7/24/10

RA Profile: Pixar


In a corner of the unsuccessful computer hardware company Steve Jobs purchased from an offshoot of a visual effects company, John Lasseter decided to render a short 3D animated film. It turned out to be pretty good. So the group made a few more, and started getting noticed a bit. After that, the fledgling studio was commissioned to make advertisements, and eventually struck a deal with Disney to create a feature film — and from there it was “to infinity and beyond!”

Pixar Animation Studios is extraordinary for many reasons, not least of which is that they revolutionized the medium of film. Next time you check what movies are playing at your local cineplex, count how many of the animated films are 2D. Now compare that to the number of 2D films being released pre-1995, the year that Pixar’s groundbreaking Toy Story was released, the first ever feature-length 3D animated film. (When I say 3D, I mean the “computer graphics using a three-dimensional representation of data” sort, not the “images poking out of the screen with silly plastic glasses” sort.) Some might complain that 3D animation led to the virtual demise of traditional animation. This is certainly unfortunate, but it is an indirect consequence of Pixar’s tremendous success. After all, a studio releasing one movie every 1-2 years could not singlehandedly replace an entire filmmaking technique. The fact of the matter is that Pixar, like all those who develop something inventive and successful, is constantly being imitated. In Toy Story’s wake, Disney, Dreamworks, and other groups soon abandoned 2D and all jumped on the 3D bandwagon, producing gems (Shrek) and flops alike (Everyone's Hero). Pixar is responsible for the advent of the all-computer generated movie, and even live-action films frequently rely on software that Pixar in its early years developed and pioneered for CGI that we now take for granted. The fact that a screenwriter can now write any incredible scene into a script knowing that it is possible to bring it to life on screen is Pixar’s legacy; the use of CGI they proved possible was a revolution in cinema to go down in history along with the transitions to sound in the 20s and to color through the 40s and 50s.

Directors, producers, and writers have often been called auteurs, but Pixar stands practically alone as a company, rather than a person, that has earned that distinction. The wildly successful animation studio is in a league of its own in this regard. Sure, other studios became associated with certain styles: MGM was known for its musicals, Universal had its monster flicks, and even Pixar’s parent company, Disney, is practically synonymous with watered-down worldwide folklore portrayed with cel-animation. But none of these studios have reached the identifiable visual style, originality, painstaking care in storytelling, and consistent financial and critical success that Pixar achieves with each film released bearing its trademark. This is why Pixar has retained its identity as a separate entity from Disney, and it is part of what makes the studio unique. The name-recognition draw that most popular movies enjoy comes from their directors or actors. But to say that 2007’s Ratatouille was a Pixar film was enough to ensure that people of all ages wanted to watch it; such is the reputation that the studio has and deserves. So far Pixar has earned twenty-four Academy Awards and six Golden Globes. It has won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for five of the seven years since the award was introduced, and one film, Up, was nominated for Best Picture.

With its latest release, Toy Story 3, Pixar has yet again proved its ability to combine a clever, heartfelt, and entertaining story with stunning visual artistry. It takes its place next to ten earlier films, virtually all of them good, several of them great, and a few of them truly exceptional. Just a few of my favorites:

Toy Story – The film that put Pixar on the map was not only a landmark in computer graphics technology, it was also warm and original story, with a cast of characters colorful enough to inspire two excellent sequels. It was also a fond part of this writer’s childhood. Who among my generation didn’t wonder what sort of crazy hi-jinks our toys got up to when we left the room?

27/30

Monsters, Inc. – Pixar’s fourth film was reaffirming, proving that Pixar’s desire to return to an old set of characters with the preceding Toy Story 2 was just that — a desire, not a necessity. In fact I would venture to say that this is their most original movie to date. Screams are an important energy source for affable monsters that must enter through our closet doors from their parallel universe — the sheer amount of fresh ideas in this movie just make me want to burst out into applause.

24/30

Finding Nemo – It isn’t hard to see why Finding Nemo is currently Pixar’s most commercially successful film. Here again, beautiful, practically photorealistic imagery (heaving ocean waves, breaching whales, a breathtaking coral reef) is matched only by the perfect flow of the narrative. There are no surplus or lacking scenes, and all the action leads organically to a completely satisfying resolution. The lesson is present, but unforced and appears as a natural aspect of the plot. Fun fact: this was the movie that started my computer animator dream job phase.

29/30

Up – Pixar should win an award for Greatest Number of Times Outdoing Oneself. This time around, the studio pulled heartstrings in the first ten minutes, with a silent and poignant montage prologue telling a man’s entire life story, before jumping full-tilt into a rollicking and humorous tale – a sort of homage to 30s globetrotting adventure serials. Guaranteed to put a tear in your eye and then replace it with a grin.

28/30

Recommended Viewing:

Pixar Short Films DVD – In addition to compiling the deliciously witty short films that Pixar offers before the titles of each new feature, this recently released DVD also includes the studio’s earliest creations: Luxo Jr, the comical sketch that gave Pixar its desk lamp logo; Red’s Dream, a somber, emotionally driven piece; Tin Toy, the idea that eventually became the basis for Toy Story. My family discovered a VHS tape of these original shorts when I was yea high, and rented and rerented it. It’s truly been a pleasure as I grow older to watch Pixar grow older too.

Pixar shorts average rating: 26/30

4 comments:

  1. What, no rating for Toy Story 3?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I wasn't exactly reviewing it... although I suppose this post seemed timely because of its recent release. I thought it was a very fine film, but I had too many favorites to get to first when it comes to Pixar!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, Michael. I agree with you completely about Pixar Studio's ground-breaking greatness. I'm not sure I necessarily mourn the loss of traditional "2D" animation as a result of their innovation, and think it is incredible how they seem to have single-handedly pulled a segment of an industry into a new (and in my opinion, exciting) era.

    I’m not a film historian, but I don’t think Pixar is unique as a company to be called an auteur. I think it can be argued that Disney, in their earlier years as they ventured into feature length films (roughly where Pixar is now as a company), also reached the same distinction, and interestingly also in animation. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937) was groundbreaking – the first feature length animated film, and the first produced in full color. It received a special Oscar for “significant screen innovation.” AFI in 2008 named it the greatest animated film of all time, and was the only animated film on the AFI’s 2007 list of 100 Greatest Films. That became the blueprint for the Disney animated feature style, and for many years following Snow White’s release Disney features had a very distinctive style of animation and story-telling that, to my memory, was unique among studios. Having watched those movies as a kid (in the theater and on television) I can tell you everybody knew a Disney film was distinctively different from other animated films. Disney animated films waned in quality, and then experienced a renewal in the late 1980s. “Beauty and the Beast (1991) was actually the first feature film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (in a year when 5 and not 10 films where nominated), again done in the “Disney Classics” style.

    Disney films may not have that same stamp of distinction now, but during that segment of their company history, I believe it can be argued they stood in on the same pedestal that Pixar now holds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with you Jan, at one point in time Disney had such an identifiable style that the studio was certainly comparable in many ways to the current Pixar. However, over the course of its history their films experienced a decline in quality, and the fact that other studios began making animated films in a similar style (as a kid I certainly couldn't have told you Quest for Camelot was Warner Bros and Prince of Egypt was Dreamworks, not Disney). Also, Disney didn't stay consistent for long with the cel-animation that made them famous - throughout the twentieth century they frequently made live action films.

    In any case, I agree with you that the current Pixar is in many ways like the fledgling Disney. While it's obvious to you and I, children may not be able to tell that Bolt and Robots aren't Pixar films, so their distinctive style may not be so distinctive for the target audience, as Disney's wasn't always for me as a child. Finally, I have heard that Pixar is planning forays into the world of live-action themselves. I wonder if they will continue to call themselves "Pixar Animation Studios"?

    ReplyDelete