Writing, Reviewing and Criticism In The Internet Age

Tag: Filmmaking

Oscar Winners in Review – Paperman


I imagine a few of you may well be taken aback from the title. Oscar Winners is this supposed to be? Oscar winners, you say, but what the HELL is Paperman? Well, allow me to explain slightly angry hypothetical reader – ‘Paperman’ is beautiful, short, animated and Oscar winning film making. Rather than spend all of my time in this little retrospective review series focusing on the big awards, the one that get all the attention I thought I would also try and give some (albeit limited) publicity to films that win the awards but have the bad luck to win the awards that nobody really seems to care about.

So ‘Paperman’ is the winner of the Oscar for best animated short, and as with most “minor” awards the best animated short is usual a good place for higher-ups at studios and in the industry generally to keep an eye out for promising talent and maybe give some of the struggling future success stories their first big break. Somewhat unusually, or maybe just counter intuitively that wasn’t the case here as the film had the backing and production money of Walt Disney and was directed by John Kahrs. For those of you not intimately familiar with the hierarchy and inner workings of one of the biggest studios in Hollywood (that would include me but thank the Lord for google) Kahrs is one of Disney’s animators who has taken a leading role in animating things like Tangled (2010) all the way back through Disney’s history to ‘A Bugs Life.’

So, rather than be a break-through piece maybe the best way to think about this is a respected creative artist being given a little more freedom to try something outside the limitations and demands of producing a smash, big-budget Disney movie. Then the question has to be, what’s new about this? Is it the writing?


The plot follows a business man who falls for a woman that he sees and then spends the rest of the film trying to get back in touch with. It’s a sweet, but rather slight story but that isn’t what makes this film so good. What makes this film so good is that it quite possible changed how animated movies are made from now on. I mentioned before that the director was one of Disney’s animators and one of the reasons that Disney has been so successful for so long when it comes to their animated features is that they are constantly developing new techniques. Back in the early nineties they were at the fore-front of CGI  animation and ‘Paperman’ uses a brand new in house piece of technology called Meander. In the director’s words what the new technology was there to do was to bring together ‘the expressiveness of 2D drawing immersed with the stability and dimensionality of CG.’

Now, brace yourselves because here comes the technical bit…

The technique that makes the difference is called final line advection and results in every artist having much more control over the final product. Starting from a CG ‘base’ animation things like folds in fabric, hair and textures all come from a 2D drawn design process. In effect animators can ‘erase’ the CG and draw in things by hand – changing profiles, changing how clothes look and so on.

To make up for the somewhat dry technical detail, here’s a picture of a cat.

Oh look, final line advection put him to sleep too

Oh look, final line advection put him to sleep too

The end result is that this is a gorgeous looking film, perfectly matching the sweet romantic plot with heartrendingly romantic drawing and animation. There is an edited down version on YouTube which gives a good sense of what this is like but if you get the chance please check out the proper version. It’s a great movie and an incredible example of matching form and content that Disney are getting better and better at in their animation. It’s wonderful to watch because it was clearly done by people who really cared about the film they were making, and how it was put together. I may not have said much about the plot, but it is a well written and imaginative take on what could have been something quite generic.

So, does it deserve it’s Oscar? HELL YES.

What’s more is nice to see yet more evidence (where it needed) that 2D drawn animation doesn’t just match CGI but can, when done well, actually be better than using just technology. On another note, it’s all too easy and far too common for film fans to become hipster about good cinema. Y’know the sort, who sniffily declaim the work of big studios as just there to generate profit and not really ART. Well, those people finally have a short designed to shut them up. It was made by one of the biggest studios in the world, by a man who has worked on some of the most commercial successful animated films ever made. Together, they produced this – which wasn’t just a critical and commercial success but it’s great art too.

Well done Disney, good work.


Now if you can just somehow find a way to NOT make the Monsters Inc prequel suck, that would be great too.




‘Why John Hurt is destined for a happy life in a facist state’ or 1980’s flashback!


First of all, apologies for the slightly morbid title – but I thought it best to title this one with a quote from the book, and when the book is considered in all of it’s glory there really aren’t that many quotes from this magnificent novel that aren’t as bleak as Labour’s re-election chances. If the small semantic clue I dropped in the last sentence wasn’t clue enough to the more lively cells in the great hive mind of the web, I adore this novel. It was one of the first great works of literature I remember reading from my early teenage years and it scared the bejesus out of me then and still does. All of this is to say, that any adaptation of this book has one hell of a bar to meet.

To that end, enter Michael Radford, whom, in 1984, with the backing of Virgin Films released what has become an acclaimed interpretation. Whilst I was optimistic,  the idea of releasing the film in 1984 initially struck me as a gimmick. Coupled with the tagline, ‘The year of the movie. The movie of the year,’ I was slightly concerned the makers of the film had inspired the marketing strategy from The Omen re-boot, (notable only for the 11.11.11 release date and being a complete load of old balls.)

Thankfully I was swiftly disabused of my cynical notions from the opening minutes as the viewer is plunged into the ‘Two Minute Hate’ and introduced to Winston Smith, played by John Hurt. As the protagonist of the story Hurt carries the film out of necessity as the book itself is all about the isolation that the world of ‘1984’ has forced upon him. Frankly, Hurt is simply incredible; a man blessed with the kind of face that looks like weathered granite, an actor ideally suited for conveying so much through silence, glances or twitches in the face.

The rest of the cast is extremely good but I will only mention one more here, (to see more on the cast of the movie just check out the IMDB page for the film) and that would be the chilling Richard Burton as O’Brien. This was Burton’s final film and his first after a lengthy hiatus but he is simply brilliant. Cold, calculated and utterly convinced of not simply his right-ness but the Party’s righteousness. Though a fourth choice for the part he is O’Brien – the next time I go to read the book I fully expect to hear his smooth and authoritative voice giving me the image of a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

This isn’t merely a post to sing the praises of this Brit-flick classic but to assess how this works as an adaptation. To return to the film’s opening, it highlights what I believe is the crucial difference between the book and the film, a difference that is inherent in the two mediums. The opening of the book contains personally, what I believe to be one of the finest opening lines of any book ever written, ‘It was a cold, windy day in April, and the clocks had just finished striking thirteen.’

Go on, read that again. Take the time and appreciate just how good a sentence that is. That is wonderful, frankly.

The opening of the novel plunges the reader into Winston’s world. It is close, lonely and fetid with paranoia. The milieu is superbly evoked, from the first line we as readers are presented with a brew of the familar and the strangely alien. With the film, immediately the viewer is submerged, not in isolation but by faces. Screaming faces. Watching the film for the first time it actually took me a few moments to realise who was Winston Smith.

This isn’t to criticise, don’t get me wrong – the nature of film is as a visual medium, and the directorial choice to present the viewer with a bewildering and strange image is a very bold one but for me, the power of the story comes from its closeness to Winston’s point of view, something that the close third narrative point of view was specifically designed to do and film, well not so much. The film is commendably close to the original text however, and this is hugely to its credit, the design and setting of the film tracks incredibly closely what I thought the world of the book would look like.

So, all good right?

Yeah – a harrowing retelling of the classic novel for freedom that elegantly juxtaposes the original text with its modern-day 1980’s setting. And now, I’ll stop using the language of an arse and actually offer some criticism. In one very important way, I don’t believe this is an adaptation of the book.

I’ll pause to let people re-adjust. Finished freaking out?


The film is hugely and apparently indebted to the book yet is that what makes the film an adaptation? I think it could quite easily be argued, no. The closer that a film comes to the original source material the more difficult it is to transfer that into an easily comprehended, coherent visual narrative. Books are, by the nature of their form, designed for the exploration of the psyche, motive, feeling and thought. This aren’t things that have immediately obvious visual markers and whilst the film transfers really well the experience feels more like an attempt at a straight re-telling rather than an adaptation of the story in a new way. The thing that really tipped me off to this was a thought that flashed through my  mind midway through the film.

‘Would I like this as much, if I didn’t know and love the book beforehand?’

Arguably? No, I don’t think I would.

There are a few more examples that back up what I’m saying, from time to time the script feels a little crowded – jamming in points from the book without the means of explaining WHY these things matter. Things such as the old rhyme about the churches of London, the coral in glass, Winston’s thoughts on his young neighbours are all crucial to the book for understanding everything that is going on from Winston’s perspective yet in the film these events felt rushed and crowded out by the main thrust of the narrative. However, there is one moment from the film that I feel gets the balance right, with the sequence in Room 101. Watching it took me back to the first reaction I had to the novel as a teenager. I don’t want to add too many more spoilers here, (check it out on YouTube) but everything about it works. The camera work, (with it’s emphasis on the faces of the two main charcters) along with the minimal violence and the tension of it shows how the film does have flashes of genuine adaptive genius, whilst showing all of the greatness British film making is capable of.

Maybe I’m not being fair and I will certainly admit I’m splitting hairs. Yes I know – the very fact this exists in a seperate and distinct form from the book does make it an adaptation but all I’ve tried to argue here is that, perhaps, adaptation should not simply re-tell, (no matter how well it does) but should give a reason for exisiting as a film – if a re-telling is all a film offers surely I could just re-read the novel.

I will also admit that there are book/films that demonstrate this much more extremely than this one, but if I’m guilty of being too harsh please let me say that it comes from just loving this book too much for my own good.


There we go. Now go off and read the book, (no seriously, go read the book right now) then watch the movie and let me know what you think.



So onwards we go. Next time I promise to not split hairs as much and do a book/film that properly lives up to the term ‘adaptation.’ In the meantime, join the conversation, find @ThePageBoy1 on Twitter and keep talking about the best and the worst of books and films.