Cartoons (cartoon => animation => anime) are like Christmas trees. People put a lot of energy into decorating their trees because everyone enjoys the fancy part of the decoration - the baubles and sparkles. But to decorate a tree requires that it have branches and needles, and both of these require the tree to have a trunk and, ultimately, roots, even if we never see them. There are lots of examples in the world of animation where the finished product is a scrawny, impoverished creation because it never had a trunk or roots. And some works - with trunks supported by bamboo, or bits of iron and plastic soldered together - that may have been intended to be new and novel, end up being just weird, jerry-built exhibitions that are enjoyable to behold.
Hidden among the many illustrations drawn at the conceptual stage, among all the materials originally used in the discussing the chaotic and disparate ideas, lies the real story we want to create. What's important with scenarios is to steadily whittle away at them, to reveal a story with a solid trunk or core.
It's important to have a clear theme. When I say "theme", some people may imagine a big billboard sort of theme, something involving a critique of civilization or advocating world peace, but I am talking about something far more basic and simple - the theme is the very foundation of a work ... The bigger the billboard, the more likely it is to be acting as a cloak for what is really a silly and shallow work.
---
I think this somehow echoes the idea of how a short has to be about the "big things of life, or else why should it be important" but at the same time distilled and condensed into a short, bite-sized kind of package that will intelligently lead its audience to the theme, rather than hard-selling the theme through explicit and obvious links.
I just saw an local student animation short film (3D, 4/5-man team), that obviously talks about the polluted Malaysian rivers. it's about as predictable as it gets.
biohazard guys dump biohazard stuff into river -> a boy stumbles into them -> they probably threw him into the river as well. guess what happens? boy turns into Incredible Hulk rip-off and comes after biohazard guys -> biohazard guys attempt to shoot him, switching weapons in order of destructive power. dark knight tunnel chase anyone? -> Hulk-boy of course kung-fued/swipes off missiles and takes care of biohazard guys -> end with a shot of a billboard reading "love our river".
I don't pretend to be able to think of any alternative / better ideas off the top my head. But it certainly reminds me again about how Chris does NOT want us to state the obvious.
----
To give an extreme example, there's nothing wrong with having a scenario that presupposes that characters A (the protagonist) and B (the bad guy) will fight it out, with A ultimately winning. The important thing is to make sure that viewers know what sort of people A and B are, and why they have to struggle against each other so desperately. As long as this is done, the only other important thing is to be creative in developing the story up to the showdown, and resolve things in as fulfilling and entertaining a way as possible.
...fully fleshed out characters, characters who are life-affirming and have clear hopes and goals, and then to make sure that the story develops as efficiently and simply as possible. If a scenario fulfills these requirements, then the animator's job just consists of applying the decoration. He or she must accurately grasp the meaning or intent of particular scenes, and concieve of some drama and action that makes sense based on the way the characters in the story would think... ... ... And usually this is accomplished with movement, often with movement that actually has to be drawn to be sure if it works. Drawing this movement is the animator's job.
----
Like...if my salesman were selling to Elvin's butcher, the dynamics would be different, each based on the character's motivation and personality, which is in turn influenced by the theme of the story. If the Salesman is selling "the meal" to the butcher, what's the butcher reaction? Based on his personality given from the film, he would probably take the meal in glee. And when the salesman asks for his payment, he would probably gulp down the salesman as well for appetizer. The vain and over-confident salesman would've met his end. But if the main theme is still about consumerism and adverts, the salesman would probably still outwit the butcher even from within his stomach, and grabbing more organs than needed along the way. What if my giant film is replaced by the butcher as the giant and the meal as the hero? Comparing the giant dynamics and Elvin's dino character dynamics. Both the hero and dino met their giants, the hero fights it (he intended to anyway) and the dino ran away from it. But both the resulting films communicates their different messages well (I think) exactly because of that dynamics between the characters.
I think what I'm possibly getting at is that characters are inadvertently one-dimensional*, because whatever personality they have is tailored to meet the needs of communicating the big theme. The decisions they have to make in order that the theme is communicated therefore reveal their characteristic / personality (from the audience's POV) - and in a short film, the amount of decisions that were made wouldn't be conflicting enough to show much convincing complexity... unless intended by the big theme.
* When I say one-dimensional it is not derogatory in any sense. It does not mean that the resulting characters are bland or uninteresting, behaving in a predictable fashion. What I probably mean to say is that.. the characters represent an aspect / image of the multi-faceted human condition that we know/feel/behaves/experiences that we ourselves do not even completely understand. (Seems like we are delving into persona and masks already here). They represent parts of us in a quest to complete what we desire to (in terms of fulfilling our desire in film (cultural resolution) and identifying with the characters), and therefore, cannot represent any other part of us that, in reality, gets into the way, messes things up, or makes the undesirable decisions.
===
===
Heck, I felt like I was writing a seminar. But then again, it seems that although I have quoted and said much, it felt like...somewhere somehow, I already do know these...just that I'm not doing it; or... the thoughts were not yet materialized or concrete yet before reading Miyazaki.
Hidden among the many illustrations drawn at the conceptual stage, among all the materials originally used in the discussing the chaotic and disparate ideas, lies the real story we want to create. What's important with scenarios is to steadily whittle away at them, to reveal a story with a solid trunk or core.
It's important to have a clear theme. When I say "theme", some people may imagine a big billboard sort of theme, something involving a critique of civilization or advocating world peace, but I am talking about something far more basic and simple - the theme is the very foundation of a work ... The bigger the billboard, the more likely it is to be acting as a cloak for what is really a silly and shallow work.
---
I think this somehow echoes the idea of how a short has to be about the "big things of life, or else why should it be important" but at the same time distilled and condensed into a short, bite-sized kind of package that will intelligently lead its audience to the theme, rather than hard-selling the theme through explicit and obvious links.
I just saw an local student animation short film (3D, 4/5-man team), that obviously talks about the polluted Malaysian rivers. it's about as predictable as it gets.
biohazard guys dump biohazard stuff into river -> a boy stumbles into them -> they probably threw him into the river as well. guess what happens? boy turns into Incredible Hulk rip-off and comes after biohazard guys -> biohazard guys attempt to shoot him, switching weapons in order of destructive power. dark knight tunnel chase anyone? -> Hulk-boy of course kung-fued/swipes off missiles and takes care of biohazard guys -> end with a shot of a billboard reading "love our river".
I don't pretend to be able to think of any alternative / better ideas off the top my head. But it certainly reminds me again about how Chris does NOT want us to state the obvious.
----
To give an extreme example, there's nothing wrong with having a scenario that presupposes that characters A (the protagonist) and B (the bad guy) will fight it out, with A ultimately winning. The important thing is to make sure that viewers know what sort of people A and B are, and why they have to struggle against each other so desperately. As long as this is done, the only other important thing is to be creative in developing the story up to the showdown, and resolve things in as fulfilling and entertaining a way as possible.
...fully fleshed out characters, characters who are life-affirming and have clear hopes and goals, and then to make sure that the story develops as efficiently and simply as possible. If a scenario fulfills these requirements, then the animator's job just consists of applying the decoration. He or she must accurately grasp the meaning or intent of particular scenes, and concieve of some drama and action that makes sense based on the way the characters in the story would think... ... ... And usually this is accomplished with movement, often with movement that actually has to be drawn to be sure if it works. Drawing this movement is the animator's job.
----
Like...if my salesman were selling to Elvin's butcher, the dynamics would be different, each based on the character's motivation and personality, which is in turn influenced by the theme of the story. If the Salesman is selling "the meal" to the butcher, what's the butcher reaction? Based on his personality given from the film, he would probably take the meal in glee. And when the salesman asks for his payment, he would probably gulp down the salesman as well for appetizer. The vain and over-confident salesman would've met his end. But if the main theme is still about consumerism and adverts, the salesman would probably still outwit the butcher even from within his stomach, and grabbing more organs than needed along the way. What if my giant film is replaced by the butcher as the giant and the meal as the hero? Comparing the giant dynamics and Elvin's dino character dynamics. Both the hero and dino met their giants, the hero fights it (he intended to anyway) and the dino ran away from it. But both the resulting films communicates their different messages well (I think) exactly because of that dynamics between the characters.
I think what I'm possibly getting at is that characters are inadvertently one-dimensional*, because whatever personality they have is tailored to meet the needs of communicating the big theme. The decisions they have to make in order that the theme is communicated therefore reveal their characteristic / personality (from the audience's POV) - and in a short film, the amount of decisions that were made wouldn't be conflicting enough to show much convincing complexity... unless intended by the big theme.
* When I say one-dimensional it is not derogatory in any sense. It does not mean that the resulting characters are bland or uninteresting, behaving in a predictable fashion. What I probably mean to say is that.. the characters represent an aspect / image of the multi-faceted human condition that we know/feel/behaves/experiences that we ourselves do not even completely understand. (Seems like we are delving into persona and masks already here). They represent parts of us in a quest to complete what we desire to (in terms of fulfilling our desire in film (cultural resolution) and identifying with the characters), and therefore, cannot represent any other part of us that, in reality, gets into the way, messes things up, or makes the undesirable decisions.
===
===
Heck, I felt like I was writing a seminar. But then again, it seems that although I have quoted and said much, it felt like...somewhere somehow, I already do know these...just that I'm not doing it; or... the thoughts were not yet materialized or concrete yet before reading Miyazaki.
No comments:
Post a Comment