Showing posts with label Tim Burton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Burton. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2025

Who is the Next AFI Life Achievement Honoree?

Francis Ford Coppola winning the AFI statue
from past winners George Lucas & Steven Spielberg
With the recent passing of Robert Redford, an interesting trivia topic comes up, one we've talked about on occasion on this blog but not in a few years.  Redford, screen luminary, movie star extraordinaire, film festival pioneer, & Oscar-winning director, has always felt like the oddest person to never win the AFI Life Achievement Awards, one of the highest honors for an actor or director, to the point that I have long-wondered if he just didn't want to accept (it's hard to imagine it was never offered to him).  With his death, though, it invites the question of who will be the next person to win the AFI Life Achievement Award, and I thought it'd be fun to make a Top 10 list of the people I think are likeliest to be next.  Before we get to the list, I came up with a list of criteria that usually hint at who will be the next AFI Life Achievement Award winner.

Age: The average age of a winner is roughly 70, though that's definitely an average and we have seen a pretty wide range of ages winning this (i.e. don't count someone out like Francis Ford Coppola, the  most recent winner, who took it at 86 in April).  19 of the winners have been in their 70's, which is by far the most common age group to have won in, and no victor has been older than 90 (top in age was Lillian Gish) or under 46 (Tom Hanks was the youngest, and that win was criticized enough that I doubt they go for someone that young again).  As a result, bonus points to anyone somewhere between about 65 and 79, though obviously they could and have leaned outside that age range.

Occupation: The award is open to anyone in the film industry, but like most honors, it's more geared toward movie stars.  70% of the winners have been principally known for acting, and all but one of the remaining victors have been film directors (the sole person who was neither was John Williams, and there's really no living behind-the-scenes person who could rival Williams in terms of public perception, so it's going to be a movie star or a director).  The film directors who did make it are extremely well-known, just as famous to the public in recent years as a movie star (think George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg), so don't count on aging directing superstars like Mike Leigh or Ridley Scott, as they likely aren't famous enough.  They're also not American which brings us to...

Geography: This is the American Film Institute Award, and while that title doesn't preclude anyone, it sure helps if you're American.  92% of the winners were Americans upon the time they won (this includes people who enjoyed dual citizenship like Elizabeth Taylor, Nicole Kidman, and Sidney Poitier), which is potentially why foreign-born icons like Charlie Chaplin, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, & Laurence Olivier never won, and likely why figures such as Anhtony HOpkins or Sophia Loren (who otherwise would have been shoo-ins) haven't taken the honor yet.  The four foreign-born figures who did win (Sean Connery, David Lean, Julie Andrews, and Alfred Hitchcock) don't really have a lot in common, so it's hard to find some commonality to one person getting in if they aren't American other than a lot of fame.

Oscar History: If you're going to be taking the AFI title, it helps (a lot) if you're an Oscar winner.  78% of all of the honorees were at the time of their victory winners of at least one competitive Academy Award, and another ten were nominees (two of which, Henry Fonda & Martin Scorsese, would win competitive Oscars post their AFI ceremony).  The only person to have never been nominated for an Oscar and still win the AFI is Steve Martin, someone you'd be hard-pressed to find an obvious corollary to today.  This pattern has gotten even stronger in recent years-85% of the past twenty recipients were Oscar winners (excluding Martin, George Lucas, & Harrison Ford).  So it's likely that the next person to take the AFI will have won a competitive Oscar.

Gender: The ceremony seems to be trying to correct this in recent years, but it's still very much a boy's club at the AFI.  78% of all winners have been men, and the ceremony has never honored a woman who was solely or principally known as a behind-the-scenes figure (women like Shirley MacLaine, Barbra Streisand, and Diane Keaton have all directed films and won the AFI, but all three made their names in movies as actors).   I also wouldn't read a lot into the last winner being male...it doesn't feel like a tradeoff situation as a rule (i.e. the next could also be a man).

DeMille/Kennedy: There are at least two other awards (other than Oscar) that are a strong indicator of whether or not someone will take the AFI trophy-the Cecil B. DeMille Award and the Kennedy Center Honor.  58% of all winners of the AFI were also DeMille winners and of those who were alive to receive it (the Kennedy Center Honors started last of the three honors, in 1978, so John Ford was dead by the time they rolled around despite having already won the AFI), 70% of the AFI Award victors also won the Kennedy Center Honor.  24 people have pulled off all three.  While the AFI has occasionally led the field (ie someone won it there before they picked up other honors, like Steven Spielberg or Elizabeth Taylor), it's a pretty strong indication if you're primarily known for film and you win one of these trophies that you're going to win one (or both) of the others.  One could make a sincere argument that the list of people who have taken the DeMille or Kennedy Center Honor without also having an AFI is particularly short right now, so AFI may be forced to add a new name to the roster next year.  Of the 16 living DeMille and/or Kennedy Center victors (without an AFI) who have meaningful cinematic contributions, almost all of them have something stopping them from taking this leg of the Cinematic Life Achievement Triple Crown (I started calling it that years ago...and it has not caught on).  There is one non-American (Sophia Loren) and one American more commonly known for citizenship in a different country (Anthony Hopkins).  There are figures with major contributions to cinema but who are more known for TV (Dick van Dyke, Lily Tomlin, Rita Moreno, Billy Crystal) and music (Cher, Bette Midler), and then there are a few figures due to health or antipathy to such things might not show up at all (Joanne Woodward, Woody Allen).  There's also the new stain on the Kennedy Center Honors due to the heavy involvement of President Trump that might make it hard for Sylvester Stallone to get this award given he won with that asterisk next to his name.  That actually only leaves five figures who could be considered real contenders that AFI hasn't picked yet, four of which I'll list in my Top 10, and the fifth of which I'll cite in the Honorable Mentions.

Fame: This is a hard one to quantify, but all of the winners have to be famous, and tend to still be extremely well-known when they won.  This has become even more pertinent in recent years.  Arguably the last time someone who wouldn't have been a household name still the year they won was Robert Wise in 1998, and in the past few years we've seen actors who are very active in modern filmmaking like Diane Keaton, George Clooney, and Denzel Washington take the trophy, so I suspect that the winner next year would either be still revered or quite frankly be someone whom you'd expect to be getting top billing on your local marquee still.  This means that names like Ellen Burstyn, Sissy Spacek, Julie Christie, Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow, or Goldie Hawn, names that probably have earned this kind of distinction but aren't really household in the same way as Clooney, Streep, & Washington, are going to struggle to get a citation without some sort of revival.  This ceremony is funded by advertising revenue, and as a result they need a bigger name for ratings.

With all of that said, here are my guesses as to who the Top 10 contenders for the trophy are.  Sound off in the comments if you have predictions as well!

Honorable Mentions: Lots of options here, but seven names that come to mind are Anthony Hopkins, Robert Downey, Jr., James Cameron, Ron Howard, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Fiennes, & Jessica Lange.  All of them have debits, ranging from a curmudgeonly persona off-screen that might preclude such an honor to not having a strong enough filmography to not being American, but these are names I wouldn't be shocked get into contention.  I will note that in the past when I've done this prediction list I missed future winners because I didn't know they'd be having a moment (i.e. I had Coppola as someone whose time had likely passed until Metropolis came out and he seemed to make a point of wanting to get these honors on his resumé before he died or to remind people that movie won't be his epitaph), so some of these might be contenders, but I don't see them being immediate threats.

10. Tim Burton

It feels weird not to list a single person primarily known as a director on this list, even though directors rarely win this award, and the concept of the celebrity-director is increasingly passé, but more than Cameron, Howard, or even Quentin Tarantino, it feels like Tim Burton is the kind of guy that gets in with AFI.  Inevitably, he's going to get an Oscar moment at some point, and that will invite conversations about his singular filmography.  In many ways Burton's personality feels at-home here.  He's a California-born director, and similar to someone like Mel Brooks (a past winner) he has made or advanced the careers of a lot of stars (such as Johnny Depp & Winona Ryder) who haven't really had a moment with the AFI, and this would be a way of acknowledging that very successful segment in Hollywood.  Call it a hunch that he could win this.

9. Sally Field

A more conventional choice would be Sally Field, a recent Kennedy Center Honoree, and an actress who has been doing a lot of the "I'm a legend" rounds in recent years (not just taking the Kennedy Center Honor, but also the National Medal of Arts and the SAG Life Achievement Award).  Field is also well-regarded (it helps if you're popular), and has had a diverse career as a two-time Academy Award winner who has gone back-and-forth between populist hits and art-fare.  Also, and most critically, she is one of the rare stars of the 1970's & 80's who still works regularly in major projects and is known to a new generation of moviegoers in a way that, say, Faye Dunaway would not be that hasn't won this yet.  In some ways Jessica Lange makes more sense (she also has had television success in recent years), but for some reason she doesn't seem to be getting these types of awards (and with Trump in office, it's doubtful she'll get help from the Kennedy Center), so I will continue to bet on Field.

8. Viola Davis

You could make a sincere argument that Davis shouldn't be on this list.  In terms of leading work in films, she has  the most recent and arguably most scant filmography of these artists.  But there's a sense that Davis, one of the great talents of her generation, was cheated out of a longer career due to Hollywood's inability to give leading roles to Black women, and one wonders if that contributed in part to her recent Cecil B. DeMille Award (don't look at me like that-name another actor with as short of a filmography as Davis has had as a leading star that has won that award).  Only three Black actors have ever won the AFI Life Achievement Award (Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, & Denzel Washington), and none of them have been a woman.  I think Davis makes sense here, particularly with the recent passing of Cicely Tyson, and it's more a question of if, not when, she'll win.  But she's rated lower as I think they make her wait just a few films more before they give her this statue (but it's coming).

7. Brad Pitt

Brad Pitt's wildly successful F1 (can you believe it made over $600 million?!?) earlier this year confirmed what we all know about him-he's one of the last movie stars of his era, someone who can still actually open a movie without creative IP attached (albeit he had the world's largest sport attached, but that's another story).  Pitt's problem is going to be less about his filmography (given his stature in the industry and his long career, it's hard to begrudge him this statue) and more so that Pitt is a bit of an online pariah right now.  That doesn't matter as much in Hollywood (see how he starred in a massive hit movie earlier this year), but advertisers don't want to touch him in an era of a boycott-heavy electorate, and the thorny allegations in his divorce with Angelina Jolie make me think that they might wait a few years to see if things cool down with him (this could also be the case with Johnny Depp & Ben Affleck, who I didn't list on this countdown, but obviously feel in the wheelhouse of someone who would win this).

6. Matt Damon

Pitt's Ocean's Eleven costar Matt Damon feels far more likely to win.  One wonders if they'd consider doing a pair between Damon and his childhood best friend Ben Affleck, but of the two I think that Damon, with his squeaky clean off-screen persona would be an easier sell.  Damon is actually old enough to win one of these statues now (for those wondering if I'm crazy for putting him on here), just a few years north of potential future contenders like Reese Witherspoon and Leonardo DiCaprio, and I think is a serious threat to take this, though I partially believe that he'll get the DeMille first, mostly because they tend to like younger and they love getting movie stars to show up.

5. Jeff Bridges

Robert Redford for many years was my go to answer for "who is the weirdest living person without an AFI Life Achievement Award."  With his death, that title passes to Jeff Bridges.  Bridges is such an odd exclusion from this list I constantly have to remind myself he's never won-he's a movie star from way back (and further back still if you remember he's a NepoBaby), an Oscar winner, and has a fame that means different things depending on how old you are, which is also the sign of someone with a robust filmography.  Bridges is certainly the type of person who should have an AFI Life Achievement Award (it will be a miss, similar to Redford, if he never wins), and if I was asked to unilaterally give this out to someone next year, he'd be my choice.  But his inability to win even when he could've gotten it 10-15 years ago makes me wonder if he's demurred, or isn't really on their radar.

4. Samuel L. Jackson

Bizarrely, Samuel L. Jackson has never won any of the three major Triple Crown Awards, though he did recently get an Honorary Oscar.  Jackson is a ubiquitous movie star, perhaps not to his credit (it's worth noting that Michael Caine never won any of these three prizes either, mostly because he had so much crap to go with the jewels in his filmography), but Jackson is such a big star it feels wrong that he doesn't win this award.  In many ways, between his forays into countless major franchises (Star Wars, MCU, Jurassic Park, XXX) to his position as a muse for both Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee he is the prototype for how to navigate the IP era, so you have to believe they know they should pick him, particularly given the embarrassingly low number of Black actors who have won this prize.

3. Tom Cruise

The Top 3 are not a question of if, but when, for the victory.  All three are 1990's movie stars who have stayed relevant into the 2020's (sometimes for television, sometimes in the case of #3 for mining his filmography for legacy sequels), but they are all too famous to never win this award.  Cruise is third both because he is about to win an Honorary Oscar (and in my opinion, likely to win a competitive one next year too, which makes the Honorary statue feel like a waste when it could've gone to, say, Catherine Deneuve who needs it more), but Cruise has graduated beyond the tabloid toxicity that once nearly wrecked his career (i.e. another reason they'll likely wait on Brad Pitt), and has become the savior of the movie theater industry.  The ageless screen star probably doesn't like that he's now at the age where you win lifetime achievement awards, but it'd be nice if he won it while some of his earliest costars (like Dustin Hoffman & Jack Nicholson) are still around to give it to him.

2. Julia Roberts

Another ageless movie star that feels like she's too young to win this, but has entered that era is Julia Roberts (our Star of the Month last month!).  There's more urgency around Roberts to win, in part because she's clearly the Queen of the 1990's movie stars (you could see a world where, say, Sandra Bullock or Demi Moore also win this statue at some point, but not before Julia), and also because she seems to be itching to do this again.  In recent years she's been working more regularly, appearing in films that might gain a reputation (even if it's a bad one) like Luca Guadagnino's latest, and clearly wants to cement her place as one of the last great movie stars before IP took over Tinseltown.  Roberts, in a similar fashion to Cruise, also wants to get this statue while all of the actors whom she starred opposite early in her career are still with us (as sad as it may seem Richard Gere is 76, Dustin Hoffman in 88, & it's unlikely most of her older costars in Steel Magnolias stay around much longer)...this would be the time to give it to her.

1. Jodie Foster

But I'm going to put someone who has the DeMille (unlike Julia & Tom) at #1.  Jodie Foster doesn't have as plentiful of a filmography as Roberts & Cruise (and isn't famous in the same way anymore), but her two Oscars and recent successful run on True Detective add a timelessness to her star persona that you can't really rust.  I also think it's noteworthy that she's a feminist icon, and a film director (and would be the first openly queer person to win the award).  As I stated above, no woman has ever won this award primarily for being known for directing, but several have histories with directing, and Foster would add to that list.  She's also 62, so just a few years shy of the prime age that wins this award, and giving it to her early is hardly a moment that will age poorly (no one really focuses on winning too early if it was someone who was always destined to win).  If I had to bet on who wins next, I'd put my money on her.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Big Eyes (2014)

Film: Big Eyes (2014)
Stars: Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, Danny Huston, Jon Polito, Krysten Ritter, Jason Schwartzman, Terence Stamp
Director: Tim Burton
Oscar History: The film did pretty well with precursors (including a Globe win for Amy Adams), but no dice when it came to AMPAS.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Can we first just commend everyone involved for attempting something different here?  Tim Burton decided not to hire Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp for the leads (when he so easily could have).  He also decided to go with a lower key film, which was a nice change of pace from the garishness that has been on display in other recent pictures.  And I am in love with the fact that this film exists to begin with-most biopics are stories that we generally already know.  Here Burton took a topic most of us are familiar with (Margaret Keane's iconic doe-eyed children have become ingrained in pop culture in a way only rivaled by Warhol's soup cans and Koons' balloon dogs) but a story most of us were not (it's neither something that just happened nor something that has been told a hundred times like, say, a biopic on Abraham Lincoln).  And it wasn't about a straight white dude overcoming obstacles!  All of this is to say that the film gets far more points from me as a result of it having its heart in the right place, even if it doesn't quite succeed in that most important of tasks of being very good.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is the tale of noted kitsch artist Margaret Keane (Adams), and the strange journey to how she lost and eventually gained back her artistic identity.  The film follows Margaret through her early life (when she leaves an abusive husband) to her second marriage to smarmy Walter (Waltz) to eventually her civil trial to gain recognition for her work.

The film is at its best when it focuses on Margaret herself.  Adams is strong in keeping Margaret, a woman with this wonderfully-felt world of artistic genius, on the sidelines of her own life.  It would be so easy to make her a martyr, but instead Adams does something just different.  She occasionally has moments when Margaret could seize what is hers but doesn't because her priorities are in a different order.  Like most of us in life, she knows that we all have wants and we all want more than we can have, but we put our eggs and our collateral into what matters most at the time.  Initially, while Margaret finds Walter's plan to steal her artistic output appalling, she's more concerned with making a second marriage work in a time period where opportunities for women are scarce.  If seeing a number of OVP films (for recent examples see here and here and here and here and here) over the past couple of months has indicated anything to me, it's that attitudes toward women, and in particular successful women, were considered abhorrent at the time, and I wouldn't remotely doubt that Margaret saw how little people would care for her success as a female, so she gave in in hopes that her daughter would have a better quality of life as a result.

However, Adams is smart enough to slowly let little protestations out regarding her husband's treatment of her, and thankfully it wasn't just when he starts to abuse she and her daughter (though that becomes the last straw).  Instead, it's when she realizes that he wasn't down-on-his-luck, but instead it was when it was obvious that everything about him was a lie, that he couldn't paint and his history in Paris was a complete fabrication.  I love that the film actually embraces that she is something that he will never be, no matter how he tries: she's an artist, she has talent, and the film doesn't remotely shy away from this fact.

The film fails, however, when it gives equal billing to Walter.  I know that occasionally truth-is-stranger-than-fiction is a rough go-through for filmmakers, and this was certainly the case in bringing Walter Keane, who by all accounts was a delusional sociopath, to the screen, but that doesn't mean there's a reason for bad acting.  And that's what Christoph Waltz does in this movie-he's really, really bad.  The early scenes he's occasionally subdued, but it's never believable that such a man could be considered charming, instead coming across as smarmy.  No one would give this particular man money, and no one would trust a word he said.  Waltz plays him as a cartoon of a used car salesman rather than someone that could envelope the country in a major fad of personality.  So awful is he by the courtroom scene that you actually want your money back when he randomly decides to cross-examine himself on the stand, imitating Perry Mason before constant scolding from the judge.  The movie needs more of a challenge when it comes to Walter-we know that Margaret eventually wins, but the movie shouldn't have made her victory the critical juncture in the screenplay without it seeming like more of a challenge for Walter.

Those are my thoughts on what is a very watchable, if only okay movie.  I loved the concept, liked the Adams, hated the Waltz, and would like to see Burton show this kind of restraint with a big-name property again.  What about you?  What did you think of Big Eyes?  Share in the comments!

Sunday, July 14, 2013

OVP: Animated Feature Film (2012)

OVP: Best Animated Feature Film (2012)

The Nominees Were...


Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman, Brave
Tim Burton, Frankenweenie
Sam Fell and Chris Butler, ParaNorman
Rich Moore, Wreck-It Ralph

My Thoughts: Whoa!  Two OVP write-ups in one day?!?  No, you aren't dreaming, this is indeed happening to you.  While we may have just left the Sound Mixers, it seems appropriate that we also tackle these animated creations in the same day (okay, it doesn't really seem like a fine match-up, but it is our next category).  So let's dive in, and we'll start with the one film that I never reviewed for the site, Brave.

Pixar's first foray into the Disney princess market was one of, if not the last films I saw in theaters prior to me reigniting this blog.  It may be the only film from last year, in fact, that is part of the OVP that doesn't have a review for me to link back toward.  I know that you are familiar with the film's plot (everyone saw this movie), but I will say that I was a lot more on the positive side than the negative side in what was an oddly mixed reaction for a Pixar film.

The movie's got a great central character in Princess Merida, a fiery redhead voiced by Kelly MacDonald and brought to life by the Pixar animators.  The movie is about as beautiful as you can get for animation; over the years, Pixar has set the bar ludicrously high when it comes the color palettes that they indulge in, here a combination of red, blue, and green to capture the majesty of Scotland.  The movie strolls at a brisk pace, and though it occasionally takes a stop in the land of cliches and perhaps even more disturbing, Dreamworks (the suitors of Merida seem plucked out of their animation studio catalog), it can definitely find quite a bit of magic in the way that it finds atmosphere, particularly surrounding the scenes with Julie Walters' Witch.

Tim Burton is such a sad case for film lovers.  At one point one of the most inventive and creative men behind the camera, his cinematic role now seems to be to put Kabuki-style makeup on Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter and make mountains of money for reinventing projects in a bloated and ill-conceived way.  That is, unless he's making animation, which seems to be the only saving grace for this one-time innovator.  His work in 2012 was another fun, fairly-by-the-numbers movie.

Frankenweenie's best moments are when Burton gleefully indulges in some odd sight gags.  I loved in particular Catherine O'Hara's "Weird Girl" and the hilariously inappropriate way she thinks that her cat's feces is all-knowing (O'Hara, along with Oscar-winner Martin Landau, are the best parts of the vocal ensemble).  The movie's lovable Sparky is also a winner, and you can't help but fall in love with the character, even if he's a little worse for wear.  The rest of the film seems fairly by-the-book: weird kid finds a superpower, it's exploited, and he ends up stronger and a little more celebrated as a result.

Wreck-It Ralph was the film that I expected to be Frankenweenie's biggest competition on Oscar night (as we saw, neither ended up with the trophy), and there are a lot of reasons for that, namely that it's quite a good film.  While it doesn't have the oil painting mastery that Pixar's Brave achieved, it continually pops at the audience.  I cannot describe to you how much fun went into the world of Sugar Rush, and the rest of the movie plays into the details that casual video game enthusiasts would enjoy the world over.  The film also greatly benefits from unusually strong vocal casting.  Though one could hardly say that John C. Reilly, Jack McBrayer, and Jane Lynch are underused these days, all of them have the voices to match the personalities of their characters, something few animated films ensure happens (they typically just hire big names and expect them to sell characters that they have little in-common with).  Best of all is Sarah Silverman, who gives her best onscreen performance to-date as the pipsqueak pain-in-the-butt who is the sidekick of our title character.  The film occasionally feels a little bit too "we're all special!" for my tastes, and it never has the gravitas that similarly-themed films like Toy Story and 90's-era Disney movies achieved (likely due to Disney's weird aversion to going dark in their animated films anymore), but it's still a great ride.

ParaNorman, on the other hand, is not afraid to get a little bit dark, and this makes all the difference for the movie.  As an audience member, I could not have been less-excited to be entering this film.  I was seeing it because I wanted to go to a movie with my parents, and was not at all expecting to be surprised or impressed by the movie, but boy how wrong I was.  The movie's best feature, aside from hiring Anna Kendrick and Casey Affleck, both perfect as vapid-and-unusual teenagers, is the way that they keep the film just dark enough so that you believe that Norman's adventure could end badly.  What made a film like The Lion King or The Little Mermaid so compelling is not the great story structure (that helped), but because the villains seemed a solid match for the heroes and because there were a lot of uncomfortable truths that the audience had to encounter (how our past comes back to hurt us, how we'll make stupid sacrifices for love that may cause irreparable damage, and in this case, how misinformation and mob mentality can cause far more damage than good).  The film tackles some tough, hard subjects for a children's movie: it's difficult not to see the allegory on display about how Agatha was wrongly persecuted for being different and the eventual gay connection at the end of the film.  Lots of films and television series discuss being different (Glee does it every week!) but few do it in a way where the audience can see themselves in the mob and not just in the eyes of the persecuted.  That takes guts, and on-top of a fast-moving plot and some unique animation, that's something ParaNorman's got.

We finish our write-up with the film no one expected to make it as a nominee, The Pirates: The Band of Misfits, a film that at the beginning of the year everyone assumed would be a nominee (with Academy favorite Peter Lord at the helm), and then it disappeared once the film made only a small profit (particularly compared with the Pixar and Disney tsunami).  The movie is fun, and thoroughly British, though it rarely makes much sense.  The movie pivots quite frequently from the fun of the Pirate of the Year Awards to the insanity surrounding Imelda Staunton's Queen Victoria.  Though I saw few animated films aside from the nominated five in 2012, it's hard to believe that this nomination, though certainly interesting, was an appropriate way to the surprise on Oscar nomination morning.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Annie Awards, the most prestigious animation-only awards in the industry celebrated their 40th year with the 2012 contenders, and it should be noted that the Annie Awards A) allow more than five nominees and B) have a bizarre aversion to Pixar.  That said, all five of our nominees, plus Hotel Transylvania, Rise of the Guardians, and The Rabbi's Cat (one of three GKids films in 2012, along with The Painting and From Up on Poppy Hill) were all nominated and lost to Wreck-It Ralph.  The Golden Globes cut ParaNorman and Pirates to put in more populist fare in the form of Hotel Transylvania and Rise of the Guardians (Brave was victorious).  Overall, in a year that was stunningly competitive both for nominations and for the eventual win, I suspect Rise of the Guardians was probably damn close to winning the fifth nomination, though I would make an argument for Painting, Poppy Hill, or Transylvania as well.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I don't feel like I saw enough animated films to say this is "the five" or that there is a movie I missed that should have been included.  I have From Up on Poppy Hill and The Painting on my Netflix queue, but should I add Hotel Transylvania or Rise of the Guardians?  Let me know in the comments.
Oscar’s Choice: In an absolute nailbiter, Pixar's Academy sway brought Brave a trophy over just-misses Frankenweenie and Wreck-It Ralph.  This was a very close one though, even though historians may just chalk it up as another Pixar gimme.
My Choice: Let's start at the middle: Wreck-It Ralph takes the bronze, because it doesn't quite get to where Brave and ParaNorman go.  I'd put Frankenweenie in fourth, followed by Pirates.  This is a tight one, tighter than I intended at the beginning of the write-up for the win (I find that by writing my true, unbiased opinions start to form more fully), but I'm going to stick with ParaNorman as the victor, with Brave close behind.  

And those are my thoughts about the Animated Feature films of 2012?  Do you agree with me that ParaNorman should have been Brave's biggest competition at the Oscars, or do you side with Frankenweenie or Ralph?  And who do you think was the strong sixth place trying to displace Pirates (and is it worth me checking out)?


Past Best Animated Feature Film Contests: 20102011

Sunday, October 28, 2012

OVP: Frankenweenie (2012)

Film: Frankenweenie (2012)
Stars: Charlie Tahan, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Winona Ryder, Martin Landau, Conchata Ferrell
Director: Tim Burton
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Animated Feature)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Tim Burton has fallen on hard times creatively-yes, everyone in the world seemingly saw his look down the rabbit hole, but that doesn't make it a good movie.  In fact, it's hard to fathom that the man who made the dreadful Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake also was responsible for the blissful Nightmare Before Christmas.  Happily, he still occasionally graces the world of animation, and so we got the fun, if fairly simple, Frankenweenie.

The film, shot in a beautiful black-and-white, is about a young boy named Victor (just one of many allusions to the Mary Shelley novel and the James Whale films) whose beloved dog has died from being hit by a car.  Not one to take mortality lying down, Victor is struck by an idea during a wildly manic lecture by his science teacher (brilliantly voiced by Burton treasure Martin Landau).  He decides to bring back his aptly-named dog Sparky with a combination of lightning and household appliances.  The sequence is probably the best part of the movie-eerily filled with old monster movie magic and lots of fun (but not excessive) Burton touches, of course the dog comes back to life, patched together with pillow sheets and handy sewing work on the tail.

Of course, this being the Frankenstein story, Sparky doesn't stay a secret for long, and in a quest to win the science fair, Victor's many classmates blackmail and scheme there ways into bringing back pets of their own, though they end up being true monsters rather than the adorable Sparky.  Since this is a children's movie, we learn that it is love that caused Sparky to be able to be sweet and stay alive, but don't let that sugary anecdote make you think that the film doesn't have a dark-and-twisted side.  While Burton doesn't seem capable of manifesting that macabre into his live-action films, instead relying on grand and ornate set pieces and costumes to make up the difference, his animated films still have that sense of dement.

I will throw in a caveat right here about the dement-I'm not normally a good gage of what children should watch or not (this isn't a Movie Mom blog), but I will say that the four-year-olds sitting in front of me were loudly sobbing both times that Sparky died, so parents should proceed with caution.

Burton relies on many of his regulars in the vocal cast, though oddly his most-used favorites of late, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, are nowhere to be found.  O'Hara, Short, Ryder, Landau, and Ferrell have all been in Burton's films prior to this, and they quickly adapt well to the tone of his film.  I've already mentioned Landau, playing the over-the-top science teacher, as a highlight, and while O'Hara voices a number of characters, the best by far is the character simply named "Weird Girl," who has an unhealthy obsession with her cat, and its feces alleged psychic ability (it sounds weird, and it is, but it works in the film's grossest sight gag).  This is their third film together, and once again Ryder is cast as the goth, good-natured but odd girl, and though she's fine, it's not exactly out-of-the-box casting-before she even spoke I could tell that this character would be played by Ryder.

The film gets a teensy bit repetitive in the final third of the film, and the sappy/sweet ending had an internal war over whether it was charming or saccharine, but overall this is a film I'd recommend.  Though its box office has been weak, it's got the sort of delicious animation the Academy goes for, particularly in a five-wide field, though I do hope that it doesn't come at the expense of the similarly-themed, but better Paranorman.  Paranorman may not have had as flashy of animation, but its story was solid, and its characters will stick longer with you.  Either way, though, both are fun ways to spend Halloween viewing, and its always good to see Burton striving for excellence once again.

And now, over to you-what'd you think of Frankenweenie?  Where does it rank in Burton's lengthy filmography?  And between Frankenweenie, Paranorman, and the similarly themed Hotel Transylvania, do you have a favorite?