Evolutionary Acting

I was reading Andreas Deja's blog post on dual character staging in animation when he posted this picture:

He said even though she's facing away from us, we understand through her body language and the juxtaposition of the concerned cat that she is sad/deep in thought.

It reminded me of something we learned in my evolutionary anthropology class in that learning to detect even minute, subtle cues in body language was an evolutionary adaptation for us to build complex culture, our species' killer app. It helped us build empathy and cooled our "wild nature". The ability to empathize with each other in effect domesticated us.

A lot of animation is so on-the-nose that I think we forget that our minds have evolved to be acutely aware of even the slightest hints of emotion through body posture. Acting has over time since the '50s gone from a more broad, theatrical style to an increasingly subtle reflection of our actual behavior.

Bouncy, obvious animation is fun to do and watch, but it shouldn't be at the cost of more subtle cues. Figuring out someone's emotional state is one instance where it's fun for the audience to meet the film maker/actor halfway. There couldn't be anything more natural for the viewer to do.

Making Traditional Affordable

The Secret World of Arrietty - Budget: $23 million. Gross: $143,925,084

I don't understand why major animation studios don't make cheaper traditionally animated films. I was thinking about the worldwide gross of Arrietty and how, paired with a $23 million budget, its $143 million gross is a huge success for Studio Ghibli. Traditional animation can be done cheaper and faster (but not necessarily worse!) with today's technology than ever before.

I don't see any reason not to put out animated films in the $20-30 million range. If it makes up its budget, then that's ok. But if it's a runaway success and brings in big money on a small investment then great! If it bombs but is still critically acclaimed, there may be some reward later on during award season.
I don't understand the mindset that all the chips have to be bet on a $200 million CG extravaganza every year.

Puss In Boots Budget: $130 million plus a crap ton of marketing

I'm not making the case that traditional animation should be revived from a rosy, nostalgic point of view, but strictly as a business decision that makes sense.
Give artists the opportunity to make films that don't have to appeal to the widest demographic; to make films that aren't huge spectacles and are instead more subtle and thematic. Sure, still have your major releases, but also have one or two of these smaller films released throughout the year. Why not?

Ponyo Budget: $34 million. Gross: $202,614,288

The Illusionist Budget: $17 million. It bombed but was critically acclaimed.

Rejection, the sequel

This is my second rejection from the Calarts character animation program. They say third time's the charm but I'm done with this. I'm planning on signing up for Animation Mentor this Fall.

Oh Miyazaki

Miyazaki on animation:

Why Miyazaki doesn't like modern anime:

The interview can be seen in two parts here and here.

iPhone 4S vs. Nikon D3100

 I wanted to do a quick comparison test between my iPhone 4S and my Nikon D3100 with a 50mm 1.8 lens. As much as I love my iPhone's camera, there's no comparison to the DSLR. But on a bright day outside the HD camera on the phone is scarily close to the Nikon's video. Still, it can't beat that depth of field on the 50mm lens.

iPhone 4S

Nikon D3100 50mm 1.8

CTNx

I went to the Creative Talent Network Animation Expo or CTNx the other day and it was a really fun, inspiring event focused on animation and everything that goes with it. It definitely made me feel like a slop artist because of how good a lot of the art on display was, but I expected that and handled the feeling of inferiority better than I thought I would.

One thing I did notice was a feeling of the slight inbreeding going on in the character designs and styles which was disturbing, especially CG characters. But for the most part there was a lot of good stuff to see and study.

Some topics I'd like to see discussed at next year's Expo:  

• Why is tuition so damn high at Calarts?
• Discrepencies between US animation and Japanese animation in terms of themes and maturity of the topics explored
• A panel dedicated to talking about animation from a single decade in animation history
• Animation history in general
• Television: Last bastion for traditional animation?
• The decline and rise of the theatrical short
• CG: Just another tool or a change in mindset?
• Outsourcing and its effects on the US animation industry

One thing that surprised me was the presence of professional (clothed) models posing in the lobby with art horses propped around them for anybody to sit down and sketch. Here are a couple I did that turned out ok:

Dennō Coil

I've just finished watching a 2007 anime series called Dennō Coil and it was fantastic. The series revolves around a group of kids living in a city that is the center of a groundbreaking new technology that lets the wearer of a special kind of glasses see the reality around them but with a digital layer on top. It's like The Matrix, but in our reality. The kids form their own kind of hacking subculture around these glasses and the digital reality that is created by them. 

Is this not appealing?!

I'd first heard about it when it came out years ago but hadn't gotten around to seeing it until now. 
Unlike Death Note (which came out around the same time) which had a really ugly, unappealing style where the men look too effeminate and clothes are too baggy, Dennō Coil's style is very appealing; the character designs are cute and pleasing to look at. And since the designs are simpler, the animation is more fluid, cartoony, and better acted, whereas Death Note's animation was positively sclerotic (although both suffered from a bit of the 'radio drama with still pictures' budgetary issue, but Death Note took it to an extreme).

A very well animated shot.

One thing that anyone who's starting to get into anime TV series will quickly note is how many of them present a depth of character and the serious thoughts and situations characters get into and think about. True friendship, loss, betrayal, maturity, reputation, success, failure, and of course other mature events like murder, swearing, and bad-assery. 

The integration of CG with traditional animation was very well executed.

 

You almost never see dynamic shots like this in US animated series.

There are plenty of well-animated little snippets like this sprinkled throughout the show.

Dennō Coil  is more Miyazaki than Death Note though, and as a result has more of a heart. Things got a little dusty in the last episode.

So again, I keep thinking, "Why doesn't America get an animated series like this?" A show with a complex yet satisfying high concept, well developed characters one cares about, beautiful artwork, effective animation, and mature themes and events.

That's not the sun.

Avatar: The Last Airbender was close, and Hey Arnold came very close, although it wasn't a single continuous story. Something with the heart and adventure of Miyazaki, the coolness of Dennō Coil, and the maturity of most of these anime series that told a single story well would be successful, both ratings-wise and critically. 

An illegal, a virus from "obsolete space".

I love comedy shows like Adventure Time, Regular Show, Superjail!, Flapjack, and The Amazing World of Gumball, but having a meal made up exclusively of these shows is all milkshake and no hamburger. The success of The Last Airbender reveals the huge market for a more mature, long-form animated series. The question is: who is going to make the next one and, more importantly, who's going to approve its creation?

The Lion King

*Spoilers ahead*

 I went out and saw the recent re release of The Lion King in glorious 2D (the first time since I was very small and it was on VHS) and I wanted to impart a few thoughts:

The first opening shots are probably the best in the movie, in particular the shot of the gazelle jumping through the mist onto a puddle of water. It's an immediate reminder of the beauty traditional animation can present. It quickly brought the audience of kids to attention and sucked them in.

The first half hour of the movie was the best part. That's when it felt most adventurous and took itself seriously. But after Simba left his pride and met up with Timon and Pumba, the movie became a little more self-aware (breaking the fourth wall), a little more cheesy, and a bit more light-hearted, much to its detriment. I didn't feel like it had the same amount of weight that the first act had, mostly because of Timon and Pumba. I'm not saying Simba should have had some deep existential crisis for all of the second act, but they could have toned down the kiddiness of it. There was a real sense that the dialogue was beginning to pander to a younger audience and was dumbed down. A lot of the jokes weren't as funny as I remembered them.

A few songs sounded pretty dated (I was cringing when the love song for Nala and Simba came on). But the more musical, choir stuff was still effective. I had a problem with some of the voice acting though. Simba had nice voice actor for when he was a cub, but when he becomes an adult, his voice sounds like a typical, generic Disney lead. There was no individuality to it and it's immediately forgettable, unlike his father's awesome baritone. I also didn't like Timon's voice. It was so grating and out of place.

This

Not this

I still think killing Mufasa was a ballsy move and added much needed weight to the film. Andreas Deja, who did a lot of the animation for Scar, did a really good job as well. Some of the animation for Nala was pretty good too, like the scene where her mom is giving her a bath.

Good, solid animation.

One of my favorite shots

 

I just wish the film was more Miyazaki than Hollywood. I don't think it needed the musical numbers or the one-liners or a second act with two annoying side-kicks making fart jokes. When the opening title comes on screen, it implies an epic adventure. Toning it down in the second act really undermined what I felt it was originally going for and, in turn, undermined the intensity of the third act (having Timon and Pumba help Simba fight off hyenas definitely didn't help). 

What is this doing in the epic final action piece?

But that said, it's still a joy to watch traditional animation on the screen. I still feel like there's more of a sense of honesty in the eyes when they're drawn than with CG. Hopefully with the complete domination of the box office this re release has had, Disney will take a cue and put on track more hand-drawn features. With today's technology, they should be easier and cheaper to make then ever. The audience doesn't care if it's drawn or CG as long as it's appealing and has a good story (more so appealing. Audiences can shell out for some pretty badly told stories. But if it's ugly? Well, just look at Mars Needs Moms). With the cheaper price, Disney should be OK letting directors have more personal visions and take greater risks. Not every animated film has to be the biggest thing ever. Can't we have some smaller stories and settings? Where's the US version of Kiki's Delivery Service or Totoro?

Ugly as hell. No one went to see this movie.

Anyways, so yeah, The Lion King is a bit overrated, but if its box office is any indicator, traditional feature animation isn't completely dead to US audiences (whew!).