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

Then, of course, there was Winsor McCay, whose fluid technique, developed in the early part of the 20th century, was decades ahead of its time. But McCay was strictly interested in personal expression. It seems to me that it was the commercially driven obsession with realism that turned animators into the Dr. Frankensteins of the modern art world. And that, of course, leads us to Walt Disney.

Interestingly, Disney's early cartoons were praised for embodying the principles of modern art. But by the early '30s, Disney had taken his studio in a direction that was the antithesis of the modern movement: while the rest of the art world was busy breaking away from the boundaries of realism, he began a steady, highly organized march towards it.

There was nothing inherent in drawn animation that demanded realism, so why did Disney do this? Some reasons were certainly practical: he wanted to take animation into commercial features and couldn't do it unless his characters could generate believable emotion. The decision to study real movement as a foundation for performance was brilliant. But it didn't require changing the aesthetic of the whole studio over to realism. In spite of his few later flirtations with modern art, it's more likely that Disney subscribed to the old fashioned idea that realism equals fine art and the change of direction came from a wish to have animation taken more seriously.

But still, Disney never had to face the full dilemma of animated reality because the possibilities in 2D were self-limiting. No matter how realistic the design and movement becomes, 2D is still clearly art and not live-action. Therefore, the world it occupies is immediately recognizable as something totally other than our own and with that, a built in license to change the rules, however dramatically, is granted.

The Disney style wasn't so much realistic as "realistique." It was grounded in real movement and real structure but even the most realistic elements were, in fact, highly stylized, although this wasn't obvious to the eye of the average viewer.

This was actually a key factor in the studio's success. Instead of putting real and fantasy elements at the extreme ends of their continuum, both were kept, each on their respective sides, hovering around the middle. Different enough to be clearly distinguished from each other, each side still had enough in common with the other that the audience could accept that they belonged in the same world. In balance, believability was achieved.

You can see this right away if you compare the character designs in Snow White to the approach used in the Fleischers' Gulliver, a feature from the same era. Unlike Snow White's coherent approach, Gulliver has three totally separate styles of both design and movement: the highly realistic Gulliver, achieved with rotoscoping, the semi realistic romantic leads and the distinctly rubberhose supporting characters. None of these groups of characters fits with the others, an unintended effect that greatly weakens the film.

One way or the other, Disney's success with the realistique approach came at a price. When he moved to realism, he also adopted, almost wholesale, the film language and performance standards of live-action film. Yes, he could now make animated feature films with human characters who could hold an audience's attention for 90 minutes, but only by putting a straightjacket on this most versatile medium — an unnecessary limitation which stymied innovative thinking.

Disney's decision had a profound effect on animation — taking it simultaneously forwards and backwards. It's not overstating the case to say that we have been struggling within the dilemma he created ever since.

But what would Disney have done with a true third dimension? There were, of course, other animators who were beginning to explore that issue even while Disney animators were perfecting classical animation. Model animation created new possibilities but also added new complications, especially in the hands of such talent as Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen. The technological leap that put animated models such as King Kong into the same world as live-action actors opened the door on a new type of storytelling that tapped deep into our psyches. Now there could be films that were like waking dreams and nightmares, like mythology come to life, starring fantastical creatures and people just like us.







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.