Comments on: You’re Lost, Little Girl http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2009/03/08/youre-lost-little-girl/ Appreciation and Criticism of Cinema Through Heartland Eyes Fri, 18 May 2012 10:00:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Sam Juliano http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2009/03/08/youre-lost-little-girl/comment-page-1/#comment-3767 Sam Juliano Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:25:53 +0000 http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2009/03/08/youre-lost-little-girl/#comment-3767 "Selick is ruthlessly and joyously committed to his story’s status as a harrowing adventure, and the incredible texture of Coraline’s world evokes boredom, glee, and peril with equal credibility. The triumph of this approach is manifest in the narrative potency of the film’s thrilling third act, which plays out like a frightening monomyth epic for the Cartoon Network set." Beautifully textured writing throughout and a sterling assessment. I definitely like the film, but not as much as you. It is lamentably 'emotionally distancing.' I read this book two years in a row to my fifth-grade class, and it was a wonderful experience, much like Snicket's A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS books. As far as this statement: "Gaiman’s involement should be telling, but it bears emphasizing that Coraline is on the decidedly intense end of the scale among animated children’s features. Frightening imagery and themes abound, and a drizzling of adult humor only adds to the sense that the film is aimed at an older cohort of kids and their parents. Which is perhaps for the best, as Coraline offers a sophisticated and emotionally resonant examination of child-parent relationships that will likely challenge and provoke young viewers." I do agree, although his newest work, THE GRAVEYARD BOOK, which four weeks ago was awarded the distinguished Newbery Medal for 2008, has far more audacity in that direction, as a baby's mother, father and sister are murdered in their home by a knife-weilding killer in the first chapter. To be honest, it stills works, as gaiman wisely downplays the events in a sort of "off-stage" way. THE GRAVEYARD BOOK is a stronger work than CORALINE, and word is that Neil Jordan is getting the assignment. My own five kids didn't like CORALINE as much as they should have, but you pointed out the many reasons why this might be the case. “Selick is ruthlessly and joyously committed to his story’s status as a harrowing adventure, and the incredible texture of Coraline’s world evokes boredom, glee, and peril with equal credibility. The triumph of this approach is manifest in the narrative potency of the film’s thrilling third act, which plays out like a frightening monomyth epic for the Cartoon Network set.”

Beautifully textured writing throughout and a sterling assessment. I definitely like the film, but not as much as you. It is lamentably ‘emotionally distancing.’ I read this book two years in a row to my fifth-grade class, and it was a wonderful experience, much like Snicket’s A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS books.

As far as this statement:

“Gaiman’s involement should be telling, but it bears emphasizing that Coraline is on the decidedly intense end of the scale among animated children’s features. Frightening imagery and themes abound, and a drizzling of adult humor only adds to the sense that the film is aimed at an older cohort of kids and their parents. Which is perhaps for the best, as Coraline offers a sophisticated and emotionally resonant examination of child-parent relationships that will likely challenge and provoke young viewers.”
I do agree, although his newest work, THE GRAVEYARD BOOK, which four weeks ago was awarded the distinguished Newbery Medal for 2008, has far more audacity in that direction, as a baby’s mother, father and sister are murdered in their home by a knife-weilding killer in the first chapter. To be honest, it stills works, as gaiman wisely downplays the events in a sort of “off-stage” way. THE GRAVEYARD BOOK is a stronger work than CORALINE, and word is that Neil Jordan is getting the assignment.

My own five kids didn’t like CORALINE as much as they should have, but you pointed out the many reasons why this might be the case.

]]>