Commentary for History of Animation

Comments for Post #11 and Post #12

2005-11-30T22:21:00.000-05:00

Comments for Post #11 and Post #12: Kristy's Blog, Josh's Blog, Gabrielle's Blog and Jesse's Blog.

Post #12- Toy Story 2 and the Representation of Childhood and Growing Up

2005-11-30T21:43:00.000-05:00

Just as one of the lines of Toy Story 2 states, toys don't last forever, neither does childhood. Childhood overall, just as the high school and college years of a person's development, represent a simpler time. This is a time that will attempt to be remebered for its enjoyment. Toys embody this view, for they are the things that make children the most happy.
The life and death of the relationship between children and their toys represent the maturing transitional state of man from an idealitic, carefree mindset to a more serious, real world oriented complete with real problems of their own.

A child- toy relationship really begins at birth, with their first toy. This time allows children to help become aquainted to the world, while feeling conforted, soothed and even enthralled. This process can also begin when the new toy has been given to a child. Since Toy Story 2 brings the Indian in the Cupboard-esque manner of having the toys come to life, this is the point at which these toys form their unconditional love for their owners. Much like dogs, these toys possess honor of true loyalty.

The height of the child-toy relationship is one Woody had with his own Andy until he was broken. The child starts also unconditionally loves the child and the toy becomes real. This is when the children have the most idealic, carefree state.

The child-toy relationship begins its downfall when a toy is first viewed as broken. In some cases the toy actually does break and in others the toy is just viewed as being outdated. This contrast can be made by looking at Weezy and Jessie. Weezy actually become broken and forgotten about. Jessie was more forgotten about and then become outdated.

Although Toy Story 2 is ultimately shows how the toy's legacy can be passed down by it being passed down, the story does leave out the final step in the cycle of a toy's life. That is it's death. If Jessie had not been offered a second chance first by the toy musuem to live forever, than by Woody to join him and Andy to have a more terminal but enjoyable life, she would have died as a toy. However, her relationship with her owner Emily died when she was put out to good will. That day represented Emily entering her teen years and becoming more serious and real world oriented.

Post #11- The Homogenization of Geography in Animations

2005-11-30T21:27:00.000-05:00

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmarron, along with several other animations disregard the geography of their settings. Instead of accurately portraying the geography , the animations feature more exciting geographical landscapes such as waterfalls. Animations homogenize cartoon's geography in order to make drama and provide for a wider range of story options.

The first reason why this geographic homogenization comes from the need to create drama. As with Pocahontas and Spirit the featuring of a waterfall in a setting not complying with the geographic integrity adds drama. During climatic song lines main characters are often featured enjoying the waterfall. Another element that apparently geography contributes to the drama of the story is the cliff. Although there are no cliffs in Jamestown, Pocahontas sings Colors of the Wind on top of one.

The second reason why animation's geography is changed is to allow for greater story options. Clearly it is more exciting to make it seem like the setting takes place in the mountains, Great Plains, Yellowstone etc, but Spirit should have featured the acutally place of the Cimmaron river which is in the Southwestern area of the country. If both Spirit and Pocahontas were more like The Simpsons in respect to the fact that part of story is not grounded in history then they could get away with amorphous and/or no descript geography. Geographical representations are much a part of the historical integrity of a film as anything else is.

Post #10- Truly An American Tale

2005-11-08T23:06:00.000-05:00

As those of you know who went to class last week, we watched An American Tale about a mouse family immigrating to America. One of America's foundations centers on the principle that America is a land of opportunity for all; it is a place for a fresh start and with hard work anyone can become a success. Yet, An American Tale portrays another side of the American Dream, one where the streets are not paved with cheese and there are cats.

Immigrants to America, as soon in the movie, expect automatically to have an easier life, alas this is hard to pull off when you arrive to a new country with nothing more than a few possessions. Some things do no change, money does not fall from the sky and not everyone accepts you. New Americas faced poverty, abusive ill-paying jobs and the general public taking advantage of them. Sure hard work will help these immigrants move up in the world, but it is not a guaranteed success as it was perceived.

This is not the America they envisioned, but immigrants stayed because they came to America for freedom. Nowadays freedom is something that native born Americans do not give much thought to. Sure we can vote, go to school etc, but these immigrants felt as if they earned their freedoms by enduring what they did. Often times this is why minority groups such as women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities will sometimes stick up for each other's rights because they know the pain and suffering it took to achieve such rights in the first place.

Comments for Week #9

2005-11-02T15:40:00.000-05:00

Here are my comments for this week: Bonnie's Blog and Rawand's Blog.

Post #9- Where would we be in the study of cartoons without directors and artists commentary?

2005-11-02T14:52:00.000-05:00

I decided I would watch Finding Nemo with the Director's Commentary to give me something to write about for this week's post. I have watched some Director's Commentary before and had found it interesting, yet this time around it proved to be more useful to me when relating what was discussed in the commentary to the study of history of animation. Director's Commentary of their movie reminds the viewer that the animated story they are witnessing is not just a shallow children's tale, but rather plays on a deeper set of themes that maybe harder to follow due to just being too sucked into the general aura of the story.

Even without seeing the Director's Commentary of Finding Nemo, everyone knows that the story is one of a journey and about the dichotomy of fear verse hope and pessimism verse optimism in life. Yet the director always points out the subtle nuances of his exploration of the themes throughout the story. It is always intriguing to have someone point out such differences that are so painfully obvious, yet you missed them anyways. An example of this would be how Nemo's father, Marlin is overprotective, which is contrasted to Nemo's fish school class which is adventurous. Additionally, the Director's Commentary often leads to discovering unanswered questions, as why does Nemo have a 'bad' fin? Director Andrew Stanton points out that this is a visual manifestation of whatever the little thing in their child's life that a parent thinks a child can not handle.

Along with insight into the greater meaning of the picture, Director's Commentary often leads to enlightenment about the technical process of how the movie came to be the finished product that it is. This includes exploring subjects such as general animation techniques, research for how things look in real life and attempting to reproduce that in the movie, and general film 'grammar' of using certain shots and certain musical scores. First off one of the things anyone notices about Finding Nemo is the use of lighting in the shots. The artists in charge of this tasks go through a little segment of how this lighting is construction. It turns out that different types of lighting, such as caustic, key and fog lighting were used in combination to create the final effect. Other discoveries that can be made thanks to the DVD Director's Commentary include how the plants of the reef were simplified into three major types (tall, vertical; big, flat horizontal; and big, round) in order to better animate them.

Random Aside to My Posts on Appropriateness of Cartoons

2005-10-26T15:19:00.000-04:00

I actually found this article in the Washington Post by reading an article in the Explosion. It strikes me as odd just even the first sentence, "The other day I found my 6-year-old son watching an Internet cartoon called "Happy Tree Friends."[1] The author then goes on to state how horrible these cartoons on the internet are, yet she why is she not closely watching her own son's use of the internet. I am not going to get into all of my argument again, but does this not prove my point about its parents responsibilty not the government to monitor their children's use of the internet, TV viewing etc.

[1] Ellison, Katerine . (23 Oct, 2005) What's Up Doc?... A Bloody Outrage That's What. The Washington Post online. Retrieved 26 Oct 2005 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102102315.html?sub=AR.

Comments for Week #8

2005-10-26T12:54:00.000-04:00

Check out comments on Zeke's blog and Bryanne's blog

Post #8- Will Shrek 3 be as good as Shrek, or even Shrek 2?

2005-10-26T10:53:00.000-04:00

When first viewing the original Shrek movie, the first thought that came to mind is how impressive the computer graphics were in presenting a stylized, realistic world. Yet, this post is not going to be about the merits of Dreamworks computer graphics techniques.

The story of Shrek, one that of overcoming odds, accepting yourself, and beauty is only skin deep sends children decent life mottos. Even Shrek 2 presents these good mottos, yet most of them overlap with themes from the first movie. Nonetheless it is a hard call to decide which movie is better, though a good argument could be made for favoring the first Shrek, just because of it's originality. But will Shrek 3 be as good as Shrek, or even Shrek 2?

Personally when reading the very minimum details offered on Shrek 3's plot it seems as if new themes will be discovered. It seems as if Fiona's father is going to die in the next installment, which will help throw in some themes in responsibility, as well as a dash of Arthurian tales. [1] All of this seems well and good, but it will be tough to not out do or poorly do the stylized Shrek presentation, seeing how this is the third time around.

Relating this to previous post about the appropriatness of cartoons viewed by children, Shrek 3 should definately continue Shrek's tradition of including more adult geared jokes. As far as jokes go nothing presented in the previous movies have been too of color. Many of them happened so quickly it is also fair to say younger children would not even pick up on these jokes. In fact it is fair to say that Shrek is the perfect mix of humor and plot of kids and adults alike.

[1] Shrek 3. Movie Tome. Retrieved 26 Oct, 2006 from http://www.movietome.com/movietome/servlet/MovieMain/movieid-115188/Shrek_3.

Photo thanks to QMovies: Shrek 2 Review.

Comments for Week #7

2005-10-19T13:43:00.000-04:00

Check out my comments on Zeke's blog and Lisa's blog.

Post #7- The FCC and What the Government Thinks is Appropriate for Children to View

2005-10-17T21:30:00.000-04:00

(This post sprung out of the previous one that discussed The Smurfs. I would sugguest you read my previous two posts before reading this one.) Jesse and Zeke's comments from my previous post were intrgiuing that more reasearch on the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) was in order. If you can't tell I am a government major. These discussions on what is appropriate for children to watch relevant to today's cartoons, since cartoons are increasing not just for children anymore. This post will discuss the FCC regulations on what can be viewed on TV and whether or not something qualifies to be regulated, as well as my own personal views on the subject.

As the FCC's factsheet on Obscene, Profane and Indecent Broadcasts state,

"The Supreme Court established the definition of obscenity. The Supreme Court’s definition is designed to cover hard-core pornography. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value...

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as 'language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.' Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience....
The FCC has defined profanity as 'including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.'…

In making indecency and profanity determinations, context is key…

Information regarding the details of what was actually said or depicted during the broadcast...

The date and time of the broadcast…

The call sign, channel, or frequency of the station involved..."[1]

Additionally, restrictions by law demands certain measures be taken between the hours of 6 am and 10 pm.

Furthermore, the FCC offers a variety of tools for parents to control their children's viewing on TV.[2] These include using the V-chip techonology to block specific channels or programs,[3]
a lockbox to block specific programs choosen by parents and asking cable companies to fully block channels viewers have not subscribed for. Additionally, much like the movie rating system, the FCC has detailed guidelines of the ratings available to those interested. The FCC also provides a link the Coalition for Independent Ratings Services if parents wish to consult an outside source.

Now with all this said a few things needed to be added. First off, as with anything spawned from vague Federal legislation, the FCC guidelines for inappropriate viewing or listening for children are also quite broad. (Yes I know I only quoted from the fact sheets, but trust me I have read a lot of Federal legislation and it is usually quite broad. If you are interested I can help you look up some of those laws.) Personally, this causes problems such as groups complaining about seemly insignificant issues in the programing their children are viewing/hearing. The FCC provides tools for parents, but can not under any circumstances force parents to use the tools, let alone force parents to apply them in the same manner across the country.

Now as for the discussions to certain time slots and appropriate programs should be allowed in certain time slots. This could only be done with more Federal legislation that would be written in a broad manner. This would then leave it up to the FCC to really interpret these laws, which could be good or bad. As Eminem states in his song, Without Me, "So the FCC won't let me be; or let me be me, so let me see; They try to shut me down on MTV; But it feels so empty, without me[4]" Yes many artists and TV producers claim the First Amendment and freedom of speech, which the FCC will always be conflicting with.

Ah the basic dichotomy of American government, freedom versus regulation. This is why children's programs should be regulated by the children's parents, not solely by the goverment. All the government should be doing is only providing basic aid, with the tools listed above and perhaps basic guidelines on what should be allowed in certain time slots (ie after school and early prime time).

[1] Obscene, Profane & Indecent Broadcasts. (08, Oct 2005). Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 17, Oct 2005 from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html.

[2] Abernathy, Katleen Q. Focus on Consumer Concerns: Protecting Children From Objectionable Programming on Television. (15 Jan. 2004). v.2, #2. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved Oct 17, 2005 from http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/abernathy/news/children.html.

[3] The V-Chip: Putting Restrictions on What Your Children Watch. (28, Sept 2005). Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 17, Oct 2005 from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/vchip.html.

[4] Eminem. (2002). Without Me. The Eminem Show [CD]. Interscope Records.

Comments for Week #6

2005-10-12T10:49:00.000-04:00

Check out my comments on these blogs: Nghinh's blog and Scott's blog.

Post #6- What is appropriate in cartoons for children to view?

2005-10-11T22:44:00.000-04:00

(This post sprung out of the previous one that discussed The Smurfs. I would sugguest you read my previous post before reading this one.) What is appropriate in cartoons for children to view? Is there anything wrong with putting political or any other views or any other covert messages in cartoons? Does it make a difference if the children do not understand these messages? And finally what qualifications cross the line where cartoons become inappropriate for children's viewing?

As long as cartoons' political, sexual, or otherwise contraversial covert messages are not apparent to the children viewing the cartoons, they should be allowed to be viewed by these children, with the exception of topics that an overwhelming majority has declared outrightly unacceptable, such as Nazis viewpoints.

This is a crutical statement for various reasons, the first being that it helps to establish a line child appropriate and freedom of speech. Since cartoons naturally attract children, this subject needs to be aproached carefully. As one knows even though the First Amendment guarentees freedom of speech there are certain words you can not say on TV. This restriction should not apply to themes of any shows, but especially cartoons. Even the cartoons that are more appropriate for older kids, such as the Simpsons, have adult themes sprinkled about their plots. Perhaps the problem is not the content of the cartoons, but how the parents respond to the TV ratings given to these cartoons and the networks' assignment of time slots.

As Lisa has stated in her most recent post, "cartoons are not just for kids. And it is my opinion that more parents should be aware of this." Constantinos, in his third blog post, stated, "I really doubt that animations would be as popular today on television if they were edited so that they didn't have "filth." This continues to be an issue for many, many viewers do not agree with television allowing such animations and crude humor on television. They feel it is inappropriate. They feel that exposing youngsters to this kind of humor is not healthy and promotes bad manners, etc. I strongly disagree, because television takes efforts to inform parents what type of program is about to be displayed on television, so if a parent doesn't agree with it they shouldn't allow their kid to watch it. It definitely remains to be a very debated issue and I feel it always will be."

Networks should also be aware of cartoon content and appropriate assign time slots. Shows such as South Park should be on starting at 10pm not 8pm or 9pm. Why so that parents can have an easier time regulating their children's viewing habits, if need be. Sure this will not stop the problem, because if children really want to make an effort to watch a show, they will find a way to do so, but it will definately slow the problem.

Cartoons need to be recongnized as not just an children's form of entertainment in order to help address means of solving the dilema of what is appropriate in cartoons for children to view?

(As an aside, I know that there is one person who wrote about Family Guy and time slots, and I wanted to quote them. If you are that person please comment on my blog, so I can quote you and discuss a little bit more about network time slots.)

Comments for Week #5

2005-10-05T14:14:00.000-04:00

Here are the lucky winners who got comments from me this week: Charla's blog, Alisha's blog and Zeke's blog.

Post #5- The Smurfs: Are they Communists?

2005-10-04T23:43:00.000-04:00

The spreading of rumors about cartoons exposing ‘un-American’ and ‘immoral’ values to children is not a new phenomenon that started with the purple Teletubbie, Tinkie Winkie being a homosexual. Deeply conservative groups have been claiming for years Disney leaves hidden sexual messages in his movies such as The Lion King, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid. One such example of this is the claim that the Smurfs cartoons expose children to Communist political theory.

Now before exploring some of the proof found from viewing three hours of viewing the Smurfs on the Boomerang Channel it is worth exploring some ‘literature’ on this subject. Honestly there are not many creditable sources on this subject, but there are some interesting websites, just not ones worth quoting in an academic forum. One of the few creditable ones was an article in the Argus, the newspaper of the Wesleyan University (Middleton, Connecticut). Aaron Rutkoff, the student author, explores how these connections can be made:

1. The leaders of most communist nations were dictators of one sort or another. The Smurfs were no different, living contently under the just albeit stern rule of the absolutist Papa Smurf. Papa Smurf was created in the bearded image of Lenin, and is the only Smurf to wear red a cap and trousers. Red, of course, is color symbol of communism. He is a model of Stalinistic leadership, dealing strictly with any Smurf not acting in accordance with the good of the state.

2. The Smurf village is the picture of the communist ideal. All Smurfs reside in identical huts, eat meals together in communal fashion, wear the same clothes, and have very little private property. Everyone is materialistically the same; it is a perfect example of a classless society.
Furthermore, each Smurf has a role he or she performs for the state and is known by his or her job designation. For example, Handy Smurf fixes things, Cooky Smurf cooks the food, etc. No one Smurf is more or less important the any other Smurf.

3. Though every Smurf has an essential societal role, some are viewed more negatively in the context of the show then others. For example, Greedy Smurf is often ridiculed for eating too much or being too selfish and Vanity Smurf is portrayed as bad for caring only about himself. These two Smurfs, representing both materialism and individualism, cause problems and are often chastised by Smurf society. More proletarian Smurfs, like Hefty and Handy, are always the heroes, never the problems.

4. Brainy Smurf, the intellectual in the village, is often in conflict with Smurf society. He questions the way of Smurf life and is often unhappy. In some episodes, Brainy is sent out of the village to live elsewhere. Brainy represents Trotsky, who was a high ranking official under Lenin but was exiled because of ideological conflicts with Stalin.

5. The natural enemy of the Smurfs is Gargamel and his bumbling cat Azrael. Few people recall this fact, but Gargamel’s sole mission in each episode was to catch the Smurfs and transform them into gold coins. Hence, Gargamel clearly represents the evil of capitalism, a true threat to communist peace and harmony, in the Smurf paradigm.[1]

Through viewing the Smurfs on TiVo[2] from the Boomerang Channel Rutkoff's conclusions are not only correct, but more can be added. The Smurfs represents of the ideal communistic world. In the episode To Smurf a Thief (1983) Papa Smurfs and some of the other smurfs are taking into the Human village by Artmus the wizard, Papa Smurf says this in reference to the village marketplace (a metaphor for capitalism) "It's all very unsmurfy if you ask me."[3] In another episode, Wedding Bells (1983), a quote about Gargamel, who represents capitalism, says that "He could have had a lovely bride, if he set his greed aside."[4]

Many of the Smurfs episodes feature the theme of working towards a common goal. This represents a basic tenant of Communism, that is communal living and working. In the episode, Smurf Time Capsule (1983) a smurf even states, "a twig by itself is too weak, it's twings in a bundle you seek." [5] Basically the smurfs felt that unity and working together were the only way to survive. This threatens the captialistic viewpoint that individual hardwork and perserverance is the best means of suriving.

Could this be reading too much into The Smurfs; perhaps the purpose of this communal living setting is really just to teach children to share. The evidence presented shows too much of communistic influences in The Smurfs. This does mean to stop watching The Smurfs? No. They are just cartoons and there is no reason to get up tight about how your children should not be watching them.

[1] Rutkoff, Aaron. (1998, September 22). "Fear and Loathing: Communist Smurf, Be Afraid." Argus online, Wesleyan University: Middleton, CT.
[2] As an aside TiVo is the best invention ever to use to watch cartoons. I was using the really button to show my mom how the mouth on Smurfette was not done correctly and I could go about 2-3 frames per push of a button. It really shows you more about those principles of cartoons that we discussed in one of the beginning classes and I would highly recommend it to view a few parts of cartoons in this way.
[3] To Smurf a Thief. The Smurfs. (1983).
[4] Wedding Bells. The Smurfs. (1983).
[5] Smurf Time Capsule. The Smurfs. (1983).

Photo thanks to The Smurf's Official Website.

Comments for Week #4

2005-09-27T18:07:00.000-04:00

Here are my comments for Week #4: Ryan's Blog and Sarah's Blog.

Post #4- Of Mice & Magic: Disney v. Terrytoons

2005-09-27T00:47:00.000-04:00

This week’s reading, as many of the past readings have, focuses on a particular animation studio; this one happens to be Paul Terry’s Terrytoons. A previous reading focused on Disney. Both readings go through the basic history of the particular animation studio, concentrating on their major works over time. Overall Disney focused more on creative innovation in his cartoons, while Terrytoons viewed cartoons as a “product.”[1]

“Disney innovated and perfected ideas and techniques that dramatically changed the course of cartoon production.”[2] With every cartoon he made he tried something new and always tried to make it look as good as possible. His staff’s creative input became an invaluable source of improving his craft. Walt Disney even continued to train his staff by sending having them take classes on various subjects. Each of his works represents an accomplishment of a set of goals as well as a new set of problems to tackle. An example of this would be Disney’s first feature length film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1938). Disney had to tackle a “thin plot” that needed to be drawn out without diffusing “the impact of this famous tale.”[3] This was mastered as well as the ability to show a wide range of emotions within the feature. One problem that Disney still struggled with even after Snow White was that of drawing realistic human characters. Some even contend today that he still cannot master this problem.

While Disney represents the artistic progress and development of cartoons the Terrytoons studio represents the business side of the cartoon world making their cartoons more towards younger audiences, rather than families. “The chronicle of [Terrytoon’s Paul] Terry’s career is not one of artistic growth, but rather story of survival and prosperity in the business of making animated cartoons.”[4] Terrytoon’s cartoons relied on basic formulas to produce a large quantity of cartoons in a short time period. In fact he produced “one [of Aesop’s Fables cartoons] a week for eight years! That’s a record unrivaled until the television era.”[5] Terrytoons rarely experimented with new techniques; furthermore Terrytoons never even attempted to make a feature length cartoon film. According to the reading “the irony of this ongoing success is the inescapable fact that Terrytoons were never very good. But time has worked in their favor: Television cartoon production in the sixties actually sank below the level of Terry’s production of the forties and fifties, making the Terrytoons look good by comparison.”[6]

As the ending to this post, it is worth noting that Matlin’s section on Terrytoons begins with this quote by Paul Terry, “Disney is the Tiffany’s in this [cartoon] business, and I am the Woolworth’s.” [7] Personally, though growing up on Disney makes me partial to him and his works, I would hardly compare Terrytoons to Woolworth’s. Now I must admit that I have not heard of more than a couple Terrytoons cartoons and probably haven’t seen any that I am aware of. It is also fair to state the Maltin could also be biased; however, it seems that Terytoons was only in the business of creating a massive amount of cartoons instead of few cartoons of better quality. But relating back to the quote, Terrytoons seems to be hardly a department store quality cartoons, due to it’s lack of originality and desire to explore the artistic outreaches of animation. I would call Terrytoons more of the jewelry department at Wal-Mart. Something there just lacks even the remote quality standards of a department store jewelry department, let alone Tiffany’s jewelry, which is known worldwide.

[1] Leonard Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons. New York: Plume Books, 1987, p. 125.
[2] Ibid, p. 29.
[3] Ibid, p. 53.
[4] Ibid, p. 125.
[5] Ibid, p. 130.
[6] Ibid, p. 157.
[7] Ibid, p. 125.

Photos thanks to Disney Online and 108 Questions.

Comments for Week #3

2005-09-21T12:19:00.000-04:00

Here are the comments for Week #3: Charla's blog and Zeke's blog.

Post #3- Shark Tale: Fishification and a Setting with Personality

2005-09-20T11:53:00.000-04:00

Shark Tale is a 2004 Dream Works production that focuses on Oscar, the fish, trying to ‘be somebody’ and his friend Lenny, the vegetarian shark, who looks for acceptance from his father. The plot is not what this commentary will focus on, but rather fishification; a term used in one of the DVD featurettes. Fishification involves converting the human world into a fish one. The movie is basically set in a fishified New York City complete with a fishified Time Square with billboards of ‘Coral- Cola’ and ‘Gup’; Oscar even works at a Whale Wash.

Fishification, or really for that matter any process that recreates our world through a theme, allows the setting to develop a personality. The little touches are what make a movie theme become more of a reality. With these fishified recognizable human icons the viewers feel more of a personal connection to the movie. The personal connection also made it possible to stage the spoof on old mobster films. It could even be said that because of fishification, the setting of a Shark Tale becomes more of a character in the movie and less of a backdrop.

Cartoons can get away with having more personality in settings because they are cartoons. Cartoons, by nature, are supposed to be at least a little part fantasy. Process like fishification, allow cartoons to attempt to achieve realism in all their other aspects, while preserving a slight bit of their required imaginative nature. In many ways the realism in everything except little details also allows the audience to really open their minds to fantasy in their own lives.

Fishification also allows the movie to have an edge to it. Movies are set in their setting for a reason. Would Sleepless in Settle be the same if it didn’t have the final scene at the top of the Empire State Building in New York City? The same goes for cartoons, they need the edge in their setting. Just think of how the Jetsons or the Flintstones would be without their setting seeping into little details about their houses. Cartoon scenery is important, but also should feature an element of the imagination.

Photo thanks to M&C Movies.

Comments for Week #2

2005-09-14T11:39:00.000-04:00

Here are the links to the comments made as part of this week's assignment: Charla's Post #2 and Mike's Post #2.

Post #2- Animations on the Web: Mata Haggis’ Online Animations

2005-09-13T21:44:00.000-04:00

After reading about the beginning of animation last week and watching the mostly silent animations of last week Mata Haggis’ animations online came to mind. These series animations represent a perfect example of how an animator can evolve over time.

Before getting into the animations some background information on Mata Haggis should be given. He is a PhD student in the United Kingdom studying cultural studies. As his blog states he calls himself an animator as well as a pontificator. He calls the part of his website with his animation featuring an odd, twisted humorous slant The Other Side.

The Mittens & Snowdrop series represent the first ideas behind both Mata’s animations, as well as, the beginning of animation as discussed in class. Most of these animations are silent and simple. They feature two cats holding a basic conversation about various topics, which could be analogous to the Sprinkler Sprinked of the les films actualities by the Lumière brothers. Though it must be said that Mata does put these two cats in some weird situations that the Lumière brothers would have not conceived in their own minds.

The second series, The Little Goth Girl, shows the evolving ideas in films. Mata experiments the most with color symbolism and overall animation style. A more developed ‘drawing’ style emerges, though most animations are still fairly simple. The Little Goth Girl’s First Date, one of the later animations in the series, shows the progress of the animation style, in addition to deeper discussion on issues like fate and the meaning behind the human existence.

The Mr. Snuaffleburger animations, a personal favorite, signify the advancement of animation as a satire tool. This serious of animations parody the capitalistic society and corporations with its infamous slogans such as “Conform, Consume, Obey” and “The Mr. Snuaffleburger Corporation: Always Acting in Our Best Interests.”[1] Ironically this animation is a simple cartoon, yet it has powerfully complex ideas.

The last animation in Mata’s series, called Samurai Lapin, extends influences to eastern philosophies. Additionally this animation features an interesting use of color just for the main characters in each cartoon, mainly just Samurai Lapin and whomever he happens to be fighting.

To complete this commentary, something must be said in defense of those like Mata Haggis who offer fresh, independent animations on the web. The web serves as a wealth of resources, including sharing such rare gems of animations like Mata’s four series of animation. These animations are not really a the development of animation by Walt Disney as discussed in this weeks reading in Matlin's Of Mice and Magic but thanks to Mata and other animators on the web for offering a new perspective on everything through this fine art.

[1] Haggis, Mata. (13, Sept. 2005) The Other Side: Twisted Animations by Mata. Retrieved Sept 13, 2005 from http://www.matazone.co.uk/menus/lggmenu.html.

Photos thanks to Mata Haggis, copyright 2002.

Comments for Week #1

2005-09-07T14:03:00.000-04:00

Here are the links to the comments made as part of the first week's assignment: Jesse's Post #1 and Phillip's Post #1.

Post #1- The Simpsons: Humbleton, PA and the Republican ideals of America

2005-09-05T23:13:00.000-04:00

On Sunday at 8pm of this holiday weekend Fox Broadcasting Network featured the Home Away From Homer episode (#1615) of Matt Groening’s The Simpsons. Originally airing May 15, 2005, this episode inspired this week’s blog entry. The basic synopsis of the episode is that Ned Flanders decides to move to Humbleton, PA after he became mortified by two college co-eds making soft- core webcam “porn” in the room they had rented from him. This commentary will focus on political representation and significance of Humbleton, PA in the episode.

How does Humbleton, PA featured in the episode represent the Republican ideal America?

In order to explore this question the stage first must be set with more background information and an appropriate description of Humbleton, PA for those who did not view the episode. Ned Flanders wished he and his family “lived in a place more like the America of yesteryear that only exists in the brains of Republicans”[1] after being humiliated by the co-ed’s soft-core webcam internet site. He chooses Humbleton, PA because that was the place that his Humble Figurines had been reproduced. These figurines that Flanders had been collecting feature cute little children doing things like “dressing like mommy.”

Humbleton, PA, like Flanders’ Humble Figurines represent this yesteryear era through a variety of ways. Just visually the town has its cobblestone streets and tutor- style buildings reminiscent of the Bavarian countryside of Germany. The people of Humbleton are happy and polite; their happy, polite children scampering through the streets while their happy, polite women all wear dresses and heals. Truly this is a town gone back to a simpler time.

Yet, Flanders soon runs into conflict in this town that seems to be perfectly aligned with his Christian conservative views. The town does not accept his mustache and wants him to shave it off, but Flanders refuses. His rebellion makes him and outcast, as the town writes in their newspaper that he is the Hair Führer (Hair Leader). This allows Homer to come in and convince him into returning to Springfield, thus allowing the Simpsons’ world to return to its status quo.

Humbleton, PA represents the Republican ideal of America in not only it’s physical appearance, but also the attitudes and actions of its citizens. There are no garish signs or anything standout too much; the whole town pretty much looks the same and the people act pretty much the same too. The way in which conservatives try to make a conforming society is by promoting “family values.” Republicans are always trying to push social agendas that reduce freedoms of speech so that they can preserve “family values”, in this case represented by the conflict over Flanders’ mustache. Other factors point towards Humbleton’s pro-“family values” stance, such as the populous acting happy and polite. Nowhere do you see anyone going to bars getting drunk in the middle of the afternoon, let alone a cuss word uttered by the citizens or unruly children, unlike Springfield.

What can be learned from this episode comes through the revelation that Flanders has, which ultimately leads to his return to Springfield. Flanders finds he still wishes to have the few freedoms he allows himself to enjoy, such as his mustache. He says his mustache has a “right to live” and that it’s his body, his choice.[2] This interesting phrasing, (obviously a reference to the abortion debate) shows that although he is a strict Christian, Flanders does grasp and accept the liberal idea of the individual, not the government should decide at least in some trivial cases what is the best course of action. By no means has Flanders converted to a liberal lifestyle, just the lifestyle he had back in Springfield that allowed him to enjoy his mustache.

To conclude this commentary, it must be said this exploration into the world of the ideal American town in the eyes of Republicans is not to be taken as lightly as the episode presents it. There are reasons why America has progressed to allow more personal freedoms. And restricting these freedoms would severely hurt minority groups, such as African Americans, Women and those of the Jewish faith, who could be reduced to second-class citizens. In a more broad view, this could be consider a small hope for the Liberals of this country who should at least reveal in a small amount of joy that if the Conservatives get their way and take America back to the days of yesteryear, they will at least be fighting amongst themselves about how far back they should take the country.

[1] Brooks, James L, Groening, Matt & Jean, Al (Producers). (2005). Home Away From Homer [Television series episode #1615]. The Simpsons. Fox Broadcasting Network.
[2] Brooks, James L, Groening, Matt & Jean, Al (Producers). (2005). Home Away From Homer [Television series episode #1615]. The Simpsons. Fox Broadcasting Network.

Photo thanks to The Simpson Gallery.