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

In these films, something impossibly real was being inserted into our world, creating an altered reality rather than a totally new one. So the more realistic the design and movement of the animation, the better. The real elements such as the actors had such absolute, automatic audience identification built into them that they naturally set the standards for credibility. It was the animator's job to match that, not fight it.

Harryhausen had a deep sense of the importance of this. Pioneering as he went along, he not only advanced the standards for building and animating creatures, but also accounted for atmospheric details like the draft that would be created by the wing action of a giant bird. So when the live-action plates were being shot, he would have fans available to stir up waves and dust. The result was a much greater sense of integration between the fantasy elements and the real ones, which set a new standard for what audiences would accept.

For a long time, classical and model animation existed side by side, each dealing quite separately with realism within the boundaries of their particular technology. In fact, though Harryhausen identified himself as an animator (and, of course, was the true, if uncredited, director of most of his films) he did not identify with the cartoon community. Frustrated that, for the general public, the word "animation" had become a synonym for cartoons, he even gave his process a new name, Dynamation, to clearly distinguish it. And for classical animators, model animation was barely a blip on the radar.

Then along came CG and suddenly, worlds collided. Model animators and classical animators each brought different advantages to the development of the new technology. But whose approach would dominate? Would classical animators simply add the extra dimension to their existing technique and carry the field? Or would the model animators exert their obvious superiority with 3D and finally get a little respect? And most importantly, how did this effect the development of realism?

In spite of appearances, the dust hasn't settled on this subject yet. In the next article we'll explore these questions, which have everything to do with the future of realism in animation, of animation itself and by extension, of cinema in general. This is more of a cliffhanger than you may think.

Ellen Besen studied animation at Sheridan in the early 1970s. Since then she has directed award-winning films both independently and for the NFB, worked as a film programmer and journalist, taught storytelling and animation filmmaking at Sheridan and given story workshops at many institutions and festivals, including the Ottawa International Animation Festival. She is the director of The Zachary Schwartz Institute for Animation Filmmaking, an online school that specializes in storytelling and writing for animation.







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.