| Friday, September 12, 2008 |
06:44 - Icon Stadium
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2008/09/for-karen-what-makes-lasting-iconic.html
|
(top) |
John K., always the font of wisdom as pertains to the world of animation, takes on the question of why so many modren animated movies—monetarily successful though they might be—fail to create any memorable characters who outlive the 90 minutes that they're up on screen. Where are today's Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Woody Woodpecker, and Popeye?
In my opinion, that's because modern movies focus more on "the "arena", the formula animation plot and the special effects but they pay very little heed to character.
Characters that are charismatic, unique and engaging can fit into any "arena". Iconic classic characters appeared in different scenarios all the time, and the audience never questioned it. In fact they looked forward to seeing their favorite characters over and over again. What made these characters iconic?
His answer: a uniqueness and appeal of look; inter-character chemistry; a strong and well-defined personality full of quirks; and a voice you can remember and imitate:
Too many of today's cartoons use "star voices" which sound like no one in particular. If a cartoon character sounds like your next door neighbor, then he doesn't sound special or unique.
Here, turn this on, close your eyes and just listen to the voices. Doesn't it sound like your next door neighbors trying to solve a community problem? Can you tell one character from another?
Astute observations all. (I loved Ratatouille, but who even remembers that the rat's name was Remy? And who can remember what his voice sounded like, let alone imitate it?) And in true John K. fashion, lavishly illustrated with examples both still and moving. But he neglects to point out some examples of modern characters that are iconic, and thus prove his point:
Chemistry they've got. And separability from the "arena".
Not a one of them sounds like a movie star or your next-door neighbor. Even Carl the next-door neighbor doesn't sound like a next-door neighbor.
Uniqueness? They've sure got that sewn up.
There's no shortage of quirky personality either.
Some modern characters are so successful at being iconic that they become, well, old and stupid.
And some characters are so iconic that people can literally make them into icons.
They're out there. They're just not being created by the giant studios in focus groups. Even Pixar isn't playing in this league—though, I suspect, not because they're incapable of it, but more because they're more comfortable doing "arena" pieces, grand concepts that lend themselves to the dazzle that their technology allows. Something centered on a quirky character doesn't need to be flashy and high-budget; hell, it doesn't even need to be CG. But Pixar, and the Disney tradition that birthed it, have never been about iconic characters—they're about epic stories and awesome animation, and any lasting characters they've created in the process (which, naturally, they have from time to time) have been incidental.
This might be the biggest conceptual chasm yet identified in animation: not simply "features vs. shorts", or "big-budget movies vs. direct-to-video sequels", or "corporate vs. indie". Rather, it's animation that's about the animation, and animation that's about the characters.
I love both, myself. You can't have the one without the other to inspire it. (Some of my favorite movies and shows are "arena" productions, like the Disney features and shows like Futurama and The Venture Bros., whose characters are incidental to the playground of the setting.) But I think both are essential for the health of the art form, and I hope we see more of the latter getting wider play somehow or other. Since the character-oriented examples I've pointed out are of the subversive grass-roots variety, maybe that's where people's natural affinities lie anyway.
|
|
Brian Tiemann
