FLOW Review: Textbook Storytelling Excellence On A Budget

Introduction

Modern animated films are massive endeavors. Earlier this year, Disney’s Inside Out 2 cost an estimated $200 million to produce and took over three years of production time. Despite that film’s overwhelming success, where does that leave animators outside of the top-of-the-line production houses? That’s where Gints Zilbalodis’ Flow comes in to fill a much-needed gap.

There is something to be said about what needs to be conveyed in an animated film. Does every substance have to be lifelike and real? Does the fur of an animal need to have a certain sheen following a dip in the water? What do audiences really care about when it comes to these things? Flow proves that if you are able to convey a clear story without the need for over-the-top expense, an audience will give you the latitude to skimp a bit on the animation budget. And that’s not to say that the film looks bad. It’s stunningly beautiful.

Plot

Presented without human dialogue or subtitles, the action follows a black cat wandering the forest at an unspecified place and unspecified time, presumably in the future. The cat avoids a group of dogs eating by a river and narrowly avoids a deer stampede before being swept up in a tsunami that floods the forest. As the water levels continually rise, the cat takes refuge on a boat with a gentle capybara.

When new threats begin to emerge, the cat and capybara are joined by a hoarding ring-tailed lemur, a happy Labrador from the previous group of dogs, and an injured secretary bird. As the group navigates the waters, they must cohabitate and learn to survive in their new environment.

Themes

Flow as a title makes a lot of sense because that’s exactly the plot of the film. While there exist obvious challenges for the animals to overcome, there is no set path for the group to follow. The audience is as much out of their element as the animals are. There is no expositional understanding of why the water levels are rising, nor are there reasonings for why there are huge cat statues and odd rock formations all over the place. It’s not about understanding, it’s about feeling and adapting.

All the while, the animals generally still act like animals. No character is anthropomorphic or handles something in a way they would otherwise be incapable of doing. Yes, it seems a little silly having a capybara operate the rudder of a sailboat, but it’s not outside of the realm of possibility. It’s like the audience is watching some document of a world where human interaction has never occurred, but human invention is still utilized.

There just aren’t other films like this made regularly. Not only is there no dialogue, the animal characters have to communicate in their own way, instead of meowing to one, and barking to another. The understanding has to be there without the benefit of language. Instead of using language as a crutch to move the story forward, the action is entirely driven by the necessary action and without anything artificially manufactured. There are no sitcom-like plots that need to be resolved in a timely manner. Everything is of life-or-death importance.

Production on a Budget

Made entirely on the open-source software Blender, Flow looks more like an extended cut scene from a video game than a feature film. That’s what makes it so unique. The characters look simple and uncomplicated. The coloring looks almost paint-by-numbers. But it doesn’t have to be perfect when it feels so real. Regardless of the amount of budget or software that was used, you can tell the painstaking time and effort that was utilized to set up the gorgeous scenery and shot construction.

Regardless of the way it was produced, this is a groundbreaking new way to make films without breaking the bank. For the cost of one Inside Out 2, you can make forty of these. The sheer volume of potential filmmakers who now can have the capabilities to create the stories for the world to see without the constraints of needing a Disney or a DreamWorks to make it happen. The success of Flow will undoubtedly be a net good for the filmmaking and animation community.

Conclusion

Even if Flow wasn’t a potential turning point for animation, it would be a great film. Economic storytelling, beautiful images, a stirring score, and cute animals make an easy cinematic yes for most people. It should be for you too.  

Read more Cinema Scholar reviews!

MOANA 2 Review: Swimming In Circles

Scholars’ Spotlight: Animator Tex Avery

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Twitter and Instagram