Editorial: Let WALL*E Compete With Live Action Films!

I like Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere as a writer. He is opinionated, passionate, and well-informed about the horrible machinery running beneath the dream factories of Hollywood. His blog, which has, of late, been pre-occupied with politics and the horrors of bare feet, remains one of the most intelligent places for rational thought on film. And then he goes and writes something like this. In response to an article posted by the Vulture guys at New York Magazine, Wells flails vainly on his keyboard trying to convince everyone within his reach that WALL*E does not deserve to be considered in the Oscar race with live action films. Wells' opinion, unfortunately shared by many of those of his generation, is that films like WALL*E - though good or even (gasp!) great - are different from live action and should therefore be considered separately. The debate has been around seemingly forever, but in the last few years Pixar has really upped the ante on this type of movie and have managed to make a solid case for the inclusion of animated films.

The entire debate balances on one important fulcrum: What is considered "film?" To someone like Wells, film involves pointing a camera and real humans and recording live events which, after editing, create the illusion of an alternate reality onscreen. In fact, he says almost exactly that:

There is an enormous high and an unfettered dignity that comes from simply aiming a camera at real people and real locations and making it all sing.

Of course, as GEORGE LUCAS pointed out the week prior to the release of each one of the STAR WARS prequels, film itself is an illusion. He made this argument time and again because his prequels, like a vast majority of today's biggest live action films, contain copious amounts of computer generated trickery. Even though he often bragged about the 2,000 special effects shots in those films, he didn't want his cartoony films being considered animated - to avoid, of course, the prejudices of the Hollywood old guard like Wells. The hypocritical aspect of this entire notion is that the very same old guard that deny animated films their due heap unfettered praise on films like the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy - even bestowing a Best Picture Oscar on RETURN OF THE KING - despite the fact that those and many other so-called "live action" films are largely CGI. No, Jeffrey, Frodo and Sam were not making out on location at Mount Doom ... it was filmed on a soundstage and the rest of it was added in digitally. What makes the achievement appreciably different from anything created in animation? Anyone who has ever watched animators at their workstations knows that a tremendous amount of acting is being done by the animator beyond what is seen on the cel or in the pixels. They are there, posing in mirrors, trying to capture emotions and moods that they can translate into penciled movement. Their performance isn't as instantaneously captured as true live action, but it is performance nonetheless. In his story Wells tries to dance a fine line about the art created by these artisans, insulting their work while simultaneously claiming that "it's not diminishing if (films like WALL*E) take the Best Animated Feature Oscar." However, it is diminishing if lesser films win the Best Feature Oscar while some near-perfect Pixar films are overlooked. For instance, MILLION DOLLAR BABY won Best Picture in 2004, while racing against limp nominees like FINDING NEVERLAND and THE AVIATOR. Meanwhile, the superior THE INCREDIBLES - certainly better than the sappy, prestige-baiting films nominated - festered in the Animated Feature ghetto. This was a repeat of the previous year's injustices, when garbage like SEABISCUIT and MASTER AND COMMANDER vied for the Best Picture Oscar, while the far superior FINDING NEMO went unnoticed. Ultimately, one must ask themselves - is a film "great" because of the techniques used, or rather because it tells a sound and involving story? Do we want to separate and judge films based on their pixel-per-minute count, or because they create believable worlds, sympathetic characters, and imaginative plots? I, for one, would prefer every film to be more like WALL*E and less like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. I would even prefer it to so-called prestige films like the overrated SWEENEY TODD or unstructured, over-the-top misses like THERE WILL BE BLOOD. The sad truth is that, more than all of the other studios currently producing English-speaking films, Pixar grasps the fundamentals of direction, story, character, and shot composition. In other words, the truly important basics of film. Their movies appeal to a broad audience - not just kids - who crave the opportunity to be whisked away by clever plots and amazing visual palettes. In my mind, some of the best examples of story structure, design, character development, and direction have come from Pixar films. It doesn't matter that they're animated, nor should that fact hinder their recognition as some of the finest achievements in FILM. Not animated film ... just film. Give Pixar its due. Perhaps it will cause the rest of Hollywood to step up their lazy, unfocused game.