Discussion in 'DPF Game Room' started by MerlinEmrys, Dec 15, 2017.
I got my pop corn ready. Lay it on us..... Lol
I love this thread, where else can I learn while reading stuff that's interesting! Diegetic vs non-diegetic? I would've thought that meant something to do with medication for heartburn or something. lol
1.) Overall Impression
My very first reaction upon this re-watch was before the film had even started, lol. I couldn't help but chuckle at the Touchstone logo, thinking about the fact that, as with The Nightmare Before Christmas, Disney was too chicken to release such a dark and unconventional film under their own banner and risk sullying their wholesome image, so instead distributed it under their Touchstone label. Yet of course, once both films turned out to score Oscar nominations (and in WFRR's case, multiple wins), were lauded as benchmarks in cinematic visual achievement, and generated huge fanbases, Disney was all too happy to reclaim them in the Mouse's name and take all the glory - and profit. Both properties have turned into huge cash cows, pumping out endless merchandise, clothing, home video re-releases, theme park rides, and about 1,000 pins each of Jessica Rabbit and Jack Skellington alone.
Anyway, as for the film itself, it's another one of my favorites, not just in terms of Disney but movies in general. I'm a huge fan of Old Hollywood and classic film noirs, so homages to that era always strike my fancy. While there are tons of in-jokes for Golden Age movie buffs, the film never feels like a parody of the era; it always manages to feel like a convincingly authentic period piece. I never felt taken out of the movie, even with the jokes. That's because they mostly play it straight in terms of realism, simply swapping the toons in as the movie stars - just in clever and funny ways. Like the actual actors of the time, toons are apparently contract players who only work for a specific studio, unless the studios negotiate exceptions (Dumbo is "on loan" from Disney, lol.) My favorite in-joke, though, would probably have to be when the bar patron (forget his name) appears ready to rat out "the rabbit's" location (a super effectively suspenseful scene, btw!), only to hold out his arm around the empty stool beside him and quip, "Say hello, Harvey!" ("Harvey" being a James Stewart film about an invisible rabbit. Technically this is an error, since WFRR explicitly takes place in 1947 and Harvey didn't come out until 1950, but I give it a pass. )
The film gets a lot of (obviously well-deserved) praise for its technical achievements in blending live-action with animation, but I think it deserves more credit for many other facets, including the writing and thematic substance. While the film pays loving tribute to the grand qualities of the era, it also doesn't shy away from the more shameful aspects of Old Hollywood, exploring themes of discrimination, which plagued the industry for a very long time (obviously still an issue today, but MUCH more extreme back in the day.) In general, the film's human characters exhibit prejudice toward toons - hell, they're even segregated - yet also find them entertaining, and exploit their talents for their own profit. This is very much not unlike the treatment of people of color (especially African Americans) in the pre-civil rights era entertainment industry. The most direct analogy is the Ink & Paint Club, a "strictly humans-only toon revue," meaning that while toons are the performers, they're forbidden from actually attending the shows as patrons. In real life, this used to be disturbingly commonplace - white audiences were all too eager to watch black performers sing and dance for their amusement, but only if they stayed in their place, up on the stage. Fortunately, this practice eventually died out, due to the activism of brave black performers like Josephine Baker, the world-renowned dancer who refused to perform at segregated or "whites only" clubs, many of which capitulated to her demands due to her immense popularity.
I would never actually compare the toons to African Americans/PoC, as that would be an offensive overstatement. Nor do the filmmakers themselves seem to be going for a perfect metaphor. Still, I think they offer a respectful and highly interesting social commentary in this regard, and deserve credit for even deigning to go there in a kids movie (can you even call this a kids movie? How is it not PG-13? Lol oh yeah, this was before Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom came out and created the PG-13 rating.)
2A.) Character Analysis: Eddie Valiant
I'm not going to do an in-depth analysis of this character (you know who I'm saving that for.... xD ), but I do think the film does a great job of setting up his character in that all-important "show, don't tell" method of visual storytelling we've discussed before.
Obviously, a key component of Eddie as a character is his alcoholism, prompted by the death of his brother, which has hampered his career and ability to maintain relationships. Every lead character obviously needs a flaw to either overcome or succumb to (the end result of an effective character arc doesn't necessarily have to be happy, it just has to feel complete and result in catharsis for the audience.) His alcoholism is perhaps his predominant flaw, along with his prejudice against toons and his general inability to experience joy/humor (wisely, all three flaws are directly linked to his grief over his brother.) I'll mostly be focusing on the clever ways these issues are initially communicated to the audience rather than how they're resolved; resolutions have more to do with plot, and as usual, I'm more interested in the filmmaking.
The very first image of Eddie is a profile shot of him taking a swig of liquor when first arriving at Maroon Studios - but of course, this is a common habit of hard-boiled noir detectives, and doesn't necessarily indicate addiction. (Speaking of hard-boiled detectives, did anyone else notice Eddie literally shoving a hard boiled egg into the mouth of the guy taunting him at the bar? xD)
The true indication of Eddie's alcoholism is actually exhibited when he sits down in Maroon's office and spots the mini-bar behind his desk. We get a shot of Eddie's yearning, almost desperate face, followed by a POV shot of the liquor, and the connection is both obvious and completely wordless.
We're also introduced to Eddie's money struggles when he attempts to pay the trolley fare with the freshly written check he received from Maroon just moments earlier. The trolley driver says, "What do I look like, a bank?" and shuts the doors on him, forcing Eddie to hop on the bumper along with some chain-smoking pre-teens. Sure, there's that one line of dialogue, but no exposition whatsoever. It's all inferred - Eddie obviously has no cash to his name if that check is the only compensation he can offer.
We also get an awesome introductory shot to Eddie's "girl Friday," Dolores, which quickly establishes their relationship. In the first bar scene, before he can place lips to liquor, a slender hand is placed over the glass. Eddie looks up, and the camera pans across the outstretched arm and up to Dolores' knowing face. Before their conversation even begins, this shot communicates that they have a familiar relationship, that Dolores disapproves of his drinking, and through her superb acting, suggests a general weariness on her part through facial expression alone. The shot of her hand on the glass alone can be interpreted on a symbolic level as well; she has his best interests at heart, yet there's also a block between them.
Another great shot re: his alcoholism is when he discovers Acme's will in the newspaper photograph. He throws his head back to take a drink, then places the empty glass on top of the paper. He leans down to pull off the straps of his suspenders, and through the magnification provided by the glass, he spots the will peeking out of Acme's pocket. It is only through an empty glass that he's able to find clarity.
(TO BE CONTINUED...)
(continued from above)
2B.) Character Analysis: Jessica Rabbit
THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS, HERE COMES MY DEFENSE OF MY GIRL JESS. BUCKLE THE F UP, CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE A LONG ONE!
Jessica is too often written off as an offensive, misogynistic sex object not worthy of any serious critical analysis. Which is really a shame, because I think she’s one of the most interesting and underrated characters in the Disney canon. In fact, she actually takes one of the most misogynistic tropes in cinema history and completely *subverts* it, challenging the audience’s own views and expectations of women along the way.
You see, Jessica is a subversion of the classic “femme fatale” trope, a stock character in the aforementioned film noir genre which WFRR pays homage to. In noir, there are basically only two types of women, and they are diametrically opposed to each other: the “good” woman, usually the chaste girlfriend/ex-girlfriend of the male lead, who is constantly put-upon by him (this often includes vague, insincere promises of marriage or commitment that never materialize.) Despite this, she always stays in her place as the submissive and sympathetic sweetheart. Then there’s the “bad” woman, aka the “femme fatale” (French for “deadly woman”), the opposite of a “good” woman in every way. She is utterly unapologetic in her brazen sexuality and self-interest, defying social norms at every turn. She’s a seductress who ensnares men into her web of sin, usually embroiling them in plots involving crime and murder. (The most common scheme is probably the married femme fatale who convinces a lover to help murder her husband, then cruelly leaves the lover out to hang for the deed.)
The archetype of the dangerous female temptress dates back pretty far (see: Eve and her apple, or the beautiful sirens luring sailors to their deaths), but we’ll stick to its cinematic origins in early 20th century Hollywood. While men dominated the workforce, government, and their households in general, there was still one arena in which they doubted their power: the bedroom. Heterosexual men in general have pretty much always had a fear of female sexuality. We won’t dive too far down that psychoanalytical rabbit hole, (and dudes, please don't "not all men" me; I know this doesn't apply to your entire sex, and I promise you don't have to convince me you're a good guy. But it does apply to a large portion of men, especially historically speaking, and it's just easier to use broad terms in academic writing.) Anyway, when some men feel desire for a woman, they view it as a loss of control, and most horrible of all, a loss of control to a woman. A way to make this feel less emasculating was to basically lean into it: vilify the women who stirred this desire, paint the men as their victims, and exaggerate their sexual control to evil, almost supernatural levels. In fact, the term “vamp” (as in a sexy woman), which was specifically coined to describe noir’s femme fatales, comes from the word “vampire.” (Unfortunately, this general mindset remains pervasive nowadays; we essentially hear it anytime someone questions what a sexual assault victim was wearing, implying that men are powerless to control their lust.)
So you see, the men in these films who get caught up in adultery, theft, blackmail, and murder aren’t really to blame; it’s the hypnotic women casting their wicked spells on them, leading them down the path of doom.
From her very first off-screen introduction - when studio head RK Maroon hands Eddie the scandalous tabloid and insists that Roger’s wife "is poison, but he thinks she’s Betty Crocker” - the film WANTS us to think of Jessica as a femme fatale. They mislead us into believing that she’s cheating on her dupe of a husband (why would a bombshell like her even be with him in the first place if not to take advantage of him, right??), that she’s in cahoots with the murderer (if not the murderer herself), and that she makes a habit of manipulating men with her ample charms. This is suggested most blatantly when she attempts to hire Eddie to find Roger. As usual, her demeanor is quite sultry, and Eddie (and by extension, the audience), suspects that she may be attempting to win his favor through seduction. To make matters worse for Jessica, this is exactly when Dolores walks in.
There is definitely a “good woman" vs "bad woman” dynamic going on between these two. I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Dolores as the snubbed, submissive girlfriend I described above - she may stick her neck out for Eddie even when he doesn’t deserve it, but she doesn’t let him walk all over her either, and calls him out on his sh*t. Still, audience sympathy is clearly directed toward Dolores from that very first bar scene, when we learn how she’s risked her job to support Eddie despite his neglect. So when Jessica is suggested as a possible rival to the film’s “good” woman, that femme fatale label is cemented even further. (Note, too, how Eddie has clearly indicated attraction to Jessica in every interaction thus far, from his body language to explicit dialogue about how “hard” it is to look at her. Yet when defending himself to Dolores, he insists that “a painted hussy like that” could never turn his head. There may be truth to the fact that Eddie would never cheat on Dolores, but it’s nonetheless a quick bit of nasty dialogue that speaks volumes about the aforementioned love/hate paradox some men feel toward the women who arouse them.)
As it turns out, Jessica’s sensual, hedonistic exterior is literally a facade, painted on by lecherous animators; in actuality, she’s a loyal and devoted wife who begrudgingly posed for those suggestive photos with Acme in order to save Roger’s career, which Maroon had threatened to end. Her desperate, “I need you so badly” speech in Eddie’s office wasn’t seduction - she really was sincerely desperate for help in finding her beloved Roger, and spent the entire film trying to protect him.
To expand more on this disparity between her appearance and true nature: while the precise procedure of creating a toon is never explained, it can be inferred that this act is not random, but rather by design. It’s made obvious that toons have free will, but when it comes to their demeanor and role in the entertainment industry (this is, after all, the reason for each toon’s existence), these characteristics seem to be predestined by the animator, who shapes the toon to fulfill a specific purpose. For example, Doom demonstrates that “no toon can resist” the old shave and a haircut bit, but this seems to apply only to a certain type of toon - a goofy, comedic one like Roger. Clearly Doom (a toon himself) and the weasels aren’t tempted to perform the shtick, but they’re “villain” toons. And can you even imagine Jessica doing it? Um, no.
When she says, “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way,” she really means it. She was designed for the express purpose of exciting men. Her husky, come-hither way of speaking, her hip-swishing way of walking - she likely has no more control over those aspects of her demeanor than she does her revealing outfit and outrageous (and probably quite uncomfortable) body proportions. Just as Roger was made to make people laugh, Jessica was made to make men drool. But while Roger loves and takes pride in his work, Jessica doesn’t seem to care much for her role as a sex object. She didn’t choose her appearance, and she knows people judge her for it. (“You’ve got me all wrong. You don’t know how hard it is being a woman looking the way I do.”) Also keep in mind that while she may have hoards of admirers, she’s still performing at a “humans only” club that she’s not legally allowed to patronize. That’s gotta be pretty demeaning.
So when people complain about the way she looks as if it’s a character flaw that prevents them from liking her, it always comes across as a bit victim-blamey to me. Of course she looks ridiculous - she’s a ridiculous male fantasy, like the blow-up dolls you see on comic book covers or video game screens. The whole point is that, again, she didn’t choose her appearance, and her appearance does not reflect who she truly is inside. Despite being designed FOR men, she defies this by snubbing her many suitors and marrying, of all people, a goofy, ridiculous rabbit. Why? Because he makes her laugh. Not unlike many a Disney princess, she chooses her own happiness and, against male expectations/pressures, marries for love. So why don’t we offer Jessica the same feminist kudos we give to the likes of Belle or Jasmine? Is it simply the way she looks, or her sexuality? How un-feminist is that???
This all might imply that I’m arguing Jessica was in fact a “good” woman all along, but I think the film is much more nuanced (and progressive) than that. Women obviously should not be divvied up into categories of “good” and “bad,” especially not by a metric determined by men (as in the case of noir’s classification system.) Human beings are complicated creatures that can’t be described with just one label. Jessica can be a loyal wife AND a sexual woman. Rather than reinforcing the dichotomy, Jessica reconciles the supposed “good” and “bad” into one complex, fully-fleshed out character.
So maybe her “femme fatale” association isn’t so bad after all. If there’s one positive thing we can say about them, it’s that despite their misogynistic origins, they still offered us badass, outspoken, sexually independent female characters at a time when women were very much still oppressed in terms of sexual agency and societal expectations. I mean, I still love film noir, and a big part of that is because of the femme fatales! Many modern women, as well as a sizable portion of the queer community (see: Bette Davis), have re-interpreted these characters through a fresh, more feminist lens, and have pretty much reclaimed them for ourselves - while their sassiness and sexuality might have been demonized at the time of their creation, we celebrate it today. Hopefully people will come around to Jessica eventually, too!
Also, can we please acknowledge and appreciate the fact that Jessica walks around with a freaking BEAR TRAP in her cleavage in case some perv tries to feel her up?!?!? That alone should make you like her.
(continued from above)
3.) Scene Analysis: Jessica's Performance
If you thought Jessica was just a good-for-nothing tramp all along, I hope my above essay didn't make you feel like some horrible misogynist - again, that’s exactly what the film wanted you to think, and they worked very hard to mislead the audience. However, I do think the film provides an interesting opportunity for introspection when it comes to our own prejudices and expectations regarding women (including us women, as we can often be our harshest critics.) A prime opportunity is her first on-screen introduction, when she takes the stage at the Ink & Paint Club.
I've always liked Jessica, even as a kid - obviously, I didn't appreciate her layers until I was much older - but I think she's one of those childhood characters that first gave me an inking that I was bi (other queer members will get this, lol. We all have one!! xD) So my initial impressions of her were probably much different than most. I didn't find her offensive or off-putting or anything like that. Therefore, instead of a traditional scene analysis, I'd like to instead pose some questions and perhaps provoke some self-reflection and discussion (and in the process, you'll probably get an idea of my interpretation of the scene anyway.)
Thinking back through your memories of experiencing this film, when Jessica first stepped onto the stage, what was your immediate reaction? Did you judge her for her provocative outfit, and perhaps even ascribe it as her own choice to flaunt her figure, forgetting that her clothing was as engineered as Roger’s silly suspenders? Did you resent her for the power she seemed to wield over the male spectators? (Pushing them away, shoving Eddie’s hat in his face, etc.) Did you assume she was relishing in this power? Did this dynamic seem cruel or even “unfair” to the men? Did words like “tease” or “slut” cross your mind? (Be honest. I won't judge.)
Now, perhaps re-consider the scene while keeping in mind the perspectives I’ve offered. Remembering her mannerisms and movements even off the stage, how much of her routine is deliberately performative, and how much is simply because “she’s drawn that way?” How much agency does she hold over her own act, and how much of it is her pre-programmed role as a toon? Is pushing away the men in fact her only tangible way of exercising her own agency? Is it actually a defiant act of free will? Does it seem more acceptable, or even “proper,” after learning her true love and fidelity to her husband?
(And btw, what was that dude even doing? Trying to look up her skirt? Kick away, if you ask me.)
10.) Best Pin
I can't narrow it down to just one! >.< If I absolutely HAD to, I'd probably choose 59786, because it captures the whole Old Hollywood vibe I love so much about the film. It's also just bright and fun. I'm not usually a fan of free-D elements or whatever they're called, but I think it works on Benny here, because of the soft/rubbery way he's animated. Anyway, this is definitely one of my biggest wants for my Hollywood/movie-themed Jessica collection!
Also on the most-wanted list is 52586, another pin celebrating the film's homage to Hollywood and the movies. The clapboard is one of the most iconic images of filmmaking, and is a really creative design for a pin.
Finally, I can't not mention 85663. It's amazing, the end.
When it came to the risqué humor, the tone was a bit inconsistent... they equate "playing paddy cake" to sex, or at least an intimate act that amounts to infidelity, in a way that surpasses innuendo and is meant to be taken literally. Yet Baby Herman talks explicitly about his sex drive and "3-year-old dinky?" Idk, just pick a tone and stick with it, because I reeeally don't want to be thinking this much about how cartoons have sex...
HOLY *BLEEEEEP* THAT SHOE IN THE DIP SCENE! :O That's gotta be one of the most messed up things Disney has ever done. That shoe did NOTHING to you!!! He just nuzzled up to your ankle like a sweet little kitty! And you MELTED IT ALIVE IN ACID. It was SENTIENT. It FELT EVERYTHING. And everybody else just STOOD THERE AND WATCHED. Even the cop, who clearly knew what was coming. And Doom actually talks about trials and due process for toons as if they have legal rights, while he's LITERALLY MURDERING an innocent shoe-kitty toon who hadn't even been accused of a crime.
And speaking of dip - this is supposedly the only way to kill a toon, but the weasels end up being killed by Eddie when he makes them die of laughter. They *do* become angels, so is there a toon heaven/afterlife? Is this only a temporary state and they can come back to life eventually? Does dip just take away your immortality/access to the afterlife state? WHY AM I ANALYZING THIS SO MUCH???
I get that Eddie's whole comedy/murder act was the resolution of his story arc re: his loss of humor, and the film does try to set this up with the whole comedy as a weapon/"you're gonna laugh yourself to death" thing. But this directly clashes with the message of laughter as a healing power so often espoused by Roger, so that particular thematic area ended up feeling a little muddied.
Interesting how Doom hates to be laughed at - jives with the implied self-loathing he feels over being a toon.
The public transportation/car culture jokes were objectively pretty funny, but hit way too close to home for me, as public transportation in LA is currently the bane of my existence.
I did not know that, thank you for telling about it, now I get the joke (I thought he just randomly picked a name for an invisible rabbit he just made up)
I wondered about that, too and I came pretty much to the same conclusion.
Another attemp from me, with lots of random thoughts in the analyze part this time. I have to post it in two, because it's too long. So part 1:
1. What is your overall impression of the film? Some possible talking points include: what you did or did not like about it; what about the film has stuck with you; what did you find different on this viewing; how would modern audiences respond to this (for the older films)… The list goes on. Hahah!
This is getting addictive. You’d never guess it but… I watched this movie for this challenge for the first time. With original English dub because I couldn’t get a hun dubbed one. I’m a bit sad because I read that it’s a good dub and I looked up who voiced the characters – most of them old, great stage actors I love and know very well from other movies.
I enjoyed it mostly, especially because it was mixed cartoon live action. Although I did find sometimes Roger the Rabbit annoying. But as the film progressed I forgot about the rabbit beeing a little too active for my taste and the detective beeing alcohol addicted and went with the story.
The short they are filming in the first scene reminded me of Tom and Jerry – Baby Herman as Jerry (he gets what he wants) and Roger Rabbit as Tom (he is the sufferer)
And I think it’s message is very actual, even today. More on that a bit later.
2. Choose one specific character to analyze. You can explore how a character acts, what they say, how they dress, etc. to explain what they may represent or their function and meaning in the narrative. Try to avoid obvious "plot" stuff (ex: the Evil Queen is a villain, so her purpose is to be bad...), but explore unique and specific elements about the character (ex: the EQ is surrounded by images of peacocks, further suggesting her obsession with vanity). You may also use these elements to explain why you connected or disconnected from the character.
Eddie Valiant – a detective, like last week. But he is a very different one – this detective is depressed, has no money so probably not a successful detective at the moment (unlike Basil) passive, drinks far too much – not a very encouraging picture we get at the beginning of him. (not someone you’d think is the hero of the movie) Even his home and clothes are dull, dusty and colorless. And he is clearly not very happy and doesn’t laugh – that matches beautifully his colors. Roger is his opposite, he dresses in cheerful, bright colors like red, he is full of energy, like a child and keeps making people laugh. He acts very much like a child, too. It’s almost as if they represented the two worlds – Valiant is the sober everyday of a grownup, no joy, no fun, nothing at all and this is the cruel reality while Roger is the fantasy, the world children live in, everything that helps people get away from reality. Jessica, although strictly seen she belongs to Rogers world, seems to connect those two worlds. She is a cartoon and is colorful but she is an adult character and knows the world well, knows the importance of laugh – she’s an adult who kept her inner child, I think.
3. Choose one specific scene or sequence to analyze—tell me what response is it trying to evoke from the viewer and how does it go about getting that response? Your analysis could include the scene’s use of color, action, camera angles, music, character development, setting, backdrop, style, etc. If you can justify it with evidence from the scene, then it’s an analysis!
I think I’ll choose the scene where Eddie saves Roger in the bar. For me, this was the scene that showed that Eddie was actually not what he seemed to be – a good for nothing detective, who’s only capable of fulfilling requests like taking photos. The viewer gets to see the real Eddie who actually is very skilled and thinks quickly, even in dangerous situations – just what a detective needs. He remembers the effect of alcohol on Roger and when Rabbit doesn’t want to drink it he switches sides and so does Roger and swallows tha drink at once. We also get the first hint that the villain, the Judge might be a cartoon figure, too – he avoids that dip as if he was a Toon. (I only thought of that after re-watching this scene)
The only colorful thing in this scene was Roger himself – it tells a lot about the lives of the people in the pub – gray, dull and they are so happy when a little color and laughter comes in their lives in the form of Roger.
I think this scene besides beeing really funny prepares what is to come later and the story also takes a big step forward.
4. Choose one song to analyze—tell me what response is it trying to evoke from the viewer and how does it go about getting that response? What purpose does this song have in the film and does it succeed in that purpose?
I choose Jesscias song when we first see her. The song she sings is a typical song performed at places like this club. Jessica actually presents herself with that song. While she acts like one would expect a woman with her looks to act, if we pay attention to the lyrics, we get to know, what she thinks about the whole thing: she doesn’t think that this club is a good place for men to visit. She is completely avare of the reaction from men when they see her so that’s her way to tell them in the club that she is „not bad, just drawn that way”. (Most men stay anyway, those are sent out to get money. ) But she is actually a caring, warm hearted woman who loves her husband. I think the song is better at setting the mood for the club than telling about Jessica Rabbit, the extra bits mostly become clear after a rewatch, at least for me.
5. Choose one specific symbol in the film to analyze. A symbol is typically something inanimate, an object, rather than a character. So don’t say “Brer Bear represents dumb people,” as that’s more of a character analysis than a symbol. Rather, think about specific objects (jewelry, clothing, houses, food, weapons, etc.) What does this symbol mean and how does that meaning impact the film?
I thought it was really interesting how alcohol was used. It decides over life and death (just like the bells last week but not as quickly). Alcohol is about to completely ruin Valiants life, althought it’s not the main reason, it’s just something that speeds up the way to ruin. But it can save life, too, like it saved Roger Rabbits life. And the moment when Eddie Valiant first wants to dink that alcohol and then decides against it is quite symbolic in my opinion – he decides it is enough of the nonsense life he led the last few years, he turns back on that way down. Of course it’s much more difficult to climb upward but now there are lots of friends to help him.
I can also see it as a teaching about alcohol. It doesn’t decide for you. And if you use it wisely it’ll help you. If not, it’ll ruin your life. It doesn’t really decide over life but once things are set to move, it is hard to stop it. Alcohol is like a two sided coin. Maybe it just goes along with you whatever way you choose? So it’s more like a friend?
6. Choose a single line of dialog that you find to be the most significant/impactful line in the film and why. You can be a little loose with the “single line” bit, but let’s not go for Maleficent’s entire monologue to Philip... Rather, something like Stitch’s “This is my family. I found it all on my own. It’s little, and broken, but still good. Yeah – still good.” (brb weeping).
„A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it is the only weapon we have.” This could be the message of the movie in a nutshell. And I think it is even more true for toons – laugh is their most important and often only weapon. And Eddie Valiant learned that lesson, too. I think this is an importatnt lesson even today. I know I have to keep this in my mind constantly.
7. What is this film’s overall goal? Is it to teach a specific lesson (what is it) or get an emotional response (such as)? Or both? And how well or poorly does the film succeed in that goal? Be specific!
I think its goal is mainly entertaining – I read somewhere that even when they bought the rights they thought it’s going to make a great entertainment movie (they had a better word for it but I can’t remember it and I can’t find that article again) But if we look a little closer we see the messages Keeep going, There is always hope, and, I think the most important, the importance of laugh and entertainment in our lives. (It matches beautifully the first goal of the film - entertaining) ’Don’t forget, don’t make your inner child, your, inner cartoon disappear’ – life is just so much better with them. I think I’ll go with that one. Laughing is more important than it seems. And Jessica is a good example: she’s fully aware of this. So she practically married Laughter in Roger Rabbit. But she also knows the downsides (Roger beeing a bit careless) and takes actions accordingly (like hitting Roger so he stays safe)
Jessica can also teach us a lesson – don’t judge by appearances – we get that a lot in connection with her, for example when it looks like she’s the culprit. And she herself, her appearance – she’s not at all like she looks like. I hope it’s underatandable what I’m trying to say. Beauty and the Beast is going to dive into not judging by appearances a bit deeper but I think Jessica does a great job with it. And it’s a different ’don’t judge’ than with Beast.
8. What connections or progressions do you see in this film to past films? Example: how does Sleeping Beauty progress (or digress?) the princess archetype built in Cinderella? Be specific! Also, consider what use there is in returning to or re-imagining those elements?
The only connection I picked up during the first watch was the Midnight point. Just like with Cinderella. Midnight for Toontown–no will, everything ruined. Midnight for Cinderella – well the party and fun is over, she goes back to her former life.
Maybe teaching about the importance of laugh and hope is another one – it is always in every movie, so we, the viewers don’t turn into sour miserable creatures like Valiant at the beginning. I think he is a new kind of hero, who battles something bigger than any villain could be, namely himself. (I think I said the same about Wart in The sword in the stone. But Wart has Merlin and his wisdom to help him. Valiant has help, too, but noone as powerful as Merlin. Or maybe they are? He did teach that magic is not going to solve problems just like that) Well, we see that Valiant actually starts to fight instead of (kind of) running away. (Somehting we’ll see again in The Lion King with Simba) We only see the start of his battle but I’m sure he’ll win.
9. What is the iconic shot of the film? What single frame of animation do you find to be the most memorable and why? Post it! You can check out this link to find some great screencaps to help!
Before watching the movie Jessica was all I knew from the movie. I think she is quite iconic for this movie so I choose the moment when she first appears.
10. What single pin do you think best represents this film for you? Why? Give us the pin number and post a picture!
There are quite a few pins showing Jessica in poses typical for her. There is even one showing her with the curtains (like the iconic shot I choose) but I felt that maybe a group of important characters represent the film better. I choose Pin 62782
Some stray thoughts: I’m so glad they didn’t make Jessica the culprit (In earlier versions, she and Baby Herman were both considered for the role of the main villain)
The more time passes since I watched it, the more I like the movie. Doing the anlyze definitely helps, too.
And something completely different: I noticed that I use a lot of ’we’ in what I write – I mostly mean the viewers. It’s likely odd for you all, maybe even offensive (actually a teacher from Germany pointed this out at school, that’s why I’m adressing this at all – he told us to avoid it if possible) so I’ll try and give an explanation. In my native language there is no passive and using ’we’ in its place is one of the often used solutions to translate passive sentences – they are turned into active with we beeing the subject. I’m not sure this is the real reason, it’s just my idea, a possible explanation. I don’t mean to be agressive or anything like that and I’m sorry if I did offend someone.
I haven’t seriously thought about this movie in a while. I loved it when it came out, and I still do!
1. My overall impression of the movie… This movie is iconic! Disney has been working on the goal of seamlessly blending live action and animation for several movies, but I feel this is the pinnacle of their work. Even movies that came out after it (I’m thinking specifically, “Cool World” in 1992) haven’t been as successful as this one, although I feel that many times it’s not the technical blending that has been the problem as much as not having a compelling story to tell along with the technological wonders… I realize that this isn’t an original script (i.e., it is based on a book), but it feels incredibly fresh and like nobody has ever done anything like it before.
In combining live action and the animated cartoons of my (our) childhood, this movie has many iconic scenes that are true gems and are sometimes more iconic on their own that the movie in general, and yet that makes the movie even more iconic (ooh, my head is dizzy from talking in circles!). The ones that hit home the most for me were the ones that took animated “stars” and put them in everyday live action scenes (Animated Stars: They’re Just Like Us). Some of these iconic images/scenes include:
• The Fantasia brooms sweeping the back lot with a saxophonist playing “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”.
• Donald Duck and Daffy Duck piano duet. I mean, come on, it doesn’t get more iconic that that. It also makes the inevitable Mickey Mouse/Bugs Bunny cameos quite a bit of a let down.
• I would also just say that the mixture of Disney and Warner Brothers characters throughout the movie, in and of itself, makes this movie iconic. Then throw in Betty Boop and Droopy! OMG!
• The “Mary Poppins” penguin waiters at the Ink and Paint Club (I mean ice!).
• Jessica’s song and the reactions of the live action males to her! I swear I could see their heads turning into wolves, howling at the moon, and tongues rolling out of their mouths! If the animators had put animated male characters in the audience, I’m sure they would have done those animated motions, but it plays so much more subtle and therefore more believable without the over-the-top animated responses.
• ACME as a real company that sells everything and is not just made up for the Road Runner cartoons, and somolians are real $$.
• Pattycake! That’s all I’m going to say…
• Roger’s response to alcohol is hilarious and even becomes a major plot point!
• Roger leaving an outline in the Venetian blinds and the glass window.
• Portable holes and Hitler boots!
• A weasel that sounds like Squiggy from “Laverne & Shirley”. Hard to take him seriously as a villain…
• A way to kill toons (other than laughing to death). Dip = turpentine (C10H16), acetone (C3H6O), and benzene (C6H6), all used as solvents for paint removal…
• Thumper is Roger’s uncle!
• The whole “I don’t want the drink” argument. Works every time…
• Got to love the weasel bobble heads in the car chase scene.
• Frying pans, who knew?
• Apparently, road striping is an absolute law in Toontown.
• Booby trap! I don’t need to say any more…
• The special effects of the flat Doom were pretty cool.
2. I’m not going to do a whole character analysis for Dolores, but I just want to say they had great casting with Joanna Cassidy; she plays a great comedic foil for Roger and Eddie. She has three of my most favorite lines in the whole movie.
• “So tell me, Eddie. Is that a rabbit in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
• “Dabbling in watercolors, Eddie?”
• “I would’ve been here right after you called, but I had to shake the weasels.”
She also referred to Jessica as a “painted hussy”, so she gets bonus points for that and I found it hilarious when Eddie pulled her down behind the bar using the cleavage of her dress.
3. and 7. The scene I chose to analyze was the opening scene—the cartoon with Roger Rabbit and Baby Herman. The goal of this scene was to recreate the magic of the old Disney, Warner Brothers, and Tom & Jerry cartoons of the 40s and 50s, but to do it in a way that was still new and unique—as if it were a competing film studio with a style of its own, making cartoons in this same timeframe.
I think they succeeded admirably. The cartoon has the “feel” of some of these other studios:
• The physical comedy from Roger felt like the work of Goofy (Boy, did you see that? Nobody takes a wallop like Goofy!).
• Some of the pointless violence (pans dropping, etc.) and seeing the adult (mother; thank goodness it wasn’t a mammy) from knee-level felt like “Tom and Jerry”.
• The introduction music felt very cartoony and the piccolo made it feel a lot like Warner Brothers music.
• The appliance names (HOTTERNELL for the oven, SUCK-O-LUX for the vacuum) was a great homage to Warner Brothers and ACME—the vacuum even said ACME on it!
• Putting Roger in the oven reminded me of Bugs Bunny putting Yosemite Sam (and maybe Paul Puma?) in an oven.
• A lot of the dangers (pans dropping) facing Roger felt like poor Wile E. Coyote and the “innocence” (or maybe, more correctly, the carefree and seemingly oblivious to danger attitude) of Baby Herman felt like the Road Runner. I felt like the violence (pan dropping, etc.) evoked not only Tom & Jerry but also Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote.
Even with this combination of styles stolen from the other studios, it still felt like a brand-new and distinct style of its own. It also went further in ways that the 40s and 50s cartoons would not have been allowed. For example, I think the appliance names, while still tame by today’s standards, probably wouldn’t have flied in the 40s and 50s. Also, the more extreme dangers to Roger (ton of knives flying at him and his crotch, extreme electrocution, etc.) also felt “new”. I also feel like this specific scene in the movie might have even inspired Warner Brothers in their “Animaniacs” cartoons. Not so much the violence, but the much more risqué and naughty language/situations.
Even so, this movie was restricted from doing some things that was allowed in the older cartoons (Tom and Jerry’s “Mammy” springs to mind).
5. I symbol I chose to analyze was the Cloverleaf Industry sign. It’s introduced as it is being put over the Pacific Electric sign, and then we hear that Cloverleaf Industries has bought out the red car and gave people their two week’s notice. It’s such a throwaway scene that means nothing… until you’ve seen the whole movie. Then, the second time you watch it, you say… “Hey!” because the symbol used for the Cloverleaf sign is a freeway cloverleaf! Clever!!
8. As I said before, this movie is the pinnacle of Disney’s attempts to blend live action and animation. The other three movies we’ve reviewed that also did this (“Mary Poppins”, “Bedknobs & Broomsticks”, and “Pete’s Dragon”) all had smashing success and critical acclaim for their work in the progression of this blending, but only “Bedknobs & Broomsticks” still holds up to the test of time, in my opinion. Specifically, I felt there were major lighting/matching issues in “Mary Poppins” (where the animations at times felt both too bright and then too dark compared to the live action) and “Pete’s Dragon” (where it seemed like the borders were a bit fuzzy and Elliot always seemed washed out compared to the live action).
The live action director and animators also worked hard to throw meaningful interactions between the live action and animated characters, to a great deal of success in my eyes. A couple of examples that stick out in my mind are when Eddie Valiant is hiding Roger in the sink and doing dishes while the weasels visit and when Eddie is trying to cut the handcuffs off.
10. I chose this pin (667) because it is the first (only?) pin I ever collected from this movie. It also catches the whole feel of the final conflict with Judge Doom.
WOW!! The previous critiques really brought it! Spot on arguments/explanations. I'm going to choose not to feel inferior about mine based on those really insightful analyses, and just enjoy the really cool discussion that is happening. Keep it up, folks!
If I'm counting correctly, this is review #26! Which means a bunch of people in the next few reviews will earn their halfway completist medals!
1. Overall, I enjoyed this movie more than I disliked it, but I probably won't rewatch it very often. The energy in this movie was cranked up to 11, and while I know that this fits with the message and tone of the movie, it came off to me as being frenetic. The amount of integration of animation with live action was impressive, but the execution didn't seem as polished as previous ones. Sometimes the animation seemed stiltled, or Eddie was shot in a very bizarre angle to get the surrounding animation to fit to the live action.
This is definitely the most "adult" movie of the series, and included several things that would not fly at all in a movie under the Disney banner ("Son of a bitch," ""What the hell," a photograph captioned "Two flatfoots and a floozy," sexual harassment, etc.). They NEEDED the Touchstone name to put it out like this.
Can we talk about how Judge Doom murdered a Toon in broad daylight surrounded by people and no one did anything about it? The poor squeaky shoe did nothing except be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
6. "A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
In this movie, laughter is key. It's why Jessica is with Roger, and it's why Roger even exists - his main purpose in life is to make people laugh. Conversely, after he lost his brother, Eddie lost the will to laugh. At first, Roger gets on Eddie's nerves, and he only teams up with him out of necessity. After spending time with him, and after a conversation with Jessica - in which the above line occurs - Eddie comes to understand Roger's side more, and learns that he needs laughter in his life. After he embraced the need for laughter, he was able to defeat the weasels. (And it was a literal weapon, as his making the weasels laugh literally killed them).
Runner up line: "Who needs a car in L.A.? We've got the best public transportation system in the world." I know that Judge Doom's motivation for being so evil was to dismantle the trolley so he could benefit financially, so a wonderful trolley system was an integral part of their world, but I have to wonder if the writers put in in as a tongue-in-cheek jab at LA's actual public transportation system. (Also props to "That lame-brained freeway idea could only be cooked up by a toon.")
8. This film is connected to lots of other movies in the past in several ways.
It is linked to the previous live action/animated films just by virtue of being one itself, but it took it a step further. While previous blended films explained the animated sequences as either transportation to a foreign land (Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks) or as a fantastical occurrence (Pete's Dragon), Toons are an integrated part of this world. Live humans and Toons live and work together, existing both in Toon Town and Los Angeles.
Its is also linked to previous films by the characters it used from many previous movies - Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia, etc. It took this a step further too, by placing them into a scenario outside of their movies. By including these characters, it established that their films were not their actual lives, and they were just characters acting in films. It also gave them some additional characteristics, like giving the Fantasia characters (Hyacinth, Upanova, etc.) voices and personalities.
9. One of the great parts of this film for me was the integration of characters from different studios. It had characters from Disney, Warner Brothers, Fleischer Studios, King Features Syndicate, Felix the Cat Productions, Turner Entertainment, and Universal Pictures/Walter Lantz Productions. The fact that so many studios were willing to let Disney use their characters and voice actors is amazing to me, and is one of the most memorable aspect of the film for me.
10. This pin encapsulates some of the major themes of this movie - Roger and Jessica's love for each other, and Roger's career as a film performer. I also love the look that Jessica is giving Roger, and Roger expressing his love in a very cartoony physical way.
Pin# 47593 - Jessica and Roger Rabbit - Take 37
I wonder if they called it Maroon Studios because of Bugs Bunny?
You do realize that Pacific Electric and the Red Car trolley system is based on an actual company that existed in the 1920-40s covering Los Angeles and surrounding areas, right?
Pacific Electric - Wikipedia
And I believe you are the first. Congrats!
1. Overall Impression
Going into this movie, I had really low expectations. I had seen it once before a long time ago, but I barely remembered anything about it beyond the villain. And I’ve always held a sort of dislike for the characters (Roger is too much, Jessica is too much, Eddie is too much), but perhaps because I was just in a better mind-set for this viewing, I ended up liking it quite a bit! The animation alone was spectacular (even if Jessica looked a little weird from the wrong angles) and the opening cartoon bit had some amazing perspective angles.
The complexity of plot was also very good in this film. It set up a lot of little things early in the film that became crucial later (namely the invisible ink). But it’s that sort of modern storytelling that gives every little thing in the work weight and meaning beyond just flavor.
Overall, I was surprised by the movie. Surprised that I liked it as much as I did, surprised that it had as much substance as it did, and surprised at how timeless the message is (more on that later!)
2. Character Analysis / 6. Dialog Analysis
I’m sure someone above me in this thread has done a thorough analysis of Jessica Rabbit. ;P I very much look forward to reading it once I’ve posted my own—and to that end, I’ll pass up on analyzing her, though she’s got some killer content to work with.
Rather, I’d like to look at Roger Rabbit. After the film, Russ and I were talking about it and he said that he really didn’t like RR, saying he was “too much,” which is absolutely true. But why? Beyond just being a slapstick character, RR represents something pure about the cartoon medium, and he says as much: “My only purpose in life is to make people laugh!” That’s it! That’s what he’s there for! But he’s the pure, concentrated form of it. He’s so over the top, so ridiculous, it’s like eating a spoonful of vanilla extract instead of a cookie.
When he and Eddie are handcuffed, and he just slips out to hold the box, Eddie is furious and screams, “You mean you could have done that the whole time?” And there’s the perfect response:
The fact that RR is bound by his purpose, by his essence, to be funny and bring laughter makes him so pure you almost can’t help but like him. In fact, that’s exactly why Jessica loves him:
And there’s something really awesome about that character aspect. He’s this amalgamation of traits from famous cartoon characters: Bugs’s wit, Tom/Jerry’s sight gags, Mickey’s heart. He may come off as a lot to swallow, but that’s because he’s so concentrated. Moreover, he exemplifies what’s at the heart of the film: the purpose/beauty/benefits of laughter. RR says so himself, “Our only weapon is laughter!” And in the end, that’s exactly what saves the day.
Like I said earlier, I always thought RR was just way too silly for me to take seriously. But having watched it from this analytical perspective, he’s got so much purpose and meaning in this film (and for the animated genre as a whole) that it’s put in him a totally different ballpark for me.
3. Scene Analysis
There were so many scenes to choose from for this one! The amazing transition overnight through Eddie’s old photos of his brother was just superbly done. And plenty of others had a lot of meat to them (Jessica’s visit to Eddie’s office, for example). But I think from a technical perspective, no scene better showcases this film’s skill than the night club scene, namely Jessica’s entrance.
This film runs on the interaction between “toon” and reality. So the subtle elements they added to this scene to make that interaction all the more believable just sets it apart as, possibly, one of the best scenes in real life + animation history (sorry Mary Poppins…). And that’s not just because technology is better (but that’s obviously part of it). It’s the small things.
Jessica’s dress is sheer, so you can see the men through the fabric:
Her squeezing Acme’s cheeks and the seamless use of that handkerchief:
But best of all, her holding Eddie’s tie:
Just like Eddie, we are hooked and pulled into this bizarre suspension of disbelief. Eddie’s shock (though certainly more “male gaze” than what I’m getting at) mirrors the audience’s (hopeful) response of absolute immersion.
7. Overall Goal
I’ve recently been listening to the podcast “Drawn: The Story of Animation” hosted by Holly Frey (of Stuff You Missed in History Class fame). In it, she explains the many reasons why animation is such a timeless genre and keeps bringing in audiences and talent. Most notably is its ability to bring us joy and laughter, which is absolutely the heart of this film. If the stakes for this plot are a joyful, whimsical toon world vs. a cold, lifeless, endless sea of interstates and commercialism (aka our actual reality…), then the joy we feel as RR’s triumph represents the joy we find in animation and how necessary it is for us—even, or especially, as adults.
This is an adult movie. It’s not for kids. And I think that’s why it works, because it’s showing adults that animation and “toons” are still important, beneficial, and in many ways necessary.
9. Iconic Shot
I know I’ve already posted it, but it’s got to be Jessica holding Eddie’s tie. That is such a good interaction between toon and reality and has a lot of substance to the moment. Certainly there are other equally good, or better, choices. But that one is mine!
10. Representative Pin
Phew! I’m really pumped this pin exists. I may even have to hunt one down for myself (never ever thought I would want a Jessica Rabbit pin…)
Pin 51810 DLR - Create-A-Pin - He Makes Me Laugh (Roger & Jessica Rabbit)
This pin celebrates what makes the two of them work, despite them being such an obviously odd couple. And in the same way, that’s why we like Roger too. So for me, that’s what this film is all about. Realizing we like something because it makes us laugh.
* I love that we get Betty Boop opposite of Jessica Rabbit’s entrance. That was such a smart move. Also, notice that she says “What a lucky girl” in response to Eddie saying Jessica is married to Roger? It’s so quick you’d almost miss it. But it’s a perfect little moment.
* I knew about the Judge going into the film, so it was fun watching all of the little things that later give him away. The giant rubber glove, him scurrying away from the spilled turpentine at the bar. It was fun.
* AAAAAHHHH!!! A Harvey reference!!!!!
* There were so many good jokes. Booby trap XD Good as in, I rolled my eyes and laughed a lot—which was exactly what this film was going for. XD
Hey gang! If you're around, the chat will be starting up in a few minutes!
Which means just an hour left to get those posts in!
Sorry I didn't get a chance to watch it yet, been a crazy weekend. If this doesn't close flip/change right away I'll watch it soon. Otherwise I'll catch up with next week or work on bonuses
Can't wait to start reading everyone's analyses.
1. Overall Opinion
This was one of my favorite films of my childhood though I hadn't seen it in quite some time, I think though that the addition of DLR's Toontown and ride did a number in shaping my appreciation of this movie as a kid. Watching it again after all these years showed me how much I had missed in terms of adult humor as well as well as plot deviations that as a kid I would just overlook. For instance kids offering Eddie Cigarettes, the many risqué moments, Eddi's alcoholism, etc. The movie is a good continuation in the ground breaking LA/cartoon mashups, as the movie won Disney critical acclaim and awards. The music is phenomenal representation of 40's Hollywood and I may have to start looking for the score.
2. Character Analysis
The character of Jessica Rabbit has her roots based upon Tex Avery's character Red, who first appeared in the MGM short Red Hot Riding Hood. In many instances, the first full scene with Jessica Rabbit is a retelling of this club scene between her and the ever amorous Wolfie.
Further when Eddie is looking for Jessica his encounter with "Beauty" is a retelling of Tex's short Chump Champ, A Droopy short that has the winner having a kiss with a beauty queen(in this case not).
This movie continues to enhance the live action/cartoon mashups, this is probably the best instance Disney has of it thus far. Compared to it's predecessors, this has the most seamless transition of any of them. I do love the cameos of the cartoons from what is considered thus far the early golden age of cartoons. The ending scene of them walking into the sunset is there continuing theme we have of happy endings; in this instance though it concludes with WB's common Looney Tunes ending of Porky Pig's That's all folks followed by Disney's Iconic conclusion of Tinker Belle's wave of her magic wand and the screen blinking to black with her flying off the screen.
9. Iconic Shot
The Shot of the Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny Sky Diving scene is probably one of the most groundbreaking scenes of this movie. I can't think of any other official instance of both companies allowing their characters to be used in this manner. I don't know how much Warner Brothers was reimbursed for their cameo but I recall Disney passing on a cameo of Nintendo's Mario because of the sheer cost of getting the his license(on top of all the others).
10. Representative Pin.
Pin 21591 Japan History of Art 2003 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
I thought it was weird that a history of art Pin included a pic of Jessica in a nurse outfit as that wasn't in the movie but it turns out it is from a later short, Tummy Time(1990). It seems to be a precursor to Spielberg's Animaniacs series skit Buttons and Mindy, as well as the character idea of Hello Nurse...
Oliver and Company (1988)
Monday is our "wrap-up" discussion on Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. So you're welcome to respond to other analyses throughout the day.
However, you may not post any more full analyses for Who Framed Roger Rabbit? to count for completion toward the 52 Challenge. No late homework. ;P
Anyone who wants to read more about how this film made advancements for animation, look up "bump the lamp"
Basically, the handcuff scene, showed that animators really do care about all those little details
Bump the Lamp: The Reason for Caring | Experience Design at Hello Erik
Also I really wanted to mention my favorite pin from this film
Pin 62777 DisneyShopping.com - Jessica Rabbit, Greasy and Smarty 20th Anniversary Series Pin
The infamous booby trap >:3
OMG, have you ever heard about the book the film is based on? (Although "based on" is pretty inaccurate, since the film changed almost everything, thank goodness.) Pretty much every single character in the book is horrible and unlikable. Roger wasn't even framed in the book, he was the REAL murderer! He killed Jessica's lover, because she actually WAS cheating on him (AND he tries to frame Eddie for the murder!!!) And she only married Roger in the first place because he found a Genie's lamp (seriously, lol) and made a wish for her to love him (along with a wish to become famous, because in the book he's actually extremely unfunny.) But the Genie was also a terrible person, and made it so the wishes would only last for a year. So it was essentially a forced marriage, and Jessica didn't consent to anything... O.O Yikes. That's why she starts cheating, because the year is over and the spell is broken. Oh, and did I mention that through most of the book, Roger is dead? The Genie kills him early on when he tries to make a third wish. But Roger cloned himself beforehand (I guess that's something toons can do in the book), and the clone is the one who hires Eddie... yeah, the book is super confusing and ridiculous and no one should ever read it. xD It's so bad, in fact, that the author wrote a new version after the movie came out to make it more like the film.
It's not offensive at all, don't worry dear! Your instincts are spot on. Using "we," "us," and "our" to represent the viewers is how I've always been taught to write when it comes to academic film analysis. Because analysis focuses on interpreting the technique and artistic intent of the filmmakers, who obviously have specific goals in mind when it comes to how they want the audience as a whole to understand their work. The wonderful thing about art is that everyone views it from their own unique perspective and can offer diverse interpretations and insights. As a filmmaker I want viewers to have a personal experience viewing my work, but I definitely have specific intent behind every aspect of the shoot that I hope the audience will pick up on! I feel like the best filmmakers put careful thought and effort into even the smallest details, and are therefore addressing us as a collective "we."
Plus, even though we're doing academic analyses, I'm sure Merlin will tell you we're a pretty informal classroom. He's the cool teacher who sits backwards in his chair and teaches us about stuff through hip hop.
(I'm just going to keep posting Lin Manuel gifs every chance I get now that I know Merlin is a Ham fan. Not that I have a secret recording of him singing the whole show or anything...)
I would definitely give it credit as an original script, as it's really nothing like the book and is infinitely better (see above post lol.) Even the most basic conceptual stuff was changed a ton - in the book, the toons just star in old-school comic strips, not films. Yet the book takes place in 1981...
THANK YOU for also bringing up this tragic miscarriage of justice!!! #NeverForget #JusticeForShoe
Seriously though, I can't believe this scene didn't traumatize me as a kid... maybe it was just SO traumatic that I repressed the memory?
I always wondered if Doom's main motivation was the freeway scheme/financial gain, or destroying ToonTown (with the freeway profits being a bonus, or even just a legal-ish way to make the destruction happen.) Most of his characterization throughout the movie is centered on his outright hatred for toons, and his quest to crack down on them in his capacity as a judge. We only learn about the freeway scheme in his monologue at the very end. So was his real motive greed or hate? The freeway or genocide? It seems to me that he stirred up crime in ToonTown and committed the first toon-on-human murder to plant the seeds of prejudice, then disguised himself as a human to stoke the flames further and spread his anti-toon campaign, but that's where it sort of becomes a chicken and egg situation. Was it about the freeway from the very beginning, and the anti-toon stuff was just a means to an end so he could acquire ToonTown's land/ensure that humans wouldn't care about it being destroyed? OR did he hate toons so much that he concocted the whole freeway idea so he could get away with committing toon genocide? The reveal that he was a toon himself (as well as the fact that he hated to be laughed at) gives his character a rather tragic sense of self-loathing, which makes me lean toward the latter theory. But I would be interested in hearing other opinions.
Ha, nice catch! I'd never thought of that before, but it fits perfectly.
Lol I know right? @timeerkat is so predictable.
Exactly - it's not just that they had the ability to achieve effects like this, but that they had the creativity to even think of such subtle details in the first place. Those are the touches that truly add dimension to the animated characters and makes it feel like they're really in the room.
I kept rewatching that gif to try and figure out how they pulled off the tie stunt, and even more impressively, Jessica's shadow leaving Eddie's face. It didn't look like digital lighting to me, which left me even more puzzled. At first I was thinking it was a rope and pulley system that was either removed digitally in post or placed so strategically in his tie that it couldn't be seen, and the lighting cue was timed perfectly with the movement. But then I looked closer at Jessica's right hand... it kind of looks like a real velvet glove to me. So I suspect there was a real person pulling the tie/creating the shadow, whose body was covered by Jessica's animation. That may take away the magic of the moment for some people, but to me, that IS movie magic. Finding practical, deceptively simple ways to achieve effects on-set, instead of saying "we'll fix it in post" using computers or editing tricks. Practical effects will always beat CG effects for me.
(Although in the interest of full disclosure, this is admittedly coming from someone who has been forced to think up some truly insane on-set Rube Goldberg type sh*t because she is broke and high quality CG is not covered by tuition. What does it say when my first idea was not simply "use a real person" but "attach a fishing reel to a man's tie"....)
They're such a great couple to me because not only does Jessica love Roger despite his goofy appearance, Roger seems to care equally as little about appearance when it comes to her. I feel like he genuinely loves her for her, not her looks. I think the best example is actually when he gazes on as Eddie and Dolores are about to kiss, sighing and twisting his ears into a heart. He's a true romantic!
Did you spot the Betty Boop figurine on Eddie's brother's desk? I loved the kindness that Eddie showed her ("yeah, you still got it"), but I was still a little surprised by it given his established disdain for toons and overall gruff, cynical attitude. Obviously they knew each other, so perhaps he took on a case for her back when he worked in ToonTown, but still, he didn't seem to have fond memories of that time. Then it clicked for me when the camera panned over the Betty figurine. Obviously his brother was a big fan of hers, and so Eddie can't help but have sentimental feelings toward her. That tiny little prop was such a subtle yet impactful touch that added so much more weight to their brief conversation. <3
No I haven't but I read about what is in it and decided that this is not the book for me. I liked the film so much better.
That was my idea, too, how this one could be done.
It was indeed. I love little things and details like this.
I think he hated everybody, Toon or human or whatever and saw them only as a possible money source. He didn't really belong to either worlds - maybe beeing somekind of an outcast made him a villain? Or the other way around?
*nods several times and agrees*
Separate names with a comma.