January 3

[eldabe]

jossedintime requested "The influences of surrealism and pop art on Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Ha. I have no background in surrealism or pop art and I enjoy Roger Rabbit, but I'm not much of a classic animation fan. Oh, and here's the big confession: I'm also not much of a fan of film noir. The women are generally reduced to confusing sex objects (LAUREN BACALL WTF) and while the aesthetic is pretty….nope, thats it. It's visually fascinating and easy shorthand for parody and references. It also presents a darker world view than I perfer. I admit I haven't seen an awful lot, but there's not very much drawing me back.

My favorite part of Roger Rabbit is actually the streetcars conspiracy details because every time a a public transit system is screwed over I wish there was more public outcry. Welcome to my brain!

So…after fifteen minutes of googling surrealism: The film certainly uses some of the easily recognizable visuals from surrealism. There's illogical physics, juxtaposition of realistic with the absurd, etc. The visual effect is easy to point out any time the cartoons shove themselves into the human world, not to mention the scenes that take place in toon town, where even ordinary humans can really embrace the absurd.

I don't think, however, that there was a lot of dadaist and deep philosophical contemplation going on in the film. Not to say there was no commentary, but the film itself was an adaptation of a book and required a huge team of people to create. There are some introspective lines ("I was drawn this way") but just as many zany moments for the sake of being zany moments. As well as scenes that were just excuses to get Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons to play together. So while I'm certain the film used the age-diluted influences of surrealism, I wouldn't personally call it much of a surrealist film.

Ah, pop art! In case my lack of art education wasn't obvious already, let's go to pop art. I consider myself the most casual of fans, mostly because I admire the clean lines and bright colors of pop art, even though much of it was borrowed from advertising. Hey, I like critically examining advertising!

Although the clean lines and bright colors of classic animation predated the entire pop-art movement, and were probably the more direct influence on Roger Rabbit than the aesthetics of pop art. The idea of pop art (as I understand it…) of critically examining things that are normally not considered art probably did have some influence on the film. Because Roger Rabbit demands that cartoon characters are taken seriously. It uses a fairly serious genre, and actually tells a mystery about mass murder of an entire species. Sure, the species happens to be 2-D hand-drawn animation, but they're people too. And they demand respect (and occasionally, laughs.)

As in, the films tries to make audiences re-examine their perspectives on animated characters and and animated films. Of course, in a post-Rabbit world (and as an anime fan), I've argued for accepting animation on more serious levels for a long time. Like many stories that broke ground, they're simply not as shattering to people who have grown up on media they have influenced.

So…yeah. That's probably all I have to say. Oh no, except this!

I do really admire the thought process and meta surrounding art, when I know about it. But, um, just art pieces? Without context, they aren't quite as captivating.

I really, really like history museums, though!

…anyone who actually knows anything about this is free to rip all of this apart. At least two people reading this right now are probably already gnashing their teeth. *waves* :)