Articles on Animation &Commentary &Guest writer &Independent Animation 12 Jul 2008 08:23 am
Guest writer: Why Cartoons?
– I received the following article from Nina Paley, the creator/animator/ director/designer of Sita Sings the Blues (which won the Best Feature Prize at Annecy this year.) The article came with a letter, which I think helps explain why she wrote it.
Here’s the letter:
- Hi Michael,
I’m back in NY, finally, spending my first day home in my apartment with the AC on with the cat next to me, surfing the web. I read your review of Wall-E, which I haven’t seen yet, and thought to send you this essay I wrote for Frederator (which they never used) on the theme of “Why Cartoons?”.
Since Berlin, I’ve been convinced that most cinemagoers are simply voyeurs, craving simple stimulation of their primate visual senses in the form of close-up views of beautiful people courting and mating, and gory violence. Things our inner primates think about constantly but seldom get to see. Animation is more abstract and cerebral, visually. I prefer it to live action, but I am a freak (like most animation fans).
Pixar’s success lies in making animation that visually resembles live-action and satisfies the typical cinemagoer’s inner voyeur. Hence the expanding popularity of 3D “animation” among Hollywood producers.
Typical American cinemagoers are put off by 2D animation, but 3D gives them more of what their primate eyes want: to believe they’re watching real events up close without risking personal exposure.
Since I’m going to a lot of festivals with “Sita,” I am struck by the cultural differences between animation festivals and “real” film festivals. When I refer to films as “live-action,” most directors don’t know what I’m talking about; to them live-action is just “film,” and animation is completely off their radars. Most have never heard of Annecy or any other animation festivals. Most film festivals automatically exclude animation from competition, instead programming it in what I call the Animation Ghetto – or worse (in the case of “Sita”), the “Family” or “Children’s” sections. But their programming animation at all is evidence of some progress. And I’m grateful, especially for the 2D animation fans that already exist, and the chance to expose new viewers to the art form.
Hope you’re well,
–Nina
This is the article she sent.
- WHY CARTOONS?
Because less information = more meaning
Animation takes advantage of quirks of human perception. Good cartoons lie somewhere between nature (no abstraction) and text (full abstraction).
At its best, animation does what live action can’t. Good animation is unrealistic. This starts with the style itself: drawings and designs of things that can’t exist in the real world. Exaggerated heads and hands, huge or tiny eyes, rubber-hose limbs, cubism. A handmade line drawing of a robot requires our uniquely human imaginations to understand it as “a robot,” but we may recognize it more quickly than a photograph of a real robot.
Exhibit A: cartoon drawing of a robot.
Exhibit B: photograph of a real robot
Animated motion should also defy reality. For example, bouncy walks that no robot (or human) could replicate, even though we can recognize them as “walks.” Good cartoons stimulate and exercise our imaginations in ways live action never can.
Like reading or working out, viewing cartoons can be exhausting. But far less time is needed to communicate more meaning. That’s why cartoons are so effective as shorts (and commercials).
Live action conveys too much information. “High production values” are the art of removing as much information from nature as possible.
Wrinkles and blemishes on actors’ faces are concealed with makeup; stray threads and hairs are tucked away by stylists; wires and microphones hidden through camouflage, meticulous set design and framing; unwanted details lost in shadows via careful lighting, which heightens only those few areas and outlines intended to convey meaning. But still, excessive information abounds in live action.
Cartoons start with only the information needed. There’s nothing extraneous to hide. If you mean “eyes,” you show a symbolic short-hand representation of “eyes,” nothing more. No gunk in the corner of the eyes, no moles on the eyelids, no eyebrow dandruff – unless you explicitly intend to convey these details as well. The picture is as clear as the idea in the mind of the artist, and that clarity of meaning is transferred to the viewer.
Exhibit C: real eye, belonging to the author.
Notice bloodshot veins indicating stress, wrinkles indicating wisdom and maturity,
shiny skin surface indicating absence of makeup, and other excess information.
Exhibit D: cartoon eye, or possibly captain’s wheel.
(Also, producing animation totally trumps live action: No uppity actors. No obnoxious crew. No permits. No tedious laws of physics. If you can imagine it, you can animate it; no extra charge.)
But animation remains the bastard child of cinema. Most moviegoers just want to watch beautiful people. Bonus if the beautiful people are celebrities; extra bonus if the beautiful people are performing sex or violence onscreen. Animation can deliver meaning, story, ideas – but it doesn’t satisfy the sexual voyeur that drives most cinephiles. In live action, a camera can linger for minutes on a beautiful actress’ face, as the audience attends to all that information: every eye-blink, every change in pupil dilation, the subtlest nostril flare, the slightest movement of any of the hundreds of facial muscles lurking below the makeup. In live action, such a scene is watchable. How could such a serious and pensive scene be conveyed in animation? It would either be painfully dull (a long still) or ridiculous (imagine a Bill Plympton interpretation where every nuance is exaggerated: small nostril flare becomes huge, facial muscle twitch becomes twitchy animal running around under skin) and, like all animation, exhausting.
Live action satisfies our voyeurism, animation ridicules it.
Since I can’t take voyeurism seriously, I go for ridicule.
on 12 Jul 2008 at 9:23 am 1.Tim Rauch said …
I have to say I see less separation between what is possible to put into and receive from animation versus live action than Nina does. Certainly, there are expectations of both mediums that have been formed in this country over the first 100 years of cinema. Those boundaries can be pushed much further and filmmakers of today have a lot of room for growth. I am glad there are artists who embrace merging what we have traditionally been separate mediums. Some efforts may stumble but others will soar and at the end of the day we’re just placing lights and colors next to each other to be projected back out to an audience. How we get those lights and colors onto the screen is our own damn business and the process need not limit the result.
on 12 Jul 2008 at 6:38 pm 2.Eddie Fitzgerald said …
Interesting subject! Live action does contain too much information, and therefore isn’t the ideal medium for comedy, and Nina’s right: there is some voyeurism involved in our love for live action. Live action is better at portraying role models, and you could argue that it does drama better, but in comedy the artist is king…in my humble opinion, anyway.
The problem is that you can’t get animators and cartoonists to take advantage of the assets of their medium. Apart from John K and a couple of others how many animation cartoonists even attempt comedic acting?
I try to do funny acting on the TV shows I work on but it’s an uphill fight because the scripts are hardly ever geared for it. They’re usually way over-length so there’s no time in the story for acting gags. If I had to make the devil’s choice between a good script that’s too long or a bad script that’s too short, I’d take the bad short script every time. Long scripts are killing us!
on 12 Jul 2008 at 7:04 pm 3.Nina Paley said …
Clarification: I should add that Pixar’ success also lies in many excellent stories, and quality design, filmmaking, etc.
But I think the 3-D thing is key in attracting large audiences to Pixar’s films. I wonder what would happen if Pixar made a 2-D feature? Maybe brand loyalty would be enough to make some filmgoers overcome their aversion to 2-D…
on 12 Jul 2008 at 11:04 pm 4.Michael said …
I have to say that I don’t believe there is an aversion to 2D animation except by the studio executives. They know they can make more money with cgi with the sequels. The characters are already constructed and reuse of the media is easier than new drawings. Funny though, it always seems to cost more.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 11:36 am 5.Mike Rauch said …
If people are drawn to film for voyeuristic reasons, I think it has much more to do with an attraction to shared human experience like fear, love, loss, joy, etc. I imagine that Sita’s draw (the greatest break-up story ever told) is about this too. No matter how abstract or cerebral an animated film might be, it’s interest value will most always come out of its success in connecting to basic human experience. Pixar’s success is more likely owed to memorable characters, experiencing things we can relate to, in films that appeal to all ages than it’s use of any particular technology.
It seems limiting to say that “good cartoons are unrealistic”. Whether in it’s drawing or acting good animation (or cartoons) can be anything. Take Wallace and Grommit who are decidedly not from any “real world”, but who Aardman animate in what they call a “naturalistic” style. There’s not one best way to work in this diverse art form. If one animator wants to put gunk in their characters’ eyes, and the other marks the eye with a simple dot, they are both equally valid choices. These choices should be evaluated in the context of the film. On these terms, even live-action is an abstraction. The camera doesn’t convey every last detail (ex. the eye above is certainly not what I would see in the physical world).
Though animation is often my preference when watching film, live-action is not by any means a lesser form. Why “cartoons”? Why not? ‘Nuff said. Let’s go to work.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 11:39 am 6.Bill Perkins said …
Hi Nina. Boy.. is this ever something to ponder. I’ve seen most of the Pixar films and admire them on a lot of levels but nothing does my soul better then to sit down and watch a good Friz Freleng Tweety and Sylvester Cartoon. I’ve seen some of them, I’m sure 30 + times and that still crack me up. I’m with you .. I’d go for the ridicule anytime. I worked in a Video rental place years ago and it was a interesting insight into the public’s taste and mindset. Again I agree with you,pretty + celebrity + sex and violence is the stuff that moved. I was thinking about the inherent coldness I pick up in 3D sometimes and thought it may have to do with tactility – the images are generated by using a mouse, a keyboard, stylus whatever. In 3D, although I have seen some stellar performances,as an artist you can not actually touch, mold or draw your character by hand.. I think you lose something there. Ray Harryhausen’s work holds up for me,I believe, for that reason. It was handcrafted, and somehow that comes across. Another example is :I can be moved by a great painting.less so by one done in photoshop. I’m also with you on 3D providing imagery that the audience “expects” to see. I was talking to someone years ago about what I perceived as the failure of modern graphic “50′s Animation” to perpetuate its self beyond that decade, This conversation took place (1990) well before advent of a resurgence in that stuff and certainly Amid pointed out many sound reason’s in “Cartoon Modern” as why the Animation design revolution sputtered to a stop. My personal theory was that it was too visually challenging,the viewer had to think. As the person I was having this discussion with pointed out, When people see a drawing of a telephone they want it to look like a telephone. I also agree with Mike’s comment about executive’s . 2D did not fail as an art form it failed as a business (profit making) paradigm. Congratulations on Sita.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 1:53 pm 7.Jenny said …
I disagree that people like 3D because it looks more real; the good 2D films have made a huge impact and some that are almost 80 years old are still popular even with jaded, 3D-inured audiences of today.
I also strongly disagree witha blanket description of Pixar that suggests theur films are “realistic”. Forget WALL-E (which looked the way it did very deliberately, for reasons born of the story)–Nemo, INcredibles, and for God’s sake Ratatouille–there is NOTHING “real” looking about the design of those film, not to mention the premises. yet they were huge hits with the same chimps who respond to coupling and violence. ; )
It’s the story, story and more story that clinches it and matters–and I’d include the design of the world of the film as part of the storytelling-don’t think I’m forgetting that aspect as key-ditto the characters’ animation, their movement, as well as their superficial design.
People will accept wild abstractions if they can find any tiny thing to relate to and that has character–tiny things-but in our jobs the more the merrier(and better).
They will also accept and enjoy “realism”–IF it’s just as entertaining and successful at communicating as the more abstracted stuff. Audiences may still possess that lizard brain but they also have a gigantic pair of lobes that are capable of complex thought and investment in, for instance, a cartoon fish-be it 2D or 3D. I don’t think it makes any difference, which is what Pixar proved–and it’s almost forgotten now, but it was a hard sell back in the day, at first.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 2:17 pm 8.Mike Rauch said …
Very well said Jenny. You give the audience full respect and credit, which I think is critical for filmmakers to do.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 2:57 pm 9.Bill Perkins said …
Hi Jenny..Absolutely, story is pre-eminent. All the window dressing in the world can’t save a bad story and its the backbone on which everything else rests. Without you have nothing..in any medium. By the way it’s a pleasure to to be dialoging with you. Your blog is one of my indispensable daily stops.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 4:06 pm 10.Chris Webb said …
Jenny is right, but there is more to it than just “story story story.”
Because what do we want from a story? As Andrew Stanton said, “All I want when I go to the movies is to care.” I agree with him.
So sure, a good story, one that gets people to care, is essential.
But Nina is writing about something else – why do people go to the movies? Isn’t that what she’s writing about?
People go to the movies to witness someone else’s problems, without having to have those problems themselves.
If the movie is good, they will identify with the main character. They will believe in that character’s values. And as that character is challenged by a different set of values (usually values embodied by a villain) the audience has to witness whether the values they believe in will triumph over the villain’s set of values. Indiana Jones defeats the Nazis – all along we knew he’d get that arc, right? We believed in him, didn’t we? Imagine how popular the movie would have been if he’d ultimately failed?
Movies are a way of testing yourself and your values in a safe environment. You want to believe in something – idealize it – so that’s why movie stars are so important. Like it or not, we see ourselves in Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Deniro, Brando, Barbara Stanwyck – Mary Pickford, Chaplin… And Bugs Bunny. And as Tom Hanks is trapped on that island in Cast Away, we think “What I’d do in that situation is…” But of course none of us are ever going to be trapped on an island, and we won’t have to make those choices. But we believe in Tom, and when he gets off, our belief in him is rewarded.
3-D animation is more popular than 2-D because it is easier for most people to BELIEVE in a 3-D animated film. And when I say most people, I mean your average movie goer, not the kind of enlightened and brilliant people who read animation blogs! As Nina says, there’s more information in 3-D, so when the audience looks at 3-D animation, they have to do less work.
2-D involves a greater amount of “suspension disbelief” than 3-D does. As Nina said, it is easier to project yourself into a 3-D movie than a 2-D one.
But that doesn’t negate’s 2-D possibilities as a storytelling medium. Hell, I believe in Linus from “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as much as I believe in Kate Winslett in “Titanic.” But I have learned over the years that my tastes are not mainstream tastes.
But Hollywood has to bank on the mainstream tastes, and the percentages say that 3-D films are the way to go. If 2-D worked as well, we’d see 2-D films all over the place. But the fact of the matter is that for most people, 2-D just is not as easy to relate to as 3-D. And 3-D animated films are not as easy to relate to as live action films are.
So if a person makes a 2-D animated film, and they are competing with live action films, they have 2 strikes against them. It’s not live action, and it’s not 3-D either.
If you make a 2-D animated film, give us a main character to believe in, and load up on the sex and violence! That’s what people want to see. And of course, do the things that 2-D is so great at, transformation, slapstick, creating symbols, caricature…
on 13 Jul 2008 at 4:50 pm 11.Nina Paley said …
“there’s more information in 3-D, so when the audience looks at 3-D animation, they have to do less work.”
Nice line – I WISH I’d said that!
Many people are certainly capable of enjoying a 2D animated film for adults, once they get into the theater. But most won’t go into the theater in the first place (unless they’re already animation fans-and compared to moviegoers as a whole, we are a TINY minority). They will, however, pack the rafters to see Penelope Cruz or Angelina Jolie in anything. The story might stink, but that’s not why they’re there. Bad stories with sexy actors attract larger audiences than most 2D animation ever will.
(Unless the 2D animation is expressly for children, and bears the Disney brand. Parents don’t want their kids being sex and violence voyeurs. Ironically, much animation for children is loaded with sex and violence anyway, but it is visually abstract sex and violence. It doesn’t turn the parents on, so they assume it’s appropriate for children. But I digress.)
on 13 Jul 2008 at 7:16 pm 12.Michael said …
“3-D animation is more popular than 2-D because it is easier for most people to BELIEVE in a 3-D animated film.”
Chris, I completely disagree with your premise. Just as many people would go to see good, commercially promoted 2D films as would go to see the same as a 3D feature. Prior to the invention of the computer, people didn’t flock to see 3D puppet animation; they did go to 2D.
3D is a gimmick promoted by the big studios because it is more commercially feasible for them to do this. It is not because of the audience’s preference.
The audience comes to see the story. If Treasure Planet or Spirit had been good films, they would have had big audiences. Neither film was good. The same is true of many 3D films, and the audiences aren’t rushing to all of them, either. It has nothing to do with the media used.
on 13 Jul 2008 at 7:31 pm 13.John Schnall said …
I can just see Joe Six-pack sitting at home looking at the movie listings: “What the hell is this? I ain’t gonna see no 2D film. At these prices I gotta get all three D’s or I ain’t going!”
on 13 Jul 2008 at 7:35 pm 14.Jenny said …
“They will, however, pack the rafters to see Penelope Cruz or Angelina Jolie in anything. The story might stink, but that’s not why they’re there. Bad stories with sexy actors attract larger audiences than most 2D animation ever will.”
Just can’t agree with this supposition! Jolie has had a quite a few B.O. bombs in her recent resume–she’s much more famous as a personality than she is successful as a film-opening actor. Of her last 10 films, most lost money. See how “Tomb Raider II” did at the boxoffice compared to “Lion King” or “Lilo & Stitch”; and the budgets for 2D then were as high as they were for another of her bombs, “Alexander”. All 2D or 3D needs is to be great!
Sex sells but for a film to really enchant and entice a broad audience(in other words, be a true hit financially) it still needs some substance (keeping in mind that “substance” takes myriad forms).
on 13 Jul 2008 at 8:35 pm 15.Nina Paley said …
Any film will do better in the long run if it has a good story.
But I disagree with Michael’s statement:
“The audience comes to see the story.”
Most of the audience comes (to live action, not animation) to see pretty hairless monkeys mating and/or fighting up close. A few of us come for story, and/or to stimulate our visual cortex in ways that only animation can, but we are a minority. Most US viewers want live action.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Japanese audiences have learned to enjoy 2D animation, although much of this still features pretty hairless monkeys mating and fighting up close (but as 2D drawings). That’s a huge difference from the US. In 10 years, things may be different here. Every quality 2D animated feature released in the US will help. Now, if only I could find a theatrical distributor for “Sita”….
on 14 Jul 2008 at 3:20 am 16.Chris Webb said …
“Sex sells but for a film to really enchant and entice a broad audience(in other words, be a true hit financially) it still needs some substance (keeping in mind that “substance†takes myriad forms).”
No one would disagree with this.
But the statistics bear out this fact – that people would rather see other human beings on screen than 2-D representations of other human beings. Statistics? More live action films are made than animated films. It’s not that live action films are easier to make, or can be made cheaper – if people wanted to see more animation, Hollywood would provide it. Period. And you gotta admit, many live action films with a crappy story are more popular than animated films with great stories. Just ask Brad “Iron Giant” Bird.
This point may have been proven as soon as 1940. May I quote Michael Barrier? On page 273 of Hollywood Cartoons: “Pinocchio failed domestically even though it had gone into American theaters bedecked in glowing reviews: moreover, the public should have been primed to receive it, given how joyfully it had greeted Snow White and The Seven Dwarves. Whatever Pinocchio’s own shortcomings, it is still hard to explain why its box office receipts fell so far short of Snow White’s. There was, however, a chilling possibility: that animated features were in box office terms genre films like westerns and horror movies. Occasionally such a film might break out and achieve a broader success as Stagecoach had or Frankenstein, but otherwise a genre film’s prospects were limited. Snow White’s box office success could thus have been a tremendous fluke, and Pinocchio’s much smaller receipts a more accurate measure of what an animated feature could expect at the box office. That was not a cheerful thought to contemplate as Fantasia neared completion.”
So if we use the box office as a measurement of what people want to see, it becomes clear that animated films are just not the norm that people expect when they go to the movies. Not that there’s anything wrong with animated films, but people would rather see real human beings on screen. I’m sure anybody reading this blog would admit that they know at least two or three people who would never go see an animated feature film. (And in my case they’re in my own family!)
At this point, I feel the need to explain why I’ve been the contrarian here. Nina is a hero of mine. I would love to make a 2-D feature some day, just like she did. But if you’re going to make a feature you’d better think about what people want to see. And once finished, how do you sell your feature? I am keeping an eye on Nina and Bill Plympton’s success. What would a 2-D indie film have to be like in order to be taken seriously in the world of the indie film marketplace? Probably more like Roger Corman than Ingmar Bergman. In other words, sex and violence instead of people contemplating their place in the universe.
Enough of my yappin’ – Time to shut up and start drawing again.
on 14 Jul 2008 at 3:40 am 17.Alleycat Studio said …
Good point about Japanese anime. I think the reason for its enduring popularity is the fact that it was never limited to just being a children’s medium — unlike Disney features, which basically feature broad caricatures in more or less G rated situations. That’s how American culture has generally perceived 2D animated features. Plus, anime is generally more graphically sophisticated in style.
Big budget 3D features are simply following the “Star Wars” formula of being an escapist amusement park ride. It has been noted that major movies in general veered more towards being formulaic money generators after Lucas and Spielberg’s successful blockbusters. That’s just the nature of big business.
2D still has its place — just as New Yorker cartoons wouldn’t work as well done in 3D, sometimes spare art is better when you don’t want it to get in the way of the story, writing or joke, or the style serves as a “voice” or reference point. I don’t think CGI would have been appropriate for “Sita”, “Persepolis” or “Belleville Rendezvous” — or for that matter, The Simpsons, South Park, etc. 2D also works when it captures styles inherent to 2D, such as Bill Plympton’s or Frederick Bach’s textured pencils.
Whereas if people want to see what a fantasy world might look like with talking toys, cars, ogres, etc., then CGI would be better for creating such believable worlds. It all depends on the best way to convey your main idea.
I think this is an exciting time in the history of animation; similar to how fine artists had to adjust and redefine painting with the advent of photography. And thanks to technology, it is now much easier for the independent animator to pursue their personal visions. Just because the major theaters basically give us the equivalent of an amusement park ride doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for smaller budget efforts, any more than all novelists need to follow the Michael Crichton formula.
on 15 Jul 2008 at 9:10 pm 18.catherwood said …
I highly recommend the book “Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud. He explains why cartoon drawings can convey more information than a photograph, how the brain interprets frames as motion and/or time, and a lot of other stuff from the perspective of comic strips but which would apply as well to animation art. (I’m just a big fan, not invested.) This convo also takes my mind to the issue of “the uncanny valley” that plagues both androids and avatars, that icky feeling you get when you see something that looks too realistically human when you know it is fake.
I had to work harder to suspend my disbelief with the 3-D CGI Garfield movie than if they had just animated the comic strip.
on 16 Jul 2008 at 5:47 pm 19.Nina Paley said …
catherwood,
“He explains why cartoon drawings can convey more information than a photograph”
I would say cartoon drawings can convey more MEANING than photographs. Meaning isn’t the same as information – much information can be meaningless and come across as noise or distraction, but it is still information. This is why I wrote
“less information = more meaning.” I’m pretty sure McCloud and I are on the same page here philosophically if not semantically.
on 06 Aug 2008 at 6:26 pm 20.David M McCLain said …
Sadly, I think Nina is on to something in regards to the mass appeal of voyeuristic and gorish media. I think that’s why ‘good’ films often do not do as well as the box office (or meaningful television programs for that matter). A film that the creator believes in, one that exposes a passion, is only going to have a limited audience. No single film with real meaning is ever going to excite everyone. Whether it’s live action, 3d (CGI or puppet) or 2d the key going forward is going to letting those creations find their audience and be enjoyed. The decentralization the web has afforded in this regard is a fantastic thing. Financial returns are a difficult thing in this model though as huge or even modest returns can be difficult. How do you make art without some kind of support? Especially something that is as time-consuming as animation?
on 29 Sep 2010 at 9:28 pm 21.eyelash enhancement said …
“there’s more information in 3-D, so when the audience looks at 3-D animation, they have to do less work.”
Nice line – I WISH I’d said that!
Many people are certainly capable of enjoying a 2D animated film for adults, once they get into the theater. But most won’t go into the theater in the first place (unless they’re already animation fans-and compared to moviegoers as a whole, we are a TINY minority). They will, however, pack the rafters to see Penelope Cruz or Angelina Jolie in anything. The story might stink, but that’s not why they’re there. Bad stories with sexy actors attract larger audiences than most 2D animation ever will.
(Unless the 2D animation is expressly for children, and bears the Disney brand. Parents don’t want their kids being sex and violence voyeurs. Ironically, much animation for children is loaded with sex and violence anyway, but it is visually abstract sex and violence. It doesn’t turn the parents on, so they assume it’s appropriate for children. But I digress.)
on 23 Nov 2014 at 6:42 pm 22.Mixcraft 6 Registration Code said …
I as well think therefore , perfectly composed post! .
on 27 Sep 2015 at 5:33 am 23.Cvecara Online said …
This is the proper blog for anyone who wants to find out about this subject. You realize so considerably its almost hard to argue with you (not that I truly would want…HaHa). You undoubtedly put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just excellent!