Michael Sporn Animation – Splog

Follow up to yesterday’s post:
Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol will air today at noon on the Cartoon Network.

Good thing I have TiVo . . . wait I don’t, but I do have a copy of the dvd in my studio . . . I’ll bring it home to watch tonight for Christmas Eve.

Whenever I feel a bit dull creatively, I force myself to think about a Hubley film or two, and that often helps. I worked with the Hubleys for a number of my impressionable, early years (I had found them as film makers much earlier – I was 16). Oddly the films done before I worked with the duo are more inspiring to me.

A site which helps revitalize some of my memories of their films is: Independent Spirits . It was developed in conjunction with a documentary film, also titled Independent Spirits, by director Sybil DelGaudio & producer Patty Wineapple. All of the work of the Hubleys is featured. Though the site is a bit outdated, it does offer lots of accurate information and stills. It also gives information about the documentary.

There was a time when Christmas Specials lit up CBS TV, and a few dotted the other networks prior to Christmas. But then cable came, and everything changed. The same one or two shows bounce around the fringes of cable: The Grinch (with and without Jim Carrey), Charlie Brown’s Christmas, Rudolph.

Last night I actually was looking for one of those little shows, say a Rankin-Bass bad/gem – maybe Frosty The Snowman, or The Night Before Christmas (ycch!). But no, not even a soapy live-action film on the Hallmark Channel about Christmas. One of the hundred-odd versions of The Christmas Carol; definitely no Mr. Magoo. All that I could find was Jim Carrey as the cartoon Grinch on A&E and the 2000th rerun of A Christmas Story – this time on TCM sans commercials. There was also a short, mean, clay animated program “mocking” all the Rankin-Bass shows by animation expert, Seth Green. Nastiness was certainly not what I was looking for. I’m sorry to say I didn’t even have a Christmas dvd at hand.

Presumably there will be better fare on tonight, but this isn’t Kansas anymore; things have definitely changed. I guess Christmas is in Bill O’Reilly’s hands, the rest of us have holidays.

There’s an excellent, newly posted interview with Eric Goldberg at Animated-News. Originally recorded on Sept. 17, it yields a lot of information about him, though I would have enjoyed hearing a bit about work Eric is doing now. I have this fixation on being current and not spending all of my time in the past – despite the 30 year old illustration I’ve posted here.

Incidentally, for those interested in animation, I recommend Animated-News for a daily read. It always contains lots of information.

Thanks to George Griffin for sending me information which I definitely feel should be posted. It concerns the “Zoetrope” PIXAR has placed in the middle of their exhibit at MOMA.

“Michael, The Pixar zoetrope is so obviously indebted to Gregory Barsamian and Toshio Iwai and the wall notes only mention Studio Ghibli as an inspiration. Why does a studio that has so thoroughly re-invented cartoon technology play dumb about individual artists who have gone before them. Corporate deception. Here are some urls for this topic, “solid animation?”

AWN article
Gregory Barsamian

Since viewing the exhibit I’ve had no fewer than five people tell me that the “Zoetrope” on display was inspired by Studio Ghibli. Why shouldn’t PIXAR & MOMA appropriately credit the two artists originators? Maybe Disney is getting closer to renewing their relationship with PIXAR.

To see a couple of photos of PIXAR’s “Zoetrope” go to Ronnie Del Carmen‘s blog.

The New York Times reviews the PIXAR exhibition at MOMA.
I have to say the author of the review well articulates some of my thoughts about the show.
The Times also has an interactive slide show of the exhibit.
There’s another, less insightful review in today’sThe New York Post.
For those of you who can’t make it to NY, I overheard, at the opening, a discussion of where the show would travel once it leaves New York. It’s going to Europe and several cities in the US ending in San Francisco. All I have is hearsay, but I’ll try to find out more about this.

Chisney
Disney has just made arrangements to make its first film in China. The film does not appear to be animated – the news report isn’t really clear – but rather live action with effects (on the order of 2046) for children. However, how long will it take the studio to realize that they also do animation in China?

Venice or Memorex?
After a screening of Casanova last night, Bill Plympton, Signe Bauman, Heidi Stallings and I debated whether the Plaza at St. Marks we saw on screen was real or digitally constructed. It sure looked real to me – except for the lack of pigeons. Obviously, other bits in the film were computer animated, but the principal location … ? It’s getting annoying when you can’t even tell if the elements you’re watching on screen are real or King Kong. There’s no doubt Heath Ledger’s performance was real. That guy is the real deal; he should definitely win all the prizes this year for Brokeback Mountain.

PIXAR at MOMA
The Museum of Modern Art has an extensive exhibition of artwork from the PIXAR films. Last night there was an official opening where a couple of hundred people were invited to eat sushi and sandwiches, drink martinis and wine and pore over the displays which sprawl over several rooms in the museum. The only animation people I recognized were Emily Hubley and Will Rosenthal, George Griffin and Karen Cooper, and Bill Plympton. The museum has scheduled several chat sessions upcoming with John Lasseter, directors, designers, and animators from PIXAR.

The artwork downstairs around the two theaters featured a lot of the original preproduction paintings and drawings (I recognized much of the work from the “Art of {film title here}” books released) they’ve produced for each of their films. I was surprised at how small most of it is. Few pieces seemed to expand beyond the animators’ desktop. That, of course, isn’t a negative; it’s just not what I anticipated.

Something else I didn’t anticipate was the “zoetrope” I’d read about in the New York Times. (I’m not sure this is actually a Zoetrope. It’s a stroboscopic effect as opposed to looking through slits spinning. I suppose that’s a moot comment.) Here were dozens of PIXAR dolls sculpted in 3D placed on a rotating table. It was encased in a large frame with several large windows through which you could see the rotation. The lights within the case strobed to create an effect of motion in the dolls. Because ambient lights in the room are dimmed, the dolls almost seem to be in deep shadow. It sounds somewhat similar to a device developed by Toshio Iwai in 1988. I didn’t find the work very thrilling when I first came upon it already in motion. Later, when I saw it still, with the room lit so you could see the details of all the little dolls, and the table began to spin counter-clockwise; then the lights dimmed and the stroboscope flashed, the group watching the display applauded because suddenly the dolls took on a motion. It became more impressive.

In the same room was a digital projection. The screen – a wall – was very wide and not very high. The program included motion projection of some of the work on display downstairs. Several pieces floated around each other and came to life when they filled this very wide screen. I found the wide-screen projection exciting. All those Cinerama movies in my childhood had an effect, I guess.

Most enjoyable, to me, was a projection of the skeletal framework for characters, props and backgrounds which animated around each other. It was thoroughly engrossing to watch.

I am wrestling with the “art” of all this preproduction material and would like to talk about it in another posting. I do know I was, once again, transfixed by the stunning Miro mural one had to bypass on the way to, past, and from the PIXAR exhibit. It made me want to get back to see more of the art upstairs. I will return soon.

strobe lights
build your own zoetrope
buy your own zoetrope $6.95

One of the small pleasures of Monday is my copy of The New Yorker that arrives in the mail. This week’s issue is much promoted for Ken Auletta’s lengthy backstage, back-stabbing article about the new New York Times. However, like all other issues of the magazine, many other pleasures can be found within. Also included in this week’s copy is an article about P.L. Travers entitled, “Becoming Mary Poppins.” The article written by Caitlin Flanagan talks about the ways society has changed as a result of Disney’ s movie. It’s an in-depth analysis of the real P.L. Travers illustrating how unlike Disney – and the image Disney foisted on her- she was. It’s well worth reading. At The New Yorker‘s on-line site, they’ve also posted an article written by Geoffrey Hellman in 1962 in which P.L. Travers is interviewed about the “new” movie.

Somehow The New Yorker is a magazine that shouldn’t be read on-line. It’s one that feels best curled in your hands with the fine graphics, curious and often-good cartoons, and hours of material to read. One of the small joys of the week.