Animation has come a long way from the days of pencil drawings, to vividly colored 2D characters and settings, to computer-generated figures and environments that look true-to-life and pop out onscreen. No matter the form, it’s an art for the ages and universally appeals to people from all walks of life.
So how will the latest technologies affect animation? Is 3D really all that necessary? What is most important when animating a character and a story? And what is most important for wannabe animators to keep in mind as new trends emerge? The San Francisco Film Festivals Examiner received some insight from Tom Sito and Patricia Hannaway, who discussed their work and the history of animation on the “Animate This!” panel at the Palo Alto International Film Festival on Saturday, October 1st. Sito is an animator and storyboard artist whose credits include Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Hannaway is a painter, artist, and animator who worked on Mulan and served as the Senior Animator for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. They gave this exclusive interview for the San Francisco Film Festivals Examiner to answer some of the biggest curiosities regarding their line of work.
What do you think is the biggest challenge for animators today?
TOM SITO: I think there is such a reliance on technological change and achievement and I think too many people get the idea that the computer is going to do everything for you—Push a button and get personality, turn the dial and you’ll get charisma or empathy. The same skillsets that actors use and the same skillsets that animators of the 1930s and 40s—the Golden Age of Hollywood—are still relevant, and I think the challenge we have is to stay on top of the new technologies and the new things that are developing while not losing sight of the things that make animation appealing.
PATRICIA HANNAWAY: Yes, I really agree with that. The important thing to realize is that though the technology will change and will continue to do so at an amazing pace, the basic principles and foundations of what makes wonderful animations and characters is still fundamental, and the computer doesn’t bring anything to a performance that you as the performer or actor don't already have with you. To be able to foster that type of training and understanding, to be able to use that technology towards creating that art as opposed to thinking the technology itself will somehow make the art, is very important.
What is your thought process while you’re animating a character or a sequence?
TS: It’s a lot like being an actor where you think of character, physicality, background—You’re creating an entire character rather than what’s in the script. Like when we were working on The Little Mermaid, we were talking about what kind of records Ariel would listen to, or if she went to the movies, what would she see. All this mental homework is what you bring to the performance, and it helps you when you’re working out what the character is going to do.
PH: Again, I really agree with that. I think that is essential to integrate the acting skills with performance in animation, and I think that too often, that just gets put to wayside. I remember when I was learning, the teacher gave us an assignment to animate a guy mailing a letter and almost everyone in the class just had some guy, any guy, walking towards the mailbox and mailing a letter. Then the teacher said, “Okay, mail the letter. Let’s pretend this guy lost the love of his life. This is a letter begging for her forgiveness, that he can not live without her. Now mail the letter.” And then all of a sudden, the understanding of that character, the background was coming from entirely different performances. It wasn’t just a generic guy mailing a letter—this was suddenly a person and this was his life. The way he moved was suddenly dictated by his feelings. So if we focused on that emotional performance, very often you’ll find that performance comes from that understanding, and again, I think that is something that can get lost. The technology can make it so enticing that you can lose sight of that.
TS: I was just thinking, to add to that: I always love the story of when John Lasseter and I did Luxo Jr., about the two little lamps. When it premiered, after walking off stage, Dr. Jim Blinn came up to him, and he was one of the great computer pioneers—he was one of the great engineering scientists who created Blinn Shaders and all this amazing stuff. John was worried, “Oh, he’s going to ask me a really technical question, I don’t know if I can keep up with a mind like his!” and Jim’s question was “Is the big lamp a mommy lamp or a daddy lamp?”
PH: I think it was a mommy lamp.
TS: Yes, and it has a big effect on the performance. It’s saying that this is an exasperated parent with a precocious kid running around…
PH: And knocking things down.
TS: Yeah, it’s great!
The Lion King just got rereleased in 3D – what are your thoughts on that 3D movement in animation?
PH: We’re really happy.
TS: It’s fun to see. It’s a 2D film too, with 3D technology. It shows it’s not only one type of filmmaking. It can be successful. It was drawn as an old-fashioned cartoon that adapted to 3D. I think 3D has a place—3D is taking us to places that we haven’t been to before. The first time I saw Avatar—the scene with Jake Sully jumping on those falling rocks and he has to climb up the vines to get to where those creatures are, and the camera goes above and he jumps and he almost doesn’t catch the vine—I actually flinched! I thought, “Wow, this goes back to...‘1890 train entering the station when people would be jumping out of the way!’” After all these years, a film can still do that to you. That’s great.
PH: I think that story is the most essential thing of all—story and personality. I think all too often, people are making films so they can say, “Everything is 3D these days” instead of actually saying, “What does this medium offer me in terms of making my story more potent and important?” or “Is this the medium that serves my story best?” I think that’s something that a lot of 3D artists should also be asking themselves: “Is it better to do this in live-action?”, “Is it better to do this in 2D?”, “Is it better to do as an animated painting?” I think it starts with story and performance and if you understand that, it’ll tell you what medium it needs.
TS: I’ve talked to a number of people who are working on 3D films—we want avoid what we call the “paddle ball effect,” which is to go for what’s easy, Three Stooges kind of thing. If your film is going to be 3D, it has to have a purpose.
Are you both seeing any new developments in the animation world?
TS: I’m excited about all the stuff being done online, the YouTube stuff, like Simon’s Cat—all these little films being done by artists. It’s the kind of stuff that would be hard to get your own distribution and seen around, and they’re putting these on the Web and it’s really been interesting.
PH: It is, and I think it’s because the technology has become more available and cheaper to artists. You’re going to have 3D software, you can have wonderful editing software, you can have pencil test systems, and you can combine things in new ways. I think there is more opportunity for more independent type of work, rather than more studios making this stuff, so I’m excited to see what comes, and I think there is the whole new pull towards immersive worlds…3D environments...[artists are] making their own worlds and I think this is leading in a new direction. Gosh, when I was a student at School of Visual Arts [in New York City] for my Master’s, we were working on these SGI machines and I used to sign up for the 12:30AM to 5:30AM slot because wow, I get five hours on an SGI machine! And now, people have them on their desktops—I expect them soon on the iPad. It’s really staggering what’s happened in the past 20 years and it’s more accessible, and that’s a good thing. But we need to make sure that these kids get the right training to use these tools properly, and that’s my big concern: making sure they get these principles.
TS: Yeah, and I think with the development of CGI and the digital intrigue, everybody’s going towards “reality, reality, reality” to the point where it becomes photoreal. But the thing you have to say to yourself as artists is “Is the end of art ‘reality’?” Why can’t we do more creative stuff? Why can’t we step back from reality and do stuff more in the matter of Expressionists? You know, make a movie that looks more like a watercolor. Why not? You can do that.
PH: And that’s one of the great delights about that—to add a unique, individual focus to the work that you’re doing and step outside the bounds of reality. I think as time goes forward, people will realize that accuracy in realism in itself is not an end. I think people will find that there’s something really lacking when you don’t leave certain things vague and leave things out when people can engage and fill it out for themselves.
Comments