The Province

Leaving little to the imaginatio­n

Peter Rabbit is the latest classic children’s story to be gobbled up by CGI

- CLAIRE ALLFREE

All is not rosy in Mr. McGregor’s garden — and that’s not only because in the new big-screen remake of the Beatrix Potter classic, Peter Rabbit’s spade-wielding nemesis is bumped off in the opening scene.

Starring the voice of James Corden as our hero, the film has been widely criticized for turning docile little Peter into a know-it-all delinquent who wrecks other people’s houses, dabbles in explosives and pelts an allergy sufferer with potentiall­y lethal blackberri­es.

But perhaps an even greater crime for those who grew up on the original books is the fact that its mix of live action and CGI puts it, in visual terms, a fair few cabbage patches away from the dappled, bosky world created by the hand of Beatrix Potter. The makers have gone to such great lengths to make Peter and his furry friends look as lifelike as possible, they have taken away their charm.

In other words, Peter Rabbit is just the latest in a long list of beautifull­y illustrate­d and much-loved children’s stories gobbled up and spat out by “computer generated imagery.”

Poor Peter is merely one member of a club of children’s characters ruined by 21st century technology, rendered flat, characterl­ess and in some instances virtually indistingu­ishable by generic CGI remakes.

It’s only fair to point out that there have been some excellent CGI children’s films, notably from Disney’s Pixar stable. Yet it’s also worth asking whether the relentless bombardmen­t of digital imagery in children’s entertainm­ent is having a critical impact on children’s imaginatio­ns.

Children feed off the way artists and storytelle­rs recreate the world for them. It’s why we love Winnie the Pooh, immortaliz­ed in our minds by E. H. Shepard’s scratchy little drawings (and sensitivel­y updated for Disney’s 1977 traditiona­l animation feature film).

CGI invariably makes no such invitation. In its relentless pursuit of hyper reality, it often produces something that is neither real nor imagined, but miserably in-between.

Paradoxica­lly, the more CGI attempts to emulate reality, the less lifelike and human it becomes. It creates simulated, two-dimensiona­l surfaces that appear curiously depthless because they lack the texture of a paintbrush, the grain of a charcoal nib or the inner life of an individual hand-drawn frame.

In the case of its worst offenders — I’m thinking of Canadian series, Paw Patrol — it’s the visual equivalent of junk food.

When the great Walt Disney was asked why he went to the trouble of painting five shades of pink in a single bubble, he said: “If it wasn’t there, (you’d) notice that it was different.”

Consider The Little Mermaid, the last Disney film, released in 1989, to use traditiona­l techniques. It has around a million hand-drawn bubbles. Each one is a thing of beauty.

 ?? — COLUMBIA PICTURES FILES ?? Rose Byrne is surrounded by CGI bunnies in Peter Rabbit, a film that ruins a timeless a literary classic through its use of 21st century technology.
— COLUMBIA PICTURES FILES Rose Byrne is surrounded by CGI bunnies in Peter Rabbit, a film that ruins a timeless a literary classic through its use of 21st century technology.
 ??  ?? The Little Mermaid, released in 1989, was the last Disney film to use traditiona­l animation techniques.
The Little Mermaid, released in 1989, was the last Disney film to use traditiona­l animation techniques.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada