






I've only read a dozen pages or so. When I put it down Callow was relating the story of how Welles rehearsed the actors in "Magnificent Ambersons." He recorded the rehearsel on records then played the best parts back when it was time to film it. Welles thought actors always spoke their lines too slow infront of the camera and he wanted to remind them how good it sounded when they spoke fast in rehearsel. Callow thought it had the unexpected effect of making the scenes feel awkward because the actors couldn't find the natural rythym of the present, infront of the camera.
Welles put a lot of emphasis on the reading that was done in rehearsel. I'm proud of myself because I deduced this before I ever read it, in fact I did a blog entry about it. You can hear it in the way he delivered his lines in " Jane Eyre." The lines sound like they're being read! You might think that would be a liability but it wasn't. It sounded great that way! I read ahead in the Jane Eyre sequence and discovered that he walked on the set and started directing from a podium just like a conducter, even though he was only hired to act.
How fearless Gross is! The guy (above) doesn't fall, though he's leaning and is painfully top-heavy. He doesn't fall for the perfectly logical reason that it's funnier if he doesn't.
I love Gross' walks. Strides like this (above) just beg to be animated funny.
This ball-throwing pose (above) probably worked better in print than it would in animation. Even so, the way the forms squash into each other certainly is interesting. Animators shouldn't be put off by the flat, print bias of the pictures. Even the flatest ones are terrific conceptual blockbusters.
Before I dive deep into the well of theories again I want to comment on a critical internet article about John K and Clampett which appeared a couple of days ago, and which was linked to without comment from Cartoon Brew. The article made me pretty upset but I'll try to respond with restraint since the author seems to be a nice guy and tried to be fair in his own way.
First off, I was disappointed to see Clampett's work described as crazy, crude and exagerrated. He certainly was all these things (I'm assuming "crazy" was used affectionately) but it seems stingy not to add that he was also crucially inventive and highly entertaining. Sergio Leone, Fellini, Mick Jagger and Elvis were also crude and exagerrated at times. So what?
Clampett's style was summarized as having to do with bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs. That's OK so far as it goes but where's the rest of the list? I didn't see any mention of Clampett's innovations in comedy, acting, pacing, animation, cartooning, dialogue, editing, and musical application. It's so strange to see the man's whole ground-breaking effort reduced to a couple of insults.
John K got the same harsh treatment. John's work was characterized by naked boobs and farts. Poor John gets no credit for the uptillion drawing, story, dialogue, editing, pacing, acting and musical innovations. The author casually reduces this bulging warehouse of gifts to the animation industry down to...boobs and farts. At the end of the piece he condescendingly pats John on the head by conceding that the pathetic purveyer of farts at least stimulates discussion about animation. Unbelievable.
Now I'm willing to concede that everyone isn't tempramentally suited for outrageous humor. If you don't like that sort of thing, or can only take it in small doses, then it's natural to resist people like Clampett and John, regardless of their innovations. Maybe it's even natural to nitpick about whatever faults they have. That's OK, I understand that. Just be respectfull when criticizing people who are giants in their field. We need these people and they're getting frightningly scarce.
What is the proper role of an animator in an animated cartoon? That's easy. I can answer in one word..."king!" In animation the animator is king. Everybody else's job exists to make the animator look good. The rest of us, even the director, are like the hairdressers and make-up people on a live-action set. We exist to make the actor, i.e., the animator, look good. We exist to maximize his chance of achieving glory on the screen.
In a saner world the animator would be a star. His name would be known to the public and the public would argue over who the best animators are. Animators would have groupies, artistic pique, scandalous divorces, punch-outs with paparazzi, would get fat for parts and write tell-all biographies. The best of them would also break their backs to make the performances that will be remembered forever.
It seems to me that the best way to achieve this is to bring the animation back under the roof of the parent studio. Why we ever let it leave is beyond me. Animators are our performers. In their absence we've had decades of souless cartoons. We've been trying to tell stories without actors.
We need to start training animators now. The studios should help art schools to organize their animation programs more efficiently. Good animators should be rewarded with good salaries and stories should be written with the kind of scenes that animators like to work on. Most of all we need cheap and easy to use pencil test programs and internet tutorials on their use.