Tuesday, August 08, 2006
INTRODUCING MILT GRAY'S MS. VIAGRI AMPLETEN
The pictures in the book are character layouts from a 12-minute sexy adventure film he's working on. He estimates that he'll have to generate about 15,000 drawings so down the line he'll need some help. If you need a job and can draw or animate this sort of thing, let him know. He plans to put up a web site soon at www.miltongray.comAt the moment the only way to get the book is from Astounding Comics, 224 E. Orange Grove, Burbank 91502, tel: (818) 953-7234 (What's the store's net address? Aaaarrgghh! I forgot to ask and it's a trillion o'clock at night as I write this). The store accepts mail orders.
By the way, You should also look up an article Milt wrote on animation timing for John Kricfalusi's blog. It's flat out one of the best things I've ever read on the subject!
Sunday, August 06, 2006
MOVEMENT THEORIES OF DELSARTE
I'm not saying that we should throw out all the great performances of the last 100+ years and go back to stylized caricature. What I'm saying is that we should keep what was of value in Delsarte: strong sillouettes, an emphasis on style that seems real rather than realism, and acting with the whole body rather than the face where it's appropriate.
If you think Delsarte was only studied by campy, second-rate actors, think again. Among his advocates were dancerIsadora Duncan and fundamentalist preacher Billy Sunday (above and below). I'd like to add Lawrence Olivier but that's a guess and I haven't read it anywhere.
Billy Sunday is the best American orator I've ever heard. You can hear him here at: http://billysunday.org/audio/prohibition.wav
Delsarte was a elocution theorist as well as a movement specialist. Billy Sunday didn't try to tone down Delsarte, he pumped it up and exagerrated it. He was the most popular preacher of his day. I've never seen a film of Billy but I've seen a lot of still pictures. He must have put on quite a show.
GRIGOR EFTIMOV...GENIUS!
In the example above Grigor takes the dreaded perfect nose (The guy's nose, that is), pulls it out of the face and points it upward. That's a risky thing to do. The guy's nose doesn't naturally point up. You could lose the likeness. Grigor seems to have discovered what John K discovered, namely that you can invent characteristics as long as the drawing still FEELS like the person. I'll point out that Grigor also gave the guy a muzzle he didn't have before and a cow pie in place of his hair. Talk about creating a muzzle, Grigor gave this girl (above) a muzzle fit for a giraffe. And she's a good-looking girl too! Did he worry about losing the likeness? Did the crowd string him up? Nope! He fearlessly laid on the muzzle and it worked! Of course it fits into the crescent moon of the boyfriend's face.
Unbelievable! Here (above) he makes the girl's face huge then turns around and makes the guy's face even bigger! Does Grigor know no fear!? What if it hadn't worked!!??? The man is the Evil Keneival of caricaturists! I'll add that Grigor also does realistic paintings of distinction. A tip of the Uncle Eddie cap to Grigor Eftimov, caricaturist extraodinaire!
Saturday, August 05, 2006
I"M GOING TO LEARN A FEW WORDS OF YIDDISH
Yiddish is a deliberate corruption of German with a lot of slavic words thrown in. It's a relatively new language, only a few hundred years old. It began when German Jews decided to come up with their own version of German so their kids wouldn't be assimilated into what Jews considered an alien culture and religion. Yiddish isn't only different than German, it's a parody of it. It's also a parody of Christianity.
The language can get pretty insulting but the insults are so funny sometimes that it's hard to get mad about it. In that sense it's like Jive, the language that some urban American blacks speak. Jive isn't supposed to be understood by the white man. It's deliberately full of funny sexual and racial references that would put off white people, if they only understood it. It's a funny language that's meant to use humor to seperate black people from the mainstream. Jive is fast disappearing as is Yiddish. Now that Jews have Israel and blacks have their freedom the need for seperation is slowly disappearing. Israel officially discourages Yiddish, except for scholars who study it as an academic subject in the university.
The title of the book mentions a Yiddish word, "kvetch." According to the writer all Yiddish speakers constantly complain (kvetch), whether there's anything to complain about or not. Yiddish-speaking Jews cultivated this to remind themselves that nothing will be right for them till they have a homeland of their own in Israel. The complaints are made tolerable by humor and it's no accident that Yiddish speakers helped to make America one of the funniest countries in the world. In Japan students of English sometimes study American jokes because it's believed that humorous speech is so widely used here that they'll be earmarked as foreigners if they don't make frequent jokes in the middle of a converstion.
I wish I had the energy to look up a few common Yiddish words to include here but I'm so sleepy that that I can barely finish typing this sentense. When I do learn some Yiddish words and phrases I want to move on to select Italian words and gestures. I also want to pick up some Jive. With all these funny linguistic treasures around us it seems foolish not to dabble.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
DARE TO BE TWO-DIMENSIONAL!
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!
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
BOOTY FROM A TRIP TO THE LIBRARY KIDS DEPARTMENT
This green picture of the house is also by Lane Smith. So far as I can guess it appears to show a bunch of convict slave zombies carrying the kid and his house to Hell, or perhaps to outer space.
The gigantic, yellow, expensive blob of a kid is, believe it or not, from a story Dr. Seuss wrote in the 1970s. Why do minimalist books cost so much?
When my kids were young I couldn't get them to read most of their illustrated books. They found my bound copies of Carl Barks' Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge books and poured over them, even before they knew how to read.
Monday, July 31, 2006
WHY CARTOONS FAVOR ZOMBIE AUDIENCES
Look at the audience behind Daffy. The characters in the background painting are hazy and ghost-like, with blank faces as if they were just bussed in from Hell.
Here the audience has acquired some definition but they're still engulfed by an eerie mist and are lit from only one direction. Why did so many old-time directors favor this kind of weird treatment? The obvious answer is that drawing each individual head in the crowd would have been time-consuming and take too much attention away from the main characters. Look at these sharply-drawn Jack Davis heads (above). I don't know about you but I spend a lot more time looking at the faces in the crowd than the people in the car. So that might be the answer.....but it's not the only possible answer. Maybe zombie audiences were just plain funny.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
IT HELPS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OWN TIMES ARE FUNNY
I knew the 80s were funny when I was living through them. I'm furious with myself and other artists for not chronicling that period with pictures. I didn't because I thought a million other artists must have had it covered. It turns out they didn't. Amazingly the funny part of the eighties passed without drawings to record it. Equally amazing, the period we're living in now is passing unrecorded. All the bling, nose rings, baggy pants and bald heads are going to pass into oblivion, unrecorded by artists.
I know what you're thinking : plenty of underground comics and animated TV shows are recording our time, but are they? The kind of drawings I have in mind are done by artists who can see our time as campy and ridiculous, the way people in the future will undoubtedly see it. What we need are artists from the year 2040, fresh out of the time machine. For me Crumb and Wood fit that description. Both of these artists knew they were living in funny times and they took full advantage of it.
I didn't have time to find illustrations by these artists that would fit what I was trying to say. The Crumb drawing doesn't make the point at all but I'll leave it in. I did stumble on a drawing by Wood (below) that sort of fits. Guys, do you want to see it?
Saturday, July 29, 2006
ANOTHER BOOK REVIEW: "THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY"
The author, Stanton Samenow, is a prison psychologist. When he wrote the book he'd been working with prisoners for over twenty years. He definitely believes there's such a thing as a criminal type, someone who likes the excitement of crime and would rather die than lead a normal life. This condition is generally regarded as incurable but that's not how Samenow sees it. He came up with a therapy for it.
According to Samenow (above) the natural criminal doesn't reject the way ordinary people think, his problem is that he can't even imagine it. Not in the least. The natural criminal is a manipulator. He can't imagine any other way of thinking. He believes everybody else are manipulators too, he's just better at it. The first time you tell him him that ordinary people are not manipulators he's genuinely shocked because he's never even considered the possibility. He thinks you're putting him on.
Therapy for this type of person consists of asking him to keep a detailed record of everything he said and did with other prisoners, with an emphasis on the small things. The therapist listens to the criminal read the record and he stops the reading whenever some oddball manipulation comes up.
For example, the criminal says he asked another prisoner for a cigarette. The therapist stops him and asks if the criminal really needed the cigarette. The criminal matter-of-factly says he didn't but it was an opportunity to mess with the other guy's mind. The therapist replies that an ordinary person wouldn't ask for the cigarette unless he really wanted it. The criminal is dumbfounded and doesn't believe it. They talk about it for awhile then go on.
The criminal says he asked for a light and held the other guys arm steady when he held the match. The therapist asks why he held the arm and the criminal says it was to show the other guy who's boss. The therapist says ordinary people wouldn't have held the arm unless the light was in danger of going out. Once again the criminal is dumbfounded. It goes on like that. Over a period of two or three years the criminal gradually learns how ordinary people think. He has to learn it, just like learning a subject in school, and when he's learned it his behavior changes because people naturally adapt to new enviornments once they comprehend them.
Now I haven't the slightest idea if this if this therapy really works. What interested me about it is that it made me wonder if some people, including fairly ordinary and intelligent people, might think so differently than myself that we almost inhabit different worlds. When someone vigorously disagrees with me but seems to have a weak argument, we might be at an impasse based on completely different assumptions about life. These assumptions are often hard to articulate and the person holding them might not even be aware of them. The same goes for me.
After reading this book I decided to make an effort to get over these impasses by arguing to what I assume are the unspoken assumptions. I also decided to assume the other person was as rational as myself and had no secret animosity or evil intent in their make-up. I've been doing this to some extent ever since I read this book and I think it's worked, or at least it works half the time, which is a lot. Of course there are genuinely crazy and evil people and this technique won't work with them, but most people aren't like that.
WHERE ARE THE FUNNY CHARACTERS?
The family in the film weren't intended to be comedians. They were dramatic characters with occassional slightly humorous moments.
Walt had a different idea about how to inject comedy into a feature. He threw in a bunch of clowns who slurped their soup, fought with each other and engaged in broad slapstick.
To balance out the comedy he made the mean character REALLY, REALLY mean. She wasn't neurotic or mischievous, she was downright evil. The extreme behavior of the witch created so much tension that we were glad when the slapstick scenes came up. Modern fims have mild, tepid villains and slapstick, with all its funny animation possibilities, seems out of place.
If the villain in the superhero movie had been stronger, then the film would have needed a more overt and funny comedy to balance it out. Maybe comedic characters a little like those shown above, or like George Liquor (shown below) or the animated equivalent of the characters in "Dumb and Dumber," or the dog in Clampett's "Hair Ribbin." I think the audience would have liked that.
As it was, there was no strong villain and therefore no truly funny comedy relief.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
WHAT IS THE LITTLE GIRL LOOKING AT?
Now obviously this is just a fantasy because with the population being what it is not even a king could afford to keep a vista like this to himself. But fantasies don't have to make sense. For example, what's the best seat in the house if you're going to out to hear a symphony orchestra? Is it in the middle of the first row? Not really. When you think about it, isn't the best seat one that would be next to the conductor? And wouldn't it be better to lie down than sit down? The best seat is a cot next to the conductor.
What would be the best place for a table if you're going to eat a reataurant meal? By the window? Not really. For me the best place would be right in the middle of the crowd rushing to and fro in the main room of a giant big-city railroad station. I like to see effective people in a hurry. I like trying to imagine what their lives must be like, and while I'm doing that I wouldn't mind a thick, juicy steak and some good wine at a well turned out table with impeccable linen. Of course no one would take notice of me. But that's my fantasy. Maybe you'd like to dine on a mesa or in the womens' dressing room of a supermodel contest.
What's the best place to put the desk that you like to work on? In a big, cushy office? Maybe, but I prefer to be outside in the tropical jungle - minus the heat and bugs. I don't mind monkies and cheetas on my filing cabinets. I think I'd like hearing tropical birds and listening to the gurgling of a near-by stream. I'd like dappled sunlight on my papers and the ozone smell that preceeds a tropical thunderstorm, which by the way wouldn't get my papers wet.
So that's why I like the fishing picture. It's all about possibility and thinking about what you really want, instead of what you'll settle for. Once in a while what you really want turns out to be what other people would really want too, and once in a while ...well, you know the rest.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
WHERE ARE THE FUNNY DRAWINGS?
I love drawings like this (above) because they so obviously exist just to get a laugh. The artist isn't ashamed of being funny, he flaunts it! They're not mildly amusing products for an era of reduced expectations...they're gloriously and unashamedly reaching for a laugh! If I see one more mildly amusing animated feature or TV show I think I'm going to explode. The audience is hungry for funny drawings! Why are we witholding them?
Monday, July 24, 2006
UNCLE EDDIE'S CAREER ADVICE FOR PEOPLE WITH FACES
By way of example, the guy on the upper right (above) should clearly be a drug dealer. If he's an honest and drug-free man then that's unfortunate because nature has clearly chosen a different path for him and he'll never be happy as long as he's living a conflicted life. The guy in the middle of the second row (above) should obviously run a news stand and sell newspapers. Don't feel sorry for him because he'll make more money than you do. Customers will go out of their way to buy newspapers from a man who fits their image of what a newsie should look like.
Some people like the woman in the middle row above are cursed with a bland face. It's as if they have fewer facial muscles than everybody else. People like this are said to make good spies because they don't stand out in a crowd. Once again, don't feel sorry for these people because an inexpressive but pleasant face is deemed to be dependable and trustworthy and employers like that.
Employers don't like faces like these. They look like they're riddled with eccentricities and neuroses. if you look like these people you should put a lot of effort into finding a way to be self-employed.
MY FAVORITE FILM BOOK
The book starts with simple set-ups like the one above. I love back shots where the actor walks away from camera into the set and seems to take you with him. We cut to a side shot to pick up the actor entering sc on a close shot. It's a challenging cut but one which is never jarring or confusing.
Arijon likes to cut to actors who are in the same quadrant of the screen that they were in on the previous shot. Is this standard practice or just a preference of the author?
Here's a nifty way to walk a man down a corridor. I like the the way the third shot, where he presumably stops, deliberately violates the screen direction of the previous two shots.
A lot of the set-ups in the book are more complicated than the ones I've shown here, but most of them are understandable without recourse to the text. Skillfully done drawings will often explain things faster and better than text. It's amazing that more books aren't presented this way.
A word about Arijon: he was a filmmaker and teacher in Uruguay when he published this book in the mid-70s. Can you imagine that!? It took someone from Uruguay to show us how to write a textbook the right way!