To start things off here's a film by Estonian animator Priit Parn that combines traditional drawn animation with cutouts (how nice for us who just studied the subject) ...(and btw watch out it's one big sexual innuendo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMYjDg93kQQ
The Triangle - Priit Parn, 1982, running time:15min.
And here's an odd one by Disney (because I can)--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dIznsAdTOE
Destino - Directed by: Dominique Monfery for Disney (originally Disney/Dali 1946 collaboration). 2003, running time: 6:32 min
I think the issue here is hybridity - the first what with the nice combo of cutouts and drawings and then the latter with the CG/drawings. The Parn one is...so strange, I wouldn't have posted it if it didn't have cutouts; the fluidity of the transitions is so very impressive, the whole piece moves beautifully while expressing the artist's personal scraggly style. I know the subject matter was weird (yes beware of little brown men who live in your stove) but the constant deluge of metaphors really adds to the work depth-wise; it's fascinating because it's unexpected when it happens (her cutout lips and eyes falling into the meat grinder she's using - she turns them in ground beef - is this expected? No. Is this supposed to be sexual? I don't know, but it is now)
I didn't know Disney and Dali were ever in on a film - but it didn't get completed till much later -- my decision to post Destino was due to the novelty of Disney acting strange, but I also thought you all would enjoy it. While it is unconventional for where it is coming from, it doesn't depart completely from studio traditions - character movement and expressions as well as the animation's appearance (fluidity, smoothness - it's akin to what their contemporary films look like) - I stated before that this is a hybrid of traditional and digital, it's so damn smooth I'd want to peg it as CG dominant - but no, it is actually mainly drawings (with 17 sec. of original footage from its conception).
Well, I hate to be a spoilsport, as good as the film is, I don't like the digital/traditional hybrid (or at least the Disney methods of using it) -- it's just too smooth...their animation is already too smooth and perfect and now... - maybe the digital had trouble integrating (they're on two different levels); it just stood out too unnaturally (was 2003 so long ago - maybe the tech is better now, well regardless we've come a long way from Aladdin CG, everything is digitally involved)...I digress, it's not a bad film, I'm just nostalgic for the days when Disney animation wasn't so flawless...and shiny (okay, okay - so the shininess in this case was a stylistic choice but still...)
Anyways - thoughts on hybrids?
The first video is pretty out there for me. I thought the juxtaposition of cut-outs onto the hand drawn images worked well, it was unexpected and created contrast. However, I found the sound to be really annoying. The repetition of names, while I'm sure there's some sort of underlying thing I'm missing, was just too much for me with the strange music. I thought that there needed to be more frames as well. Seemed like it was quite drawn out. There were a lot of strange things occurring, and I almost wish the artist would have pushed that further because it seems out of place.
ReplyDeleteI just want to start off by saying that both of videos were rather interesting. I usually don't like watching long videos because they both contained characters and a narrative was probably what got me to stick around till the end.
ReplyDeleteThe first one I rather enjoyed surprisingly. I agree with Jennifer I was a little bothered by the audio, it just reminded me of Pokemon who only make grunts noises and say their names. But after a while it began to just be background sound and you focussed on what was happening. It wasn't until you heard different inflections in how they said one another name that you begin to listen carefully. And even though it was just names their inflections expressed what was going on and the state of the character.
I love the second video only because I'm a fan of Dali and his influence is very apparent. I agree with you with the hybrid but that's just Disney I guess. The combination of the artist is so interesting to me! And this video is obvious of their signature.
Well that was... interesting. Felt like I was watching some bad anime for the first one where they couldn't get voice actors nor someone who could draw consistently.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that oddity did get me to pay more attention to things like their looks for times of calling out each other’s names and the tone used for each call. Still can’t shake my general feeling of "what in the world did I just watch?" though.
The second one though defiantly had me guessing that Disney was involved just by watching it. as you've said their characteristic smooth animation was overly apparent and the CGI stood out (still does in 2D animations regardless of the studio) but i never knew that Disney got involved in things that don't rake in billions of dalliers. However despite the uneasy ness I get when they started meshing all of the 3D with the 2D, it was a very enjoyable video to behold and quite interesting.
I have always been a little fascinated with the idea of a moving picture, not video. (If its good as a still image, how much better would it be with time added?) This video was a great example of taking a painting and adding time or a sort of life to it which kept me intrigued threw its long run time.
Just as a note to your thing on Disney animation. i do too miss the days when every 2D animation was actually 2D animation and not some 3d model they spun around. The 3D work in every single 2D movie, show, or video I’ve ever watched stood out like a giant marker saying "were too lazy to do this right". Oh well, I know why they do it, I just wish they would mask it better. It’s the imperfections of 2D animation that give it its warmth, not the lack thereof.