Feeling!

"What is the character thinking and why does he feel that way?"

- Ollie Johnston

"キャラクターは何を考え、なぜそう感じているのか?"

- オリー・ジョンストン

You might be asking, what's wrong with my drawing?  Why isn't there anything happening?  The anatomy is correct, I've rendered it completely, I have used perspective but why isn't alive?  The answer might be in the question above.

こんな疑問を持ったことがあるのではないでしょうか。自分のドローイングはどこが悪いんだろう?  どうもピンと来ないのはなぜだろう?  アナトミーは正しいし、陰影もしっかりつけたし、パースもちゃんとしている。それなのに、生き生きとしていない。

その答えは、オリーの言葉の中に見つけることができるはずです。

"A drawing that doesn't convey an emotion or a state of mind isn't a good drawing."  

"感情あるいは心の持ちようを表していないドローイングは、良いドローイングとは言えない"  

Make judgments about what you are putting down on paper.  Just don't copy.  We have cameras and digital photography for that. Your job as an artist is to convey a character.  Tell a story.  Your audience is paying you (with either money or time)  to show them what you, see. 

Don't be afraid to put what you feel in the drawing and even exaggerate what the character is doing. you can always "scale back" if you need to.

紙面に何を描くかを判断しましょう。写し取ろうとすることを止めましょう。映すのは、カメラやデジタル写真の仕事です。アーティストとして皆さんができることは、キャラクターを表現することです。ストーリーを語りましょう。観客は、皆さんの目を通したものを観るためにお金、あるいは時間を費やすのです。

思い切ってドローイングに自分自身の感情を込めましょう。そして、キャラクターの動作を誇張しましょう。そのほうが良いと思ったら、「縮小する」ことはいつでも可能です。

I have used scribbles and stick figures for clarity and simplicity. 

A.  Shows a person running, yes....but how does it compare to the attitude and feelings of B. and C.?

私は、明確化および単純化のためにスクリブル（落書きのようなライン）と棒人間を使っています。 

Aは走っている人です。それでは、BあるいはCの人と姿勢や感情をどう描き分ければ良いでしょうか？

Use abstract lines to capture the movement and push the feeling.  Think abstract.  Not literal!   

抽象的なラインで、動きをとらえ、感情をしっかりと表現しましょう。そしてそれを紙に描きとめるときには抽象化します。詳しい説明はしません。

Verisimilitude...can you spell it Disney?

Animator Bruce W. Smith gets an "A". If there was a category for Best Supporting Actor in an Animated Role, he'd certainly win. Why? Aside from amazing draftsmanship and great animation, his handling of the character, Doctor Facilier in Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" was the most believable character in the whole film for me.

However, "Princess and the Frog" fails for me with a solid "C" ranking.

I SO much wanted to like this film. Especially because, yes, it was the first Disney hand-drawn animated feature with an African-American lead; yes, because this was the first time we've seen hand-drawn animation in YEARS; but mostly because....well it's Disney. But the mouse house has forgot one magic ingredient with this one: believability.

Even though this was an animated feature, an emotional sense of verisimilitude is vital to make your audience care.

This film had wayyy to many gags. Many of which involved bodily fluids, flatulence innuendos and derriere gags. I've seen Warner Brothers animated cartoons that had more sincerity and taste. And that's not sarcasm.



The meeting notes of some Disney exec., "more gags, more gags!" was throughout the film. Of all the people who really wanted to see hand-drawn animation make a comeback, this was a real disappointment.


Brad Bird's Ratatouille is a good example of what a successful animated feature should be. Ratatouille was successful not because of CG animation, but because it was a good story and emotionally, a believable story...despite being about a rat who could cook. Which is no less plausible than a prince who gets turned into a frog. But how do you handle that story is the question. Intelligently or with sight gags? "IF a rat could cook, well, this is probably the most believable way it would happen."



Ratatouille worked in CG and would have worked in hand-drawn and I even as live action film. And would have been just as compelling.


Animation is good animation when you forget you are watching animation.


Princess and the Frog didn't work not because it was a hand-drawn animated feature, but because it was a caricature of one.