Up

During my stay in Europe, my sister had managed to sell her house and was in the midst of planning her family's move out to Colorado. Given that, after I returned to the States, I would be in Massachusetts only about a week before taking off by car, on my continuing voyage.

I waited a couple days before logging onto the movie listings page on Google. Frankly, I just needed a rest (as well as to catch up on this blog), and I knew that the minute I started perusing the listings, I would swing into obsessive "got to see all the movies" mode.

Once I finally did have a look, I was surprised to find that my task was not nearly as daunting as I thought. I'd managed to keep slightly abreast in Europe, having seen all the Hollywood releases I possibly could. In many respects, it seemed the listings hadn't budged much. Among other things, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian was still showing at the Lunenberg drive-in where I'd seen it two months before.

The movie at the top of my list was Up, which everyone I know had seen, and was talking about, but which wasn't going to be released in Europe until September, possibly as a subsidy for the pirates there.

So on my third full day back, I found myself back in my little black Beemer on the highway to Leominster. The whole seven-week Europe trip felt somewhat like a dream, but for the fact that it was now fully summer in New England.

It was nice to be back in familiar surroundings at the Entertainment Cinemas ten-plex, even if it might be for the last time. I noticed that they had finally changed the satellite feed of the pre-trailer music mix. The announcer no longer talked about the nominees for the "upcoming Grammy awards."

I figured Up would be a real treat, and the first ten minutes proved me right in many respects. As I've mentioned, I've come to believe that Disney/Pixar stands head and shoulders above the other studios not only in the quality of their animation, but in the quality of their storytelling as well (something that should be independent of budget).

Up was a perfect demonstration of this, in that it tells a nearly complete story in the first ten minutes completely without dialogue. This is old-school movie narrative, and it was nice to see it alive and well in 2009.

The animation was superb of course, as well. For the first half of the movie, I was expecting to chalk this up as another possible masterpiece.

But then something happened in Act Two that really left me scratching my head. It wasn't the animation, or the acting, but rather the story itself that got me confused. Basically I can sum it up with the statement: what the hell was so important about the god damn bird?

Since you've probably seen the movie too, you know that the essential conflict which drives the story at the end is the struggle over a rare bird in the Amazon jungle. Charles Muntz (the villain) wants to capture the bird. Carl Fredericksen and his child sidekick Russell want to keep Muntz from capturing it.

Fine. That's a good basis for conflict. But what motivates the characters? As far as Muntz, I understand his motivation completely. There is no question of where he is coming from, and why the bird is so important to him, since it is strongly spelled out by the story up to that point.

I also understand why Russell wants to save the bird, out of childlike sentimentality for his adopted pet.

But why does Fredericksen care so much about the bird, enough to sacrifice everything else on his personal quest? This remained a mystery to me right to the end of the movie.

The scene that really puzzled me was at the dinner that Muntz hosts for his guests. Muntz starts to go into detail about his obsession, and we see Fredericksen realize that Muntz is talking about "Kevin," the bird that has been accompanying them.

We see Fredericksen start to get very nervous. But why? Didn't Fredericksen hate the bird? Why does he get so fidgety?

It's not that I can't make up a motivaton myself. For example, perhaps Fredericksen is concerned about the endangered species status of the bird. Or maybe he wants to protect Kevin's babies? Or maybe Fredericksen wants to spare Russell the pain of having his pet become an exhibit in Muntz's museum.

All of those are possible, but none of this is spelled out. Given that Muntz is obsessed with the bird, it is absolutely essential that we know why it is a matter of life or death to Fredericksen that the bird be saved.

To my mind, at that point in the movie, it could have equally possible for Fredericksen to tell Muntz, "Well, heck, I know where that bird is right now. I can lead you right to it." This should not be the case, in a well-written story.

I have a feeling that we're supposed to read sentimentality into Fredericksen's motivation here. This is disappointing to me, as it was in the early scene in which he and Russell first meet Kevin. When Kevin starts piling up Fredericksen's food provisions, ostensibly to take them back to her hatchlings, Russell exclaims that they have to help Kevin get the food to the chicks.

At this point, Fredericksen, following the character established for him up to this point, should have said something like "Nature takes care of its own, kid." Instead he gets pulled into Russell's sentimental view of nature, one that needs their own personal intervention.

Have we come to the point in 2009 where we're all supposed to have the sentimental "protect nature" attitude by default? Were the screenwriters relying on this to make us understand Fredericksen's motivations here?

In any case, I was rather disappointed that Fredericksen allowed himself to be pulled off his journey in order to cater to Russell's sentimentality. Because he does so, the bird's story becomes more important than the human's story (Fredericksen's).

Personally unless I'm watching a nature film, I personally prefer the essential quest to revolve around a human, rather than an animal. I wanted Fredericksen to help Russell grow up and learn about the real nature of the world.

I wanted to Fredericksen keep going with his house to reach the falls. Absent further explanation, I felt his sacrifice was not worthy of his nature, given how well the movie had started. Where in those first ten minutes of silent brilliance was it indicated that Fredericksen would throw away his lifelong pursuit to help a bird reach its nest?

All of this could have fixed with perhaps one extra scene, and a few lines of dialogue, to explain why Fredericksen changes his attitude towards the bird so drastically. Instead it was left mushy.

It sort of pains me to say these things, because conceptually, the movie was brilliant. There were plenty of good things in it, as well, as I've mentioned. For example, I like the story element of "abandoning one's vessel in order to gain a greater one." There's a lot of good tight storytelling, which is perhaps why the mushy part I mentioned really stuck out to me.

My only other real quibble with the movie was that it disappointed me by upholding the Law of Destruction of Museums (Muntz' shipboard collection). I saw that one coming a mile away, and it feels so trite to me at this point. For Disney/Pixar, I have higher standards than the other studios.