Andrew Loomis in German

Andrew Loomis was a commercial artist who worked in the 1920's to the 1950's. In addition, he was a teacher and the author of a much sought-after series of art instruction books such as Fun With a Pencil, Figure Drawing For All It's Worth, Creative Illustration, Three Dimensional Drawing and Drawing the Head and Hands. The books are all out of print and command high prices on the used book market. There are two Walter Foster editions that are highly abridged versions of the books, but they are disappointing to anyone who has seen the originals.

It turns out that Figure Drawing For All Its Worth is still in print in Germany and can be ordered from Bud Plant for $29.95 U.S. Definitely worth owning and a bargain to boot.

The Labrynth Bookstore in Toronto

For years, Dan and Jessica Merisanu have brought their books on animation, illustration, manga and art instruction to various locations around town and now they have a permanent home. The Labyrinth Store is located at 386 Bloor Street West, near the Spadina subway and carries books that are unavailable anywhere else in Toronto. You can find information on their hours and contact info here and their blog lists new material that they carry.

I'd point out that their store location is in an area full of excellent bookstores within a 10 minute walk. Across the street is BMV, a large used and remaindered bookstore. West on Bloor is Book City, one of the better independent book chains in Toronto. Further west on Markham Street is The Beguiling, one of the leading alternative comics shops in North America, and Mirvish Books on Art, a store specializing in fine arts books. If you're an art book lover and thinking about a trip to Toronto, you can make The Labyrinth your first stop of many.

Right & Wrong: Morality and the Story Structure of Pinocchio

(This article is based on a paper given at the first conference of the Society for Animation Studies, held in Los Angeles, California in 1989 and was later printed in Animato #20.)

Pinocchio (1940), the Disney studio’s second feature-length cartoon, presented story problems that were in stark contrast to those of the studio’s first feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). In that film, the source material was a short fairy tale documented by the Brothers Grimm. The primary story challenge lay in fleshing out the tale to sustain a feature film. With Pinocchio the situation was reversed: the novel by Collodi was lengthy and chock-full of incident. The challenge was to choose which incidents to preserve or adapt, and to find a way to structure them. The studio used Pinocchio’s ongoing moral education as its approach to each segment of the film.

The problems that Pinocchio’s characters must deal with are different from those in other Disney films. In Show White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty, the main characters are victims of injustice who are eventually restored to their rightful places. In Dumbo, the main character is an outcast who triumphs over a birth defect. These characters are innocent of wrongdoing and have done nothing to warrant the problems they face. In Pinocchio, the characters Pinocchio, Jiminy Cricket and Geppetto are faced with dilemmas, and their own actions result in them becoming victims of evil. Only by behaving in a moral fashion can they avoid or escape evil. While they eventually learn to act correctly, the triumph over evil is never final. Each decision exposes them again to the possibility of victimization, so each decision must be morally based.

The film is structured around three episodes of capture and escape, each more dangerous than the last: Stromboli’s birdcage, Pleasure Island and Monstro’s belly. In each case, the failure to know the difference between right and wrong results in a character being captured. The consequences of wrong decisions literally move the character away from their own humanity and towards a more primitive state. In each episode, the character that knows the difference between right and wrong is the one who is able to effect the escape of the others.

Geppetto is a lonely woodcarver who lives an isolated existence. Throughout the film, he interacts with only four characters, three of whom are animals: Cleo the fish, Figaro the cat, and Monstro the whale. His isolation is softened somewhat by his work, which recreates the diversity of the outside world. His clocks and music boxes display domestic animals and people in various roles and occupations. Ducks, sheep, birds and bees are all featured. Society is represented by a church bell-ringer, a mother spanking a child, musicians, dancers, hunters, butchers, and a drunk. However, none of these creations are capable of interaction, and Geppetto feels the lack of human companionship. For this reason, he creates the puppet Pinocchio. His wish upon a star is that Pinocchio “might be a real boy.”

His wish is granted by the Blue Fairy, who brings Pinocchio to life but does not make him human. That advanced state must be earned by learning the difference beween right and wrong. As Pinocchio has no idea what the difference is, Jiminy Cricket is pressed into service as his conscience.

Pinocchio’s first morning begins with a multiplane tracking shot, starting on church bells and featuring the town awakening. We see birds, tradesmen, mothers, and children. In short, we are looking at the clocks and music boxes of Geppetto’s workshop made flesh. The shot concludes by focusing on Geppetto’s residence as the door opens and Pinocchio prepares for this first day at school. One would think that Geppetto would accompany his new son, guiding him and protecting him in a world Pinocchio has never experienced. However Geppetto sends Pinocchio on his way alone and returns to his isolation. It is a mistake that all the characters in the film will live to regret. Eventually, Pinocchio will be responsible for drawing Geppetto out of his workshop but it will be under much more troubled circumstances.

Jiminy Cricket also fumbles his responsibilities on this morning. Having slept late, he reaches Pinocchio after Honest John and Gideon, two small-time crooks, have convinced the puppet to become an actor. Their motivation is to sell him to a puppeteer named Stromboli. While Jiminy informs Pinocchio that he should go to school, Pinocchio ignores him and marches off with the two villains.

To his credit, Jiminy pursues Pinocchio, but after seeing Pinocchio become a success on stage he doubts his own advice. “Maybe I was wrong,” he says. “What does an actor need with a conscience anyway?” Jiminy decides to give up his role as conscience and seeks out Pinocchio to wish him luck.

Pinocchio’s success is an illusion. While he is popular with the audience, Stromboli, the puppet master, sees him as a slave and locks him in a wooden birdcage to prevent him from returning home. Having made the wrong moral decision, Pinocchio has forfeited his ability to control his own fate. This will also be a consequence of the traps to come.

When Jiminy arrives, he unsuccessfully attempts to pick the birdcage’s lock. Pinocchio tries to take the blame for the situation, but Jiminy doesn’t let him. “It was my fault,” Jiminy says, “I shouldn’t have walked out on you.” His doubts about Pinocchio’s choice and his abandonment of Pinocchio have rendered him powerless to free Pinocchio. In this film, only those who are morally right have the power to take positive action.

As no one has the moral high ground, it falls to the Blue Fairy to intercede. When she does so, Pinocchio fails a moral test that reveals another aspect of punishment in the film. When the Fairy asks for an explanation, Pinocchio lies. As he does, his nose grows. It not only grows, it becomes more tree-like. With each successive lie, it sprouts leaves, buds, flowers, and a nest with two birds. With the final lie, the leaves fall and the birds fly away.

In Snow White, the characters’ inner states are expressed through the surrounding environment. As Snow White flees the Hunstman, her own fear and shock are mirrored in the threatening trees that surround her. When the Queen transforms herself into a hag, the room spins around her. When the dwarfs pursue the Queen, a thunderstorm is a measure of their rage and is the instrument of her death.

In Pinocchio, it’s not the environment but the characters’ own bodies that reflect their inner states. If Pinocchio is balanced between being a creature of wood and flesh, it is clear that with each lie, he becomes more a tree and less a person. Throughout the film, when a character makes a bad moral decision he reverts to a more primitive physical state. Moral transgression equals physical regression. As the Blue Fairy comments, “a boy who wont’ be good might must as well be made of wood.” With this reprimand, she frees Pinocchio from the cage and sends him on his way.

As Pinocchio and Jiminy run home to Geppetto, Pinocchio is once again stopped by Honest John and once again put on the wrong road. This time, he’s headed for Pleasure Island, where, as Honest John says, “every day’s a holiday and kids have nothing to do but play.” These events are so similar to Pinocchio’s first encounter with Honest John that Jiminy feels compelled to mutter “here we go again” to the audience. But this time, there is a crucial difference. Jiminy has learned from the first trap and will not falter again. He has no doubts this time that he is right. His moral certainty will enable him to free Pinocchio from the film’s second trap, Pleasure Island.

The Coachman who takes the boys to the island is kidnapping them, though all the boys go willingly. It is a place where kids can run wild, indulging themselves in all the vices that polite society frowns on. Smoking, drinking, vandalism, fighting, and pool playing are the activities of choice on the isle, and there is no shortage of what the Coachman refers to as “stupid little boys” who are anxious to take advantage of the opportunities.

The penalty the boys pay for making the wrong decision is to become donkeys, losing all vestiges of their humanity in the process. The Coachman then crates them and sells them. As Pinocchio was poised between tree and human in Stromboli’s birdcage, the boys are posed between animal and human on the island, and the balance is tipped irrevocably to the animal. Again, moral transgression equals physical regression, and like Pinocchio in the birdcage, their lack of morals has lost them the ability to control their own destinies.

Jiminy is committed to sticking by Pinocchio this time. The verbal and physical abuse he takes at the hands of Lampwick, Pinocchio’s new-found companion, causes him to walk away in anger, but he never doubts the rightness of his position. It’s this moral strength that is crucial in altering Jiminy’s role in the second escape. Where he was once powerless to open a lock, he now discovers the fate of the boys and is able to guide Pinocchio to an escape route before it is too late. Pinocchio avoids turning completely into a donkey, but has a donkey tail and ears as evidence of his wrong-doing.

The two escape by jumping off a cliff into the ocean. Pinocchio hesitates, but Jiminy urges him on, explaining that it’s the only way out. When they reach the shore, they head straight for Geppetto’s shop, and this time they are not sidetracked. Unfortunately, Geppetto is not there. A bird sent by the Blue Fairy drops a note explaining that Geppetto was out searching for Pinocchio and has been swallowed by Monstro the whale.

It is finally Pinocchio’s turn to exhibit some moral strength. He immediately takes off to rescue his father. Jiminy is frightened by Monstro’s reputation, but Pinocchio is undeterred. When they reach the water’s edge, Pinocchio shows none of his previous reluctance to jump in. Pinocchio’s correct decision has entitled and empowered him to be Geppetto’s rescuer. Significantly, Jiminy remains outside Monstro when Pinocchio finds Geppetto, and is a passive observer of the rescue. Pinocchio’s internal conscience has developed to the point where Jiminy’s guidance is no longer needed.

As the boys of Pleasure Island had their humanity submerged into their donkey bodies, Geppetto is submerged within Monstro, the film’s third and most dangerous trap. Like the boys, Geppetto fails to distinguish between right and wrong. On Pinocchio’s first morning of life, Geppetto sent him off to school alone. While Geppetto yearns for human interaction, he is only willing to imitate the superficial aspects of it in the same way his woodcarvings imitate only the superficial aspects of village life.

The film’s climax contains a series of reversals. Where the moral movement within the film has thus far been one of regression, it now turns to progression. As Pinocchio frees Geppetto, he literally and morally extracts the human from the animal. Geppetto is free of Monstro, and Pinocchio has asserted his humanity over his donkey characteristics.

Ironically, the tool used to accomplish this is fire. During Pinocchio’s first night of life, he naively set his finger on fire and looked at it with delight. Geppetto realizing the threat, grabbed Pinocchio and extinguished the flame in Cleo’s fishbowl. The elements of fire and water now reverse their functions. Pinocchio builds a large fire, causing Monstro to sneeze and expel them. Where fire was the threat and water the means of rescue, fire now rescues the characters and water threatens them.

The fire enrages Monstro, and he attempts to kill Pinocchio and Geppetto. He destroys their raft and leaves them swimming for their lives. In another reversal, Geppetto again seeks to separate from Pinocchio. This time he is motivated by fatherly love and not apathy. He urges Pinocchio to save himself and swim for shore, as he is too weak to do so. Pinocchio is not about to sacrifice his father for his own freedom and pulls him beyond some rocks to a cove that Monstro cannot reach. Geppetto is safe, but Pinocchio drowns in the rescue.

Having learned the difference between right and wrong and having acted in a moral fashion, Pinocchio has earned the right to become human. The Blue Fairy revives him, and all traces of his wooden and animal selves vanish. Humanity has triumphed over lower states of being.

Pinocchio and Geppetto celebrate, and Jiminy leaves, claiming that, “this is where I came in.” But it really isn’t. While the joy of Pinocchio’s first night has been recaptured, the characters have developed a stronger moral base. Pinocchio has been transfigured by his moral growth. Though the characters have seen their dreams come true, it has taken far more than just wishing on a star. It has taken the ability to tell right from wrong in a world where morality has very tangible implications.

What type of morality does this film champion? Pinocchio’s initial dilemma between going to school or going on the stage implies a sort of middle-class, Boy Scout morality. I think the film’s choice of school has to be seen in the context of the film’s later choices. Morality is not an abstract system that has to be adhered to for its own sake. Morality in this film clearly represents the opposites of selfishness and selflessness. Will a character indulge himself with no regard for the others in his life, or will he act in a way that strengthens his relationship with his loved ones? The film sees morality as a structure for strengthening the bonds between parents and children and between friends. It is this aspect of the film that gives it its emotional power and prevents it from degenerating into a lecture on proper behavior.

The villains in this film are immoral because they are so self-indulgent. Their search for gratification threatens everyone they come in contact with. Their moral choices do not support others; they exploit others. Unlike those of other Disney movies, Pinocchio’s villains are not neutralized or destroyed. Honest John, Stromboli, the Coachman, and Monstro all live on to continue being evil and to prey on the morally weak.

It is the task of each character in this film to constantly assert his morality through his decisions. Behaving in a moral fashion is the only way to avoid becoming a victim of exploitation, to maintain ties to loved ones, and the only way to become truly human.

Persepolis

Persepolis is Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel about growing up during the Iranian revolution and her exile from Iran in the aftermath. It's a great book and one that is being made into an animated feature in France. (There are other clips from the film available here, here and here. Like the above trailer, the dialog is in French.)

Satrapi is involved in the creation of the feature and not only is it drawn animation in her own style, the film will be (gasp!) black and white like the original graphic novel. There couldn't be a stronger contrast between this film and the forthcoming Tin Tin films mentioned below. I can only hope that Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg see Persepolis at the earliest possible opportunity.

Chuck Jones' Strangest Cartoon. Ever.

Now Hear This (1962) is a hard to find (and to watch?) cartoon directed by Chuck Jones at Warner Bros. You might describe it as his version of Porky in Wackyland done in a post-UPA style. In any case, thanks to YouTube, you now have an opportunity to see it.

Tintin Done Right

Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson have announced that they're making several films based on Herge's Tintin using motion capture. Variety reports that,

Jackson said WETA will stay true to Remi's original designs in bringing the cast of Tintin to life, but that the characters won't look cartoonish.

"Instead," Jackson said, "we're making them look photorealistic; the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people — but real Herge people!"

Show of hands. How many people choose which movies to go to based on whether they can see skin pores?

DreamWorks bought the film rights from Herge Studios in Brussels, Belgium. Company is led by prexy Fanny Rodwell, Remi's wife when he died in 1983.

"We couldn't think of a better way to honor Herge's legacy that this announcement within days of the 100th anniversary of his birth, May 22, 1907," Rodwell said.

Now I understand. There's no better way to celebrate Herge's 100th birthday than by taking the cartooning style he developed, the "ligne clair" school which has influenced generations of cartoonists, and adding all the details that Herge was too stupid to include. What a shame that Herge didn't live long enough to see his work corrected. I look forward to the day when Spielberg and Jackson have their work corrected as well.

Digital Distribution: Movies and Music

Scott Kirsner has contributed an article to Release Print about the state of digital distribution for movies. He admits that

Digital distribution, circa 2007, resembles a high-concept science fiction script: conceptually intriguing, potentially feasible, but not quite part of the fabric of reality.

The New York Times Magazine has an article called "Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog," which talks about how musicians are using digital distribution to build audiences.

Both these articles deal with creative people attempting to cut out the middle men and go straight to audiences and I'm intrigued with the differences between the two fields. Music has the advantage of being produced faster and cheaper than films, which allow musicians to regularly add new material and build an audience. Musicians are also interacting more heavily with their audiences than filmmakers are. The Times article talks about Jonathan Coulton, who has uploaded a new song weekly and personally answers dozens of emails a day from fans. John K. has developed quite a following through his blog, but based on the posted comments, he's not committed to answering every question that comes his way. If you're aware of anyone in animation or film who has taken this further than John K, let me know.

One of the major differences between music and film is the personal appearance angle. Concerts and club dates are a major revenue stream for musicians, where personal appearances by actors or directors might goose attendance at a screening but don't generate revenue separately the way music sales and personal appearances do.

Finally, there are the physiological and psychological differences between music and film. Sight is our specie's primary sense, so we're able to use our hearing while engaging in other activities. Music can accompany our activities in a way that films never can. A teacher of mine, Bob Edmonds, once said that there was no visual equivalent to whistling.

Furthermore, there's an emotional difference between music and film. A lot of animation is based on humour, but a joke won't be as funny the 20th time you hear it as it was the first time. By contrast, the 20th time you hear a song, it may be more satisfying than the first. Music grows on us while humour, stories and films tend to go stale.

I'm fascinated with how all of this is developing. I desperately hope that animators figure out a way to make the web work for independent production. The goal shouldn't be to become the next George Lucas and get rich. The goal should be to do the work you want to do and make enough money from it to live. Coulton, the musician, is making a middle class living. Can animators do the same? Maybe the web will never be as friendly to animators as it is to musicians, but the rules are still being written and there's enormous potential to change how animators live and work for the better.

Tony Rosato

Some of you may remember Tony Rosato from his time on Saturday Night Live or from SCTV. I had the pleasure of directing Tony as a voice actor in the animated TV series Monster By Mistake, where he played the father, Tom.

Some voice actors nail their performance on the first take and others need a few takes to warm up. Tony was one of the latter. He always provided a wealth of possibilities and my job (and the job of the other directors) was to gently guide Tony into the interpretation we thought best. You never had to worry about Tony coming up with a good reading.

It was also a pleasure as a writer to know that Tony would improve any comedy scene he was handed. Thinking of him while I sat at the keyboard made writing funny scenes for his character that much easier.

It seems that Tony has slipped between the cracks of the criminal justice and mental health systems, as this article details. I haven't seen Tony since 2003, but I have enormous respect for his abilities and genuine fondness for him as a person. I hope that his situation gets straightened out and that he gets the help that he needs and deserves.

Pinocchio Part 8A

The highlights of this sequence are Bill Tytla's Stromboli and Frank Thomas's Pinocchio. Tytla gets ownership over Stromboli in a way that few animators get control of characters in this film. The few Stromboli shots that Tytla didn't animate are handled by his assistant Bill Shull.

W.C. Fields was reported to have said at the premiere of the film that Stromboli moved too much. There's something to be said for that. Stromboli is a broader character than anyone else in the film. He changes emotions almost instantly and Tytla's animation successfully portrays Stromboli's volatility. My problem with Stromboli, for all his animated flair, is that his emotions are simple and shallow. There's no subtext to the character. It's possible that Tytla got carried away by style over substance or that he hoped to disguise Stromboli's lack of complexity with some extremely complex animation. There are very severe shape changes, fast timing and strong lines of action in the animation

It's interesting that Stromboli is conducting an orchestra, yet the only part of it that is shown is the bell of a tuba. While Pinocchio is famous for its elaborateness, the filmmakers also have the ability to suggest something with great economy.

Frank Thomas doesn't get as much control of Pinocchio as Tytla does Stromboli, but he makes a strong impression with his scenes. He balances out Pinocchio's bravado, clumsiness and cluelessness as Pinocchio starts out cocky and then finds himself barely able to keep up with the other puppets. Thomas gets strong appeal out of making Pinocchio knock-kneed. We empathize with a character who is clearly in over his head.

One of the interesting things about Frank Thomas's Pinocchio is how Thomas handles lip synch. Pinocchio has no teeth but does have a tongue. However, it's been added to supply some depth to the mouth. Thomas does not animate it to help form sounds; he leaves it on the bottom of the mouth. As a result, if you watch Pinocchio's mouth closely, the synch is hardly exact. Scene 16 contains several obvious examples.

Ollie Johnston continues with Pinocchio struggling to keep up until the tone changes with Woolie Reitherman's scenes. Reitherman's animation needs to be praised in this sequence. We know from his work on Goofy that he has a flair for broad comedy. The Russian puppets (referred to as "bomb throwers" in the draft!) are hilarious when they're kicking themselves in the heads and Pinocchio is every bit as funny booting himself in the rear. Reitherman gets the climax of the sequence with the Russian puppets whirling around and Pinocchio getting caught up in the chaos.

It's odd that animators like Babbitt and Larson are used on puppets in this sequence. Since they were in charge of Geppetto and Figaro respectively, why not use them to do more scenes on those characters? I can only assume that the two animators needed work at the time these shots were ready.

This sequence has strong echoes of Chaplin's The Circus, where the Tramp causes audience laughter without ever really understanding why. What happens in that film and this sequence by accident is funnier than anything the characters plan.

From a story standpoint, Pinocchio's success surprises Jiminy and causes him to question his opinions and his role as Pinocchio's conscience. That has repercussions in the near future. Now that we're reaching the first of the film's three traps, I'm going to interrupt the mosaics with an article I wrote in 1989 about morality and how it affects the story structure of this film. Look for it in the next day or two.

Munro

This is a delightful short written by Jules Feiffer and directed by Gene Deitch. Feiffer worked in animation in the 1950s at Terrytoons and it's a sad commentary on the state of the business then that they let him get away. Who knows if things would be any different today?

Besides his weekly comic strip, Feiffer also went on to write novels (Harry the Rat With Women), plays (Little Murders), movies (Carnal Knowledge) and children's books (The Man in the Ceiling). The film accurately mirrors Feiffer's expressive drawing style.

This film was also a turning point in the life of Gene Deitch. His desire to make it led him to producer Bill Snyder, who promised Deitch funding if Deitch would go to Prague and oversee another of Snyder's projects. Deitch ended up staying in Prague, where he lives and works to this day.

This film is very much in the UPA mold. Deitch worked at UPA, so it's not surprising that he found the story attractive or that he embraced Feiffer's design style. Like many UPA films, it relies on a narrator and satire more than it creates believable characters. However, the film is charming and the satire still works; the bureaucratic mindset hasn't changed much in the intervening years. Here is Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" years before he invented the term.

Pinocchio Part 8

Disney in Montreal

I was in Montreal last weekend to see Once Upon A Time Walt Disney: The Sources of Inspiration for the Disney Studios at the Museum of Fine Arts. The exhibit runs until June 24 and if you've been thinking about going, I highly recommend it.

The show features European artwork that may have influenced the Disney films, with the emphasis on Disney design and background art. There are Disney originals by Gustav Tenggren, Mary Blair, Kay Neilson, Joe Grant, Claude Coats, David Hall, Salvador Dali, and Eyvind Earle. The show also includes cel and background set-ups, multiplane paintings on glass, maquettes and well-chosen clips on video screens. For example, the shot moving over the village from early in Pinocchio was playing on a video loop right next to the original background painting, allowing you to understand how the use of the camera and cropping resulted in what's on screen. My only disappointment was that there were very few animation drawings. There were four from Plane Crazy by Ub Iwerks, four from The Band Concert by Les Clark, one from "Night on Bald Mountain" by Bill Tytla, one from The Country Cousin by Art Babbitt and one of Cruella from One Hundred and One Dalmatians by Marc Davis.

There were also video monitors playing clips from other film sources, such as Faust (1926), Frankenstein (1931), Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde (1932), and King Kong (1933) showing scenes side-by-side with the Disney scenes they influenced. Destino was playing in a continuous loop surrounded by development art by Dali and John Hench.

The non-Disney art was equally impressive. There was a 47 second praxinoscope animation by Emile Reynaud which I hadn't seen before and which includes some very good acting. I wish that I knew more about Reynaud as I think that he might have been as much of an innovator as Winsor McCay, though his work isn't as well-known. This was my first time seeing originals by Heinrich Kley (in colour and black and white) and Beatrix Potter.

In addition, there was a separate floor with pop art that had been influenced by Disney.

There's a 350 page catalog with English and French editions available at the museum. If you order it, make sure you specify which language you want.

The exhibit was almost too much to absorb in a single visit. If I lived in Montreal, I don't doubt that I would have visited the exhibit several times.

This is the only North American stop for this exhibit and there's nothing like looking at originals. You will know several of the pieces on exhibit here from various books, but the reproductions can't compare to the originals. This is even true for the animation drawings. If you're looking for an excuse to go away for a weekend, it will probably be a while before this much Disney artwork is on display again. Catch it while you can.

Anniversary

The rant below is a fitting way to mark this blog's first anniversary. Thanks to all of you for stopping by. A special thanks to Hans Perk, whose animation drafts have made a lot of this blog's content possible.

More on Brando

(If you haven't seen On the Waterfront, please don't watch the clip. See the whole film first. This scene won't have the same impact out of context and seeing this clip will ruin the experience of watching the film. If you have seen the film, click and refresh your memory.)

Marlon Brando - On the Waterfront

I've had a request to go deeper into the Brando thing, so I will. The first thing I want to say is that it takes more than acting chops to produce a result a great as Brando produces. The role has to be crafted a certain way.

There are three types of conflict: character vs. character, character vs. circumstances and character vs. self. The first is the most obvious and it's where most animated films live. It's just good guys and bad guys. These characters may be very entertaining, but unless there's also the other kinds of conflict, they remain shallow. Cruella de Vil is beautifully designed and animated, but she's a flamboyant piece of cardboard. There is nothing complex about the character. She has attitude and nothing else. The same is true for characters like Shere Khan and Capt. Hook. All these characters have one track minds and the writing and acting challenge is to find a way to make them interesting to watch. It's not easy and I'm not minimizing the creativity and effort that goes into these characters, but ultimately they are simplistic.

The above Brando scene, on the surface, is also character vs. character. Rod Steiger wants Brando do something and Brando isn't sure what he wants to do. Steiger decides to let Brando go rather than force the issue. But the scene is far richer because it is also character vs. situation and most importantly, character vs. self. Steiger can't acknowledge that he sacrificed Brando's career for profit. Steiger pulls a gun on Brando even though he loves him. Ultimately, he can't go through with using force and lets Brando get away. Steiger is balanced between loving Brando and manipulating him and the scene revolves around what Steiger will do.

Brando is torn between what Steiger wants him to do and what he dimly perceives is right. He knows that Steiger has betrayed him in the past and caused him great pain, but he still loves Steiger. His position leaves him with no self-respect and he senses that he's got to change if he's going to survive, but he knows that changing is going to be painful and dangerous.

It's not simply who's stronger or more clever. Each character has to make decisions that define who he is and each knows it. Each decision has a huge moral implication. Is there a scene anywhere in animation that is as complex as this one? That's not a rhetorical question. If there is, I'd love to know about it.

Many actors would have played this scene less effectively than Brando and Steiger, but at least they would have had something to work with. Brando was in many films where the writing couldn't support his abilities and the results are not effective. There has to be a well-developed role before an actor can do his or her best work. Being Brando or as good as Brando isn't sufficient.

In animation, there are two things working against the possibility of a scene like this. The first is that the writing isn't ambitious enough. I'm not saying that every animated film has to aspire to the power of this scene, but not enough of them do. Children's entertainment has been dumbed down and made morally simplistic. Family films are more complex, but because children are part of the audience, the film makers are afraid to upset children or present characters who are beyond a child's understanding. The cost of animated features is a powerful incentive to not offend or confuse potential customers.

(In animation's defense, large budget live action films have fallen into the same trap. The live films that have avoided this are lower budget and released in time for Oscar consideration. They're delicacies that are only in season for a few months a year.)

The second problem is that even when animators are cast by character, they're still sharing the character and so developing a complex personality is next to impossible. That's one reason why voice actors are so important in holding a performance together. Brando was unique, as are all good actors. It's impossible for several animators to be unique in the same way. Instead, their uniqueness has to be sanded down into something closer to average so that their scenes can fit together.

Are there animators who are capable of a performance like Brando's? Perhaps. But the story material isn't there and the industry isn't structured to give animators the chance. In essence, we've limited the writing possibilities and put animators on a short leash, so it's no wonder that the gap between animated and live acting is so wide. And to be clear, I'm not arguing for animation that imitates Brando's acting. What I'm looking for is animated acting that creates the same powerful effect on audiences as Brando's.

I mentioned Gollum because the character was conceived with the same level of complexity as those played by Brando and Steiger. Gollum is also torn between choices that have moral implications. Anyone familiar with Tolkien's books knows how the film will end, but Gollum's success on film comes from how convincingly the character wrestles with his choices.

For Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis, this type of character is part and parcel of what they do. Serkis has played Shakespeare, who fills his plays with characters of this type. Hamlet, MacBeth and Othello all have to make morally difficult choices that determine their fates. For animation, this kind of character is rare or non-existent. A character's choices are usually unambiguously good or evil.

There is room for all kinds of animation and all kinds of animated content. I'm not arguing for a single standard. But what future does a medium have when it voluntarily abandons the aspiration to create work that compares with the best of other art forms? That's what animation has done and it's why there's no animated equivalent of Brando.

Where's Our Brando?

Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando
in On the Waterfront

Turner Classic Movies ran part 1 of a documentary on Marlon Brando last night, along with several of Brando's films. Part 2 of the documentary airs tonight followed by more Brando films.

Watching the clips, I asked myself if anyone in animation was the equivalent of Brando. Maybe Bill Tytla or Glen Keane, but in each case, they weren't served particularly well by the industry. When Tytla left Disney, he lost all chances for worthy roles. Keane had a good role with the Beast, but Alladin, Pocahontas and Tarzan are thin by comparison.

I'm very aware of the constraints placed on us by business people, though I often wonder if we haven't helped with the ropes while we were being bound. I frankly don't think that there's been an animator as good as Brando and I don't think that animators even aspire that high.

Maybe the animated character to come closest to Brando is Gollum. I think that it's significant that he was a character in a live action film and at least some of his performance came from a live actor. Animation artists just aren't thinking in these terms and it's one of the reasons we're stuck at the kiddie table.

Pinocchio Part 7A

I don't mean to let so much time pass between posting the mosaic for a section and the commentary, but things do get in the way. If you're looking for the mosaic for part 7, you can find it here.

There is some confusion here as to credits. I have listed Tom Oreb for scenes 42 and 43, but I was browsing through Jack Kinney's book and he mentions a Frank Oreb. I'm pretty sure that I've got the credit wrong and the scenes belong to Frank. I also made that mistake for section 1.6, scene 42. My apologies.

On page 27 of the original edition (and maybe later editions) of Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life, there are drawings of Jiminy at the bottom of the page that Frank and Ollie credit to Ward Kimball. These drawings appear to come from scenes 41 and 42. However, the draft says that these scenes are by Milt Kahl. In this case, I have no idea who is right.



Finally, there's been debate about Shamus Culhane's animation of Honest John and Gideon. Culhane is not credited for any scenes here, but his assistant Norm Tate is. On page 193 of the hardcover of Talking Animals and Other People, Culhane prints a drawing that looks like it should be from scene 19. However, it doesn't match the finished frames. Pinocchio is picking up an apple, not his book as in Culhane's drawing, and Honest John's pose is similar, but not exactly the same. This doesn't really do anything to clarify the situation, as there's no way of knowing how much of Culhane's work survives in the final animation. I should also point out that Marvin Woodward is credited with Pinocchio in this scene, so Culhane would not have done that character in any case.

I took Les Clark to task in Part 6 for how he drew Pinocchio's face when he wasn't smiling. Marvin Woodward has similar expressions in scenes 16-19 and 22 and makes Pinocchio's face more attractive than Clark was able to. I'll be curious to see if Clark has any later Pinocchio scenes and whether or not he got more comfortable with drawing the character.

This is the first sequence of the film where layout was supervised by Ken O'Connor. While there have been bravura crane shots earlier in the film, O'Connor is much more aggressive in his use of camera angles in shots that include character animation. Preston Blair does scene 53, a high angle shot of three characters singing and dancing. The numbering of that shot is so out of whack with the surrounding shots that it appears that the shot might have originally been the climax to the sequence. Hugh Fraser and Phil Duncan animate the low angle scene 27 and Sam Cobean does the worm's eye and bird's eye views of scenes 30 and 31. I don't envy the animators on those shots as the drawing challenges are tremendous. I'll bet that a lot of profanity was aimed in Ken O'Connor's direction by these four animators.

Animation wise, this is another sequence where there is relatively little animator consistency. Each character is handled by multiple animators, sometimes in consecutive shots. When I look at a sequence like this, there's no question in my mind that the acting had to have been worked out before the animators started drawing or the characterizations would not be consistent. This sequence introduces the fox and the cat, so it's not like the animators had another sequence to refer to. Whether it was Disney himself, the board artists, the character layout artists or directors Luske, Sharpsteen or Hee, somebody (or everybody) had to nail down the performances or they would have been all over the map. As good as the animation is here, the animators didn't make the major contribution to the performances.

Bill Watterson on School, Work, Art and Commerce

As this is the graduation season, I'd like to point you to a commencement address that Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist Bill Watterson made to the students of his alma mater, Kenyon College, in 1990. Included are these thoughts:

It's surprising how hard we'll work when the work is done just for ourselves. And with all due respect to John Stuart Mill, maybe utilitarianism is overrated. If I've learned one thing from being a cartoonist, it's how important playing is to creativity and happiness.

and these:

I tell you all this because it's worth recognizing that there is no such thing as an overnight success. You will do well to cultivate the resources in yourself that bring you happiness outside of success or failure. The truth is, most of us discover where we are headed when we arrive. At that time, we turn around and say, yes, this is obviously where I was going all along. It's a good idea to try to enjoy the scenery on the detours, because you'll probably take a few.

Thanks to Jason Kim for posting this.

A New Animation Webzine

Flip is a new animation webzine edited by Steve Moore that's worth checking out. I recommend the interview with Nancy Beiman, author of Prepare to Board. Other articles include an autobio piece by Mike Knapp and articles on Jeff DeGrandis, Australian drive-ins, and a novel excerpt and book reviews by animation personnel. A very eclectic mix.

Good Luck Sheridan Grads

Today was Industry Day at Sheridan College, where members of studios come to view the films of the graduating animation students. Tomorrow, students will be interviewed for positions by these studios.

This is the first graduating class of the revamped Sheridan program, now a four year course instead of three. It's fair to say that the transition hasn't been a smooth one and the current grads, some of whom were my students two years ago, have suffered more than their share of bumps and bruises on the road to today. Ironically, their difficulties may make them better prepared for the peculiar world of animation production.

Best of luck to them all. Animation is a wonderful and maddening profession and I hope that the industry will provide them with the opportunity to work and grow over the coming years. We could all use better cartoons.

Animation Directors

Eddie Fitzgerald has a piece on how the job of director doesn't seem to exist anymore in TV cartoons. I would agree that's the case.

In live action, the director's job is to decide where to put the camera and to work with the actors to shape their performances. In animation, that job would entail doing the board (or at least thumbnailing it) and timing the cartoon. How many directors in animated film or TV actually do that these days?

This ties into my previous post, "Curious." The animation production pipeline that was created in the 1910's through the 1930's was not, I'm now convinced, the best possible pipeline. However, the way it evolved at Disney and spread to studios like Warners, MGM, Lantz, etc. did provide a director with the tools to control cartoons, though at the expense of the artistic freedom of the crew.

What we've got now, between fracturing production among several studios and with directors who don't direct, is the worst of the old system with none of its virtues. The crew is still handcuffed to somebody else's decisions, but those decisions are now made by people who are ignorant of why the tools were created in the first place.