Friday, 6 July 2012

101 Dalmatians (1961)


101 Dalmatians 1961

Ok, yes I have two Dalmatians films… I’m not dotty, I promise. This film was a slight revolution in terms of Disney. It’s basically the film that marked the beginning of a change-over from the old classic Disney animators and writers such as Wilfred Jackson and William Cottrell to the next generation. Of course, they still had a big hand in designing and creating it, but all in all Disney wanted a new style for this film to stray away from the whole ‘magical fairy-tale’ and the changes in both creative influences and animation style aided this. Fun fact, this was also one of the first films to fully use the xerography technique. The technique basically allowed them to copy and repeat frames and made the photographic process quicker – taking away a lot of pressure from the animators and decreasing the development time. Fun-fact over, personally I wanted this film because of my love for dogs… I don’t actually remember obsessing too much over the film as much as its merchandise… but alas lets delve once more into the world of spotted dogs! 

Plot and Script

This tale was adapted from the novel ‘The Hundred and One Dalmatians’, written by Dodie Smith. In this version seems fairly similar in general plot, but there are a few differences: for example ‘Perdita’ was a third adult dog with a love-story sub-plot who was found out in the rain, while  Pongo’s lady-friend was simply named ‘Missus Pongo’.  Other plot differences include certain events that I approve of their withdrawal, for example in the novel one puppy was too weak to walk and so was given a toy carriage to be pushed home in. While sweet, it would have just made this story less realistic and that’s one thing that this movie does so well. It brings a bunch of normal people and dogs, ties them up with a mad old hag who hates all living things and makes it believable. One final plot difference I find amusing is how the cat, in the book, actually belonged to Cruella. Wait, she owns animals? Thank you Disney for not allowing this complete confusion of character! 

As far as the script goes, it’s fairly tame. Didn’t have much wrong with it, didn’t have anything exciting either. There are some classic lines, however… may I mention the ‘Kanine Krunchies’ theme song? 

Characters and Actors

Disney being Disney, and Disney needing to attract films to a young market, tend to add way too many characters, or they change one to make it funnier than it really needs to be. This film, however, I’m pleased to say has quite believable characters that aren’t added in just for the humour! Ok, so there is that annoying scene where the colonel is trying to hear the twilight bark which gets a little tiresome, but all in all the ‘whacky’ characters were kept out of this one. Instead, they put the whacky where whacky was needed: Cruella. This character is so wonderful in all she does. From her lathered-in-fur look, to her ‘sitting in bed on a day off’ look, she just screams menacingly evil. Who couldn’t be a little creeped out by that face?  I mean, even when she’s reading the Sunday paper, she’s laughing and plotting more evil deeds. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEzAUBoFcdFFlhMpvhHuhoTwCYeCgCyWnnAQxWfVFhv6pTn63Bk9kBfMeLny9wh_M60zzmj0TJZx2TVk8Zt2WV2S9x5kmSK6RSY9tuDCtxR3H0jAUJJMZISIcctLxT6Ewyp1uAcd_ccek/s400/03_20.jpg
Ok, so she might not be the most mystical, fantastical… or even most clever of villains. But she’s awesome cause she’s both believable and you just can’t help but want her to crash her car at the end… and that’s what a good kids-film villain is about! 

Other characters in this story tend to either annoy me, or bore me. Pongo? Boring. Perdita? Boring. The colonal dog? Damned annoying. That cat? Also annoying. Don’t even get me started on Roger or Anita. Other than Nanny, and Jasper and Horace (who only get credit in this film due to the kidnap scene) that only really leaves the puppies. To be fair, I think they did a good job with the puppies. The ones that mattered to the story that is. Each little puppy had their own personality that, although didn’t get an enormous amount of screen time, were vaguely identifiable. There was the fat one, the angry one, the two girl-snobs, the one who loved his dad and, of course Lucky. Ok, not quite 15 memorable dogs… but it must be hard to distinguish. They did a better job than these guys, where the only one you do remember is because hes a jerk and he has an ‘A’ written on his shirt….and there’s only three of them!

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/39/2008/11/alvinchipmunks111208.jpg



Scenery and Style

This part of the film is probably my favourite, mainly because it’s so different than the usual Disney stuff. They wanted a new style for this movie and boy did they get it. Colouring that bleeds outside the lines, very arty, very odd. I like it mainly because it brings the characters to the foreground. Everything that doesn’t need attention, doesn’t get it because, alike with photography and focus, the background of the film is in a different style to the important parts: the characters. Also, this style fits In with the setting of the film. I don’t know about you, but if I were to head in my time machine to 50’s/60’s London, I’d expect everything to look like it does in this movie. Yep, dull drab and block colour with lines. Looks inviting.  



http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/uploads/dalmatians_color.jpg


However, even though I love the style of the artwork and think that overall it fits with the theme, I’d have liked to see more stylisation around Cruella’s character. Not her look, though, more her surroundings. The live action film did a better job of this, with her office space. I just think Cruella’s bedroom furniture shows just how truly evil she is. Yes, I just wrote that… But really, I do think if we saw her house, or her office, alike in the live-action version, and it was just as evil and awkward as she was, it’d just intensify our hatred for her. 


Music

The main piece of music within this version of the film was all shown in the title credits. Now, I know it was more a thing of the era, but I really hate long title credits. And its this hatred of title credits and a lack of being able to skip them instantly back in the good old days of video that leads to my hatred of that piece of music. Every dot that was placed on that page just angered me all the more as my time was wasted wishing it’d hurry up and get to the film. That said, it fits in with the theme, being so quirky. 

A better received use of music in this film was the wonder of song, though I’m not really a fan of these in particular. ‘Cruella DeVill’ is annoyingly catchy and iconic but even it is slightly lame. How it became top of the fictional world’s Christmas songs, I’m not sure… but its only advantage is it just adds to the ‘Cruella is evil, so hate her’ thing this film has got going for it. In fact, we’re almost reminded too much that we should hate this woman, in various different mediums. I hope Disney don’t start to make Political campaigns, or we’d all be at their whim as they slaughtered the opposition with a combination of song, style and cute little animals showing fear and hatred.
The only other song in the film I can think of, besides the masterful Kanine Krunchies advert, is 'Dalmatian Plantation' and that just pisses me off cause its a poor excuse for an ending. 

Overall

Overall, this film is different. It’s a nice change from ‘Princess is found by Prince’ and brings with it a whole new style and feel to a Disney movie. I almost feel, however, that you just can’t watch this movie too often. It’s too easy to get bored of watching dogs walk through a winter country scene, when you see it too often. And really, that’s what this story is about: dogs that walk through the countryside while being chased by a woman who’s a bit of a nutter. Although I loved Dalmatians when I was younger, the film just didn’t excite me enough and that’s why its remained dear, yet not particularly loved as much as, say, Lion King. However, if you’ve not seen it before I don’t think it’s a complete waste of time to watch it. It’s a sweet story with an amazing villain and a cute art style. Oh and some cute puppies who just loooove this advert....

Altogether now: 
(8) Kanine Krunchies can't be beat, 
They make each meal a special treat..
Happy dogs are those who eat delicious Kanine Krunchies! (8)

Ahhhh bliss.

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

101 Dalmatians 1996

101 Dalmatians 1996

As a kid, I was quite obsessed with Dalmatians because of Disney. I had a game, the teddies, the figures... you name it, I had it. However, despite my yearning for everything spotted, I don't remember particularly enjoying the animated film as much as the product. And if the animated film didn't turn my young head, neither did the live action version made five years after its debut. However, out of a mixture of curiosity, the need to update from video to DVD, the want of a growing collection and the premise of a cheap shopping spree at CEX encouraged me to purchase it and put it at the front of my DVD stack. Why? Because its alphabetised. Which puts it slap bang at the beginning of my journy of analysis and review.

Plot and Script
The plot stayed pretty closely to the animated version and I presume pretty closely to the original book (though I've never read it). Dog meets dog, causing guy to meet girl,  fleeting romance and marriage ensues, then puppies appear. Naturally. The puppies are then kidnapped by goons working for antagonist Cruella De Vil, who 'lives for' and 'worships' fur. The adult dogs, Pongo and Purdy then rescue their puppies, along with the other 84, travelling with them away from the De Vil house and through the countryside to safety. 
  There are a few adaptations to the animated predecessor. For one, it expands on the fact that Anita designed the dog-skinned coat later used by Cruella: something I don't remember being pushed before. It does make the suspect of Cruella a little more realistic: moving it from 'shes just evil so it must have been her' to 'oh, heres some proof it was her'. This change, though, allows for the increased involvement of the police, leading to what was quite a rushed ending. We no longer get the careful creeping through towns disguised as labradors or any exhilarating car chases. Instead, we get some too-good-to-be-true policemen who manage to find all the dogs and bring them back to London in their police cars.A bit of realism people!
  Other changes to the plot included: the forgettable character Skinner, Roger (the man of the house) being a video game designer instead of a wanna-be beethoven and there was little suggestion that Roger and Anita's progress from falling in love, to getting married to her being pregnant took longer than 3 hours to complete. However, overall the plot moved quite well. Wasn't too long, wasn't too short. The ending wasn't as satisfying at the animated version, but it provided a humourous version of the story. 
  One problem I have with the scriping and plan of the film was its' occasional... odd quotes. I'm not quite sure where the scriptwriter John Hughes was going having Horace say 'that gives me a shrinky winky' and I personally think he should have been fired for just thinking of including it. But he also has some other, less shocking, more cringe-worthy lines that make you remember why it wasn't much of a hit at the box office. A second problem I had was the bad research. The film is meant to be set in London, England. However, last time I checked, we don't have racoons or skunks as natural wildlife and Roger must have been a super human on that bike to travel the distance from Leicester Square to Trafalgar Square in less than a street. However, you can see the genre the American scriptwriter and director were going for and if you keep in mind it was a film designed for children, the humour is barable to a point it becomes quite funny.Though saying that, I don't remember quite understanding the verbal jokes when I was younger, such as Roger saying 'would you like a cup of marriage'. Its only now I can appreciate the awkwardness of such a slip-up, whereas when you're a kid... who cares, right? So perhaps they were aiming this more for the adults. I can get a fair laugh out of it now, at any rate. 

Characters and Actors
A good thing about this movie are the actors. I feel it has quite a strong cast, especially looking to Glenn Close (Cruella) and Hugh Laurie (Jasper), but also including Joely Richardson (Anita) though I feel the script let her down slightly. All cast-members kept to the lively American-kid-comedy vibe, bringing the quite animated chatacters to life in a whacky, yet fairly realistic way. Some characters, like Roger for example, were still boring and flat - much to Jeff Daniels attempts to boost the characters personality - but the film was kept together mainly by Glenn Close and the well trained dogs. In fact, I found myself to be enlightened and was more interested in how you could train a dog to do certain actions than the film itself at times. All of the animals were well trained and body language and expressions were all used nicely - animated and comedic rather than natural.

Scenary and Style
The style of the film very much fitted with its premise of 'American-Kid-Comedy' in that it had forms of slapstick humour, animated characters and corny jokes that you couldn't find in a more serious comedy, but it suited the film. Its bad points all were fitted together in a nice frame that made it slot into place. The style was bright, with good imagery. They probably tried to fit too many iconic views of London in the chase scene, but it all felt very cheery and very.. British! I think the producers may have planned to change the setting to modern-day, however as a change to the animated versions' setting. This change doesn't unsettle the film or the plot, but the animated film gained a style from its setting and paiting style, which the live action film has lost by its update.

I have a personal love for the style of Cruella in this film. Everything from her dress sense, to her hair to her office screams evil and it really helps this film along. I think Glen Close was a particular big name in this movie and they just wanted to make the most of her, but even if this was the case they did a good job. Perhaps I'm biased to all things black and white, but I want that office!

http://images.artistdirect.com/Images/nad/video/tribune/41632/392_ah.jpg

Music
The music for this film I'm sure was nice, but it is quite forgettable as I don't remember it.  I don't remember it being powerful for adding to the plot in any way that some soundtracks do, yet I don't remember it being a problem either. Its not anything I'll be adding to my playlist.

Overall
Overall, I like this film. Sure, it has its' quirks and its' odd lines and... bad scripting. But, its a cheery family comedy that acts as a nice comparison with its animated counterpart. I enjoy it and it has a pleasant ring of nostalgia to it. I feel its not a film to venture to, however, if you're older than 10 and don't have that child-hood link to dalmatians, but you may find out you enjoy it anyway if you keep in mind it was aimed at kids. As thats really the whole essence of this film... its trying to make live action films exciting for kids through whacky antics and its progression from an animated film. But, all in all, my overall verdict is ok! But... LONG LIVE THE SPOTTED DOGS.

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Artzicon Film Introductory

Artzicon Film Introductory


Artzicon Film aims to be a new project of mine to examine and explore film. It will take me through the depths of my DVD collection, admiring qualities of the films that both enlighten and horrify. I will analyse and assess each film on: 

- Plot
- Characters and Actors
- Scenary and Style
- Music
- Other/Overall

So, let the films begin.