Ron Barrett

        With the horrifically animated film currently in theaters inspired by the book Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett), it is really important to me that I call some attention to the actual book.
        I was disappointed when I originally heard that Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was being made into a film. Though it was easily one of my three favorite stories growing up, and I am usually interested to at the very least see what directors are doing with film interpretations, I knew that nothing could stand up to the beautiful illustrations that Ron Barrett created for the book. I was even more horrified then, to hear that it was stemming away from the original storyline - a grandfather telling his grandchildren a story of a land with unexplained food weather- to a story about a scientist who discovers a way to turn rain into food, and that it was being animated in a way that I can only describe as lazy.

        I am not going to say that the art has been taken out of children's visual storytelling, because I haven't the historical or current knowledge to back up such a bold statement, and also because I truly believe that there will always be artists who care and continue to make meaningful children's stories. I will say however, that much of the effort that was put into illustration, television and cinema, even as recently as when I was a child (I am now twenty) does not seem to be nearly as present. For example, cartoons such as Looney Tunes were created with their artistic rendering in mind, and with multiple levels of comedy and commentary as to be enjoyed by audiences of any age, young to adult. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is another example of this, with rich, beautifully rendered and detailed drawings with multiple levels and hidden details -have you ever noticed that the sanitation department truck has two baby heads on the front like heads on stakes?! (click to enlarge) Similarly, on one page of my very favorite book, Eloise (written by Kay Thompson and illustrated by Hilary Knight), a bottle of gin is neatly hidden on the bookshelf in six-year-old Eloise's room. These witty and intelligent layers, along with the immense amount of time and effort that went into each illustration are not only what made these books so enduring, but they also served as a tie between families and generations. Children, teens, young adults and older adults could all come together and watch an episode of Looney Tunes, or gather tightly around Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Today children are left alone to watch sloppily pulled together cartoons with poor animation and static humor that is intended to get a quick laugh out of the (young) viewer. The lack of seen effort makes them self-admittedly disposable, and they are frequently cancelled and a new show crops up. I don't look at children's books as frequently as I flip through my television, but I do know that the books I liked best as a child and have continued to hold dearest were written and illustrated before my time, so perhaps I came in just as this change was beginning.
        Is this change a marker of why the framing narrative of grandfather and grandchildren has been removed in the movie? The structure of the book revolves around the very concept that it embodies, narrative as a forum to bring together generations and families. What does it mean that the storytelling grandfather has been removed and instead has been placed a mad scientist and his love interest? What will happen to the rich full-circle ending where the children just barely see a slice of butter atop the newly fallen snow outside? The entire premise of the uncontrolled weather-food and resulting events in the book can be intellectually analyzed, but what room for this is there in a story about a man with a machine creating a big weathery "oops!"?
        Have we as humans really become this lazy? Have art and storytelling and their absolute power of connection become less important to us than making a low-effort film that will pull in some fast money? No one is going to remember this movie. The storyline is depressingly unoriginal and as I mentioned earlier, the animation is garish. And I am not writing off the way the film has been made. I have seen computer animated children's films that were beautifully crafted, Toy Story is (I believe) the best example of this, but even the more recent Up! was at the very least visually pleasing and interesting. I was going to post the image created for the film to correspond to the first image I have posted (one of my favorites, the jello setting sun), but I couldn't even bear to have it on the page (if you're curious you can see it here). The image has stripped absolutely everything that makes Barrett's illustration so beautiful and exciting away, and leaves a fast and simple image in its place. Who is this image (or in the greater scope, this film) for? What is it saying about our culture?

        Please, please, take a moment to look at Barrett's illustrations for this book. They are stunning and this is something that I as well as my many friends who also loved the book realized, even as children. If you do not own the book (or have never read it) I would honestly recommend buying it, it's available on amazon for as little as $3. I promise that you will love it, and continue to love it, and that whoever you chose to share it with will love it as well.



images: c. Ron Barret; Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs