Animation 09 Apr 2006 08:17 am
Boy’s Life
- When I posted links to some articles about Richard Linklater‘s upcoming film, A Scanner Darkly, I expected a number of animators to attack Linklater’s earlier film, Waking Life. I can remember few other animators I discussed it with who liked it. However, the one comment by Daniel Thomas was totally unexpected: “For all the childish snobbery against Linklater’s independent movie using computers to paint over video footage, I really can’t think of anyone else who’s even bothered to try to create a serious animation film in this country. In America, “animation†means “babysitter,†and “adult animation†really means “S&M for teenage boys.†American animation, for whatever reasons I really need to explore, is stuck in some sort of time-warp. It’s as if the art world became so enamored by Monet’s water lillies that they refused to even consider anything else.”
There’s enough meat in that paragraph to write endlessly. Linklater’s talky style of film making isn’t for every taste; he’s the closest we have to Eric Roehmer in this country. (Before Sunset was, to me one of the finest films of the past ten years.) Waking Life was a variation on Slackers with more of a story: an animated The Pilgrims Progress. It’s dismissed completely by the animators and artists within the Industry.
The least one could say is that the director tried something different with animation. In the seventies, I probably would have been upset at his use of the rotoscope, but now the medium has gone a step closer to live action – with motion capture. (That’s a breed of film making that I wouldn’t even call animation.)
If Linklater had worked with graphic artists and told his story 
in a more conventional version of animation, would animators have supported it? I still don’t think so, but they wouldn’t have been able to complain about the process. I don’t remember too many complaints about Sin City‘s techniques; that one didn’t even use rotoscope to get similar effects in telling their story. However, in its dull way, it was a more conventional “boy’s” film – yet, another “graphic novel” on film. Two more of those are finished.
(Richard Linklater & Winona Ryder shooting A Scanner Darkly.)
Changes seem to be in the wind. I look forward to A Scanner Darkly – not for its animation techniques, but for Linklater’s version of the Philip K. Dick story. Perhaps it’ll be more a boy’s film and more popular. Certainly, he’ll have something to say.
- Daniel Thomas, by the way, has two good weblogs worth visiting. Conversations on Ghibli – a thorough exploration of Miyazaki and the Ghibli oeuvre – and Daniel Thomas.org – “an arts and entertainment webzine” that I found very entertaining.
on 09 Apr 2006 at 9:24 am 1.Henry Lowengard said …
For a less talky display of what Bob Sabiston can do with his software, take a look at his segment of “The Five Obstructions” by Jørgen Leth.
on 10 Apr 2006 at 9:44 am 2.Michael said …
Yes, I’ve seen the film. It’s very interesting.
on 11 Apr 2006 at 4:00 pm 3.Ward said …
I really enjoyed WAKING LIFE. I wished that fellow animators wouldn’t dismiss it so readily because there were some great artists (and, yes, animators) who worked long and hard hours on that film who deserved some respect for their work. Is it animation? To a degree, yes. There are images that are being manipulated throughout space and time, so therefore, it is an animated film. But I think most were turned off by the seasickness feeling of the hand-held camera as well as the heady talky-talkiness that Linklater’s films are known for (well, most of ‘em). I loved the quirkyness of the film — the characters, the animation, the rotoshopping, the incessant ranting — it made for a film experience like no other. It’s definitely a film that marches to the beat of its own drum.
And Michael, I have to say that I’m completely smitten by your blog here. You are putting up some incredible images, not to mention some great topics to talk about. Excellent blog. Do keep it up!