From the last sentence you might already be getting the idea my experience watching God’s Not Dead wasn’t the happiest. In fact, I was visibly angry by the time the film ended. I feel sorry for my poor mother and sister who needed to hear me rant about my problems with the film the whole way back from the theater and then during the walk with the dogs afterword. To get to the core of my problem with the film I am going to need to go into some spoilers. So those who still might be wanting to go to the movie might want to check this out afterword.
As I explained in my last post I was not looking forward to this movie. From seeing both the title and the film’s trailers I had an overwhelming feeling this movie was more interested in telling us what to think then giving us something to think about. I chose to go because I didn’t want to judge the film on preconceived ideas. To the best of my ability I tried to be open to the movie being different from it’s advertisements. As the old saying goes you shouldn’t always judge a book by it’s cover. I wanted this movie to impact me like any other movie. I was interested in the basic concept of a student standing up for what he believes in even when it might mean he would be condemned. And trailers have a hard time expressing depth. They only have a few seconds to introduce characters and concepts. A two hour movie however obviously has much more time to get into character motivations and express more nuanced ideas.
This movie however left nuance at the door. All the characters were created to represent stereotypes, both of Christians and the secular world. None of them showed any depth. People who did not believe in the Christian God were all portrayed as evil; whether it be the Muslim father who beats and kicks his daughter out of the house after she claims to love Jesus or the mean boyfriend who gets angry at his girlfriend for bringing up her cancer after he tells her about his promotion. All the Christians the film concentrated on were true servants of God. Sure, there was the pastor who kept getting frustrated about his car not starting. But none of them really faltered when it came to choosing to do the right thing in the end. The character most representative of the “selfless man of God” was the main protagonist of the story Josh Wheaton.
It was clear Josh’s character particularly represented the Christian industries expectation for a good Christian youth. He did everything right in the eyes of the Christian base. He isn’t willing to put down on paper, “God is dead”. He goes to his elders for instruction. He reads the Bible and stands up to his God hating professor in class. I mean this guy doesn’t miss a beat. There is no attempt to allow the audience to understand Josh’s unwavering faith in God. There is no insight to when he became a Christian or why he feels the need to stand up for his faith except for the generic comment of, “I think God wants me to”. I call the comment generic because it is the same excuse Muslim extremists use to blow things up and kill innocent woman and children. Josh is a shell with no real personality or meaning outside his mission to convert the unbeliever. There are tones of opportunities for him to actually interact with the world around him yet he is too focused on his mission to convert to give a crap about anything else. The best example of Josh’s ignorance comes when interacting with a fellow student Martin Yip. Martin is actually the one who reaches out to Josh by asking him about why he is speaking up in class. Josh takes this as a opportunity to preach and tells Martin about how he believes in Jesus and doesn’t want to disappoint Him. I almost yelled at Josh in the theater to ask a question about who Martin was. Start up a actual conversation and maybe ask Martin what he believes. But no luck. As soon as Josh was done with his preaching he left Martin sitting at the table. The only time Josh really becomes interested in Martin is after Martin turns to Jesus at the end of the movie.
There were so many missed opportunities. This could have been an authentic look at the secular world and why at times it seems so against Christianity. Yet, after watching the movie you get an overwhelming feeling the only thing Christian media thinks they do wrong is stay quiet. The only open Christian in the movie who was portrayed in a negative light was Josh’s girlfriend who adamantly encouraged Josh not to speak up in class. Christians might point to this character as daring, but I thought of her as just shallow. The writers did everything but put a sign on her spelling out, “This is not a real Christian”. She never talks about God and always spoke about how Josh fighting his professor in class would make her look bad. She finally broke up with him because he wouldn’t sign the paper that God was dead or leave the class. Why do I or anyone else in the audience care she she left Josh? I mean there was nothing about her that was interesting or made me care. I couldn’t figure out how the morally unshakable Josh Wheaton would have hooked up with someone like his girlfriend in the first place?
The farther into the movie we went the more this movie looked like a carefully planned out propaganda film. Their mission was to keep the Christian base confident in their faith and reinforce a narrow view of the outside world. It reminded me of the countless messages I sat through in Church where in the end I was told to give my heart to Jesus and tell others about the good news. Quite literally the movie told us to tell people, “God’s Not dead”. It wanted me to text all my friends telling them God wasn’t dead as if that was going to do the trick. The frustrating things is there were tons of people who did this. As I explained in my last post I saw tons of status updates declaring God wasn’t dead. Put yourself in the secular world’s shoes. What if one of your friends had text you, “God’s dead”? How would this make you feel? Would it really make you more acceptable to thinking God’s dead? Or would it get you frustrated because you are being told bluntly something you believe is not true. For many the text “God’s Not dead” are fighting words. The text is starting a debate few Christians are interested in or prepared for. Heck, I believe there is no batter proof for how unprepared we are then this very movie.
The premise of this movie revolved around Josh’s debate with his professor about the existence of God. While the atheist professor had a board with a few atheist philosophers and scientists names on it as explanation for why the class did not need to look into the idea of there being a God, Josh had a fully realized video display, he somehow found the time to put together, to help argue his case. Each time Josh made his arguments for God’s existence this display helped guide us into feeling comfortable Josh’s arguments made sense. On the other hand while some of the first arguments the professor makes feel partly thought out it becomes more and more apparent his real problem is a personal grudge against God. There was no attempt to treat the debate fairly. In the end we see the Professor show his true colors and admit his real reasons for not allowing God in his class room was because he was angry at Him for not saving his mother from cancer. For this to be the main argument in the movie for why the secular world denies the Christian God is completely ridiculous. Yet, this philosophy seems to be picked up by more and more Christians. Most Christians I listen to seem convinced the reason the secular world denies God is because they are selfish and have a personal grudge against Him.
Movies like God’s Not Dead are why the secular world isn’t interested in the Christian God. As I said at the beginning of my post I felt I was attending God’s funeral while watching this. I just couldn’t find any substance in the movie. This film claims to be a light. Yet it is a light that holds little warmth and shows no depth. The film was an encouragement for believers to go out into the world and preach with ears plugged and eyes closed. The more Christians take on this kind of instruction the farther they will find themselves from both this world and their God they claim to love so much.
I can’t help but wonder how such a wonderfully jolly drawing could have come such a bitter man. “Bitter” might not be the best way to describe Milt Kahl, but it comes pretty close. He is considered the Michelangelo of animation. Great animators such as Ollie Johnston, Frank Thomas, and John Lounsbery went to him for advice on their animation through out their careers. Milt might be more responsible then anyone else for the classical Disney character designs; creating the final design for about eighty percent of the animated characters from Pinocchio (1940) to The Rescuers (1977).
The problem is with such talent comes a tremendous amount of ego. Kahl might be the most egotistical man I have ever studied. He considered himself the best and he said as much. He was never reluctant to give a fellow artist crap if he didn’t think they were carrying their weight. Kahl once said, “I think that the trouble with a group effort is if you work hard enough you find yourself all alone.” He found himself alone quite a lot. He claimed Walt needed him to animate a good two minutes of each one of the Disney characters in order to be given the go ahead on the films he worked on.
When working on a scene Kahl would explore everything. The old Disney veteran Floyd Norman told a story about walking by his office during the production of Sword in the Stone (1963). Kahl kept his office door open and Norman would walk by and see Milt just sitting there not drawing. He would go by a few more times in the next few hours and he would just be sitting there. Norman went on to say Milt would eventually pick up his pencil and start drawing, however the scene was already animated in Milt’s head by then. Kahl also worked out tones of different ways of going about a scene through thumb nails. He would not start actually animating until he figured out the perfect poses and the best way to tell the story. The other thing he prided himself on was not tracing over live action film. The Disney artists filmed live action for many of their scenes starting with the very first full length feature Snow White (1937). Kahl would maybe look at the reference material but never take it with him while he animated. He studied the anatomy of the human figure and animals to their essence. When it came to animating animals Disney artists needed to put personality into the characters. A rabbit like Thumper from Bambi (1942) couldn’t just act like a rabbit you would see in the woods, the rabbit needed to carry human emotions. Kahl animated Thumper the rabbit like a child you would see in your local grocery store.
Milt Kahl could simply do things nobody else could do. His hard edged personality didn’t stop him from creating some of the most loveable characters in Disney animation. The lawyer in Aristocats is one of those memorable characters. His dance with Madame Adelaide is one of the best scenes in the movie. He has the fragile look of a eighty year old yet the vigorous spirit of a man in his prime. Look at the superior draftsmanship. Every line seems to be perfectly placed. There is hardly any clean up needed. Above is a copy of a drawing Kahl did. His assistance made copies before they cleaned up the drawings because Kahl was extremely critical on how his artists “interfered” with his animation. If you erase the wrong line you could lose the essence of the drawing or the pose could become much weaker.
Later on in his career Kahl said, “I got accused over the years of being a fine draftsman. Actually I don’t really draw that well. It’s just I don’t stop trying as quickly. I keep at it. I happen to have high standards and try to meet them. I have to struggle like hell to make a drawing look good.” It is so easy to look at Milt Kahl’s work and not think about the blood, sweat, and tears that went into it. His poses just seem to always be in the right place and there really are few wasted lines. Yet, I can’t help but think Milt Kahl became the best at his art-form because he spent more time doing the research, working on the scene, and thinking about the perfect movement then anyone else. He really is a wonderful artists and his work will last much longer then any ego.
Here is the animation to the little dance move the lawyer makes. Though it is just a few seconds of animation it takes several days and superb skill to bring this kind of stuff to life. The twist in perspective when the lawyer does his turn is just AMAZING. It is something few artists were capable or cared to do. However, Disney artists like Milt wanted to create depth in their animation so they went the extra mile to animate in tougher perspectives so their animation could pop. Add onto that Kahl’s ability to keep a form grasp on the Lawyer’s personality – even the small moment where it looks like he might not keep his balance – and you have something that just can’t be improved upon. This is an example of someone who has complete control over his art-form.
Here are a series of shots from a scene in the movie Never Let Me Go (2010) I wanted to critique. Kathy, our protagonist, just over-heard her closest friend, Ruth, and the boy she loves, Tommy, having sex and and chose to listen to a piece of music to take her mind off of what what is going on. The thing is she is listening to music Tommy gave her so we know her mind is still on Tommy. Her body language says a lot as well. She is almost hugging the tape recorder as if she wishes the take she is playing was Tommy himself. Notice how cinematographer Adam Kimmel and director Mark Romanek frame Kathy. They are using the rule of thirds, placing her eye line just at the top left third of the frame. This is known as an effective harmonizing way to frame a character. Usually the face is the center focus of a picture. If Kathy’s head was too high or there was a lot of empty space at the top of the frame the audience would be thrown off because the image wouldn’t feel balanced. Her face is lit with a nice warm light from the right. Though it is a dark scene we get the sense of peace and calmness Kathy must feel listening to Tommy’s song. Kathy opens her eyes and we cut to this next image.
Talk about a haunting image. This is Kathy’s friend Ruth standing in the doorway. Right away the eyes is thrown off because the director and cinematographer go against the rule of thirds and place Ruth’s head at the very top and too far toward the middle of frame. Yet the eyes do instantly go to Ruth. The doorway is a great framing device and the top of the dresser and the wall frames direct our eyes to her position. The filmmakers hide Ruth’s face which throws us off even more because we can’t get a good read on her emotions. The wallpaper to the right and shambled looking robe Ruth is wearing only adds to the dark mood. From this image we can tell Ruth isn’t here to befriend Kathy. She is like a dark spirit from nightmare. Lets fast forward a few shots.
Ruth has begun to talk to Kathy about how she will never be with Tommy. She is hurting Kathy at her core and the imagery reflects as much. Again the filmmakers put Kathy’s face in a much more balanced place then Ruth’s. Ruth’s face is completely in shadow and her head partly cut off at the top of the frame. The filmmakers are not afraid to work with darkness. The focus point of the image is Kathy’s eye. The light hits it just right. The eyes are the mirrors of the soul and we sense the effect Ruth’s cruel words have on Kathy emotionally. The only real color shown in the frame comes from the green wallpaper. The green compliments the toxic words spouting from Ruth’s mouth.
The filmmakers cut to this shot while Ruth is still in frame. They get closer and closer as Ruth’s words become more and more painful. But we linger on Kathy after Ruth leaves. The darkness surrounds Kathy more then ever now. We can see the effect Ruth has had on her. Again Kathy’s eyes are able to say so much. She has been completely destroyed with Ruth’s monologue.
These represent a very effective set of imagery and the music and dialogue only enhance the scene. It is a good study on the effectiveness of limiting the lighting in the scene. As good as the production might have been we don’t need to see all of it. Our eyes are allowed to focus on the important parts because the other areas are shaded. This is the darkest scene dramatically in the movie. Kimmel and Romanek want to express the darkness visually and in every shot they do so.
(Visiuals courtesy of EVEN E RICHARDS)
Slumdog Millionaire is completely full of fantastic imagery. However, I thought I would concentrate on this one because it is quite literally the only time Danny Boyle chooses to dwell on a moment and freeze the frame.
There are a few things about the Cinematographer, Anthony Dod Mantle, you might find interesting. First off Mantle was one of the first to start experimenting with digital filmmaking in Hollywood. He took on digital filmmaking in the 1990′s, far before it was a popular choice. He even said he resided himself to never get nominated or win an award for cinematography because the media industry was so against digital filmmaking at the time. Some big Hollywood names still refuse to got to digital (Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, and Joe Wright to name a few).
Lucky for Mantle there were two filmmakers who jumped the boat quickly in terms of digital filmmaking; one was Lars von Trier and the other Danny Boyle. After his huge flop, The Beach (2001), Boyle was looking for something to reinvigorate him in terms of filmmaking. He began to look into digital film. He sought out Mantle and they have since become one of the greatest collaborators in the film industry. The point and shoot quality that comes with digital filmmaking was perfect for Boyle’s loose ‘shoot on the go’ style of storytelling. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) was the perfect kind of subject matter for both Boyle and Mantle to exhibit their skills they had been developing since they first shot together on the movie 28 Days Later (2002).
With this shot particularly we see how the quality of digital film has advanced since the 1990′s. There is no grain in the picture and the colors are extremely vibrant. The title is introducing us to the world of the movie. Even though the boy you see is not the main character Jamal, he is representing him symbolically. Jamal is in fact the “Slumdog Millionaire”. However not everything in the frame is supposed to represent Jamal. The yellow you see actually represents Latika, the girl Jamal falls in love with. I think the yellow sun represents her spirit and the yellow font suggests she will end up falling in love with the “Slumdog”. If you don’t believe me in terms of the color, just look at the color of Latika’s dress when Jamal has his flash backs of her at the train station. Or look at the scarf she is wearing at the very end of the movie. Already the two characters are being connected symbolically. The last thing I want to highlight is the action. Even though this is actually a still image in the movie, it does imply action by having the boy be in the process of throwing the ball. This is an action film in the purest sense of the word. Almost all the narrative and characters emotions are communicated through their actions rather then duologue. From here on Boyle will be going a hundred miles an hour and rely on the audience to keep up. It is one wonderful ride.
Oh ya, I almost forgot. One of the greatest trivia facts about Slumdog Millionaire is it was the first time a digital film won best Cinematography at the Academy Awards. Congrats Anthony Dod Mantle!
I must say I do not like using long titles. But this title I believe is very much needed to let you know what this post is about. The reality is I am not an animator. I really don’t plan on becoming one. Even though I am one of animations greatest fans I just don’t think I have the talent to bring drawings or models in a computer to life. Animating is truly one of the greatest magic tricks out there. To fool someone into thinking several drawings flashed in-front of you can create the illusion of movement, and at times life, leaves me speechless. I truly have no words for the wonder it creates in me. As the great animator Richard Williams once said, “I picked the most expensive medium that takes the longest time that you [could pick]. And the reward is you can play God. You can do anything you like with it. You have total control of all the elements.”. This is what makes animation so intoxicating. The medium’s only limits are of ones imagination.
The lesson I wanted to give is really only a retelling of a lesson I heard from an artist who actually did animation. I was listening to The iAnimate Podcast – A podcast that interviews animation artists who work in the film industry – and they were interviewing the Dreamworks animator Tal Shwarzman (check out his blog here). He brought up a frustration he had with the animation he is seeing from many of the young animators today. He claimed young animators are becoming really good at moving stuff around but are not putting any personality or uniqueness into their work. He said, “Everything kind of looks the same”, which I would say is the ultimate slight an animator could give to his peers. The problem is I agree with Shwarzman. I have not seen anywhere close to as many animation show reels as Shwarzman but in the animation on TV and in many feature films I see less individuality. With the development of technology animation is able to do more then ever before, yet rarely do you see a scene that rivals the works of great animators of the past, like Bill Tyltla or Milt Kahl.
What is the special ingredient so many animators seem to be missing today? Honestly there is no one answer. But the interviewers from iAnimate brought up the story of Ollie Johnston telling his pupil Glen Keane a piece of Rapunzel animation he showed him looked well processed but didn’t really entertain him. Now you should know Ollie Johnston was an animator from the 1930′s and worked characters such as Pinocchio, Thumper, and Baloo. Glen Keane had been the lead animator for characters such as Ariel and The Beast. However, the interviewers sort of left the story there. I don’t know if they knew about what Ollie Johnston really told Glen Kean. However, I know what he said and believe it is one of the greatest pieces of advice an animator could be given.
During the production of Tangled Ollie Johnston was in his nineties. He was not in good health and his best friend, Frank Thomas, who had worked with him through out his long forty plus year career at Disney had already passed away. Glen Keane was mentored by Ollie Johnston when he first joined the studio in the late 1970′s. Now in the mid 2000′s he had been developing the movie Rapunzel (which would eventually be changed to Tangled). At this time Ollie was in very frail condition. He could no longer walk and had lost his ability to draw. His old apprentice needed to take him in a wheelchair back to the animation studios. Keane showed some of the things they had been developing to his old mentor. He talked about how excited he was with the benefits of working with computer generated animation. He pointed out the way the computer calculated Rapunzel’s freckles so they would stay on her face no matter where she was moved. He showed Ollie how well the animation worked in three dimensions and showed him how the computer could capture the smallest details in movement and texture. He showed Ollie Johnston several well executed pieces of animation and was excited about seeing his old mentor’s reaction. You can only imagine Keane’s surprise when he looked over and Ollie didn’t seem to be entertained by what he was shown. Maybe it was because Ollie was old and senile. Maybe it was because Ollie wasn’t up with the times. Eventually Keane asked what was wrong. The old animator whispered, “What is she thinking?”
Of course with all the excitement for this new form of animation Glen Keane forgot one of his teacher’s greatest lessons. He was so entranced by what was possible on the outside he forgot to care about what was happening on the inside. The illusion of life is only created in a piece of animation if you believe the character can think and feel. The beauty of the movement or the clarity of the world means nothing if the characters don’t have any inner life. Go back and watch the animation of Thumper repeating the lessons he was given from his farther, Pinocchio trying to explain how he got into Stromboli’s cage to the Blue Fairy, or when Baloo realizes he needs to take Mowgli back to the man village. The movements in those scenes are usually subtle yet speak volumes about the characters. When listening to animators like Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston talk about the characters they animated in the past they don’t describe them as drawings. They describe them as children who took on a life of their own when the animator finished animating them. As important as squash and stretch, timing, staging, anticipation, overlap action, and the other principles of animation are, what is most important in creating the ultimate illusion of life is the belief your character is alive.
This drawing comes from the artist Ken Anderson, one of Walt’s most loyal artists. He worked for Walt from the 1934 short Goddess of the Spring all the way to the day Walt died just before the release of The Jungle Book (1967). It really is amazing seeing Ken talk about Walt, the devotion he had to that man was just astonishing. He said, “I wanted to be close to Walt, because Walt was where things started”. Walt drove creativity and thus many people were driven to work along side him and get involved with his passions, even if this meant coming in on weekends or working to the late hours of the night.
Anderson came to Disney as a student of architecture. Walt called him a man of all trades. Indeed, through out his career Anderson worked as a writer, architect, animator, character designer, and art director for Disney. Anderson was one of the first people to help Walt plan out Disneyland and work on some of the attractions, far before anyone thought Disneyland could be made. Anderson said he did not just want to work in animation. His contributions are seen everywhere in Disney’s history – live action film, animation, Disneyland, and Walt Disney World – however, the place he was given the most responsibility in was 1961′s 101 Dalmations.
Anderson was both the art director and production designer for 101 Dalmations. The movie represented the first time Disney Animation used what was called a Xerox process. This allowed the artists to bypass inking and painting the animation cells for the final picture. What this meant is you would see the actual line drawings projected on the screen rather then drawings painted over. The main reason for this change was to bring down the budget. And though there were a lot of people who lost their jobs because of it Ken Anderson tried very hard to embrace the new style. The new style of animation actually went well with Ken’s style of drawings. There is a sketch quality to almost all of Ken’s art. In the drawing above he embraces the business of the line and throws us into an extremely lush detailed world.
Walt did not like Anderson’s design of 101 Dalmatians however. The fact Walt didn’t like it greatly distressed Anderson. In fact soon after Anderson suffered a severe stroke. When listening to Anderson talk about Walt’s disapproval you don’t get a sense he thought Walt just didn’t understand, you get the sense Anderson felt like he failed Walt. I don’t know if I should be in aw of or concerned with someone who has such power over a follower. Yet, this is the very power Walt held over many of his artists through out his career. Anderson did talk about seeing Walt during the making of The Jungle Book. He along with many other artists remember that last day Walt came to visit the studio. They remember it because Walt wasn’t interested in talking about any projects with the boys. All he seemed to do was look around a little bit and see how the artists were doing. Anderson said when he met Walt that day, two weeks before he passed away, Walt brought up 101 Dalmatians. He said, “You know that thing you did on Dalmatians”. And that’s all he said, but Anderson felt like Walt forgave him right then and there and Walt thought maybe Dalmatians wasn’t that bad of a movie.
Well of course 101 Dalmatians wasn’t a bad movie. Sometimes even Walt Disney had a hard time understanding or accepting good art. Look at the atmosphere Anderson is able to create with the design of the apartment. He happens to be a talented character designer as well so Pongo and Roger are well characterized; Pongo with his restless pose climbing the chair and Roger with the posture of a man deep in thought. Instead of the busyness detracting us I believe it allows the eye to drift toward the center part of the picture and concentrate on the characters. However, this is not an art piece meant for the public to see. Anderson probably never thought any of his art was going to be acknowledged thirty plus years after he died. What he is doing here is exploring. He wants to see how much detail will add to the scene and how much is too much. This I believe is a little too much. But it sure is rich with interesting stuff; like the music notes tied to the center light, the stacked dishes on top of stacked books, or the clock being caricatured like a human head because of the hat. This drawing really just shows a portion of Ken Anderson’s talent and hopefully I will be able to post more of his stuff in the future.
Whether you were put off by the less then par writing or didn’t really like the oversimplified plot, it is undeniable Gravity was one of the best looking movies to come out last year. Every frame is beautiful and even 3D haters needed to say the movie worked well in the questionable format. Gravity represents the continueation of the collabortation between Emmanuel Lubezki and Alfonso Cuarón who have been working together since collage. Indeed, Gravity represents the third time Lubezki has been nominated for best cinematography for a Cuarón picture (the other two being A Little Princess (1995) and Children of Men (2006)).
After the critical and personal failure of their movie Great Expectations (1998) Cuarón and Lubezki chose to go with a new more gritty style of filmmaking for their next film, Y Tu Mamá También, and have stayed with that style ever since. The signature piece of this new style is the long shot. For this movie and Children of Men Lubezki and Cuarón have gone minutes at a time without any clear cuts. Cuarón has said he does this because he wants to have the audience inhabit the world and get lost in it. The cut has the tendency to release tension and distance the audience from the action of the movie. So with Gravity Cuarón chose to start the movie out with a twelve minute opening shot. In this shot we are sucked into Cuarón’s world and even at one time given the main character Ryan Stone’s point of view. These long shots were never meant to be showy. Lubezki said he didn’t want to do them in order for people to be impressed. In fact, if they were doing their job right nobody would know how long the shots were they would just be completely consumed in the story.
The shot you see above represents the key theme of Gravity, rebirth. In the movie Ryan is forced to learn how to let go of her past so she can embrace her future. This shot is made during the transition into the second part of the second act of the story and represents exactly where Ryan is at. She is in the process of being reborn. She has been forced to literally let go of her securities and take on the rest of her journey by herself. There is a lot of journey still to go and a lot of growth she needs to go through. I love every aspect of this shot. Lubezki and Cuarón center Ryan in the middle of the frame. She takes on the fetal position and you even have the tubes representing the umbilical cord. The ship represents the womb and you can see the outside world eliminating the heart of the frame and directing the eye to it’s center. The round door frames Ryan’s character and creates a sense of harmony. This shot allows for a the audience to have a short rest before we are thrown into the next part of the story.
Gravity is a truly explosive film made to be experienced in the theater. If you watch it on DVD or blu-ray I suggest you find as good of a viewing experience as possible. I also believe after six nominations this will be the movie that gives Lubezki his first Oscar for best cinematography.
This is a drawing from the great storyboard artist Bill Peet. He is considered by many to be the greatest to ever live. In all honesty he is a storyboard artist from a time long past. With most features today you don’t see this kind of detail, composition, and character work in storyboards. Most storyboard artists in animation still try to express character and work with composition, but they need to make literally hundreds of drawings to complete their scenes. Because the director wants to see more detailed action from the storyboard artist they do not have as much time to work on the fine detail of any one drawing. In the 1930′s and 40′s, when Bill Peet came to Disney, storyboard artists just drew a few dozen drawings for an average scene.
Bill Peet believed in telling stories through visuals. Walt saw Peet’s talents early one. He sent Peet to the story department for Pinocchio (1941) and he mostly stayed there until his work for The Jungle Book was denied by Walt for a lighter version of the story in 1964. Walt and Peet had fights through out their careers. Peet considered himself one of the only people who actually was willing to stand up to Disney. In the mid fifties through the sixties Peet began to grow concerned that Walt wasn’t as in tune with animation because of all the other things on his plate (Walt was in the middle of creating Disneyland and developing live action movies and television shows). I believe Walt also understood he was growing busy because he gave Peet more authority over his stories. 101 Dalmatians (1961) and Sword in the Stone (1963) movies were story boarded entirely by Bill Peet, a feat unheard of in today’s animation world.
Peet claimed Walt always saw storyboard artists like him as expendable while over idolizing the great animators at Disney. Some say Walt did this because he knew how to tell stories but could not animate worth a darn. I do believe Walt was the best storyteller in the Disney studios, but I don’t agree with Peet when he suggests Walt didn’t value his talent. I understood just how much Peet was valued by Walt when I learned about Peet participating in the 1941 Disney strike. Whether it was justified or not Walt considered all the people who participated in the strike traitors of his generosity and friendship. None of the big animators who participated in the strike continued to work for Disney. Walt even named some of the lead strikers at the House of Un-American Activities Committee when he was called as a friendly witness. The strike hit Disney hard and he was never the same afterword. However, for Walt to accept Bill Peet into the studio after the striker suggest he had a tremendous respect for his storytelling abilities. To have Bill Peet constantly confront Walt and Walt resist firing him also suggest a respect.
In terms of this feature Song of the South, Bill Peet was given the time to develop each drawing. He was allowed to make every one of his storyboard drawings be an inspiration for the character designers, layout artists, and animators work. Look at the way Peet captures these characters personalities. The action is clearly expressed. The world feels completely formed. Even though this is a simplistic pastel drawing, it feels much more detailed. Peet drawings in a way that allows the imagination to fill in the rest of the action. He doesn’t direct the animation by giving a pose for each second of movement but rather inspires the animator to find a movement that best fits the feeling you get from looking at the drawing for the first time. This shows Bill Peet at his most playful and the final animation for the film is just as inspired.
This is from one of the very first Mickey mouse cartoons and it comes from the original drawer of Mickey Mouse, Ub Iwerks. Contrary to common belief it was not Walt Disney who originally created the design of Mickey. In fact Walt wasn’t really ever good at drawing Mickey. Frankly he wasn’t a good draftsmen in general. Ub wasn’t the greatest artist either, but he was a magnificent animator for his time. During the making of this movie (1928) a sign of a great animator was not about draftsmanship, squash and stretch, timing, or character development, it was about speed and gags. In animation’s history there might not have been a faster animator then Ub Iwerks. He literally animated the first two Mickey Mouse shorts (Plane Crazy and Steamboat Willie) by himself, during his off time. This was unheard of for the time and is considered almost impossible to do today. However, because he created a simple enough design Iwerks was able to work with Walt and their wives on finishing the first Mickey mouse short “Plane Crazy” right after Walt was released from obligations from Universal Pictures for the cartoons of “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit”.
“Plane Crazy” was not a success but the next short “Steamboat Willie” completely revolutionized the animation industry. The key ingredient, you ask? SOUND! Walt Disney and his now small creative team dubbed the Mickey short with all kinds of fun sound effects which brought life to both Mickey and the many gags in the short.
This drawing might not seem very special to you. However, I think you can find substance in the simplicity of the design. When you break down animation to simple designs like this, it feels like anyone is capable of doing it. The action is very well placed. We know exactly what is going on; the protagonist and antagonist are clearly understood and gag is clearly staged. This is one of the drawings that started it all and for that I can’t help but admire it.