by James Rosario and Edwin Arnaudin
Edwin Arnaudin: Featuring everything from a talking fox to a naked sailor hurled skyward by an explosion, this year’s Oscar-nominated animated short films seemingly have something for everyone. Which one’s sensibilities most align with your own?
James Rosario: Unfortunately, none of this years’ entries resonated with me in any kind of meanigful way. I didn’t actively dislike any of them, but I also wasn’t blown away by anything either.
From a purely artistic standpoint, though, I’ve got to give a healthy nod to “The Flying Sailor.” It starts with an almost old-school Max Fleischer vibe but quickly goes into the territory of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, complete with a weird cosmic egg and everything. There’s something strangely metaphysical about a naked sailor flying through outerspace that I find compelling on a level I’ve never considered before. It’s also the shortest, where I feel other entries overstayed their welcome a bit.
Edwin: “Sailor” is indeed short, but even then I think it fails to justify its runtime. The two that feel just right — or, in the words of my sister, “baby bear” — are “An Ostrich Told Me the World is Fake and I Think I Believe It” and “Ice Merchants.”
An Australian export, “Ostrich” plays like an expansion of the behind-the-scenes time lapse sequences at the end of Laika movies that are often better than the films themselves. Getting to see the stop-motion process in-camera and from various other angles is a treat, and it doesn’t hurt that the existential crisis subject matter and character design remind me of Charlie Kaufman’s Anomalisa.
Then there’s the beautiful and soulful “Ice,” a Portugal/France/UK collaboration but really the brainchild of João Gonzalez. Refreshingly bereft of dialogue and resembling a graphic novel come to life, this tale of a father and son with an unusual profession earns its big emotional payoff and makes me want to see more from Gonzalez.
I wouldn’t mind if either of those two won the Academy Award on March 12. Sounds like neither of those did much for you?
James: They didn’t, but I do agree with your assessments, although to a lesser degree. I’m a fan of both stop-motion and existential crises, but “Ostrich” seemed a bit Matrix-y for my tastes. I certainly appreciate its intention, but I still think it fell short.
I did like “Ice” better than “My Year of Dicks,” though — the Pamela Ribon-written and Sara Gunnarsdóttir-directed 24-minute epic about a teenage girl in 1991 searching for the right boy to lose her virginity to. The early ’90s were pretty formative years for me, and “Dicks” had some cultural references I usually enjoy (skateboarding, etc.), but I couldn’t get into it no matter how hard I tried. Certainly the animation style had something to do with it — I’m very picky about that sort of thing — but more so I found the characters very annoying. I probably was at that age, too, so I shouldn’t give “Dicks” too hard of a time.
How did you feel about this coming-of-age exploration?
Edwin: For all the purported stimulation that the publicity promised for “Dicks” — including a heads-up for the interstitial card, warning parents to get their kids the hell out of the theater (after they’ve seen the far more graphic “Sailor”) — I found the film rather…flaccid. As you note, the attention to detail is there, but the players are so thinly sketched and repellant that it’s a chore to endure.
That leaves “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse,” the seemingly annual British storybook adaptation nominee. It’s pleasing to the eye and increasingly heartfelt, but I found some of the revelations from its talking animals fairly abrupt and/or simplistic, which undermines the would-be tearjerking finale. Did you likewise shun the tissue box?
James: “Boy” is a bit of an anomaly for me. On the one hand, the animation is stunning and the characters likable enough, but where most comparable films would have a single underlying message or moral, this one knocks you over the head with a new one every 90 seconds or so. It’s a bit exhausting, and, quite frankly, not much more than a cheap grab at sentimentality.
But guess what? I’ll be damned if by the end it didn’t work on me — even though I knew all along I was being manipulated by every word. By no means did it move me to grab the tissue box, but I did grow to appreciate it for what it is: a well-made and nostalgic trip through the mind of child experiencing lonliness and loss.
As recently as a year ago, I would have put my money on “Boy” to take home the Oscar, but after “The Windshield Wiper” — a very adult entry — won over the fantastic family short “Robin Robin” at last years’ awards, I’d say all bets are off.
Edwin: “Boy” seems like it has a good shot of winning, but I’m hoping the whimsy and emotional payoffs of “Ice” will prevail. Still, I wish the entire program was stronger and that there was a clear stunner like our beloved “Robin.” Overall, I give it a B-minus.
James: If I remember correctly, I believe I said something along the lines of “If Robin Robin doesn’t win, I’ll eat my hat.” I’m glad no one held me to that, even though the sentiment still holds true. And if I’m using “Robin” as a benchmark (even though it didn’t win), this years’ films fall short of the high standard I know short films can achieve. For that, they get a C-plus from me.
Originally published by ASHEVILLE MOVIES.
James is a writer, record collector, wrestling nerd, and tabletop gamer living with his family in Asheville, North Carolina. He is a member of the Southeastern Film Critics Association, the North Carolina Film Critics Association, and contributes to The Daily Orca, Razorcake Magazine, Mountain Xpress, and Asheville Movies.