The Balcony Will Always Be Open
There was once a time long ago when animation was considered by many outside the field to be a genre of tropes and gimmicks instead of the art form it was always intended to be. Times have changed since then as animation has gradually gained respect from many over the years. But in order for that change to occur, there needed to be a firm push back against those narrow minded views to defend the artistic merits of the medium. This change comes through two levels. In the first floor you have the animators' high quality and memorable films being played on the silver screen for all of us to enjoy from our seats in the theater. The second level that rests comfortably above us is the balcony, where awesome animation historians (Jerry Beck or J.B. Kaufman) and film critics (Leonard Maltin or Robert Osbourne) bring attention to these animated works through their reviews and research. The late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were like them as they gave the art form a voice through their show during a time when it really had no place to be heard.
Gene and Roger were well versed in the history of the medium as animation buffs who grew up with it as admirers throughout their lives. This genuine sentiment was reflected through their analysis over what truly made an animated film stand out from the rest of the pack. They understood the thought process and hard work that went into the production of these cartoons. That is why they touched on whatever detail they could observe within a span of just a few minutes . The two would even deconstruct classic animated films as they debated whether or not some features lacked the sophistication of other films from that same period. Don Bluth’s “All Dogs Go to Heaven” (1989) was one of those animated films that got the duo into a lively debate over an issue that is still debated in the animation world. Is the story or the visuals more important in the end? Gene didn’t like the picture because he thought the story was incoherent to follow, but Roger liked it because of the strength of the character animation. Gene argued that strong stories are what separate the classic cartoons from the poor ones, while Roger replied that the story aspect is secondary in all animation because more time is spent on how the visual sequences play out. Its a fascinating debate that seldom gets seen then or now. By the end of the debate, we too start to ponder on this question because they provided such convincing arguments to their viewpoints. One of the cartoons that the two liked but had some minor disagreements about was Walt Disney's 1953 classic "Peter Pan". Both liked the picture, but they disagreed over how good it was in comparison to the studio's previous works. Roger thought the film would delight children, but that its magic would lessen over time. It was a flaw he noted the early Disney cartoons did not have. Gene on the other hand disagreed, creatively using himself as a counterpoint to Roger's claim. You can honestly see the movie bringing out the kid in him as he reenacted parts of the film that even caught Roger's attention. I loved that sincere interaction between them because it showed just how much they truly cared about these cartoons that left such a lasting impact on them.
Gene and Roger never saw animation belonging exclusively to the mainstream studios. They thought an independent cartoon could be just as good if not better than an animated feature coming from an established animation house. They actively promoted independent animators who were challenging the industry with their own bold ideas for the art form. Even when a dud came along from those animators, the guys would tell their audience to check out their earlier works. The duo did this because they wanted people to see those animators' best work knowing that they offered so much to the medium. Both critics were champions of Ralph Bakshi, whose early films ("Fritz the Cat" in 1972 and "Heavy Traffic" in 1974) opened up the art form to adult themes and topics previously unseen in animated features. If you read Roger's reviews of Bakshi's work you could tell he really admired what he was trying to accomplish in the medium. This respect continued in the years that followed as Roger actually conducted an interview with the animator through his popular column. The opportunity gave him the platform to respond to charges made against him during the "Coonskin" hysteria and to promote his artistic vision for the art form as well. Such rare chances don't come along that often if you think about it. The same occurrence happened a decade later when Don Bluth entered the scene in 1982 with his magnum opus, "The Secret of NIMH". Gene and Roger had followed the great schism that happened within Walt Disney's storied studio and felt the need to inform their audience who may have been unaware of the backstory. Now some wouldn't' care to give out that information. They however thought it was important for people to understand why Disney's output had fallen short of their history. The duo kept that in mind throughout the eighties as the critics casted some of Disney's works to Bluth's films under a negative light. Their comparisons confirmed that the ol' Disney magic had been rediscovered not by its studio, but by a group of passionate animators they saw as free of the status quo.
Nowadays we know how history played out in the big scheme of things. But what about when its actually happening around you? As all of us, Gene and Roger were living history. That's the fun part when you watch these two actually pinpoint the beginnings of artistic movements that changed the game for the entire industry. Both of them not only correctly identified those touchstones, but they also predicted the events that followed as if they had a crystal ball in front of them. The year 1988 was one of those times with the release of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". The duo marveled over the pure awesomeness of the movie like animation nerds in the longest review they ever did on the show. No time was wasted as they went over the high quality animation, the interaction between the cartoons and humans, the social commentary, and the film's unbelievable visual effects. You could tell the two critics had so much fun reviewing the movie. The most important part of their take was the question they posed at the end, for the answer they suggest heralded the beginning of the Animation Renaissance. Gene and Roger were among the first to recognize that there was another revival coming about in the Animation Renaissance with "The Little Mermaid" in 1989. The nail on the head for me during their review was their belief that the film returned Disney to the great tradition of the classic animated films of which we often use to critique modern day cartoons. To them it was a revelation to watch a film with songs that actually had depth and meaning to the story, a quality that was forgotten in musicals for many years. Gene loved the film soo much that he even took the time to mention the animators and musicians who made the film possible. When does that happen? Never. This continued two years later when they argued for the inclusion of "Beauty and the Beast", the crown jewel of the Disney Renaissance, in the Best Picture category. That right there was the very definition of support.
Its pretty hard to find critics like Gene and Roger who were willing to go to the bat for little seen or under appreciated animated films. The status of those films come about for two reasons. One may be seen simply as a cash-in of a successful franchise. The other has an aura of controversy or a stigma surrounding it. The two critics saw through this as they came into these with an open mind and perspective. "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm" was such a film as it was dumped into theaters in 1993 with little publicity under the shadow of Disney's successful animated films and the then Batman live action films. It's failure was due in part to it not being an animated musical but rather a murder mystery film noir. They actually reviewed the film three years after the initial release when it was already out on home video. The two were in awe over the beautiful animation and mature story-line from which the kick-ass cartoon series that spun it always gracefully showcased. The guys not only thought it was better than the live action Batman films, but they even apologized for not reviewing it beforehand. They made a strong case to viewers that the film was a sophisticated cartoon aimed at adults as much as kids. Would you be surprised if I told you they actually liked "Beavis and Butthead: Do America" back in 1996? Yeah, I was just as I surprised as you were. Normally we wouldn't think of guys like them appreciating two idiots in Beavis and Butthead or anything coming out of MTV. On the contrary, they really did because the two understood what Mike Judge was satirizing in his characters. The duo defended it against the criticism it unfairly received from parents groups who believed it was a bad influence on their children. The two argued that there was actually a lot under the surface of the film then those groups let on. It was a nuanced thought that may have persuaded people on the fence to give the film a look for themselves. We all know that animation has long been an evolving art form of limitless possibilities. Gene and Roger were always aware of that fact as they acknowledged in their reviews all forms of animation; whether it be stop motion, computer, or even outside of our country. People forget, but for a while those forms were considered outside the mainstream because of how dominant American traditoinal animation was. But this reality did not deter them from highlighting those different outlets of animation. They were always excited at the chance of the art form pushing the envelope in whatever form it took. To them, alternative animation was what mainstream animation should always aspire to be. Its fitting how they both saw stop motion and computer animation as siblings in that sense. These were after all forms of animation that had their characters move around in three dimensions through a costly and time consuming way. They saw the connections made between today's works of those forms with the ones produced by stop motion pioneers like Ray Harryhousen several decades ago. That's why the two saw "Toy Story" (1995) and "James and the Giant Peach" (1996) as those special films that had to be seen to be believed. They wanted the viewers to come away with the realization that these were visually groundbreaking films that foreshadowed the great potential those forms possessed for the medium's future.
Animated films from America have long thrived in the drivers seat around the world. International animated features, however, were always relegated to the back seat here due to those movies being perceived as out of touch. Unless the film was attached to a video game or a trading card franchise, your feature was never gonna take off stateside. Japanese animated films like "Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland" (1992) and "Ghost In The Shell" (1996) previewed their country's promising artistic contributions, but were at a disadvantage of not having a big machine supporting them. Gene and Roger often showcased those films so as to educate viewers on how those cartoons reflected their county's attitudes, culture, and animation philosophy.
It always helps to have friends in high places. That's why in this chapter I did not call them by their last names like the series, but by their first names as good friends of animation. Their affections and respect for the art were reflected throughout their lives as film critics. I guess that explains why Gene and Roger's presence were felt in animation over the years. Animators couldn't get enough of them and would not resist the chance to parody them in their works. It just seemed like the medium alongside the duo belonged together and for that they have gained immortality in animation. They may sadly be gone now with their voices and words missed, but if one's thing for sure, the balcony will always be open to them in the animated world just as they did for us. And I think they would give two thumbs to that.
