leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (02/10/86)
Steve Knight wrote me a well-thought-out response to my review of ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN. I would like the Net to see what he had to say and also to see my responses to his comments. I have left his entire text intact, but have interposed my own comments. >Well, Mark, I have to take strong exception to your review >of "The Adventures of Mark Twain." If nothing else, your >review has forced me to get off my butt and post one of my >own, which I've been writing in my head for a week and a >half now. So much for my timing. Great! A little controversy should liven things up a little. But why wait until you disagree with someone? If you like a film, you should write a review. That is what net.movies is all about. (Not that I am trying to lecture; I'm not. But the more points of view the better it will be.) > >Okay, I'm confused. You claim that the film is only >"children's fare," yet not three paragraphs later you talk >about how much of the humor is too subtle for children. It >seems to me that it'd be difficult for it to be both. Not really. Let me give you an extreme example. Suppose Mr. Rogers started giving little allusions to Spinoza and Kant, but the rest of his program was pretty much the same. The program would still be children's fare with humor too subtle for children. TWAIN wasn't that bad, but it shows how you can mismatch styles. >And, if you'll forgive the possible unintended snide overtones >in such a question, were you asleep through the Mysterious >Stranger sequence? You'd have a difficult time indeed >convincing me that a message that nihilistic is something >which children will understand, or even appreciate, more >than adults. I think that is part of my point. I don't think the children would appreciate it at all. I don't think the adults would enjoy some of the more cutesy aspects like the heart-headed Becky and the worm-engines in the back of the ship. I suppose the film does have something for everyone, but too little and at too many points it is giving you something that either adults or children will not appreciate. > >This, in particular, is why I'm impressed with "The >Adventures of Mark Twain" as a film, animation aside. I >feel it gives a very decent treatment of a difficult >subject, namely the dichotomy between Twain the genial >humorist of his early years, and Twain the cynical >misanthrope of his later years. I think you underestimate >the difficulty of handling such a subject in a manner which >children will at least comprehend (and still be entertained >by) yet which will not bore adults to tears. If I felt it had given me any real insights into Clemens as a man, I would have enjoyed the film a lot more. It more simply made the statement that there were the two sides and I think that it may give children the impression that his writings are always either cute and simple or dour. Actually there is a whole range. And what was missing almost entirely was Twain's great humor. I didn't laugh even once at the film. Maybe I was too familiar with the Adam and Eve story, which I thought was really funny the first time I read it. And I really did not like the way they turned Eve into Twain's image of his lost love. > >I'm also a bit bewildered that you fault it for only >introducing children to Twain's "less important" works, yet >later imply that it has set its sights too high. >("...future full-length claymation films will probably set >their sights a little lower.") Now, I am no Twain scholar >and am not overly familiar with all his shorter works, so if >you mean that there are better short works that they could >have selected, I will have to yield to your greater >familiarity with Twain. If, however, you meant that the >film did not introduce its viewers to longer works such as >"The Adventures of Hucklebery Finn," works which are worthy >of feature-length films in themselves, I ask you, how were >they to adequately fit a novel into the structure they had >chosen? Ah, but the sky-craft with its index-evator was supposed to represent the whole of the works of Twain. The implication is that they would at least give you scenes from many of the major works. There are many incidents from Huckleberry Finn that stand on their own as stories. Picking substories from major works that gave the feel of the major works is more what was called for if this was going to be a good introduction and sampler of Twain's better works. But that is nearly impossible in Claymation. Different media force their own speed of storytelling. Let me take a minute to explain what I mean by that. Up until PBS/BBC did their COUNT DRACULA, the story of DRACULA has never been done very faithfully on film. The reason is that the novel is a long story with a lot happening in it. It takes three hours of film to do justice to the story. Ah, but Orson Welles did a very good job of telling the story in one hour on the Mercury Theater radio show. Why could he do in radio in one hour what it takes three to do in film? Because he has passages like, "Before anyone could stop it the black dog jumped up on the deck, was over the side of the boat and running down the beach and out of sight." [Well, that is the gist of a passage, anyway.] It takes about five seconds to say it. It would take at least 25 seconds to show it on film because you are slowed down by the visual images. The ear and mind are actually much faster than the eye which becomes dizzy if presented images too fast. Some Claymation actually takes advantage of this by intentionally presenting images faster than the eye can catch them so the mind always lags a second behind what is happening. CLOSED MONDAYS and another piece I just saw recently on cable in which an impressionist gives his impression of all of WWII do this quite effectively. My point is that just as film is a slower medium than radio, Claymation is a slower medium than most of the rest of film. The images take a moment more to comprehend than seeing real people would. They have to slow down and to let you admire their artwork. That combined the fact that ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN was short for a theatrical film -- most animated features are -- meant that Vinton left himself with not enough screen time to do justice to the idea of an introduction to Twain's works in Claymation. It was like trying to summarize the history of the US in two paragraphs. His medium forced him to give only superficial coverage. >Introducing viewers to Twain's style through some >of the more accessible short stories and through the >characters of Huck, Becky, and Tom seems to me, although >not an outright exposition of the longer works, an adequate >push for any viewers who like the film to go explore Twain >in more depth. I think giving a better feel for Twain's wild humor would do more. I think Hal Holbrook's MARK TWAIN TONIGHT gets more people to read Twain than this film ever would. It is verrry funny in places. And it is just Twain's writings that make it so. They are what are so funny. But you need a Holbrook to deliver the lines, not a cute clay doll. > >All this is not to say, however, that I think the film is >flawless. Although I enjoyed "The Diary of Adam and Eve" >far more than you did, I still thought it a bit slow in >places; it certainly could have used some tightening up. I think the fault was more in the medium than you give it credit for being. >(In fact, I wonder if the film as a whole got its start >because they made a short of "Diary of A & E" and decided to >put a frame around it. The animation in the "Diary" seemed >much more primitive to me, but this is purely conjecture on >my part.) It seems quite possible, but you'd have to ask Vinton. >This, in fact, is one of the reasons that I >initially thought the film was completely inappropriate for >children when I first saw it--too much talk, not enough >action to hold a younger attention span. After repeat >viewings, I did convince myself that there is enough action >to hold younger viewers's interest. The kids in the audience I was in saw the film only once and had the same first impression. One seemed to ask his mother every three minutes "Is it over?" > >This brings up the question of audience. Again, I do not >get a clear sense of your position. After dismissing it as >"children's fare" and mentioning that the audience was >filled with parents with small children, you state that >"this film is not going to find its proper audience." I do seem to be implying that it has a proper audience. I am not sure I really believe that. The people who would appreciate the Mysterious Stranger sequence would be put off by the more cute sequences. A proper audience would be able to follow the shift gears from childish to profound. Now notice that ALICE IN WONDERLAND never shifts gears like that. The story is always on two levels. It can be seen straight through as a children's story or it can be seen straight through as a collection of profound ideas (see Martin Gardner's ANNOTATED ALICE). TWAIN operates rarely at more than one level at a time, but that level shifts all over the place. I think kids were baffled by the concept of the two Twains. They are never baffled by ALICE IN WONDERLAND. >If it is attracting the sort of crowd which you feel it is >suited for, how is that not finding a proper audience? I, >however, would agree with your latter statement, but I can >not fault the film itself for not finding its proper >audience. I instead place the blame on Clubhouse Pictures >for not realizing what they have in "The Adventures of Mark >Twain" and for marketing it as though it were in the league >with the other drek in their series of five "family" films >("Hey There, It's Yogi Bear" and "The Gobots Movie," to name >two). I think they might have done better to rip out the framing sequence and just done short stories and incidents from longer works. But even when they had a work that would have been done well as a short story, "Celebrated Jumping Frog..." They let the medium change the story. They wanted to make the final scene more visual so they had the frog cough up pickaxes, irons, etc. instead of buckshot. You show me a frog that can swallow a pickaxe! That was Vinton trying to improve on Twain and fit the story to the medium. > >Okay, let's talk about the Claymation itself. (Oh, just for >your information, Claymation is a registered trademark of >Vinton Productions, and is not a generic term for animation >using clay.) "Kleenex" is a registered trademark of Scott tissue. "Claymation" is becoming a generic term, just like registered trademarks "linoleum" and "aspirin" went from being trademarks to generic terms. >Again, I'm confused. You start by saying >that it presents "images almost equal to cartooning," yet >two sentences later fault the medium for being "too >cartoonish." It is between "three-dimensional image" and "cartoon animation," but it is closer to cartoon animation. It is perceived as being an interesting way to do cartoons, not as being just a step removed from having real actors. >Which is it? If by mentioning "cartooning," >you mean to compare it to cel animation, I have to strongly >disagree, at least as far as the portrayal of human figures >goes. (I am not speaking here of the overall character >design, which is necessarily not perfectly anatomical. In >particular, the heads and hands are too big for the bodies, >but this is purely a concession to the ease of animation.) >I think of moments such as the difference between Becky's >smile when Tom's asking her to swear not to tell as opposed >to when he gives her the valentine; the subtleties portrayed >in her face make all the difference between a roll-the-eyes >smirk and an awed, wondering half-smile. I challenge you >to name *any* example of animation since Fantasia which is >as successful at portraying subtle emotion in human >figures. Interesting. But it doesn't convince me that Claymation isn't much more like cartooning than it is like having actors. You say that you cannot have similar nuances in cartooning, then you imply that it was done in FANTASIA. In fact, I think that it was done in other Disney cartoons since FANTASIA. It just takes a good artist, something that is not all that common. But notice similar facial expressions on a human actor would be considered overacting and hammy. > >This is not say that I think the film does not have its >moments where the animation is not up to scratch. I'm >thinking here of moments such as the early crowd scene, >with the paper boy and religious fanatic who look like >something out of Gumby, or the scene with Huck, Becky and >Tom bedded down in the hold, where the characters looked >unexpectedly rough. But on the whole, I will still contend >that the *animation* of the main characters is as >stunningly realistic as you will find. As you will find in a limited medium like Claymation. Holbrook does Twain much better. > >In short, though, I feel that you did a grievous disservice >to a very good film. Again, I'll maintain that it has its >flaws--but by glossing over the good points and >concentrating on the latter without establishing a >consistent viewpoint, well, I can only shake my head and >hope that other people will be intrigued enough to see this >film without the misconception that anything that is >animated is, by definition, a "children's film." I think that is a pretty common misconception. I agree it is a misconception, however. >You mentioned the possibility of future feature-length films in >Claymation. Unless "The Adventures of Mark Twain," helped >by reviews which more successfully describe its triumphs >and failures, can successfully combat the prejudices of the >marketplace, there will be no future feature-length films in >Claymation. And that, to me, would be a great tragedy. I see my responsibility as a reviewer to honestly give my impression of the film, not to foster the Claymation medium. I would not want to see Claymation die altogether, but I have to admit that I am unconvinced it is a medium that sustains a full-length film. People were unconvinced that cartoon animation would sustain a full-length film and when Disney made the first full-length cartoons he had to make them films that really stood out and proved themselves to be in the best medium for telling their particular story. That was the genius of Disney. Vinton is good at what he does, but he could not perform a similar feat with ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN and it may well be that it is an impossible task with the limits of Claymation. > >One last point: the film was not intentionally timed to >correspond with the return of Halley's Comet, as you >claimed. Vinton Productions started work on the film over >three years ago, and as I understand it, their initial >production schedule was not timed for it to come out now. >(Vinton claims they were completely oblivious to the comet's >return in making the film, but I must admit I find that to >be a little difficult to believe.) I should have said "seemingly timed." > >Look for my review on the net sometime in the next few days. >I hope you'll feel free to discuss with me anything I've >said above, or will say in my review. > > Steve Knight > ihnp4{!stolaf}!cray!knight I look forward to reading it.