It seems to me that too many dramatic animated features labor under the assumption that audiences want to see three-dimensional (ie., psychologically three-dimensional) characters in the lead roles. That can't be true! true.Would the Lone Ranger show (above) really have been improved if the ranger had taken off his mask and said to Tonto: "Tonto, it's not easy helping other people day in and day out. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'd like some help too? I'm a man and a man has needs!" No, it wouldn't have been improved! The third dimension is not for the Lone Ranger or any other mythic character.
Aren't you glad that James Bond (above) is two-dimensional? What about Snow White in the film by that name? There's not a three-dimensional character in the film. "Pinnochio" contains only one 3-D (actually 2 1/2 D) character, Jiminy Crickett, and he's not even the character the film is named for. "Alice in Wonderland" and "Fantasia" contain no 3-D characters. The early, vintage Disney didn't believe in three-dimensions and he was right. Maybe he took his cue from the best children's writers of them all, the Brothers Grimm (below), who avoided 3-D like the plague.
An added benefit of committing to 2 or 2 1/2 dimensional characters is that it solves a lot of story and directorial problems. 2-D characters are naturally extroverted. They want to do things. They want to talk and act in a stylized way. It's easier to fit music to them. Stories with these type of characters exert pressure on writers to come up with momentum, thrills and suspense. Dare to be two-dimensional!
34 comments:
The same can be applied to short silent comedies- Buster never wanted to make his audience feel pity for his role, so his characters were always 2d....until MGM fucked him up! ARgggggh MGM!!!!!!
There's a false assumption that a 3 dimensional character means that he has a scene where he bares his soul. This is not true, a 3 dimensional character simply shows all of the human emotions.
That would exclude characters like Mickey Mouse, Superman, and James Bond -- all of whom I find very boring. Bugs Bunny is 3 dimensional, though, and he never bares his soul. Clampett's version of Daffy Duck is also clearly a 3 dimensional character, especially in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery".
Kali-
Buster Keaton played dimendional characters, he just didn't play for sentimentality. That's what he meant by not expecting the audience to love him. MGM made him play less dimensional characters. MGM was a stickler for "traditional" comedy. They had Buster play simple buffoons in the thirties, -- a staple in most comedies, even today-- a role he never played in his silent films.
Clampett's version of Daffy Duck is also clearly a 3 dimensional character, especially in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery".
J.J., Daffy had more than 3 dimensions all throughout the classic years of his career (going through an unfortunate 1 dimensional period in the late '60's). Check the essay on my blog.
I would like to also concur J.J. on Buster Keaton's style. He never tried too hard for the audience's sympathy. He just played it how he wanted to play it. If the auidence liked it, good. If not, he'd try something else.
He'd usually play a frail, ineffectual nebbish who must overcome shyness and feelings of inadequacy in order to prevail against a seemingly impossible situation and display amazing agility as he did it. At least that's how his best films play out anyway. I don't know if I'd call that 2 or 3 dimensional, but whatever it was it worked.
"Buster Keaton played dimendional characters, he just didn't play for sentimentality. That's what he meant by not expecting the audience to love him. MGM made him play less dimensional characters. MGM was a stickler for "traditional" comedy. They had Buster play simple buffoons in the thirties, -- a staple in most comedies, even today-- a role he never played in his silent films."
I know what you mean about the later shorts when he was paired up with that Durante jerk, but his early MGM movies in particular, his first talkie Free and Easy is a perfect example. The whole plot and the way the movie ends with Buster being thwarted and no resolution for his character is completely 3 dimensional; and the audience pities him which he would have never let happen if he had more control.
Hmmm...I always felt that the HUGE advantage that the characters you cite(i.e. Bond, James)possess is that they're flesh & blood humans; since an animated character starts out as being literally 2 dimensional, they have a much bigger hill to climb to convince or create the illusion that they're "real". That's the idea, anyway.
Just a random thought:
The story is a character itself.
And the more complex individual characters are, the messier the grasp for the mr. story.
I want to feel the story, savour the scenes, fully soak them in but if i can't comprehend them because of to many sides to everything i feel like i'm always lagging behind the movie. As if each scene is a mathematic equation i have to work out before feeling what i'm seeing.
Different movies have different needs though. Some movies (like the Ice Storm, Ang Lee) easily handle very three dimensional characters because the movie has a different point than telling a story in the normal sense. Ice Storm is more about associations on life and in this sense we can relate to scenes through our own experience despite of a characters complex motivation.
Am i making any sense? Was up all night and have to go to bed!
Sorry for my rambling, d.
I think Bugs Bunny is a dynamic character, because he has the ability to constantly surprise the audience - as opposed to Mickey Mouse, who is a static character - not so much because he's boring, (although he is,) but because he's aimed at a much younger audience with different needs and expectations.
Nowadays, network execs (read: morons) insist that all characters - primary, secondary AND incidental - have character "arcs", and are fully-dimensional.
In their case, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They don't seem to realize that if ALL the characters are dynamic, then NONE of them really are, because that would cancel out the main character, and defeat the purpose of having a dynamic protagonist in the first place! (I've had this conversation with the suits many times, and it never seems to penetrate their anti-logic, reason-defying force field.)
As Kali knows full well, being a connoisseur of silent comedy - Buster Keaton was clearly a dynamic character.
Luisa, how dare you insult the emperors new groove?!
It is one of my favorite movies ever! My taste seems to be going down hill...
(and one mistake in the post above, not the mr. story but simply mr. story... i apologize)
At least the washed up alcoholic Keaton came off better than did George Reeves up against MGM. Eddie Mannix's wife never had to have Buster offed. And Keaton, whatever else was going on in his life, always managed to buy a new Cadillac just about every year at Casa de Cadillac in Sherman Oaks. Keaton realized that everything about his personality had to be overtly physical and externalized because his face betrayed no emotion. Pretty smart for someone who never went to fucking Harvard, unlike so many of today's industry gatekeepers.
Buster is an incredibly dynamic character yet still 2 dimensional- which no one today could ever pull off. Comedians and action stars alike would cut off their right hand to be half as talented as him (I know Jackie Chan would!)
"Eddie Mannix's wife never had to have Buster offed."
His first and second wife practically offed him by the way they treated him! Everyone always just remembers, "oh he was an alcoholic." He suffered from severe spousal abuse. It wasn't until Eleanor came along to save him, and that's when he made his revival with her help.
2D or 3D, if the character and story aren't handled well, it won't be entertaining. I don't think one is better than the other. They are just different. Same goes with drawing styles, or comedy vs. drama, vs. action etc. If any medium is handled well, it can be very appealing. I think you definately have a harder time relating to a 2 dimensional character though. That's not to say he won't be likeable or entertaining.
In the original book by Carlo Collodi, the cricket literally becomes 2-D, when Pinocchio smashes him with a hammer early in the book.
Right you are, Kali. Buster cruelly suffered at the hands of Ms. Talmadge and that other woman. He legally could have divorced them both. But he chose to endure and certainly did, at a hell of a price.
Corporations take really interesting characters and transform them into 1 DIMENSIONAL characters. They connect the word FRANCHISE to everything, and then you have nothing left.
A car accelerated towards me and pulled menacingly into my path the other day. I was nervous and excited. When I saw it was Mike F I was relieved! So Eddie, I have Mike's number and will phone next week to hopefully arrange to meet you guys. Hope this is okay?
"Tonto, it's not easy helping other people day in and day out. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I'd like some help too? I'm a man and a man has needs!"
Thanks Eddie! You gave me my big laugh for today!
OFF TOPIC a little bit....
When I saw the Lone Ranger and Tonto I thought of this Lenny Bruce thing...
Lone Ranger: Alright, for the children I'll do it. Give me…give me…no ashtrays…Anything I like?
Redneck:Anything. Just take a whip, or a doll--any of them of things on the top shelf.
Lone Ranger: I tell you what…Anything? Give me that Indian over there.
Redneck:Who's that…Tanto?
Lone Ranger: Yes, Tanta…I want Tanta the Indian.
Redneck:What you talking about? You can't have Tanto.
Lone Ranger: Bullshit…You make the deal. That's what I want. I want Tanta the Indian.
Redneck:You gonna get you a Tanta buddy. His name ain't Tanta it's Tant-o. What the hell you want Tanto for?
Lone Ranger: To perform an unnatural act.
Redneck: What?
Actually, two-dimensional characters often withstand the test of time better than three-dimensional characters. For example, most mythological characters are very single dimensional. These archetypes epitomize cultural characteristics and personalities...there are no deeper motivations for their actions. And these simple mythological heroes will outlast most fictional characters in modern literature.
I think modern writers should spend more time studying comparative mythology and less time studying character development in modern writings.
Actually, two-dimensional characters often withstand the test of time better than three-dimensional characters. For example, most mythological characters are very single dimensional. These archetypes epitomize cultural characteristics and personalities...there are no deeper motivations for their actions. And these simple mythological heroes will outlast most fictional characters in modern literature.
Those 2 dimensional characters of Greek mythology exist in short story form. You don't need much character developement in a story only a few paragraphs long. Try adapting them to longer forms and trouble arises, as any screenwriter who has had to adapt those storie to a feature length film knows.
As I recall, thoguh, the Greek gods in those myths posessed very human (hence dimensional) attributes. They were often petty, jealous, lustful, vindictive, etc.
I know what you mean about the later shorts when he was paired up with that Durante jerk, but his early MGM movies in particular, his first talkie Free and Easy is a perfect example. The whole plot and the way the movie ends with Buster being thwarted and no resolution for his character is completely 3 dimensional; and the audience pities him which he would have never let happen if he had more control.
In one of Buster's first films for MGM, The Cameraman, Buster is reduced to the buffoon. In one scene, Buster tries to change into a bathing suit in a tiny dressing room with another large bather. Buster keeps accidentally annoying the larger patron, who then slaps Buster around, like he is some stooge. It is a very painful scene to watch. Buster usually played much more resourceful characters, who would turn the tables on his adversaries in very creative ways. (Think of him as the waiter in College serving coffee and soup to an unruly patron, for example.)
There are some great scenes in The Cameraman, too. But they are mixed with ones that are out of character for a Keaton movie. The film also asks the audience to feel sympathy with Buster's plight near the end of the film (a formula in MGM comedies). The trouble with this is that you can't invite the audience to laugh at a character that is portrayed as a hapless stooge and then expect them to empathize with him 10 minutes to the finale. A stooge or buffoon is not a 3 dimensional character, so one can't feel emotionally for them. Buster usually played characters with far more depth in films like Sherlock Jr., The General and Steamboat Bill, Jr.
Keaton realized that everything about his personality had to be overtly physical and externalized because his face betrayed no emotion.
I disagree. I know Keaton was called the "great stoneface" but I think that was because other actors in the silent years overacted, while Keaton was subtle. He was able to convey a variety of emotions with minimal effort, often just using his very expressive eyes. I have oftened laughed out loud just at Keaton's reactions to his surroundings in his films.
"A stooge or buffoon is not a 3 dimensional character, so one can't feel emotionally for them. Buster usually played characters with far more depth in films like Sherlock Jr., The General and Steamboat Bill, Jr."
I agree with you about The Cameraman- and that is why I didn't mention that film. I'll go back to my example Free and Easy. I guess I'm pretty bad at making points- but I think my point is that because he is now in a talkie and is now being given a dimension of verbal conflict, that is what makes him become a 3d character even while being written as a pitiful buffoon.
Sherlock Jr. etc. he plays the same character with limited motives or goals (i.e. get get girl, whatever that might entail). But like you said, his reaction to his surroundings is funny in itself without needing that third dimension to his character. There is much more depth in those movies, but it is not his character so much as it is the situation, effects, and undertaking.
I think you should choose the character type that will best suit the story you are trying to tell. If you want to make a rousing action flick, then you want the audience to focus on the excitement happening to the characters, not the characters themselves. If you want to make a moving drama, you're going to have to creaqte characters with enough depth to hold our sympathy and engage us in their feelings. Of course, part of the fun of making movie is also being able to mess with people's preconceptions. It would be fairly shocking to the viewer if the 2-dimensional villain suddenly turns out to be an empathetic multi-dimensional character.
Kali: I LOVE that cartoon! I wonder if it's on YouTube!
Matt: Looking forward to it!
"Kali: I LOVE that cartoon! I wonder if it's on YouTube!"
Whoa back up-what cartoon? I'm slow it's 1 am... haha!
Kali: What cartoon? The Lone Ranger cartoon that you quoted from! Hmmm, come to think of it I guess it was a comedy record before it was a cartoon. You must have quoted from the record.
I didn't know it was a cartooon! I have to find it now....
Hey, j.j. hunsecker - I like your analytical posts. (Didn't I see you in "The Sweet Smell Of Success"?)
Hey, mike f.,
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed the post. Also, you're right that the name I use is taken from "Sweet Smell of Success", one of my favorite movies.
Are you Mike Fontinelli? (Not sure of the spelling.) If so, I worked with you twice...once on "The Simpsons" and then on "Nightmare Ned" which I was fired from.
Kali,
"Thank You, Mask Man" is the animated short directed by John Magnuson in 1971, made to Lenny Bruce's classic Lone Ranger and Tonto bit. It's 8 minutes long, drawn in a crude but direct style and once played the U.S. college film festival circuit on a regular basis.
Thanks anonymous!
Here it is Eddie!
Thank You Masked Man
Ah-HAH! You are Mark Colangelo!
(I ran into Cary Yost over the weekend, and he mentioned he recently worked with you.) Ha! Blew your cover, Mark!
SSOS was a GREAT movie, but it made for a lousy Broadway musical.
(Another brilliant creative decision - greenlit by the world's stupidest humans: entertainment executives.)
Mike: Mark Colangelo!!!! Hey Mark! How are you!!!?
Kali: The Lone ranger film was terrific! Thanks a million!
Damn, I've been outed on Eddie's blog!!
Hello, Eddie. I'm doing fine. I like your site, even when I disagree with you sometimes.
David: A well-written, thoughtful article but I remain wedded to the earlier more flambouyant Daffy.
Matt: Great! Let's do it!
Post a Comment