Skip to main content

Someone’s got the cheese fits again.

The Boxtrolls
(2014)

I’m not quite sure how The Boxtrolls scored an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature. Perhaps it was purely on the basis of the stop motion craftsmanship, rather than the film as a whole? It’s good news for Laika, the studio behind it, which is three-for-three in Academy Awards nods (or four-for-four, including their contract work on Corpse Bride), but in terms of storytelling they’re suffering diminishing returns.


Perhaps this is explained by the quality of the source material of their first feature, Coraline. Certainly, it’s way out in front of both this and Paranorman. And Paranorman is superior in turn to The Boxtrolls. Based on Alan Snow’s 2006 novel Here Be Monsters!, Graham Annable and Antony Stacchi’s movie (from a screenplay by Travis Knight and David Ichioka) concerns the attempts to exterminate the titular creatures from the town of Cheesebridge. Take a wild guess as to its most prolific product; the fromage-based gags are actually one of the picture’s better features.


Laika have been bigged up as a progressive studio, but their commentary on prejudice and class boundaries here is as subtle as an Edam brick. The trolls are made out to be child-eating monsters, pursued by pest exterminator Archibald Snatcher (Ben Kingsley). Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone judges by appearances, and beneath their grotesque, grunting exteriors lurk hearts of gold. They raise a boy named Eggs (Game of Thrones’ Isaac Henpstead-Wright) as their own and, equipped with his very own troll box, he believes himself to be one of their kind (somehow, Eggs also develops the ability to speak human). The Boxtrolls are merely the lowest rung of the class ladder. Their oppressor, Snatcher, longs to sit at high (cheese) table with the council of White Hats who run Cheesebridge. He has been dangled the carrot of his very own white hat if he rids the town of Boxtrolls.


On the council is Lord Portley-Rind (Jared Harris), a remote and absent father whose stuck up daughter Winnie (Elle Fanning) becomes entangled in the fates of Eggs and the Boxtrolls. This is fairly crude stuff, perfectly admirable in terms of moral lessons, but too schematic to really have a heart. Eggs isn’t just an orphan urchin, but the offspring of the town’s greatest inventor, one of such estimable character that he made friends and entertained the Boxtrolls while other shunned them. The picture is too nice to really have any teeth beneath its surface level fascination with bodily function jokes and utterly evil schemes; none of the trolls have been exterminated after all, and Eggs’ dad is perfectly all right (well, as much as he can be voiced by Simon Pegg).


While the stop motion animation is very good, there’s something possible a bit too polished about it, as if the edges have been rubbed off. It’s no wonder some have mistaken it for CGI (particularly when studios have gone down the route of producing CGI animations in stop motion style). There’s a grotesquery to the designs that, the Snatcher aside, comes across as rather generic and lacking in flair. Added to this, the colour palate is unremittingly dull and muddy, as if Laika are intent on sucking all vitality from the screen.


If the technical side is accomplished, it’s rarely matched by the onscreen antics, then. There’s one absolute standout, and that’s Ben Kingsley’s villainous voice work as Snatcher. It’s one to cherish, up there with his OTT characters in Sexy Beast and Iron Man Three, and the animators are clearly enthused by the opportunity to add body to the part. Snatcher is visualised with more than a touch of Timothy Spall by way of Gerald Scarfe, complete with an allergic reaction to cheese that causes him to hallucinate; the latter owes a debt to Eddie Murphy’s rubbery transformations in Nutty Professor.  


Kingsley relishes Snatcher’s malicious glee, and the exaggeration of his character is the closest Boxtrolls comes to Roald Dahl-esque black comedy (with a bit of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life thrown in for his explosive demise). The makers are careful even here, however, offering Snatcher redemption (“They don’t make you. You make you,” pleads Eggs/the Trubshaw Baby, addressing the illusory nature of Snatcher’s sought-after acceptance by high society).


Kingsley also has the chance to double up, as Madame Frou-Frou Snatcher’s anti-Boxtroll propaganda spouting alter ego. That Lord Portley-Rind finds Frou-Frou alluring is typical of picture that only goes in obvious directions, however (“Oh my God, I regret so much” he comments on learning the truth). They’ve even cast Nick Frost and Richard Ayoade as henchmen, whose initially clever dialogue (“You really think these Boxtrolls understand the duality of good and evil?”) grows stale. Even the meta- discussion at the end is a bit of a fizzle.


It isn’t unusual for the villains or supporting characters in an animation to be the strongest part of the picture, but in The Boxtrolls the leads are particularly weak. There isn’t much to them, aside from tapping into kids’ fascination with vulgarity (wee jokes, bare bottoms, eating grubs, regurgitating food). I’m not sure if the stiffy joke at the end was intentional (one of the now-naked trolls holds out a remote control in a suggestive position), but it wouldn’t be a surprise (there are gags about scratching one’s privates).


Stop motion animation can find wide audiences, as Aardman has proved, if not nearly as wide as CGI, but Laika appears to be ploughing a perversely narrow path of over-earnest moralising, unattractive design work and charmless characterisation. If their storytelling were up to the standard of their technique, they’d be bagging the Best Animated Picture Oscar every time.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the