This discussion was sparked upon a facebook status update I made criticizing the fact that 6 of the top 10 money making movies in North America were either fully or partly animated. My outrage was met with an argument sparked by my friends brother Coltin who argued that because animated films are more family friendly and even enjoyable for parents, its no surprised they make more money. He cited Pixar and Studio Ghibli films as examples of good animation that sparks great interest in viewers.
My argument with this was that film form had been abandoned for the practice of computer creation of film. I did not object to this practice, but challenged it as being defined as a film, and instead called it a movie. I did this because the traditional cinema was based on the celluloid film used to record film for the most part up until the invention of video, which in turn has been replaced by digital recording. The problem with animation is that it uses neither film or video, but digital creations of worlds that are clearly not real.
In my film theory class, we discussed the first film theorist, Hugo Munsterberg. Munsterberg believed that cinema was the "art of the mind." His believe was that film was more of a psychological art that depended on its preception in the mind. To Munsterberg, film needed to be realistic and challenge the perception of reality in the human mind. By this understanding of film, Munsterberg would denounce animation as being the creation of a clearly false world that offers little to the imagination. I agree with Munsterberg in some ways because I accept cinema as the art of the mind, hence why I think animation doesn't belong in the same category as traditional cinema.
However, I do feel animation is significant to visual entertainment because it uses the narrative style that film adapted from theatre and literature. As Coltin wrote on my facebook wall "A story conveyed with moving pictures is still a story conveyed with moving pictures." My only problem with this statement is the idea of moving pictures. His reference to animation as "moving pictures" is generally wrong. Yes, animation is moving, but it is not always created in picture form first. In some cases it is, like the productions of Studio Ghibli which he used as part of his argument. The issue however involves my problem with American animation, which is mostly generated by computers. Some may argue that because animation is always made frame by frame, but I would reject this because cinema isn't created frame by frame. It requires mise-en-scene and the construction a filmic reality.
With mise-en-scene in mind, Coltin's brother, Adam, argued that animation is free from the constraints of traditional film. I can agree to this simply because creating something from nothing is easier then something from whatever you have at your disposal. The great thing about animation is that you have endless possibilities with what you can create.
Adam continued by arguing about the narrative construction on animations and their power to create emotional responses. He specifically used Up (2009) as an example. Now just for arguments sake, emotions are the most important thing in how Hugo Munsterberg believes cinema should be mentally. However, the construction of narrative does not define animation. Narrative is used in everything that conveys a story. The effect that Up has on human emotions is similar to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), which preceded it by 28 years. Narrative is not restricted to film, therefore Adam's argument is moot.
I went on to argue the difference in film and animation by making note of how the two were made. Film, as in movies made in the real world, is a 3d universe and presented in 2d. Animation on the other hand is created 2d and shown primarily in the 2d universe. Therefore, animation does not represent the 3d universe that humans occupy. Animation can stylistically create the real world, but it is not the real world. Some will argue that 3d films are unique and indifferent to this concept, but 3d films like Avatar (2009) use technology to trick the mind. Now this technology is not necessarily a negative towards technology, bit is still only a 2d image which capitalizes on deception.
Adam went on to question films position as being meant for documenting or storytelling. He asked " isn't the idea of film and fiction based on deception? If that is true then is not animation a purer form of that?" I answer this by saying absolutely not. The first use of film both in America and France was for documenting purposes. The Edison Company in New Jersey filmed simple things in life, like a couple kissing, and a man flexing. In France, the Lumiere brother created films called "actualities" which simply shot life as it happened. Their first uses for film were to document life. Since, as Munsterberg states, film is the art of the mind, we as viewers are fully aware we are watching animation and not reaity.
Now, narrative stories did eventually become the norm for American cinema. With the work of directors like D.W. Griffith and Charlie Chaplin, cinema became something of a spectacle. Animations is obviously part of this spectacle, but it is in a different category then regular fiction films.
In conclusion I would just like to say that I do not hate animation films because of my place in this argument. I enjoy animation films, Toy Story (1996) being one of my favorite films. I simply believe that animation films and films shot in real life are different, and their appreciation is neglected for a less traditional and as some would call a "more" entertaining film.
No comments:
Post a Comment