Animators Not Thrilled With Mick Lasalle
Filed under: Animation, Celebrities and Controversy, Family Films, Newsstand
The San Francisco Chronicle's movie critic Mick Lasalle has really raised the ire of the animation community with his review of Monster House, in which he lauds the film's use of motion-capture animation (first used by Monster House producer Robert Zemeckis in Polar Express) as a technological advancement the likes of which the animation world has never seen. The review spawned outrage amid professional animators, who took particular offense to the line " ... There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see."
Industry professionals have apparently not been shy about letting Lasalle know they think he's an idiot, and that he should have better researched his topic before writing about it. Among the throng responding to the review was Pixar story artist Jeff Pidgeon, who sent a politely-worded response to the SF Chron on the subject. Lasalle, who apparently isn't in any hurry to mend fences with the animators of the world, reportedly responded thusly: "Thank you for a thoughtful message. I appreciate it. (Don't agree with it, any of it, but I appreciate being accurately quoted and not being cursed at.)"
I can see both sides of this issue; as a film critic, you are reviewing the overall film and the impression it makes on you. I wouldn't necessarily research, say, the entire history of exorcism in the Catholic Church just to review a film about an exorcism. On the other hand, Lasalle's review of Monster House is less a critique of the film per se than an exploration of the wonders of the capture-motion animation technique used. In fact, Lasalle more or less dismisses the relevance of the movie's storyline, devoting only a paragraph or so of the entire piece to the merits of the film overall, so I can see how the animators are viewing it less as a review of a film than a critique of the history of their profession.
What say you, Cinematical readers? Is the capture-motion animation in Monster House the bee's knees, the next new wave of animation advancement, that will leave the animation of movies past in the dust?
[via Boing Boing]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-02-2006 @ 11:15AM
RP said...
Sounds to me like Lasalle is just one of those people that can't appreciate animation for what it is.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 12:29PM
Bruce said...
I've yet to see the movie so I can't chime in about the merits of motion-capture vs. traditional animation.
But, being an age-old subscriber to the SF Cron, I can state, with no reservations what-so-ever, that Lasalle is in fact an idiot. I use him as a kind of reverse barometer, avoiding films he likes and checking out flicks he trashes. It works uncannily well.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 12:31PM
bgdc said...
Monster house's story, dialogue and direction were great. The animation was...who freaking cares, it's animation. I really could not care less about the quality or lack thereof of the animation. I see movies...actors, robots, drawn peeps, it doesn't matter.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 12:41PM
Dinosaurus said...
Some of the mocap looked good but a lot just looks weird. Real motion doesn't translate all that well to animation. Look at all the rotoscoped cel animations and how off they look.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 12:49PM
Mike Davis said...
As a reader of the Chronicle, I can affirm that yes, LaSalle is an idiot. He has no barometer for good movies-he's all over the place. He said that CLICK was one of the best films of the year.
He purposively writes stuff he know will outrage people to bait them into writing letters to his column where he responds with snarky comments.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 1:48PM
MosquitoControl said...
Funny, many reviewers mocked Polar Express for the same reasons, saying the motion capture was eery and creepy, like hallow, lifeless characters.
The Uncanny Valley, if you will.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 1:48PM
Seighton said...
What's the next step studios will make to trade manual talent with cheaper computer-generated button-pushing? Who wants to see mo-capped robots? You still need artists to make them visually look different.
Seriously, there are a handful of CG animated films recently that look nearly identical. The lack of original character design is embarassing when comparing Monster House, The Ant Bully (C'mon, ANOTHER CG ant movie?), Over the Hedge, Cars, Barnyard, Flushed Away, Ratatouille. Oh boy, more generic, smooth, symmetric characters.
Open Season seems to be pulling away from the generic looking character design by using a classic WB-style. It was the first trailer for a CG movie I actually wanted to see just because the art direction looked different than everything else right now.
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 2:20PM
Finished.Law.School said...
San Francisco Chronicle's movie critic Mick Lasalle sounds like a useless idiot. His parents should be shot for creating such a waste...
Reply
8-02-2006 @ 4:33PM
Alejandro Rodriguez said...
Hello everybody,
I must say that I don’t agree at all with what Mr. Lasalle had to say. I am an animator and I have seen countless instances of great use of closeup in animated features. Its just part of the storytelling, and it has nothing to do with technical advances. I can see why Mr. Lasalle infuriated so many animators. His comments make it seem like a movie can be animated relying on technology alone when this is the farthest from the truth. Even with the new techniques of Motion Capture animators have to go in a clean up all the data gathered by the machines and push it. Mr. Lasalle makes it sounds like animator are a dying breed of some sort, when the truth is they are the ones who make Mo-cap films bearable to watch. Appleseed comes to mind as a great example, the best scenes in the movie where the ones that where hand animated. I can also go on and on about how Pixar has raised the standard of animation in very few years by relying on their talented teams, etc, etc, etc. However, in the end, all I have to say is that I think animated movies should first be reviewed as movies, and then as an achievement in whatever area it managed to push the envelope
Reply