Compare and contrast two different animation techniques
The first thing to say about these forms of animation is that they are largely abstract forms of representation and expression. That is that unlike live action cinematography, which tends towards mimesis (the desire to accurately reproduce the ‘real’ world,) animation is usually concerned with the suggestion of concepts and the representation of ideas.
As such effective animation of any form is wholly reliant on finding the appropriate narrative strategy with which to tell a story. For the animator this is a huge task, unlike the live action filmmaker who can film what is around him or her, animators must create their diegetic worlds from scratch and in whole as Brian Sibley explains.
For the animated film-maker; nothing exists to be filmed until it is created and put in front of the camera. Using drawings, models or increasingly nowadays, computer imagery, the animator creates every single frame of film from scratch. In a live action film, there is nothing hidden between one frame and the next, whereas the space between every frame of an animated film represents a complex series of creative actions which will be undetectable to the audience.
For an animator to tell their particular story they must work within the confines of their chosen medium be it drawn or model animation. Each medium has its own distinct properties that lend itself to a different form of narration. This essay will asses the differences between the two mediums and their effectiveness in telling a story.
The technique of model animation relies on Plasticine, fabric or latex figures built around a poseable skeleton called an armature. The animator photographs the model in a live-action setting whether it is a location or a custom made set. After each photograph is taken the model is moved slightly around the points of articulation and photographed again. The accumulative effective of photographing models in this way is the illusion of movement.
Model animation differs from drawn animation in its use of ‘real’ sets and use of traditional cinematography. That is the use of genuine physical props or environments, be they in life like or scaled down sizes. Although live cinematography and animation have been combined the practice is much more prevalent in model animation.
It is the interaction between the ‘real’ or ‘live-action’ world and the articulation of the puppets that separates it from drawn animation and merits further investigation. In his book Understanding Animation Paul Wells describes the relationship between the diegetic narrative and the characters surroundings as fabrication and suggest that it is a narrative strategy. This that ‘fabrication essentially plays out an alternative version of material existence, recalling narrative out of constructed objects and environments, natural forms and substances, and the taken for granted constituent elements of the everyday world.’ This means that there is a relationship between the abstract expression of character through the model and the ‘constituent elements of the everyday world,’ which lends itself more towards the mimesis end of the spectrum, although it is still clearly a form of abstract expression.
A good example of the real world being used within a model reality would be Nick Parks Creature Comforts in which highly stylized models of animals are animated with the voices of members of the British public. The opinions and the voices of the public (mainly senior citizens from a retirement home and school children discussing animals,) are perfectly matched to appropriate animals. The most memorable example being the Brazilian student portrayed as a jaguar, talking about how dreary the weather in England is. The world being discussed is recognizably our own and the characters seem completely real because they talk like real people and inhabit recognizable environments, they still manage to convince despite the fact that they are talking animals.
The affinity between model animation and the physical world in which it is filmed means that it is to a certain extent confined by the physical laws of our world in order to remain recognizable and believable. Of course these laws can be flouted, characters can morph into other characters, with the aid of visual trickery objects can fly or disappear, but the relationship between the animated models and the world they inhabit means that when physical law is flouted a sense of the uncanny or the fantastic is achieved.
The blurring of the boundaries of the physical world and the animated world may at times be problematic. If the model fails to convince then the presence of physical props from the ‘real’ world only highlights the forced and fake construction of a diegetic world. However when done properly the effect can be quite uncanny.
Wells goes on to discuss the work of Jan Svankmajer in this context, he explains that it is the ‘tangibility and malleability of the clay and the physical mechanism of the human body that become the narrative imperatives of the work.’ In Jabberwocky Svankmajer presents the viewer with a world in which toy soldiers march, sailor suits fly and a penknife pirouettes and bleeds. As wells describes it ‘Svankmajer essentially plays out the ways in which a child would uninhibitedly imagine the life in each of the objects.’ It is the interplay between the animated figures and the real world that enhances the sensation of the fantastic within Svankmajer’s work.
The major difference between model and drawn animation is that in drawn animation the environment as well as the characters must be animated. Even if a model animator creates there own model set instead of relying on the world around them the illustrator animator must create every inch of the frame by hand. As such the diegetic world of drawn animation is free from the constraints of physical laws that model animations are to some degree bound by. The animator is an omnipotent power over the world that they create, able to control everything from the appearance of the characters, to the color of the sky to the laws of gravity. This power that the animator has over their diegetic universe is used to tell the story. There are many narrative devises that can be used within the medium, one of these is metamorphosis.
Wells argues that this ‘particular device is unique to the animated form, and some would argue is the constituent core of animation itself.’ This device is the ability for a given animated form to literally change into another. Meaning is derived from the fluid change of one form to another in the same way that Eisenstein creates meaning from editing one photographed image with another. ‘Metamorphosis also legitimizes the process of connecting apparently unrelated images, forging original relationships between lines, objects, and disrupting established notions of classical story-telling.’ It is a way of connecting abstract ideas into a narrative form.
The example that Wells suggests is that of Caroline Leaf’s The street (1976). It is the story of a young Jewish boy recalling the effect of his grandmother’s death on his family. The story is represented pictorially, but Leaf also uses the technique of using ink on a glass plate above the image to continually distort and change the image, this draws attention to and from details within the image and constantly redefines the expression of the narrative.
At one point the boy talks about a nurse’s regular visits to the house. As this is mentioned the black ink moves towards the back of the frame making the nurse’s head appear larger within the frame. As the head turns into silhouette it becomes a black background on which her movement up the stairs to Grandma’s bedroom is depicted. This is an extremely effective use of metamorphosis as narrative transition, and it is also a stylistic form, which is highly evocative of deeply personal memory, which perfectly compliments the boy’s narration.
The fluidity of both movement and the narrative as they were a persons memories is also important in getting the viewer to invest emotionally into the piece. The main problem that animation faces is that it is an overtly fake diegetic form. The viewer is presented with a constructed reality of drawings and paintings, which may represent the real world, but unlike photographic film, does not look like it. The animator must remain invisible to the viewer leaving no trace of their presence except their art otherwise it will draw attention to the construction of the art. In employing a narrative and stylistic devise Leaf has managed to create a piece that seems to flow naturally from memory itself.
As well as these stylistic narrative approaches there are also some intrinsic aesthetic difference between the two types of animation. In his book Cracking Animation Brian Silbey highlights the variance in the principles of movement between drawn and model animation.
There is also a major difference between drawn and model animation, as peter lord explains: ‘drawn animation is a process that develops in a very controlled and measurable way. When your character is walking from A to B, you start by drawing position A then B, the key positions, and then you systematically draw all the positions in between. In puppet animation. But in puppet animation, when you set off from position A you do not know where B is, because you have not got there yet (like real life come to think of it). So every single stage of movement is an experiment.
The suggestion here is that model animation lends itself to a more spontaneous and natural form of movement and expression. The invention of the rotoscope in drawn animation allowed animators to accurately copy the ‘natural’ movement of live subjects, giving the subjects fluidity and grace. The rotoscope works by using a drawing board with a frosted glass center. One frame of photography at a time is shone onto the glass and the image is traced. It provides an accurate reference of movement and articulation so that on screen movement can be replicated with a lot more fluidity. Now those animators were able to recreate the form of movement. The ‘stop motion’ technique invites spontaneity and uncertainty of the real world, although the movement itself is less natural the interpretation seems to have a lot more life in it. The often-jerky movement of model animation may seem less graceful but the interaction between the model characters and the ‘real’ worlds that they inhabit is highlighted. The affect of this is never clearer than in the Ray Harryhausen films. The monsters that the live actors face are made all the more otherworldly and therefore believable by the way the move. However now that this distinction has been made it is important to realize that one form is not necessarily ‘better’ than the other. Both forms of animation have their own distinct properties, which can be used to the animators advantage or preference in order to find the most appropriate way of telling the story.
When compared to live action cinematography animation may seem like exacting and laborious alternative. Any form of animation whether it is model, drawn or computer is a big commitment and a painstaking task. If it is possible to express the idea of the film just as effectively and more easily by other means, than it makes sense to do so. However animation allows ideas and stories that cannot be expressed by other means to take pictorial form. Although the concepts of fabrication and metamorphosis have been discussed here in relation to model and drawn animation respectively there are no set boundaries. The concepts can be applied to either form of animation to varying degrees. There is fluidity between the two mediums where no clear distinction can be made. The construction of animation through whatever technique is it drawn or model allows the communication of abstract ideas and fantastic stories that cannot be completely realize by live action cinematography. Drawn animation and model animation both lend themselves to different forms of expression and narration. They have differing aesthetic properties and the physical process of making an animated film. One is not more or less effective than the other.
Bibliography
Bordwell and Thompson. (2001) Film Art: An Introduction, New York: McGraw Hill.
Canemaker, J. (ed.) (1988) Storytelling in Animation: The Art of the Animated Image Vol. 2, Los Angeles: AFI.
Griffin, H. (2001) The Animators guide to 2D Computer Animation, Oxford: Focal Press,
Halas, J and Manvell, R. (1968) The Technique of Film Animation, Norwich: Focal press Limited.
Lors, P and Silbey B. (2004) Cracking Animation, London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Wells, P. (1998) Understanding Animation, London: Routledge.
Williams, R. (2001) The Animators Survival Kit, New York: Faber and Faber.
Tags: abstract, animation, animator, cinematography, drawings, film-maker, model
