I adored Fantastic Mr. Fox, which opened this weekend in Los Angeles and New York, and expands nationwide on Thanksgiving. We could discuss how working in a new medium has rejuvenated director Wes Anderson’s creative juices, or how all of the voice performance were delivered in the same slightly ironic, yet still heartfelt tone, or how composer Alexandre Desplat wrote one of the most delectable scores in quite some time (as part of a soundtrack that already makes exemplary use of the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones, and Jarvis Cocker). But really, above all else, it’s the film’s stop-motion animation that deserves the most attention.
For those unfamiliar with stop-motion animation, the painstakingly tedious process involves photographing a small puppet, moving it ever so slightly, and then photographing it again. The animator does this over and over and over, and when all of the photographed images are displayed continuously (as in a flip book), we wind up with the illusion of movement. The technique has been used for everything from animating the title character in the 1933 version of King Kong to designing entire stop-motion movies such as The Nightmare Before Christmas and Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit.
Since stop-motion animation uses actual miniature sets, props, and character dolls, it feels tangibly real. While watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, I wanted to step into its universe to examine Mrs. Fox’s intricate oil paintings and read Mr. Fox’s newspaper column. As impressive as Pixar’s CGI animated films are, I’ve never felt myself drawn into those worlds in the same way. It’s strangely comforting to see the hairs of Mr. Fox’s face bristle as he moves, as if we were deliberately being reminded that human hands were involved in manipulating these one-foot-tall characters. This also explains why, for instance, I’ll always consider the puppet Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back as inherently more “real” than the acrobatic CGI-ized Yoda from Attack of the Clones. Digital effects can show the audience anything a filmmaker can imagine, but we still have to believe in it, and that’s where a process as archaic as stop-motion animation manages to have an edge.
PopWatchers, were you as impressed with Fantastic Mr. Fox‘s animation style as I was? Or would you have enjoyed a CGI Mr. Fox just as much?
Really? Is there anyone out there who has never heard of stop-motion before? In this age of CGI-everything it’s great to see that some filmmakers still take the painstaking time and effort to create something this unique. I can’t wait until this expands out my way!
Don’t get me wrong — I love the movie and stop-motion in general, but please remember that CGI animation is equally painstaking and time-consuming!
get real,locate some markers and run the program. elementary school,watson..
As a child, I used to love watching shows like “Gumby” and “Davey and Goliath” which used stop-action animation in a way that Tim Burton and Nick Park would later utilize. It made you believe that this universe was real and you could be a part of it. It’s great to see that even in the age of CGIs or computer graphic imaging, people are still fascinated by stop-action.
I just caught a “Making of” on HBO. This is stop action like I don’t think anyone has seen before. The detail is unreal. I grew up with Gumby and the stop action Christmas shows, and this makes them look like a 3 year old with Playdough did that work.
I had similar thoughts about the merrits of pre-CGI specatcle special FX while watching 2012. Sure, a massive tsunami lifts an aircraft carrier into the white house, but remember when the same director destroyed that same iconic building in Independence Day? That was simply a model they blew up from a suspended angle and slowed it down, and it was much more impactful and interesting to watch.
I totally agree. I thought they did a great job with Independence Day and the models actually looked realistic. With the CGI I feel like I’m watching cartoons.
I love the comment about the puppet yoda being more real than the cgi yoda. I couldn’t agree more! Sure it wasn’t as articulate or nimble, but it still had more life than the cgi yoda (or anything at all) in the new star wars movies.
I agree as well! I love the puppets and people in costumes so much more than CGI.
People have been playing puppet master, and stop motion animation for decades and decades. CGI has ONLY begun to be realized within the last ten years. Give the technology and the people doing them some time to mature.
CGI, just like a puppet or stop animation, is only as good as the person pulling the strings. Once you get a master doing CGI, the limits are virtually endless.
more like 20 years. remember the 90s?
Actually, solid 3D CGI started being used in movies by 1981, with its roots spanning back another decade. But it keeps improving with each year of experience.
Totally agree with the Yoda comment, I hated the new version. He just didn’t “feel” real. Empire Strikes Back Yoda wins hands down.
Excellent review. Mr. Fox, I believe, does look more real than even Pixar’s films. I love stop motion, ever since I argued with my sister and dad when I was 5 or 7 that Gumby couldn’t possibly be animation
.
Pixar’s films are all stylized CG. They aren’t supposed to exactly imitate real life with details and such. They’re rendered with a “cartoon” feel to them.
If you want to see what “real” CG can look like, take a look at Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. The entire character was CG. Many industry experts viewing the movie for the first time thought it was an animatronic head piece worn by the actor. When in fact, the actor was digitally erased from the scene and completely replaced with his CG character. It’s THAT good.
Or Gollum, who you forget during about 2 hours of screen time is entirely CGI. When done with realism as the focus (Pixar uses a cartoonish art style most of the time), CGI is almost indistinguishable from live action now. The biggest key to CGI is the movement, something that animators still can’t get 100% correct alone and use motion capture to get the subtle nuances down.
I can’t wait for the animatronics in the Hobbit.
Since your singling out the animation for praise, you should credit Mark Gustafson, the inspired and long-suffering animation director.
Not sure about being “long suffering” but Mark Gustafson is absolutely one of the most creative Directors in stop motion animation. Hopefully this will finally get him the recognition he’s deserved for way too long.
Oh my god, i haven’t even seen it yet and i can’t wait to see it…wes anderson, bill murray, jason schwartzman, wow it will be a pleasure. I’ll buy it before i see it like all of wes’s stuff!
Old stop-motion that still looks good today…Ray Harryhausen, “Jason and the Argonauts.” Can’t wait to see “Mr. Fox,” with its 100% Top Critics rating on rottentomatoes.com.
Using old style stop motion is a gimmick, and Mr. Young got sucked in. Go gush about Avatar too, please. “How groundbreaking!” “How retro!” How crappy.
The story is horrible, and has 0 to do with a wonderful kids’ book.
Exactly
Apparently someone doesn’t understand the painstaking process it takes to actually do stop-motion animation. As someone who’s done it first hand and is getting a BFA in animation, I’d say that stop-motion is making a comeback. It’s so much better than that 3-D crap that Dreamworks is putting out these days.
Just because something is a “painstaking process” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily superior, or not a gimmick. And just because it seems more “real” than CGI doesn’t make the film superior, if that film completely demolishes its source.
If it’s so good, why did it go out of favor??? Apparently, because it’s slow, tedious, laborious, and there’s no such thing as motion blur in stop-motion animation!
The only reason why some CGI looks less real, is because of budget considerations. If every 3D artist had his way, every movie would take ten years to post produce. That’s ten years of running a render farm 24/7 365 days a year.
Give CGI software, artists and hardware (computer processors) time to mature, and you’ll be seeing stuff so life-like and unimaginable your jaw will hit the floor.
But it doesn’t ruin the source. In fact, it just expands it and makes it better. If they had kept to the source it would have been a ten minute movie. But what Wes Anderson has done in fact is greatly expand that world and make it into something that has a lot of life, energy and tangible feelings that isn’t associated with sometimes very cold feeling computer animated films.
It avery nice movie just reading it I see it to be avery intersting story.
I don’t know if it means anything, but when I first saw the trailer I thought it was 3d animated. I thought it looked good and the “stop-motion” style was cool. Now I find that it’s actually stop motion?! Job well done! You had me fooled.
This movie was outstanding! The dialogue is sharp and clever. The stop motion is superb. We are definitely buying this movie!!