Wells... on a Theory of Animation

Wells article was very intuitive. I have never really put a lot of thought into animation but after reading this article I feel it’s kind of a common sense thing, but it gives more details to one who doesn’t know much about animation. The article starts off talking about cel animation and how it has the most production value because of how it can be easily made and mass produced. Like most Disney movies in the past all of their animated films were made by cel animation, whether it was hand pencil-tested or computerized. Nowadays though animation has gone to a whole new level, especially with companies like Disney who team up with Pixar to make three-dimensional films. I will go into this later on.

Well first distinguishes the types of animation as either orthodox or experimental and how they are processed down the developmental line of animation. Orthodox animation has configuration, specific continuity, narrative form, evolution of content, unity of style, absence of the artist, and dynamics of the dialogue. There are distinguishable “figures”, such as people or animals that one can identify with. They have to succeed at a task or build off of their failures to capture the audience and reel them in. This creates sympathy for the character and hope that they will succeed. The music, sound effects, and score all help with the drawings, especially in chase scenes or scenes of conflict. Orthodox animation helps develop the character and establish moments, some comical, that the audience can relate to or feel some type of emotion. The style has to stay consistent. If it’s cel animated and two-dimensional, then it has to stay that way throughout. The use of close ups, medium shots, establishing shots, left to right pans, and moving up and down in the environment help with the narrative structure and style to create this type of animation. Also color, design, and editing techniques have to be consistent. Style is most important and so the artist has to stay out of the work unless it’s something like Duck Amuck which is a type of auteurist animation. Dialogue is key as well and it helps distinguish different characters. Daffy always lisps when he talks and says things like “that’s despicable”, Bugs is always superior with his speech and frequently says “what’s up doc?” while others like Elmer Fudd can be identified by his speech pronunciation like when he says “wabbits” instead of “rabbits.” There is also the difference between symphonic and carophonic. Disney uses symphonic which is poetic and operatic. Warner Bros typically uses carophonic which is urban and explosive.

The other type of animation is experimental. It redefines the body and rhythm and movement are in their own right. It doesn’t have figures but instead just various shapes and forms. It has its own conditions and languages and isn’t continuous. It’s also non narrative, displayed through abstract forms in motion, ambiguity, and it’s metaphorical. Different colors, shapes, textures evoke different moods and ideas. For example a dot changes into a circle. There is no style, everything comes together as one with a variety of different techniques through new effects and different modes. The artist usually is present too and they do this so they can make their animation personal and have individuality. It’s almost like a dream-state. Instead of dialogue, experimental animation relies on music to define the shapes, rhythm, speed, use of colors and language. It can often be poetic and sometimes silence is used to evoke a type of emotion.

Although I like the orthodox style and it is most frequent, I can’t wait until tonight so I can make some experimental animation in 6x1 to blow peoples minds and in the process learn how to make my own animation.. Fa sho.

LWR