What makes great animation?

In response to a comment I left over at her blog, Kelly writes: “You know, people always compliment certain types of animated movies as having ‘amazing animation' and I just have no idea what they're talking about. I look and look at these films and just don't see it. I mean, I think they look great, but I just don't get why it's such a big accomplishment. Suppose this is because I'm not an artist.” I remember in my early teens explaining to an older cousin how amazing the animation was in The Transformers: The Movie, countering his argument that it didn't compare with classic Disney. My sole defense was that it looked “really cool”, and while I was quickly dismissed, there is validity at the core of that argument. As with any art form, animation can be gauged by a subjective view of the basic aesthetics. Beyond this, there's the actual technical aspects, and the more involved something is the more impressive it is. One doesn't need to know the process to enjoy animation, and an old adage applies: “I may not know what art is, but I know what I like.”

The earliest cartoons to catch my eye and impress me were Japanese imports. Shows like Orbots and Voltron, with their giant robots and heavy shading techniques captured my attention as something wholly different from the Warner Bros., Popeye and Walter Lantz cartoons I grew up with. These cartoons seemed “real”, with human beings instead of talking animals who, while ideal and stylized, still bore a closer resemblance to people who might actually exist. At the time, the style and realism offered appeal, although these cartoons depicted war and conflict and lacked the adorable appeal of someone like Chilly Willy, whose name STILL instantly triggers recollections of his theme song, even now. Still, whatever the style of the drawings, whether cartoony or realistic, all of these traditional shows used cel animation.

Drawing is hard. I knew when I decided to become an artist I'd like to draw comics, but not cartoon strips, and not animation. Comics allow for some license in style, and many artists develop their own signature look. But a cartoon character had to be drawn exactly the same way each time. It's daunting enough for a typical three-panel newspaper strip, and there's definitely room to cheat and reuse characters and backgrounds, changing only word balloons, but animation requires a character to not only be drawn the same way, but for subtle changes to be made to each cel. We take it for granted when characters move fluidly, but even something as simplified as The Simpsons requires the same attention to detail. An average of 30 frames are usually needed, for each second of film! Add to this equation the fact that studios employ teams of animators, and now we have multiple people matching the same style. It's a miracle the end results are as impressive as they are, although a discerning eye can pick up errors. Many of the Japanese cartoons I loved as a kid are riddled with errors, and occasionally watching some of them now I'll notice a character's mouth disappear for a few seconds, or someone painted the wrong colors. I still admire the style, but can only concede that Disney had far superior quality. Even perfectionists encounter mistakes, inevitable in the process of turning out episodes quickly and farming out some of the work, and I've heard Bruce Timm lament imperfections such as specks of dust on certain frames in the opening credits to Batman: The Animated Series.

There are many techniques besides traditional animation. In rotoscoping, frames of film are traced by animators, creating even more fluid motion. Some of the more impressive applications of this technique that I've seen include Fire and Ice, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, The Secret of NIMH(the very first animated movie I saw in theaters), and the 1978 version of The Lord of the Rings. I saw the latter in installments shown at my local library on an old film projector, and though I didn't understand precisely what was different about the way the characters moved, I knew it was something special. I'm definitely looking forward to the release of A Scanner Darkly. Why not use real actors if rotoscoping so closely approximates reality? The hybrid of film and animation creates something greater than the sum of its parts which, in the same layman's terms I used as a child, “looks really cool.”

Computer generated animation is also on the rise, from various Pixar productions to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or the soon-to-be-released Advent Children. I've seen blends of cel and computer animation done well in Treasure Planet, and poorly in the ‘90s Spider-man cartoon. While the former was seamless, it was very obvious in the latter when a ship or car were computer generated.

What makes great animation? Technique is a factor, and does not necessarily have to be appreciated solely by professionals. If a person is convinced of the “reality” of what he or she is viewing and not thinking about the underlying structure, then the piece is successful. Style is also a factor, from the wonderfully disturbing and twisted colored pencil animation of Pink Floyd: the Wall to the humorous liquid characatures presented in Les Triplets de Belleville. I've always enjoyed surrealism, seeing reality twisted and dreams brought to life. Again, any art form is subjective. What brings your dreams to life? That's great animation.