Dr. Toon: The Animation Critic's Art - Part IV

Dr. Toon addresses acting in the latest installment on cultivating critical thought.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: Dr. Toon | Site Categories: Cartoons
Image
Mr. Magoo as Long John Silver.

In the last installment we explored how character design contributed (or not) to the success of an animated cartoon. This month we will shift from the physical depiction of a character to the important role that character plays as an actor. We will keep in mind the original question underpinning this series: What is a given piece of animation trying to do, and how well does it accomplish that task?

It is not entirely correct to say that a cartoon character in an animated film is analogous to an actor in a live-action film (this is one reason for the dismal failure of features in which live actors attempt to portray animated characters). In many ways, the task of an animated character is actually more difficult than that of a live actor. At first glance, this statement does not seem to make sense, but consider the following:

An animated character is limited to a very small number of roles, and must perform them without much variation. Robert DeNiro, for instance, can star in live-action comedic and dramatic roles across several genres. Bugs Bunny cannot do the same unless he performing a parody. Major alterations to Bugs' established persona essentially destroys the character. Another example: the attempt by UPA to force Mr. Magoo into a variety of literary adaptations (The Famous Adventures of Mr. Magoo, 1964-65). Magoo became a star as a crotchety, nearsighted old coot; watching him portray Gunga Din or Cyrano de Bergerac made little sense to viewers.

Animated characters, whether good, evil, slick or stupid, have a limited amount of time to impact a short, episode or film. There is only a brief window a character has to bloom into a "star." Even with repeating characters, there are typically seven minutes to a short and 22 minutes to a television episode. Unless the series is a long-continuing saga (like The Simpsons or Family Guy), characters are not given time to develop many nuances. Most animated series in the past decade did not survive three seasons. Thus, a character must be memorable from the outset or the short or series may well fail.

We can see, then, that an animated character must be an exceptional actor, creating feelings that resonate with an audience. Even if a character's scope is limited (as is Wile E. Coyote's), it has to leave an emotional mark on an audience. In evaluating any animated character as an actor, a central question would have to be, how consistent is the character's presentation? A character can be proactive or reactive from one cartoon to the next (or even within the same cartoon) but consistency of character is vital. Any animated feature or short where a character behaves inconsistently pretty much dooms the work. That is why, for the most part, animated stories can be wildly implausible and feature talking animals or science-fiction themes; because of character constraints, there can be a loosening of environmental realities so that the character has more situations to play against.







Comments


I was really confused, and this answered all my qusetions.

Jetsyn (not verified) | Fri, 11/11/2011 - 20:20 | Permalink

I don't particularly agree that the best villains of comics must retain a degree of redemption (or possibility of redemption) in order prove their sense or awareness of humanity (or the lack thereof).  In terms of comics, writer Ed Brubaker has previously defended his articulation of secondary villain Crossbones and his torture methods (in CAPTAIN AMERICA) as falling within the parameters of his archetype: Bad people do bad things, and when motivated to be exceedingly influential, why would they (the bad guy) curtail their efforts in any way? If you're selling a villain as a villain, there really shouldn't be any need to further validate him beyond his function to, or relationship with, the central narrative.  This might be one dimensional, but in the end they're comic books.

We also cannot ignore the possiblity that the successful formulation of villains in cartoons may be as much to cultural influence as artistic license.  In Japan, Brazil, or France, an animator's comprehension of what makes a good villain and how that villain influences/affects an evolving storyline might be dramatically different than how an animator in the U.S. would see it. 

Aaron H. Bynum | Tue, 04/19/2011 - 13:15 | Permalink

It seems to me you are mixing the terms "actor" and "character" when it comes to animation. Somebody like Bugs Bunny is a character and not an actor, and therefore indeed cannot be very versatile in terms of personalities he plays. The equivalent of an actor in animation is the animator, in addition to the voice-actor, both of whom are supposed to be able to bring to life a variety of characters with different personalities. The animator is the one who defines the expressions and body language that would be appropriate to that particular role, similar to the way Robert DeNiro would approach it (or so it should be). And it's very unfortunate (and not at all required, in my opinion) that often in animation characters are very flat with just simple characterizations (as "stupid" or "brave") - that what makes animated films lack depth and be formulaic and repetitive.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:53 | 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.