FilmMonthly » grenier.stan

“Alice in Wonderland” Virtual Roundtable with Animation Supervisor David Schaub and Effects Supervisor Ken Ralston

grenier.stan — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:20:49 +0000

Q: David, as visually stunning as Alice in Wonderland was, I’m curious as to what scenes or characters you’re most proud of with the film’s final cut. Could you enlighten me on that?
A: David Schaub: As the show evolved I would have to say that each scene and character had it’s own moment in the sun. When we put that much energy into the process of character development and try to make the most of each character, it’s hard not to fall in love with each one of them. In the end, the Cheshire cat is certainly a favorite, and one of the big surprises I think are the frogs. Those characters were always supposed to be “tertiary” characters as ornamentation for the background of the Red Queen’s castle. They were only built for a rudimentary level of detail, and where not initially rigged to do all the stuff they ultimately did in those close-up shots. There was a lot of special purpose rigging built for the face in order to pull off that level of subtlety once we got up close.
Q: Ken, were you satisfied with the use of 3D in the film? What was your favorite scene?
A: Ken Ralston: I was very satisfied with how 3D helped us immerse Alice into the world of Wonderland. As for a favorite scene, I love when Alice meets the Cheshire Cat. It works on so many levels.
Q: David, were you conscious of the expectations in designing such beloved characters?
David Schaub: Absolutely. An amazing array of design ideas were put in front of Tim during the development phase. In the end, he gravitated back to the original illustrations by John Tenniel. For the most part, I think that’s the style we ended up with in the film.
Q: Ken , obviously creating the animation and effects for this film was like assembling en elaborate jigsaw puzzle. What specific challenges did this pose and what advantages did it give?
Ken Ralston: In a simple way, there were so many separate pieces that just keeping them all straight was a challenge. An advantage is that there are so many tricks in every shot that it keeps the audience from knowing exactly what was done in any given scene.
Q: David, what was perhaps the biggest obstacle you had to overcome while filming Alice in Wonderland?
David Schaub: That looming deadline! Because it was to be a 3D release, our delivery date was inked in long before we knew the full scope of work. All we knew is that it had to be in theaters on March 5, 2010! There was no moving that date, and that meant that our animation schedule was 9 months from start-to-finish. No wiggle room. You’ll notice that actors are geared up for motion capture, and they also wear targets for an optical tracking solution as a backup should we need to go there. We went into this armed with as much as we could, and allowed for fallback plans as well. In the end, we went for a more stylized version of movement which was more of an animation solution, but we didn’t know that going in. We just had to be as prepared as we could for all the curve-balls that might come our way – and we certainly didn’t want to have regrets that we didn’t capture data when we had the opportunity to do so.
Q: David, what was the storyboard process like? Where the boards very detailed and specific? Or where they more loose and gestural, focusing on mood and general blocking?
David Schaub: Tim is a very visceral filmmaker… and does not like working with story boards. It is a very interactive process when it comes to animation, and a lot of our performance cues were taken from how he directed the actors on set. When it came to the animation process, it was the typical round of blocking, primary and secondary animation approvals.
Q: Dave, how much leeway were you and your staff given to add your own personal style of animation when there was also the look and visual style of Tim Burton being presented?
A: David Schaub: Tim was great at giving us lots of creative license to try lots of different things. He would always steer the work toward his particular sensibilities, and rather than completely scrap a performance that was working well in it’s own way – he would always find a way to make the most of the elements that worked and steer the ship forward without completely turning the ship around. I think it was a very rewarding experience for the animators.
Q: Ken, what all went into the epic climax of Alice in Wonderland?
Ken Ralston: The end battle was shot entirely on green screen. We designed the Jabberwocky as an homage to Ray Harryhausen’s work. There is a tremendous amount of animation and compositing. The sequence is full of many effects and animation tricks — fog, dust, debris — many, many small details that blend together to add a reality to the scene.
Q: Dave, could you explain the 3D animation process a bit for those who may not know that there are animators who add that 3D element to the experience? And how happy are you with the 2D version of the film even though there was that effort done by your 3D team?
David Schaub: When we are inside of our CG world – and if all of our characters were CG, then the process of animating in 3D is really no different than it would be on a 2D film. In the end, the scene is rendered through a left-and right-eye camera. It is a virtual world and everything is already set up with depth relationships. The tricky part is when we integrate live-action elements into that world – like Alice, for example. Before the CG characters can be animated in a scene with her, Alice must first be given “volume” so that the other characters can interact in a believable depth-relationship with her. Basically, a stunt-double version of Alice must be created and animated to match the performance as seen from the camera, then the photography is projected back on to that geometry to give her depth. With regard to “making” a 3D movie, we really only think in terms of 2D (for the most part), and make it the best 2D movie that it can possibly be. The 3D aspect adds depth and places Alice inside this weird and wacky world of Underland… but hopefully people aren’t thinking too much about the effect, but enjoying the ride instead. The goal is to make everything blend seamlessly.
Q: David, could you tell me a little bit more about the concept behind the Blue Caterpillar? What was the overall goal as an animator with that character? Any early ideas that were axed?
David Schaub: The caterpillar performance was truly dictated by how Alan Rickman voiced the character. You don’t even need to see the reference of his performance to feel the disdain in his voice. As with all of the animated characters, the goal was to tone the “animation-knob” way down. Tim wanted to impart an extreme level of subtlety in the performances so that the characters reside in the same world as their live-action counterparts. Again, we took our cues from how Tim directed his actors on set. Nothing is over-dramatized, and if a performance can be sold with absolute “stillness”, with a perfectly timed little dart of the eyes, that’s exactly what Tim wanted to capitalize on. That was a common theme for all of these characters – and the frogs come to mind in that regard as well.
Q: Ken, which of the actors was presented with the greatest challenge to achieve an effect, over the course of the shoot?
Ken Ralston: Mia probably was presented with the greatest challenge. Mia had to carry the weight of performing opposite many, many characters that were not at all visible on the set as you see them in the movie. It was also her first film like this, so she had a huge learning curve. She did fantastically.
Q: Ken, was there ever a moment where you couldn’t achieve what was being asked for, or is that a thing of the past?
Ken Ralston: Sure — for a variety of reasons, there are always shots that either don’t live up to the initial intent or due to schedule, physical resources or cost have to be re-envisioned. But overall, on this film, what you see on the screen came together even more robust than we first imagined.
Q: David, how much training was involved in putting the actors on stilts?
David Schaub: They spent several days hobbling around the set trying to get the hang of it. The primary reason for putting them on stilts was to get the eyeline right on set. You’ll notice that the movement of an actor on stilts LOOKS like an actor on stilts, so those performances were really used as a point-of-reference for animation. The animated version of the Tweedles for example, have a different feel about them than what was actually shot. That was a stylistic choice that evolved with Tim over the course of the show.
Q: Ken having worked with Robert Zemeckis, how successful do you think mo-cap is as a solution to animation problems, and are you happy with the speed at which it’s growing use in the industry?
A: Ken Ralston: MOTION CAPTURE HAS A PLACE IN SPECIFIC TYPES OF MOVIES. IT IS ONE OF MANY AVAILABLE TOOLS. ON ALICE, WE ONLY USED MOTION CAPTURE AS A REFERENCE. ALL OF THE CHARACTERS AND ANIMATION WERE ACTUALLY DONE THROUGH TRADITIONAL KEY FRAME TECHNIQUES
Q: David, Alice has – possibly unjustly – been lumped in with a number of other blockbusters that have ‘upscaled’ to 3D in post. How do you feel about the rush to the new technology? Do you feel some of the other films undermined what you had achieved?
David Schaub: We can always hope that the standards remain high. Of course there is always the possibility that the work turned out over the next couple of years will dictate how the industry goes as a direct result of how audience react to the 3D conversions currently underway.
Q: Ken, it’s easy to think ‘oh it’s all green screen’ but how complicated were the physical green screen sets you built?
A: Ken Ralston: They are deceivingly simple looking but the placement of all of the green props and elements were lined up exactly to the detailed CG designed sets developed by production designer Rob Stomberg. We also had to cloth stunt people, technicians, mechanical effects crew and anyone who was visible in frame but not a principal cast member in green. We shot on 2 large sound stages where portions of sets were constructed. And the green screen also had extensive reference markers so we could track the cameras and know where we were in space.
Q: David, how much more man hours are added with the hybrid characters as opposed to having either live action or fully animated characters?
David Schaub: The hybrid characters were particularly tricky – mostly from a technical point of view. We did not have to make a huge creative leap regarding performances because the essence of the performance is precisely how the actors performed their parts. Stayne was probably the trickiest in that regard because of his proportions. The trick was to replicate the essence of those performances – precisely as Crispin Glover performed – but also imparting a level of gracefulness to his moves which were often difficult to accomplish on stilts. Hours? Many hours! It is just another one of the many animation challenges that we were presented with.
Q: Ken & David: As technology has advanced to the point where basically anything you can think of can be created on screen, do you think audiences are suffering from “CGI fatigue?” How do you continue to wow audiences who have, in some ways, seen everything already??
Ken Ralston: CG is a tool like any other tool in making a movie. It can be used correctly or abused. When used correctly, it can enhance the film’s illusion and the audience experience. It is less about the technique and much more about how it is used. When used effectively to enhance a story, stunning visuals and the opportunity to explore something you have not seen is a rewarding experience.
David Schaub: The most important thing is to wow audiences with great stories and great performances. Yes, if a film hinges on spectacular VFX in order to keep the audience’s attention, then it is very easy to get “CGI-fatigue” on a grand scale. Everything we did in this film was in support of the story, and bringing Tim’s vision to life. It was never about creating some spectacular effect that no one had seen before… but the up side is that I think we ended up with some pretty unique things in the film that audiences have in fact not seen before!
Q: Dave, were there any traditional camera tricks that helped as shortcuts in the animation process?
A: David Schaub: There weren’t really any camera tricks that we could get away with on a film like this. The typical tricks that you could pull off in 2D would be revealed in 3D. For example, if you discover that a character is floating off the ground in your render, you could always cheat that contact with a contact shadow in the final comp. Since we are dealing with stereo cameras, all of those cheats reveal themselves in 3D; so we can’t get away with too many camera “tricks.”
Q: Do you find it frustrating as an audience member to see the films that are converting to 3D with far less attention to detail?
David Schaub: Sure. I would hate for the quick-conversions to give the stereo medium a bad wrap. If the audiences get turned off by the experience of a few poorly executed conversions, that could be enough to change the course of the future of 3D (stereo).
Q: Ken: This project mixes old and new techniques. Are there any new film making technologies on the horizon that you’re excited about or that you think will change the game in a big way?
Ken Ralston: I don’t know there is something on the horizon that will change the game as much as it is about applying the best technique to get the director’s vision onto the screen. Thank you for recognizing that we used a great variety of techniques. Change actually happens somewhat slowly in visual effects. Each film builds on what we learn from the last. While it may seem that certain films are a stunning breakthrough, the imagery is often the result of a steady progression accomplished over many years and through many films. Our technologies are continuously evolving.
Q: This is kind of off topic but I know the L.A. area is considered to be the heart of American animation, are there any other U.S. cities that are doing interesting things in animation?
David Schaub: Albuquerque, NM! I’m not kidding. Sony Imageworks has an facility out there, and a large chunk of this work was done out there. We are all connected via video conferencing, and remote desk-top dailies. We have also opened up an office in Vancouver that will operate in the same way – using ABQ as the model since it worked so well. More and more studios are going this way to take advantage of the tax incentives that are being offered. I love the idea – and I look forward to the day when animators can work remotely from anywhere. And as for LA… yeah, that would get the traffic off the freeways!
Q: Ken, any memorable moments on set with the cast?
A: Ken Ralston: Probably when Tim Burton was shooting crew members and overacting extras with nurf balls
Q: David, what inspires you as an artist? What kept you going and ignited your flame on the 2 year stint that was Alice in Wonderland?
David Schaub: I think great acting is always an inspiration. Tim got such great performances out of his actors, and we strived in animation to deliver performances with the same heart. I am always capturing little nuggets of performances in film, or something I might see on TV. I have a growing archive of great little nuances that I am always looking to impart in an animated character. Often it is just a perfectly timed glance and/or shrug nuance that has a magical quality… no words, just body language. That is the stuff that I find inspiring and hunger to find just the right place for those nuances in animation. So often, animated performances are overacted, over-gestural and overarticulated! That’s one of Tim’s pet peeves as well.
Q: Ken, as a guy who creates believable fantastic worlds for us to play in, what do you do in your ‘off’ time to have fun?
Ken Ralston: I love to take still photographs out in nature. Photography is my hobby and I love the outdoors.
Q: Ken, any final thoughts on Alice as we wrap up this roundtable?
Ken Ralston: Alice was definitely one of the best experiences I have ever had in my career. Working creatively with Tim Burton was incredibly satisfying. There were many challenges and we had an brilliant team that worked well together. I am very proud of the work and most importantly, it was fun. Thank you for joining us today!
Q: Dave, any final thoughts on Alice as we wrap up this roundtable?
David Schaub: There are so many great questions in here and I did my best to get to as many as I could. Sorry if I couldn’t get to yours, but I’m up against the clock (teacher said “pencils down”). Final thoughts? This experience on Alice was truly the most creatively fulfilling experiences of my career. It was a huge pleasure to work with Tim Burton, and an amazing opportunity to give life to the characters of Underland. It was also a crew of the most talented animators that I ever had the pleasure to work with – professional and talented on every level. While the schedule was grueling – 9 months in animation from start-to finish, we all realized we were a part of something special. You don’t get such wonderful opportunities very often, so everyone pulled together and gave it everything they had to make the best of this special time that we had. It was great to see the work pan out the way it did, and great to see audiences enjoying the wild and wacky world of Underland!

9

grenier.stan — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:09:47 +0000

After the Human race destroyed itself new life emerges in the form of tiny sentient robots. However life amongst the ruins of civilization is not easy for these new beings as they must contend with the remaining war machines left behind by the humans. These giants prowl the wastes forcing 9 and his companions to either hide or fight.
The only thing I could think of after seeing “9″ was “Wow”. I’m not a huge fan of CG animation, but this one could definitely make me a convert. The animation was expressive, yet life-like. The action scenes were spectacularly well choreographed and the modeling and environments were lovely. They managed the difficult task of being realistic enough to fit the story while keeping all the fantasy and charm that an animated film needs to have.
“9″ falls into a rather rare category for North American animation, action movie. Within 5 minutes of his awakening our hero and his friends are either running from or fighting giant robotic monsters which only get bigger and more sinister as the story progresses. The movie is driven by breathtaking action sequences however that is not to say it sacrificed story for the sake of explosions. “9″ has an interesting plot, but the story and character development are handled in such a way that we get what we need to know without becoming bogged down in exposition. If I had to find one flaw in the movie it would be the pacing. A little more time to catch one’s breath between epic battles might have been nice but it by no means detracts from the enjoyment of this movie.
The film is based on the award-winning stop motion short of the same name which was also created and directed by Shane Acker. Acker does a wonderful job translating the short into a full-length feature. The film expands upon the original without feeling labored or overdone. This is the first film to be created by the newly formed Starz Animation Toronto and they did a wonderful job. The characters were charming and expressive without being overly cartoonish, the surfacing and lighting gives everything the dusty, post-apocalyptic look the film demands while the careful set choices show us the beauty that can exist even in such a harsh world. I have to applaud everyone involved in this film for taking some rather large risks in story and style.
Convention dictates that an animated movie has to be “family friendly” meaning that whatever amount of action or drama or plot the movie contains it must be counter-balanced by a hearty helping of comedy. There seems to be an unwritten rule that states whenever the movie starts to get too serious or emotional something funny needs to happen to break the tension. This does not happen in “9″, tension is allowed to build, our heroes can face down giant monsters and even lose, and happy, peaceful moments can be broken by giant robot things crashing through the wall.
Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the traditional animated comedy because there isn’t, those movies are a lot of fun. However, it is nice to see creators daring to break the mold, of course this isn’t the first time Tim Burton has done this and I would expect nothing less from a film he produced. It‘s refreshing to see that the bounds of animation are still being tested, that new kinds of films can emerge and be embraced by the mainstream American market.
So on to the big question: “Is it too scary/ intense for my kids?” Well, I’m never one to draw a line and say “all children of X age will love or hate or be traumatized by this movie” because I don’t know what level of maturity your 7 year-old is at, nor what they like. However, I will say if you took your kids to see Transfomers and they enjoyed it then they’ll probably like 9 as well. So if you’re looking for a great adventure, mind-blowing action and beautiful animation then go see “9″.

Is Coraline Too Scary? A Five-Year-Old’s Opinion

grenier.stan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:53:04 +0000

There’s been a bit of controversy going on about whether Coraline might be too dark or scary for younger audiences. As I’m no longer part of said demographic I’m in no position to comment on that, to do so would simply be me imposing my own preconceptions about the maturity and intelligence of children onto the subject and therefore utterly useless. So instead I decided to go right to the source and ask my five-year-old almost-niece, Lucia Tellez, what she thought.
Neko Pilarcik: What did you think of the movie?
Lucy Tellez: The little girl saw a big girl and it was her Other Mother. And I liked the movie.
NP: What was your favorite part?

LT: When the cat helped the little girl out, that was a good part.
NP: Where there any scary parts?
LT: The scariest part was when the little girl lost her family.
NP: But she got them back right?
LT: Yeah, she got them back and that was good. But it scared me when she lost her family.
NP: Do you think it’s too scary for little kids?
LT: At some points yeah, but I liked the movie.
NP: So is it okay for kids your age to see?
LT: Yeah.
According to Lucy’s mom there were some parts that where a bit more than they were expecting. During the climax of the movie Lucy was sitting in her mom’s lap whimpering, she figures if Lucy were a couple years older it would have been fine. She noticed there were a lot of 7 and 8 year olds there who laughed their heads off. While Lucy enjoyed much of the movie the scary parts where a bit too intense for a five-year-old.

Coraline director – Henry Selick

grenier.stan — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:40:09 +0000

Coraline director, Henry Selick, braves the Chicago winter to talk with us about making his dark and charming film.
Henry Selick: What’s it like out there? I haven’t been out today.
Neko Pilarcik: It’s cold, not as bad as it had been though.
HS: I can’t believe how cold it is up here! I got in last night and I went outside without my coat or anything just to see what it was like and it was amazing! I could feel every part of me freezing all at once! I can’t believe people live in a place where it gets this cold.
NP: It kinda grows on you after a while.
HS: I’ll bet, it’s really something!
NP: So Coraline in is 3D, what specific challenges did shooting in 3D pose?
HS: I figured shooting in 3D would enhance the story; it plays on the thought of going from this world that’s not so great to a sort of Wizard of Oz, Technicolor world. The idea was to use 3D to draw the audience into the film the way that Coraline is drawn through the door and into the Other World. To do this we built 2 sets: one for the real world and one for the Other World, all the real world sets were built much shallower so you get a sort of claustrophobic feeling that it’s just not quite comfortable. Then when we go into the Other World all the sets are built very deep to really push that feeling of it being in 3 dimensions; and once Coraline learns what the Other World really is we pushed the 3D even more to really make you feel like you were being swallowed up by it.
NP: I know the whole film was done in stop motion but I noticed you did have some CG crew, what did they do?
HS: There were very few scenes that were all CG. One example was the scene with the ghost children when you see them with the golden glowing background and you get the feeling that they’re in a better place. But mostly we used it to paint things out like you see there’s a line across everyone’s face; that was so we could replace the mouths for dialogue and expressions, now I think it looks fine the way it is but the people who were paying for the film wanted them painted out so we did that in CG. Also whenever anything that flies or jumps into the air we had to have a rig to hold them up and those we had to paint out. We also used it for some neat effects, like in the scene where Coraline walks out of Spink and Forcible’s apartment after having her fortune told and there’s all that fog. What we did there was first film the Coraline’s actions and the ground was painted blue or green, then we went back and laid cotton down and shot that and then in CG we could manipulate the cotton to make it flow around her as she moved which was pretty cool. As we started to run short on time we’d use it to composite things together. I always tried to get everything in a shot but sometimes it just wasn’t possible so we would composite things in CG.

NP: Neil Gaiman said if it was going to become a film he wanted you to direct, what were your feelings coming into the project?
HS: I wasn’t overly familiar with Neil’s work, I knew him from The Sandman but it was actually his agent who introduced us. Later he asked me to direct and when I read the pages I just felt in tune with the story. It worked with the way I think and I could see all everything come to life in my head so it just seemed like a natural thing to do. And I think it’s a story everyone can relate to, everybody wonders what if something changed; you’re always dissatisfied with something, you don’t like your wife or your father or something. Not your dog though, people are always pretty happy with their dogs.
NP: Did you assign specific characters to specific animators or did everyone pretty much animate whatever the scene required?
HS: Well, I let the animators lead the project. I’d known a lot of the animators for quite a while, some of them from even before Nightmare, some were new but I pretty much knew everyone and what they’d be good at so I did try to cast specific animators for characters to get the right type of performance. The animators were the leaders so we’d have an animation supervisor who does tests to see what the character can do and how we want them to move and then, of course, you have to rethink how the cat moves because the model just won’t do that. So we did try to specialize but due to time that wasn’t always possible and there were some characters, like Coraline, who’s in just about every scene that everyone had to animate. We did have some Coraline specialists, some people who did close ups or some who’d do action sequences or the really emotional scenes. For the other characters who weren’t on screen as much we did specialize more like the first scene with Bobinsky when Coraline brings up his stinky cheese samples and he’s swinging around and talking to her, that was all done by Brad Schiff. The Other Mother was mostly animated by Trey Thomas and Payton Curtis. The scene with Other Bobinsky when all the rats go running out of him and he falls apart, that was Julianna Cox, she just had a great way of making him move and flop about. The first scene with Spink and Forcible was done by Suzanne Twining, she pretty much lived on that set. And the scene where Spink and Forcible are in the other world and they’re doing their performance was done by Eric Leighton. Sorry, I’m trying to give credit to everyone but five minutes ago the answer is yes.
NP: It seems like it takes a lot of patience to do this type of work.
HS: A film like this is like growing a garden that takes several years to grow and you’re constantly having to water and trim and graft it. But there’s just that type of person that when you’re a kid you take your Legos and a camera and it takes you all day but when it’s done and you see the Legos moving you realize it was worth it and you just want to keep doing it forever.
NP: LAIKA is my absolute favorite studio, do you have any advice you could give animators who want to work for LAIKA?
HS: When we look at portfolios I like to see complete films so present yourself as a complete filmmaker. Thirty seconds, three minutes, five minutes it doesn’t matter how long it is just make the best film you can. Making a complete film shows your sensibilities, it shows how you do each aspect and that will help us find where to place you. Even if you end up doing storyboards it helps to see a finished film instead of just animation tests. Besides it’s much more fun, I think, to watch a little movie than it is to see tests.
NP: So do you have another project on the horizon?
HS: The next film I’m doing is called Para Norman, I’m won’t be directing though. I’m working on bringing up some people from the story department to direct because they’re very talented and I’m big about giving people their breaks.
NP: Will it be stop motion, CG or 2D?
HS: It’ll be stop motion.
NP: That’s awesome, we need more stop motion features!

Coraline

grenier.stan — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:51:02 +0000

Coraline is a charmingly dark tale of a brave and adventurous little girl who discovers a magical world through a tiny door in her new home. While on the surface this might sound like a rehash of Alice in Wonderland I assure you it is anything but. Adapted from Neil Gaiman’s book of the same name, Coraline is a refreshingly unique tale of adventure and wonder in a world that is as whimsical as it is terrifying. Gaiman has a way of taking your expectations and turning them upside-down, offering many a pleasant and occasionally scary surprise. That fact makes it as good a movie for adults as it is for kids. I’ve seen a lot of animation, from Bambi to anime, from experimental sand animation to CG comedies and it’d been so long since a children’s movie really engaged me that I was beginning to wonder if I’d simply gotten too old. I’m pleased to say Coraline has proven me wrong, between the story and the animation Coraline has a way about it that just draws you in to its world and what a wonderful, fun, spooky world it is!
The film’s heroine, Coraline, is the kind of character you can’t help but cheer for. No Disney princesses here! Coraline is a quick-witted, brave, adventurous little girl who loves digging in the garden, exploring and even slugs. The kind of kid who, much to her parents’ dismay, is always coming home drenched in mud with a scrape or two for her latest adventure. Even when confronted with ghosts and monsters, Coraline, though scared finds it in herself to save the day.
The animation is every bit as wonderful as the story; directed by stop motion master, Henry Selick of The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach fame, and animated by Portland based LAIKA Coraline is a joy to look at. The character and set design is quirky and very cool while the animation is subtle and life-like in a way that many thought couldn’t be achieved with stop motion. It is only made better by the fact that every bit of what you see is handmade, every puppet, every costume, every petal of every flower was crafted and animated by hand. Some might ask, “Why does it matter? Wouldn’t it have been easier to do with a computer?” While that may be true, I don’t think Coraline would have looked nearly as good if it’d been done in CG. There’s a realness to Coraline in its tiny imperfections, the way you can see the brushstrokes in the paint and the stitches in the clothing that helps give it its charm. You just can’t get that out of CG, and why should you try? It’s a different art form, no better or worse, just different. But it’s films like Coraline that remind us why we love those old Rankin Bass Christmas specials like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer or The Year Without Santa Claus and proves that even with all our fancy new technology stop motion is still a wonderful, viable form of filmmaking that definitely deserves to stick around.
I know this is running long but before I go I have to give a nod to the studio that created this wonderful film, LAIKA. Coraline is their first feature but they are by no means new to animation, LAIKA has produced some of the best animated commercials around, from the Mac vs. PC Christmas commercials for Apple to M&M’s and even the They Might Be Giants music video for “That Bastard Wants to Hit Me”. LAIKA blends a unique artistic sensibility with skill in all forms of animation to create commercials that always stand out from the crowd. I’m thrilled to see that they’ve finally brought their passion and creativity to the big screen with Coraline. Way to go guys, keep it up!
Coraline is a truly unique, cool, and fun adventure that I think everyone should see. Little kids, big kids and everyone in between will be pleasantly surprised by this one.

Waltz with Bashir

grenier.stan — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:42:33 +0000

Director Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir is a documentary about the lives of Israeli soldiers fighting in the First Lebanon War. The war ended with the massacre of thousands of Palestinians living the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by the Christian Phalangist militia. The film follows Folman as he talks with those he knew back then on a quest to patch up holes in his own memory of exactly what happened and who was responsible for the massacre. Besides being a gripping documentary about a war most Americans have head little about it is also animated. Beautifully.
When I first saw stills from Waltz with Bashir I thought, “There’s no way they animated the whole thing.” It just looked too good, the illustrations where so detailed and beautiful, like something you’d expect to see in a graphic novel not a feature film, let alone one animated by only eight people. But they did it with a style and skill more common to Hayao Miyazaki or Leiji Matsumoto. Take this scene for instance: The Israeli army is ambushed and the commander is shot, panicked some of the soldiers flee their tank and run towards the sea. The scene is done in POV, the camera bounces up and down with the footfalls, you can see the rocky ground fly beneath as shells explode and other soldiers dive for cover. The animation is so smooth and realistic that it has led many to believe the film had to be rotoscoped (an animation technique where live action footage is shot first and then traced as animation) but this is not the case, though some live action reference was filmed no tracing was ever done and in action sequences, such as this, it all came from the imaginations of Folman and his animators.
Many people have asked, “Why animate a documentary?” I know I did. But after seeing it you realize it’s the only way it could have been done. Not much footage exists from the war and certainly nothing as personal and intimate as what Folman and his team were able to create. In many documentaries you can sit back as an observer, watching interviews and archival footage and have a level of comfort, of distance from that’s happening. Not so in Waltz with Bashir you become a participant, you experience these stories and memories first hand, and you feel for the people in those stories. The animation plays an important part in this; it enhances the feeling of the surreality of memory and war while ensuring that you won’t want to tear your eyes off the screen. Personally, I wish more documentaries were done this way.
As an animated film Waltz with Bashir is truly refreshing. In this age when we’re told you need hundreds of artists, fancy computers and millions of dollars to make an animated feature, along comes a movie made by eight artists using Flash, (a program commonly used for making goofy web toons about exploding frogs) and it looks just as good as anything Disney could come up with.
Whether you look at this film as an animation or a documentary the fact remains it is a wonderful film. With its engaging style of storytelling and artwork that would make Walt jealous Waltz with Bashir is definitely worth watching. I truly hope this is the first, not the last, we see of this sort of film and this style of animation.

Ari Folman on Waltz with Bashir

grenier.stan — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:38:57 +0000

Here’s a challenge: create a feature length animated film with only eight animators and do it without resorting to rotoscope or stick figures. Impossible, right? Not for Ari Folman, the producer, director and writer of Waltz with Bashir. We speak with him about film, animation, and of things to come.
Neko Pilarcik: So I’d like to talk with you with you today about animation.
Ari Folman: Oh yes, why animation? Why animation?
NP: So I guess we can skip that question.
AF: That’s nice of you.
NP: Thank you. I’ve seen that question in every interview with you, “why would you do animation?”
AF: Yes, why animation?
NP: So, what was your process in creating the animation?
AF: Well, first there was the idea, it was always meant to be an animated film. There was no other way you could do it. And then there was the research, I advertised on the internet and I got replies form more than a hundred people for stories for the film.
AF: As far as animation there’s no tradition of animation in Israel, there’s no animation. It’s the second ever animated film; the first one was done in 1961. So you see there’s no tradition of it. It’s good because you don’t have to follow anything.
NP: Right, I’d never seen an animated documentary before.
AF: Well, there’s no animation at all, Israel has no animation.
NP: Oh really?
AF: So it’s the second ever animation film… and the first animated documentary. But that’s not really important. I thought it was important when I started, now I don’t think so anymore. I think that it gave me a lot of problems, trying to declare it as the first animated documentary.

NP: Really, why’s that?
AF: Because the establishment is really narrow minded in many senses. It was not open to new dimensions of film making. So when I went to documentary funds they told me, “it can’t work because it’s animated, it’s not a documentary.” And when I went to animation they told me, “It can’t work, it’s a documentary!”
NP: So no one wanted you.
AF: No one wanted to go for it. And I had very little money, I did a three minute scene and I traveled with it to Toronto Documentary Film Festival in 2005 and I pitched it there, this three minute scene. And although I got mostly negative reactions, there was one guy from Arte France who decided to go for it. They put some money in so we had money for 20 minutes, and then we did 20 minutes, I traveled and we got money for another 20 minutes. This is how it was done.
NP: So you really put it together piece by piece.
AF: But we never stopped because in the middle I mortgaged my house, I took some loans, so we never stopped.
NP: So how was the animation done? I know I keep coming back to this back to this but when my friend and I first saw it, we’re both animators, and we debated all night about how it could have been done. So I’m really curious.

AF: Okay, what do you think?
NP: There are moments where I feel like it was done as CG there are other moments when I think it could only be done as traditional, hand-drawn animation or maybe, maybe Flash.
AF: Well, first it’s Flash, everything is Flash. Which is pretty weird, I mean we took this very simple software to the extreme.
NP: Yeah you did!
AF: It’s all Flash. It’s not rotoscoped, of course. There are some moments of 3D but those are mostly spectacle shots, track shots, environment shots, they’re not part of the film. You know, just the crane going up from the snow to the boat. Or in the city of Beirut coming down towards the apartment where they ate dinner, stuff like that it.
NP: Okay.
AF: All the other stuff it Flash. Now sometimes we helped the Flash with classical animation; like we were having problems making slow movement with Flash, because in slow movement you see all the problems with the software. In really hyped action scenes it would always work. So this is where we helped with classic, like the lower part of the body was done with classic animation and the upper part was done with Flash.
NP: I see.

AF: The waltz scene, the dancing was done with classic.
NP: Okay.
AF: But the opening scene that looks just like classic was done with Flash. But the guy who did that scene was genius.
NP: Was that the head animator?

AF: No, it was someone who just graduated, it was his first job.
NP: He did a really admirable job.

AF: Oh, he did, he did.
NP: So when you were dealing with the 3D, the CG aspect of those couple shots, would you build a model and then texture it with the hand drawings?
AF: Yes.
NP: Okay.
AF: I’m not very fond of 3D animation; I never got used to the look of the Pixar animation, I like some of their films because of the storytelling but the design doesn’t do so much.
NP: Yeah, it doesn’t have the same sort of emotion that you get out of classic animation.
AF: I think it’s like Mogli in Jungle Book, I like that.
NP: Yeah, it’s amazing the way the characters move and the sort of emotion you can get with just drawings.
AF: Yes.
NP: Obviously directing animation is different from directing live action.
AF: Oh yes.
NP: What was your process as a director in dealing with that?
AF: First I did it before; this is my second work of animation. It was complicated getting used to the pace of things, to the fact that you don’t really control the production. There is a limit to what animators can do and if they can’t do what you declare then you just find more animators. And so it was difficult in the beginning but on the other hand you really get addicted to it because it gives you so much freedom. I mean you can do whatever you imagine, no problem! You just need the right people, expressive views and your vision and you can make it happen.
NP: Yeah.
AF: So in that sense I got addicted to that freedom.
NP: So did you start with storyboards?
AF: We had to shoot everything on video and for sound reasons in a sound booth. So we did that for all the interviews. We tried to dramatize as much as we could; not the dogs, of course, or the orchard, but for the dance we had a dancer. If I was interviewing in a car we’d sit side by side in plastic chairs and pretend it’s a car. So we did everything we could as reference and we cut it as a feature length film and it had sketches in and voice-over and it was pretty interesting. So that was the reference, then we changed it into one very long storyboard and then we made that into the animatic. And the animatic was, I mean, comparing to big American feature films it was very good stuff. We put a lot of effort in the animatic so that we could minimize as much as we can the mistakes we might have during the process of animation.
NP: Right.
AF: So the full length animatic feature, I mean it’s art for itself. I think it’s really great, and we screened it to get reactions to see if it was working. Then we did something like 3,000 key frames, and we moved from there and made the film.
NP: And you continued to direct and have your input throughout every stage.
AF: Yes, every few days.
NP: Okay.
AF: I mean the film is very cinematic which doesn’t have to do with animation. Look at Wall-E, which is a great film I think, but the first 30 minutes are incredible because they’re so cinematic. For the first time in a Pixar film it’s quiet, just cinematic vision. So I put a lot of input in that area, and it was like microscopic work, you know; take two frames here move them there, just to make the film work.
NP: Well you did a terrific job. How many animators did you have working on it?
AF: We had only eight animators, well six, we started with six.
NP: Wow, you guys worked fast!
AF: We started with six then we had two more and we needed two more but we couldn’t find anyone. I remember we screened Nemo after work and we counted 42 people responsible for lighting. And I read yesterday we won the L.A. Critics’ Award for best animation feature and to think that eight animators did it.
NP: Yeah, that’s amazing.
AF: That is amazing! I mean we were competing with Kung Fu Panda and Bolt and I don’t know what, those huge factories with loads of people. The animation establishment here, since to America, has been really pushing the film because in many ways I think it gives hope for a lot of people.
NP: It proves that it can be done without a 100 people and a Disney budget.
AF: Yeah, yeah!
NP: You said you tried to dramatize as much as you could up front, there’s this one scene that sticks out in my mind: It was when the soldiers were fleeing on the beach and you had this POV shot and you could see the camera bounce up and down with the footfalls. Was that another one you filmed live action first?
AF: No, and I’m sorry we didn’t, I don’t like it.
NP: Really? I really liked it.
AF: I thought it sucked. Well, there are some places where I watch the film and I think it’s not right. I had to fight with them they didn’t wanna use the camera.
NP: Really?
AF: Yeah because of ego problems, I don’t know why. I always tried to persuade them all those years, use the camera it’s not insulting, no one will know.
NP: So where did you find your animation team?
AF: I’d worked with them before, they’re all graduates of an art school in Jerusalem, Bezalel, they have an animation department there. They’re very young, the director of animation, he’s a teacher there and they all were his students. We follow the students now since their first year because we need more animators for the next film. So we know each one’s progress and we hope to bring them aboard.
NP: So you’re planning another animated film?
AF: Oh yes, yes; a science fiction movie now.

NP: Oh neat! So can you tell me a little about it?

AF: Yeah, it’s based on a book I optioned by an author I really adore, Stanislaw Lem, he’s Polish he wrote “Solaris” among other things. It’s called “The Futurological Congress” of course we will change the title. It takes place in the future where the whole world is controlled by the manufacturers of psychopharmacology drugs, they control all our feelings, and there’s this ex-actress, an American actress, who tries to figure out what life really is without all the drugs. So you can imagine it’s gonna be very wild.
NP: That sounds awesome!
AF: Yeah, I can’t wait to get started.
NP: So back to Bashir for a second: the look of it is so unique it’s more like a graphic novel than a cartoon. What influenced that look?
AF: It was influenced by graphic novels much more than any animation I know, I love graphic novels. And it’s gonna be published next month as a graphic novel, they did such a good job, it looks so beautiful.
NP: That’s wonderful! So I guess I’ve only got one question left, so why animation? No I think we’ve covered that.

AF: I think so.
NP: Well, thank you so much for your time and I’ll be cheering for you in the Oscars!
AF: Thank you, we’ll see what happens.

Teacher’s Pet

grenier.stan — Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Spot (Nathan Lane) is a dog with a secret. At night he is the loving pooch to his young master Leonard (Shaun Fleming). By day he is a two-footed student at Leonard’s school. This transformation is done not with mirrors, but a simple pair of glasses and school clothes. So goes the premise of Disney’s Teacher’s Pet, a fun and witty screen version of the TV cartoon of the same name.
Spot loves acting human. In fact, he really, really wants to change into human form. He claims to be born on the “wrong end of the leash.” Happiness can only come with his leaving the canine world behind for good. Trouble arises when his canine and human worlds collide. Sound silly? Good. Silly is what it is. But it is also witty and charming with close to a dozen songs and enough adult-oriented jokes for the parents to join in the laughter.
Not to be outdone by the songwriters, animator Gary Basemen creates a magical world of images that will please the kids and keep the adults watching. Director Timothy Bjorklund creates some memorable scenes to help propel Teacher’s Pet through its quick 67 minute viewing. Some sequences might be lost on the kids and some jokes make it a PG movie, but this is definitely one for the family.
Writers Bill and Cheri Steinkeller keep the plot moving through Spot’s “I just wanna be human” quest to a subplot about a dog hating scientist Doctor Crank (Kelsey Grammer),who must be stopped before dogs are changed forever as a species.
Teacher’s Pet is movie with sharp writing and catchy songs. It’s a rare family film that is long on music and funny gags and short on length. Share the laughs with your family.