The Drive to Realism: From Disney to Harryhausen to Landreth — Part 1

In Part 1 of this two-part series, Ellen Besen examines the motivations and effects of animation's obsession with realism.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld

Have you ever had one of those moments where you're doing something important, like trying to time the microwave popcorn so precisely that every kernel is popped and none is burnt, when suddenly you find yourself asking, "Why am I actually doing this?"

Did the grunts who spent whole lifetimes building the great cathedrals of Europe have moments like that? Do scientists who devote years to the mating habits of fruit flies?

It's funny how we can be so in the middle of something that it never occurs to us to question it. Like animation's obsession with realism: when was the last time we asked ourselves why are we so keen on achieving this? Is it worth the effort or have we been duped into devoting ourselves to someone else's dream or perhaps, madness?

Now you may be thinking that it's a little late in the game to start questioning this. But I would say that this is the perfect time to take stock, not towards bailing on the enterprise, of course, but to make sure that we've got a handle on our motivations. And it wouldn't hurt to be sure we really understand the implications of where this trend is leading animation, before the whole thing really takes off. Because the one thing we can be quite certain of is that when it does take off, it's going to be big.

And there is no person who makes that clearer than Chris Landreth. His work has always been interesting but his new film, Ryan, does something quite remarkable: it simultaneously reflects on the past and the future of realism in animation.

It manages this feat by sitting on the key cusp that every new medium must come to, that swing moment when it gives up the thankless role of being a new tool doing an old job and starts to work on its own terms. But before we can understand why Ryan is in this key position, we have to understand what came first.

The history of realism in animation is older than you might think. As early as 1832, there were rumblings about the quality of the art in magic lantern shows not being sufficiently believable and there was a wish for more realism. Yet almost 70 years later, in 1899, pioneer animator James Blackton and his partner Albert Smith were able to convince audiences that their film, The Battle of Santiago, was an authentic record of the recent event even though it was animated with cutouts of ships, with cigar smoke for special effects.

This reminds us, right off the top, that realism has always been a relative thing that changes with audience perception and experience. Like those 360 degree movie theatres which were such technological breakthroughs in the 1960s. Remember how they were built with rows of bars because the audience, who watched the wraparound presentation standing up, was prone to falling over whenever the camera tilted? Try going into one of those theaters today, if you can still find one — and see what a thrill they aren't. Even kids who've never seen one before have grown past the illusion.

And imagine the reaction from today's audience to "newsreel footage" created with cutouts and cigar smoke. So this has never been just about objective realism, but about perceived realism leading to believability. Keep that in mind as we continue this exploration.







Comments


To Ravi- You raise some good points here. Re: the nature of alternative realities- I think that animators do need to conceive of their worlds as separate and complete but those worlds always need to be built in reference to our world, preferably in some way which is not obvious but nevertheless true. And re: whether animated things exist outside the rules of the world we inhabit- this isn’t a rule of animation, it’s a property- animation by its very nature is a constructed world, not a recorded one. We can chose to give animation the rules of our world but it is always a choice- one that should be made in the best interests of the story. Thanks to Ravi and Daniel. Part 2 will come out mid Sept.
Ellen Besen (not verified) | Fri, 08/20/2004 - 00:00 | Permalink
This is an interesting article that furthers the brain storming activity around the evolution of Animation as an art form as well as a genre or a communication medium ; yet, let's be clear about this, more realism doesn't mean better animation ; and for what purpose in the first place? ; I believe that the realism in such films as "Jurassic Park" or "Spiderman" are a most welcome development of the thechnology of today in the endeavour to create even more convicing pieces of entertainment ; certainly, if Willis O'Brien's 1933 King Kong is still enjoyed today by the inconditional afficionados, this wouldn't be true of the actual moviegoers, used to much more sophisticated FXs ; the interest of watching a piece of Animation history certainly wouldn't make a record Box Office of millions of entries ; somehow, this links up to some extent with the never ending debate between 2D and 3D ; isn't it amazing that this is at the moment in time when 2D has finaly overcome the limitations of 2D space (eg : Tarzan, Prince of Egypt or Brother Bear ) that this wonderfull medium is practically thrown out the window like a dirty old clunky dusty piece of ante deluvian craftmanship ; suddenly millions in the US and worldwide look at 3D as something cool, better and more advanced ; and 2D as a piece of Yuk! Millions are looking at 3D like a deer'eyes caught in the headlights of a coming truck ; me Frankenstein = computer Good!, pencil and paper Bad! ; that's the level of reasonning we are too often confronted with today ; hence the thousands of very fine Animators thrown out of a job like despicable slaves ; so, let's give back to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar ; 3D animation in terms of SFX in the context of Jurassic Park or Spiderman or Lord of the Ring's approaches is absolutely wonderful and amazingly entertaining due to its beautiful integration and level of believiability on the screen ; this being said, for God'sake, let's not replace as with a steam roller, the wondefull 2D character animation of the Milt Khals and the Frank Thomas, the freddy Moore and the Marc Davis, Chuck Jones and Tex Averys ! this genre didn't get a chance to even defend itself ; it was washed out, in the twinkling of an eye, by studio executives who, one eye on the balance sheets, thought they knew better. computer Animation can be very finely handcrafted sometimes, not alaways ; but the basic premise that no matter how good or bad the performance, the textures and lightings will always hide what's underneath and salvage the whole thing is ludicrous ; yet, it seems to work with millions of moviegoers ; but strip Shrek or Nemo of their fine textures and lightings and look at the bare ruff animation ; now, put them against scenes with Shere Khan , Captain Hook, The old Goofys or Donald Duck of the years past ; they are galaxies behind!! !!! computer animation is limited in the sens that it cannot duplicate the level of organicity of a mastered 3 dimensional drawing ; those drawings, some might be surprised to hear, were already three dimensional in their essence (hence a totally artificial debate ) ; but the animators then, instead of punching numbers and codes and switching slidders were crafting frame by frame the illusion of caricatured life in its purest form ; 3D Animation at best is fine puppet like Animation ; the very stiff basic nature of the built-in character shapes does not allow for a very organic motion of masses and volumes around in the fashion of the best 2D characters ; the intelligent 3rd road for those "I know best" Hollywood executive should have been, aside from the very exciting realistic Jurassic Park 3D style approach, to have maintained and encouraged the grand Tradition of excellent 2D character Animation to break new frontiers throught the adjunction of fine texturings ; but for God'sake, enough with this systematic and sickening obssessive "photorealism" approch of the Nemos and Shreks ; let's have a Painterly feel to our movies, like the backgrounds of the Lady & the tramp or the Bambis ; so much much more artistique ; their essence gave a sense of dreamlike quality of which those more recent 3D films are void ; so, let's have all the 3D you want ad nauseam, but let 2D have a little space to breathe and survive ; to make us laugh and cry again, and most of all...to make us dream! Jacques Muller ( animator on Who framed Roger Rabbit, Star Wars etc...)
Jacques Muller (not verified) | Mon, 08/16/2004 - 00:00 | Permalink
Interesting article : there seem to be two arguments here, one is the implication that animators are trying to create a separate reality, and the other that animation is simply alluding to one. I prefer the latter, I'm not interested in trying to imply that there's another world with different rules - as far as creating animation that uses realistic characters, then this OK if the story is making some sort of connection with our own experience - there's no rule (some would disagree vehemently on this) that because something is animated, it exists in a world outside of the rules of the reality we inhabit. The logical extension of the idea that the animated reality can impinge on our own is Disneyland, where we are led to believe we can interact with these characters as if they are real. I think the energy put into trying to create more & more "realistic" characters will lead to areas such as those investigated by Disney, eg animatronics, but its basically pointless, where the character is stripped of its symbolic meaning and becomes a physical reality in itself.
ravi swami (not verified) | Mon, 08/16/2004 - 00:00 | Permalink
Great stuff. Will get me thinking for a couple weeks. When is the next part coming out?
Daniel Poeira (not verified) | Sun, 08/15/2004 - 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.