We are moving the field trip to next week so we can discuss it in class first.
So for this week we'll move onto topic re: Acting in Animation. What is the importance of this aspect of the overall animation? So often we get stuck on only those areas of our art that we are directly driven to love and we don't appreciate everything that goes into the work itself. How important is the acting in the scheme of things for you as animators? How important is it to you as a watcher? How about some examples of "good" acting and how it affects you and some examples of "bad" acting? What if the story line is great and the acting is bad? What if the acting is great and the story line suck? How important are celebrity voices in feature animations?
What has this film made you thing about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Monster’s Inc has placed a stamp in time as to how featured animations will be accepted by the mainstream public. Of course after Toy Story revolutionized full-featured animations, Monster’s Inc only came along to continue that success. The storyline, animation, and sound effects were all very well developed and worked together seamlessly. The storyline was very creative and developed in a way that put a spin on children’s fears of the monster in the closet. What makes the entire story come to life is the intricate way of creating a new world for the monsters and how they scare children in order to survive. But we must observe the fact that the story is so well defined that we must evaluate the detailed animation of the actors and their connection to the voices. I believe the voices of the actors in the film play a huge role in contributing to a believable concrete movie. In Monster’s Inc the actors made the difference in what is considered to be good voice acting and believable character relationships.
There is a significant amount of dialogue in Monster’s Inc, and to create an effective animation would be to capitalize on that dialogue. Monster’s Inc is a story that is brought to life by the actors to make a believable story. As we watch the story evolve, we begin to make a connection between the struggles of the monsters within their society. The inner story is about a the competitiveness of workers (men) within the work place and how one, who can’t stand to lose, decides to sabotage his co-worker and tries to advance himself at least one time during his career. So these types of conflicts that are produced in real life are translated onto the characters by the sounds of the voices and the relationship of the acting. Another significant part of the movie is how they incorporated the children into the animation using subtle gestures and a considerable amount of scenes in order to pull off their importance.
As animators we must expand our understanding of real-life motion pictures, human anatomy and human movements in order to fully grasp the concept of making our work come to life. Any animation that lacks believable physical movement, regardless of the storyline, will fall short of its goal. However, when we question the ability to make digital characters come to life by using actors that are well known, we sometimes forfeit the right to actually find a voice that may work extremely well. Let’s examine the well-known Shrek movie. Mike Meyers, having the lead role as Shrek, did not catapult the movie to its current platform. He has done a great job creating that accent with his voice and the animation team creating blend shapes that specifically enhance the speech of the ogre, but Shrek was all about the donkey. Eddie Murphy is a very famous comedian and is known for doing funny voices on characters (check The PJ’s stop motion animation). But the dialogue and voice acting was a perfect match for the film and that is what made it successful.
The ways in which we currently see animations advertised are largely focused on the actors playing the roles of certain characters. This does not guarantee success for any motion picture or full-featured animation. So we must analyze the full functionality of our characters and find the correct voice for that character. A great story and fully developed characters can catapult your animation because of its originality. Toy Story would have been just as good if Tom Hanks did not do the voice of Woody, but Tim Allen doing Buzz Lightyear’s voice is priceless. There are certain voices that stick to the characters and others that just don’t function properly. I wasn’t really connected to any voice in Monster’s Inc, but all the voices and characters seem to work together in an environment that was cohesive and functional.
Nice Will. I wonder what it means that the monsters in Monster, Inc. are all men? I'd love to someday read a feminist interpretation of this film. I agree with you about the voices you used as examples and the role of the voice in this film and others. Keep up the good work.
Acting in animation is as important as acting in film. Acting is even more important then the actual effects or overall look of the animation. If no one cares about the characters, then no one will care about the film. That is even more true for novels and works of literature. It has been argued that every story line has been done before, just with minor changes or variations. It has also been argued that really there are only a handful of truly different story lines. If either of these allegations are true (I personally believe them to both be true) then the only thing people truly care about in films or stories are the characters. That is why animation and voice acting are so important. Monster's inc is a great example of how important voice acting and character animation is.
In the film, John Goodman's character Sully is the character the viewer invests most of thier emotions in. Sully is a full character who goes through a full range of emotions and character arc from the beginning of the film to the end. John Goodman portrays every emotion from happy, to sad, to elated, and worried. All of these emotions can be seen in the characters face, and heard in the character's voice. The truth is, we really don't care too much about Billy Crystal's character Mike. He is the goofy sidekick. His emotions aren't as ranged. In fact, he is just a big eyeball, and though many expressions and emotions are expressed through him, it would be harder for the audience to be as invested in just an eyeball. Sully is a big, humonoid character with full human emotions. Mike just does variations of happy and slightly aggitated. Mike isn't a serious character. And honestly it is hard for me to take Billy Crystal seriously as an actor. I know he has tried in different roles to be serious and he is well known for When Harry Met Sally, but let's face it, City Slickers was supposed to be more serious than we all let on. There are dramatic parts in the film where the men are supposed to be questionning their whole lives and it is kind of a joke. I know City Slickers was widely popular, but so is NASCAR. Let's not get into that argument.
The point is, Billy Crystal and John Goodman matched their characters percisely and like Will said, it made the film seamless. It is the animators and director's job to make sure the voice of the character and the character match in emotions and substance. It may be a mixing of the animators trying to portray the emotions of the actors, or the actors attempting to portray what they believe to be the characters, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it works. For an example of seeing it not working, Final Fantasy The Spirits Within in my opinion has some mis-matched characters that ultimatley hurt the film.
Monsters Inc. can only be described as yet another amzing film created by Pixar. Pixar is considered a pioneer in the field of animation. As a pioneer, Pixar has mastered the art of story-telling. Good story-telling requires two components; the visual and the oral. In the field of animation, tricks and techniques are exposed constantly. Thus, a animated film must go beyond the genius artists who create the visual enjoyment of graphic animation, but succeed in the script relaying vocal interpretations of what is being seen.
Monsters Inc by Pixar challenged competitors like Dreamworks and Image Works to go beyond the general box office rankings and prove that they too can present a equal-part story/animation film complex enough to be more than a kid’s film.
Before this film, Pixar was popular for such films as Toy Story and Toy Story II, In those films, Pixar was applauded for the ability to create a comic/surreal visual story animated maticulously with the actor’s voices. From a technical standpoint, the movie looked pleasing but it was the timing of the animation and the computers ability to manipulate real life film making entirely on the computer. Monsters Inc. differed in that it went a step further in animation manipulation. A perfect example of a scene so intense it was a tribute to Pixar the Pioneer; Sully (John Goodman) banished to the South Pole. Through a bedroom door, Sully is thrown-flying through the snow. The scene closes in on the giant monsters fur swaying and mingling with the snow spiralling around the mass of Sully attempting to land. Never was a close up so percise, but through imagination and genius animators, a monster’s ficticious fur went from imaginary to real.
The overall concept of Monster’s Ink credits Pixar and the respect Hollywood has for both script and graphics. M.I. decided on a rare but fascninating concept for the story; the ability for one world to enter a parellel universe and manipulate those existing in the latter. The film also teaches the lessons that every action has a equal reaction. Like the monsters were manipulating children through their fears of monsters, so too to humans have an effect on them. The Monster’s every day world, work, and lifestyle complimented today’s America. Of course, in the Disney-model, this movie’s first target, children, require a lesson. Like the Monsters who knew contact with children in the Monster world was banned for the good of both worlds; even when things seem cruel, some things are better off the was they are.
If this film was not released until today the script would be able to remain the same. However, new technology especially the use of motion cameras would add to this film visual enjoyment against today;s technical animation capabilities. Another techniqual aspect of Pixar’s pioneering is in their rendering program Renderman, Since it’s MI release improvements have been made to Renderman allowing for more precise movement, time, and travel. Though M.I was almost perfect for its time, today use of the newer Renderman would further enhance the visual enjoyments.
Max:
Good points (I know I keep saying that.) You are right about that giant eyeball. The whole eyeball thing creeps me out way more than the big hairy monster in the closet anyway. I agree about characterization and that there is ultimately nothing that is really new it is how it is presented that makes it original. And I also agree that "all that matters is that it works."
Yorch
Good work. Interesting take on how MI would be filmed today with Renderman capabilities. I too just loved the "fur" in this film.
Post a Comment