Flatland the Film Flatland the Film Excellent Film! Way better than the higher priced Flatland: The Movie which is way shorter in length, with a more crude story line.
Solid This version of the tale tries the most to update the film to a modern audience, and that is its chief failing. The original tale was called a Romance, and this updating removes that very concept from the story. While it follows much of the novella's narrative- in describing the way Flatland works (although the original's King is replaced by a President- who oddly still wears a crown), it departs severely from the original at its most crucial moment, once A Square is visited by A Sphere from Spaceland. In this version, instead of a mystical guide, along the line of the Three Ghosts Of Christmas from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, A Sphere is CEO of Messiah, Inc. Ok....if the mere mention of that plot point has you rolling your eyes, you are not alone. And the attempts at satire only go downhill from there. Instead of Sphere's lifting up of Square into Spaceland being a religious experience, in this film it merely serves as a `wow' moment used to lead into some cheap gags, jokes, and a display of Ehlinger's animative chops. The story dissolves. Then there is some cheap and rather predictable satire of consumerism and the current Iraq War, which will severely date the film in coming years, as well as a not so funny portrayal of a Spaceland Senator Cube who sounds very much like Ted Kennedy. In the novella, the satire, while based in Victoriana, dealt more specifically with human foibles grafted onto the polygons of Flatland. Here, the polygons of Flatland and the solids of Spaceland are almost total caricatures- such as the gay sounding Flatland Senator who leads the dissenting Chromatist movement, and is assassinated by President Circle's henchmen. The film is best when sticking to the book's original points.... The DVD comes with an autographed thank you from Ehlinger, but the disk itself has only the film and a brief trailer. Even though the film is low budget, couldn't Ehlinger have included a commentary by himself and others? It would have at least made the DVD, if not the film, worth a bit more, on a level of interest. In this day and age, not doing so is a bit of a ripoff- small budget or not. On a real world note, the slim case DVD package the DVD comes in also has a bad holder for the disk. The disk is far too small and the disk cannot stay in its holder. While a worthwhile effort, Flatland: The Film takes on too much, misses where the book succeeds, and its ending is just bad. But, Ehlinger does show a flair and unique style. If he continues in animation, here's hoping his next film is about the same quantum leap up from this one that Spaceland is from Flatland. If it is, then we'll have a film truly worth all the praise this one has gotten.
Excellent homage to Edwin Abbott Abott's classic! This movie is an excellent homage to Edwin Abbott Abbott's classic masterpiece "Flatland."
When the mathematician Abbott wrote his book Flatland on the eve of the 20th century, he used the mathematical notion of two dimensionality to decry all forms of two dimensional thinking. In that sense, movies or other works building off of Flatland can pursue both these themes or merely one of them at the expense of the other.
While this movie does basic justice to Abbott's underlying mathematics I think it's probably most fair to say that its greater emphasis is on its attack against two dimensional thinking itself.
Please make no mistake: I am a huge fan of Edwin Abbott Abbott, Flatlands and all the books and treatments that have been offered in its tradition. Therefore, I've given positive reviews to Ian Stewart's Flatterland, Dewdney's Plainiverse, Sphereland and even the original book on the Fourth Dimension by Charles Hinton even though some or all of these works have been criticized by other reviewers. Therefore, while I personally have great reason to believe that as both a mathematical concept and metaphor warnings against two dimensional thinking are important others may disagree.
But if they wish to do so I guess they can write a review just like I did.
Very Good - Almost Great I have shown the film to several friends, family members and 2 classes of students. My wife and I really enjoyed it, although we thought the ending (last several minutes) was just weird and that's what dropped it from 5 stars.
Amazingly several friends and family members were fairly interested in it - the social commentary of Abbot's piece came in fairly well early on. Many to most of the student's enjoyed it - a few, like anywhere, decided to sleep. One student was so intrigued she did a report on Edwin Abbot after seeing the film.
It's not Hollywood at it's best but overall the film is quite entertaining and unless you're one of those whom hates it for some reason you will definitely want to watch it twice to get some interesting nuances. The graphics is pretty good, just a weird ending where they got too carried away with the graphics and did some graphics stuff just because they could.
Two reviews in one This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.
The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.
The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.
The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.
So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.
Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.
The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.
Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 4 and the Travis film a rating of 3. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
