With the opening credits, the TV thing, and the roulette guy? Why are there cartoons in this movie? It really seems out of place.
Wintertime's fun! Follow meeee!
Maybe the director thought he was being "hip" doing that, it could also be a reference to the movie working like a video game, with Lola getting three chances until she gets it right.
shareI agree. I think the film was experimental and "hip" so they tried every angle they could think of. However, the cartoon bits were out of place, added nothing to the storyline, and could've just been put in as "filler".
shareThis is taken from an interview with Tom Tykwer:
What is the meaning of the animation sequences?share
When we were thinking about how to make a film about the possibilities of life, it was quite clear to me that it would also have to be a film about the possibilities of cinema. That's why there is black and white, colour, video, slow motion, time lapse and animation. It is also about the freedom of the medium. These days, filmmakers can juggle with every mediums because nothing is isolated anymore. The times in which you could only listen to music on a record player, could only watch the news on television, borrow a book from the library or see a film in the cinema, are over. Through interactive media and the Internet, everything can now happen on a monitor, and it makes us experience the world in another way, and that can be shown in film. The animation is a maximised way of showing that anything goes. It is only the imagination which sets the boundaries. Structurally speaking, the animation in the film is always the starting point for all domino principle type of changes in the causal chain.
http://www.tomtykwer.com/Filmography/Run-Lola-Run
Wow. What a load of crap.
That wasn't the peace treaty, that was the copy of the peace treaty.
It makes sense to me.
He should've known better. Just throwing in every editing technique you can think of makes your movie look really amateur.
That wasn't the peace treaty, that was the copy of the peace treaty.
Animation isn't an editing technique.
Required reading for theater patrons:
http://tinyurl.com/shutheeffup
Do I really have to clarify what I meant by that? There are transitions with animations in them, and seeing as how this is a live action movie, you would have to edit the cartoons INTO the movie, ok? No one likes a wise guy.
Or a football-playing king in space!... with a mustache.
Well, I kind of like a wise guy, but I take your point - the movie is very busy visually, and not always in a good way. When it works, it is really effective, but sometimes it feels gratuitous. I though the transition from live action to the cartoon on television bit was to reinforce that this was a work of imagination, but that may not have been the intent.
shareYeah, I don't really see a problem with incorporating the cartoons to make it look more imaginative, but it doesn't really seem to serve any purpose in the film. Based on the quote I just read, they were just trying every angle they could think of with no purpose behind it. That's why I think it's so ridiculous.
Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets.
true, and he may not have meant it, but for me throwing them in as well as the animation added to the whole frenetic energy of the movie
share@bananashake100 Just throwing in every editing technique you can think of...
What I like to call the Oliver Stone technique. Just like Natural Born Killers, Lola has everything but the kitchen sink.
I don't mind that style, so long as it's rare - I'm glad that most movies don't do it.
Could you explain why it makes sense? I'm lost too.
shareThe animation was a great expression of artistic vision. If you don't see it, you don't see it. It worked great for the people it worked great for - like myself. I thought it was outstanding both in concept and execution.
Trying to make an absolute argument about the logic of it is ridiculous. Granted, without going-nowhere arguments like that, imdb would lose 95% of its content - but still.
Makes perfect sense to me as well.
Also, film makers are like painters, and when looking at a painting, it's always better to take a step back to see the big picture, rather than standing too close and fpcus the individual brush strokes.
Remember to always be yourself... Unless you suck!
So to put it very non-pretentiously, through the convenience of modern technology, he did it...just cause he can?
I have to agree with someone on here, I bet he just did it cause it's easier than filming a complicated downward spiral running scene live action. Might be too proud to admit that.
Stuff like this reminds me of "Movie Poop Shoot.com" from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
Adding cartoons, and they did fit- is creative. This is euro-cinema, not Hollywood. I had to watch the movie again to see the fit. Great movie!
shareIt's like the intro scene at the beginning of a video game level. Really, it reminded me a lot of the way games like Temple Run transition you into the action. It also marks the beginning of the stories diverging.
"So it goes" -Slaughterhouse Fiveshare
i thought it was suppose to be like example how her life was a video game with getting start overs
shareI agree that they seemed out of place. But I think that's just part of Tykwer's whole "kitchen sink" technique for this film. Remember, Woody Allen used similar techniques in "Annie Hall" and won Best Picture. But to me the scenes that seemed the most out of place were the VHS scenes involving Lola's dad and his mistress. That was, to me, even more distracting than the animation.
I also agree with the other posting saying that Tykwer wanted to use Animation to highlight the whole "video game" aspect of the film, and the "reset" button aspect of the 3 stories. I give him credit for ambition, but I think less would have been more here.
I really liked the animated parts of the film and thought they worked in really well.
Cartoons frequently have lots of fast action and energy being expended in a short period of time as did this film.
I thought it was very appropriate as was the title soccer ball in the sky shot.
From the viewer's point of view the different techniques disrupt the flow of the movie and the immersive experience which you find in most movies. Most movies want to tell a story and convince the audience: this is what happened and this is the only way it could have happened. You saw it and you believed it. That's the magic of cinema.
This movie is different by telling 3 versions of the story. That's a good storyteller's nightmare. I guess you can ruin every good story by telling 3 different versions of it. (Try and tell your child 3 versions of a bedtime story, I'm pretty sure the child will not like the experience).
The idea of this movie is different from the beginning. Tykwer wanted you to feel throughout the movie that there are certain moments in which everything depends on your point of view and you can make a decision which changes everything. And there are other moments when decisions are out of your hands and the domino tiles are just falling.
The different techniques throw you out of the story. But somehow you also get the impression to watch the story through different eyes and from different point of views. It's a bit like a cubist painting translated into a movie. The cubist painting also somehow destroys the picture in order to create an experience of possibilities.