communications, Sony, Imax and ESPN have announced plans for 3D channels by 2011.

Cinematography in animation

Between the time Monsters vs. Aliens (2009) was released this past spring and today, 3D has gone from being the hope of the future of film to a possible fizzle, given the lukewarm reaction to the recent release of A Christmas Carol. I didn't see MvA in 3D, so I can't comment on that aspect, but I suspect that a film that relied utterly on 3D for audience success would constitute rather thin gruel. I am still not convinced that the most important thing about story-telling is the representation of spatial environments. Novels and plays have been doing pretty well without them. (Yes, plays are in 3D, but unless you are seated on the stage, you experience them as a 2D event.)

The film is the usual underdog story, albeit very funny with some first-rate voice acting. It also sports some feminism utterly appropriate to children's developing minds, and I am sure I would have enjoyed watching this with my daughter when she was a kid--she was bonkers for this kind of feisty self-realizing heroine.

What I found most interesting was a behind-the-scenes feature which, in a couple of shots, showed one filmmaker holding something like a camera, "pointing" it at the virtual environment and manipulating its viewpoint just like a live-action camera. Animation has long simulated the live-action camera with pans and zoom-ins, and short focal lengths have been a feature for at least the last 20 years. (The camera eye has a small area it can keep in focus compared to the human eye--cartoons have learned to simulate this flaw in order to be more "convincing.") And animation has been simulating the hand-held look a long time; but until now that required advance planning and careful execution. Now it appears that handheld and other freeform modes of cinematography can be created in animation in real-time, "on the fly." This can only increase the naturalness and expressiveness of the form.