Between Reviews: The Movie behind the Masterpiece
THE MOVIE BEHIND THE MASTERPIECE
SEPT 14, 2008 - THE LATEST SPELLBINDER FROM THE WIZARDS AT PIXAR, titled Wall-E, begins with a burst of associative magic. Over the strains of Put on your Sunday clothes (from the musical Hello Dolly), which gets going with the lyric, “Out there, there’s a world outside of Yonkers,” the film, quite literally, transports us to a world outside – an interstellar realm of nebulae and planets and twinkly stardust. But we see, gradually, that it’s not just outer space that this number is hinting at, but also a long-ago world where, as seen in the staging of this song on screen, groups of men and women got together and sang and danced and lived. And as the song turns into a hollow echo and slowly fades from the soundtrack, and as we get to observe the eponymous robot going about its daily duties in stark, post-apocalyptic isolation, it appears that Wall-E is going to invoke the tropes of sci-fi cinema (that is, a world out there, in the pessimistic future) as well as song-and-dance cinema (namely, an “out there” world, from the optimistic past).
The sci-fi is in the setting – in an Earth where a view of the sky is interrupted by vertiginous serrations, which appear, at first, to be multistoried buildings but are eventually revealed to be slender mountains of compacted trash, the byproducts of unchecked human consumption. The humans themselves have long since abandoned the planet that nurtured them – after rendering it incapable of nurturing anything – and are now lazily ensconced in a spaceship, tended to by obsequious service bots. Their only representative back home is Wall-E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-Class), whose job it is to compress their waste into building blocks and assemble these units into towering monuments to human folly. Wall-E forages for trash, and if it – sorry, he; where would animated features be without the inevitable anthropomorphisation? – stumbles upon something interesting, the item becomes a collectible, a fossil remnant of an ancient civilisation, alongside bowling pins and a grimy Rubik’s cube and bubble wrap. Like Will Smith in I am Legend, Wall-E is the last “man” on earth – until he meets the first “woman,” appropriately named EVE (for Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator).
And this when the sci-fi slowly segues into song and dance – both literally (an exquisitely choreographed set piece in space rivals anything by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) and figuratively, in moments so transcendentally romantic that, despite being silent, they seem to move along with a whistle and a step. When Eve flicks on a cigarette lighter and when the flame bounces off both their eyes, it’s as if they’re sitting across a candlelit table on a first date. They may be made of nuts and bolts and computer chips, but their togetherness is indisputably human – and this first, near-wordless half-hour or so of Wall-E is as close to movie magic as anything Pixar has done. And yet, as the film progressed, my first-time viewing of Wall-E left me with the same feelings that my first-time viewing of The Dark Knight did – that this is a film that’s never less than good, a film that’s at times very good and at times truly great, but why is everyone in such a hurry to confer on it the M-word cachet? Why is already a Masterpiece?
Don’t films need to age, like wine, before their true qualities can be assessed by a discerning palate, far removed from the hype that surrounded their uncorking? Do The Dark Knight and Wall-E qualify for instant masterpiece status merely because of the ambitions within their ambits, because of how they attempt to transcend their derisive descriptions (comic-book flick, kiddie-animation flick) and make art? Why not simply say that these are very worthy movies, impressive for what they strive to be but weighted down by problems caused by having to address the humbling realities of the summer blockbuster? Like The Dark Knight, Wall-E too doesn’t go nearly far enough with its conceits – and it isn’t just that it’s yet another tweaking of the patented Pixar formula of (a) separation, followed by (b) a series of frantic set pieces, designed to result in (c) a reunion.
In Toy Story, Buzz Lightyear is separated from his mates, so Woody sets out on an adventure to get him back. In A Bug’s Life, Flik, the ant, is separated from his friends and family, setting out on an adventure to rescue his colony from nasty grasshoppers. In Toy Story 2, Woody is kidnapped, hence separated from the rest of the toys, so Buzz and Co. set out on an adventure to rescue him from the clutches of a nasty toy collector. In Monsters Inc., a child is separated from her family, so monsters Mike and Sully set out on an adventure to reunite her with her folks. In Finding Nemo, a little clown fish is separated from his father, who sets out on an adventure to get his son back. And so, when Wall-E is separated from the rest of humankind, and when the rest of the film shapes into an adventure to bring about his reunion with the species that created him and subsequently abandoned him, it appears to be business at Pixar as usual.
Of course, saying that a film is business as usual for Pixar is like calling the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel business as usual for Michelangelo – for the company continues to put to shame most live-action films around, whether with the painterly “cinematography” or the jaw-droppingly choreographed action set pieces or in the development of rounded characters whom we embrace without an instant’s hesitation. But where Wall-E runs into trouble is in the collision between what it wants to be and what it has to be. What it wants to be is a melancholy meditation on loneliness, the need for connection, the transformative power of love, and, perhaps most of all, the sustained viability of life on earth. And what it has to be is a kid-friendlier version of these decidedly non-kid friendly subjects, while incorporating attractions for the parents toting their tots along – and that means playful pop-culture references (Wall-E, itself, looks like the love child of E.T. and R2-D2, and there’s a ton of nods towards Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey, including a control-freak robot with one red eye), a merchandise-ready cuteness factor, and a happy ending that feels less earned than engineered.
When Monsters Inc. features a restaurant named Harryhausen (after Ray Harryhausen, the animation pioneer famed for his monsters, like the stop-motion skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts), we laugh at the knowing in-joke, but how would we react if Hayao Miyazaki took to periodically nudging us in the ribs, in the middle of his ecologically minded animated parables like Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away? That’s the impression Wall-E leaves you with, as it abandons the elegiacal notes of its opening stretch and begins to hit the broader “entertainment” notes, once the film moves to outer space. I laughed at the persnickety cleaner bot in the spaceship, I loved the scenes revolving around the Captain (easily the film’s most winsome character, humorous and heartfelt in the best Pixar tradition) – but I couldn’t shake away the feeling that I was now watching a different film altogether. I think this has to do with the director, Andrew Stanton, who helmed Finding Nemo earlier, and who, in my estimation, is a lesser light at Pixar when compared to the great Brad Bird, who made The Incredibles (now there’s a candidate for a masterpiece). Because Stanton is a very good entertainer, we smile at the moment where Wall-E finds a little box containing a diamond engagement ring, and after inspection, tosses away the ornament and holds on to the container. But had Bird, a truly great entertainer, directed the sequence, I suspect we’d be choking back tears that a token of lifelong love and commitment and togetherness has been reduced, in an instant, to utter worthlessness.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Exactly Sir. I too felt the same, though all the animation sequences seemed new, at the core it was the same Pixar template. A sort of clumsy protagonist, a funny sidekick (that unutilised cockroach) and the rest is your points a),b) and c). But, again simply for the fact that they moved to a different realm in terms of visual presentation it was a wonderful film. And WALL-E did sound vaguely like ET
Agreement with all points! Also i was so so so disappointed with one amazingly stupid thing: the ‘human’s in the video are real; the ones now are animated. Doesnt make sense at all. And I truly yhtink the movie sagged badly after the first 45 minutes or so - the silent bits enteratined more than the talkies. And just when I was about to nod off - somethign I would have never believed even remotely possible in a pixar film - but anyway, just when I was being lulled to sleep cam a whacker of an ending. only, sadly,that was not the ending. To avoid spoilers - and knowing BR - suffice to say Balu Mahendra would ahev been happy with that particualr ending if they had ended it there
what say?
The silent first half of Wall-E was some of the most brilliant, most daring cinema that Pixar has done. In this age of companies like Dreamworks pumping out crass, bombastic computer-animated films, it was practically a revolutionary act to tell the story with no dialogue.
The second half is entertaining and has a good message, but it was more perfunctory than the amazing first half. And it is ironic that a film condemning mindless consumerism and wastefulness was merchandised like crazy, leaving all sorts of boxes and wrappers in landfills. Go see this movie about a planet covered in trash, and then go buy a Wall-E plush toy!
Wall-E most resembles the Johnny Five robot from the Short Circuit films. He has similar eyes and tank treads.
Ravi K:
Don’t you think the silent first half was a nod to 2001:A Space Odyssey.
Even though I did disagree on The Dark Knight, I must agree on Wall-E and the movie descending into predictability. But the parts that really impacted me were:
1. Questioning what being “human” really means.
2. The gender politics. Names apart, how the male and female (all that giggling from EVE) genders of robots was defined by the movie. And how it was inescapable the even in robot terms EVE was totally out of Wall-E’s league.
Come on, Baradwaj. Calling the Pixar movies as formula films is an insult. You don’t mention Ratatouille which doesn’t fit the “formula”. Ratatouille and Wall-E are the two films which are significantly different from the earlier ones for they no longer try to appease kids. (I will be surprised to if kids love the first half of the film.) That’s a very courageous move because traditionally kids are the target market for animation movies.
@ Ravi K: “Go see this movie about a planet covered in trash, and then go buy a Wall-E plush toy!” funny you said that. After the movie, my friend was actually thinkin about asking McDonalds if they had the Wall E toys yet!
No reviews of the week’s releases? Eagerly awaiting your take on “The Last Lear”….
Ramesh, the first half of Wall-E is sort of like the Earth portions of 2001, with the apes. It was a combination of 2001 and Charlie Chaplin
Pavitra, Pixar/Disney did not do a McDonald’s Happy Meal tie-in for Wall-E, probably considering that the film was condemning, well, eating at places like McDonald’s!
Wall-E and Eve’s space dance was a sublime moment.
My favorite Pixar films are the ones by Brad Bird, The Incredibles and Ratatouille.
Of all the movie reviews of Wall-E, not even one has shed light on the core flaw of the film. The main incredient to Pixar’s movie masterpieces is the story. They spend more than half of their time discussing and refining the story, almost like a jeweller cutting a gemstone. And the result is magic! Wall-E lacked that magic.
With Incredibles and Ratatouille, Pixar had taken the next leap into bold, mature themes. The stories were well-thought out, stayed away from the goody-goody stuff and still packed loads of fun.
The problems I had with the movie were-
The whole idea was targetted only at Americans (obese?)
The story took lots of convenient turns to take the film forward (not what one expects from Pixar)
The ending was wimp-ish and ‘play-it-safe’
Wall-E felt more ‘Disney’ than ‘Pixar’ to me. I think any other animation studio could have made this kind of movie.
I didnt get all thos references but I really loved the movie. Esp the part where Wall E and Eve introduce themselves and Wall E says Eve-A instead of Eve
I felt that the ending was a bit forced when Wall E says Eve-A after failing to recognize her.
Which ones better…..WallE or Finding Nemo? lets leave individual movie making techniques…..comparison scale on a complete movie watching experience!
“Don’t films need to age, like wine, before their true qualities can be assessed by a discerning palate, far removed from the hype that surrounded their uncorking”-Well put Mr.B (bet you were nursing a Merlot when you typed that). I too balk at the “masterpiece” tag being slapped on any film that strives and significantly rises above the detritus of cookie-cutter, test-audience approved fare that litters the Summer Movie schedule in the States.
Is it now merely enough, in a summer that saw one entertaining launch of a comic book franchise( Iron Man), a mediocre reboot of another (The Incredible Hulk), for a superhero flick to merely be densely layered, psychologically complex and boosted by a now posthumous performance of manic brilliance to earn the coveted “M” tag? I’ll heed your advice and re-visit Gotham’s Dark Knight in a decade to see if this vintage has aged well.
@Shashi,
BR had laid out the basic premise of a pixar movie, no arguements! 
Hey! I never thought abt this analogy of BR before that the protagonist will be separated from the rest of its kind/creed and movie moves on to end as a happy reunion…Well Ratatouille is no exception either
aiyoo…
how long is this break going to be, already feels like a long time!
Exactly! IT’s been too long,
Hmm.. You have got it all figured out then, the formula of the most creative film studio out there. Neat. Smart.
And Incredibles is your candidate for a masterpiece, where Wall-E is just some overrated crap, who decides that? For me, incredibles was one of the most feeble Pixar attempts(forget duds like Cars), in terms of plot or imagination. The return of a superhero(no the entire family) plot to save the world, with some good and some cheesy humour, stereotype characters, wow, masterpiece, bravo!!
Was it too much to just review Wall-E without bringing in the M thing? To mention one of the most endearing animated characters ever in suitable detail.. There are certainly less flaws in this as compared to your personally overrated Rock On/Wednesdays. Or is this a plea to sound different from the rest of the critics? Thanks a lot BR, you have gone off your rocker these days.
You getting married or something? Post something! Anything!
Hi, I’ve never left a comment, but have been an avid reader of your blog for quite sometime now.
Have been missing your reviews these last 2 weekends. Wasn’t sure whether to watch some of the new releases or not!!!
Cheers!
A good analysis as ever. The movie by itself was good interms of the concept and execution, although be there a few minor flaws. Enjoyed it a lot.
Congratulations once again for Madan in his “kelvi badhil” mentioning your name for one of the best reviewers in India. Yeah, who will not have a word of praise for the national award winner
Meanwhile, did you see “Saroja”? Between reviews please…
“And Incredibles is your candidate for a masterpiece, where Wall-E is just some overrated crap, who decides that? For me, incredibles was one of the most feeble Pixar attempts(forget duds like Cars), in terms of plot or imagination. The return of a superhero(no the entire family) plot to save the world, with some good and some cheesy humour, stereotype characters, wow, masterpiece, bravo!!”
You missed the point of The Incredibles. The film was not just a superhero story. While it is that on the surface, it contains themes about people with special talents being not being recognized and even being reviled, people with talents suppressing them to appear normal, etc.
And Incredibles is your candidate for a masterpiece, where Wall-E is just some overrated crap, who decides that?
Is that what Baradwaj said it was? “Overrated crap”? Really? I read the review twice and I didn’t get that impression. Instead this sentence jumped out at me: “…this is a film that’s never less than good, a film that’s at times very good and at times truly great…”
In other words, it sounds like we have a classic straw-man argument here. Get back under your mossy bridge, little troll.
Also, mvr, the answer to your “who decides that” is a simple “Baradwaj, who has written this review in this space, decides that”. These are his views on a film. Just the same way that you “decide” that The Incredibles was feeble or that Rock On and A Wednesday were overrated. (Btw, you might want to take another look at Baradwaj’s Rock On review - it’s less favourable overall than the Wall-E one.)
Baradwaj, sorry for going on like this, but I’ve recently started a column about Internet trolls and their rantings, so am enjoying this.
@Jabberwock
You really felt this is a straw-man argument? For starters this is not exactly a review but the same sacrificed for some higher piece of writing. I don’t care if Wall-E was labelled a masterpiece, it would have been enough to discuss the movie in isolation. Why bring up the discussion of whether or not it should be labelled a masterpiece, unless you doubt it yourself?
BR says:
Don’t films need to age, like wine, before their true qualities can be assessed by a discerning palate, far removed from the hype that surrounded their uncorking?
As you say this Baradwaj’s personal view, something I have read and largely appreciated for a few years now. Also it clearly comes across that the Pixar format is not entirely satisfying for Baradwaj, even thats reasonable.
But then he broke his own assumptions by handing over a masterpiece nomination to the Incredibles. It is actually tempting to start a discussion on the Incredibles movie on the same lines as this writing, but you seem to be in a hurry to dismiss anything in the vicinity of critical as ranting. So kid, I will let you have my mossy bridge , to save your miserable skin, for now.
@Ravi K
You missed the point of The Incredibles. The film was not just a superhero story. While it is that on the surface, it contains themes about people with special talents being not being recognized and even being reviled, people with talents suppressing them to appear normal, etc.
Looks like staple Superhero stuff to me.. Do Spiderman 2, Dark Knight ring a bell?
mvr: so what’s stopping you from starting a similar, indepth discussion on The Incredibles? Do it and it’ll be just as valid as Baradwaj’s views on the film. What I objected to was your sweeping reduction of BR’s views to “Wall-E is just some overrated crap”, which is definitely not what he was saying.
My mistake using the word “review” in my earlier comment - that was hurriedly written, I know this is a “Between Reviews” piece. But that’s part of the point: in a more informal piece like this, it should be possible to talk about tangential things like the masterpiece hype rather than just looking at the film in isolation.
I’m surprised you cite the diamond ring scene as something that separates Brad Bird’s work (great) from Stanton’s (not that great). That scene for me was an encapsulation of everything that’s wonderful about Wall-E; and as a corollary, what’s missing in (some)humans. He might not have love,but the fact is that the ring per se(which is just a material human symbol for love) for him signifies nothing even though love clearly does ,while the blue box is something new and interesting. And it is that quirky curiosity that makes him so lovable, not so much the schmalzy, awww-inducing Eve-Wall E love story.
Oh and I’m a huge fan of your writing BTW!
MVR, The Incredibles used those themes in a way that was far more relatable than most comic book films. The dad worked a mundane job at an insurance company, for example, where his powers were woefully underused.
What happened to Mr Rangan? I am missing his posts. Any idea? Anyone?
I just saw Rafoochakkar because you weren’t there to stop me!
Okay, Mr. Rangan - before I come looking for you…!
Rangan,
Once you are back I look forward yo your review of the prominent releases you missed out - including “The Last Lear”
Where ARE you?
Our comments are getting posted here, so you are obviously reading and approving them.
But something is stopping you from making an appearance.
BR,
Come out.
The mortals are waiting for you.
Ok it’s not funny anymore. Over a fortnight gone and no trace of you! I actually googled yesterday to see if there was any news on a national award winning critic meeting the amighty film maker on top or of an announcement of any renounciation post hari puttar.
Someone check on this guy and ensure he posts. All the late nights at work were atleast bearable on account of som refreshing analysis, now what do I do? Raja Sen?
Arunoday, Rafoo Chakkar was a remake of Some Like it Hot, a fantastic film.
Jeez, one would think the world wouldn’t come to an end if a bloke took a couple of weeks off
Welcome back Bloke!!
But there are a large number of blokes who eagerly type your URL on Monday mornings to read the latest musings on cinema, music etc. Great to see you back!
@RSPrasanna: “Also i was so so so disappointed with one amazingly stupid thing: the ‘human’s in the video are real; the ones now are animated. Doesnt make sense at all.”
It does make sense. Though initially even I wondered why they did that. The humans in the video are real because they are still normal physical specimens- still ‘alive’, while the ones in the future have become bloated and lifeless variants of the same. I thought it was very smart.
Hey,
I just saw Dasavatharam and I am glad that you did not review it. The movie was ‘terrible’ (sic).
****Digression Alert****
Watched A Wednesday today.
I loved the movie, but did not understand the funda of Nasiruddin leaving the bag in the railway station right in the beginning.
What’s the logical explanation for that?
Could someone please clarify?
[I am posting on first page, because I need a response! :)]
@ Chaitanya,
Just a ‘Red Herring’ for the audience, me thinks
“..Jeez, one would think the world wouldn’t come to an end if a bloke took a couple of weeks off ”
Oh!yes, it did. Atleast the american economy did a nosedive, thereby plunging me into neck-deep work, something which I havent done in years. Look what have you brought upon us, BR?
Blah! Drona and Kidnap both sucked.
Is the bloke back yet?