I love writers, real writers, but our industry doesn't seem to have attracted many of them.
Visit an animation artist's site and you're likely to see samples of what the guy did recently, paintings by favorite artists, and the like. Visit an animation writers site and you're likely to see gripes about not getting residuals, nostalgia for super-fast writers of the past, shop talk about who's hiring and the like. No celebration of beautiful words, no discussion of clever plots. If you're a fan of good writing, which I am, it's disappointing.
One thing that does abound in animation writers' sites is slick prose. The notes and memos these guys send to each other are beautiful. I don't mind saying that I'm envious. If any of these guys offers to teach memo writing I'm there. They're models of economy, euphony and wit. Verbs instead of adjectives, everything in the present tense; Stunk & White would be proud. Unfortunately for these guys there's no memo industry to absorb them. They had a skill with no place to go, so they bailed out into animation, which they dominate.
If I can digress for a minute.... did you know that at one time arists dominated the pulp sci-fi industry? Well, sort of. The editor of one one of the early science fiction magazines (Gernsback? Cambell? Amazing Stories? Astounding?) used to provoke his artists to come up with wild, imaginative covers then, when he got something he liked, he called in a writer to write a story that would justify it. Interesting, huh?
When I heard this the first time I felt sorry for the writers, who after all are entitled to dominate the industry that they created (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells), but I sometimes wonder if my sympathy was misplaced. Some writers like to call the post-pulp era the golden age of science fiction, but was it? You could argue that the writer-driven psychological stories that came to dominate sci-fi eventually killed it. Maybe the genre was healthier when it dealt with weird gadgets and monsters. Maybe but....hmmmm, I think I'll still come down on the writers side on this one. It just makes sense to me that writers should call the shots in their own writing industry.
And animators should call the shots in the animation industry! Why do writers fail to see the wisdom of that? Well, there's an obvious answer. Money. Animation writers are like kids in a candy store. There's gold in them thar hills! After the style and tone of a show is set the rest of the stories are easy to write and there's lots of time left over to write freelance stories for other projects. Animation writers are often loaded to the gills with freelance! They can't be bothered to edit a script to a proper length (it's faster to write a long script than a short one), or to figure out really clever plots and dialogue (Sigh!). 
Well, I still like writers. Real writers, that is, writers who care about character, plot, humor and writing for performance. I'll end with that. There's more to say but this'll do for a start.
BTW, I know of a couple of writer sites that are all about classic comics and drawn media. I have nothing but sympathy and well wishes for these sites but they don't amount to a contradiction of what I said about animation writers not discussing words and plots with any frequency.
Also BTW, the pictures here are of Shakespeare, Hugo and Dickens.
30 comments:
*sigh*
Yet another post blaming writers for the ills of the world, which when you come to think of it is sad. One of the first things that my very first boss, Vlad Goetzelman told me almost 30 years ago is, "There are no stars in animation - it's a collaborative effort". Animators need writers. Writers need musicians. Musicians need production accountants... Well, maybe not production accountants - but you get the idea.
This is the way it is in TV animation today. You can learn to live with it and thrive within the system. You can go independent and do your own thing. Or you can do what I do - and have it both ways: play within the system AND do your own thing. But all this continuous griping and peeing in the other guy's lemonade isn't going to help or change things.
My two cents.
Of all shows, The Simpsons once took a swipe at these supposed cartoon writers. It was the episode where Bart and Lisa wrote an Itchy & Scratchy episdoe and then had their grandpa send it in as his work. That cartoon won an Emmy so Grandpa went up to accept it. In his speech he said he didn't like Itchy & Scratchy one bit and that they should all be ashamed. All the writers agreed with him instantly. One of them stood up and said "Yeah, to hell with cartoons. I'm going to make that sitcom about the sassy robot". XD
They expressed through satire what you, John and other have been saying for years. Huzzah!
Animation isn't a purely collaborative system. It's a collaborative system under the control of a talented and creatvie cartoonist/director. Or at least that's the way it seems to be when truly great cartoons are made.
See ya
Steve
This is the way it is in TV animation today. You can learn to live with it and thrive within the system. You can go independent and do your own thing. Or you can do what I do - and have it both ways: play within the system AND do your own thing. But all this continuous griping and peeing in the other guy's lemonade isn't going to help or change things.
Or you can do what I did. You can abandon all hope of a career in the medium that you love bacause of how truly politically fucked up it is, and how rarely something good ever happens, while rooting for the few good men who bravely soldiered on.
It's not the fault of the writers. They are going where there is work. It's the fault of the people at networks who decided that writers are necessary and beneficial to GOOD cartoon making, which they demonstrably are not.
So to a man like Mr. Fitzgerald, who has actually demonstrated that he can in fact MAKE a good cartoon and not simply spew the blather that makes a bad one, I say that he is welcome to blame anybody he likes.
It promotes awareness that there are doofuses at the controls who do not belong there. It's not a solution, it's a small step in the right direction.
"The way things are in the industry today" is not the way they should be or should ever have been. No artform has ever been subjugated and forced to hand over content control the way animation has, to people who don't even fully respect cartoonists even when they claim to be making cartoons.
How do you "thrive" within such a system? Agree to make crap with a smile?
So I am no longer an aspiring professional cartoonist, beacuase I don't think cartoonists should be told what to do by people who can't fucking draw.
I salute you, Uncle Eddie. You are a soldier.
P.S.--\\Working independently is a grand idea when it's practical, but I don't think it could've produced Ren and Stimpy. Where would the money and distribution come from?
Steve S.: I almost didn't publish this piece because the tone of it inadvertantly came out so mean-spirited. I imagine that's what you're reacting to.
If you can bear to read it again try to ignore the hard-edge and look to the real arguments underneath. An awful lot of animation writers really are the way I described them here. They need to hear this so they can straighten out and become the team players you were talking about.
The next time I talk about this I'll try to drop the sarcasm. It doesn't come natural to me and I'm not good at it.
Steve W.: True, so true. Writers should work for the director who should be an artist with an ear for story.
It must be hard for a writer to accept this. For one thing it amounts to a demotion because the way things are now, the writer is the de facto director. For another thing, you can only pity a writer who's forced to work under a guy who doesn't understand story.
I sympathize but if our industry doesn't bite the bullet and reform itself the public will lose interest in animation and everybody, writers and artists alike, will find themselves on the street.
"Animation isn't a purely collaborative system. It's a collaborative system under the control of a talented and creatvie cartoonist/director."
Steve,I hate to point out that you've contridicted yourself. I guess it would take a writer to notice that. And for the record, I never said it was "purely" collaborative.
Have you ever considered that music makes up 50% of any film or TV show? It sets the mood, it acts as a Greek chorus, it can make or break any production. Why is the musical contribution to animation never mentioned in these rants? Carl Stalling excepted. (Ooh... a writer who knows the name of an animation composer.)
When I read this post, I didn't see it as a "screw all writers" one like John K.'s ften if not always seem. I saw it as a "screw all writers who don't care" one, which is a major difference.
On another note, I don't get how people often seem to interpret those posts as "blaming writers for the ills of the world", while John's done more posts bitching about *artists* that, to him, don't seem to care.
>>Yet another post blaming writers for the ills of the world, <<
I love when people come to argue but don't read the posts and paraphrase the argument to suit their own feeble defense.
Eddie said very clearly that he loved writers-real ones.
The kinds of writers we get in animation are hacks and we don't need them at all. They are in the way.
Anyone can write the crap that they cram in the formula scripts we get in animation.
Might as well give that extra money to the artists and let them write their own stuff. Some artists will actually show writing ability and make memorable cartoons that last 50 years and more-like the writers of the Warner Bros. cartoons. They were all artists.
The bad artist writers will not be as bad as the non-artist writers that parasitize us now.
>>Steve,I hate to point out that you've contridicted yourself. I guess it would take a writer to notice that. <<
It takes an artist to tell you someone who calls himself a writer spelled "contradicted" wrong.
So in summary, "it is unto yourselves you should be looking"?
Have you ever considered that music makes up 50% of any film or TV show? It sets the mood, it acts as a Greek chorus, it can make or break any production. Why is the musical contribution to animation never mentioned in these rants?
See... Musical Timing Rediscovered
Another problem with dialogue based cartoons is that they are timed around the natural pause dialogue edit. In the old days, timing was done to a musical beat. That was responsible for the synergy between music and animation in the early days. It's hard to make the music anything more than inoffensive wallpaper in the current system.
To elaborate a bit on my previous point... The cartoonist/director is responsible for using all aspects of filmmaking at his disposal- drawings, motion, color, music, sound effects, gags, editing, story, design, etc. A good cartoon is one that uses all aspects of the medium to serve the intents of the director.
See ya
Steve
Quoting John K
"The kinds of writers we get in animation are hacks and we don't need them at all. They are in the way."
Nice. Everyone who's ever written an animation script is a hack. That's keeping an open mind. I wonder what it says about the medium as a whole?
So why don't you seek out and find good ones from other fields? If there's someone who's work you like, why not see if you can work with them. Just a constructive thought.
John does seek out good writers from another field- cartooning.
It's amazing that it's so controversial to say that cartoonists with a talent for coming up with cartoon stories are better at writing cartoons than non-cartoonist writers.
The system John describes isn't his own crazy theory- it's a carefully designed, efficient system that worked well for animation for over half a century. It was endorsed by Walt Disney, Chuck Jones and Walter Lantz. The current system is endorsed by... network executives.
See ya
Steve
Harlan Ellison would be proud.
Harlan's a nice man.
I hesitate to walk into the crossfire here, but I just want to point out that one of the issues raised Eddie's post is a perfectly legitimate aesthetic issue about the relative merits of two different genres of animated motion pictures. One sort of animated film is simply a visualized script (which is also what a live-action narrative film is, according to me). The other has a more complex origin, but is to some extent image-driven. The former is bad news for people who draw and paint. But I think it is also less good from the audience point of view as well, because the image-driven product can do everything the script-driven one can do and more. The script-driven route means abandoning some very important resources of the animation medium. South Park sometimes has funny dialog and devastating social satire, but it's hard to even imagine a funny sight-gag on that show.
Anyway, in the past I have written about related issues in the theory of live-action narrative film, but I'm really not sure, beyond what I have just said, about what I should think about the issues concerning animation -- except that I am fairly sure the issues in animation are really profoundly different!
Harlan's a genius but not that many people would use the words "nice man" to describe him.
Comedy is a lot stronger when it's performance based, rather than dialogue based. Chaplin, Keaton, Gleason, Laurel and Lloyd all used pantomime and personality to put across the humor. A couple of examples of more dialogue based live action comedy would be Abbott & Costello and Bob Hope.
See ya
Steve
Hmm; I found Harlan to be very charming. Scary as f^$#@, but charming nonetheless.
Tom Minton's a cartoon writer--one of the funniest ever. He used to draw for his pay ages ago but sticks to writing for drawing now(in addition to producing). Eddie also has written(NOT drawn, but written)some wonderful scripts; I have one that I found in the xerox room at WB. It's terrific. I'm not sure if EF would agree, because he's famously hard on himself as soon as he's finished with these sorts of things...but it IS terrific.
It's not surprising that he'd write well because he reads voraciously--an absolute requirement for good writing. I don't even have to mention the other requisite--that he draws. And that he's funny.
Yes, cartoons need (when they're done right)
different sorts of written scripts(in an ideal situation there'd be little or no traditional script at all for shorts, but that's the way 90% of modern TV is done, so c'est la guerre). But I thought Tom's and Eddie's both trod the line just right between a well-though-out situation, screaming humor--and something that reads in such a way that you can see the cartoon.
I'm sure there are other guys as well, but those two are up there.
The title of this post is "I love writers!" so what the fuck is everyone arguing about?
Jenny: Wow! What a compliment! Thanks much! I'm dying to know which script you're talking about!
Tom has a unique and hilarious animation style. He should pitch a show like that.
And I bet I'm not the only one dying to read it! Maybe you could post one of your own unused scripts one day, Eddie?
I had some dealings with Harlan about 10 - 12 years ago. He was brilliant, charming and very, very nice. Nothing came of the project I'd proposed to him and we haven't kept in touch - but what a guy!
I know that it's labeled Shakespear, but I'm pretty sure that is actually a painting of Amid Amidi in a bald wig.
Steve S: Harlan is indeed a great guy! I wish I could talk to him about this writer vs. artist dispute.
If the conversation was short he'd probably defend the writers but if there was time to really thrash it out I bet he'd come around to something closer to my way of thinking. That's because he values beautiful words and interesting stories and so do I. I've met more cartoonists who value these things than cartoon writers.
I don't mean this as a slam against you Steve. The fact that you're here means that you have more going for you than most writers.
Vincent: Amid!? LOL!
I Don't: That's a high compliment!Thanks!
Benjamin: True enough! I'd love to meet an animation writer who actually cares about writing. I've come across a couple but it's a very, very rare breed.
I've laid it out in plain language here.
Interesting argument. It sounds like the old ladies at The Royal Watercolour Society debating whether the #9 Sable is the only "proper" brush to use for watercolour painting.
That's kind of limiting - stagnating might be a better term, don't you think?
Post a Comment