Oct 31, 2006

Happy Birthday to the great Ollie Johnston

25 years ago I was calling around to every bookstore in the greater Los Angeles area to try and locate the first copies of The Illusion of Life. I finally found it in Century City, an hour's drive away from my home in Los Feliz. I can still remember the breathlessness with which I rushed across town, threw down my 60 bucks(quite a bit of change in those days), and hustled back to my car. I can vividly remember at every stoplight down Santa Monica Blvd. opening the cover and flipping through the pages, trying to get a preview as I couldn't wait to get home and really start digging in.
I'd seen the book in galley form at the Disney studio archives a few months earlier but I'd been limited by time to reading very little, and besides--there were none of the all-important illustrations. That book, cowritten by Ollie Johnston along with his great friend the late Frank Thomas, was a bomb tossed into a desert of animation present. Very little was going on in 1981 to compare with, say 1941, and we were starving for such a book--one that would give us drawings, movement, acting, film-building...all of it behind-the-scenes takes on working at the world's greatest animation atelier in the most fertile years of the film industry, from one of its greatest animators. Ollie and Frank had come through with the goods...a cherry to top the perfect parfait of dozens of drawn characters made real.

So, for all the careful performances, for all the heart and warmth and the commitment to character animation that has inspired generations of artists and many millions of others, I humbly bow and offer Ollie a heartfelt "Happy Birthday!". Thanks, from all of us.

Oct 17, 2006

How to draw really well.

from David Pimentel's moleskinie notebook
What's the most surefire way to improve your drawing chops?

Drawing. All the time. No matter how good you already may be.
This guy slays me:

He draws in the car, in restaurants, at lunch, at break--you name it. Everything's an opportunity to capture something. Walt Stanchfield must be beaming somewhere.

I've worked around him for a little over two years now, and in that short time--frankly, at times week to week--I've seen leaps and bounds where I wouldn't have thought things could get any better, which along with all the other guys around here toting sketchbooks is the proof in the pudding. This is good advice I kick myself about oh, every 20 minutes or so.

So grab that sketchbook--and make sure you've got it on you at all times.

Oct 15, 2006

Animated acting-the CG version; Part 2 of a reaction to the Next Big Thing Myth

Further thoughts on the New York Times' article on supposedly new and better versions of motion capture animation technology.

Turning to the inside of the article, there's some small dose of artistic reality(and taste)from director Taylor Hackford, who points out the same huge caveat about "recreating" actors digitally:
"If you want Ethel Barrymore to give you the incredible, heartfelt performance, that comes from the soul of the actor." Then he adds, "It's not something you can get by animation"[italics mine]

Well, obviously I can't agree with that last bit--shades of that LaSalle guy in the San Francisco paper. Moving on:

Later on the producer and director of the upcoming "Foodfight" "which will be the first full-length movie to use Image Metrics technology", according to the article, says this: [in a CGI film] every time someone would say something, or do something, banks of people[those would presumably be animators] would have to figure out how the lips move, how the eyes move--and it's not even that good".

Again: oh, yeah?

Last week I stood behind a fellow story artist and animator who's currently moved back to the animation end of the films we work on. I watched his scene, in which he's responsible for all the action and acting in the frame, with fascination. The shot was brief with but a small amount of dialogue, but the experience that he'd acquired as a 2D animator of some years' experience was obvious. The characters were alive, and their movement gave me a thrill to see even without the final surfacing and color that put such a high sheen on CG figures. The timing was subtle, weighted, well-judged, natural...yet the speakers weren't human. But their believability even in shades of grey was undeniable.

I love the magic of animation. I particularly love doing story, but there is without doubt a yearning most of us have to see characters move for the first time, to be alive in the most basic state--that allure of the rough pencil test of flipping poses on 8s sans breakdowns, when you can still clearly see in a mass of lines a personality emerge.

I'm no snob about 2D versus CG or vice-versa; I probably prefer the look of the pencil, but when I see animation like my friend's it's obvious that it's just a means to an end.
And speaking of efficacy of means and ends, another animation director, one whose medium is computer games like Grand Theft Auto and who's used the touted software the article advertises for two years, admits that "There's no taking away the fact that a team of animators can sit and make some very convincing animation if they want to[gee, thanks], but I challenge anyone to do the volumes that I need in the time that I need, at this level of quality, and to capture the nuance of the voice actor".

Actually, I think I can suggest quite a few people who could do just that--although that director's main interest as a games person is as he says volume on a tight deadline.

So maybe it's apples and oranges here, because what my end of the business concerns itself with is that old saw about "Quality is #1". Period.

Basically, a studio or crew has to be on the same page. Is it going to be all about speed and cheapness, relatively speaking? Because it's a fact that an awful lot of excuses can be made to justify "new" software as the best when what it really is is what was sold to you as the best way to lower your expenses while maximizing your footage.
I know of some miracle workers--animators--who manage to do amazing feats of acting in record time when the crunch comes, as it always does...their secret? Not the software. It's the knowledge of a lifetime between their ears. It's their taste, their acting chops, their own interpretation of the timing of the movement and the tenor of the voice actor. And it's unique to them, no matter how mathematic the tools are.

They are irreplaceable, and there's no machine or program that will instill the soul into their work without them at the controls.

Technology will do it all...or not

This morning's(10/15)New York Times has another in a type of article that seems to bobble to the front page of Arts sections like a piece of balsa wood, every few years for at least the last 15: "Cyberface-a new technology makes animated figures as expressive as SAG members. Is this the birth of filmmaking's new era? Or the death[dum dum dummmm!]of the flesh-and-blood actor?"

The illustration accompanying the article. The gulf between the live model and the digital version is self-evident. Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Start merely with the title, in its large pica print trumpeting breakthrough!: a "new technology"[really?] that "makes" animated figures[the reporter is really referring soley to expressions of the face, forget body language for now] "as expressive as SAG members"...oh, indeed? I guess that's settled, then.
Or not.
Because the examples shown, heavily surfaced and rendered as they are next to mug[ging] shots of the models scanned and used for the final "animated" faces, are inarguably about 75% more pliable, expressive and interesting to look at than the offered, supposedly "more animated" digital versions.

In other words, here we go again.

And reading on, we get the old canard, trotted out for as long as these pieces has been published, that with this new technology all it'll take to resurrect Marilyn Monroe is, well, to use this copyrighted software on her. This is so patently silly that I hardly know where to start. I won't begin as an animator, just as a hardcore movie lover and admirer of such actors on film as Marilyn--a woman who in my opinion was much more talented than she's usually given credit for, even in these revisionist days.
She's also one of the most famous icons of pop culture--up there with Chaplin, Bogart, Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse: recognized worldwide by people who may have never seen one of their films. So, a software program will map "any character virtual or human, living or dead" and transpose a performance so that it looks like Marilyn herself is doing...what?

candid Marilyn

Here's a huge point hat I have yet to see addressed in all of these breathless articles that read like press releases:
who exactly is going to be the designated brain of Monroe? Who's the ultimate expert on what Marilyn would do in a new situation?

I suppose a top female impersonator like Jimmy James would be of some help, but he channels a pastiche of things MM did in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" and "Some Like it Hot", not so much "The Misfits" or "Don't Bother To Knock", never mind the Monroe of her private, introspective life.
Thus the caricature of an actress who actually sounded nothing like her comedic babydoll voice, who really did read Stanislavsky, and who was probably more inquisitive and cultured than many aspiring starlets today is reduced in theory to a computer catalogue of expressions. She'll never create anything new as she well might have past the age of 36 from a new, original script. But we're supposed to stand back, watch and admire her impersonators, to go along with the pretend Marilyn.
You might be able to build a version of her face, but who will supply her timing, her charm, her thought? Does any person on earth really have the nerve to say "oh, sure--I can"? I'd like to meet that person.
In any case, I'm sure the idea of who will actually give a performance tweaking the map of Marilyn's face will fall to a group, not to another actor.

You see my point: what made Bogart Bogart or Marilyn Marilyn was something that cannot be recreated in a new form that has any authority. They're both dead, and they took their quick and ever-changing minds with them when they went. They've given their last performances and to suggest so blithely that any actor is reduced to the look of their face is beyond insulting, a totally empty bit of trumpeting and salesmanship.

And what about an actor like Gregory Peck, in perhaps his greatest performance as Atticus Finch in "To Kill A Mockingbird"? Think about that one: Peck barely moves a discernable muscle in his face; he's a model of restraint, of inner thought, of passing shadows of concern, of love, of frustration. A farther cry from the ludicrously crude live action funny faces that illustrate the NY Times article could not be imagined...so, does that mean that this "revolutionary" software will be limited to the worst kind of bad acting? Is the camera's lingering examination of Garbo's face in the final shot of "Queen Christina" dull because she isn't squinting, gaping or grinning?

So much for making SAG members start sweating. Next post, I'll give a couple of thoughts on why it really ignored not just animators, but the whole concept of what animating is--as I believe it to be, anyway.

Oct 12, 2006

Panel Recap

In lieu of a more suitable illustration--here we have two striking women of animation, circa 1941(see Walt's contemporaneous reference to such of his staff below)

Back from the See Jane/Union "Where The Girls Aren't" panel. Wow. That was a heck of an evening. I felt incredibly proud to share a dais with Brenda, Jill, Dean, Fred and Geena, all moderated cogently and well by Kevin Koch. A lot was said, yet it was obvious that any one of us could have gone on much longer and I was eager to hear more from everyone--especially Dean, Brenda and Jill. 90 minutes and we barely scratched the surface. I feel it was a success. The turnout was great, many more than I expected might attend. Thanks to Kevin for asking me, and thanks especially to the supportive attendees who came and participated. I was thrilled to see some friends I've missed for ages, and very humbled and gratified to hear some kind words about The Blackwing Diaries. Shucks!

I'd carried a book up with me and almost had a perfect moment to read a relevant passage I'd marked, but the moment passed so I'll share it here. Kevin Koch had just alluded to the infamous "no thanks" letter that's been passed around and published, a letter sent in 1939 to a young woman artist who'd inquired about how to get a job as an animator at Disney's. She received a formal reply flatly stating that "women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing cartoons for the screen in making animated cartoons, as that is performed entirely by young men". Of course, this was in fact totally untrue, since there were indeed some few women in the story, visual development and assistant animator areas at the Disney studio at that very moment, but apparently the official line was don't even think about it--but if you must, try out for ink and paint. At least they were accurately honest about that division having nothing to do with the "creative work" of animation.

Yet barely 3 years later, in 1941, his studio full of unrest and at the brink of the strike that would tear apart the old illusion of happy cloudless days, none other than Walt Disney himself said these words in front of his assembled employees, at a kind of "state of the studio" speech:

..."The girl artists have the right to expect the same chances for advancement as men, and I honestly believe that they may eventually contribute something to this business that men never would or could. In the present group that are training for inbetweens[sic] there are definite prospects, and a good example is to mention the work of Ethel Kulsar and Sylvia Holland on the "Nutcracker Suite", and little Rhetta Scott, of whom you will hear more when you see "Bambi".

...if a woman can do the work as well, she is worth as much as a man"

This, from Walt Disney--in 1941! He wouldn't have said it if he didn't believe it. He was a genius, a mercurial character and a product of his age--almost a victorian by birth--yet he cared more than anything else about the end product, the films he was obsessed with making better than anyone else's.

I wish I could have managed to wriggle this stellar quote into the evening, but we had plenty of good discussion without it.
Personally, I come away lost in thoughts of how to best inspire the next generations of artists...why are so few of the applicants at Calarts or indeed at Disney or Pixar or Dreamworks girls? Is it, as I suspect, largely a matter of ignorance about the possibilities of telling stories and using one's artistic skills in this medium? Does it have anything to do with how few girls are comics geeks in grade school? Is drawing, after all, de-emphasized in school to the point where it's relegated to nothing more than a "hobby" for all but the most fanatical who wield a pencil or pen? Naturally I'm prejudiced in thinking that art should be a crucial part of any child's education; for a century or so it was a sure fire part of a well rounded american child's curriculum. Now I don't think most 7th-12th grade kids even get exposed to studio arts at all--not in public school, anyway. That can't be a good thing.

I could go on and on, and not strictly about girls...but as I said at the panel, these little thoughts are motes floating next to the Titanic-sized context of The Entertainment Industry and Art of animated film & television we work in. I think it does help, somehow, to float some subjects and perspectives out into the open sea of discourse and acknowledge them, adding our own experiences where they might be enlightening. I certainly benefited from what I heard tonight.
Thanks again, everyone.

EDITED TO ADD: The union blog's just posted (10/13) a synopsis of the event with a few photos. I wish it had been better edited, with real rather than remembered quotes. There are three abbreviated statements attributed to me which aren't quite what I said or how I said it--and for someone who is as in love with words and meaning as I am, it's a bit painful to read. One example: When Brenda Chapman told of being sought out by Joe Ranft specifically to help with the female characters in "Cars"--and when Geena (or Kevin) noted that there was only one female "car" character, I held up my fingers to indicate "two"--also blurting out as it occurred to me: "Isn't it funny?--cars are usually always referred to as female, as in "She's a cherry!", that kind of thing--they're thought of as feminine, like boats, traditionally. Yet in "Cars" almost all the cars are male...." This off the cuff observation is given in the TAG recap as this: Jenny Lerew: And aren't cars usually designated female, like ships. But almost all the cars in "Cars" are male. What was a spontaneous thought comes off sounding like a complaint or problem. Not so!

Further, some of the non-verbatim contextual recounting of observations made by the speakers makes use of perjoratives they in fact didn't use nor flatly imply, as in this: "In another example of job stereotyping, Jill recalled being assigned sequences involving the character Jessie in Toy Story 2 while she was at Pixar."
While Jill did speak of that, she wasn't in my opinion talking about "stereotyping", not did she use that hugely loaded word. Or is my memory failing me?

Yes, there was very honest and matter of fact noting of the byproducts of working in a mostly male environment. Brenda took some words directly out of my mouth that I was all set to say, in fact--namely, that the guys at Pixar, several of whom I know and who I feel fairly certain are a lot like, well, like me and my closest [male] friends in the business, do what comes naturally: they write and conceive and draw stories and characters that are dead honest--that come from their own guts and experiences. And they're guys, many of them fathers, all former little boys as I was a former little girl...they naturally(in my opinion)think of a boy's reaction and persona before a girl's, for good reason--they're boys. That's who they are, that's what they know. And I often start a new story with the hero being--guess what? A girl. Usually a girl an awful lot like youngest, feisty(not to say bratty), redheaded me.

Now, stories get embellished and fleshed out, and characters are changed, stretched, gender-bent--even made into another species or thing--but we all start with what we know best, first. Sometimes we stick to that, because it's the story we want to tell and it works best...or sometimes, as happens, we change a character from a girl to a boy or vice versa, because it makes a better story. And sometimes we might do something with some of our characters that we aren't aware of, that we'd be enhancing our stories to think again about.

The big point I personally believe--that I will hazard Brenda and Jill do too--is that's perfectly okay--it's just that as so many of the creators of stories are guys, sometimes the characters' gender and approach, reflecting the guys doing the drawings and thinking, are weighted towards the male end of the balance. That's not to say that a good storyteller--man or woman--can't or shouldn't or wouldn't choose to use whatever or whoever they please for their specific story...I could give concrete examples of what I think are unusually successful, conscious choices, one being all the characters in "Incredibles". But right now this is long enough already, so I'll pass.

A very important observation all three of us, the women on the panel agreed upon was left out of the TAG report: we all said that we hadn't felt "held back" or hindered as artists due to gender in any obvious, substantial way--that is, not as far as we knew, anyway. In fact, I said that given the tiny numbers of women vs. men at school, the females in the business who've stuck with it have fared better statistically than the men...maybe that means that if you're committed enough to seek out animation as your life's work, when it's already a male-dominated field, you'll just keep at it no matter what-but it also suggests that somewhere, from someone there'll be encouragement and help.

I talked repeatedly about the common goals that I share in story work with my male colleagues...that the aims we have far outweigh the differences. I'd like to have had that quoted. And Geena Davis herself made clear that her interest is simply in a hope for more interesting, reflective and inclusive stories that can be told for all children to enjoy.
I add these points as the recap as presented by the union blog comes off rather confusingly and certainly doesn't give the tenor of the evening as I experienced it...then again, it is a very very big subject.

I'd want Blackwing readers to know It wasn't any sort of a venting or bashing discussion. I'd likely be unsatisfied with anything but a straight transcript of the evening, but I still feel compelled to note my take on, well, my take. If you've read this far--I owe you some more pith on this blog.

Oct 11, 2006

Where the girls and boys will be...

Busy times at work and away.

Tonight my union, the Animation Guild, is hosting a panel discussion inspired by a study noting surprising female/male ratios in children's programming; like the study(commissioned by "See Jane", a think tank begun by Geena Davis, who'll be part of the panel)the evening is called "Where The Girls Aren't". Yours truly is on the panel too, along with "Lilo & Stitch" co-writer and director Dean De Blois, Brenda Chapman (now up at Pixar, whose reputation over the last 19 years in the business is well-known, not least her distinction as the first director of a feature animated film in the US), and producer Fred Seibert of his eponymous Frederator/Oh Yeah! Cartoons. Jill Culton, former Pixar story artist and present feature director with her film "Open Season" in theatres now, is also on board to come.

I was asked by union president Kevin Koch to participate mainly on the basis of my having weighed in on this topic on the union's blog several months ago. Announcing the event tonight Kevin posted a blurb about the panel and again there's some comments that indicate this is a hot-button issue for some. You can read it here.

Well, it should be interesting. Personally, I can only speak for myself--as an artist, as a filmgoer, and as a former little girl who grew up with whatever was on TV and in theatres when I was a kid. Based on those factors I have my own beliefs and ideas like most people do, but I've never thought of myself as political on the subject, with one of those dreaded agendas. What I do believe is always important(when done well, in a spirit of exploration and contemplation) is plain old talk, which is true for any subject that seldom gets discussed openly. The forum tonight won't just deal with the parameters of the "See Jane" study, it'll also address the fact that our animation industry has so few women, even now, in the 21st century, who're employed in our business. Why is that? I've been asked that question since the first day of my very first job--and before, in school. I have no big answer, only guesses.
But the question itself is always a jolt to me, because I really never think of myself as apart from the guys at my work. In drawing characters and story; I'm first and foremost a storyteller--and I'm all the characters, male, female, and in between. I 'm pretty certain that this is also how all my colleagues who happen to be male think, too. But while we are what we are--men, women--for however much that counts, the thing is that the drawing is a creature of its own--who can tell the sex of the person who drew it? No one.

I don't believe in quotas. I am interested in good stories, real characters...but in a milieu that's overwhelmingly male the status quo possibly may have an influence on what we do and how we see our stories and characters, and that's something that at the least(and maybe at the most, too)we should make ourselves more aware of. Just conscious of. --Not self conscious.

The imaginations of children are very forgiving, all-embracing, and usually more wild and creative and gender-bending than our adult version. And I'd throw into the mix the fact that not every thing we, animation folk, do is for children, although the reality is that a large part of our audience(for feature films made at large studios, with big budgets)will consist of families.
The subject is so multi-faceted that I really can't see what more we can do at a panel in a couple of hours other than toss around ideas and observations, but if that's all we do it'll still be an interesting and enlightening evening, I think.

Oct 8, 2006

Women of [Disney] Animation

The second post in almost as many days that's really a redirection to the Animation Guild's blog, but this one's also on a subject that's always been of particular interest to me.

Wonderful caricatures of animation artists Tamargo and Zwicker by John Sparey-see the original, larger version at its home base, the TAG blog, from which this illustration is gratefully borrowed

Bea and Liz

Please go and give it a read. Honestly, I'm ashamed that I've never heard of either of these women before; if you'd asked me if there were any females in the animation department apart from ink and paint or layout, I'd have said I knew of only one off the top of my head, Ruth Kissane. Obviously there were at least several more and their stories have to be interesting by any measure simply because their presence in animation--and at the "best" studio, Disney's--was so rare.

When I was a teenager I wrote to Disney archives maven David Smith to ask him about Retta Scott, whose picture had appeared in Christopher Finch's "Art Of Walt Disney" and whose credit as animator on "Bambi" fascinated me. I asked Dave to tell me what her credits were, and if she was singular at Disney's as a woman in animation--the drawing, as apart from the inking end(keep in mind that virtually all of the so-called "ink and paint girls" were usually highly trained artists, having gone to the same schools the elite animators had).

Dave's answer was terse and offered only that yes, Retta Scott was "unique" as a female animator or assistant at Disney's until the 1970s; he mentioned nothing about such people as Bea Tamargo, Liz Zwicker or Ruth Kissane. I think this was likely due to their names not listed in on screen credits as "animators", but I really had been curious to know if women did any drawing jobs that involved animating...obviously, there were and they did. What a shame they weren't on the historical radar of the archives.

Frankly, the individual drawings and personal art I'd love to see is that of these girl veterans of Disney's; were they as strong artistically as many of the guys whose work we collect, and who had more important positions? Virtually impossible to know, unless someone somewhere saved grandma's stuff, which I certainly hope is the case. It seems certain that anyone in any capacity at Disney's had to be practically overqualified to get a job offer, especially after the war.

Oct 7, 2006

Fred Moore by Ward Kimball via Steve Hulett

One of a series of extremes posed out by Fred Moore for an unproduced sequel to "Saludos Amigos" set in Cuba; this drawing hasn't been published before here. Courtesy of James Walker , from his collection. Fred's genius is often never more evident than in the roughest of his drawings.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s Steve Hulett had a dream job at Walt Disney Productions(as it was called then): he was assigned to interview many of the old-timers either on the lot or recently retired yet still connected to the studio. He's posted many of these--all worth reading--over on the The Animation Guild's union blog. Here's a sampling of a lengthy interview Steve did with Ward Kimball, which he was lucky enough to be able to tape--when I interviewed Ward in 1981 he insisted I not turn on my tape recorder, for two reasons: he'd been "burned" by a verbatim but cringeworthy (also exceedingly touching and honest) interview he'd done which had made print, and also--this is my opinion--he wasn't completely sure of a teenager who he'd never met before(me) rather than a Disney employee whose dad had worked for the studio(Steve)! Well, I was fortunate he talked to me at all--I still can't get over it. But I'm digressing again.

So, Steve Hulett posted an exchange with Ward about Fred Moore.
You can read it here.
It's almost exactly what he told me, complete with the part about finishing Fred's work for him. I did, by the way, sit in my car outside Ward's home for at least an hour furiously scrawling down all the quotes and stories I could before they left my memory, so I did have that.

Fred Moore in the 40s; from James Walker

I'll say that while I believe that all the men I interviewed were honest--Art Babbitt, Ken O'Brien, Ollie Johnston, Larry Clemmons, Carl Urbano, and Ward--obviously each one was not only digging back into memories that were decades old, but were talking about a colleague, once a superstar at the greatest studio in the world, who'd fallen from favor and died barely 40 years old...so there's bound to be some mixed feelings there. Ward I felt especially, as the man I spoke with closest at one time to Fred, struggled with emotions about his old buddy. As a matter of fact, in my conversations he showed a good amount of plain anger at Fred, and made it clear he had cared a lot about him, and felt frustrated at how little he could do for him. He'd use a fair amount of sarcasm in expressing this, but even me, a jejune teen, picked that up. I think those are things to keep in mind when reading some of Kimball's remarks in Steve's interview excerpts.

Oct 3, 2006

Mermaid regnant

my cintiq tribute to one of my favorite animated characters

Well, today's the day that the film, the one they said couldn't be made, the one that changed forever the future and existence of character animation, "The Little Mermaid", is released on DVD in a special-special 2 disc edition. Just exactly what's on this I'm not yet sure; I was privy to only about 30 minutes of watching some pieces of the various supplements this afternoon--someone else's copy. I haven't even purchased mine yet. What I wanted to see was the pencil test version of "Part of Your World" that Glen Keane brought to Calarts one evening and showed us. I've never had a pencil test make such an impression on me before or since(the music being as beautiful as it was didn't hurt, either.) But I think it's not included on this release...well, there's loads of other goodies, including many scenes in story reel form. If you read this blog you really have got to have this.

"Mermaid" was released in 1989, an age ago. "Roger Rabbit" had already come out and made the impact it did--and whatever you think of that film's merits, it certainly had an inarguable, important effect on animation being taken seriously as crossover adult entertainment. That was a distinction lost on the mainstream media as well as the public almost since the beginnings of television, when all "cartoons" became unfortunately ghettoized as being for kids only.

This film had everything going for it; that old expression about the stars being in perfect alignment certainly seems true in its case. Clever ideas, a sincere story and real, breathing characters...and a talented staff of artists dying to sink their teeth into drawing and animating it all. And the composing team--a perfect fit and application of the abilities of musical-comedy pros with humor, great lyrics and story sense.
I watched a story reel version of "Poor Unfortunate Souls"--I'd forgotten just how witty the lyrics are, and what a great performance Pat Carroll gave singing it...not to mention the animation! And the editing, and the color styling...yes, it's great. I can't recall the film having any dead spots...nothing that made me say, "oh, yeah, well, once I get past this scene..."

I'm gushing, sure. But I wonder how many people under thirtysomething really remember what a bombshell hit this was in '89? I saw it several times, once at the Cinerama Dome, of all places(this must have been pre-El Capitan retrofitting); the showing was a 10pm one(that in itself a first, as most animated features didn't have shows past 6pm), the crowd was packed(this more than a week after opening--maybe two weeks). The audience that laughed, clapped and sat in rapt attention was mostly 18-40...for an animated cartoon about a "little" mermaid. Now that's a sensation.

For all the subsequent wincing at the inappropriate and overdone musical comedies in animation, all the ripoffs and merchandising and cynicism in some quarters, we really owe our jobs, all of us, to the tremendous success of that one film which jump-started the business.

"Animation" signified something that got the average person in the street excited and intrigued, without embarrassment. Our audience is different now, times are different, but the essential desire of the audience to be surprised and entertained is still the same. "Mermaid" was a hit because it was just so, so good--and such a surprise. The elements that worked then are certainly still within the grasp of today's filmmakers. It's more than possible.

Oct 2, 2006

Squash and huh?

Amid Amidi points out this whopper in an L.A. Times reporter's recap of the top opening movies this past weekend--"Open Season", Sony Animation's inaugural film having made a very respectable three day take. The writer elaborates on the "genre" film a bit:

"The movie, based on the humor of cartoonist Steve Moore, introduces a technique dubbed "squash and stretch" that allows the cartoon characters to change shape during action sequences."

Now, I'm hoping that what the he really means is that there was a special tweaking of the software used at Sony to better facilitate the driving principle that's the basis of all animated movement since forever, "squash and stretch". At least I hope so. I hope he doesn't think that this new "squash & stretch" thing was really introduced in "Open Season". I hope.

I'm old enough to remember more than one review in the 70s lauding Bakshi's "invention" of the rotoscope device in "Lord of the Rings", though, so anything's possible.