Dream Is Destiny: Waking Life

Richard Linklater's latest film has caused quite a stir in the animation community. Is it really animated? Why is it "animated?" Is this just what the animated feature world needs or a sneaky imposter?

Steve Brown, a faculty member at the California Institute of the Arts' character animation department, historically known as a breeding ground for many future Disney animators, recently remarked: "Even when [Disney] didn't rotoscope, nobody really likes to talk about it much, but they used to shoot a ton of material of actors in costume, acting out the scenes. And they can say they study it for reference, and they don't actually trace back from it, but still ... to what degree are they 'drawing' inspiration from the shot or the filmed image of the live actors." Alluding to whether Waking Life merits some of the recent complaints, Brown adds, "It's really kind of a murky issue, it's really easy to throw stones."

The process used to animate Waking Life has come to be known as "interpolated rotoscoping." Bob Sabiston, the creator of the software (dubbed RotoShop) and the art director of the film, is an alumnus of M.I.T., whose own work has won him kudos, awards and animation gigs with such companies as MTV and PBS. For anyone who may be in the know, Sabiston is the fellow who animated Snack and Drink, a three-minute short about an autistic child in a 7-Eleven store, which is now part of the permanent collection of the New York Museum of Modern Art.

Basically, Sabiston wanted to create a program that was relatively fun and easy to use; that didn't crowd out the emotional involvement or the immediacy of experiment that comes with, say, a traditional pencil-and-paper flipbook. Again, perhaps ironically, this is something that artists are oftentimes asking for -- technology that doesn't belabor their creative efforts, where they have to busy themselves fiddling with default levels and tweaking x,y,z coordinates.

Trust the Process
Paul Beck, one of the artists to work on Waking Life, will be the first to tell you: "I'm not an animator." With good-natured, self-deprecating humor, he adds, "I mainly paint houses."

Using a Wacom tablet and the original live-action video as reference, the animators on Waking Life recreated and interpreted the film, aesthetically, according to their own vision. Artists like Paul Beck and Travis Lindquist consider themselves painters first, but they also enjoy the fact that they can now, with Bob Sabiston's software, add animation as another hat.

Steve Brown, of CalArts, suggests, "I think that the main thing a lot of animation students lack is a real knowledge of art history and a real appreciation of contemporary art. I think that any technology that makes it easier for fine artists to begin to include animation as part of their artistic expression is a really good thing."

Nathan Jensen, another artist for the film who now works in Los Angeles, comments, "What was special about this film is that we, not coming from a trained arena, can sit down, learn this software in a day, and start to work." With each artist choosing and working on one actor in the film, at a time, director Richard Linklater notes that the process of creating the animation was the antithesis of any committee-minded manufacture of consent. As the artists interpreted the live-action and brought to bear their own ideas and whims, Linklater would give his feedback on whether the animation was communicating properly. Jensen remarks that Linklater and the producers did not come to the project with a preconception of how the animation should be, or what it should look like. Jensen describes the filmmakers' approach more along the lines of, "We recognize you as artists, and we want you to be artists, and to do something to this film."

Remarking on this freedom, artist Jason Archer says, "A lot of the things that we did, it was kind of an experiment, and the mistakes that we made wound up becoming something that we didn't expect to see, and we left them in there."








Comments


I was interested to see Waking Life because I had seen Bob Sabiston's previous work, and his new program was similar to one I wrote myself... This film was experimental on a number of fronts: - the artists in most cases didn't know anything about animating and didn't really need to. - each scene was handled by different artists (although I wish more of them had strayed from the original visual material more) - the film was extremely talky and philisophical, which I think did not go well with the idea of animating it. I hope Linklater's actual dreams are not this talky. So I see this film as a good experiment, and a harbinger of much better films to come. Films that perhaps don't have much in the way of dialogue, but express themselves in dynamic imagery. Animated work that neither looks like "reality" nor like the same hardlined characters we've seen for decades. Films that may not even have "characters" or any licensable material in them.
Henry Lowengard (not verified) | Wed, 01/16/2002 - 01:00 | Permalink
I saw this film at the London Film Festival. Not being aware it was animation before going in, let alone what it was about, I was completely stunned by the visual style and story/concept. After 10 minutes I was worried if I would get nauseaus sitting through for 90 mins or so, but the graphics changed frequently enough to overcome this. I also wondered if I could cope with the variation of style during that time. It really goes to show that the medium is so symbiotic to the content. If this had been shown live action the story would have fallen flat. Likewise if the story was anything but an exploration of every meta-physical conversation and debate we had in college then the visuals would have left people lost and confused. This film was an excellent achievement of both and as to the debate to whether it qualifies as animation? It only goes to support my view that now we are entering an era of digital animation as well as drawn, we need to understand that the term 'Animation' is too limited. 3D Motion-Capture animation is as valid as 2D Drawn Classical Animation, they're just different. "The act, process, or result of imparting life, interest, spirit, motion, or activity." is a great explanation of the word 'Animation', it's not exclusive to one method or another. As we see this industry expand, we'll all have to think a little more about what we call the visual style of animation. Game Animation, Feature Animation & Televisual Animation are just 3 types that refer to the medium and represent fundamentally different styles. I am sure this debate will rage and I'd like to hear anyone's opinion ... ;-) Whatever you think though, go and see this film Ben Lock Head of Digital Production
Ben Lock (not verified) | Fri, 12/14/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink
Reading about this film has thrilled me beyond description (of course I haven't seen it; I doubt anyone in South Africa has). In my country the animation industry is barely fledgeling. There is immense potential for new forms of animation to emerge from our embattled culture...but I am constantly frustrated by the industry's (such as it is) slavish adherence to "standard" animation forms and trends. Companies as well as the few independent projects constantly cite the need for "international marketing", and then proceed to produce crass imitations of well-established, mostly American work. Waking Life sounds like a project that has broken free of these kind of constrictive "correctness" worries. If it is difficult to classify, it has my fullest admiration. Despite my pessimism about the SA animation industry as it stands, the signs are there that very interesting things are about to emerge from this quarter of the world...it would do prospective animators here a world of good to be exposed to films like Waking Life. What are the chances of a South African release? And is there any way to get hold of the film on tape?
MJ va Veuren (not verified) | Tue, 11/27/2001 - 01:00 | Permalink
Well this topic of rotoscoping has not really been brought up in a classroom discussion, just the technique. Therefore the idea of rotoscoping being a cheat of traditional animation techniques seems a little bold to say. I feel that rotoscoping techniques or for us 3D animators, motion capture systems should be considered another form of medium. These methods still need creative ideas and skilled artists to accomplish a sense feeling and realism for the viewer. Besides, animated feature films are not for the critques so to speak, but for the audiences that will be viewing them. These are the people that need the realism and realtionship with the character. If using rotoscoping to give greater sense of this, then so be it. As an animator I feel that creating new methods and making the impossible, possible, keeps us above the rest, as different mediums become more excessible and more user friendly to the outside world. I say go with it!!
Meredith Rodgers (not verified) | Sat, 11/24/2001 - 01:00 | 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.