Phantasmagoric!
Monday, October 3rd, 2005
It’s official, when I grow up I’m gonna be like Dave McKean, “a graphic artist with unforgettable funky-dark style†(quote from a Ubercinema review of Mirrormask).
Man, his art is simply brilliant. I’m gonna devour everything about him and his work. And hopefully, his influence shows in my future graphics work. ‘Nuff said.
Um, this post is not about Dave McKean, by the way. Hehe. It’s about Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean’s movie, Mirrormask, which I saw yesterday in Aquarius Theater somewhere in downtown Palo Alto.
Now I’m giving you neither summary nor spoilers of this movie. I think there are reviews you can find online that are more thought out and put together for the summary/spoiler kind of thing. You can also check out Neil’s blog, he had a couple of links posted over there that are very informative.
This here is going to be a fangirl’s simple and straightforward reaction to the movie. And no, there will be no drooling and prostrating of any kind in this post. But yes, it will be a wee bit biased even if I have a couple of rants about it. Oh, and I would also assume that you are a little familiar with the film, its basic plot and characters.
“Mirrormask†is a coming-of-age fantasy film that will definitely delight Gaiman and McKean fans alike. Some reviews have likened it to Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz, where the plot basically revolves around a teenage girl transported into a fantastical world, meet new friends and strange creatures, go on a quest to save the world and her family, and finally finds a way home.
But being an ‘80s child, I’d say Labyrinth is closer, minus David Bowie’s tight fitting leotards, er, pants. Hehe. I guess, my subconscious association stems from the fact that the Jim Henson company produced both films.
The only difference (which is actually a major one) between the two films is that physical puppets have been substituted by computer animation graphics. Gone were the days of people donning puppet suits like mascots and mechanical talking heads or limbs controlled by levers. Instead, we have computer-generated characters made to interact with human actors via a blue screen.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against such technological developments. In fact, I’m a fan of CGI and I see its enormous potential in the entertainment industry not only in terms of special effects generation but also in terms of crossing traditional creative boundaries. But sometimes, I do have a tendency to become an old-school brat when things get too artificial for my taste.
As for Mirrormask, CGI is the way to go given the limited budget of the film. But most importantly, it also worked perfectly with what Gaiman and McKean had in mind. Their vision of how the phantasmagoric world should look and feel like can only be captured by computer animation.
(Phantasmagoric meaning dream-like, fantastic. As you can see, I like this word a lot. Hehe. I used it for my typography design final exam last quarter where I came up with a brochure announcing the Dreamworld’s New Colors created by Morpheus, himself. Come to think of it, that’s a start of my Dave McKean-influenced work…MWAHAHAHA.)
Like I said in the beginning of this post, McKean’s art and design are brilliant. If you’ve seen his work in The Sandman graphic novels, you know what I mean. In this film, he pushed his creativity up a notch and came up with mixed media work that didn’t lose its appeal even when it was translated into pixels.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’m particularly keen about visual textures in computer-generated animation. In a live action film, I can determine which scenes have been CGI-ed just by the textures I see. Of course, there are the obvious ones like Spider-man and The Matrix.
But in films that have successfully blurred the lines between what’s real and what’s CGI (I know several but their titles escape me at the moment), I could still spot the difference just by looking at the textures. I know it’s hard to explain especially if I’m talking about texture, a concept clearly associated with something you feel or touch.
(But you can also see texture, which in turn evoke a certain feeling in you. It’s like seeing a vivid picture of a bed of sharp nails and shuddering at the thought of how sharp they are and how painful they are going to be on one’s skin. It’s like when I go outdoors during the day and see a certain texture in the sunlight that makes me remember the feel of my childhood’s summers. It’s utterly weird, I know, but it happens.)
Anyway, Mirrormask’s pixelated textures are like that. Its scenery, especially inside the fantasy world gives off a surreal feel to it. It’s like watching the combined works of Salvador Dali, Joan Miro and even Vladimir Kush come to life because the visual textures give off that illusionary reality. (Probably this is how it would feel like if you smoke a lot of ganja while spinning your swivel chair like a merry-go-round gone berserk. Psychedelic phantasmagoria! Hehe.)
I guess you have to watch it to know what I mean. The experience would probably be more intense if the film was shown in an IMAX theater. It would be like reading and immersing yourself in a big interactive book, with sceneries and characters popping up extremely close to your face.
Well, the pacing of the film is quite slow, especially Helena’s adventure inside her fantasy world. I had to remind myself that this is a low-budget, sort of independent film so the traditional slow-paced narrative is given more screen time than action packed, SFX-induced scenes.
So those who are used to fantasy films with a lot of complex action, climax and anti-climax would have ants in their pants if they happen to watch this one. I’m sure they will most likely scratch their eyes out, waiting for the badabing-badaboom action sequence while Helena shared riddles with a sphinx, exchange “lively†banter with the orbiting giants, and search frantically for the charm. But nothing “that†explosive will happen.
It’s sad to admit, even for me, that the film’s resolution is really quite straightforward and predictable. So now, you’ve reached the point in this post where I give off my rants.
Personally, I like reading Gaiman’s work better than seeing actors spouting his screenplay’s dialogues. It is just too restricting for my imagination to hear the words he had written delivered in an unimaginative way. I don’t know if it’s the actors or the script that failed to attract any emotions from me. But it felt like I was missing something after the movie was over.
Was it the lack of humor, the character’s chemistry, the action, the suspense, or the drama? I don’t know really. Part of me was so enamored by the art and design of the film and another part of me was left expecting more from the story. Maybe an emotion or a feeling of some kind or maybe more heart.
The truth is, if you were to ask me who or what is the most memorable character/creatures in that film for me, I will answer you back with nothing. Okay, I’ll probably say the sphinx or the weird kitties, but this doesn’t count because I like kitties by default. But what I mean is that no character in this film had endeared itself to me, not even Valentine (hmm…maybe I should watch it again and again so the characters can grow on me).
Well, this makes me sad. When I watched Labyrinth for the first time, I found Hoggle, Ludo and Sir Didyimis memorable. When I watched The Never Ending Story, I found Falcor, Rock Biter and even Atreyu’s horse, Artex, memorable. And all these are not even the main characters.
As for Mirrormask, I’m actually at a lost. I do like the film in general, but I suppose too much use of CGI, no matter how cost-effective and technical savvy it is, had made the film seemed a bit bare and emotionless. But I’m sure there are other people who think otherwise.
As for me, I’d rather read the book.