Showing posts with label Kahl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kahl. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

TJ's Progress

TJ had one particular thing I thought he should work on: Some of his constructed forms were a bit wonky or wobbly.

You can really see it here in Hook's skull - or lack of one. He seems to be melting.
You can also see it clearly in this Shere Khan model sheet. I would strongly advise, when you are studying construction and basic concepts, that you don't start with the hardest character ever designed.
In these copies his skull is soft and too pointy, and the eyes don't sit right in the hierarchy.

Here's how solid he really is. A real bugger of a character to draw - let alone animate. Only Milt Kahl could do it.
It's actually the exact same design as this, but with a couple more planes, and more difficult proportions. If you gotta study Kahl, I'd start with his simpler characters and work your way up. Then throw away all his stock expressions unless you wanna be the next Don Bluth.Here's the last couple days of TJ's practices and the forms are coming together - getting more solid.

Bugs' head in that bottom drawing should attach to the neck underneath the cheek/muzzle area.
Jerry is looking pretty good. Some small parts like the hands seem to have webbed fingers.


His squinted eye needs to make more sense on the one where he is sticking out his tongue, but the sheer practice of doing this over and over again is obviously working. TJ's getting more solid by the day.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Brer Fox Shuffle

Here's a great "character-walk", I think by Milt Kahl. Someone else says Eric Larson. I'll let the experts argue it out. I put "character-walk" in quotes because so many walks today are merely walks - just to get the character across the room. The classic animators knew that walks were a part of the entertainment.
In the early 30s, animators would animate goofy walks just for fun, not even thinking too much about character - and I'm all for that! Anything besides merely walking to get a character from here to there like we do today. By the mid 30s, the Fleischers had started animating according to who the characters were in the Popeye series. The walks were still funny, but fit the characters specifically. In the mid to late 30s, the west coast animators began experimenting with character walks too. At Disney's they were generally less concerned with the humorous aspects of it (or were just less funny people period). Warners managed to do character walks that were funny, stylish and specific all at the same time - the best of all worlds.

Tell the story with movement, not dialogue
This Brer Fox walk from 1946 is not wacky or funny, but it sure is great. Instead of him telling us with words how confident he is that he caught Brer Rabbit; his cocksure, slow shuffling walk with his hat over his eyes tells us visually exactly how he is feeling. I think some Disney animators are more comfortable acting in silence than when they are stuck with dialogue.

http://www.cartoonthrills.org/blog/Dis/46SongOfTheSouth/BFSHUFFLSML.mov


TIMED TO THE BEAT
I tried to number the keys, but my copy is at 29 frames per second, rather than 24 so I had to transfer it back to 24. In all this process the odd frame gets dropped and some get doubled, so I will be off by a frame or so here and there. It should be a 32x per step walk if I figured it right.

But if you watch the clip and whistle along with the music you can get a better idea of how the walk works. It's 4/4 timing at 8x per beat. On the first beat of each bar , Brer Fox kicks his foot out and up. Then he bounces in place, steps back down and then crosses his legs into the next step. Each action on the beat in this pattern:

1KICK, 2 Bounce 3 bounce and step (foot contacts ground), 4 step flat and cross legs into next kick
Repeat with other foot.

It's interesting that the whole scene is to this beat - even Fox's dialogue.

"HOW DO YOU DO" -each word on the beat

"he WISHin HE NEVer BEEN BORN"

They must have played the metronome for the actor so he would speak in 4/4 time at 8x per beat.

1 CONTACT RIGHT FOOT

4 RIGHT FOOT FLAT ON GROUND

12 MIDDLE POSITION. LEGS CROSSING- BODY LEANS FORWARD
15 FOOT STARTS INTO KICK - BODY STARTS LEANING BACK AGAIN
17 KICK LEFT FOOT OUT - RIGHT FOOT SLIDES FORWARD
18 KICK LEFT FOOT UP - CONT. SLIDE RIGHT FOOT FORWARD - LEAN BACK
23 - SQUASH DOWN FROM LAST POSE - SLOW SLIDE
27 - STRETCH UP INTO SETTLE FROM BOUNCE DOWN
30 CONTACT LEFT HEEL
33 LEFT FOOT FLAT ON GROUND
43 FOOT MIDDLE POSITION, CROSSING OTHER LEG - LEAN FORWARD
45 START KICK AND SLIDE
49 KICK UP AND SLIDE - LEAN BACK

53 SQUASH DOWN TAKE WEIGHT

57 SPRING BACK UP SETTLE
61 CONTACT RIGHT HEEL AGAIN

This post got me to thinking about why animation and cartoons began to steer off course in the late 1940s. I'll tell you my theory later.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Kahl Rabbit Fox

I'm guessing this is Kahl, but am not 100% sure. The drawings are very solid (like McKimson) but have more elaborate design details than WB characters. The drawings aim at doing all the acting while remaining appealing - cute that is. Having to remain cute at all times can be somewhat of a handicap when it comes to acting.
The motion and control in these scenes is amazing. Ultra smooth. Lots of squash and stretch, overlap, secondary actions - a million things happening at once while at the same time having to keep the audience focused on the story.
I think the pure Herculean task of keeping all these elements under control is what impresses so many animators and cartoonists - including myself. It's very humbling.
Look at those great hands! They are 40s cartoony style, while at the same time suggesting some knuckles and anatomy underneath the cartoon-skin.
Brer Fox is a very handsome design and extra hard to draw from different angles because of his long snout, snarly lips and lots of teeth - yet he moves very easily and never loses form, no matter what angle we see him from.

You really have to understand construction and hierarchy of forms and details to control all that information without having the character melting all over the place.
As I said in another post, the stories in Song of The South are told better than most Disney features, mainly because Peet tells the stories straight and succinctly. He doesn't add a lot of non-essential Disney filler.
So, in my opinion the story is staged and cut very well. And the pantomime animation is genius. In an earlier scene when we see Brer Fox coming in to greet Brer Rabbit stuck in the tar, his cocksure shuffling walk is extremely clever and cool. I'll put it up in another post.
To me, the cartoons have one flaw that cause a big disconnect between the story and the animation. The voices. The voices are so obnoxious and unintelligible that it gives the animators a big disadvantage.
When the characters talk, the animators have to come up with animation and business that matches the timing of the acting-even though the acting is bad. I think that's the origin of Disney's flailing arms and jittery acting. Walt's ear for voices wasn't always tasteful and he would stick his animators with voices that are grating or just plain weak and without character, forcing the animators to make up a bunch of arbitrary business just to try to keep the scenes alive.
Lots of twins by the way in Rabbit's posing!
Great drawings!
This bit of the rabbit stammering is very uncomfortable for me to watch. It goes on too long and seems completely inane. I think what makes me like Warners animation so much more than Disney's is it's much more character-oriented. I can identify with the characters in WB cartoons. They have motivations and personalities that I recognize. It didn't hurt that they had Mel Blanc doing the voices - a keen observer and satirist of human types. All the voice talent at WB was better suited to cartoons than the Disney voices, and that gave WB another advantage over Disney in creating convincing characters that seem to really exist.
Disney himself must have had a really naive ignorant understanding of human nature because his voices just tend to be silly and juvenile. His animators had to evolve a style of acting that wasn't very natural because they didn't have anything to hang any natural animation on. The voices and written characterizations just aren't very intelligent. It's like trying to wrap sophisticated animation around baby-talk.
Maybe another problem facing the Disney animators is their low weekly output. While McKimson was pumping out 25-50 feet of animation every week, Disney animators were expected to do 5. Working that slowly on each scene had to tempt them to keep going back and adding layers of needless secondary actions, more overlapping fur and ears and stuff that doesn't contribute to making the point.

http://www.cartoonthrills.org/blog/Dis/46SongOfTheSouth/00000001KahlFoxRabbittshort.mov

When I watch a Disney cartoon, I always feel like there are 3 stories happening at the same time. One that the storyboard artist wrote. Another one that the voice actors are reading from, and then another one that the animators are telling. The animation is fascinating, but it feels like there are people talking in the other room trying to distract me from watching the flowing movements. They don't connect except technically in the timing.

This kind of stuff is perfect for little kids and adult animators. It misses the mark for regular folks. That's who WB, Fleischer and Avery are for.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Thanks To Contributors!

Song of The South is probably my favorite Disney movie storywise.
It's the only movie where the stories aren't stuffed with filler (unless you count the live action sequences)
Disney didn't write the stories of course, but Bill Peet staged and cut them together very cleverly in his storyboards and gave the animators a strong structure to work in.
Most Disney movies are derived from 4 or 5 page fairy tale stories, and then filled up with 65 more pages worth of junk that has nothing to do with the stories: naked flying babies, animals that wipe dishes clean with their butts, long sneezing sequences, big chunks of insufferable pathos and more.
The Uncle Remus stories are told straight. They're good stories for kids and they look beautiful. I'm not sure if these first few frame grabs are Kahl; they look a little different than the close ups, so someone help me out here...
The backgrounds are beautiful, the compositions clear and handsome and the animation is really fun to look at.
Brer Fox here has a lot more detail and a more complex construction than Elmer Fudd (who is generic) and this would make him harder to control. Only really top animators could turn this guy around and tilt his head in every angle. If you are trying to teach yourself construction, this is the wrong thing to study, because there is too much to control. Start with Elmer and Porky or Tom and Jerry who are more basic.
Also Disney characters move so much and flail their arms all over the place that you get distracted from the drawings and mesmerized by the flailing. It's easier to copy the flailing animation than the really tough solid drawings.
These drawings can be figured out logically in the same way Elmer can, by starting with the basic shapes. I'll do that in another post.


In the meantime,
Thanks to all you kind folks who support my rantings! I hope you get some progress out of it!