Waking Life and Liquid Caricature

Chris Lanier explores the purpose and meaning of caricature from its very inception to its latest use in the "rotoscoped" Waking Life.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld, VFXWorld

The filmmakers, the animators, the actors -- they all turn toward the eyes when they're hunting for spirit, for essence.

And isn't caricature, when all is said and done, about essence?

Carracci, according to Gombrich, offered an early defense of caricature, on grounds that its impulses were the same as those of the more refined, more "profound" arts:

"Is not the caricaturist's task exactly the same as the classical artist's? Both see the lasting truth beneath the surface of mere outward appearance. Both try to help nature accomplish its plan. The one may strive to visualize the perfect form and to realize it in his work, the other to grasp the perfect deformity, and thus reveal the very essence of a personality. A good caricature, like every work of art, is more true to life than reality itself."

It's interesting that here, the defense is still couched in purely negative terms: the "perfect deformity." It's certainly true that caricature is often employed to make the subject less human. But the apparent contradiction caricature is based on -- namely, that distortion can make something more itself -- is more fundamental than its application toward deformity. Hirshfeld, for instance, elevates his subjects as much as he kids them, making their iconic presence concrete, indelible. Hirshfeld, though, the great chronicler and mythologist of the stage and screen, is essentially capturing a performative mask. His caricatures rarely have that intimate sense that accrues to the characters in Waking Life, where the caricatures seem exploratory and provisional.

The simplified self can be a more intimate self, a more familiar self. The memories we have of people tend not to be photographic -- when we think of a close friend, we don't think of every pore and pimple, we can't enumerate every eyelash -- we have more of an essence, a refined caricature. This is the effect that is rendered on all the characters in Waking Life, even the ones that aren't exaggerated, the ones who are "captured" without the extravagances of caricature. We're given the memory of their form without the intercession of time -- as if memories could take place in present tense.

Like dream and like memory, the characters and the world they inhabit in Waking Life are constantly in flux. There is a jittery wobble that seems to arise from the rotoscope process: the accumulated imperfections between the eye, the hand and the rendering surface. It's a sense of inconstancy that worked well for Koko the clown, but which was ordinarily the bane of the rotoscoper's existence during the photochemical era of the technique. In Waking Life it's wholly embraced, and almost set on a pedestal of aesthetic principle. The caricature becomes a liquid caricature, with the physiognomic exaggerations erupting and then subsiding, almost as though these physical particularities were merely adjuncts to a deeper animating force.

A bravura sequence of animation in Waking Life is the monologue of Eamonn Healy, a professor and chemist who believes humanity is reaching a new stage of evolution, at the threshold of becoming the "neo-human." He talks excitedly, skipping from one thought to another, too rapidly to keep up with; his hands lunge out in explosive swipes at the air. The animator treats Healy's head and face like a restless blob of mercury, or a caffeinated amoebae, threatening to make some quantum evolutionary leap. His limbs swerve and snake beyond the limits of anatomy, stretching like rubber.







Comments


I really enjoyed your review Chris. You brought to light many interesting comments on caricature. But honestly, I had mixed feelings about this film itself. I think people should go see what was attempted and support the effort because it is a highly ambitious outing for an independent like Linklater. Despite this, I think his effort largely failed. As a meditation on reality vs. the dreamstate it creates an interesting condition in the viewer. The loquacious philosophizing combined well with the trance inducing jittery imagery to create a powerful sedative effect on me. I spent most of my time fending off my own dreamstate. Intentional or not, it does not make for good filmaking if your viewer is struggling to stay awake. The only way I can see Linklater advancing the popular perception of animation through this film is by his brave decision to deal with intelligent and challenging subject matter - something the producers of other widely released features shy away from. That could open the doors to more mature types of animated films in the future. Beyond that it is technically, at best, a minor advance in rotoscoping techniques in that production artists are apparently freed from having to trace every single frame by hand and keep track of the vector objects they are using to abstract the live action. Since it is computer assisted rotoscopy, the computer is obviously doing what computers do best and helping the animator manage the complexity of elements (brushstrokes, backgrounds, matte layers) thereby freeing up their time to a) engage in more stylistic explorations within the limitations of the software and b) produce ... more animation faster. The downside to this "advance" is that if film producers choose to exploit the b) option, we will get inundated with a spate of "eye candy" films where viewers are subjected to a series of poorly shot films that are "fixed" and "dressed up" in this type of "animation". I've already seen a wave of Waking Life inspired commercial projects that portend to do exactly this: create appliqued "animation". This could do more damage to the popular perception of animation by further reducing it to nothing more than an fancy film processing technique rather than advancing the genre (or rather: meta-genre) of film-making that it actually is: an auteur driven film where the filmaker has control of every discreet frame of film. The problem with rotoscopy has always been the fact that it strips visual design and performance out of the hand of the animator/ director. It puts chains on the artists involved. Especially in a film like this, shot documentary style with little pre-visualization, they are bound compositionally and temporally to a succession of images shot mostly by Richard himself. Images that they did not help to design into existence, and images that he probably felt personally attached to and was unwilling to change. Not that there are a lack of beautifully shot sequences. It's just that I get the sense that many of the artists employed to "animate" this film were just going through the motions and not actually caricaturing anything. Anything they did to "enhance" the footage most certainly had to work within the composition and timing of the underlying footage. They would be hard pressed to depart from this. Nonetheless, there were a handful of truly inspired caricature sequences in Waking Life that completely floored me; the two actors turning to clouds come to mind as does the very minimally treated sequence with the girl at the subway entrance. I felt like the director had finally let the animators depart from the footage for a while and use their own powers of invention here, or perhaps the artist's solution was simply more compelling than what the others came up with. Here the footage felt like merely a template to guide them and inspire them on to further explorations rather than a series of outlines to be traced, jiggled and filled with colour. For the most part, I felt the film to be essentially an elaborate colourization of inexpensive DV footage. I couldn't help but wonder what was under the animation; what the original footage looked like. Impressive mostly for the novelty and boldness of the technique and the visual impact but lacking any true depth of purpose ... beyond perhaps helping to induce sleep.
frank falcone (not verified) | Tue, 08/12/2003 - 00:00 | Permalink
Glad you liked the article, Daniel. Motion-capture is an interesting case -- like rotoscoping, it at first seems un-artistic, as it appears to be more a mechanical process than a creative one (though you might've gathered from the article that the mystique that seperates the mechanical from the creative is, in my opinion, more hocus-pocus than actuality. The fuss over David Hockney's theories about the use of such devices as the camera obscura by painting's old masters is a testament to how deeply felt that mystique can be.) Motion capture, it seems, is less about animation than it is about costuming and set design -- and, of course, about the physical performance of the person being "captured." In the same way that digital technology has re-invigorated (or at least re-casted) some ancient arts (3-D animation, for instance, being more of an extension of the art of puppetry than of traditional 2-D animation), I think motion capture has great potential to re-invent performing art. To date, there has been no real way to preserve the art of dance, in a fashion that retains the essence of the performance. Filmed dance is usually a very pale shadow of the experience of the performance itself -- the camera is always confounded by the opposing desires to take in the entire body of the dancer, while at the same time wanting to zoom in on the expressive details of the body (the face, the hands), which get blurred out in a full-body long-shot. While the technology isn't there yet, it's possible to imagine a dance being recorded by a motion-capture device, and then being projected afterwards, in three dimensions. In this way one could produce a transcription of a dance that retains the "spatiality" of the original performace -- a viewer could even enter into the dance space, transforming the choroegraphy into a sort of moving sculpture. This of course wouldn't be the same as the performed dance itself (eliminating, as it does, the very present physicality of the dancers, and the risk of failure that's always present in live performance), but it does perhaps point to some genuinely "artistic" possibilities of the technology. If the article was a "challenge," I sincerely hope you take me up on it...
chris lanier (not verified) | Sat, 05/25/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Wow, wow, wow. This was a wonderful essay, toucing on so many ideas in animation and film as well: rotoscoping's status as the scourge of animation technique, the history of ethnicity in film, etc. When I saw Waking Life, I felt like it opened up possibilities in animation that hadn't been seen before; at least not by as large an audience as Richard Linklater can attract. In conjunction with the film, this essay provides a fascinating indication of where those possibilities could go, while leaving their ultimate results unsaid, almost as a challenge to artists who read it. It could, and maybe even should, be included in future reissues of the Waking Life DVD, in order to tgive the film's audience even more to think about. Speaking of Snow White's rotoscoping: does anybody get a similar feeling watching Motion-Capture footage, like in Final Fantasy, or motion-capture work from SF's Protozoa?
daniel cardozo (not verified) | Fri, 05/24/2002 - 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.