What's Wrong with Wreck-It Ralph?
Wreck-It-Ralph
This Disney Animation Studio flick came and went in a heartbeat despite being overseen by John Lasseter. The published production budget was US$165 million, which means the real cost was close to US$200 million. What the studio got for that investment was the sharpest CG animation in years from Disney and 188 merchandising opportunities. The animation is brilliant, and the animators that did it deserve more applause than they probably received. It's not their fault the movie is mediocre. 188 characters 'with names" in a single movie is bound to come up short because the audience can't keep up with them all. Neither Star Wars nor Tora! Tora! Tora! had so many characters. Let's put aside the discussion about whether or not Wreck-It-Ralph is a variation on Toy Story, which I think it surely is. The plot involves what happens when the character Wreck-It-Ralph decides he is tired of being the villain. He goes on a game-jumping quest to be a hero, finally discovering that ("surprise!") one is never a villain in one's own life. "To thine own self be true." Ralph's journey includes plenty of maniacle careening around accompanied by loud video game noises. If empathy was evoked for any character, the moment escaped me. In other words, Wreck-It-Ralph is a concept in search of a worthwhile story.
"Empathy" vs. "Sympathy" according to William Safire
William Safire (1929-2009) was an award-winning journalist and author of the popular New York Times Magazine column "On Language". He was considered an expert on the general subject of etymology and, on September 5, 2008, he took on the distinction between the words "empathy" and "sympathy". His wisdom deserves repeating. As I explain in my masterclass, it is okay for the audience to feel sorry for your character, but you had better not hang your hat there because, if you do, the audience will withdraw emotionally. Here is Mr. Safire:
"If you think empathy is the synonym of sympathy, I’m sorry for your confusion. Back to the Greeks: pathos is “emotion.” Sympathy feels pity for another person’s troubles, secondarily a sense of allegiance; empathy identifies with whatever is going on in another’s mind or in a work of art — visual, dramatic, musical — whether merry or morose, hanging loose or uptight. The Greek prefix sym means “together with, alongside”; the verbal prefix em goes deeper, meaning “within, inside.” When you’re sympathetic, your arm goes around the shoulders of others; when you’re empathetic, your mind lines up with what’s going on inside their heads. Big difference; no nuance."
“Is the Animator REALLY an Actor with a Pencil?”
The short answer is “no, not really”, but I understand why so many people think it. Chuck Jones coined the comparison back in the 1940’s because he had Bugs, Elmer and Wile E. Coyote doing slapstick comedy, which was at that time a big departure from the Disney Studio’s famous “illusion of life”. And given that Chuck Jones is still to this day a demi-god in the animation world, what he said became gospel. I doubt I will change anybody’s mind here, but let me explain why the metaphor is incorrect and potentially confusing for new animators.
The “actor” in an animation is the character on the screen, not the animator. Mickey Mouse is the actor, and Walt Disney was his first director. Tarzan is the actor, and Glen Keane was his animator.
This distinction matters because, if an animator seriously wants to understand how acting works, she must learn to see the pretend circumstances of the story from her character’s perspective. Yes, the animator is a God figure to the character, able to make the character “do” whatever he wants it to do. However, not all “doing” is acting. The animator can make his character scratch its head, which is “doing” something from the animator’s perspective but is only “behavior” from the character’s perspective.
We have arrived at a point where cute animated characters with colorful personalities are not enough to put bottoms in the theater seats. Not to pile on the criticism, look one more time at Wreck-It-Ralph, which has 188 characters with colorful personalities. Audiences today say, “that’s nice; what else have you got?” And that is where “the illusion of life” parts ways with actual acting. It also brings us back to Chuck Jones who, like Glen Keane and Disney’s Nine Old Men, was a darn good amateur actor. Some people have a natural feel for acting and, even though they may never have studied Stanislavsky’s System or read Aristotle's Poetics, they have a gut feeling about how to make their characters “act”. Chuck Jones was a genius, and I could give you a list of similar geniuses in animation, but genius is unfortunately not hereditary. Talent cannot be taught; it can only be encouraged. Craft can be taught, which is primarily what mentoring is all about. The fact is that the animation industry – especially since the conversion to CG – is chock full of animators that may be brilliant craft-persons but lack Mr. Jones and Mr. Keane’s (or Mr. Bird’s or Mr. Baena’s) gut understanding of performance. I contend that it is not helpful to tell these animators that they are “actors with pencils” and then to send them off to enroll in an acting class. Animators such as I am describing here are not now and never will be actors, but that does not mean they cannot create strong theatrical performances for their characters on the screen.
Just about all character animators are brilliant, IMO. I cannot do what they do, and I shake my head in wonder that anybody can cause a bunch of pixels on a screen or lines on a piece of paper seem to be alive. It is a hat trick of the rarest kind. But here is the point: Disney’s “illusion of life” is not the same thing as “acting”. Once you have created a cast of characters in which each possesses an illusion of life, you have a street scene, not a performance. Even if your characters have tons of personality, you do not have a performance. Theatrical reality is not the same thing as regular reality. Regular reality is what you get at a mall or grocery store. In regular reality, we see 100 percent of everything. Theatrical reality is compressed in time and space. We see only the parts of reality that are necessary for advancing a story. Further, the parts that we select have structure within themselves. A character must have purpose, an objective, not just energy and emotion. And there must be obstacle/conflict in a theatrical scene.
Walt Disney gave Mickey Mouse a brain. That immediately made Mickey able to think, to form values and to express himself emotionally. Those traits are essential to Mickey’s illusion of life, but if you want to cast Mickey in a story about the day he saved the life of a kitten while overcoming Pluto’s jealousy, he must learn how to act. The animator is his teacher, director and rehearsal coach. The animator is a lot of things to Mickey, but Mickey is the one going out on stage.
























Anonymous member - Well said Ed Hook. Personally a great fan of watching the film (visually), its familiarities of characters and concepts, but most of all it's outstanding appearance. BUT! Disney will have clearly done this to make marketing advancements into Asia; as they have just handed in the original character's emancipation; so they smuggled them over to the Disney family.
This is a reply to "Don (not verified)".
You make an excellent point, except that I did not write, "What's wrong with Wreck-It-Ralph?" My editor at AWN did that. A little back-story for this blog entry might help. In addition to the AWN blog, I write a monthly Acting for Animators newsletter which goes to those who ask to subscribe. My deadline for getting out my November newsletter - i.e. the last day of the month - came up on me rapidly because I had spent a chunk of the month teaching in Ireland. I originally intended for the craft notes, "Is an animator REALLY an actor with a pencil?" to run exclusively in this AWN blog, but I had to borrow it from myself in order to meet my newsletter deadline. My AWN editor saw the newsletter, liked the notes and suggested that he go ahead and run it in the blog, since that was my original intention. I did not know he was going to include the Wreck-It-Ralph part at all. It is cool with me that it has run the way it has, but I personally would not have used the words "What's wrong with Wreck-It-Ralph?" There happens to be a lot that is RIGHT about the movie. It is lacking substance, that's all. Those who subscribe to my newsletter understand that, to me, substance -- story, theme, a reason for the telling -- is the most important thing. If you do not know me except for this blog, I can see how you might conclude that I am a loose cannon, and I apologize for that. If you check my next (December) newsletter, you will note that I am giving a prime spot to a very smart reader who totally disagrees with me about Wreck-It-Ralph.
The moral of this story, for me at least, is to meet my own deadlines so that my left hand does not borrow from my right.
Cheers -
Ed Hooks
Whoa! Hold the phone! I welcome passionately held opinions, especially from those who disagree with me. But let's not attack me personally, okay? I get it that the people posting here so far really like Wreck-It-Ralph a LOT!
I stand by my opinion that the movie is substantively digital cotton candy. That said, Wreck-It-Ralph is the strongest animated feature to come from Disney in a number of years. It looks terrific, moves like a house on fire and makes for good natured fun. That has not stopped it from dropping like a lead weight at the box office, and I doubt that the Disney execs even care. Wall Street and investors are interested in the grosses of Disney theme parks and merchandising.
In general, I prefer a movie that starts with a story, a theme of some kind. This movie was from the start - even back when it was called Joe Jump and High Score - simply a set-up. It never had a story. Once Mr. Lasseter came on board and it was green-lighted, the story we see on screen was basically just welded onto the set-up, which is that arcade characters have a secret life when the humans aren't watching. If there had never been a Toy Story, that might be more impressive. I just don't think that any of that matters to Disney. The objective all along was to get those arcade characters on the screen by hook or by crook, and that objective was achieved in spades. Next stop - Disney World.
Thank you for speaking up. This blog can use the action. <g>
Ed Hooks is overrated. Another armchair critic who gets paid to spout his opinion.
I'm sorry but as I finished reading this article the first thing I asked myself is he didnt answer his own question of what's wrong with Wreck it Ralph?
So, you couldn't keep up with 188 characters, what 188 characters are you talking about? Ralph, Vanellope, Felix, Calhoun and King Candy where the main characters why were you interested in the other hundreds that were more like cameos as an ode to the video games most people remember?
In high school english they taught us about a conclusion pararagraph that summarizes your point, So if you're going to name an article about what's wrong with a movie, how does an animator not being an actor make Wreck it Ralph a bad movie?
I can't see what point this article is trying to make. I can take a guess, but that's that the same as a clear message.
You talk about how the movie doesn't have a story but never once mention the story outside of its basic premise. (Do any specific scenes strengthen your argument? Do you think more work was put into animating one Pac-man ghost than there was giving that character personality?) You mention several times that people are distracted by all the side characters on screen, but what about the main characters? What about Ralph and Vanellope and how they interact both animation wise and story wise? Using examples from the movie itself would make this a much stronger article. As it is now, it just sounds like a person complaining about a movie they've only heard about from a friend.
Seriously? You give this guy a blog? I guess anyone can write for awn, but obviously, this writer didn't sit through the same movie that audiences and critics all over the world have been raving about over the past month. Such a pedestrian view.
Post new comment