Coraline (Henry Selick, 2009)

[Antoine Doinel]

I know there are some Selick fans around here, and there are definitely some Neil Gaiman enthusiasts in the house, so I'm sure this will be of interest.

The stop-animation film based on Gaiman's book is due out next year. Here's a whack of production stills.

[karmajuice]

This is interesting. I'd heard about this vaguely, a while ago, but had forgotten about the possibility. Possibly my favorite book by Gaiman. I hope this turns out well, but the notion of stop-motion animation and Selick (thank god Burton has nothing to do with it) are certainly promising.

[miless]

It is currently being animated here in Portland Oregon by Laika, which is the new name of Will Vinton Studios after being purchased by Phil Knight.

[Jeff]

There is a whole bunch of Coraline stuff on YouTube. This featurette is a decent place to start. It may get an Academy qualifying run in NY and LA in December if it's ready in time.

[knives]

Is the animation going to be nightmare or traditional?

[Kirkinson]

Is the animation going to be nightmare or traditional?

I'm not quite sure what distinction you're making, but I think the answer is "both." Nightmare already was "traditional" (albeit with more advanced technology). Stop-motion animation dates back to the silent era.

[knives]

Is the animation going to be nightmare or traditional?

I'm not quite sure what distinction you're making, but I think the answer is "both." Nightmare already was "traditional" (albeit with more advanced technology). Stop-motion animation dates back to the silent era.

Yeah, I meant stop motion or hand drawn. Answered anyway so thanks.

[Antoine Doinel]

An interview with Neil Gaiman about the film.

[Mr.Jagil]

Have been looking forward to this ever since it was announced... Looks stunning.

[Antoine Doinel]

Here's the official website and poster.

[karmajuice]

I'm sure I'll like this, and it looks great, but I'm kinda miffed with the stop-motion animation. I can't say I've seen enough to pass judgment, but it's too flawless. It's so close to CGI that it hardly makes the distinction worthwhile. There's no artifice to it, no texture, and that's one of the things I've always loved about stop-motion (and which is more than present in The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach).

[Antoine Doinel]

Here's the trailer -- it looks great.

[Saturnome]

I think that trailer shows it still feels like stop-motion - and that's great.

[Dylan]

It looks gorgeous.

[Antoine Doinel]

Pretty amazing, numbered and signed press kit.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I finally saw the film today and it's a commendable effort. Jan Svankmajer fans will love this movie. Otherwise, I don't know how far this will go after word of mouth. There were a lot of kids under ten in the audience, but it's more appropriate to tweens I think. The 3D conceit is a little wearying after awhile, but it proves its worth in a few scenes. It's certainly a beautiful film, but I felt underwhelmed. Royalties for the book this year will surely be good for Gaiman even if this movie tanks. I mention that because it is a good kid's book, but I don't think the movie captured that part of it as well as I'd hoped. I may be proved wrong, though. I probably had my hopes placed too high so don't let me dissuade anyone from seeing it. I just had to let out my initial feelings because I'd hoped it'd be creepier and more satisfying to watch.

[Antoine Doinel]

A look at the complete set of Coraline mystery boxes that were sent to select bloggers.

[LQ]

I got the chance to catch this in 3-D last night, and it is a dazzlingly gorgeous movie; the textures especially are incredibly tangible, more so in this than any CGI film I've seen. I was thrilled by the look of this, but as for actually being a good movie I have to agree with Garbo. I was left underwhelmed and a little disappointed. I'm unfamiliar with the book so I don't know how faithful this was as an adaptation but most of the plot developments were just too convoluted, even for a fantasy film. It felt like they were just making shit up as they went along. And even though the 3-D obviously added depth, I felt it was not utilized to the maximum potential. But even after my nitpicking I'm very glad that I saw it, such was the power of the visuals.

[karmajuice]

Saw this in 3-D last night. I still take issue with the stop-motion, it's so seamless it almost seems like CGI, but as LQ points out, the textures and style are just magnificent. The 3-D was fun; never really outstanding, but it didn't become a contrivance that affected the film negatively, either.

As an adaptation, it's pretty faithful. The biggest change is the addition of Wybie, which works well in some parts and takes away in other parts. Most of the other changes are minor. They do tone down some of the scenes, especially toward the end. In Gaiman's story, the decomposition of "Other Mother" world is more frightening, and it would be nightmarish on the screen. I think the film strikes a nice balance between toning these scenes down without sacrificing the mood.

On the whole, I liked the film. It doesn't quite capture the sensibility of the book, but it forms its own unique sensibility. The exposition is very well done, although the "game" with the Other Mother suffers from the reduced screen-time. It's a gorgeous film, of course, and I'm not even sure how they did some of the stop-motion. I'll give the film and the filmmakers a lot of credit for that alone: keeping stop-motion alive.

LQ, what specifically do you mean by convoluted plot developments? As far as I remember, the film is almost identical to the book in terms of plot progression. In the book, Gaiman develops a very complete world, and a very competent understanding of that world -- one gets a distinct sense of the Other Mother, how she functions, the rules of her world. (I actually consider Coraline Gaiman's best work, and think it's far less convoluted than American Gods, Neverwhere, etc.) It runs on a mix of dream logic and child logic, but it still makes a remarkable amount of sense; in the film, they just don't have the time to develop that.

A few years ago, I recommended the book to a young girl I know. She loved the book, and I think she's seen the movie by now. I'll have to ask her what she thought about it.

[LQ]

I've thought about it, and perhaps I was a tad unfair to the film in my first post. I've come to the conculsion that my issues with the plot were probably exacerbated by the onset of a 3D-induced headache midway through the film. Since I obviously have no patience for "child logic" when my head hurts, points that were just matter-of-factly thrown out and not really developed (why did the Grandmother have the Coraline doll?...and who was the Other Mother anyway? How did she come to be? How were the parents kidnapped?) tended to irk me a little. (I should add that I'm generally not the biggest fantasy fan) Plus, I was too dazzled by the glorious details of the characters' faces, the landscapes, etc to be bothered with the equally intricate details of the plot. Perhaps as you say in the book, Gaiman has more time and space to really flesh out the two worlds and their inhabitants. I should either pick up the book, or go watch a regular print of it to get lost in the story...I feel that like some other films, Coraline almost demands a pre-viewing viewing before it can be totally appreciated, story, themes, and all.
But really, I take back what I said: the film was achingly beautiful and overall it thrilled me, so I should just shush. I'm just happy that a children's film of this ilk exists, especially in light of the awful dreck we saw being agressively promoted in the trailers.

[Antoine Doinel]

Dumb question for those who have seen the film in 3D: I haven't been to any of the modern 3D films in theaters ---- are the 3D glasses provided large enough to fit over eyeglasses?

[karmajuice]

They're pretty large, but they're not very flexible. I suspect they would be uncomfortable if they worked at all.

[Antoine Doinel]

Dumb question #2: Can I go to a 3D screening and not use the glasses or will it the film look weird? It's only showing in 3D in my local theater.

[karmajuice]

It would look weird, although I'm not sure how weird. I took my glasses off once or twice. It looked blurry. I think that would only apply to the 3D scenes, but the 3D is pretty thoroughly integrated.

I don't want to dissuade you from seeing it, of course. I'd say it's worthwhile to try working with the 3D glasses -- they may be more accomodating than I think -- except I'm not sure that's true, at least not with ticket prices being what they are. Sorry

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Antoine, it won't look bizarrely weird, just slightly blurry and rather out of focus. The 3D is a conceit and rather annoying, but it works for some great parts - the raindrops on the window, the candles on the cake, and the prologue. If it gets to be too much for you tho just keep the glasses on and close your right eye to negate the 3D effect. I certainly wish I could have seen it normally - especially because of the ticket prices - but it has its moments in 3D like I said.

Anyway, I've seen the film twice now and it's still good, but I still feel disappointed. The final confrontation feels rushed and lacks urgency. I knew the outcome, but I did not feel challenged either way. It would've been better to have extended the tension in the final game up into the final confrontation as well. Also, in Gaiman's book, the parents (especially the dad) come across as just too busy to give due attention to Coraline. In the film, instead they actively voice frustration with her. Aside from being a scared child needing protection, I can't see why she would would truly want them back. Ironically, the Other Mother sounds more caring than the real mother. However, seeing that mouse circus and the song by the "dad" again really made my day. I really can't get over how lovely Coraline's simple facial expressions are - for instance, the look on her face each time she opens the little door are beautiful. The models are extraordinary and their texture truly makes it superior to CGI. Dakota Fanning and Teri Hatcher really help carry the film with their voices. I couldn't believe how different both of Hatcher's performances were.

I won't get into the criticism here, but anyone interested in the movie truly must read the book, too. Gaiman's usual examination of the real vs. fantastic is still here, but the added dimension of the child's progression from innocence to knowledge really makes it more.