In the hands of a master, hand-drawn animation can bring complex emotions to life. The embedded video is stylish and elegant, drawn by one of the best, Glen Keane. Keane is the son of Family Circus creator Bill Keane and has created a number of classics for Disney, including The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, and Tangled. Not a bad resume.
In the linked article, Harry McCracken points out that the video below was created by Keane for Google’s “Spotlight Stories” project and that animation tools are no match for a master of the craft.
But the thing which makes it interesting and moving isn’t the technology: It’s the fact that it consists of a series of drawings by a human being who happens to be a master draftsman, rather than the digital stop-motion puppetry that is computer animation.
Keane may have used more modern tools than his counterparts at Disney did in the 1930s and 1940s, but the basics of his craft haven’t changed at all.
I agree that the human in the equation is, at least currently, irreplaceable. But I do think that automation tools make it possible to create incredibly sophisticated and complex animations that would not have been possible even 20 years ago. To me, the seminal year was 1995, the year Toy Story was released.
I think McCracken is right, the basics haven’t changed, but I think the tools have evolved beyond belief. I did enjoy Keane’s animation Duet, shown below, but my all-time favorite remains the first 7 minutes of Pixar’s Up. To me, that is emotional storytelling without peer.
I can’t say that I agree that hand-drawn animation is any better than computer animation. Both are just tools to tell a story. The real difference comes from the story and, most importantly, the animators themselves. “Up”, as you stated, is a great example of this.
That said, I do miss hand-drawn animation as it seems that most of the animation done these days is computer animation. It is a beautiful form of art when done by a master like Keane and a skill that I hope does not vanish in my lifetime.
I like hand-drawn animation, but I’m with you Dave. No animation has ever made me blubber like that sequence from Up. I found Duet interesting but pretty unremarkable.
To be fair, though, the Disney film that made me laugh the hardest was Lilo & Stitch. As much as I loved its bright watercolours (something Disney hadn’t used for decades) I doubt the use of watercolours had much to do with the emotional content.
It’s the story, the music, and how every little scene is done. CGI vs traditional is just one factor at most.
I’m not impressed by this “Duet” piece. To me, the jittery, flashiness is too distracting, maybe even a mask for incompetent tweening.
That “Up” sequence was indeed masterful, and I enjoyed the design and motif of it as recently described by one of its animators in a TED talk.
Modern animation tools provide for extremely precision rigging, key framing, ease-ins and -outs, etc., along with sophisticated compositing with live footage when appropriate.
What it takes is competent producers, directors, script writers, and adequate financing, etc. to enable and allow the artists to take the time to, first create a good story, and then to implement it is all the various cinematic departments.
Lassiter said in a interview that, at Pixar, “Story is king.” That’s what made their initial success.
I’ve long had a love for hand animation, and it is nice to still see some on this side of the pond that’s still doing it. Hand animation has the touch of humanity that few computer animation films do. The opening sequence to Up is indeed one example, but the rest of the movie is blah. In my opinion Pixar is the only studio that’s capable of removing some of that sterility the computer creates thus far. Even Disney itself can’t match Pixar’s mastery.
The sheer precision of computer animation is exactly why it is so stale. There is little of the animator’s hand in the final product as the lion’s share of the work is done by the computers. Many at Pixar, especially John Lasseter, have talked about fighting this sterility before. Disney could do it themselves, but they’ve mostly laid off all the people who could have helped them attain it.
Hand animation isn’t dead. We’re just not seeing it in films anymore that are not made in Japan, but we are seeing it used wonderfully in video games where lately there’s been a renaissance of 2D games fighting against the hyper realism of the big studios.
Computer animation is indeed another tool, but it is overused because it’s become a cheap means to an end. However, it’s been used by a few hand animators to visualize difficult-to-animate subjects with great effect.
Hi guys,
I’m an animator and I’ve stubbornly refused to learn 3D because of all the “crap” it takes to learn to move something in a 3D space. People can do it and do it well. I don’t mean to insult them. A number of my friends work at Pixar and excel at what they do.
As beautiful and precise as these films can be, to me they just don’t hold a candle to the craft of an artist using traditional materials. The best thing a tool, digital or otherwise, can do for the user is to get out of the way. In all it’s digital glory, technology just isn’t there yet. NOTHING compares to pencil and paper. Sorry, it just doesn’t. And I’ve used just about every tool in the digital artist’s arsenal.
For Keane’s piece, I don’t know the technical process but the drawings seem to have been done on paper. The closest digital tool I’ve seen to replicate pencil and paper is TVPaint. But knowing how Keane works, this looks like pencil and paper.
@DanielSw:disqus is no tweening.
I’ve read a lot of comments about this short and all the comparisons to Up, which is unfair. It should be judged within it’s own context not how it stacks up to something else.
Now, if you want to talk about 2D and precision, you should look at Richard Williams’ work on his Thief and Cobbler movie. I’ve never seen anything come close to it. Even CGI. As a primer for those not familiar with Mr. Williams, watch the opening to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
As for hand drawn animation being dead, it is far from that. It is alive and well. Maybe not as high profile as CGI but nevertheless, it is alive and kicking. Many european studios still work in classical techniques and are the inheritors of the mantel established by Disney. The end credits to many recent CGI films have been in 2D. Maybe they exist in a digital pipeline but they are hand drawn, fully. In my opinion, 2D, classical animation is in metamorphosis.
As artists adjust to the digital tools that change almost constantly, so does the look and feel of classical animation. End use is also a factor. But I assure you, nothing has come close to the precision and responsiveness of a pencil on paper.
If you want to see some of the potential of classical animation within a digital pipeline, check out the short Paper Man (synthesis of 2D and 3D) and the feature Ernest and Celestine (2D in Adobe Flash). Both are extraordinary in their facility and media.
This is so very Disney. I mean that in a negative way. Disney likes their toys, characters, and stories broadly drawn along gender lines. The boy climbs trees, runs with his dog, skateboards, hikes, and rock climbs. The girl dances, the dances a bit, then there’s some dancing, and then we see her dancing.
Whenever Disney shows a girl doing anything physical or likely to get her dirty she is cast as a misfit. Would it kill them to treat boys and girls as people instead of markets and stereotypes?