Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  Coraline: Too Good For Kids
Wednesday, February 4,2009

Coraline: Too Good For Kids

Coraline demonstrates why animation matters—and ‘Wall-E’ doesn’t

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

Coraline
Directed by Henry Selick
Running Time: 101 min.

Find our eyes, and our souls will be free.”That should be the credo of every film animator who pretends to make innocuous commercial entertainment. But it comes from Henry Selick’s deeply amusing Coraline—an animated film that might be too good for children. It arrives in time to expose the atrocious Wall-E.

Coraline’s story of a lonely pre-teen girl (voiced by Dakota Fanning) whose move to a new town rouses fears about her parents and strange neighbors, is told through images that pop-out at you in 3-D—particularly a ghostly trio of gilded African-American cherubim. These remenants of mysterious history and endangered innocence plea for vision and freedom. Such an image goes to the heart of moviegoers’ cultural identity—that’s why it both spooks and charms little Coraline and will be hard to forget. It’s nothing like the cartoonish pabulum foisted onto the public in ravishing junk like The Incredibles and Ratatouille or just plain junk like Cars, Finding Nemo, Ice Age and the essentially forgettable Wall-E.

Those films keep animation infantile, an industry convention critics bow before as if Wall-E was Wall Street. But thanks to Monster House, Persepolis, Waltz with Bashir and Coraline, traditional Hollywood animation looks like a babysitter’s ghetto.The day I saw Wall-E taught me about the uselessness of current family cartoons: It was a late Monday afternoon following Wall-E’s weekend box-office “win.” School was on holiday, yet an adult, a child and myself were the only people at the matinee. Apparently, despite critical hosannas, word-of-mouth had already pegged Wall-E as no fun. Liberated school kids had better things to do than watch a dystopia that then morphed into saccharine, manipulative Pixar formula. Coraline’s childhood trauma is entirely different; its uncanny embellishment of adolescent uncertainties—aligned with America’s hidden fears—deepen the genre. Both the willful, sharp-nosed, cobalt-haired white heroine and her hangdog, nappy-haired new friend Wybie (voiced by Robert Bailey Jr.) are prone to anxiety; they give the lie to Wall-E’s overconceptualized “family-movie” fluff. Selick’s adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s book doesn’t condescend to “little” moviegoers (that’s a marketer’s concern).Through Coraline’s fascination with dolls and dreams, Selick contemplates creativity, neurosis, intellectual pride and hungry curiosity—beginning with a credit sequence where unseen hands refurbish a doll and cast it into the universe.This wondrous opening reproves Wall-E’s futuristic, sci-fi fakery. Reviving the universal practice of craftsmanship surpasses a detached reference to space exploration that disregards human need. Our eyes and souls are deadened by Hollywood animation like Wall-E with its whirring, squeaky trash-compactor hero, an anthropomorphic Everycreature, whose garbage-hording reduces what used to be called “the humanities” to nameless, disowned junk.

This post-apocalyptic notion summarizes the critical constabulary’s contempt for humanist cinema (ever since the child-robot’s sojourn in A.I.:Artificial Intelligence was accused of lacking credible emotion). Congratulating viewers for both their worst thoughts and sappiest sentiments, Wall-E is an animated version of the pessimism in Paranoid Park (tarnishing skateboarding), a bloodless version of There Will Be Blood (rusty anomie).The Chaplinesque ending contradicts the film’s snarky disbelief in humanity: Humans are sloths and the lovestory between a Dumpster and a robot steals the boy/alien spiritual exchange of E.T. (and Stephen Chow’s CJ7) and trivializes it. Wall- E’s fans accept Pixar’s deliberate imitation of E.T.’s body and sound seeking the negation of Spielberg’s values in E.T. But Coraline preserves basic humanist values—its only hipness comes from Gaiman’s anagram title.The twisty scrutiny of Coraline’s relationships is primary, whether it’s tension from her parents or puzzlement about eccentric immigrant neighbors, including inescapable Wybie, the nuisance next door. Parenthood, adulthood and friendship are presentiments of real-life angst so Selick gives Coraline’s nightmares the personalized look of handmade artifacts. Dream imagery is pale then colorful, realistic then psychedelic—outclassing Guillermo Del Toro’s cornball creepiness in Pan’s Labyrinth.Those goofy, inexact, overreaching parallels to Spanish fascism frustrated the fantasy genre. Fact is, Pan’s paranoia is easily dispelled by politics and resistance; Coraline goes scarily deeper into psychological dread, recalling Gil Kenan’s underrated Monster House. Selick doesn’t hide behind technology like Wall-E’s futuristic cliches or Del Toro’s Fangoria grostesques; he embraces fundamental human experience, locating it in a child’s discovery of her id through knowledge of a new place and its history.

Selick treats the animated film as a legitimate art form, not the family-movie pretense that critics ascribed to Wall-E but then illogically praised the film for transcending. Relating Wall-E to Samuel Beckett as many did misunderstood the film’s purpose—and Beckett’s. Selick combines childlike wonder with pop mythology, not for a freakshow like his Tim Burton collaboration The Nightmare Before Christmas but with subtler undercurrents: a velveteen tunnel, an imprisoning mirror, plus coddling-then-frightening parental “others” recalling the mythologies of Cocteau’s fantasy films and the Mother/Meat sequence of Bunuel’s Los Olvidados.

While Wall-E pretended something “new”—eco-consumerism—Pixar/Disney’s aim is to inculcate technological consumption in all audiences. But Coraline uses genuinely new digital 3-D technology for greater effect. Selick knows the secret that the Old Master of stop-motion animation Ray Harryhausen employed on The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts: fantasy needs a lifelike quality. Harryhausen’s stick figures inspire the three-dimensional virtues of Selick’s puppets, improving on the fluidity and solidity of Selick’s The Life Aquatic sea creatures.These layered images (snow globes, stained-glass, various dolls) are so distinctly photographed they resemble two-dimensional storybook illustrations or classic cartoons. But Coraline’s also textured—jeweled and brocaded. It’s like looking at Christian LaCroix designs close-up—aesthetic qualities that the puppet cineastes Quay Brothers and Jan Svankmajer never achieved.

Wall-E’s worst offense re-runs discarded scraps of Hello, Dolly! to cynically reduce mankind’s history to nothing—omitting the immortal Barbra Streisand/Louis Armstrong duet. (Critics ignored the financial niggardliness of that clip—avoiding Streisand royalties—perhaps because they don’t respect Hello, Dolly! or its musical version of Thornton Wilder’s profound sentiments.) Yet look how Coraline’s artfulness peaks with those gold cherubim set against a starry Van Gogh night sky. Desire is conflated with anxiety, wonder and art history. Sometimes Coraline is so beautiful it’s humbling.

But it’s not perfect. There’s a huge hole in the narrative that loses the Streisand/Armstrong interracial significance of Wybie’s grandmother’s appearance. Selick doesn’t explain who makes the credit sequence doll which would enhance Coraline’s obsession with button eyes—Twilight Zone symbolism as shocking as Wybie losing his ability to speak. Clarifying the source of these startling images would enhance the cherubim’s cry for freedom, completing Gaiman’s multicultural subtext. Wall-E’s critical consensus doesn’t confirm the discovery of art, but the denial of culture, Coraline sees culture itself as the beginning of human connection.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 08/30/2009 
 
pat
Okay, I generally don't bother with this guy, but even I have to leave a comment here. First off Armond, this review is for the movie Coraline, not Wall-E. Second off all to everyone who says that the New York Press should fire this guy, let them keep him. If they want to look like the biggest joke in journalism, that's their problem. The longer they keep this rube, the worse it makes them look. Third, I finally have to send a message to Armond himself. I don't know what you are trying to prove with your way off base film reviews, however one thing is for certain: You are no film critic. You have no idea what it means to write a film review, your criticisms seem to bear no relevance to the movie itself and you seem to TRY...SO....HARD to find anything to hate about a praised movie because....what? You think it makes you look smart to bash on universally loved movies? The point is, you are a dishonest, cynical, attention grabbing rube and a disgrace to film critics everywhere!

 

Posted at 05/29/2009 
 
I bet you hate all movies except Classics which is fine but whats your point here? Why are you talking about Wall-E I thought you were reviewing Coraline? We are reading your review about Coraline so we dont really care what you have to say about other movies. And why are you insulting all these other movies...? Whats your problem? I kinda hate you

 

Posted at 03/14/2009 
 
I was going to write a comment on how Mr. White totally misconstrued the entire concept behind Wall-E and how he should obviously not be giving movie advice about movies, childrens or otherwise, but I believe rollintruth pretty much summed it up. Who writes a movie review by bashing another movie over and over again? We get it! You didn't like Wall-E! Move on! Not once durring the entire film of Coraline did I think to myself "Gee, I really wish Wall-E had been this good." It was a complete and different theme all together and had no relation to the innocent little robot that teaches kids about the horrors of obesity and our sad reliance on technology.

 

Posted at 03/02/2009 
 
This is yet ANOTHER example of this same reviewer failing to understand a film. How can someone who so consistently misses major themes and aspects of a film continue to find employment reviewing movies? He apparently fancies himself "irreverent" and loves to hear himself talk, even when what he says is laughably at odds with what transpired in the actual films. Did the reviewer really manage to miss so many key aspects of Wall-E? Did he not notice the depressing message at the end as the credit sequence showed the humans simply rebuilding the same society, and with the same evolution of technology that doomed us before? Did he fail to grasp the extremely important theme of how the humans were so far removed from the mistakes of the past that they were doomed to repeat them again? Did he really, seriously not get the sarcastic message that "in the future" humans would become lazy, fat, uber-consumers who want everything turned into a palatable water-down drink (if you have to think about that for more than 2 seconds, seriously stop reviewing films, please)? Could he not understand the strong message that the flashy, colorful, pretty, glitzy world of the humans -- and the humans themselves -- were the most dehumanized and depressingly bland vision of our future, whereas the most human emotion and message of hope and beauty were found in the FIRST portion of the film, where love, loneliness, friendship, and faith were represented? How on Earth could someone who obviously fancies himself a smart, thoughtful film watcher get pretty much everything about the film wrong, miss every major message and theme, totally overlook subtlety, and fail so miserably time and again in his film reviews? This is simply absurd. This man's notions of culture, art, and narrative are so flawed and banal, I may as well start using his reviews as opposites of what to actually expect from a film. Don't mistake verbose self-importance in this reviewer for actual intelligent assessment of art and films -- nobody who has such limited capacity to recognize themes and narrative has any business trying to explain art or film to other people.

 

Posted at 02/13/2009 
 
You should get Pulitzer for this. Classic.

 

 
 


  • Tue
    9
  • Wed
    10
  • Thu
    11
  • Fri
    12
  • Sat
    13
  • Sun
    14
  • Mon
    15

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter







 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close