Critical Analisys Of “Where The Mild Things Are”
Animation is everywhere these days, specially 3D. It all started with Toy Story and Pixar in 1995, and some years later Monsters, Inc. According to Paul Wells, Monsters, Inc. was “a watershed in the history of animated films” and compares it with other great movies of the same time. Wells analyses Monster Inc. regarding the circumstances of the time. At that time Pixar was under permanent pressure from DreamWorks a rival studio.
DreamWorks released Shrek at the same year as Monsters, Inc. and Wells compares these two movies, statin a quote from the film director Unkrich that “Shrek has too many movie references, too much topicality. (…) we tried to give Monsters, Inc. the timelessness of a fairytale. " Nonetheless the controversy between Shrek and Pixar, the same recurs with Bug’s life and Antz, for this two had too similar themes. DreamWorks mainly wanted to produce ‘Pure movies’ and reject children’s entertainment without being compared to Disney.
When analyzing animation studios, Wells stumbles on Warner Bros, that emerged as modernists defying Disney’s hyperrealism and creates innovative self-reflective cartoons most of them ridicule or caricature Disney. With this new amusing animation, Disney was also influenced and for the first time includes it in Aladdin. Whilst Wells did manifest research and reflexion on the theme, diverges from the question, and in stead of using an argument to support why Monsters, Inc. is one of the best movies, Wells constructs a series of tedious long paragraphs where he only states some interesting elements that could be relevant to the question. Considering that the article was written to explain to the readers what Monsters, Inc. is about, Wells describes a synopsis, excessively pointing out the main scenes in the movie. And although Wells did include significant aspects like: “wittily satirizes adult anxieties about work, success and personal fulfilment”, the epitome becomes too lingering for every reader who has already seen the movie. Despite that, Wells claims Monsters, Inc. “a watershed in the history of animated films. ”, additionally compares it with Toy Story and Snow white, manifesting a “parallel with Disney’s golden age” and using a quote from Unkrich Monsters, Inc. is aiming to achieve “the longevity of Snow White”.
Other interesting feature that Wells shows is the innovation that the movie brings with computer-generated images and rejects the idea that “technology generates the work, not the artists” and that “computers in animation are just another tool” quoting John Lasseter.
In this paragraph Wells does show a strong argument to support the question, and clearly manifests why he believes that Monsters, Inc. is a movie that lasts. In the last couple of paragraphs, Wells finally proves that his premise is correct after all, that “Monsters, Inc. “refuses self-consciousness and cultural irony” as observed in Shrek, “and addresses a mature theme with resonances for both adults and children” a rare achievement. Wells also believes that “Monsters, Inc. once more elevates the cartoon to the status of art” and that this elevates the story using CGI, and that for this Monsters, Inc. is a great movie. Regardless of some arguments where the question is forgotten, and makes the article tedious, Paul Wells absolutely did some research, and being a 3D animation professional, it couldn’t be expected otherwise. Indubitably, Monsters, Inc. is an extraordinary movie and shows the kind of art in storytelling that lasts.
