Anatomy of a Fight 1: Fight of the Year

This animation short entitled, "A Warrior's Dream" by animation director Li Jing has been floating around for the past week.  Given it has two of my greatest passions animation and martial arts, I had to say something. 

Donnie Yen is one of the leading popular martial arts actors today.  Son of another famous martial arts master, Bow Sim Mark, Donnie has a long history in the martial arts world.  Recently he has been noted for his portrayal of the Wing Chun Kung Fu grandmaster, Ip Man. (Sometimes written as Yip Man)  Grandmaster Yip Man is greatly renown as Bruce Lee's first formal martial arts teacher. 

Bruce Lee of course needs no introduction.  Founder of the Jeet Kune Do philosophy,  greatest influence on modern martial arts in the 20th Century.  Forever the king of martial arts motion pictures.  Period.  

The film does fall a bit short with some of the nuance that gives animation sparkle and true life.   Some performances copied rather than acted and a lack of "cushioning" or "easing out" that should be there no matter how fast or precise these martial arts legends are.  With a larger budget or more time, I'm very confident that would not be the case. 

All THAT said, this was amazing to watch and obviously there was a lot of love and hard work behind it.  Martial arts in films are basically special effects.  Without a story behind it becomes boring or meaningless quite quickly.   In this case, however, it's an exception. 

Animation Fusion: SHORT PEACE

Watched the animated anthology film, "Short Peace" featuring two short films by Katsuhiro Ootomo:  Hinoyoujin (火要鎮 / ひのようじん)  (not translated but entitled in the USA as "Combustible") and Bukiyosaraba (武器よさらば / ぶきよさらば).  (Translated as Farewell to Weapons)

4 short films in total, each story using a combination of handrawn animation and computer animation.  In the past, there were reservations about how these handrawn/ CG fusions were done as both mediums clashed against each other battling for attention.   

In most cases it worked, especially Tsukomo (九十九) which arguably stole the show. 

Ootomo's films were great and particularly thoughtful towards Japanese culture of the past and future. They didn't exactly have the the great acting animated performances that Ootomo's "Akira" had but it they still delivered compelling visuals.  The timing for Farewell To Weapons / Bukiyosaraba (武器よさらば / ぶきよさらば) is interesting as some political groups in Japan have recently been pushing for the formation of a Japanese army. (Japan's WWII peace treaty states Japan is not allowed to have military forces of any kind....save it's defense forces) 

People not acquainted with Japanese history (current or past) may find "Combustible" anti-climatic.   Even the correct title "Hinoyoujin" (火要鎮 / ひのようじん) will not make sense to anyone unless they know something about the severity and seriousness of fire prevention during Japan's Edo period.  Arson was amongst the highest of offenses in Japan, punishable only by death.  The story was likely based on the story of Yaoya Oshichi.  

For its art direction alone, Combustible is worth seeing as I've never seen a fully animated piece done in the style of a Ukiyo-e illustration.  

CG Animation Trend Hits Japan....in 3D

By the way, the CG animation/ 3D release bug has finally hit Japan. Friends: Naki's Monster Island is not the first CG animated film from Japan, but it is one of the first major full length films marketed at kids.

I don't think there's going to be any CG vs. hand-drawn debate in Japan. The appeal of animated illustrations will have a very long life here. However due to the nature of CG animation, it will be interesting to see how the mindset towards animation will change in the future. With the exception of a few animation directors like Katsuhiro Ootmo (Akira, Steamboy) Japanese animation rarely has rarely "fully animated" dialogues between characters. Also with the exception of huge showpiece animated action sequences, animation is rarely shot on 1's and is notorious for having action animated on what looks like 3's or even 4's sometimes.

(To those who may not know, shooting on 1's and 2's refers to how many exposures a frame will have in an animated sequence. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is a good example of animation shot on 1's. Extremely fluid animation. Some say it's too fluid and looks swimmy. Generally, most feature hand-drawn animation is shot on 2's. If anyone remembers the choppy TV animation in the 80's...that's a good example of animation done on 3's and possibly even 4's....i.e. G.I. Joe, Transformers. Almost 100% of CG animation is on 1's.)

While American animation is always striving for realism, Japanese animation is generally "iconic" and symbolic. (Note what was done to Lilo and Stitch when it was transformed for Japanese audiences) Japanese animation will use virtual pictographs on characters faces to show emotion for comic effect: hashmarks over the face to show stress, fountains of tears that evaporate instantly. It will be interesting to see how this will play out in a CG environment. Note the last few frames of the trailer above.

My two cents: so long as Studio Ghibli never does a CG animated film, hand drawn animation will still be king in Japan.

The Direction of Animation as of 2011

There is yet another (but insightful) article and debate about the future of animation, cartooning and filmmaking in general at Cartoon Brew.

Not going to get into that debate here but it did bring to mind that despite all the things CG animation is praised for what it can do, it's interesting how much little attention is given to what it's not doing. Or rather how the medium is not being maximized nor fully exploited.

"Realism"seems to be the mantra of CG animation. To that I answer, "so what"? The computer can do so much, literally anything. However, it seems more attention is put on "replicating" life, rather than reinterpreting it. I liked Kung Fu Panda 2, but seeing all down to the little taste-buds in Po's tongue while he's screaming in 3D fails to impress me. At least the way it was done.

I remember a similar shot from John Kricfalusi's Spumco, Inc.'s animation on the Ren and Stimpy show. In that case, artists exploited that shot by ruthlessly caricaturing the sores, mis-colorations, and critters found on the character's tongue.

My point is there seems to be more editorial done in the process of hand-drawn animation rather than in CG animation. Not that it can't be done, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it just isn't being done. It seems producers are so wrapped up in technology, dazzling audiences with photo-realistic cartoons, they are overlooking the simplest points in getting a reaction from audiences. Just creating a photo-realistic image is not enough.

Since cartoons have proven to be a multi-billion dollar business there is more financial pressure on studios to minimize risks and losses. In that kind of ginger-footed environment, could a Tex Avery of CG animation be born?

Chuck Jones' 1963 short film "Now Hear This" is a perfect example of the editorial that hand-drawn just tends to inherently do. "Now Hear This", simple as it is, was a lot more entertainingly experimental than a lot of things in CG recently. It's not that CG can't do these things, it's just that unfortunately as of December 31st 2011, we don't see it being done enough.

DISNEY's Golden Opportunity

This is going to be my last blog on "rescuing"hand-drawn animation from being called an anachronism. Promise.

How'd that Art Babbit anecdote from Richard Williams go? "I'm not a Luddite". A story how animator legend Art Babbit was contesting the use of new technology over traditional ways in animation.

I'm not on a mission to champion hand-drawn animation but, let me stop lying -- I am. But it's only because it's I feel it's one of the last mediums that people can truly say is "magical". Something that seems to be lacking in today's concept of entertainment.

People look at a fantastic CG film like a "Finding Nemo" or "Wall-E" and people say "Wow, how'd they do that?" But logic takes over and says , "Oh, it was done in the computer.....wonder what program they used...." (respect to all the artists who work in CG, of course it isn't that easy, but to the layman....I'd wager that's what many think).

People look at at "Beauty and the Beast", "Lion King" or "Bambi" (even by today's standards), people's suspend their disbelief for a moment and they say, "How'd they do that??" Yes, logic takes over and tells the layman, "Well...someone drew it." But then logic grabs hold again replies: "Yeah, I know they're drawings but....HOW'D did they do that??"

Magic. No program for that.

For those who are animators, draftsmen or illustrators, you know that "look of wonderment" people have when you grab a piece of paper, and like a magician, make a bunch of hand-drawn lines come to life and with personality. People still look at it as some kind of magic trick.

Looking at Disney Animation Studio's box office movie track record, they have a history of "breaking even". Films like "The Lion King" are an anomaly that the studios have desperately been attempting to replicate ever since.

It's virtually criminal how Disney's management literally threw the baby out with the bathwater in an effort to "keep up with the Joneses'" in CG animation.

With the exception of "Treasure Planet" and "Home On the Range" (I feel they just gave up on that one), Disney's hand-drawn films haven't done so badly. "Princess and the Frog" arguably did better at the box office than ALL of Disney's CG animated films. And with "Tangled" coming in at a budget of $250 million (second most expensive film ever made) ---- sad to say box office returns just don't look promising.

'Frog' had a better B.O. performance for their dollar than their CG films which basically broke even. (Which are still failures, because of the low profit margin) And if I'm right the animation for 'Frog' was done in Canada since there aren't any hand-drawn facilities at Disney animation anymore. Cost them even less money to be sure.

To the point, this is a golden, golden opportunity for Disney in this current market. Why doesn't Disney simply do what they do best? "Make moving , appealing films that yes, do have compelling and mature stories --- in traditional hand-drawn animation."

That's what Disney is MOST famous for, right? People say animation of ANY kind and Disney is what comes to mind. And especially "hand-drawn" animation. They have the market on that, and they have never had to apologize for it and they NEVER will.

When every studio is trying to make the next CG blockbuster, wouldn't it make more sense to make something that distinguishes you dramatically from your competitors?? Especially when it's something everyone looks to you on being the authority about, anyway?

Should I insert the "New Coke" vs. 'Classic Coke" business theory in here?

Looking at B.O. sales Disney should stop trying to compete with Pixar, Dreamworks, Sony, Blue Sky, Imagi, Animal Logic or whatever fly-by-night CG studio and go back to doing what they do best: compelling hand-drawn animation. If they are worried about being "left behind" technology wise that's a moot point since they own Pixar.

Films like "Finding Nemo", "Toy Story" or even "Shrek" did so well when they did is greatly because they were different. Yes, the stories were told well, but they also stood out as something attractively new. Something Disney could exploit dramatically right now.

But if they do, they will have to do better than "Winnie the Pooh" as a feature. (As much as I love Pooh) I am sure it will make money but that film has: "targeted for mothers babysitting kids between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm" written all over it. Winnie the Pooh offhand is not what most moviegoers would call a date movie. At least they way it's being marketed it doesn't seem that way. (If I am off or wrong, someone please call me out)

The movies that sell the most year round are comedies...and I'm sure romantic comedies. Isn't that right up Disney's alley? That's basically what everything from Beauty and the Beast, to Aladdin, to Mulan basically were. Comedies with a romantic element. That's why they worked not only as family fare, but were decent enough to be a date movie. (That is when the writing was up to snuff.)

It's one thing for Disney to expand into the CG territory, but doing it in favor to replace a medium that has fueled it's engine for over seventy years was a mistake. When they were at the top of their hand-drawn game, Disney was like the NY Yankees of animation. Who the hell could touch them when they could assemble the dream teams of their choosing?

Am I wrong, but are there dramatically more studios around today making CG animated features? Now that technology has somewhat leveled the playing field somewhat?

When all the studios are trying to impress audiences with CG and 3D this and that, it's hard to know, or care for that matter who is producing what.

Golden opportunity for a studio doing something different to truly stand out. There's a brass ring hanging out there waiting for Disney to reclaim ... again.

To Disney management: "You guys are in the magic business. Who ever thought of the catchphrase: Disney's "Digital Magic" is a moron....I mean, the word is an oxymoron. Digital concepts can be reasoned, explained understood logically.

Magic.... (the thing Disney virtually has the license on) ... magic never is explained so easily. Who knows where that stuff comes from when artists draw? It must be magic because most artists themselves can't explain it. You guys have a hot and rare commodity. Exploit it before someone else does."