Skip to main content

Here Comes Santa Klaus


Though Disney has become a terrifyingly powerful media conglomerate impossible to avoid in modern discussions of cinema, there are still those who remember and understand what made Disney special in decades past. When artistry and commercialism seemed to go hand-in-hand, imagination and magic were studio emphasized brandings that were somewhat accurate. Its’ earliest features inspired hundreds of subsequent animators and studios, and fostered the talents of others. One of those was Sergio Pablos, a Spanish animator who began working at Disney in the 90’s as a character designer on the likes of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Tarzan. Subsequently he conceived Despicable Me for Universal, but never stepped into the directors’ chair until Netflix gave him and his newly formed animation studio the opportunity to produce an original, traditionally-animated movie.
That is a big deal. Traditional animation is essentially dead in North American cinema, and certainly no prominent studio would take the risk of attempting to revive it, even Disney –the only company that meaningfully could- despite the fact as numerous non-American animated films have proven, the hand-drawn (or hand-drawn simulated) 2D form still reigns supreme in terms of aesthetic creativity and visual splendour. Klaus, Pablos’ Christmas movie that acts as a mythic yet contemporary origin story for Santa Claus, is a Spanish production but an English-language film, complete with name voice talent and American screenwriters. Most importantly though, it feels like an American animated feature for the fact it owes so much stylistically to the Disney legacy.
This is particularly evident in the characters, who have an energy and expressiveness very reminiscent of classic Disney (and here and there, elements of late Disney, two of the leads bearing similar designs to Treasure Planet for example –which Pablos had worked on); though the Mouse isn’t the only source -the character designers (including animator extraordinaire James Baxter) apparently taking cues from Don Bluth, early DreamWorks (notably The Prince of Egypt), and even Warner Brothers cartoons. Yet for as familiar as the animation on Klaus is, it’s also newly innovative, abundantly unique, and utterly spellbinding. The deep textures and volumetric lighting give the film a distinctly rich look that conveys the illusion of 3D renderings of 2D illustrations. It’s a technique that is sharp and captivating, and really works to the advantage of the environment -which is a far north settlement in Svalbard, cold and desolate and imposing. Therein the highly expressionist, rigid look of the architecture and dreary, colourless veneer of the foggy climate stands in sharp contrast to the boldly eclectic and aesthetically lunatic tendencies of the character animation. And yet such backgrounds are among the most striking visual components of the film, especially in daylight. The movie is just all round a cornucopia of glorious hand-crafted imagery that any animation fan would adore.
The narrative itself is eventually pretty good too, in spite of an uneven start. While the holiday icon has the films’ title, its’ protagonist is actually an arrogant, wealthy, and spoiled young postman called Jesper (voiced by Jason Schwartzman) sent to a remote island in the Arctic Sea to be the local mail carrier for its isolated village. The characters’ bratty attitude, mean-spirited sarcasm, and whininess is an obnoxious throwback to David Spade’s equally insufferable pampered prince in Disney’s Emperor’s New Groove, but fortunately Jesper becomes more bearable as the film goes on and Schwartzman plays his personal journey with apt conviction. Where Klaus himself is introduced, voiced with solemn gravity by J.K. Simmons, the film takes a Santa Claus: The Movie approach to his provenance and personality: he’s a woodsman with a very sad backstory and a consequent penchant for making toys, who strikes up a partnership with Jesper to deliver them to the village’s forsaken children. And it’s with the meeting of these two characters that the story improves considerably, that the films’ soul and meaning begin to take shape and it doesn’t let up for the duration of the runtime. Not only is it just a neat and engaging origin for the Santa Claus figure, but the film is made noticeably warmer for this friendship and the heartwarming holiday spirit it takes pleasure in.
As sentimental as it may seem, the movies’ virtuousness really goes a long way towards rendering it endearing –not a surprise really for a film that aims to be a holiday classic. It’s no accident that the villain of the piece is less a singular figure as it is essentially hate itself, and that the most lovable embodiment of the ripple effect of altruism, generosity, charity, and kindness is an adorable little Sámi girl called Márgu. The movie has its priorities straight and in following through on its precepts, showing why what Klaus and Jesper are doing is a noble thing and how it affects change for the better both personally and universally; it accentuates the movies’ charm and thematic grandeur.
The movie is funny, much more so than the trailer let on (in fact it’s often wild and very creative with its’ humour), and in addition to Schwartzman and Simmons, the voice cast features a great Rashida Jones and Joan Cusack, the former as the towns’ cynical schoolteacher and obligatory love interest.  It’s true the film doesn’t exactly skirt conventions with its clichés, another staple no doubt adapted from Disney. But it does convey them through a different lens and an enrapturing style that spurns the homogeneity that exists in a lot of American film animation today. Klaus is a wonderful Christmas movie, one that may have real staying power, and it’s a reason for optimism for Netflix’s (and other streaming services’) future endeavours in animation.
After all, Nora Twomey’s making a movie for them!

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more