Maybe this is an odd or useless comparison to make, but can someone tell me, where is Pixar’s Sgt. Pepper? In other words, if Pixar is the most innovative and creative theatrical studio today, then where is their mature artistic statement? Besides the obvious financial risks it took to create a groundbreaking film like Toy Story, how has this studio built on it’s foundations to further the art? If you count breakthroughs such as the fur in Monster’s, Inc., or the ever-increasing realistic slickness running through their filmography as advances, then I suppose the studio has nothing left to prove. But, the realities of the market tell us that 3D animated films are no longer the “events” they were even just a few short years ago. The market has gotten crowded and while Pixar is still the master of their domain, to what end does that mean? All of their films from Toy Story to Ratatouille are family “message” pictures intended for a general audience. Over time, their creative formulas have become obvious and are paying off with ever diminishing returns (both financially and artistically). In all fairness, I’ve enjoyed most all the Pixar films to date, with the only exception being A Bug’s Life. More importantly, The Incredibles is a modern masterpiece and has proved that Pixar films could be so much more if they’d only break out of their comfort zone.
I found a Paul McCartney quote that furthers my argument (thanks, Paul!), “We thought the Supremes were a bit boring; it always sounded like the same song, or very near. They were trying to keep that Motown-Supremes sound. Well, we weren't trying to keep the Beatles sound; we were always trying to move on. We were always trying to get a new sound on every single thing that we did." (http://www.macca-central.com/macca-archives/bassplayer.htm)
Can we say the same for Pixar? The Beatles artistic journey from “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to “A Day in the Life” took all of three years. Obviously, the animated feature film is a much more laborious and expensive process, where it’s not uncommon for a whole film to take three years to complete. But, where is the risk or artistic development? The Beatles so whole-heartedly believed in their own artistic endeavors that they did the unthinkable in 1966; they gave up touring so they could concentrate on their recordings. The loss of income in that decision alone is proof of The Beatles commitment to developing as artists. An equivalent move for Pixar might be to pick a project that wouldn’t necessarily translate into a great happy meal toy.
In the Beatles Anthology series, there’s a vintage moment where Dick Clark, having just played the promo clips for the brand-new “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Penny Lane,” tried to coerce his teenage audience into ridiculing the Beatles new look (mustaches, longer hair, and psychedelic clothing). Not all the audience agreed with Mr. Clark, but most of them seemed at least a bit put off or confused by the ever-evolving Beatles. Can you imagine Pixar releasing a movie that defied their time tested “house” style or storytelling? Can you imagine Pixar running a clip of their new film and risk having its core audience be challenged by the material? I can’t.
Would we be talking about The Beatles today if they had spent their seven-year career remaking A Hard Day’s Night fifteen times? Perhaps I’ll skip WALL-E and see Persepolis twice instead. I like a little challenging storytelling with my popcorn now and then.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Pixar: Where is their Sgt. Pepper?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dave, I love the idea of challenging Pixar to be more than they are, to continue to innovate, evolve and to find their inner Sgt. Pepper. But I get the sense that they may become more careful (meaning less innovative) as they try to maximize sales and market share -- that's what big companies do. Maybe Disney's Fantasia was more in the realm of Sgt. Pepper than anything we could ever expect from Pixar.
The Beatles were selling to a growing global counter-culture trend -- an audience that was looking to expand their musical experience. Pixar sells primarily to soccer moms and NASCAR dads (in the U.S.), people who really want safe, predictable, happy entertainment.
The Beatles were a cultural phenomena -- they influenced not just music, but also clothing, hair styles, politics, etc. Pixar is a movie company -- an animation movie company, but it's just a corporation. Perhaps Steve Jobs' other company, Apple computer company could be seen as more influential. But unlike The Beatles, Steve's not going to change the way people dress -- he's been wearing the same shirt for 20 years.
The Beatles were cool and remained cool for the entire period up to their break-up. No matter how many Beatle cards, Beatle wigs, Beatle dolls, Beatle boots or other cornball 60's merch flooded the market. The overexposure should've made them disposable in a matter of months. But they continued to transform themselves, and the culture and were always leaps ahead of anyone else. Pixar on the other hand is pretty corny. It's got a folksy, family kind of message that permeates its entire body of work. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it's just not fashion forward.
The world is also a very different today. Revolutionaries are not embraced and made into mainstream heroes like they were in the last century. Who are the Beatles, Dylans, Presleys, et al who are radically changing the culture through their music today? For that matter, who are the Ginsbergs, Picassos, Edisons, JFKs, Einsteins, MLKs or Disneys of this era? Let's face it, we don't live in an age of giants. Steve Jobs is one of the few dynamic individuals who's known for change. But I wouldn't look to him for any art outside of industrial design.
While we're using the metaphor of Pixar as The Beatles, would that make Dreamsworks the Rolling Stones? Yeesh --I hope not.
CLiFF G.
Great Post. This has been a question on my mind for years. I met some of the animators from Pixar a couple times and they seemed very pleased. Making jokes about how they were the next Frank and Ollie and being so self assured and pleased with themselves.
When I first thought of the question it was "Where is your Fantasia?" The only thing I could come up with is that the decision makers know it's not a profitable enterprise and the bottom line is how they measure things.
Naturally you have to be aware of the business end. But their success should free them to make chancy pictures.
Now, my meeting with a couple of their animators is not indicative of the company. I use the public face of the company, their output, and press to help inform the perception of the animators and what their actions mean.
For the matter of artistic growth... Where's any significant studio's output? Dreamworks' last really satisfying cartoons was Prince of Egypt if you ask me. Blue Sky has some very fun work out but they are certainly capable of more
It is pretty disheartening to see Pixar has slowed down. It would be so nice if they tried something big and different!
Good post, but where is anyone's Sgt Pepper? Pixar did make enormous advances when they made The Incredibles. However, filmmaking-wise they proved they could be just as trite as Spiderman II (with scenes that look like they were copied exactly from that live-action(?) adventure film.
Gone are the days of Sgt. Peppers and Fantasias. The way Pixar supposedly is developing is with their shorts. But their last short was something that was pathetic in comparison to some of the 2D student work done in the early 70's.
Disney Animation is experimenting with a GOOFY cartoon. I didn't like the classic Goofy shorts, why would I want to see a new one? Animation isn't going to make any leaps with the work being done in Hollywood.
i dont think its going to be pixar to do it first. the problems is that the executives, who hate creativity, also have the audiences in their pockets. they have shown us so much crap that the majority of the people think its good! they cant tell the different anymore. and it's because of that reason that pixar wont be doing anything other than what they have been; it's safe, its proven to work, and that's as creative as the suits ever want to go. i think one of the best examples of this is hanna barbera. they came up with tom & jerry. GREAT STUFF! funny, fun, awesome drawings! but they never came out with another thing like it, did they? they switched to their limited animation stories as fast as they could. i'm not saying those were bad, but they were no tom & jerry.
also, people are too concerned with being 100% politically correct. i'm not saying being PC is a bad thing, but it's like taking all the humor out of a joke, all the sugar out of candy, all the heart out of song. the world is losing personality. they are all becoming boring robots, buying the crap that's being sold on tv, listening to the fake music that doesn't mean anything on their iPods, and watching animated shows on tv that aren't even funny! when's the last time you saw a great cartoon? pixar isn't cartoons, its animated movies. the trend is this: when something great and innovative comes out, 10 million people instantly replicate it just to make money. it loses its soul and all of a sudden everyone gets bored with it.
again, it's not going to be pixar who makes the next sgt. pepper, but sadly and unfortunately, whoever it is, chances are they will be overrun by people who happened to find a better way to make money with their initial idea.
that's all my opinion anyway.
It may not be Sgt. Pepper, but I think The Incredibles deserves more credit in the Pixar canon as a mature and less pandering work than their other material. At risk of sounding like a Brad Bird groupie, I think the esteemed director is the man to take Pixar to the next level. Bird understands how to tell a story and how not to compromise his themes for a target audience. Now he just has to make a film with slightly more weathered characters.
Post a Comment