Reviewing Reviews – Critiquing two reviews of Pixar’s “Up” (Directed by Pete Docter and co-directed by Bob Peterson, 2009)

Armond White of the New York Press had an awful review of the film (http://www.nypress.com/article-19876-the-way-of-pixarism.html), while Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle had a good review (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/29/MV6617S4LC.DTL)

 

While both White and LaSalle share disdain and disbelief for the film’s middle stretch of action and adventure, it is LaSalle—who wrote the overall positive review—whose criticism is better formed. Lasalle speaks plainly to the shortcomings of the film in clear specifics while White is so muddled in the larger issues he invents that he mostly ignores the movie. White’s few comments on the film are little more than assertions without evidence or support.

White begins his review with an analogy linking Pixar to General Motors at its zenith. That he spends the rest of his introductory paragraph explaining his meaning demonstrates it was not easily recognizable, and not the kind of easy opening that draws a reader in. At the time his review was published, it was the first negative review for “Up” on RottenTomatoes, taking the film from a perfect 100 down to 98. This arcane fact should have nothing to do with his review as it has nothing to do with the film. But apply this knowledge to a lens for reading and lo, some shape begins to form within the void of seemingly random discontent.

Armond White is a contrarian—that is why he spends more time complaining about the praise the film received than articulating his own criticisms. He sees himself as responding to a world gone mad, so it is understandable if his reaction is a bit scattershot. White throws around references to Robin Williams, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” (Directed by Stanley Kramer 1967) and Mr. Magoo, all in a description of the lead character. He mentions every single other Pixar film as well as 5 “good” animated films. He speaks at some length about Charlie Chaplin, Chuck Jones, and not just “The Red Balloon” (Directed by Albert Lamorisse, 1956) but also “The Flight of the Red Balloon” (Directed by Hsiao-hsien Hou, 2007). A choice selection of a few meaningful references can certainly enhance a piece of criticism, but too much leaves too little substance.

LaSalle’s lede contains elements of the “poetic wisdom” he finds in “Up”. It is poetic because of its lilting praise contrasted by practical criticism and wise because it provides a clear roadmap for the review to follow.

Both critics tried to make the same point about predictability in “Up” and Pixar’s other films, but did so in their own ways. White writes, “When Up trivializes Carl and Russell’s loneliness” without first establishing the point, and goes on to list a number of other Pixar films. LaSalle takes a different approach, writing, “Yet 'Up' also contains boring stretches of mindless freneticism and bland character interaction that test the ability of any adult to stay conscious.” LaSalle has a practical list of grievances and touches on the issue of whether animation is for kids or adults—a debate more intuitive and relevant than how animation relates to General Motors. He goes on to talk about not just the plot, but the elements that connected with him.

LaSalle’s review recounts his personal relationship to the film while White takes the film personally and breaks a cardinal rule of journalism—he becomes the story.