Uncategorized

Reuben Goldberg  (1883-1970) was an American cartoonist and inventor famous for his illustrations of wildly complex inventions.  His “Rube Goldberg machines” would accomplish a simple task through a ludicrous chain of events.  He was an artists making fun of inventors and engineers.  Before proceeding further, I will offer an example video of a Rube Goldberg machine in it’s modern interpretation.

I chose a short video simply to get the point across. This one has the typical assortment of balls rolling down ramps and domino effects going on.  Some creators produce machines on a huge scale, with spectacular effects.  They can be amazing displays of engineering.  But I wouldn’t really call them funny.  Amusing, perhaps.  I think there is a lot of room available to develop the Rube Goldberg machine in animation.  If you dispense with relying on gravity as the primary source of energy, and inject some character and silliness into the idea, simulated/animated machines could actually be funny.

Now, lets look at some examples of original Rube Goldberg cartoons. Note the reading required to understand the steps. They are funnier if you bother to read them.

First, there is not one ball rolling down a ramp. Each of his cartoons is completely new, as Goldberg never seems to repeat himself. They are whimsical, and seem highly unlikely to function as intended. In animation, you would have the control to make the impossible mechanism function as designed. But maybe the biggest difference between the original cartoons, and the modern live versions is the animals who sit waiting patiently.  Their caricatured behavior is supposed to be reliable enough to be a part of the process.  These actors are what really brings the machines to life.  I am particularly fond of the octopus who crushes an orange that is painted to look like a diver’s helmet.

I am pleased to see someone finally added an animal to a modern Rube Goldberg machine.  The Rube “slowberg” machine was created by Bob Partington, and it includes a slow moving tortoise.  Some internet critics have complained that it is not a true machine, because it is filmed in segments.  The supposed actual time of the machine operating is over 6 weeks, which would be tough for most YouTube viewers who would quit 44 seconds in. Still, I think this machine is much closer to recreating the fun and spirit of the original cartoons.

Cartoon Brew is reporting that Pixar’s latest film “The Good Dinosaur” is underperforming at the box office. I am sorry to read that.  I think it’s a very good film, and totally worth seeing on the big screen.

The story takes place in the western half of what we know as the north American continent.  The western location was chosen to work with the “old west” story line of dinosaurs acting as farmers and ranchers.  Arlo, the main dinosaur, is one of three children in a family of herbivorous dinosaurs who cultivate corn to live on.  Arlo gets separated from his family, and begins a journey through the vast open spaces.  Some people are having difficulty with the nearly photorealistic backgrounds clashing with the cartoony characters.  That didn’t bother me at all.  I found it wonderful to look at.  Huge sweeping vistas, volumetric clouds, and amazing water effects.

Western moves are also known for their patient tempo.  This isn’t the hustle and bustle of the city.  The directors obviously studied the timing of western films.  There are lingering shots, and characters who take their time.  They didn’t load the film up with tons of characters either. Other dinosaurs suggested cattle rustlers, indians, or false preachers.   They probably had only a fraction of the characters found in Cars 2.  That made their presence more valuable, less disposable.  Walking in the city is a constant stream of faces, most of whom you avoid.  This movie is like walking on a trail and meeting people along the way.  It’s easy to say hello.  I found that very refreshing, and I appreciate Pixar taking the chance to deliver something different.

I also had quite a few hearty laughs along the way.  The human child had no language, so all of his performance was pure action.  He was naturally funny.  He rarely smiled, which is significant.  The serious facial expression suggests he is honestly engaged in the situation.  Doing something funny, with a serious intent only makes it funnier.  Contrast that with the continuously smirking fox shown in the  Zootopia trailer. He appears to take nothing seriously.  The boy, as well as the rest of the animal cast, are motivated by the simple need to survive.  It couldn’t be easier to understand, so there is very little exposition needed.   It is life at it’s most basic, which is the easiest situation for characters to be believable.  They want to eat, and not get eaten.  When trying to get food, the action was played for laughs.  When avoiding predators, it could get serious with big action.

There are also moments of heavy emotion. As this is the old west, death is presented as a part of reality.  The losses make it feels more dangerous than most animated films do.  Reviewers who suggest this movie is too kid or family oriented seem to have overlooked that.

I was glad I saw the film in 3D. I might even go back a second time.  Take the opportunity to see it big while you can.