Links Of Interest - Prelude to Holiday Shenanigans Edition!

Man, there's a ton to catch up on here.

* - First off, all the cool artists are doing it so everybody reading this draw and submit a happy partying creature for the Party Bueno project!  The deadline's November 30'th so get to it.  Details and submission instructions here.  My little guy is Party Member 359!

* - Second off, go download All Your Yesterdays if you haven't already.  Make a donation and download lots of copies!  Give them to all your impossible-to-buy-for people this holiday season!

* - Third off, I hate being kind of a shill but TODAY ONLY if you use the promotional code BLKFRIDAY983 over at my Zazzle Store, you can get half-off mugs and t-shirts! Go get an Awesome Overload shirt for all your other impossible-to-buy-for friends!

* - Fourth off, Mental Floss managed to score an interview with Bill Watterson!?

* - Fifth off, Dr. Bob Bakker is blogging for the Huston Museum of Natural Science and wrote a lovely tribute to the classic "World We Live In" issue of Life.

* - Sixth off, now we know what Deinocheirus looked like!  Now we know what Deinocheirus looked like!  NOW WE KNOW WHAT DEINOCHEIRUS LOOKED LIKE!!!???!!!

* - Seventh off (I will stop doing this), I spent much of the summer catching up with the lovely Tobolowsky Files podcast and lo and behold there is a new episode fresh on the feed.

* - A sobering message from DinoGoss: We're all drawing dinosaur feet wrong.  Probably.

* - If you met R. L. Stine, would you think to ask him about his involvement in the Nick Jr. show "Eureeka's Castle"?  Well, thankfully, the Onion AV Club did, and everyone is the better for it.

* - The entire series of essays from the Dissolve's Movie of the Week features for both "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" and "Kirikou and the Sorceress" are terrific, but my favorite parts were the staff's reminiscing of favorite strange movies discovered at the video store and favorite unusual animated features.

* - And for fans of the late, lamented "My Year/World of Flops" series at the AV Club, Nathin Rabin's new series "Forgotbusters" (basically, movies we all assumed were flops but made the top 25 of their year) is outstanding, especially the "Space Jam" and "Jack" entries.

* - Danny Horn of ToughPigs traveled to Japan in search of unique Muppet-related stuff and discovered, among other things, that somebody at Universal Studios Japan learned about Duffy the Disney Bear and evidently thought, "We need something just like that -- but how can we make it more unintentionally unsettling?"

* - Forbes ruminated on the long, strange history of Dreamworks animation.

* - I got a serious Where the Wild Things Are vibe from this Hyperbole and a Half comic.

* - The way Disney markets its animated films these days is pretty confusing, but at least it isn't as insane as this promotional song for "Robin Hood".

* - Tony DiTerlizzi reminisced and posted a gallery of the Joanne Scribner cover art for the Dell Yearling editions of Beverly Cleary's books.

* - And Tim Brayton finished his review of every single direct-to-video Disney sequel and managed to come out the other end (mostly) in one piece!  All of his Disney reviews, including those for the sequels, are listed here.

-----

Sketch of the Day! I thought, "Hey, everybody else is drawing Deinocheirus, why aren't I?"

"I am at a moral crossroads, Mummy!" - Thoughts on "Rise of the Guardians"

Before this review gets rolling, I should make it clear that I am very glad that I revisited "Rise of the Guardians" before sitting down to write this review, because it would not have been fair to just go based off my foggy circa-Easter memories.  (Topical joke time: Look at me!  I am a more responsible film critic than Rex Reed!  [Note: very naughty language in that link.])  I did appreciate the movie a little more than I did the first go-round.  I must also give a shout-out to the Rotoscopers for their excellent episodes covering and supporting the film.

That said, I still don't like "Rise of the Guardians".  And you have to understand that I really, really wanted to love this movie to death.  Remember how excited I was when the first teaser trailer surfaced?  Man, I REALLY had sky-high hopes for the movie advertised in that teaser.  And it pains me so that I feel very strongly that the final version of "Rise of the Guardians" (henceforth "ROTG" because that title is just problems all the way down) is merely okay, with a lot of things that I found too problematic to ignore.

Above all else, the biggest problem I had with "ROTG" is how very weird the film is tonally.  It's downright melancholy for a movie where, as we were promised in that teaser, a badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Christmas.  And it didn't hit me until the second viewing as to why this is:

"Rise of the Guardians" is that weird case where you do not learn until just a little bit over an hour into the movie that, all this time, you've actually been watching one of those movies for children where the main character dies in a horrible accident and then comes back as a supernatural something-or-other.

If you're a longtime reader, you might already know how much I love that particular genre.  And when they finally reveal that this is that kind of movie, they don't make it very ambiguous.  Our main character, Unimaginative RPG Protagonist Boy - err, I mean, Jack Frost, was a real live little boy who died in a skating accident.  Maybe it's just me, but that casts a considerable shroud over the entire movie.  The ENTIRE movie, back to front, because the very first thing we see in this film where a badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Christmas is Jack Frost's Dive to the Heart.  Err, I mean, we see -and again, we don't find out that this is what we're seeing until much later- the drowned boy floating in the frozen pond while transforming into Jack Frost.  It's a little jarring, with troubling implications indeed because of course you start wondering if all the other Guardians were real people who died horribly, which is just the kind of thing you want to think about when what you came to see was a family holiday animated feature where a badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Christmas.

If it isn't obvious by now, you would be totally forgiven if you assumed that "ROTG" is about (once more, with feeling) a badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teaming up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Christmas.

I know I like to call out bad marketing of animated feature films but ye gods, they screwed the pooch big time on this one.  A lot of ink, blood, and spit has been spilled over why "ROTG" was such a spectacular box office disaster but the awful, misleading ad campaign cannot be discounted, and it goes a lot deeper than, "Oh, by the way, this is actually a movie where a badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Easter.  In this movie released to theaters in America during Christmastime.  Oops."  They barely acknowledged that the film focuses on the blandest character of the lot and therefore is actually about the rise of just one Guardian.  And for God's sake, in the year of our lord 2012, why would you ever make that "Who let the elves out?!?" TV spot? 

So about that "saving Easter" aspect.  I know I went off on the part where Jack's been dead the whole time but really the scene that sums up everything I found wrong with "ROTG" is the scene where they try to save Easter. It's going to take some setup, so here's the larger plot, with brief tangents: A very unusual alternate interpretation of Santa Claus learns that this evil guy named Pitch is threatening the children of the world, so he enlists the help of other unusual versions of folklore characters to save them.

For some reason, this sounds familiar.

Unfortunately for us, "ROTG" is not going to be nearly as fascinatingly bizarre, and is going to be played painfully straight besides.  More importantly, the characterizations of the various Guardians never really go much deeper than "Santa's from Siberia and he's got tattoos and swords and an army of Sasquatches!  Isn't that COOL?!?  It's cool, right?  Please, please, kids, tell us you think that's cool..."  (I don't want to harp too hard on the celebrity voices but for reasons that are unclear, Santa Claus also has the voice of Alec Baldwin.  Because of course you'd cast Alec Baldwin as Santa Claus.  Why wouldn't you?  We all know how much Alec Baldwin likes children, right?)  The Guardians all look cool and interesting, but that's it.  I may still love the Tooth Fairy's design (Yo.  CGI animators.  I don't want to hear another word from any of you about how feathers are "too hard" or "look dumb".) but there's nothing about her character that's truly unique.

On the subject of the Tooth Fairy, there's also the little matter of the reason given why she collects teeth and why the villain wishes to steal them.  For some reason, that also sounds familiar, and in a way that is frankly a lot less easy to forgive.

Anyway, as unusual as they appear, the Guardians aren't very interesting characters.  So when I say that Jack is the least interesting out of all of them, it's pretty impressive.  I was not for a moment kidding when I called Jack Frost every unimaginative boy-protagonist of every forgettable role-playing game.  (It is also an observation I cannot in good conscious take full credit for.)  He's got the mysterious past that he's desperate to remember, incredible elemental powers that he does not fully understand, and an overwhelming obsession with finding a family to belong to.  All he's missing are the dozens of belts and zippers.  The film, incidentally, has not a moment to spare on how the other Guardians came to find their calling and their place in the larger group, which is a damn shame because not only does the film appear to be assuming "It's Santa, except now he's BFFs with Bigfoot for some reason" is enough setup for the audience to go on, but who wouldn't be interested in learning how Santa and Bigfoot became BFFs? Surely we can sacrifice one of the useless scenes with the real world children for that, right?

We will get to those real world children in a bit, but getting back to the plot.  The Guardians need Jack Frost to join their team to defeat Pitch for reasons that are, frankly, baffling.  Because design-wise and powers-wise, Pitch is clearly the evil counterpart to the Sandman.  They even acknowledge that in the script, which makes things even more awkward.  You'd be forgiven for almost forgetting that Sandman is even involved in this misadventure, by the way, because for huge swathes of the movie, he isn't.  Anyway, once Sandman's gone, they try their hardest to make Pitch and Hoodie McFrostedhair direct antagonists, going so far as to giving Pitch an honest-to-God "We're not so different, you and I" speech.  Yes, in this movie where (one more for the road) badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Christmas Easter, the evil villain gives a "we're not so different, you and I" speech. This is a thing that happens in this movie.  That's how imaginative this movie is, once they're past the part where badass dual-wielding Siberian Santa Claus teams up with the similarly badass Easter Bunny and very alien-looking Tooth Fairy to fight evil and save Easter.  If you'll pardon me, I need to go get a beer.

So as far as the villain of this here picture, now that I've mentioned him.  The most you need to know about Pitch is (a) Jude Law is one of maybe two or three voice actors who had any fun with their role and I just wish they'd all been in a better-written movie, (b) concept artist Shane Prigmore desperately wanted the character to "not be just a guy in a suit" and created some awesomely creepy designs for the character, who finally arrived onscreen as... a guy in a suit, and (c) his motivation for ruining everything for both the Guardians and the children of the world.  Pitch, the embodiment of childhood fears and nightmares, is jealous of the Guardians because they are more popular than he is among the children of the world.  Yup.

But it really all comes down to the scene where they try to save Easter, doesn't it?  This particular sequence of events starts when an adorable little girl...

Actually, there are tons of adjectives I could use on the various real world children in this film but trust me, "adorable" isn't one of them.  You know what's a more appropriate one?  Horrifying.  Like, there's Uncanny Valley and then there's this.  All of their designs are deeply unpleasant, but the little girl in particular looks like she'd be happier haunting the sh*t out of people in a J-horror movie.  It's the hair.  It does not look like anything that has ever grown out of the skin of a healthy mammal.  It looks like spaghetti.  She has legit al dente spaghetti hair.  And it's so thick and lumpy and unnatural that it takes a while for it to be clear that, yes, they actually did bother to render her other eye.  In eleven years we've gone from Boo to... this.

Still, the Guardians act like this little girl is adorable when they see that she has wandered into Easter Bunny's lair (because convoluted plot reasons, that's why), and Bunny lets her help get all the eggs and treats ready for Easter morning.  And this scene is legitimately sweet, partially because Hugh Jackman is one of the other voice actors who's having any fun here and partially because, if it's not clear by now, this is one of the prettiest badly-written animated features of all time.  Anyway, Bunny sends all the little eggs off through the magical tunnels to hide themselves in the real world...

...and Pitch sends his minions down those same tunnels to smash each and every one of those eggs.  <:(

Thus, the whole sequence where a child character the same age of the children who'd most enjoy a movie where Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny hang out and do awesome stuff together actually gets to hang out and do awesome stuff with them herself turns out to be a shaggy dog story.  Ho ho ho, kids.  Easter is now ruined forever.  (For certainly, technicolor hard boiled eggs are the one most very important aspect of Easter, but ye guardians let us not even START on the fantastic religious weirdness in this movie.  Let us also not even discuss the fact that these Guardians who protect the children all over the world are the folklore characters beloved by American children -- yet there's one scene where they acknowledge one of the equivalent folklore characters from a different culture, which is actually more awkward than if they'd ignored the issue altogether.)  The Guardians are basically rendered powerless and put all the blame on Jack because... because there needs to be a scene where everybody yells at the new guy for f*cking everything up, I suppose.  Because, again, that's how imaginative this movie is.

I am willing to bet you can guess how everything goes from here on out.  Jack goes off to be Emo by himself, gets to listen to Pitch's "we're not so different..." spiel, and learns that he was once a little boy who died.  Blah blah blah, he goes back to rally the one child left in the world who believes in the Guardians.  And no, it is not the little girl who got to hang out and paint eggs with them literally just a couple of scenes ago.  It's her older brother, who had a much briefer encounter with the Guardians way earlier in the movie.  It'd be wonderful if a little girl got to lead the charge in the upcoming Kids Save The Day (all rights reserved to the 1990's) finale for a change of pace wouldn't it, but no dice.  Hope you little girls out in the audience understand, and that the end of this movie prepares you for a lifetime of similarly disappointing and subliminally sexist fiction.

So anyway, Jack rallies the children and in doing so levels up to evolve into a truly beloved folklore character believed in by all the children everywhere I guess?  Anyway, the kids help the other Guardians get their powers back through the power of childhood belief or whatever.  I have to say, I was deathly afraid that this would devolve into yet another damn "faith vs. skepticism" children's film and thank the gods it doesn't.  Heck, if anything it's pro-empirical evidence; you see, it's pretty hard not to believe in Santa Claus when he's right there kicking ass right in front of you.  They fight Pitch, Sandman comes back (because more convoluted plot reasons), Pitch is eaten by his minions(!?), Jack becomes a full Guardian, and the kids return to their homes in an admittedly hilarious mid-credit sequence.

In closing -and yeezus, this is a long review- "Rise of the Guardians", for all it's many many flaws, is still definitely worth a rental.  For many of the same reasons "Spirit", "Ferngully", and even Disney's "Dinosaur" are worth a rental: it's really pretty.  A lot of effort was put into the visuals here and it shows.  If only the screenplay had the imagination to back those awesome visuals up.

But the thing is, as much as I personally didn't like the movie, I can appreciate this aspect of it: They TRIED.

Look, we're in the middle of a summer where most of the big animation studios are playing it really safe.  (I know making fun of the next movie in Dreamworks' slate is just about the laziest thing you can do nowadays, bu have you seen the commercials for "Turbo"?  Particularly the ones where they assure us that the snail whose only dream is to go fast gets to go fast?)  The producers of "Rise of the Guardians" tried their damndest to do something very unusual, something not made for literally everybody.  I can appreciate that.

-----

Sketch of the Day! If we learn anything from this movie, it's that every girl loves unicorns.

"We were the victims of ourselves!" - Thoughts on "John Carter"

"John Carter" is every bit as good as "Avatar", for good and for ill.  Indeed, it is better in some respects.  It is definitely worth watching if you are in any way curious about it or have enjoyed any works of science fiction/fantasy/adventure created in the past one hundred years.  For indeed, this film is based as reverently as possible the root of nearly all such fiction.  And it had the good luck to be made by people who genuinely love the hell out of the source material.

Right.  So let me try and talk about "John Carter" without screaming and swearing at Disney's almost impressively sh**ty marketing department.

("Cheep, cheep, cheep," go the crickets.)

Yeah, I really can't.  Let me regale you with anecdotal evidence of how impressively sh**ty a job Disney did in promoting "John Carter":

My sister and our best friend are both big fans of "Friday Night Lights".  Tim Riggins is their favorite character, if for no other reason than the fact that he is pretty hot.  Got all that?  Good, because NEITHER OF THEM WERE EVEN AWARE THAT THERE IS A MOVIE WHERE TAYLOR KITSCH GOES TO MARS AND KICKS EVERYONE'S ASS WHILE WEARING ALMOST NOTHING BUT A LOINCLOTH AND A SMILE FOR TWO HOURS! 

Furthermore, our friend loves "Avatar".  A lot.  She isn't one of those "I was a Na'vi in another life; I cry at night because Earth is too boring; I'm going to move to Pandora Landora in Disney when it opens" types, but surely her curiosity might have been piqued if something along the lines of, oh, "From the classic stories that inspired one hundred years of epic sci-fi/fantasy" had been in the trailers.  Maybe more emphasis on the really alien aliens and exotic landscapes.  Maybe mention that the story involves an Earthling going to another planet and falling in love with an alien princess.  You know, like the book's title does.

That's at least two butts that could have been in seats right there.  And they are instead looking forward to "Battleship".

This one's for you, Disney marketing peoples.

(Okay, to be fair, so far they have been doing an awesome job promoting "Wreck-It Ralph".  Though this may be the broken clock being right twice a day.)

So as far as "John Carter" as a movie, it is, as I said, every bit as good as "Avatar".  The beginning drags like crazy, there are a fair number of corny moments, and the ending could most generously be described as abrupt.  However, Barsoom looks fabulous with the production design taking inspiration from all the many and varied fantasy illustrators who ever interpreted Edgar Rice Burrough's imaginary worlds.  The various animated characters are well-realized and -perhaps this is Andrew Stanton being true to his roots- are by far more interesting than any of the humans.  Mad props to whomever decided that Woola shouldn't just be a dog with extra legs but should instead resemble something ugly-cute out of the Permian.  The main antagonists are pretty interesting as they are God-tier beings who long ago decided to use their eternal, all-powerful lives to basically screw with mortals.  This isn't spelled out much, though, hence the abrupt ending.  All in all, this is a movie that did not deserve the fate it got, and hopefully it will gain a cult audience.

-----

Sketch of the Day!  Who wouldn't want to ride a Chocobo?

And Now, Tricia's Slightly Conflicted Thoughts on "The Muppets"

This week, I finally saw "The Muppets".

Ever since, there has been an angel and a devil (or perhaps a Playmobile figure and a LEGO minifig) arguing about it in my head. So with that in mind, I'm going to list things I liked in "The Muppets" and things that... irked me. I have to clarify that when I say "not-so-good things", I mean they didn't totally ruin the film for me, but they did get stuck in my craw.

So before I do this, I want to emphasize that I love the very fact that this movie exists. I love all the promotional things Disney did leading up to the movie, and most of all I love that they're doing big things with these characters at all. And this brings us to our first

Good Thing about "The Muppets": The filmmakers really really give a hoot (to borrow a phrase) about these characters and their legacy. They want to do Jim Henson proud. This is unspeakably refreshing in a world where we've got an annual variation on "Lovable, Innocent Childhood Characters - but They're Stuck in Cynical Modern Times! Isn't That Wacky?!?"

So let's sit back and appreciate how this movie could have gone so wrong in the worst ways. Hell, even when filmmakers do give a hoot about classic characters, their "comeback film" can go due south anyway. (Hey there, "Looney Tunes: Back in Action".) Every frame of the film you can tell that the humans involved are just about to burst with joy at the mere fact that they're working with these characters they grew up with since childhood.

Not-So-Good Thing about "The Muppets": That said, the subplot with the two lead humans is just... there. Actually, it just keeps showing up and getting in the way. In previous Muppet movies, the human characters were all as close as possible to background noise with the Muppets themselves carrying all the action. It's also a little uncomfortable to see Amy Adams essentially playing a nagging girlfriend character out of a gamer comic.

Good Thing about "The Muppets": The film is essentially a love letter to Muppet fans and a victory lap for the Muppets as a whole. There are tons of little references and inside gags. Overall, in a way, I was reminded of all the best parts of "Enchanted".

Not-So-Good Thing about "The Muppets": But the whole premise of the Muppets being gone for decades and nobody knowing who they are is, frankly, absurd. Even insulting (there is no way anyone Selina Gomez's age wouldn't recognize Kermit standing -so to speak- right in front of her). Yeah, this is their first movie in many years but it isn't like they've completely vanished. Hell, they were in a well-loved Walt Disney World ad campaign and starred in their own pretty decent Christmas special just the year before!

The plot overall is pretty nebulous and just feels like an excuse to get the band back together. And I'm not really keen on the fact that the main conflict gets resolved in the end credits. (I know a lot of scenes were cut for time constraints but this is ridiculous.)

Good Thing about "The Muppets": Sweetums is in it! With his suitcase! And so are Lew Zealand and Wayne and Wanda and Dr. Strangepork and Rizzo and his family and Thog and the Mutations and... This review is starting to sound like this, isn't it?

Not-So-Good Thing about "The Muppets": Ah, but then there's Walter, the new Muppet, and he's...

Okay to be fair, he's not like Lola Bunny or Jar-Jar Binks or Poochie or anything. He's not a downright offensive or insulting new addition to the Muppet roster. He is, in fact, kind of the opposite: he is uninteresting in every way. He is beige, through and through. He'd be easier to take if the older Muppets didn't stop every little while or so to say, "Hey, let's hear it for Walter!"

He'd also be easier to take if his subplot didn't force me to consider Muppet biology. Yeah, really. Spoilertext time: So was Walter a Muppet adopted by a human family or did a human give birth to a Muppet? Bearing in mind that the Muppets have, up until this point, been absolutely and unquestionably real within their world, I honestly don't know which situation has worse implications. Either Muppets are a species, possibly a whole other order of life forms, or Muppet is a physical condition that different species can be born with. (And on a related note, let's not mention the freaky Jason Segel Muppet - though Walter's equivalent is hilarious. And speaking of...)

Good Thing about "The Muppets": The songs, with but one or two misfires, are terrific. The cameo guest stars all have great fun with their moments onscreen. The whole last act that plays out like an extended episode of "The Muppet Show" is terrific and overall, once again, I'm just glad the movie exists.

-----

Sketch of the Day!

I didn't already share this little landscape, did I?

Beautiful Freaks, Mystical Cacti, and Isopods - Thoughts on "Rango"

We've hit a milestone here at the Obligatory Art Blog. This is post number 365: a full year's worth of posts. I declare this small triumph to be awesome.

-----

I will admit I had almost no interest in "Rango" when it was first announced. Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp making an animated film for Nickelodeon Studios of all things? The ads came out on the heels of things like "Alpha and Omega" and "Gnomeo and Juliet". The film was the first feature out of Industrial Light and Magic. Given some other films I had seen that were basically showcases for effects houses (what's up, "Disney's Dinosaur"), I wasn't convinced that this wouldn't be utterly terrible.

Then the good comments and positive word of mouth started up, and I became intrigued.

Then the negative comments flared up and I became genuinely excited. Funny how that works out sometimes, eh? See, it didn't take me long to notice that nearly all of those negative comments were coming from people who were having conniption fits over seeing and hearing cartoon characters smoking and cussing and shooting and drinking in a "children's film". In other words, these were people who are under the delusion that animation is only for children, and the very saddest thing about people who perpetuate the animation age ghetto is this: when they see something that flagrantly contradicts the thought that all animation has to be only for kids, instead of realizing that they are totally wrong, they fly into a rage of "think of the CHILDREN! Protect them from this FILTH!"

If "Rango" made people like that angry, I needed to see it on general principle.

And oh, what a wonderful film it is. It does take a little while to find it's groove, but when it does, "Rango" turns into one of those movies you feel like being a fan of just for the fact that it even exists. Seriously, how the hell did this movie happen? Can you imagine the pitch meeting?

"So Johnny Depp is a cartoon chameleon who is basically him as Hunter S. Thompson and he's never been outside his terrarium. He's lost during his family's road trip through the Mojave Desert. Said family is never mentioned again and Chameleon!Depp gives no crap about attempting to find them --wait, stay with me! He winds up in a mash-up of spaghetti westerns and 'Chinatown' that takes place in a town where everyone who would normally be a cute cartoon critter of ambiguous species instead is based on a specific animal. And did I mention that even though the characters are cartoon animals, everyone's going to be realistic as all get out with buggie eyes and flaky skin and ragged feathers and even the traditionally cute species will look like the contents of a barfed-up hairball? Oh, and there's guns and death and swearing and spitting and weird heat-hallucinations and mystic cacti and existential themes and Joseph Campbell's Monomyth and smoking and shooting and drinking! Also, the female lead is a lizard in a wig who introduces herself in a monologue full of SAT vocabulary rattled off at great speed, there's a lot of cerebral stuff about the various personalities we take on in our lives, and there is this one other character who spends all of his time onscreen with an arrow through his eye socket. We want to do this as ILM's first-ever animated feature."

"An animated existentialist spaghetti western with a barfed-up hairball who has an arrow through his head you say? Brilliant!"

In short, this is one of those very rare case where "WTF?" is a drat good thing. Now, you know I don't hate CGI, but after a while CGI animation tends to look... too "neat", for want of a better word. This is the first CGI animated film I have seen that sincerely did not look like anything else out there and that alone makes it a gem. I got more of a first-season "Ren and Stimpy" feel from the movie. And the characters, as already implied, look less like they were designed to sell toys and more like something unpleasant out of a Jim Henson/Brian Froud collaboration.

The whole movie is beautiful in it's own weird-ass twisted way. I love how every resident of the town has their own little abnormality or other shamelessly weird detail. (If your going to render every single scale or feather or strand of hair on a character, the creators of "Rango" realized, it's going to look weird and unnatural if they're totally symmetrical and all "pretty". This is a problem that has plagued Disney's early CGI films.) The film may have another of my usual bones of contention: a cast made up mostly of "names", but each and every one of the characters is terrific and ceaselessly quotable (my favorites are the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"-ish strolling mariachi band who cheerily sing of the hero's imminent doom). There are some terrific little gags I'd have missed without pausing. And the animation is just straight-up pants-sh*ttingly gorgeous. My good God, that road-crossing scene.

I should re-emphasize that the movie is as weird as all get out. It's good that it was even made in the first place, but it may not be for everyone. I can already tell I'm going to see some comments from the other end of the "love it or hate it" pool, much as I did with "Fantastic Mr. Fox" (which is due for a re-watch since it never got a proper review come to mention it) and "Where the Wild Things Are". It's cool, it's cool. But ask yourself if you'd rather watch "Rango" or another damn two-hour-long toy commercial.

By the way, if you loved the film too, here's a scene that never made it in and serves as a nice little epilogue.

-----

Sketch of the Day!

Random creature designs!

Love in the Time of Motion Capture -and- "Brave Little Toaster" goodness

Quick post today since I'm a bit busy IRL and, tragically, haven't had a chance to upload any new art anywhere. I can assure you that I am finished with my antibiotics and am now starting to almost feel like myself. (Not to be too graphic, but I've been eating lots of yogurt. After taking an antibiotic for more than a week. Biologist friends, think about it. Yeah. Euwww...)

I would like to thank the random person on the animation message board I happened to be reading for bringing my attention to this short film. It's called "Thought of You". It is by animator Ryan Woodward. And it is kind of mind-blowing.

And this is because, as far as I can determine from scouring Woodward's website, the whole thing is hand-drawn. This is worth watching in fullscreen, and while the song is a little blah, it is astonishing to realize that there's no rotoscoping, no motion capture (go look at that still from the "Tintin" trailer again, or better yet wait until Friday), just obsessively gorgeous observational drawing based off live dancers. There are no words for how simple and beautiful this is.

Thought of You from Ryan J Woodward on Vimeo.

----

Speaking of little treasures of animation, it's incredibly rare to see any "news" about "The Brave Little Toaster". Thank Heaven I stumbled upon this interview with the film's director, Jerry Rees, and voice actress Deanna Oliver.

It's an hour long, but it's worth it for their stories of the symbolism of the characters, the absurdly small budget, the very strange release schedule, the deeply infuriating reaction of the judges at Cannes, sequel denial, deleted scenes that will never see the light of day (shades of "The Land Before Time"), and (Yes!) that scene with the flower. Obviously, don't watch this if you haven't seen the movie yet. But for longtime fans, it's a reminder of why "BLT" was one of those rare movies that feels like it appeared right out of the blue, in complete defiance of everything you know about mainstream animation, like a gift just to make you happy.

Back Injury Theater: "Alien 3" the "Assembly Cut"

First off, we've had a bit of a crisis at ArtEvolved, but it looks like it will have a happy ending. Glendon Mellow did a fine recap of Monday's events here, and if you are a Deviant Art member, you can still help us.

I also want to re-re-emphasize something in that link. On behalf of all illustrators, if you like our art and you want to use it then please don't be afraid to just ask us!

----

With David Fincher in the news with "The Social Network" (aka, "Call it 'That Facebook Movie' One More Time and I Will Hit You as Hard as I Can"), and me needing an excuse to finally show some love to the "Alien" film series, I decided it was high time to revisit Fincher's first feature-length film. It was time to see what the altered cut of "Alien 3" (available on the excellent "Quadrilogy" set and -yes!- for rental through Netflix) was all about.

Shamelessly copy-pasted from IMDB: "In December, 2003, the 'ALIEN QUADRILOGY' boxset was released with a newly created cut of 'Alien 3' entitled 'the assembly cut.' It attempts to reconstruct David Fincher's workprint (which the studio balked at), but goes one step further and adds color correction and remixed 5.1 sound. Several scenes, however, suffer from poor on-set audio quality (mostly due to the use of fog machines and steam which obscures on-set dialog). Optional subtitles transcript the dialog."

This is not a director's cut. Fincher considers this film to be his Old Shame, and did not participate in making the new version, although he approved of it. It's easy to understand why he has a hard time with this movie; if you were an "Alien" series fan in the early '90s, then you may recall that this film's production was... troubled.

The surprisingly frank bonus disk (also Netflixable) tells the long, strange story over nearly three hours worth of special features. To start with, there were several wildly different ideas for the film kicked around in the late '80s. Four of these made it to script form:

William Gibson's script is probably the most famous but is barely acknowledged in the special features here for some reason. It involved several ideas that would later show up in the fourth film (Xenomorph-human hybrids) and the comic (more fun with Hicks and Newt!)

Eric Red's script was the reason for the infamous "on Earth, everyone can hear you scream" teaser. Way to go, Fox.

David "Pitch Black" Twohy wrote a version that introduced the concept of a prison planet...

And Vincent Ward's script turned the prison into a monastery (these ideas would be rather bashed together in the final film). The DVD spends a lot of time with this version, possibly because it has the most surviving pre-production material. This version would have been extremely surreal, with horrifying nightmare sequences.

Turns out the theatrical cut of "Alien 3" began filming with no script at all; just all these half-formed ideas hovering around. The result was a movie that -even the cast and crew admit this on the DVD- isn't very likable.

Fincher is not to blame, however. I can tell when a director has been assigned a movie that has been in development hell for years and years, because the director will usually be, like, "F*** it". (As an example, I have a hard time blaming Tim Burton for "Planet of the Apes".) In this case, however, since there was no script and vast galloping herds of executives ready to meddle, it looks more like David Fincher was, like, "F*** you, Fox."

"Well, that was all very interesting, Trish, but what is the 'Assembly Cut' like?"

You should know that I've never seen the theatrical cut of this movie all the way through -- but I have seen enough of it (it's probably on FX right now). I could tell right away that the Assembly Cut was practically a completely different movie. Without spoilers, the opening sequence is very different, the closing sequence is slightly different, and there is a lot more character development. Heck, even the Alien itself becomes a more interesting character in this cut.

Though that brings us to special effects. Perhaps it is simply because it is, for all intents, the work print, but the animation simply does not hold up. However, I learned through the special features that the Alien here is not a CGI character at all ("Jurassic Park" was still a year away); it's actually a small puppet animated in a manner somewhat similar to Phil Tippett's Go-Motion creatures. In that respect, it could be considered the last of it's kind.

I should mention, for David Fincher fans who have not seen this film yet, that it is very, very dark even for him. Really, from the studio logo on, this movie is like the cure for joy. There is almost no humor at all in it and -- well, you may have heard that it has a sad ending...

However, it is a fascinating film to watch whether you are a curious Fincher fan or an "Alien" series fan who was disappointed in the theatrical cut. Just leave your pet ox out of the room when you watch it; your dog can stay though.

----

Ye Art of Ye Day! So much text! Here is a very elaborate digital painting to make up for it.

Do Toasters Dream of Whole Wheat Sheep? - Thoughts on "The Brave Little Toaster"

Now, I don't say this often, but before we get into this, I want you to watch "The Brave Little Toaster" if you've never seen it before (or watch it again if it's been a while). Because this review/nostalgia-tinged ramble will contain vast galloping herds of unmarked spoilers. Also, afterwards, you should read the review of the movie from the wonderful Total Media Bridge website, as a lot of my feelings about the film are shared by Mr. Johnson and I want to avoid repeating them.

.....

Ready? Okay clean up all those tear-sodden handkerchiefs, let's talk about this here movie.

In many ways, "The Brave Little Toaster" was the 80's kid's equivalent to "The Iron Giant". It's an offbeat animated film based loosely on a very offbeat book, and made with a sensibility that isn't quite anything like what we're used to from, say, Disney. (As a matter of fact, given the overall look and tone of "Toaster", I was a little surprised to not see Brad Bird anywhere in the credits.) It wound up in the hands of a big studio who was supposed to distribute it, but really had no clue what they had or what to do with it. Thankfully, somebody had the bright idea, "Well, let's just dump it on our cable TV station; it'll fill 90 minutes." Thus, more children saw this film on cable than would have ever seen it in a theater.

I was one of the kids who saw "Toaster" as a kid on The Disney Channel. This was back when it was a station you had to subscribe to, and it even had it's own magazine. One of my greatest-ever Nerd Regrets is not saving -or even reading- the article about the making of "The Brave Little Toaster" (you'll learn why this is such a wallbanger in a couple of paragraphs). But I watched my clunky VHS tape recording of it over and over and over again. I practically have the whole thing memorized, so watching it again for the first time since... college? Maybe? Anyway, it was a weird, weird experience.

Right away, as a child, I could tell this one was different. From the opening credits, there's a darkness and an underlying sadness here that you simply did not see in animated films of the time. As much as I am an animation fan (and an Emo Pisces), there aren't that many animated moments that *really* make me cry*.

But "Toaster" sports one of the saddest ever:


 

 And mind you, in the context of the film,this scene comes out of rutting nowhere in the middle of a happy musical interlude. The fun stops suddenly, and without warning, we find ourselves in the middle of this tragic little story. As a child, it's scary and upsetting and you just don't have the vocabulary or experience to say why, exactly. You cry yourself to sleep over something you don't understand, and the scene haunts your memory forever. And the kicker: the scene is only a hair or two over one minute long. But something I never noticed before: it informs everything that happens in the movie afterward. 

 In the beginning of the film, the characters are all just out for themselves. They don't even appear to particularly like each other (this in itself was a huge deal for an animated movie of the time, where characters tended to be BFFs or rivals right from the start), and are along for the adventure just so that they can each be with their owner again. But then Toaster's cold, unfeeling appliance heart breaks over the plight of this lonely organic thing, and so she** starts being more affectionate towards Blanket (who, as a reminder, is a device designed to keep humans warm -- something he hasn't been able to do for at least five years). In turn, Blanket helps the whole gang, sacrificing his personal comfort to be a tent during a rainy night. Lampy (my personal favorite character as a kid; I just love his character design and animation) asks Toaster about this, and later rescues the whole gang in a last-ditch suicide mission. And so on. That right there is some brilliant writing. Who is it making us cry over these godless machines?

   

Awwwww...  

I consider "The Brave Little Toaster" to be the first feature film from Pixar. Joe Ranft's influence is all over it, and I'm on good authority that John Lasseter was working somewhere behind the scenes too (he originally intended for this to be the first-ever CGI animated film. Oh, the things that could have changed the course of film history.) The level of craft is superb. The animation, the invented movement, of each of the machines is very imaginative in a way that has become a well-loved Pixar hallmark.  

And unfortunately, this brings up the sad news. Disney owns the distribution rights to this film and they've always treated it as just a weird novelty. This is despite the fact that it deserves a good, cleaned-up DVD (really, if "The Lion King 2" gets a Special Edition, why the hell not "Brave Little Toaster"?) The picture and sound quality is no improvement on my twenty-year-old VHS. Debris litters the picture and the loud-quiet-loud effect of the soundtrack gets very irritating after a while (though it is nice that the film isn't pan-and-scanned). There is but one special feature, called "The making of the 'Brave Little Toaster' movies". And given the historical significance of this film, all it wants to talk about are the cash-grabbing sequels made, for some damn reason, in 2003. Still, the original "The Brave Little Toaster" is brilliant and deserves much better. 

 That said, I should note that this movie has, of late, been frequently cited as an official scapegoat for an entire generation's psychological problems. No, really. This movie is the reason why an entire generation can never throw anything away. Our machines have feelings, and they miss us when we do not use them. They'd feel horribly betrayed if we ever threw them away, even if they were broken or outmoded. I wish I could say I grew out of this weird sort of animism, but I haven't. And it hit me bad during the Great Basement Cleanout. 

 And then I found this Spike Jones Ikea commercial. And as much as "Brave Little Toaster" is one of my favorite childhood movies, I couldn't help but laugh:
   

By the way, if you like wonderful, beautiful, but very definitely melancholy animated films from the late '80s, you'll want to keep an eye on this blog next month... 

 * - Predictably, the list begins and ends with Seymour. 

** - Ah, yes, one of the great controversies about "The Brave Little Toaster". I won't get into it, but you can read about it at the lovely Cartoon Over-Analizations blog here and here.  

---- 

This has nothing to do with anything, but I'm posting it here because it was just announced and others may have missed it. And, lo, out of the ashes of M Night's folly, there rose "The Legend of Korra"... 

---- 

Painting of the... whatever span of time it ends up being between acrylic paintings! Still getting used to this medium. Here's some "Toaster" fanart! 

 

 Oh, if only I'd done this in time to submit it to the Crazy 4 Cult show

"The Toybox Revolutions" - Thoughts on "Toy Story 3" (mild spoilers)

So recently, I watched and enjoyed a beloved, critically acclaimed, gorgeously animated film that involved John Lasseter about a boy who has just recently become a man. He and his single mother are getting him ready to move off to the far-away land of college. The movie really isn't about the man, though. It's about the objects he owned and loved as a child who come to life when he isn't around. The objects are upset because they don't know if their owner is going to leave them, throw them away, or take them to college with him. Eventually, the objects decide to reunite with their owner, and they get into various misadventures in the process. At one point, they find themselves in a building where objects are mistreated by humans and have gone a little nuts because of it. They meet other objects who tell them they're worthless junk without their owner, and they almost meet a tragic and horrifying end in a garbage dump. Thankfully, their owner finds them and brings them to a place where they will be loved, cared for, and -best of all- where they will be used and needed. The film ends with the man driving off to college.

So yes, I re-watched "The Brave Little Toaster".

But I also finally saw "Toy Story 3". My above summary is by no means meant to be a knock against the movie. Far from it. This thing right here, this is how you end a trilogy. It's almost unspeakably good.

I've been thinking we should all just treasure the fact that we live in the era of Pixar. So many CGI animation studios, since it's so "easy" to make an animated film nowadays, toss a bunch of random movies at the wall, hoping one sticks. They don't even have to be "good"; if you want, you can basically become a giant techno-organic machine that regularly spews out movies about Fairy Princess Barbie or whatever. Pixar is one of the few animation studios out there now that treats the art of animation as just that: an art. Something special to be done with love and care or not at all. Every feature they've made has become more and more daring (compare how "talky" the first "Toy Story" is to it's sequels). You can especially see this in their shorts - "Day and Night", which accompanies "TS3", is as brilliant and surprising in it's humor and animation as a classic Tex Avery cartoon.

I'm glad I brought up Barbie here because in "Toy Story 3", Pixar does things with her and Ken that are screamingly funny in a way the creators of the Mattel-approved Barbie movies will never understand. The fact that they go ahead and explore the rather lousy existence of Barbie's long-suffering mate is by itself one of the reasons to go see it. He is a male character -- but he is also essentially an accessory to a toyline directed at girls. (It's well worth it to point out that Barbie herself is based on one of the dolls from the "We girls can do anything!" time period.) He has no role outside "Barbie's boyfriend". Really, the only way his subplot could possibly be better is if somehow the equine Village People cover band Big Brother Ponies were involved.

Now, aside from Ken and a couple of antagonists who I won't spoil here, there aren't too many interesting new characters. I suppose this was intentional, it gives the characters we already know room for their team victory lap. And a celebration is essentially what this is, for both Pixar and the toys. You can tell the writers are going to miss the hell out of these characters, so they made sure everyone gets their own little character moment (my favorite of these is a scene involving a tortilla that is so clever and hilarious and unexpected and wonderfully animated that I won't dare ruin the fun by explaining it here). It's like getting the band back together for one last amazing show.

Taken as a whole, the "Toy Story" trilogy is where you can say that the Pixar family is absolutely perfect, just as overall terrific as they will ever be. So it doesn't matter that "Toy Story 3" is (as a few people have... well, not really complained, but pointed out) just a big fanservicey pat on the back that ends with Andy explaining how wonderful all the characters are. They really are wonderful. You've got to be pretty confident in the audience's love for the toys to have such a long scene like that at the end of the movie. That's how you can tell that Pixar knows they're at the top of their game right now. They've earned this touchdown dance.

Now, speaking of that ending. For all the reports of big burly guys bawling their eyes out during the end of "Toy Story 3", I have to say that I didn't think it was sad -- except in the sweetest of ways. Overall, the movie doesn't quite have the same emotional resonance of "Toy Story 2" (which is, let's face it, the finest fantastic film to meditate on mortality this side of "Blade Runner", and it will take a lot for anyone to come up with as great and terrible an emotional kidney-punch as Jessie's backstory). But I love how the writers had the stones to take the themes introduced in "Toy Story 2" and explore them much farther. (And I can guarantee that I would have had a very different reaction to that last scene if I happened to be one of the people who "grew up with Andy" and the toys.)

All that and the second-best Gypsy Kings cover of a Disney song.

----



I had the pleasure of seeing "Toy Story 3" at the beautiful old Magic Lantern Theater in Bridgeton, Maine (pictured above). Someday, I'll have to do a post on my memories of the old Wollaston Theater. When I do, I'll hold up the Magic Lantern (heh) as an example of an old theater resurrection done right.

Admission is very cheap, there are only three screens but they are quite large, the theaters are roomy and two of them sport adult-only balconies. We actually sat in such a balcony for "Toy Story 3" and it was quite the experience. The kids in the lower decks didn't bother us at all (not that they would have), and the only other people there with us were two older couples. I don't know if I'd recommend the balcony unless the under-21 crowd *really* bothers you, because you're seeing the film from kind of a weird angle and the lower portion of the screen is "chopped" a little. That, and I had just watched "Matinee" the other night...

----

Watercolor of the Week!

Speaking of things that make me cry (click for big and the story)



If you're as angry and sad as I am and you can draw at all, please consider donating a sketch card to Kelly Light's Ripple Project. I've donated three cards so far and they'll be up for sale sometime in the next month. All proceeds go to support animal rescue organizations.

But there's one little loose end that deserves to be tied up, isn't there?

The DAC: The Bronze Age part two

Movie #41: "The Nightmare Before Christmas"
I'm fresh from a marathon of Christmas movies and I still feel guilty that I didn't do it during the original Chronological Animated Disney Canon posts.
Like "Roger Rabbit", you tend to forget just how amazing this movie really is. The DVD looks terrific, and I'm sure I saw sight gags that even Henry Selick wasn't aware of. Packed with terrific effects and wonderful music, this is a treasure. Plus everyone needs something a little weird during the holiday season.
The special features on the three-disc "Jack head" (not listed here, though it would certainly fit) are great fun to watch too, though they skip over one of the more interesting things about this movie: back when "Nightmare" first arrived in theaters, Disney had the damndest time figuring out how to sell it. It was actually originally released under their Touchstone banner. Toys were produced very briefly and quickly disappeared from Disney Store shelves. Fans had to wait for almost a decade before Disney woke up to the movie's cult hit status... and now they're marketing the hell out of it. And normally this would not make me sad (my Christmas decorations are sorely lacking in Halloweentown residents) but Disney seems to be marketing "Nightmare" memorabilia to a very specific demographic. That's why I say this year we steal this fandom back from the whining Emo sissypants Hot Topic.

Merry Christmas to all! For more posts in this ongoing series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.

When you see the terrier, drink! Let's Read Six by Van Allsburg!

I made some art! I went for weeks without making art and it felt weird! Now I feel better! More (and the bigger version of this painting) at Flickr.

OK, last week the "long stuff on the usual days, quickies on the other days" pattern didn't work out so well. So I'm going back to my good old M/W/F schedule.
For today, it's the Picture Book Analysis project I mentioned way back in October. I saved it until now because now it is December. Which means it's almost Christmas. Which means it's almost time to read The Polar Express with a cup of cocoa.

Originally "published" 3/24/05.

Jumangi
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
For the Picture Book Analysis Project, I have chosen to review the works of author/illustrator Chris Van Allsburg. I will be considering the six books in chronological order. In this way, I will be able to review Van Allsburg's growth as a writer and artist.
Amazingly, Jumangi is only the second book Chris Van Allsburg wrote and illustrated. Already he shows an incredible eye for detail and atmosphere in his illustrations, rendered in black and white conté (a charcoal derivative). The lack of color creates an ominous, dreamlike mood. The illustrations are on single pages, facing blocks of text. This gives the story an even pace even as the tension mounts in the written text. The use of borders around the illustrations enhances the dreamlike effect, as if we're peering through windows into another world.
Van Allsburg's writing is often accused of being boring compared to his illustrations, which is a rather unfair comparison. In Jumangi, the text is mainly used to enhance the story told in the illustrations. Van Allsburg uses it to further the plotline, describing characters and events that aren't shown in the pictures.
This has turned out to be an important thread working throughout Van Allsburg's books. His illustrations are very detailed, but his books still rely strongly on the reader's ability to use her imagination. For this reason, and the fact that his stories tend to be subversively frightening at times, his books are better for students aged seven and above. Jumangi works well as a read-aloud and as an independent reader. As a read-aloud, children are compelled by the exciting story. As an independent reader, they have a chance to study Van Allsburg's meticulous artwork firsthand.

The Mysteries of Harris Burdick
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
The Mysteries of Harris Burdick is my single favorite Chris Van Allsburg book, and that's saying a lot.
There is no story. Just a collection of fourteen stunning Van Allsburg illustrations, each accompanied by a title and a short line of text. It's as if the artist has chosen to boil down his storytelling skill to its very essence. Van Allsburg's writing is often accused of being rather dull and redundant when compared to his evocative artwork. He usually uses text only to further the plot along and describe elements of the story that aren't contained in the illustrations.
In Mysteries, aside from a brief introduction crediting the drawings to a mystery artist, there are less than two hundred words of body text. Therefore, almost all the storytelling is done within the illustrations. In the mere three years between Jumangi and Mysteries, the increases in Van Allsburg's skill with conté and his confidence in his gift are nothing short of extraordinary. The black and white illustrations show incredible depth and detail, and the imagination they show is breathtaking.
Once again, this is a book that trusts the reader's ability to use her imagination. However, reading Mysteries is clearly a solo experience. It is perhaps best appreciated as an independent reader for older students. They have a chance to study the illustrations, but they also have an opportunity to expand on the stories within the drawings. While the artwork can be enjoyed on its own merits, any one of the pictures can be taken as a wonderful starting place for a creative writing project.

The Polar Express
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
Here is Chris Van Allsburg's signature book. Within a decade of its publication, The Polar Express had already established itself as a holiday classic. Not surprisingly, I know many fans (myself included) who read this book on an annual basis: on Christmas Eve, accompanied by a mug of hot cocoa.
Polar Express is one of Van Allsburg's few works featuring color. He has switched from his favorite medium of conté crayon to chalk pastels. Once again, his confidence in his abilities as an artist is increasing. The absence of color in his earlier works gave the books a mysterious, dreamlike quality. The addition of the element of color creates more realism. The first and final illustrations in the book are nearly photorealistic, while the remaining illustrations, with their fantastic settings and characters, are made more surreal. Perhaps Van Allsburg made the artistic decision to use color in order to increase the believability of Santa's workshop. (Of course, there's still the artist's trademark ominous air. The North Pole could be mistaken for an industrial park, were it not for the elves and cheerful twinkling lights, and Santa Claus would be hardly recognizable without his distinctive red suit.)
Furthermore, the formatting in Polar Express is highly unusual for a Van Allsburg book. I like to think of the illustrations as "letterboxed"; they're bordered double-page spreads with a bit of room set aside on either the far left or far right for a few paragraphs of text. Once again, Van Allsburg makes it very clear that the illustrations are, so to speak, the stars of the book. The text is simply a supporting player.
The Polar Express is very moving for older readers, reading independently. It is also a compelling read-aloud for much younger children, and is perfectly fine for first graders.
Just make sure you get to them before somebody decides to subject them to the movie.

The Widow's Broom
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
This is an unusual work from Chris Van Allsburg. In the three books I have studied so far, the text supports his illustrations. The illustrations are clearly the stars of the books. However, in The Widow's Broom, the text is on equal footing with the visual elements of the book. Broom was published in 1992, almost a full decade since Jumangi. In that time, we've seen Van Allsburg's skill as a visual storyteller increase dramatically. But now, we finally see an increase in his confidence as a literal storyteller.
The illustrations in Broom are, naturally, still fantastic. Once again, they are conté crayon, black and white, and highly atmospheric. Most of the illustrations are single-page pieces facing the text, but there are a few double-page spreads. These explain parts of the story that wouldn't come across as easily in the text, and as we've seen in most Van Allsburg books, quite the opposite is usually true.
I described The Polar Express illustrations as bringing to mind a letterboxed (wide-screen) movie. This time, the format is noticeably tall instead of long, which is very unique (the visual cortex is wired for horizontal compositions; this is why you almost never see films -or books- formatted in "tall-screen"). This layout serves the text more readily than the illustrations, emphasizing the fact that the text is the star this time out.
The Widow's Broom is a touching tale about the cruelty of intolerance. With that said, it's best used as a read-aloud for second-grade and above, and would be a fine book to discuss afterward.

The Sweetest Fig
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
Published one year after The Widow's Broom, The Sweetest Fig is sort of a return to form for Chris Van Allsburg. Once again, the text is less prominent than the illustrations. The storyline is amusing, but not as memorable as the four books I've analyzed so far. To be honest, it's one of his weaker efforts.
But even a comparatively boring Van Allsburg has more interesting things going on in any given illustration than some novels have in their entire length.
The Sweetest Fig is only the second book in this study where Van Allsburg has used color. It appears that the drawings are rendered in chalk pastels, as in The Polar Express. Color is used in a very different way this time. In Polar Express, the colors were very vivid, but in this book they are subdued. In fact, most of the illustrations barely appear to have any color in them at all, except for one or two elements such as the titular figs, and they immediately command attention as a result.
The formatting is also similar to that of The Polar Express. They're bordered double-page spreads with a bit of room set aside for a paragraph or two of text. This time, the text only has a tiny white square set aside for it.
The Sweetest Fig is not one of Chris Van Allsburg's masterpieces, but it could be a fun read-aloud for younger children. They will especially enjoy the magical justice served to the nasty main character by his long-suffering dog.

Bad Day at Riverbend
Written and Illustrated by Chris Van Allsburg
This one is another personal favorite of mine. With that said, I have a hard time ruining the surprise ending, as it is one of my favorite aspects of the book. I will try to make this a spoiler-free analysis.
Bad Day At Riverbend is at once obviously unlike anything Chris Van Allsburg has ever done before. It's almost unrecognizable as one of his works. In this book, for reasons that are integral to the plot, he has switched from his favorite medium of conté and pastels to pen, ink, and wax crayon. The illustrations are stark, simple outlines. He returns to his usual drawing style only in the final pages of the book.
The formatting in Riverbend is also unlike any other Van Allsburg book, because the text finally gets to share visual space with the illustrations, without being blocked in by borders or stuck on a facing page. The illustrations are all double-page spreads, and there are no borders at all until the very last page.
Just how distinct is this from any other Van Allsburg book? Well, this is the only book in this entire report where I wasn't able to find the trademark bull terrier he always seems to be able to sneak in.
I have a hard time imagining this kind of book working as a read-aloud, and I don’t know if very young children would understand the ending. Because of its high-concept story, Bad Day at Riverbend is probably best enjoyed by older children reading by themselves (the closest relative this book has is clearly David Wiesner's The Three Pigs). The reality of the "bad day", and its revelation, is ingenious.
----
I'll be talking about Christmas movies and specials in the near-future. Until then, why not enjoy the best turkeys of the past decade, care of The Onion AV Club?

I haven't yet seen "The Happening" or "The Wicker Man", and I don't know if I could bring myself to sit through "Battlefield Earth", but I have seen "D Wars" and it is as awesomely insane as it sounds. So OK, ratbrains, which of these movies do you secretly like?