--Contains spoilers only by the ending.--
Am I too much of a sarcastic soul to understand this? Well, I am sarcastic. But when it comes to films, I can easily get into any film as much as it has some charm and technique, so no, that's not it. Don't I have an inner child? Hell yeah. You bet I do. So, I just don't understand enough when it comes to films? Well, I'm a film buff. But every explanation I heard when it comes to why 'The Red Balloon' is so awesome didn't satisfy me enough.
'The Red Ballon' is about a kid named Pascal, who finds a red balloon on his way to school. The balloon is a balloon; not anything special, just a simple, big, red, balloon. But as he gets to the bus, he discovers that he cannot go on the bus with a balloon. He leaves the bus, as a friend would do, and gets late - but with the balloon in his hand. This is just the first part of 'The Red Balloon', and the key word is 'FRIEND'. The kid, who meets a lot of obstacles in his way between him and the balloon, has an innocent and sweet friendship with the balloon, who appears to have a soul of his own. Everybody else looks at the balloon as an intruder, but only he can truly understand him. They travel through the streets of Paris together, as the film describes their days together.
As I say this, I look back and ask myself 'How could this go wrong?'. Th only answer I find is Albert Lamorisse. The guy isn't bad, he has great intention and he obviously has a great visual imagery of Paris. however, WHY DIDN'T HE USED IT? It's not like I was expecting cheesy shots of the Eiffel Tower, but we don't get to see Paris here. I felt that Lamorisse had some passion for the locations he shows, but he didn't express his feeling. We get some streets, the beach, the bakery, school... But it could have been Paris just as everywhere else. Paris is the basic element of this film; all the kid and the balloon do is wander around Paris. If Paris isn't expressed as it should, how can one feel identified? Passes me.
Next is Pascal. I understand the need and the idea behind casting Lamorisse's son as the protagonist, and he acts well-- or at least, so it seems. As the bus leaves and Pascal decides to stay with his balloon, we see the look in Pascal and it is pure innocence, childhood and disappointment. I was amazed but that brief second and for a moment I was sure this is getting much better - but Pascal didn't act. All he did was walking around Paris. Pascal as much as any kid could have done that, and when a film don't have dialogs, you need other factors to give the characters feelings and depth. Pascal was just a random kid, with no clear affection by the balloon rather of being his friend.
And that brings me to the ending (SPOILERS START HERE). As the kids finally get to Pascal and destroy the balloon, they leave. Simple bullies? Kids with nothing else to do? I have no idea. The kids just started chasing Pascal, and as soon as they get the balloon, they leave. Pascal don't even have time to show his affection, because every balloon in Paris comes to Pascal. Leave alone the fact that any other kid in Paris might have a relation with his balloon as well, all the balloons HAVE to come to Pascal because he lost his own. Pascal flies away, escaping from every trouble he might ever have (What about facing your problems?). Pardon me, every ten-out-of-ten voter in IMDb, but this is problematic and morally incorrect.
All in all I feel that this would have been greater in animation - not only the film will be OBLIGATED to show the colorful visuals of Paris, but it would also add technique and charm to the film. In it's current state, I feel that the classic and charming film everybody talk about is there all right - but a thick glass stops me from getting there.
And maybe I was looking through the looking glass.
Am I too much of a sarcastic soul to understand this? Well, I am sarcastic. But when it comes to films, I can easily get into any film as much as it has some charm and technique, so no, that's not it. Don't I have an inner child? Hell yeah. You bet I do. So, I just don't understand enough when it comes to films? Well, I'm a film buff. But every explanation I heard when it comes to why 'The Red Balloon' is so awesome didn't satisfy me enough.
'The Red Ballon' is about a kid named Pascal, who finds a red balloon on his way to school. The balloon is a balloon; not anything special, just a simple, big, red, balloon. But as he gets to the bus, he discovers that he cannot go on the bus with a balloon. He leaves the bus, as a friend would do, and gets late - but with the balloon in his hand. This is just the first part of 'The Red Balloon', and the key word is 'FRIEND'. The kid, who meets a lot of obstacles in his way between him and the balloon, has an innocent and sweet friendship with the balloon, who appears to have a soul of his own. Everybody else looks at the balloon as an intruder, but only he can truly understand him. They travel through the streets of Paris together, as the film describes their days together.
As I say this, I look back and ask myself 'How could this go wrong?'. Th only answer I find is Albert Lamorisse. The guy isn't bad, he has great intention and he obviously has a great visual imagery of Paris. however, WHY DIDN'T HE USED IT? It's not like I was expecting cheesy shots of the Eiffel Tower, but we don't get to see Paris here. I felt that Lamorisse had some passion for the locations he shows, but he didn't express his feeling. We get some streets, the beach, the bakery, school... But it could have been Paris just as everywhere else. Paris is the basic element of this film; all the kid and the balloon do is wander around Paris. If Paris isn't expressed as it should, how can one feel identified? Passes me.
Next is Pascal. I understand the need and the idea behind casting Lamorisse's son as the protagonist, and he acts well-- or at least, so it seems. As the bus leaves and Pascal decides to stay with his balloon, we see the look in Pascal and it is pure innocence, childhood and disappointment. I was amazed but that brief second and for a moment I was sure this is getting much better - but Pascal didn't act. All he did was walking around Paris. Pascal as much as any kid could have done that, and when a film don't have dialogs, you need other factors to give the characters feelings and depth. Pascal was just a random kid, with no clear affection by the balloon rather of being his friend.
And that brings me to the ending (SPOILERS START HERE). As the kids finally get to Pascal and destroy the balloon, they leave. Simple bullies? Kids with nothing else to do? I have no idea. The kids just started chasing Pascal, and as soon as they get the balloon, they leave. Pascal don't even have time to show his affection, because every balloon in Paris comes to Pascal. Leave alone the fact that any other kid in Paris might have a relation with his balloon as well, all the balloons HAVE to come to Pascal because he lost his own. Pascal flies away, escaping from every trouble he might ever have (What about facing your problems?). Pardon me, every ten-out-of-ten voter in IMDb, but this is problematic and morally incorrect.
All in all I feel that this would have been greater in animation - not only the film will be OBLIGATED to show the colorful visuals of Paris, but it would also add technique and charm to the film. In it's current state, I feel that the classic and charming film everybody talk about is there all right - but a thick glass stops me from getting there.
And maybe I was looking through the looking glass.
Tell Your Friends