Coraline (2009)

[oscar jubis]

(Warning: Spoilers)

The most recent ad promoting Henry Selick’s adaptation of Coraline, Neil Gaiman’s award-winning book, hails it as “the best reviewed movie of the year”. The year is young but it’s a fact that the film has received highest marks from many prominent print-media critics. Almost invariably, those judgments are based on its formal qualities and the viewer’s ability to escape into its wondrous, magical realms. Indeed, the sensorial experience afforded the viewer by a blend of ancient craftsmanship, stop-motion animation, and 21st century 3D technology is entrancing. For instance, Coraline’s ability to convey the texture of things like sand, cloth and fog is unparalleled. A beautiful scene that incorporates the sky from Vincent Van Gogh’s "Starry Night" is characteristic of the film’s inspired and imaginative visual design.

However, if a fantastic film, or any film for that matter, is to attain the potential intrinsic to the medium, then it must reflect on the conditions of being a person in the here-and-now. The story Gaiman concocted provides ample opportunities to do so. Coraline’s family has just relocated. Our prepubescent everygirl finds her new digs uninteresting and complains of being bored. She is frustrated by her parents’ inability or unwillingness to cater to her desires and pay attention to her. In a manner reminiscent of many classics of literature aimed primarily at youth, Coraline enters an alternative universe. This one is populated by doppelgangers of her parents and her new neighbors. The other-parents are particularly alluring in that they don’t have deadlines to meet or preoccupations to keep them from regaling Coraline with whatever she may wish. They do have black buttons for eyes but their seductive powers are strong enough to allay any apprehensions. So Coraline makes a return visit. The dream turns into a nightmare and the other-mother’s nefarious scheme becomes evident. She wants to turn Coraline into an “other” so she kidnaps and hides her real parents to keep her from leaving. At the surface level, Coraline illustrates maxims like “the grass is always greener on the other side” and “be careful what you wish for”. But there are deeper currents in the narrative involving complex issues.

From a feminist perspective, it’s interesting to note that Coraline’s parents work and share the household chores and that the character who ultimately stands for evil plays a traditional mothering role admirably. Coraline links the mother doppelganger to stereotypical, pre-feminist notions of womanhood and maternity. The reading is complicated by the fact that the other-father is thoroughly impotent; merely one of the many artifacts constructed by the other-mother to entice Coraline.

From a developmental perspective, Coraline finds herself preoccupied with achieving individuation and a strong sense of personal identity. She wants to wear a particular pair of gloves to school which would allow her to stand out among her peers and she is mortified by being called by the wrong name. A nameless cat that becomes her recurrent companion, the one character that doesn’t have a double, opines that “you people need names because you don’t know who you are”. Coraline must find defining personal qualities so that she doesn’t need colorful gloves to be acknowledged. She becomes remarkable because of her courage to face her fears and defeat the stifling other-mother and because of her compassion towards the three ghost children trapped in a soulless limbo.

Coraline is initially wedded to a childish notion that it’s her parents’ responsibility to make her life interesting. As the narrative unfolds, Coraline increasingly develops self-reliance and an appreciation for things in her real world. Of equal importance, she learns to recognize and accept her parents’ limitations as they remain oblivious to the fact that she has saved their lives. At the conclusion, she doesn’t need to be treated like a heroine because their love is plenty.

It’s lamentable that Coraline makes it such a chore to extract these meanings. The problem resides in Mr. Selick’s inconsistent script, his first. His previous directorial efforts, such as The Nightmare before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach, benefit from the involvement of accomplished screenwriters. Coraline’s script often seems subservient to audiovisual spectacle and audience demographics at the expense of storytelling and narrative dexterity. For instance, the decision to invent a new character, a kid named Wybie, seems motivated solely by the belief that the boys in the audience need a gender-appropriate object of identification. His participation in the defeat of the other-mother means Coraline must share the spotlight with him. This simply doesn’t seem fair after she overcomes all the obstacles placed in front of her. Moreover, the diminished role of the three ghost kids in the film detracts from the pathos that their presence generates in the novel. The best reviewed film of 2009 has many unique virtues and redeeming features, yet I find myself lamenting its failure to become the instant classic or masterpiece it could have been.

Oscar Jubis
17 February 2009

[Chris Knipp]

I agree in finding the film unsatisfactory but I'm not familiar with the book (for once you compare with a book: bravo!). First of all I was won over by a charm and individuality (during the first few scenes); and despite your finding the boy irrelevant, I liked him--though he wasn't properly used throughout.

Later the plot became repetitious, and more and more unpleasant and frightening to me, not to mention I should think for the young children in the audience. Frightening, but also repetitious and annoying, because you're quite right that the script is weak, and it's poorly organized. It locks one in a monotonous cycle.

I like the stop-motion too, but can't go along that "21st century 3D technology is entrancing." In fact 3D seems to me as much a silly gimmick as it was in the begnning, and a waste of time for anybody with a strong visual imagination, much the way smoking hash to enhance visual perceptions seemed a waste of time to me years ago. If you have a well-developed visual sense, such tricks are unnecessary, and pointing knitting needles out at the audience is a cheap attempt at shock. The shock of "3D" only lasts for a little while. Then the eye adjusts so that the effect just seems normal and no different from an ordinary film after a while. And when you watch a '2D" (regular) film, your eye likewise adjusts to perceive depth, as "3D," and in a smoother, more natural manner. The "3D" effect only provides us with an artificial layered series of limited variations in depths-of-field, almost exactly like the stereopticon images one held up to one's eyes with big double photo cards, in my grandmother's day. It's the same thing, a tinny quality of "depth" that isn't necessary at all if you have any visual imagination.

The visual originality, the oddities, of CORALINE seem derivative from Tim Burton and other models, and pale compared to the ornate and ingenious peculiarities and visual puns of THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE, while the exploration of a child caught between a real and a troubling imaginary world is taken to a far richer level in Del Toro's PAN'S LABYRINTH, to cite two examples beside which CORALINE comes to seem very overrated in US reviews.

But the trouble is that animations are somewhat wasted on me generally. However, look at my reaction to WALL-E. So I can respond to animation, when it's witty or wonderful. And I loved FANTASIA as a child, and many short animated films, though I generally thought them just something to be got through on the way to a good feature, and the proliferation of feature-length animated films today seems a very dubious development, except for where it has a serious intent, such as PROSEPOLIS or WALTZ WITH BASHIR.

[tabuno]

Thank you for helping me to understand my reaction to this movie. I was dazzled and awed by the 3-D, which personally I believe is here to stay finally and is the new and permanent wave of the new generation of virtual reality of animation becoming a standard of the movie experience. However, I couldn't shake my feelings of discomfort and hollowness, as if something was missing from this movie. Both Oscar and Chris have helped to fill in the void and their commentary goes a long way to explain what was off about the movie. I found the boy's presence in the movie comfortable and an addition to the movie. Other than that I am appreciative of learning more about what went wrong with this visually stunning and captivating movie.

[oscar jubis]

I'm glad you guys watched it and posted here. I also don't think Coraline is a great (or near great) film like Persepolis, Fantasia, Triplets of Belleville, Pan's Labyrinth, Wall-E, Waltz with Bashir, and my beloved The Nightmare Before Christmas (which is "Tim Burton's" but directed by Selick). But I think it's a must-see. Obviously I agree with Tabuno that the 3D technology is magnificent and disagree with both of you about the character "Wybie". Notice though that my objection to the character resides mostly in his figuring in the defeat of the other-mother. It should be Coraline's triumph and no one else's. Like in the book. Yes, I said that. I want to clarify that I've always considered the issue of adaptation a worthy topic of discussion. However, I do believe that a review of a film should attempt to consider the film as a stand-alone work of art/entertainment. I watched the film first, I enjoyed it thoroughly, yet I found that what I didn't like about it had to do with the script. So, given that the book is considered a good one (awards, reviews and such) and that it's a quick read, I decided to read it. Hence I believe I have the authority to make comments about flaws in the process of adaptation from book to film which result in a film that's ultimately and clearly below the level of masterpiece it had the potential of being.

[tabuno]

In thinking about adapting a book to film and Wybie's addition in the film, I don't really see why he necessarily had to have such a prominent role in the ending - he could just have been a witness to enhance and verify Coraline's accomplishment. It would have been just as, if not more, acceptable to me. Someone get in touch the with screenplayist (however you spell or name it). Yes, why add such different ending?

[oscar jubis]

Well said.

[Chris Knipp]

Well Oscar it seems when you have read a book a movie is made from you can turn out to be pretty strict about wanting the movie to be true to it, or fair to it, or not to alter it without justification--just like me with literary classics, or good books made into less good films. So we seem to be reaching more common ground here.

I don't really know what "stand-alone" means or what "must-see" means, however. It's pretty obvious that a film must stand alone, unless it's part of some multi-media event. As for "must-see," I try to see things that are much seen or highly praised, but animations are low on my list of priorities and since those other animations are all better than this one, I don't see where the "must" element comes in.

[tabuno]

This is the first "must see" 3-D animated movie to really suit its technological advance and bring forth a new age of film. I don't think there's any going back after this amazing 3-D portrayal. Like sound, like technicolor, 3-D after hits and misses has established with this movie the important cinematic benchmark that 3-D will now play in future films. I don't think the next generation audience will view movies the same way again. The glasses, the almost sheer clarity of viseral reality makes for a whole new movie going experience that is to stay here forever (as long as humanity continues and well maybe even beyond).

[Chris Knipp]

I can't imagine how you arrived at this conclusion. "3D" glasses darken the image to a tint of gray--are you aware of that? It's also extremely wasteful. I think it quite useless, just a novelty. I prefer Smell-o-vision.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp says that he
can't go along that "21st century 3D technology is entrancing." In fact 3D seems to me as much a silly gimmick as it was in the begnning, and a waste of time for anybody with a strong visual imagination, much the way smoking hash to enhance visual perceptions seemed a waste of time to me years ago. If you have a well-developed visual sense, such tricks are unnecessary, and pointing knitting needles out at the audience is a cheap attempt at shock. The shock of "3D" only lasts for a little while. Then the eye adjusts so that the effect just seems normal and no different from an ordinary film after a while. And when you watch a '2D" (regular) film, your eye likewise adjusts to perceive depth, as "3D," and in a smoother, more natural manner. The "3D" effect only provides us with an artificial layered series of limited variations in depths-of-field, almost exactly like the stereopticon images one held up to one's eyes with big double photo cards, in my grandmother's day. It's the same thing, a tinny quality of "depth" that isn't necessary at all if you have any visual imagination.

But just as Mr. Knipp says that "the eye adjusts" so to with 3-D, the eye appears to make adjustments for the "darken image" so that the eventual effect of the 3-D image is to appear virtually real. The actual feel of depth perception almost never disappeared in this movie unlike in the old days. About a decade ago, I read that the major problem with 3-D technology is that the hair could never be made to appear real, but now with Coraline the technology has arrived to transport the visual range of animation to a substantial feel of realism and clarity that I've never experienced before. I don't if I want to ever go back to 2-D.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, this is an interesting position, but surely at best a bit premature. No doubt 3D has been improved. Yes, the eye adjusts to the darkening of the image by the glasses. But color and light are still lost. And it still seems to me a gimmick, and not a necessary one.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Well Oscar it seems when you have read a book a movie is made from you can turn out to be pretty strict about wanting the movie to be true to it, or fair to it, or not to alter it without justification--just like me with literary classics, or good books made into less good films. So we seem to be reaching more common ground here.

My experience with this film was not one of going into the film having read the book and having expectations based on it. I watched the film and what seemed off was the script. Why was it that the characters of three ghost children who've lost their souls weren't generating the intense pathos one would predict they'd generate? Why does that boy come out of nowhere to save Coraline by delivering the final blow to the other-woman (or what remains of her)? I noticed that it was Selick who wrote the script and that the movies he's directed before have scripts written by others. So I read the book and I liked it a lot. I concluded that Selick is a great visual designer and director but not a great writer. I don't mind films that depart from the book on which they are based. But there was something wrong with the script of a film that is otherwise sensational (great visual design, voice performances, interesting premise, jaw-droppingly beautiful scenes, a terrific music score, plenty of psychological depth and feminist subtext, etc.). So I went to the source to find if it merited its outstanding reputation and it does.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, i know all that, you made it clear earlier.

Selick obvously should have gotten a good writer to do his work for him.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp
Well, this is an interesting position, but surely at best a bit premature. No doubt 3D has been improved. Yes, the eye adjusts to the darkening of the image by the glasses. But color and light are still lost. And it still seems to me a gimmick, and not a necessary one.

I believe it was entitled, "Dragon Hunter" (2008) which was playing on those wall screens at either Costco or Sam's Club and wow...it made your comments ring truer. The technical advances in 2-D, flat screen imagery was impressive and without the use of 3-D glasses! While I don't think 3-D perspective is a "gimmick," is it is likely to become a standard of the virtual reality theatrical experience much like sound and color...your observation of it being premature is possible in that flat screen theatrical releases in 2-D appears to still have the capacity to provide the audience with sufficient new depth perceptive scenes to adquately compete with 3-D technology. So it's very likely that the day that 2-D films need to necessarily worry about 3-D may be further off than I had imagined.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad you concede that making 3D the universal movie theater medium is unlikely, at least any time soon. I really don't like either Hi-Def or 3D, to be honest. They both seem unnatural and ugly. The most beautiful film I've seen lately is Philippe Garrel's The Frontier of Dawn, in black and white, projected on the big screen at the still-superb Walter Reade Theater at Lincoln Center on Washington's birthday.

[tabuno]

I can't go as far to say that 3-D is "ugly" and "unnatural," except to say that 2-D isn't that far behind 3-D. Somehow it is just that "unnaturalness" that appeals and seems alluring to me. At least with "Coraline," the 3-D effects enhanced the fantasy and highlighted the perspective of a richer and deeper dimensional visual experience. The same or almost equivalent experience appears to be feasible in 2-D.

I would agree, I'm assuming that you would also, that the story remain paramount to the special effects and that the plot, the characters (animated or not) still must be superior. But with the addition of a new visual dimension that can transport one closer to a reality of experience, it brings the experience even closer to the audience where the barriers between reality and fantasy become further blurred and one can actually begin to immerse oneself into the feelings and story (for those lazy imaginative people who don't like to read, I guess).

[Chris Knipp]

It's debatable whether a certain perhaps more elaborate format stimulates the imagination more. It can be argued that black and white silent film was more stimulating to people's imaginations than today's American blockbusters. I think radio in its heyday was more stimulating to the imagination than TV, whether little Fifties black and white tube TV or modern big flatscreen hi-def TV. The more elaborate the technology gets, the more jaded we become, the more in need of further stimulation to get that sought-for illusion. An illusion that truly arises from within.

Of course we're here on this site because we love film, but I don't really agree with your assumption when you talk about "a new visual dimension that can transport one closer to a reality of experience," for a lot of reasons. What is the "a reality of experience"? (I'm glad you seem to assume by saying "a" the existence of more than one.) Why would I want to get closer to it? Mightn't I also just want to get further away from it?

I don't think anything matches being read to as a child. A picture is NOT worth a thousand words. And when I was at my grandmother's house where she read to me, I went to her attic and looked at pictures in her Stereopticon, and they looked like 3D movies look today.

[tabuno]

Yeah. The closer we come to spoon-fed reality, the easier it may become for our brains to become like "Wall*e" human beings in our lounge chairs. I still enjoy "Brainstorm" (1983) though, the 2-D version of virtual reality.

[Chris Knipp]

I saw BEOWULF in 3D last year, and also U23D, which according to Metacritic is one of the best-rated movies of the year.

Going back to Coraline, I still think THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE was repellent in a more interesting and colorful way...

[tabuno]

"Beowulf" was under-rated. I read the poem and the movie plot was modified to add a major ethical dilemma that really enhanced the ripping emotional intensity of the movie beyond that of the poem. As for "Triplets of Belleville" it had a more engaging, wit about it.

[Chris Knipp]

There are several Beowulf films. It's a very great poem. I studied it in Anglo-Saxon. There's nothing like that poetry. I liked the new 3D film. Zemeckis had an amazing cast, Crispin Glover, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, Ray Winstone, John Malkovitch. The earlier 2005 Scandanavian one Beowulf and Grendel was a bit dreary, but atmospheric.