Tale of Tales (2001)

Wow! Such a good movie.

the audience applauded

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This would be the ultimate 3D film experience. I wanted to see this again as preparation for Tarkovsky's "Nostalghia" (1983), which I've long regarded as one of the most amazing films ever made. This, I think, exhibits the same kind of existential meta-melancholy that's somehow deeply rooted in the fabric of the creative process depicted by many of the Russian artists; then, as noted, this has an amazingly perceptive visual eye making it more than a fitting prelude.It's like entering an infant's dream. Everything is new, nothing is named. What we see is emotion. Color as emotion, motion as emotion, character as emotion. The layered images are stunning, and the eye moves restlessly, zooming in and out on objects and is at times perplexingly active as if it didn't know where it was going, and at times hesitantly passive.Dreams of a dreamed up being, the maroon light swallowing the thin silhouette-like figures. The minotaur-like figure jumping rope. The wolf, alone in the forest at the fire, taken in by the mysterious light (a sure influence on Polanski and his The Ninth Gate [1999]). This must've been a great influence on Chomet, as well.This is on par with and in my estimation exceeds "L'Homme qui plantait as arbres" (1988), and a very worthy companion for the best of the Quay Brothers as short animation that reshapes how we see and think, and most importantly, how we dream.

All animation revels in the smallest movements, this one revels in the smallest moments. About as narrative as you could call the average early Bunuel, this movie is an obvious inspiration of the surrealistic cut-outs of Terry Gilliam and even hints towards the escapist fantasy of Where the Wild Things Are. As for what's going on here itself, well, a lot and not so much.The scenes are basically interlaced by a small story of a wolf getting by, his accidental abduction of a child, and his eagerness to live a human life. Meanwhile a sort of war narrative takes place where dancing women lose their partners to a train heading off to war, replaced by a newspaper/mailer detailing fragments of the soldiers' deaths. Classical music and jazz are mixed as a family sits on the seaside and picnics. Furthermore, a young boy eats an apple and shares it with some crows, though his drunken father drag him away. A real mix of animation styles all fits into the animation's own personal style, so at least there's continuity there.Unfortunately I can't make a whole lot more out of it, except in the ways in which it lives in Soviet memory and the grunginess of winter and war. Still, it's fascinating to watch.--PolarisDiB

This movie exists pretty much in its own world. It's not enough to say that this is an animated movie and so exists in a fantasy world. Many animated movies exist in quite realistic worlds, with just a few exaggerations. No, this movie is to the worlds of animation what the worlds of animation are to our world. It's a dream world, purely abstract, about feelings and nostalgia and sadness and confusion and even humor.It's also a movie about the least frightening wolf in the history of fairy-tales, and the art of imagination and the world of fairy-tales.And it's animated in a warm style that brings back childhood memories of the plush dolls that gave us a sense of security. Yuriy Norshteyn created one of the finest animated movies with Tale of Tales.

In 1984, the Animation Olympiad named this as "the most beautiful animated film ever made". Well, that's a mighty tall order to live up to and so I expected a much prettier film than I actually saw. Now this isn't to say the film is ugly, but only portions of the film are pretty. The backgrounds and effects are indeed lovely, but the characters all too often are cutouts that move through stop-motion (almost like those of Terry Gilliam) and they just have a cheap quality about them. The contrast between these moving characters and the rest of the film is pretty noticeable--especially the rather crudely drawn wolf. Plus, while the film is in some ways quite pretty, it's not especially fun to watch or exciting. I really think some of the Russian animated shorts by Aleksandr Petrov that were done after SKAZKA SKAZOK were far more beautiful and impressive--having a narrative that is much more interesting to all ages. SKAZKA SKAZOK, instead, has very limited commercial appeal--being more for the artsy crowd than the average person. Overall, rather pretty but that's about all. Had I not heard all the hype, perhaps I would have been more impressed.