AJ Logo an ARTSJOURNAL weblog | ArtsJournal Home | AJ Blog Central

« TT: Almanac | Main | TT: Alas, not by me »

January 18, 2004

TT: A little late to the party

Just because I live in Manhattan doesn't mean I always see cool things weeks ahead of the rest of the world. For example, I only just saw The Triplets of Belleville (the new French-Canadian-Belgian animated feature) last night, ten humiliatingly long days after Cinetrix ordered her readers to go and do likewise. If you haven't done so, read her post now, then go see Triplets at once, preferably this afternoon, or tomorrow if absolutely necessary. If you've already seen Triplets, read her post anyway, because it's really smart.

I do have a few small things to add:

  • Cinetrix thinks the opening sequence of Triplets is "reminiscent of 1930s Warner Brothers' cartoons." Yes, a bit, though I was also put in mind of the less technically adroit fare produced by the Fleischer brothers around the same time. But the strongest influence on the rest of The Triplets of Belleville, visually speaking, is late Chuck Jones. Keep The Grinch Who Stole Christmas in mind and you'll see what I mean.

  • The big difference between Jones and Sylvain Chomet, the director of Triplets, is that Chomet is more inclined to grotesquerie (occasionally bordering on outright grossness) than sentimentality. This gives Triplets an astringent flavor that serves as a counterpoise to its oh-so-French touches of whimsy.

  • Triplets strikes me as not at all suitable for children, at least not small ones. (My guess is that the film's mixture of grotesquerie and surrealism would give them nightmares.) This sets it well apart from such recent American animated features such as Lilo and Stitch, Finding Nemo, and Monsters, Inc. Even though they're adult-friendly, those films were all made specifically for children, whereas The Triplets of Belleville is definitely for grownups.

  • The caricatures Cinetrix mentions in her post--of Django Reinhardt, Fred Astaire, Josephine Baker, even Glenn Gould--are amazingly sharp-eyed and knowing, but they don't get much screen time. Neither does anything else: Triplets is crammed full of more witty detail than you can possibly absorb in a single viewing. You'll want to see it twice.

  • Back in August, I posted about what I then took to be the dilemma of digital animation:

    I really liked Finding Nemo. But every time I see a Pixar movie, I think of the dead end down which the Disney animators of the Thirties and Forties charged so heedlessly. Artist for artist, the Disney team packed a greater technical punch than any animation shop in history, but its product got duller and duller, while the Warner and MGM cartoons of the same period became more vivid and witty with every passing year. What made the difference? Disney's creative team was fixated on the chimerical goal of realism, whereas Chuck Jones and Tex Avery knew that no matter how well you drew it, an animated cartoon was going to look like drawings of a talking animal.

    This sounds like a debate over modernism, doesn't it? Well, that's just what it is. You can't watch a cartoon like Jones' "Duck Amuck" or Avery's "King-Size Canary" without understanding that what you're looking at is a cartoon. Both men accepted the inherent limitations of their chosen medium, thereby freeing their imaginations to run rampant within those limitations. Not so Walt Disney, whose goal was to make his studio's cartoons look as real as possible, meaning that the imagination of the artists got tied up in knots. (Unlimited virtuosity can be a trap.)

    I know there's more to animation than animation, so to speak. Pixar's features are good not just because of the way they look but also because of the way they're written and voiced and scored. In those departments, Pixar stands head and shoulders over just about everybody else's stuff. But the best animated feature of the past decade, Lilo and Stitch, is just as imaginatively written and voiced and scored--but also makes generous use of hand-drawn characters and hand-painted backgrounds that don't aspire to Pixar-like hyper-realism. I can't help but think that this is part of the reason why Lilo and Stitch touched me, whereas Finding Nemo mostly only charmed me.

    I quote that posting at length because Triplets is an eye-opening example of how highly sophisticated digital techniques can be employed in a non-naturalistic way that makes full use of the medium's potential without falling into the trap of hyper-realism. It completely changed my feelings about digital animation--though not about the expressive limitations of the Pixar house style.

    All of which, in case you hadn't guessed by now, adds up to a hats-off rave. The Triplets of Belleville is wonderfully funny, miraculously well-made, and unoppressively clever. Thank you, Cinetrix, for being so insistent in your praise. I owe you one.

    Posted January 18, 2004 12:02 PM

    Tell A Friend

    Email this entry to:


    Your email address:


    Message (optional):














  •