Process Makes Perfect

I'm going to be lazy and post something we wrote up a few years ago to help clients understand how animation works.  This was prepared specific to an anime styled project, but the essentials are the same.

Feel free to use it (with proper credits).

***********

New technologies give us a lot of flexibility compared to ten years ago, but ultimately, animation is the same production process as it was for Daffy Duck or Popeye.

In this case, it’ll be closer to Astroboy or Star Blazers –but the idea is the same. 

Here are the key steps to the process and what to look for at each point.

Script

Everything stems from this.  Any jokes that need tweaking, or characters changed around, or locations altered –this is the place to do it.

There’s always some flexibility with this up until the voice record –which happens before animation begins –but once the track is laid down, any alteration to dialogue involves additional time for talent, audio facilities, voice direction, video edit, and depending on how far into production we are, animators, inbetweeners, trace and painters and compositors.

Storyboard

The storyboard will represent the final film in single frame, black and white drawings.

Here we look for narrative continuity, dynamics, general framing and camera position, shot sequencing and visual pacing.

Along with the storyboard, an “animatic” or “leica reel” is created.  This is a simple edit of the single drawings against the voice track.

Character Designs

Character design is a bit like casting for type.  The look of the character is defined.  At this point we’ll work up several poses of each character.  Here is where art direction and knowledge of the medium are critical.  The character designer anticipates how the illustration will work in motion and in the context of the narrative environment. 

Once we go into production, any changes to design will lead to substantial work.  Further, design revisions after this phase invariably compromise the final quality of the picture.

Animation

Traditionally, a drawn animation will have a “pencil test” which serves as a full, sort-of, rough cut.  The pencil is line drawing of animation, often double-exposed onto a background.  It shows the acting performance of an animated character.

Understanding a pencil test is a learned skill.  Most people can’t look at one and make intelligent comments without examining the film for a prolonged period.

Pencil tests have come to be a luxury, as drawn animation is difficult to produce on 21^st Century budgets.

Nevertheless, we do create motion tests throughout production.  Considering the simple nature of this animation style, and the necessity to create much of this work digitally many of these motion tests will be in color.

At this point, it is sort of like a rough cut and “good” take in live action.  Some acting changes can be made –along the lines of “is there a better read of that line?”.  Different angles, additional shots, and other changes are the equivalent of calling a re-shoot in live action.  It’s possible, but just like a re-shoot in live action, it requires a great expense of resources.

Rough Cut

By the time the rough cut comes around in animation all the creative decisions have been made.  This is a point for fine tuning of edits/transitions/special effects.

What can be done at this point is the same as what you can do in a live action edit when there is no possibility of re-shooting.

Where They Never Heard of Wild Things

In the spring of 1998 we got a call at The Ink Tank from a U. S. agency that served as an intermediary between Japanese advertising agencies and American production companies.

A Japanese beer was launching a new brand and were planning an animated advertising campaign to go with it.

We were asked to work up some designs.  I think they gave us something like $1500.

The concept was this beer was an ancient recipe passed on by Germanic "master brewers".

Maciek Albrecht worked up some characters, some one else I don't remember, but we wanted to come up with the best pitch possible.

R. O. Blechman was in Florida at the time, visiting his mother.  I go over the prospectus with him over the phone.

He says, "We should get Maurice Sendak to do it."

"You think he will," I replied. "I didn't think he did advertising."

"Even Woody Allen does commercials in Japan."

So I flip through the rolodex and dial up the Connecticut phone number.

I should note here that "Where The Wild Things Are" was not an important book to me.  In fact, I never even heard of it until Tasca Shadix tossed it at me in 1993 during a collegiate visit to Austin.

"Really Rosie", on the other hand, was a film that did have an impact on my young psyche.

More than anything that was likely due to the terrific soundtrack by Carol King.

I'm thinking of starting a "Twitter" account so I can "Tweet" while listening to "Tapestry"

Back to the telephone.

Maurice Sendak, for those who don't know, had his signature reproduced on the Brooklyn Public Library Card.  Him Walt Whitman, and two people I don't remember.  Maybe Marianne Moore.

He's also a giant amongst illustrators.  His mechanics are beyond comparison and his ability to convey emotion in his drawings is practically magic.

So I was a little taken aback when he answered his own phone.  Even more when the "voice of god" was disturbing similar to an old Jewish guy from Flatbush.

I laid out the job for him.  Told him the whole scope of the project, what his contribution would entail, how we would staff the production (promising him Ed Smith who did a phenomenal job 20 years earlier with a drawing of Sendak's for "Simple Gifts").

He hemmed and hawed.  "I'm busy designing sets for Julliard".

"Oh, what production?"  Smoozing.

"Hansel and Gretl."

"The Humperdinck," my salemanship was in full force -naming checking 19th Century operas on the beat, "That's a great piece.  I'd love to see what you do."

And round robin for the next few minutes.  He would think about it.

Then he called back.  "I'm sorry, I'm just too busy."

Deflation.  I phoned R. O. in Florida.

"Bob, Sendak doesn't want to do it.  I've tried everything I know.  He's just not interested."

"Give me his number, I'll talk to him."

Five minutes later, R. O. calls back: "Maurice will send something FedEx in the morning.  It'll just be line work though."

10 am, FedEx rolls in.  He didn't deliver what he said.  He claimed he would do a line drawing of the main character and that was it.

In the package were four pages of full watercolors.  Beautiful, beautiful illustrations.  The character in nearly two dozen poses.  And the character, to us, was perfect.

We scan them, and send the disk to our client.   This was the age of dial up 56 baud modems and sending 5 MB worth of files to Japan was still a bit of a trick.

A couple days later I ring up our client.  "What's up, I thought we had a great presentation.  Is there a problem?"

He then confessed that another studio presented nearly 30 designs.

"So," I was a little snippy, "we've given you Maurice Sendak.  You can go through one hundred illustrations and not even get close."

He then dropped one of my favorite sentences ever, the one line which could deflate our well constructed pitch: "The client in Japan never heard of Maurice Sendak, and frankly, they just thought his drawings were weird."

February 1991 Animation is Acting

Here are notes from two of Tissa David's lectures in February of 1991.

Below she goes over some basics (isn't that all there is?).

Stretch (as long as the volume remains the same).

Motion in arcs are important to flowing animation.

Action should be in the clear and very visible.

Don't do two actions at the same time.

Map out a diagram before animating.

Notes on a treadmill walk (walking in place while the background pans), along with notes on a horse's tail.

 

 

Has 'Sesame Street' Really Done Any Good?

As you've probably heard, Sesame Street is celebrating it's 40th Anniversary this week.

While the program's impact on education has been debated, it's influence on animation can not be contested.

Here's an article from an October 1976 "TV Guide" entitled "Has Sesame Street Really Done Any Good?"

A title like that is why I love language. Can there be any other answer than "Of course not! Harumph!"?

Great illustration!

 

On this last page Joan Ganz Cooney makes a few terrific statements. Here's the pull from the article:

"There have been other proposals that the show be made 'more black', showing a ghetto street as it actually is and helping children cope with the horrors and hazards of their actual lives. 'That would be something called The Poor Children's Hour,' says Mrs. Cooney. 'If someone wants to produce that, fine. I think they'd get maybe five viewers in a city. I think ghetto children have enough of the reality of their neighborhoods. They out to see what a better world might look like.'"

TV Guide, not surprisingly, looks to television to educate children. Clearly that's foolish. What Sesame Street offers is television which, at the very least, doesn't make you dumber.

Fire

Here are some color models for The Buddha.

This is for a sequence based on Buddha's "Fire Sermon". It's sort of like the Christian "Sermon on the Mount", but instead of a litany of "blessed are's" we're given a list of thing which are ablaze.

Everything, it turns out, is in flames.



Even the oceans. Everything you see, hear, smell, touch or think is on fire.

This sequence is mostly animated by Ed Smith. It's a far cry from "Moonbird".

Then again, not too far, I hope.

Aragones on Animation

We're doing a series of short films for The Sundance Channel which use footage of Sergio Aragones and Al Jaffee which was shot last year.

This clip won't be included in any of the segments.  He talks a little about the animation he has worked on and the different process compared to comics and cartoons.







I couldn't find any of the "Laugh In" segments he referenced, but if we can dig them up I'll post them.

The Worst Book About Animation Ever

Not to sound too full of complaints, because really, who needs it?

We just got in "Historical Dictionary of: Animation and Cartoons" by Nichola Dobson, part of a series edited by Jon Woronoff for Scarecrow entiled "Historical Dictionaries of Literature and the Arts."

Other volumes include "American Radio Soap Operas", "Japanese Traditional Theater", and "Sacred Music".  In this light  "Animation" is a broad subject.  I'm glad the editor understood the value of the field's inclusion.  The value of this volume, however, is minimal.

It's a sad waste of a possibility.  Even worse than no volume at all.

Whenever I look I look at an animation history book, I flip to the index and look for "Tissa David", I'll then look for "Blechman".  Maybe it's West Coast centric, so I'll see what they say about "Bob Kurtz" or "Fred Wolf" or "Bill Littlejohn".  OK, what insights or information do they have on "Frederic Back"?  How about "Harry Smith"?

How about "none"?  Not even "Bill Melendez".  Not even -I shit you not- "Richard Williams".

This book references none of them -and more!

It's a dictionary, insight isn't required.  Just a simple: Fierlinger, Paul (1936 - ) director of numerous independent and commercial shorts including "Teeny Little Super Guy" for CTW, "Amby & Dexter" for Nickelodeon and "Drawn From Life" of Oxygen.  He is best know for his longer films including "Drawn From Memory", "Still Life With Animated Dogs", "A Room Nearby", and "My Dog Tulip." These are marked by strong narration, often by the animator himself, and deep personal revelations.

There.  Was that so hard?  No.  I did it in two minutes while talking on the phone.

Quizzically, there is an entry for J. J. Sedelmaier Productions.  Good for him, I know he works hard to get his name out there.  But there's no Curious Pictures, no Passion, no Filmteknarna nor Jonas Odell, no Duck Soup, no Wildbrain nor Colossal.

Does this same series' "Historical Dictionary of African American Theater" exclude Ntozake Shange, Derek Walcott, August Wilson or Suzan-Lori Parks in favor of page after page of Al Jolson and blackface "mammy" shows?   Why, then, would the volume on animation  -ANIMATION AS ART - exclude dozens of men and women responsible for making this craft an art in favor of entries on Trey Parker and Matt Stone (who's work I love), The Muppet Show, and Jonny Quest?

Yet no Suzan Pitt, no John Canemaker, no William Kentridge.

Nichola Dobson's "Historical Dictionary of Animation and Cartoons" is a terrible and insulting book.  A wretched, horrible waste of time.  If you come across it in a bookstore, bring it to manager and tell them to ship it back to the publisher.  The world would be better if it was never published.

I'm often reminded of the Winsor McCay (he made the book!) quote "Animation is an art.  That is how I conceived it.  But as I see what you fellows have done with it is making it into a trade.  Not an art, but a trade -bad luck."  Dictionaries and histories like this will forever relegate the technique of animation to a second rate pornography for children in the eyes of the public.