I have seen both Ratatouille* and Persepolis, two of the three films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. (I did not see the third nominee, Happy Feet, nor do I plan to.) I cannot fathom how Academy members would go about deciding which was the "better" film. What are the criteria that distinguish a good animated film from a live action flick in the first place? It seems to me that this is a somewhat antiquated distinction, dating back to a time when animation was reserved for kids' movies and Tom and Jerry cartoons.** Now, Ratatouille probably qualifies as a "kids' movie," but Persepolis certainly does not. Even Ratatouille seems more mature than the classic Disney fare.
My point, I suppose, is that I think both films should compete on par with No Country for Old Men. They're both great movies, and I don't see what difference animation makes for the audience. I can see an argument for an award based on technical merit for the drawings, or even for voice-over talent, but those would be akin to the awards for makeup*** or art direction.
In any event, putting Ratatouille and Persepolis in a separate category and asking voters to pick which one is the better animated film is like asking someone to decide whether Frampton Comes Alive or The Boston Pops' Nutcracker and Swan Lake Suites is a better live album. They're not really the same genre, you know?
______________________________
*Ratatouille was my oldest son's first theater experience. He did surprisingly well, although he seemed more interested in the popcorn than the movie.
** My aforementioned eldest has a DVD of classic Tom and Jerry cartoons, many of which are designated as Oscar-winners.
***Best line of the Oscar telecast? Jon Stewart's comment that even Norbit was nominated (makeup), which is great because the Academy usually ignores movies that aren't good.
P.S. As you can see, I learned how to put links in my posts. Get ready for some serious fun now!
No comments:
Post a Comment