Triplets of Belleville - How Fucking Cool Does This Look?!!

[Ghostboy]

That's 100% correct. Even Roger Ebert professed in his review that he was clueless as to how to describe the movie, and ended up just strongly recommending that it be seen.

Can someone smarter than me tell me who it was who was eaten by their shoes at the beginning? I would have guessed Gene Kelly, but it didn't look like him. I did recognize Django Reinhardt, though, so I'm not a complete embecile.

[snaporaz]

That's just it - I doubt they can.  It's probably something you have to see for yourself because of its odd nature.  From what I've heard, it has little (no?) dialogue, a great score, and unique animation.  Use your imagination.  It's playing in my town now, so hopefully I'll get to see it sometime in the week.  I expect great things from it, especially because it's so unique-sounding.  You should check it out for yourself, too.  It's not often something this original comes along.

well...i'm sure it's something that should be seen, but i'm still wondering why people are saying it's good, as opposed to just saying "you should see this, it's very different and original". i mean, can just one person agree with me that different and thought-provoking films don't necessarily mean they're good?

i mean, i'm not trying to say there's nothing to like about it - i haven't seen it so i have no real argument there. whatever, i'm not trying to debate anyone.

[Ghostboy]

i mean, can just one person agree with me that different and thought-provoking films don't necessarily mean they're good?

Absolutely, but in this case it is good, although it's so different that that adjective (different) is generally the best people can come up with when trying to describe it why it's good. To set your mind it ease, I will also say that it's funny, charming, scary, scathing, unsettling, astonishing,  and exciting (although only sometimes simultaneously). It also evokes Tati in the way that, if an audience member doesn't let themselves get absorbed in the narrative drive, they might think it's boring. Which it isn't.

[snaporaz]

if an audience member doesn't let themselves get absorbed in the narrative drive, they might think it's boring. Which it isn't.

actually, i was wondering...

does the film actually try to not let the audience follow the narrative?

[modage]

i mean, can just one person agree with me that different and thought-provoking films don't necessarily mean they're good?

not only can i agree, its my mantra!  

[Ghostboy]

if an audience member doesn't let themselves get absorbed in the narrative drive, they might think it's boring. Which it isn't.

actually, i was wondering...

does the film actually try to not let the audience follow the narrative?

Not at all. It's so simple that a two year old could follow it, although a two year old probably wouldn't like it that much. This definitely has a more adult appeal than, say, Myazaki's work.

[pete]

this whole idea of "following the narrative" and "filmmakers are storytellers"/ "good movies are the ones that tell good stories" is fine but most of the time it's twisted by hollywood types who want all the characters to be introduced in the first 20 minutes, the conflict in the first 10 minutes, and the dramatic arc, the hero must make decisions that change the course of the film, and develop the hero...etc.  And Triplets of Belleville, though an adventure story, doesn't really have all that much of an arc or character development.  It's a movie of quirks.  I have seen a lot of quirky movies in my time, but I can't really say if there's any movie that is driven specifically for the quirks (well, that's not true, we were just talking about tati several posts before weren't we?) and should be viewed just because the audience want to be delighted by strange visuals.  This movie is purer (and therefore less "weird") of a movie than any standard hollywood or indie movie you see, so Snaporez, instead of questioning the narrative arc of this film because of people's inability to summarize it other than their favorite moments and sequences that have delighted them, maybe you should start by questioning why contemporary narratives are so freaking formulaic, even amongst indie and foreign films.
and to the "grander" idea of thought provocation/ originaluty does not equal to a good film, then what does?  this is a question, I'm not arguing against it, but I'm really curious to hear your criteria for a good film.

[Ghostboy]

I think what he means is that different and provocative material doesn't neccesitate that the film be good.

[Gold Trumpet]

you better have seen that tati spirit man, 'cause chotmet himself cited tati as his major influence growing up.

Before seeing the film, I kept thinking about how much like Tati the film would be. It wasn't nearly as minimalist as Tati is and placed the simple Tati-esque comedy within a three act structure. Russian animation and Tati both use minimalist comedy, but russian animation usually has a familiar story structure to tell it within.

[snaporaz]

instead of questioning the narrative arc of this film because of people's inability to summarize it other than their favorite moments and sequences that have delighted them, maybe you should start by questioning why contemporary narratives are so freaking formulaic, even amongst indie and foreign films.
and to the "grander" idea of thought provocation/ originaluty does not equal to a good film, then what does?  this is a question, I'm not arguing against it, but I'm really curious to hear your criteria for a good film.

i know exactly what you mean. and no, i do not consider formulaic material to be...whatever you suggested.

really, i was just wanting to know if people thought "hey, this movie's way over my head. it must be good.".

i refuse to answer what equals a good film; that will only bring on an endless debate over preference.

granted, the personal definition of "a good film" cannot be summarized in one sentence. maybe even a ten-page essay.

i have done enough questioning of film in my life to have my own opinion on what is good. it doesn't matter if it's mainstream, indie, foreign.

and as for cinematographic collages, as i presume the triplets of belleville to be, well, i just think that if people think this movie's totally rad, what makes ANY collage of music and pictures a bad film?

[Chest Rockwell]

instead of questioning the narrative arc of this film because of people's inability to summarize it other than their favorite moments and sequences that have delighted them, maybe you should start by questioning why contemporary narratives are so freaking formulaic, even amongst indie and foreign films.
and to the "grander" idea of thought provocation/ originaluty does not equal to a good film, then what does?  this is a question, I'm not arguing against it, but I'm really curious to hear your criteria for a good film.

i know exactly what you mean. and no, i do not consider formulaic material to be...whatever you suggested.

really, i was just wanting to know if people thought "hey, this movie's way over my head. it must be good.".

i refuse to answer what equals a good film; that will only bring on an endless debate over preference.

granted, the personal definition of "a good film" cannot be summarized in one sentence. maybe even a ten-page essay.

i have done enough questioning of film in my life to have my own opinion on what is good. it doesn't matter if it's mainstream, indie, foreign.

and as for cinematographic collages, as i presume the triplets of belleville to be, well, i just think that if people think this movie's totally rad, what makes ANY collage of music and pictures a bad film?

Sanporaz, what's the point? You haven't even seen it, therefore you can't argue anything about this. All we can say is Go see it, not necessarily because it's good, but because it needs to be seen.

[snaporaz]

Sanporaz, what's the point? You haven't even seen it, therefore you can't argue anything about this. All we can say is Go see it, not necessarily because it's good, but because it needs to be seen.

read my last sentence again. if someone can give me an example of that, i think that would suffice my line of questioning for right now.

you know, that's something i've noticed about you - you always get all worked up over different talk.

i really hate how i try to discuss something and some of you guys turn it into an argument.

[SoNowThen]

Yeah, but man, what you're saying is really bizarre. It's like you're saying you don't wanna see this movie, and you wanna not like it.

It's a cute animation, it has some slapstick laughs, and some quirky laughs, it's got the atmosphere of Paris and New York (the movie kind, not the reality kind), it's got wonderful music, it's both a mystery and a comedy, and it's under 90 minutes.

Either go see it, or stop talking about it. This is endless, and not making any sense. You seem to be on a crusade against "movie snobbism", but you really picked the wrong movie to flame on. This is one of the fluffiest pieces of pop cinema I've ever seen. Just because it's different, doesn't make it not pop.

[Chest Rockwell]

Yeah, but man, what you're saying is really bizarre. It's like you're saying you don't wanna see this movie, and you wanna not like it.

It's a cute animation, it has some slapstick laughs, and some quirky laughs, it's got the atmosphere of Paris and New York (the movie kind, not the reality kind), it's got wonderful music, it's both a mystery and a comedy, and it's under 90 minutes.

Either go see it, or stop talking about it. This is endless, and not making any sense. You seem to be on a crusade against "movie snobbism", but you really picked the wrong movie to flame on. This is one of the fluffiest pieces of pop cinema I've ever seen. Just because it's different, doesn't make it not pop.

What he said.

I'm not trying to start an argument about it. All I mean to say is you're arguing a bottomless pit since you don't even know what you're talking, since you haven't seen it. What's really not the point of just going out and seeing it and then posting any negative vibes against it? I've just noticed that this whole thing has been going on for two pages or something and felt I needed to jump in and just tell you to GO SEE IT.  No hard feelings.

[snaporaz]

Yeah, but man, what you're saying is really bizarre. It's like you're saying you don't wanna see this movie, and you wanna not like it.

It's a cute animation, it has some slapstick laughs, and some quirky laughs, it's got the atmosphere of Paris and New York (the movie kind, not the reality kind), it's got wonderful music, it's both a mystery and a comedy, and it's under 90 minutes.

Either go see it, or stop talking about it. This is endless, and not making any sense. You seem to be on a crusade against "movie snobbism", but you really picked the wrong movie to flame on. This is one of the fluffiest pieces of pop cinema I've ever seen. Just because it's different, doesn't make it not pop.

alls i'm saying is that *from what i gather*, this film seems to be overrated, and that doesn't mean it looks like it sucks. maybe it's not, i'd have to see it [which i can't because it's not playing here] to find out. this film does seem interesting, otherwise i wouldn't be talking about it. i do kind of want to see it, but i'm just puzzled as to why some of you guys are raving about it, even before it came out. and one thing i'm trying to distinguish are the reasons why it should be seen [which i agree, it should] and what makes it a good movie. the lot of you have been saying how great it is, and when i asked why, you guys tell me "it doesn't matter if it's good or not, you should just see it".  

and no, i won't stop talking about it. i'm really surprised how you guys can get annoyed over what i'm saying. there's a reason for forums to exist, and it's not so people can just agree all the time.

scratch that. i guess i'll have to stop talking about this because some people seem to refuse to let certain conversation get anywhere.