Inside Out (2015) Review

When Walt Disney set out to create the first feature-length animated films he was not merely trying to make colorful films that kids would enjoy and which parents could gleam some slight humor from, rather, he wanted to use animation as a tool that could tell stories live-action couldn't. This spirit of experimentation is visible in the earliest Disney films but as profitability concerns began to play a factor the experimentation was done away with. In its place came quality stories which are fun to watch but which lack the adventurous spark of the earlier efforts. This spirit wouldn't be regained until the 1990s. The studio that would bring it back was not the studio Walt started but rather PIXAR. Regular Disney movies were getting better in the early 90s but Pixar with its CG animation really stepped things up. They made movies from the perspective of toys, a family of superheroes, a rat that could cook, and an elderly man. It felt like Pixar had taken up Walt's legacy and wasn't letting go. Then, a string of mediocre films made us doubt whether animation would ever reach that original glory ever again. I am very pleased to report that with their latest, Inside Out, Pixar had ended their losing streak and achieved one of their most decisive victories.

Inside Out tells the story of the emotions inside an 11 year old girl's head. These emotions are each embodied by a character and run her brain from a control room. When the girl, Riley, moves from her hometown to San Francisco the action begins. I don't want to spoil what happens for anybody that hasn't seen the film, but needless to say the plot will involve new challenges for all of the emotions as they deal with the move.

The plot of this film is outwardly simple and inwardly intricate. It's a riveting piece of storytelling that allows for the audience to get an all access tour of Riley's head. The film excels in detailed symbolism which is so good that I almost chuckled at how clever some of it was. There are explanations given for how dreams are made and why songs get stuck in our heads as well as an exploration of abstract thought. All of this scenery propels the story forward, but it also adds depth. Sure, kids will find it colorful and exciting but the deeper significance of the locations in Reilly's brain will only be gained by older kids and adults. There's so much here that it could be worth a second viewing.

Aside from the setting, the plot is an emotional roller-coaster. It's full of highs and lows and twists and turns. some of these moments are so profound they may have you in tears. Most importantly, the finale is fulfilling in a way that few endings in mainstream film are. What's even more impressive than this film's profundity is its humor. There are plenty of great jokes in this film that are more than just cheap pop culture references.

The voice cast is uniformly excellent but Amy Poehler's joy is of particular note. This is animation telling a story only animation can tell and thus it is not only vintage Pixar but vintage Disney. Inside Out is also the best film I've seen so far this year, I'm sure that somewhere Mr. Disney is smiling 5/5!

TV Tuesday: The Office vs. Parks and Recreation

If you read my list of the top 5 greatest sitcoms of all time you may have noticed that neither the American version of the Office nor Parks and Recreation was on it. With both shows now having come to a close, I thought I'd write this piece comparing the two shows.

If the list of five had been increased to ten either one, or possibly both, of these shows would be on it. I appreciate both in their own unique ways but I think they are interesting to compare because both were created by the same man, Greg Daniels, and both sometimes shared the same production and writing team. There was even a time the both had the same actress in a supporting role. What's even more interesting is that they shared the same format. This format was a mockumentary-style format that allowed for a shaky single camera as well as interviews with the characters. Both shows also eventually ignored this format for the most part.

Despite these similarities the shows were incredibly different. A lot of this difference doesn't just come down to the fact that the Office was set in the private sector while Parks was set in the public sector. The difference was both in tone, and quality of supporting character development. The tone of the Office was happier than the British version but still darker than your average comedy. If you want evidence of this taken to brilliant extremes, you can watch the best episode of the show "Dinner Party" which is a hilarious cringe fest.  Parks and Recreation on the other hand, is one of the most positive shows ever to come out on modern television. In terms of character, the Office was more held to its British roots. Michael was a fully fleshed-out character and Jim and Pam were meant to be the "normal people", but the rest of the cast feel like outlandish caricatures. The supporting players are not developed as well and they are not as full of depth as Michael is. Even Jim and Pam cannot bolster the show on their own. This can be evidenced in the final two seasons following Michael's departure where the show saw a noticeable dip in quality. Parks, on the other hand, is filled with a cast of great characters which it takes time to develop. It is truly an ensemble show with most of the comedy coming from its character interactions.

These differences show why the shows developed differently and had different periods of high and low quality.  It may seem like I was bashing the Office in the previous paragraph, but Parks really got off to a horrible start. The characters weren't working and at first Amy Poehler couldn't lead the show on her own. The Office started out strongly because Steve Carell's performance as Michael is one of the funniest performances on television ever. As Parks grew it got better quickly, developing its characters and allowing them to grow. As the Office ran out of things for Michael to do it began to get stale because the other characters couldn't pick up the slack. Jim and Pam's romance was too drawn out and the characters weren't that interesting. Dwight is outrageous but doesn't have much depth. The other cast members are basically "one-note". When Michael left, the show lost virtually all of its steam and had only a fraction of its former glory. 

All of that being said, the Office was great at one time even if it was "the Michael Scott Show". At its best, the supporting players added a little drama and outrageous humor to compliment Michael. The best individual episodes of the Office are better plotted and stand-out more than some of the Parks and Rec episodes, but there are some great stand-out Parks episodes as well. In fact, I am struck at how hard it is to find a stand-out Parks episode because they are almost uniformly excellent when the show reached the peak of its powers. While Michael is a great character and the Office had some incredibly funny episodes, the Parks and Recreation team brought some of the best television comedy to the table consistently. At its best, Parks gave us great characters (Leslie,Tom, Andy, Ron etc.), funny writing, and a sense of warmth that no other modern TV comedy can match. add to this the fact that it finished strong and there is no question in my mind that Parks and Recreation is the better show.