I bet if a venue like Newgrounds or Atom Films existed when Mr. Bird was in his late teens-early twenties; he would have gotten the acclaim he received much earlier in life. Then again, what do I know... As for the film: do we need anymore movies with hack messages that are beaten on audiences?
@Shane Skekel Yes, we need more films with messages unless you want mindless trash and meaningless moving colours. Most films these days are just glorified strobe lights. That's fine if you want to get stoned out of your mind and dance but I prefer someone saying something, even if that something I don't agree with.
Secondly, The film is very elitist. It reminded my of a disnyfied Bioshock, so in that sense it was extremely Randian. I do agree that it is up to the elite to save the world, but the elite are not magic people born with special skills under the grace of god, that is all bull shit. There is no talent, no magic, no secret ingredient. The "elite" are the "elite" because they took the time to do the work and climbed out of the mud on their own. Some people have circumstance on their side, sure, but no one is special. We are all dumb apes on a ball of dirt hurtling through space. You want to be a master painter, then paint! Fail! Paint more! Fail more! Just don't give up. This goes for anything. The only thing stopping you is YOU! But here is the kicker and where most people truly fail. They let it get to their heads and become cultural burdens (i.e. celebrities) rather then saviors. Its not about you, especially if you are an "elite" its about how you can elevate all those around you still trapped in the mud unable to see their own self worth and potential.
Something I'd heard earlier this week: In story telling, message is a subset of concept or theme.
As cliched as it is to say, once the clever ideas start to trump character and story - regardless of whether they're a panegyric on innate ability or blank slate rags-to-riches - the concepts or themes become less an interesting experience and more of a very important message that you need to hear, right now, follow the bouncing ball and sing along.
TL;DR: Don't beat the audience over the head with message.
Even if The Iron Giant is his first theatrical animation, I don't think it's fair to emphasize that as Bird's debut. I think more attention should be given to Family Dog, which he directed 12 years earlier. I don't think you can discredit its substance and ingenuity. And he even got Tim Burton and other wasted early-1980s Disney animators to make it with him.
June 02, 2015 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...
I think you hit the nail on the head. Wanting to make the best use of talents and not squander opportunity is not the same as saying that the talented should become the most rich and powerful on earth and share none of the fruits of their labor with society. Bird's heroes seem generous. Rand's heroes spit in the face of even the idea of generosity.
I think his work is a natural and healthy reaction to Hollywood's 'everyone is special' and not at all elitist. Yea, we are all special.. I'm certainly special, and my mom is special, and my close friends are special, and the characters I care about in Jurassic Park are special.. but the people I don't like are not so special. : >
June 03, 2015 12:16 PM
Matt B said...
Frustration "Artists who feel that they're not doing their best work or are stuck labouring on projects that they have no great love for. It's true across the industry, which is why so many artists are involved in side projects that are an escape from the frustration of their day jobs. Bird has been more successful than most, but he still can't get his chosen projects onto the screen."
""We need more films with messages unless you want mindless trash and meaningless moving colours. Most films these days are just glorified strobe lights. That's fine if you want to get stoned out of your mind and dance but I prefer someone saying something, even if that something I don't agree with."
Mark Mayerson + Maximilian = 100% True.
@Khylov, you should check out Iker Maidagans post on Themes Vs The Premise/Plot of Stories. Themes are there to make stories more rich, deep & interesting, so that they're not all just some plot with a bit of a climax & some big VFX action set piece of visual but says nothing masturbation. A Story can have multiple themes, which are separate to the premise or plot and are subtle and DON'T brow-beat the audience with some "important follow the bouncing ball message".
Tomorrowland definitely isn't Brad Birds best. It has some cool little story & visual idea things that are great: The Pin Projection Transportation as one example. But it's also very long, muddled in message(s) & awkward in the Clooney + Athena arc, which comes to override the main theme. Tomorrowland AKA George Clooney pines over a too young Teen Robot Girl who then blows up. Something all too vague about Dreamers building our tomorrow + Britt Robertson is quirky, which kinda works... but overall not really.~:-I
...Know where you're going or want to go before making your story. Of course. A good guideline for a writer to keep them going off the navel-gazing rails.
Truth be told though, as the audience I'd rather just have a series of characters and some plot with climax, VFX optional. Is a fine line between theme and message - which at times is a polite way of saying propaganda. If the characters or story development have enough substance on their own and are well presented, anyone interested enough will be able to draw their own conclusions, suss out the themes or meanings, even if not necessarily intended. Much like anything else in life.
Figure it as the writer being laconic in more than just words. Mousetrap drama's more than likely not needed if what you bring to the table's already got legs to run with.
...After having read the link - which was good - and given Tomorrowland, is a bit clearer: Desire is for more defined theme. Agree in theory, but I'm more prone as an audience to want less of it at this point, given film's track record the past decade of being stuck in delivering the subset of importantest message evar at the cost of character or story. Throw the audience a bone; let them figure a few things out on their own without having the script's mission statement coming out of mouths of the characters. Show, don't tell.
I think they'd do well to just focus on the basics for now, characters and stuff happening - keeping it consistent and entertaining, a little bit of clever in the reveals and twists - and delivering those to the best of their ability before attempting the meaning of life. Walk before run.
I wrote something similar seven years ago. I saw Tomorrowland, and it was amazing. http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2008/05/elitist-films-of-brad-bird.html
August 06, 2015 1:34 PM
[Image]
Brad Bird
I haven't seen Brad Bird's new film, Tomorrowland, yet, but once again various reviewers are connecting Bird to novelist Ayn Rand's work, something that Bird denies. This article in Slate by Forrest Wickman says that Bird is drawing more inspiration from Walt Disney than from Rand. I think that both are missing a key point, possibly because nobody in the discussion has ever worked in the film or animation business.
The criticism of Bird is that his films contain characters who are innately superior to the majority. This strikes many as elitist, though common sense tells us that we all know people who have an aptitude for something, whether it's music, math, sports, languages, drawing, etc. It's interesting that the idea of talent has become so controversial.
Many claim that Bird expects his characters to be treated differently than those without their talents, and there's some truth in this, but not in a way that Ayn Rand would endorse. I am no Rand expert, but what I know of her writing is that it is elitist; those who are superior should not be dragged down by the inferior and should it happen, then the superior are justified in withdrawing their talents from society.
As the Slate article points out, the idea of the elite going on strike is nowhere present in Bird's work. Rather than springing from elitism, I think Bird's work springs from artistic frustration and I think his career should make that obvious.
In The Incredibles and in Ratatouille, the characters are trying to exercise their talents in ways that are beneficial. A key scene in The Incredibles is when Bob witnesses a mugging while being dressed down by his boss. His frustration doesn't stem from his inability to exercise his powers, but from the altruistic need to help someone who is being victimized. In Ratatouille, Remy risks his life repeatedly to get closer to cooking, something that would benefit people if only they didn't let their prejudices get in the way. Both are frustrated by a world which stops them from being who they are, even though the world would benefit.
Now look at Bird's career. He was an animation prodigy, being tutored by Disney animators at the age of 14. His time at Disney after Cal Arts did not lead to any films of note. It was a low point in the company's management history, where no one with vision (artistic or economic) was willing to take a chance on the kind of animation that Bird wanted to do. At that time, Disney had Bird, John Lasseter and Tim Burton on staff and essentially wasted them all. Talent went unrecognized and unfulfilled.
Bird tried to get several projects off the ground, such as his animated adaptation of Will Eisner's The Spirit and his own Ray Gunn without success. He didn't get to direct his first animated feature, The Iron Giant, until he was in his forties, twenty years after leaving Cal Arts. In moving into live action, he wanted to make 1906. He took the Mission Impossible film as a way of gaining credibility, but even after the success of that project, he couldn't get 1906 into production. Instead, he directed a film with a link to a Disney theme park. While fans are no doubt happy to hear that Bird will be working on a sequel to The Incredibles, he's going backwards at the age of 57, having to revisit an earlier
success. As he's closer to the end of his career than the beginning, there are a limited number of films he has time to make. How many of them will be the films he wants to make as opposed to what Hollywood will allow him to do?
Forget Ayn Rand and look at the animation business. It's filled with artists who would say that they're not doing their best work or are stuck labouring on projects that they have no great love for. It's true across the industry, which is why so many artists are involved in side projects that are an escape from the frustration of their day jobs. Bird has been more successful than most, but he still can't get his chosen projects onto the screen. The Incredibles and Ratatouille are fantasies where characters overcome obstacles to fully realize their talents. Unfortunately for Bird and the rest of us, it rarely happens in life.
"Brad Bird, Ayn Rand and Frustration"
12 Comments -
I bet if a venue like Newgrounds or Atom Films existed when Mr. Bird was in his late teens-early twenties; he would have gotten the acclaim he received much earlier in life. Then again, what do I know... As for the film: do we need anymore movies with hack messages that are beaten on audiences?
June 01, 2015 9:49 PM
Good analysis. That last paragraph made me go look in the mirror and ask myself a few hard questions.
June 02, 2015 10:41 AM
"Heroes who are innately superior to the majority"... Does that mean they think the Harry Potter series is also elitist and Randyan?
June 02, 2015 12:50 PM
@Shane Skekel Yes, we need more films with messages unless you want mindless trash and meaningless moving colours. Most films these days are just glorified strobe lights. That's fine if you want to get stoned out of your mind and dance but I prefer someone saying something, even if that something I don't agree with.
Secondly, The film is very elitist. It reminded my of a disnyfied Bioshock, so in that sense it was extremely Randian. I do agree that it is up to the elite to save the world, but the elite are not magic people born with special skills under the grace of god, that is all bull shit. There is no talent, no magic, no secret ingredient. The "elite" are the "elite" because they took the time to do the work and climbed out of the mud on their own. Some people have circumstance on their side, sure, but no one is special. We are all dumb apes on a ball of dirt hurtling through space. You want to be a master painter, then paint! Fail! Paint more! Fail more! Just don't give up. This goes for anything. The only thing stopping you is YOU! But here is the kicker and where most people truly fail. They let it get to their heads and become cultural burdens (i.e. celebrities) rather then saviors. Its not about you, especially if you are an "elite" its about how you can elevate all those around you still trapped in the mud unable to see their own self worth and potential.
June 02, 2015 12:50 PM
Something I'd heard earlier this week: In story telling, message is a subset of concept or theme.
As cliched as it is to say, once the clever ideas start to trump character and story - regardless of whether they're a panegyric on innate ability or blank slate rags-to-riches - the concepts or themes become less an interesting experience and more of a very important message that you need to hear, right now, follow the bouncing ball and sing along.
TL;DR: Don't beat the audience over the head with message.
June 02, 2015 6:21 PM
Even if The Iron Giant is his first theatrical animation, I don't think it's fair to emphasize that as Bird's debut. I think more attention should be given to Family Dog, which he directed 12 years earlier. I don't think you can discredit its substance and ingenuity. And he even got Tim Burton and other wasted early-1980s Disney animators to make it with him.
June 02, 2015 7:12 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head. Wanting to make the best use of talents and not squander opportunity is not the same as saying that the talented should become the most rich and powerful on earth and share none of the fruits of their labor with society. Bird's heroes seem generous. Rand's heroes spit in the face of even the idea of generosity.
June 02, 2015 10:01 PM
I think his work is a natural and healthy reaction to Hollywood's 'everyone is special' and not at all elitist. Yea, we are all special.. I'm certainly special, and my mom is special, and my close friends are special, and the characters I care about in Jurassic Park are special.. but the people I don't like are not so special. : >
June 03, 2015 12:16 PM
Frustration
"Artists who feel that they're not doing their best work or are stuck labouring on projects that they have no great love for. It's true across the industry, which is why so many artists are involved in side projects that are an escape from the frustration of their day jobs. Bird has been more successful than most, but he still can't get his chosen projects onto the screen."
""We need more films with messages unless you want mindless trash and meaningless moving colours. Most films these days are just glorified strobe lights. That's fine if you want to get stoned out of your mind and dance but I prefer someone saying something, even if that something I don't agree with."
Mark Mayerson + Maximilian = 100% True.
@Khylov, you should check out Iker Maidagans post on Themes Vs The Premise/Plot of Stories. Themes are there to make stories more rich, deep & interesting, so that they're not all just some plot with a bit of a climax & some big VFX action set piece of visual but says nothing masturbation. A Story can have multiple themes, which are separate to the premise or plot and are subtle and DON'T brow-beat the audience with some "important follow the bouncing ball message".
Tomorrowland definitely isn't Brad Birds best. It has some cool little story & visual idea things that are great: The Pin Projection Transportation as one example. But it's also very long, muddled in message(s) & awkward in the Clooney + Athena arc, which comes to override the main theme. Tomorrowland AKA George Clooney pines over a too young Teen Robot Girl who then blows up. Something all too vague about Dreamers building our tomorrow + Britt Robertson is quirky, which kinda works... but overall not really. ~:-I
June 07, 2015 6:34 AM
...Know where you're going or want to go before making your story. Of course. A good guideline for a writer to keep them going off the navel-gazing rails.
Truth be told though, as the audience I'd rather just have a series of characters and some plot with climax, VFX optional. Is a fine line between theme and message - which at times is a polite way of saying propaganda. If the characters or story development have enough substance on their own and are well presented, anyone interested enough will be able to draw their own conclusions, suss out the themes or meanings, even if not necessarily intended. Much like anything else in life.
Figure it as the writer being laconic in more than just words. Mousetrap drama's more than likely not needed if what you bring to the table's already got legs to run with.
Anyhow, will check the link out.
June 14, 2015 7:36 PM
...After having read the link - which was good - and given Tomorrowland, is a bit clearer: Desire is for more defined theme. Agree in theory, but I'm more prone as an audience to want less of it at this point, given film's track record the past decade of being stuck in delivering the subset of importantest message evar at the cost of character or story. Throw the audience a bone; let them figure a few things out on their own without having the script's mission statement coming out of mouths of the characters. Show, don't tell.
I think they'd do well to just focus on the basics for now, characters and stuff happening - keeping it consistent and entertaining, a little bit of clever in the reveals and twists - and delivering those to the best of their ability before attempting the meaning of life. Walk before run.
June 14, 2015 8:11 PM
I wrote something similar seven years ago. I saw Tomorrowland, and it was amazing.
http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2008/05/elitist-films-of-brad-bird.html
August 06, 2015 1:34 PM