This voice recording session (which took place last Thursday) went really well. I decided it was important that all the actors attending liquor up before going into the booth. While the bourbon I brought along may not have made that much of a difference to the actors’ performances, I think its presence changed the room’s atmosphere somewhat (it smelled of bourbon).
I completely rewrote a pivotal scene a few days beforehand, which I imagine is always reassuring for actors. Nevertheless it was carried off well by Katrina, Thomas and Dr Justin Heazlewood, joining us for the first time. In this session we took our first shot at recording whole scenes with two actors reacting off each other. I was happy with the results, enough to stay up late redrawing the animatic to reflect the changes.
I was super happy with what we got, feeling that the new version of the scene (basically two guys sitting in a car) shot a lot more fun and action in than the original. Then today Adam dropped by and checked out the animatic as it stands, and told me he found the dialogue readings in the whole thing flat. This bothered me because I felt we had something pretty nice going. I mean, sure, a lot of the joy will be injected when the animation’s actually done (the animatic is mostly still frames, after all), and nobody looking at the animatic is seeing what I have in my head, exactly, but…
Having discussed the thing further, I learned that Adam feels animation always needs “characterised” line readings. He feels that my earlier animated film, Herman, The Legal Labrador, suffered for my desire to keep some readings “naturalistic”. I agree with him to a point, but what Herman may have suffered from equally was my inability/unwillingness to “keep things moving” with more active animation and faster editing.
So basically, I tend to err on the side of “dry” or “subtle”, and risk ending up with “boring” as a result.
However, Adam considers the animated shows Daria and King of the Hill “boring”. So we diverge there. I think both these shows are very funny, and are pretty good examples of how animation does NOT have to restrict itself to characters braying like jackasses to get a laugh (or not get a laugh, in the case of Family Guy). I feel that fast, stupid cop action and slow, quiet, “naturalistic” bits can coexist in one five minute episode, and I think through working on the structure and editing of the episode, I’ll prove myself right.
What do you think? What other animated shows/shorts/films have managed to keep their characters “low key” and still funny?
Since I’m in the camp of “underplaying” a scene in animation (at least I think I am), I think it’d be a refreshing change to not have my eyeballs blasted out by a conniption fit on the screen. When doing FC, I had to pull the voice artists back from doing something that I felt was too over-the-top. I kept wanting them to use something that was more natural and believable. I managed to pull Troy back to about 40% of what he was originally trying to do, and Robyn about the same. I still wanted her to work it less, but I had limited time and funds, and both actors were very accommodating so I didn’t want to seem like a first-time voice director nazi.
I think there’s a common misconception that limited = cheap/dull/boring, when that isn’t the case at all. The reverse of everything moving/screaming = fabulous is equally bollocks. Finding the balance is difficult, and I have no hard and fast rule, but I think that a character’s facial expression can be distorted or adjusted to quite a large extent without moving the body. It’s all in the eyes because that’s where most people look at a character. Pixar seem to do that quite well. Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v42LVMi6Suk
Watch his eyes, cos they do a lot and save the acting having to be done with the body. I also noticed that the silhouette of the action is not always clear. That was something that was driven into us at college: make sure silhouettes show the action. Personally, I think it’s not always necessary and can lead to over-acting and over-animating. Yes, use silhouetting for certain poses, but not for every bloody thing! This is a lovely, subtle and well crafted piece of animation here from Mr Dooley.
Another thing that can give false impression of boring animation is the fact that the current style seems to be “louder and faster”. Consequently everything else seems plain dull in comparison. The art of subtlety has been lost, and the appreciation of it is also down the toilet. Personally I find a lot of stuff in Futurama is carried off by the voice actors and the writing, not by having the character careening about all over the shop. There’s a scene in A Bug’s Life between Francis and the flies that I think is done very well in terms of keeping the action reasonably limited and having the bulk of the direction in the expressions. But I confess I’m hard-pressed to think of tv examples – my animation watching is limited to free-to-air. For me, Daria is deadpan rather than low-key, so it’s extreme low-key…very difficult to pull off with a hyperactive audience. How about Pato in Pocoyo?
Good points!
“eyeballs blasted out by a conniption fit on the screen” — this actually is what I’m after for much of the episode (think AWESOME STROBING EFFECTS whenever possible), which will make the quiet bit seem even quieter by comparison. Also, I reboarded the car scene as a long locked-off camera shot directly through the windshield, emphasising the “deadpan” quality (which I like).
“Consequently everything else seems plain dull in comparison” — THIS, here, is the potential problem! How do you put HYPER ACTION next to DULL QUIET and have the DULL QUIET come off OK? Is the fix to make it as dull and deadpan as POSSIBLE (HYPER DULL)?
I guess “Dr Katz: Professional Therapist” might be another example. But now we’re starting to get into “barely animated” territory, which is of course offensive to some animators…
Boarding has to be done veeeeeeeeeeery carefully to give the quieter shots more compositional interest, not just bog standard gasbagging set-up
I don’t know much (about animation)…………..but I know I love yooooou.
That aside, I think the juxtaposition between frenetic and quiet would work great crammed into a 5 minute episode and as a result of this juxtaposition the quiet parts probably wouldn’t have to be that long and painful just enough to mark a change. As for what to do in quiet scenes perhaps rather a continuous chain of small actions e.g. nose pick *pause* butt scratch *pause* coffee cup in background falls down etc. all to keep someones eye focused and interested (again actions could also be replaced by sound cues of some type. coughs, nearby argument fade ins, bird whistles) but the key is small and continous so your eye roves around the scene
actually just thinking about it perhaps in these dull quiet moments the background actually becomes more animated than the foreground but not in any busy sense just in a passage of time type way (if that makes any sense)
I don’t know if I’m rambling here
and this is Michael..one of Adams friends from foxtel
Hey Michael — welcome to whatever this thing is.
Yeah, this “long, dull” bit I’m talking about is a matter of seconds, really, less than a minute all up. You are making sense, and background elements might become a bit more noticeable in this scene due to the whole thing being fairly calm compared to the rest of the episode, but ultimately I think that keeping the audience’s interest will be down to (1) the characters saying lines worth listening to and (2) animating the characters in a subtler but still interesting way, as Ann discusses above.
I had actually considered having some shit happen in the background as a joke, to take focus off the quiet scene in the foreground, but this would have been a copout (excuse accidental pun) because I hadn’t written a scene worth watching. Maybe I have now.
Samurai Jack has some nice quiet bits. Even some nice locked off camera quiet bits, if I’m not mistaken. I enjoy the feel of a scene that’s played out without lots of interesting cuts and camerawork.
I know I am rambling here.
looking at the character design they’re quite clean and simple so there might be an issue in trying to animate them in more subtle ways because it would seem with their design you might be manufacturing a lot more detail (albeit for only a moment) that might look a bit unatural in order to make them do anything…or that could just be the challenge.
Part of the challenge is in drawing their expressions to put across what they’re thinking or saying without overdrawing. From drawing them for a year or more I’m getting a good idea of what works and what’s overkill.
Charles Schulz was masterful at giving super simple characters enormously effective and funny expressions — who cares if they’re “off model”?
Hey David i am a big fan and have just ordered Herman, the Legal Labrador from you. I was just wondering what channel will this show be played on and hopfully it;s a big as the simpsons and australia will go nuts for it i know i will because i’m an australian and want to be an animator like you. i hope animation will be introduced more in australia by the time i become an animator. can’t wait for your next Blog entry.
Hi Dru!
Thanks for ordering “Herman”. I guess it was from Phase Two Comics, since I didn’t hear from you directly. Let me know if you don’t receive it soon.
This show is in what is called “development”, which means that it is mostly just some ideas in my head, and has not been bought by a TV network or anything. Lots of people in the TV/film industry who are not important and want to sound as though they are will say they have projects “in development”. Next time your boss, lecturer or teacher asks why you haven’t done your work, maybe try telling them it is “in development” and that Joel Edgerton is “attached to star”.
Instead of continuing this comment here, I’ll make a new post to answer you…
After reading the entries here, I feel a slight need to justify my position. I’m a huge fan of some of the “quieter” animations that have been mentioned, particularly Samurai Jack. But my original point wasn’t about injecting frenetic activity into anything- my only insistence is that voices be characterized. The voices in Samurai Jack are hugely characterized. Even in some of the other shows mentioned, such as Daria and King of The Hill, the voices are (mostly) non-naturalistic. They’re quiet, and subdued, but they’re certainly not natural.
I suppose this is a hard thing to pin down. But I guess the best example from the material already recorded is Adrian’s work. His stuff stands out as funny because of the way he does the voice- unnecessarily rough, loud and frightening. No-one really speaks like that, and even if they do, it makes them stand out. The same should be done for all of the characters- the voices should sound distinct, and slightly odd. That’s the essence of comedy- being presented with something not quite right, and then we laugh when we realize it’s not gonna harm us. At least, that’s what Freud thought. And he knew from funny, right?
It is a hard thing to pin down.
We are dealing with terms like “characterisation” and “acting” here. What do these mean? “Characterisation” can be done without changing your voice into a Muppet voice. Live action actors often create characters without putting on a funny voice. When they do it can become irritating. Think Adam Sandler.
When I listen back to the takes I hear characterisations. Some are wacky and some are subtle. We have different tastes. You’re right that some of the voices in Daria and King of the Hill are not exactly naturalistic, but that’s not exactly the point. The point is that given you find those shows boring, I can’t trust your opinion 100% on how boring my animatic is.
Like I said in the post, “I tend to err on the side of “dry” or “subtle”, and risk ending up with “boring” as a result.” I reckon the better grasp I now have on character animation will put this across fine. I suspect you’ll agree once it’s done.
Unless the script’s shit. Then we’re all fucked.