Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)

[Svevan]

Antoine, it won't look bizarrely weird, just slightly blurry and rather out of focus.

Gonna disagree a bit here, as it depends on the moment in the film. I spent quite a bit of my time in this film and in My Bloody Valentine 3-D switching between glasses and no-glasses, just to see how the effects worked. Its the exact same 3-D effect that's been around forever, with two overlapping images that our eyes put together with the aid of the glasses. Whenever there's a large amount of depth, like when Coraline goes through the tunnel, the screen will be unwatchable. However, there are stretches of the film where there is very little depth (like when Coraline walks around her house), and these scenes viewed without glasses look pretty normal. These are rare enough, though, that I wouldn't advise even trying to watch the flick sans glasses. Either get smaller eyeglasses or wear contacts - if you're really having trouble, walk out and get a refund and wait for DVD or a non-3D screening. This movie isn't worth that much effort.

[milk114]

i wore the 3D glasses over my (non-3D?) glasses. And I have a big head. So they should work for you.

[karmajuice]

Shows what I know.

Random note about the performance of Spink and Forcible. They're reciting the "What a piece of work is a man!" monologue from Hamlet, and speak all the lines celebrating the wonder of humanity, but stop short of "And yet, to me, / what is this quintessence of dust?"
Of course, that segment of the monologue plays nicely into the wonders of the Other Mother, and their stopping short seems very deliberate -- making sure not to spoil the illusion. It lends a very creepy edge to the scene while being completely unobtrusive.

I noticed this immediately, so it's probably pretty obvious, but I figured it couldn't hurt to point it out. It may not have been obvious to those who had not read the book.

[Jeff]

This was utterly charming, and beautiful to look at. I decided to check out the standard version, and avoid what I generally think of as the gimmicky 3-D. I think I'll go back for round two in 3-D though, just to check out the effects.

What a year for animation this could turn out to be. It could actually be a very competitive race for all of the animation awards this time next year.

The Major Players
Coraline (new stop-motion classic from Henry Selick)
Up (new Pixar film from Monsters Inc. director Pete Docter)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (stop motion+Roald Dahl+Wes Anderson+Noah Baumbach+Alexandre Desplat+Awesome Cast)
The Princess and the Frog (Disney returns to hand-drawn animation under the guidance of John Lasseter)
Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea (Miyazaki's very well-received new film)
9 (Shane Acker's long-awaited expansion of his Academy Award nominated short)
A Christmas Carol (Robert Zemeckis' newest creepy, dead-eye, motion capture)

Also rans: Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Astroboy, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Monsters vs. Aliens

[Barmy]

I liked this but it really does have kind of a whatever/shit happens quality. Once buttongate happens all of a sudden OtherMother is a monster, and then all the running around in the last 20 minutes was wearying.

I thought this was CGI stop motion. It's pretty impressive for real stop motion.

It seems to be doing well, like most 3Ds, even though there hasn't been a 3D masterpiece. This does not NEED to be seen in 3D, unlike My Blo3dy Valentine. I find it odd that Hollywood thinks 3D will save theatrical because once it becomes much more commonplace I think people will grow tired of it. They certainly haven't developed a system that isn't eyestraining, yet.

[LQ]

buttongate

If you are not a certain snide well-known film reviewer, you missed your calling. Your ability to produce hilarious catchphrases and dismissive bon mots is pretty amazing, barm.

[jojo]

Since I obviously have no patience for "child logic" when my head hurts, points that were just matter-of-factly thrown out and not really developed (why did the Grandmother have the Coraline doll?...and who was the Other Mother anyway? How did she come to be? How were the parents kidnapped?) tended to irk me a little. (I should add that I'm generally not the biggest fantasy fan).

I think the movie wants us to think that most of this isn't *actually* happening, but rather a bored kid's imagination running wild. The way her parents came back in the end leads me to believe that it's all in her head. And most of that theory works until you get to the spidery hand sequence at the end.

I think the reactions in here are in response to the fact that ultimately, there's a fairly generic suburban quality to Coraline and her family. They may live somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but all of her and her family's problems are pretty ho-hum stuff. So there's really never much at stake for Coraline. Kinda like those generic rom-coms where we're asked to give a shit about some good looking, high-paid exec's romantic problems.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I think the movie wants us to think that most of this isn't *actually* happening, but rather a bored kid's imagination running wild. The way her parents came back in the end leads me to believe that it's all in her head. And most of that theory works until you get to the spidery hand sequence at the end.

Could you expand on this a little more? I find it a little hard to believe least of all because that would be a major departure from the novel. I see where you're coming because I like your theory, but what makes you think it's all in her imagination is a little unclear to me.

[jojo]

I can only work with what the film has given me, and the only other reference I have is the comic book, which I've only read once (very quickly) off the shelf while killing time in a book store.

The first thing that pops up in my mind is that this "other" world only expands as far as Coraline's familiarity with the area immediately around the Pink Palace. Any farther than that and it goes blank--possibly because she doesn't know any more when she tries to move out of her area of familiarity? The other thing is that there aren't any Bizarro characters in the "other" world that she hasn't seen, heard or know of in the "real world". They are all, at first, idealized versions of the people she knows. The fat women rip off their aged selves to reveal the "fit" and "glamorous" selves they were in their youth, just as Coraline saw them in the pictures around their house. The boy annoys her, so in Bizarro world he doesn't talk. Her parents are what she wants them to be--her mother loving and doting, and her father lively and witty. The cat is creepy and aloof, but in Bizarro world he's a fountain of wisdom and a guiding hand.

The other part of me that wonders if this is all in her head is the inconsistencies. As someone said, how is it that the Bizarro Mother "kidnapped" her parents? Doesn't her sphere of influence only extend as far as the magic door? And what possible magical reason is there for her parents not to REMEMBER being kidnapped? Why is it that Coraline can only go into this world during sleeping hours? For that matter, why is it that she always exits Bizarro world through waking up in the real world? If you consider the fact that a: her parents never were "really" kidnapped and that aspect of the film merely reflected Coraline's anxiety over her parents taking so long getting home and b: she fantasizes her ideal life only at night when sleeping, it sort of makes sense this is really all her doing. And most importantly, why is it that there isn't a Bizarro Coraline to contend with (the doll doesn't count)? It kind of implies Coraline's self-absorbed nature that she only makes room for ONE Coraline in her fantasy and everyone in the Bizarro world is geared towards getting/pleasing her in some way.

And when you think about it from a child's perspective--doesn't every kid at times wish that his or her family and friends were "that" much better, even if they are already not so bad? (as it is with Coraline's life) But as kids, we also learn to wrestle those ideals down and accept and love our family for who they really are--and so Coraline's struggle to "destroy" her ideal of course involves the whole claptrap with the quest and "evilizing" her ideal family and whatnot. Oh, and as for WHY is it that Bizarro Mother seems to be the evil head honcho of that world, well, isn't it true that Coraline's mom is the dominant figure in her life? It sure isn't the father who's wearing the pants of the family!

But as I said, this whole theory of mine sort of crumbles a bit into overread BS with the spidery hand sequence where Whyborn discovers that Coraline's fantasy is "real" after all. Whatever.

[karmajuice]

You must also remember those other elements of magic that pervade the real world.

First off, she initially enters the world through what seem to be dreams, but later she goes during the middle of the day, and when she finally must escape, she can't just go to sleep. The world is arguably becoming more real.

We also have Bobinski give Coraline a warning -- from his talking mice. In the real world.

With Spink and Forcible, they read her tea leaves and see (at least one of them sees) danger (in the form of a hand, when we're shown, over-the-shoulder). Later they also give her the rock with the hole through it, which is vital to Coraline succeeding at her game with the Other Mother.

So these suggest, to me at least, a world where reality and the more supernatural events are intertwined. I forget how thoroughly this is true in Gaiman's book (I think it goes further than the movie in blurring the two). I think the movie is maybe honor-bound to such fantasy works as Alice in Wonderland and The Chronicles of Narnia, where the reality of the adventure is questioned, but it also pushes those bounds very near to breaking.

[jojo]

Yeah, I agree about how she later enters and leaves Other World. The rules really aren't "fixed" at all, but fantasy and reality are still kept apart for most of the film because up until Wybie actually SEES the hand, nobody else in the "real" world ever really participates in her adventures, except for the cat, who can't talk in the real world anyway. Bobinski and the Twins don't do much more than give her cryptic statements that you could either interpret as being helpful hints to her plight, or just plain daffy nonsense that Coraline uses to help craft her fantasy.

Like the whole thing with Spink and Forcible, you could certainly argue that their tea-leaves reading of the hand merely imprinted the idea in Coraline's mind, thus enabling her to create that image for the climax (or rather, post climax?) part of the film. For all we know, those woman are just spouting daffy nonsense. The rock can be perceived as either a magical gift or Coraline turning an ordinary rock into yet another tool for her fantasy. Like I said, I don't think there is any element in the Other World that she doesn't know of in some way in the "real" world. The whole "Wybie's Grandmother's missing twin sister" subplot doesn't even come into play until Coraline actually HEARS of it first in the REAL world. The two other children that are used to extend the "eye quest" are treated like macguffins.

Anyway, whether it's all "real" or not, I definitely think Gaiman at least had the psychological subtext in mind when writing the book.

I do think Coraline references and owes much of its structure to the Nutcracker and the Mouse King, though.

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this tonight and thought it was a very nice looking disappointment. There is no doubt that Henry Selick can create gorgeous worlds, but I can't remember the last kid/tween movie I sat through that was this inert. The voice acting was drab, the narrative meandered and as LQ pointed out left way too mention questions unanswered and even the soundtrack was uneven (what was up with weird vocal stuff at the beginning? Why did they abandon it for far more standard stuff in the middle?). As Barmy mentions, this thing is easily twenty minutes too long -- the conclusion really drags and the characters that have been forgotten conveniently show up at the right times to help out. There is nothing wrong with a formula, if done well they can be great, but here it's almost like a paint-by-numbers kid-learns-to-appreciate-what-they-have story. Unfortunately, most of the jokes fall flat, Coraline herself is terribly uninteresting, the magical parts aren't fantastical enough and the scary parts aren't frightening enough.

As for the 3D, I really didn't see the need for it. Aside from maybe a few cool moments, it really added nothing. As a viewing experience, like LQ, my gf and I both had headaches once we left the cinema. I'm dismayed that this is becoming a trend, and disappointed that I'm going to have to wait until DVD to see Pixar's Up. Also, paying an extra $2 on top of an already high ticket price for a fairly marginal visual "improvement" doesn't thrill me either.

[Jeff]

I'm dismayed that this is becoming a trend, and disappointed that I'm going to have to wait until DVD to see Pixar's Up.

Surely Up will be released in 2-D prints as well. Not every theater is interested in buying the necessary equipment for this process. Here in Denver, there are still 10 theaters showing Coraline in 3-D, and 12 theaters showing it in 2-D.

I definitely view the process as a novelty, and would only entertain it as such -- for a second viewing of a good film. There was an article in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News about the proliferation of the trend.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm dismayed that this is becoming a trend, and disappointed that I'm going to have to wait until DVD to see Pixar's Up.

Surely Up will be released in 2-D prints as well. Not every theater is interested in buying the necessary equipment for this process. Here in Denver, there are still 10 theaters showing Coraline in 3-D, and 12 theaters showing it in 2-D.

In downtown Montreal where I live Coraline was only on one screen in 3D. I just had a quick glance to see where else it was playing, and the rest of the screens are all in the suburbs at six other theaters, all showings in 3D with the exception of single screen that I believe would've been the French version. I may have a shot at a 2D screening if Up opens on multiple screens downtown (which is good chance considering most Pixar films do), but here at least, most megaplexes seem to have invested in the technology and the audiences seem to love it (there was scattered applause after Coraline last night).

[Cde.]

There was an article in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News about the proliferation of the trend.

Oh God, I can't believe that Hollywood is really serious about this.

"Yeah, you can do less shots and movements than before, and every composition has to be made with the 3D process in mind."

"Every film could benefit from this process, and practically everything will be made in 3D ten years from now."

*not actual quotes

[Barmy]

Jeff Katzenberg claims EVERY film will be 3D within 5-7 years. Can't wait for Claire Denis and Abbas Kiarostami in 3D. Maybe Abbas can do a film where people throw olives at the audience for 90 minutes.

[Antoine Doinel]

"Can we just convert all of the old movies?" Mainard asks. "You could, but one thing to keep in mind is that the movies of the past were not authored in a way to work with 3-D."

Also, I can't wait for Lucas to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release the Star Wars films in 3D

[Antoine Doinel]

Bordwell hearts depth cues in Coraline.

[Cde.]

Jeff Katzenberg claims EVERY film will be 3D within 5-7 years. Can't wait for Claire Denis and Abbas Kiarostami in 3D. Maybe Abbas can do a film where people throw olives at the audience for 90 minutes.

"Nobody watches those movies anyway. They shoot 2D and don't get into cinemas, what gives?"

[lady wakasa]

You must also remember those other elements of magic that pervade the real world.

First off, she initially enters the world through what seem to be dreams, but later she goes during the middle of the day, and when she finally must escape, she can't just go to sleep. The world is arguably becoming more real.

We also have Bobinski give Coraline a warning -- from his talking mice. In the real world.

With Spink and Forcible, they read her tea leaves and see (at least one of them sees) danger (in the form of a hand, when we're shown, over-the-shoulder). Later they also give her the rock with the hole through it, which is vital to Coraline succeeding at her game with the Other Mother.

So these suggest, to me at least, a world where reality and the more supernatural events are intertwined. I forget how thoroughly this is true in Gaiman's book (I think it goes further than the movie in blurring the two). I think the movie is maybe honor-bound to such fantasy works as Alice in Wonderland and The Chronicles of Narnia, where the reality of the adventure is questioned, but it also pushes those bounds very near to breaking.

I'd also point out that the real-world poison oak is cured by the Other Mother during the first visit to button world- and she sees the evidence of that the next morning, which is a pretty fast cure for poison oak. So the blending of the two worlds starts early and in minor ways, and increases over time.

I have to get a copy of the book. I've read sadly little Gaiman, and I have to fix that.

[Antoine Doinel]

The DVD and BluRay will contain both the 2D and 3D versions of the film, and come with four pairs of 3D glasses.