The animation allows for very exaggerated figures and actions which would not otherwise have been possible with a live action film. Characters are portrayed almost caricature-ishly. Dialogue is kept to a minimum and the story is mainly narrated through the actions of the characters. It is through their motion that the viewer connects and sympathises with them, as well as gains an understanding of their personality traits.
The landscapes are magnificently hand painted, in a similar vein to that of 'Akira.' Yet in contrast to the dark and deep backgrounds of the latter, 'The King and the Bird' uses light, visually pleasing colours in an attempt to look objectively 'pretty'. Although the architecture is detailed, the overall feel of the scenes is a lot more bare and airier than in 'Akira.' The Kingdom of Takicardia, designed like an exaggerated fairy-tale castle, is characterized by long vertical lines and deep perspective, giving it the illusion of infinite space.
Although beautiful, I feel that the film's strength essentially lies in its allegorical nature and the moral message its storyline attempts to convey. I found the action itself to be a little slow-paced for my liking, and the lack of dialogue made it difficult to keep attention peaked throughout the entirety of the running time. Even the animation was not visually interesting enough to capture me, the viewer. Perhaps this is a result of my viewing of it as a child of the 'MTV generation': accustomed to a constant barrage of action and information given to me in anything I watch. Reviews I have read from people of an older generation have been overwhelmingly glowing, so i cannot help but feel there is some layer that I am missing with only one viewing.
No comments:
Post a Comment