Ernest and Celestine
[kkstarratings]
Director: Stéphane Aubier, Vincent Patar, Benjamin Renner
Cast: Lambert Wilson, Pauline Brunner
Length: 80 minutes
Country: France
A classic tale of a tiny, brave animal (Celestine the mouse) meeting a fearsomely large one, (Ernest the bear) and them forming an unconventional friendship. Celestine is an orphaned mouse who wants to become an artist, while Ernest is a starving, street performing bear. The world is one where bears live in the streets and the mice are confined to the gutters below, both in fear of each other. Despite their perceived differences, there is a common obsession with teeth amongst the beastly lot – the bears’ sweet-toothed nature means they often need some dental attention whilst the mice treasure their front teeth for daily use. The mice dare only to go up to the bears’ world to gather teeth to replace their lost incisors.
For me, the opening scene is really memorable; an elderly mouse tells a horror story of “The Big Bad Bear” to orphaned mice and during this scene the use of shadows was very effective. The characters are brightly lit but their surroundings dark to create incredibly menacing space around them and the elder mouse’s shadow grows into a toothy monster that frightens the little ones. The sequence has a wonderfully sinister atmosphere until Celestine speaks and breaks the tension. This was a great way to introduce Celestine and begin setting up her character.
It doesn’t compare to blockbusters but for a calm, heart-warming film, this is perfect.
Unfortunately the basic plot seems slightly too obvious and overdone, you just have to think about The BFG or the fable The Lion and the Mouse to find similar examples of big and scary meets small and weak. The creators tell this familiar story well and add really creative touches, such as the weird interest everyone has with teeth, and, although you did not fear for the outcome of the characters because it was fairly obvious how the film was going to end, you do want to see how they reach their ending. Using the familiar characters can be seen as a strong point because of the fact it makes these characters, who you only known for about 80 minutes, seem as though you’ve known them for longer: we’ve seen them in previous stories, just in different forms.
The animation is really interesting because everything was done in what looks like watercolour, which is quite rare for an animation. Due to the difficulties of using this medium the creators have compromised by making the appearance of the film much more simplistic. The backgrounds are immobile but beautifully painted showing scenes like warm homes, a dark orphanage or the various seasons. The moving components are also quite simply drawn, which is to be expected as generally the backgrounds are more intricate than the foreground in hand-drawn animations. The nice thing about this film, however, is despite the simplicity of the drawings the animators do not shy away from characters doing complicated actions. The characters don’t feel restricted by the fact they are being drawn and can move freely around a space and still look authentic.
The film is certainly worth a watch and anyone who is interested in animation or art will be happy to stare at it, because it is so pretty. The story is sweet and slow, so don’t expect anything too exciting but because it is only short you can maintain your concentration throughout. There are multiple comedic moments which one person in the cinema found extremely funny but for most people the jokes produce more smiles/chuckles than belly laughs. It doesn’t compare to blockbusters but for a calm, heart-warming film, this is perfect.
Comments