Paul Well tried to address the complex issue of realism in animated film. He found two British based animators, John Halas and Joy Batchelor, posit the view that,'If it is the live-action film's job to present physical reality, animated film is concerned with metaphysical reality-not how things look, but what they mean'(Hoffer, 1981:3) The use of objects sit in between this saying. Even in live-action film, anthropomorphic objects exists as a symbol that actors interact to recall memories or treat it as the important ones. For example Elle's House in Up and Wilson in Cast away. In animation, anthropomorphic inanimate object is less popular than animals or original designed character that are given human quality.
Different media in anthropomorphic character
The Haunted Hotel (1907) half live-action and stop motion
visualising the hotel with a real actor, manipulating the house.
The little house disney
Monster house
Why do we like anthropomorphism?
'In a country and social order with such a mercilessly standardized and mechanically measured existence, which is difficult to call life, the sight of such 'omnipotence' (that is, the ability to become, 'whatever you wish')', cannot but hold a sharp degree of attractiveness. This is as true for the United States as it is for the petrified canons of world-outlook, art and philosophy of eighteenth century Japan.' (Leyda, 1988:21)
'As Kuenz notes, a little boy watching Beauty and the Beast (1989), didn't like the supposedly happy ending, because he said 'everybody turns back into real people' (The Project on Disney, 1995:72). In his eyes, the realist agenda was evidently an abnegation of animation's capacity to authenticate fantasy.' (Well.P 1998:26)
Anthropomorphism in interpretive form
It is said that interpretive form animation resist the depiction of conventional forms and the assumed objectivity of the exterior world, experimental animation priorities abstract forms in motion, liberating the artist to concentrate on the vocabulary he/she is using in itself without the imperative of giving it a specific function or meaning. The kind of subjective work has therefore necessitated that audiences respond differently. In stead of being located within the familiarity of formal narrative strategies, the audience are required to interpret the work on their own terms, or terms predetermined by the artist. As william Moritz insists, though, these acts of interpretation should not be inhibited by truing to force the abstraction to directly equate with some know quantity or meaning. He says:
The true abstraction and the true symbol must have an intriguing spirit and integrity of its own, and it must suggest more meanings, various, almost contradictory depths and speculations beyond the surface value; otherwise, why bother to obfuscate? If the viewer comes to the point of saying, 'Oh. that represents the police and that represents freedom,' then that revelation is about as interesting as, 'Gee, Donald Duck drives a car and mows his lawn just like an average American; he must represent the average irascible American!' (Moritz, 1988:29)
No comments:
Post a Comment