Analogy and Animation: Rise Up

In this final part of a six-part series, Ellen Besen examines our relationship with the audience.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: AnalogyAni

What do audiences want? And why should we care?

There seems to be a consensus that the American public doesn’t particularly like adult animation and that they don’t take easily to anything new. Because of this, studios keep making the same pictures over and over again and won’t look twice at anything innovative. This, in turn, is a source of helpless frustration among animators.

If you accept that this perception of the audience is true, then the studios’ position seems quite logical. After all, they are about profits and this seems to be their best guarantee of financial success. But is this the whole truth? And true or not, as animators, it is our only choice to suck it up?

There is a dance that goes on between audience and film. In fact, to me, a film doesn’t really feel finished until it has been seen several times by an audience. So what is the true nature of this interaction and how much room does it have for variation? The status quo puts the audience’s perceived expectations at the top of the list. But is that really what the relationship between the filmmaker and the audience should be? After all, it is one thing to be aware of the audience, quite another to be their slave.

Now the studios will say that they are just giving the audience what they say they want, as proven by box office and market research. But that is precisely where I have a problem because this fails to take into account that most audiences don’t actually know what they want, they only know what they’ve seen.

Real want is usually under the surface, often only revealed when an audience responds to the film in front of them. And the belief the studios are banking on that what the audience wanted yesterday is always what they want today doesn’t take into account that audience response is affected by circumstance and circumstance is always changing. Is it a coincidence that an Everyman hero like Popeye was so popular during the Great Depression or that The Simpsons were so quickly embraced after a decade of sickly sweet family comedies?

There is also the fact that, while audiences may know when they don’t like something, their ability to say why they don’t like it is limited. This reminds me of some students who complained that their teacher needed to wear more make up, when what was really bothering them was the lack of color in her teaching style. Comprehending the audience at this level demands a leap of understanding. But before we can make that leap, there are other things we should understand first.

Things like how audiences receive information: what part of the screen they tend to look at, how quickly they absorb information, how well they understand animated film language.

And we need to know what they know: which references are a given and which won’t be understood without further explanation.

We need to consider how subject matter marries with animation and how that interacts with audience expectations, as well. Animation is well suited to fantasy, which lets us make the audience’s dreams and nightmares, mythical past and projected future almost real.







Comments


Ellen, I found your article compelling, intriguing and marvelously insightful. It brings to mind that training the imagination inside the brain to think in animated forms might be linked to one's capacity to innovate -- what if we did a better job of teaching young kids how to animate their thinking processes, without imposing the idea they had to grow up to be professional animators, per se? Might more young people wind up becoming innovators, creators, entrepreneurs, artists, engineers, scientists, themselves? Thanks for delivering such a wonderfully enterprising and engaging treatment! Please keep writing and sharing your wisdom and insights.
Robert Leavitt (not verified) | Sat, 01/17/2009 - 01:00 | Permalink
Gran finale for a great series of articles. Thanks a lot for the inspiration!
Daniel Poeira (not verified) | Fri, 04/16/2004 - 00:00 | Permalink
Oh dear. Typos R Us. Working on the article till 5 in the morning is my excuse and I’m sticking with it. Accounts for the “lightening” thing, anyway. The “bulldozer” error is an odd one, though- maybe it’s a guy thing? Like my 2 year old nephew who could walk down the street and name every car that passed…..but you are right, of course, a steamroller makes much better pancakes- no kitchen should be without one. Glad you enjoyed the article. Writing the series has been tremendous fun. Thanks to all who commented both publicly and privately.
Ellen Besen (not verified) | Wed, 04/07/2004 - 00:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.