Mr. C & the CG version of the Supermarket Stare 1
In an interview with Ward Jenkins, Oscar winner John Canemaker offered the following quote:
"John: I’m biased, of course, toward drawing, but it does seem to me the more layers of “reality” you strip away in animation, the more soul is revealed. It’s a paradox. When ultra-real CGI goes in for extreme close-ups of fuzzy animals, I start to count the hairs on their fur. And that distracts me from the narrative. Story is the most important element of the process, not the tools used to tell it, and...well, now I‘m getting away from the story I was telling you."
I'm not going to jump on my computer-generated high horse over this - there's no need. If I did that every time I would soon get some sort of repetitive strain injury and besides, all opinions are valid here at RedVan Enterprises Inc. With that said, I am curious as to why any viewer would react to digitally-made imagery this way. After all, we see live-action close-ups all the time in film and television, so what is it that is throwing Mr. Canemaker (and others) out of the animated world of the CG picture? Is it the computer-made equivalent of the "Supermarket Stare" we all get when out shopping? Is it just preference or signature style?
There also seems be a little contradiction in John's last couple of sentences, but I wanted to put this up before offering some thoughts on anything. That'll come in a subsequent post.
...
PS. Go and read Ward's interview about the Oscar stuff - it's really interesting. (Part 2 has the above quote, just so ya know).
There also seems be a little contradiction in John's last couple of sentences, but I wanted to put this up before offering some thoughts on anything. That'll come in a subsequent post.
...
PS. Go and read Ward's interview about the Oscar stuff - it's really interesting. (Part 2 has the above quote, just so ya know).
posted by Kevan at
11/29/2006 10:19:00 AM
1 Comments:
I believe it's a case of two things:
- First, what Mr. Canemaker is used to. General audiences won't look at things in the same way as someone like him does. However, there are surprisingly many critics mentioning how nice the fur looks or whatever.
- Second, there's a mix in style happening in a lot of CG. You've got caricatured designs, with a completely realistic coating. It's as if we're forgetting the reason why animation is as caricatured as it is. Just as in most arts, it's because we should be looking for what is most effective. For the obvious reasons, caricatured designs are more effective than realistic ones. So wouldn't it be logical to try to find what's most effective in lighting/texturing too? Instead of following the technical advancements and using those just to use them? The Incredibles did a really good job with this. Skin, sets, etc all fell into place. There's only one thing that pulled me out in my first viewing: the wet hair. It felt too realistic. Chicken Little did a pretty good job too. I'm assuming Flushed Away as well (though I haven't seen it yet), and Madagascar did too (especially compared to OTH & the Shreks).
And I think you would agree that comparing animated close-ups with live action close-ups still doesn't really count. There's still so much happening in the face and eyes that animation can't capture. Obviously, that's why we simplify. But I guess that means that when we go too realistic with materials, they might seem too complex compared to the simplification of the rest.
Sorry if this was kind of a strange comment... it really was stream-of-consciousness writing.
By
Benjamin De Schrijver, at 1:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home