Animation &Commentary 06 Jun 2013 06:24 am
Modern Animation
Andreas Deja has a recent post which begins with Cruella de Vil in bed, in curlers, reading the newspaper. She is annoyed by a phone call from Jasper, one of her henchman. Andreas reports her half of the conversation, “‘Jasper!’ she pauses in anger, then ‘Jasper, you idiot!’”
Andreas, finishing up his comment on Marc Davis‘ beautiful animation, writes,”Everything is top notch here, her body composition, wonderful grotesque expressions – those cheekbones are priceless – and of course subtle, controlled animation.
Modern animation as good as it gets.”
That last phrase really got me thinking, “Modern animation as good as it gets.” How astute of him. It’s something I’d thought about before, but here it’s actually articulated by Mr. Deja, one of the most important of the 2D feature film animators. (To me, he’s probably the finest of all current animators.)
I’d placed the break in animation from Richard Williams onward. Dick had studied all the masters, imitated and reworked many of their best moves. He turned his thriving studio in the seventies and eighties into the pinnacle of the medium, teaching animation to many gifted artists and producing commercials, predominantly, had trained a small army to go out into the world and make good, strong theatrical style animation of the highest caliber. Rules were reworked and made to work to get the richest form of the medium.
Animation was reborn in the style of Richard Williams and his influences such as Art Babbitt, Ken Harris. and Milt Kahl.
Hans Perk on his blog, A Film LA, publishes the drafts of the animators working on the Disney features allowing us to know who did what scenes. These are usually very informative. Hans recently completed posting the drafts to Lady and the Tramp. In among these drafts, Hans made this comment:
- Again, very serviceable animators, no masterpieces…
I like the CinemaScope note for sc. 28: “Lady will have to be alive throughout scene.”
Then if you notice other scenes on this page there are some that dictate “held cels” of other characters to the left or right of screen. They were certainly trying to control the animation for the wide, Cinemascope screen. See if you can find a note like that on any feature done today. See if you can find ANYTHING held on any feature done today.
Of course, I’m talking principally of 2D animation – Disney (or Dreamworks) 2D features.
Andreas is writing about animation features done from Cinderella forward. I believe he’s considering the changes that the live action reference work to make Cinderella, Alice and Peter Pan led to Sleeping Beauty and later films. 101 Dalmatians was the big change with the human animation, led by Milt Kahl, Marc Davis, and to a great extent Frank Thomas.
This was the big change. This was the model followed by animators that came after the “Nine old men.” With a couple of films, such as Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, a cartooning style entered the work and stayed there. The genie in Aladdin almost turns that film into a reworked Warner Bros cartoon. But a couple of the animators: Andreas Deja, Glen Keane, Mark Henn, Duncan Marjoribanks, Ruben Aquino and several other prominent among this generation went directly to the Milt Kahl model. Interestingly, this is also Dick Williams‘ model.
Of course, Milt Kahl is perfect to place at the center as an ideal.
Just as Snow White and Pinocchio were a step up from the Silly Symphonies, so too, 101 Dalmatians and Sword In The Stone were a step up from Cinderella and Peter Pan. Tarzan, The Lion King, and The Prince of Egypt were remarkable changes from The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.
Given the work on Lilo and Stitch, Mulan, Spirit and several of the later features, it seems like a major change – a new growth period was due. Yet it was cut short by the financial success of some of the cgi features. 2D animation stopped.
Modern animation was stilled for the moment.
on 06 Jun 2013 at 9:47 am 1.Luke said …
“Yet it was cut short by the financial success of some of the cgi features.”
Complete B.S. The craftsmanship of many of the later Disney and Dreamworks features is high–even if some (a lot) of the taste is questionable…But the problems with the cartoons then tends to be the same problem that plagues cgi even today: the stories, and the storytelling. Cartoons like lilo and stich, brother bear, atlantis, home on the range, rescuers down under, prince of egypt, treasure planet, road to eldorado, that dumb dw horse cartoon, sinbad, hunchback of notre dame, pocahontas did middling to poor business at the box office because they were poor films, with weak characterizations, stories, and storytelling. Committee films all. They relied on half baked storytelling theory rather than inspiration, a strong point of view, and genuine and sincere emotion. A cartoon like Toy Story did well because it was a GREAT FILM with GREAT STORYTELLING–genuine wit, charm, character, and sincere emotion.
I get tired of the lazy blaming of cgi hurting other forms of animation. The fear with which that idea is so casually tossed around is the sound of alleged artists making their own coffin. The only people who miss 2D animation are those who care more about 2D animation than GREAT FILM MAKING. If you’re going to complain about anything, complain about that.
on 06 Jun 2013 at 4:23 pm 2.Nat said …
It’s definitely sad to see the current state of traditional animation in mainstream American animation. Although there are several independent and foreign hand-drawn features still being made, I too long for Hollywood to put more faith in the medium. I also find it interesting that stop-motion features still continue to be made. Just last year, three came out: Aardman’s Pirates!, Paranorman, and Frankenweenie. Got any ideas as to why?
I also fear that the CGI market might be getting too oversaturated at this point. Look at all the recent layoffs at Dreamworks and Disney, the bankruptcy of Rhythm and Hues, etc. It’s all rather depressing for the artists.
on 06 Jun 2013 at 5:37 pm 3.Roberto Severino said …
Nat, don’t feel that way! Adversity only inspires and motivates cartoonists to worker harder and aspire to create something much better than what contemporary animation is offering right now.
With excellent websites like this, the Animation Resources page, Sherm Cohen’s Cartoon SNAP, John K’s Cartooning School, Thad Komorowski’s blog, and many more, a whole new generation of cartoonists like me are getting inspired to explore avenues that we would have never been to discover if it weren’t for any of these blogs.
I’m very optimistic that the days of the inept network executive and the basic cable network middleman will largely be eliminated in about a decade or two seeing as how more and more people want to see character driven content and coherent storytelling in their shows and looking elsewhere besides the outdated medium of television to do so. I also believe that people are only going to go to the movies if the movie absolutely warrants seeing it in a theater to do it justice or if it’s an absolutely really good film.
Other possibilities are still in their infancy, like actual television shows produced for an online platform, but that model is starting to become more and more viable in my eyes.
on 06 Jun 2013 at 7:24 pm 4.Kevin Hogan said …
I know that Michael means that “Sword in the Stone” was a step up in character animation and design from some of the early 50′s Disney films- but man, that was a boring film. Reitherman was too content to let the character animators run wild, allowing the film to proceed without much of a story or pacing.
Sword in the Stone was essentially “The Jungle Book” without any interesting characters (except for the girl squirrel). It has plenty of talking and gesturing, but not much else…
on 06 Jun 2013 at 9:51 pm 5.Michael said …
Luke, I agree with you that great film making is its own reward, and Toy Story was really well written with great characterization behind the story. That’s probably also true for Toy Story 2. And a number of those early Pixar films were well crafted, story-wise. That was truly the big black hole for 2D animation during the same period. When they’re doing films like Treasure Planet, with pirate ships floating in space, there’s real trouble in the story department. Atlantis was also vapid, to say the best. Dreamworks hit a home run – in my way of thinking – for The Prince of Egypt, a very hard story to tell with great songwriting by Steven Schwartz. Antz and Spirit and Sindbad were abominable, although craft-wise they were brilliant. Shrek had a good story but was ugly as sin and didn’t get better with versions Shrek 2, 3, 4 etc. The animation was medium poor, the design was ugly ugly ugly. Only when they got to How To Save Your Dragon did they get a half-good story with a decently designed film. Disney, on the opposite extreme kept going with Chicken Little, Bolt, Dinosaurs and other mistakes that just kept coming.
The problem isn’t the technique or the studio making the films. It’s the stories and then the design. The animation on many of the cgi films is putrid, but they keep them coming. Let’s face it, animated films have the same problem live action films have; the stories stink. It’s not a matter of blaming 2D or not 2D; it’s blaming the producers for agreeing to make such badly written films. Yet they do keep making more and more money.
I could go on, and no doubt I will, soon. Yes, I love 2D animation over cgi. I still see cgi as digital puppetry but prefer real 3D puppetry like Frankenweenie or Pirates!
on 06 Jun 2013 at 11:08 pm 6.Luke said …
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Prince of Egypt.
Prince of egypt was vapid, with zero character animation and staid design–so beholden to it’s mckee story structure beats and full bore lame-brained theories of bruce block leaves no room for emotion or connection to the audience. And man, was it a bore. It tried harder to be NOT Disney, but didn’t spend much time figuring out what it DID want to be. There are many films I go into where I know the ending—and the Exodus story is one most cultures know. The one in the bible was hardly the first. But without strong characters or a point of view, it becomes nothing but a pageant–nothing more. Sadly, for all it’s artistic and storytelling failures, it also bombed at the box office. It was obvious some talent worked on it here and there, but what a chore to suffer through.
Most of the other DW hand drawn pablum comes across is little more than a collection of in-betweens.
The great thing about CG animation at that time–especially Toy Story–was that it broke the mold of the disney/dreamworks cartoon formula. It was more “real” than most live action films, and NOT because of the CG. But because the characters were flesh and blood.
Good design never saved a bad film. And bad design never ruined a great story well told.
But on the most important, bigger issues of great film making and storytelling over animation of any kind, we’re on the same page.
on 07 Jun 2013 at 12:33 am 7.Luke said …
That said, two of my all time favorite cartoons are Dumbo and Lady and the Tramp. And while Song of the South is’n't a great film, I happen to think it contains the finest character animation Disney ever did!!
And not to kiss your ass too much–I love your animation as much as your blog!
on 07 Jun 2013 at 2:59 am 8.Michael said …
Well. thank you for that surprise ending. I wish I were as in love with my animation – though I do love some of the work done by a number of those who worked for me. Tissa David need not be mentioned.
However, Ray Kosarin rarely gets the credit he deserves. He isn’t a briliant draughtsman, but his animation always is spot on.
Sue Perlllo ofen did miracles with the scenes I gave her.
John Dilworth is always remarkable and surprising, and Yvette Kaplan often made me look twice.
Dante Barbetta worked on only a few of my films, but he was sparkling water among the flat water left out to taste stale. Yes, there were good animators in New York during my films’ progress.
Doug Compton did his best work for me, and I am proud of it.
Even I had one or two good scenes, I admit. “This window is stuck with fresh paint.” Maybe my favorite, though some in “Snark” were excellent.
Thank you for giving me an old man’s flashback.
on 11 Jun 2013 at 4:14 pm 9.Andrea K Haid said …
The reason that Andrea Deja calls 101 Dalmations “modern” is because it is set in a contemporary environment with contemporary music. It was the first story told in an animated feature by Disney to be placed in a modern setting with modern artwork. It’s quite a stylish film. There is a shot early in the film where Pongo notices two copies of Lilliput Magazine, which was a magazine of humour, short stories, photographs and the modern arts. It’s there to make a statement about the mood of the film and the way it embraces the modern.
on 11 Jun 2013 at 10:07 pm 10.Michael said …
Andrea, I think you’re thinking a bit too small. Andreas responds on his blog: “I know, it’s strange to call a 50 year+ old animated film modern.
It’s just that there hasn’t been much artistic progress since then. I think your interpretation is adequate but insufficient, as seems obvious by what Andreas wrote in comment on his own blog.
As to 101 Dalmatians being current, the same could be said of several other Disney features were set in the current date: Bambi and Dumbo were both taking place at the time they were animated. The same was true of a number of the long short films which made up the package features. Both South American films, Saludos Amigos and Three Caballeros were both current. Little Toot and Trees, Bongo and Willie the Operatic Whale were all probably current for whenever they were animated.
Of course, if we go onto features done after 101 Dalmatians, there were plenty of those, starting with Toy Story1, 2 & 3, It’s a Bugs Life, Antz, Cars, Monsters Inc., The Impossibles and Ratoutouille are just samples touching on the subject. The point is, that “Modern Animation” doesn’t really seem apt anymore when discussing the features if all you’re doing is talking about the time/place setting for the films.