[COP3]Interviewing Paul Wells in MAF2016

I was so thrilled that I got chance to speak to Paul Wells in MAF about my essay. I have been reading his book 'Understanding Animation' for my essay which has so many useful information with his personal thoughts and opinions so it should be very critical and useful to ask him about anthropomorphism in Objects since he did not mention this topic in his book with great details. I did not manage to record our conversation for my first question because it was all in a sudden and I hope my memory of what he said is correct.

I asked: What are the main consideration when creating anthropomorphic characters in animation?

Wells replied:(I will use pullet points)

• The characters should be inviting audience to look at them and to understand them
• There are no restriction in genre or sex or race within an object character, unless you give it one, it could be anything
• The 'face' we see on the object allows us relate to human/animal/creature
• We see ourself in the object with facial expression, the 'face' of the object does not mean anything unless we anthropomorphise with them
• No facial expression is more difficult
• The sequence of movement is very important in anthropomorphism. We relate to the object  character when there are familiar actions like we suggest a bouncing ball is excited and lively because kids tend to do this when energetic.
• Movement is important is see objects in human

For the first questions, we gave me some new ideas on the fact that objects have no restrictions. Instead of thinking about examples in animation like household objects in Beauty and the Beast which almost everything are given a gender (at least it is how everyone perceived them especially with the voice actor and because they are cursed), gender/ race or other humanly problem should not have an effect on the object, it is purely imagination. However, I think it really depends on the story. For instance, the Pixar lamp would not work if they do not status the little kid lamp and the adult lamp; the blue umbrella would not set up the foundation of the story of a male and female love story. In other story like the red ballon or wilson in cast away, gender and race and age do not have an effect on the story because they do not need to stress these trait which would not effect their 'performance'. 

The face of a character is powerful as he said. I agree, it should be the most straight forward media to create anthropomorphism with the character. Objects characters that are given facial expression would have no big issue to communicate with the audience, showing thoughts and feelings through smiling, frowning, crying etc. Wells said no facial expression is more challenging. So instead of showing everything on face, they use body language and movement. Again like the pixar lamp, magical carpet in Aladdin, TARS in Interstellar. These characters use a lot of movements so suggest their thoughts and allow us to relate them through the sequence. So I think Wells is right about this point. 

I did manage to record conversation for the next question after he talked to Katy and I accidentally record some of their conversation as well! 

I ask Paul Wells if he think about inanimate object in story as a puppet? I asked this based on Barry Purves theory on that puppet is a mask and they reveal a organic characters' feeling or act as a mirror of them. 

• animators transfer/translate to the work
• He thinks it is a difficult question
• In some way, we know that someone is behind the puppet and manipulating them but more persuasive is the acting of the puppet.
• you aware there are performance within, enabled by someone, but there's a moment when it stops, and then you see these characters for what they are
• The actors are always an actor, for example in Cast away, you would not forget Tom Hanks, because of the star and he is a living figure in real life, but in animation, you do forget who is behind the animation like the voice actors and the creators, we watch the characters instead
• He does not know when that moment comes and worth researching

I am annoyed by my own voice but anyway, in the interview, he said quite a lot about how we perceived the information given from the puppet but not the artist behind it. Like how Purves suggested in the meeting the puppet master talk, giving example about Mary Poppins and her parrot umbrella. At the ending of the movie, Mary Poppins did not receive any appreciation from the family and the parrot spook her mind say that they should be more thankful but stopped by Mary herself. Audience agree with the parrot and suppose so does Mary Poppins deep in her heart. The parrot is a media to reveal the real feeling of Mary and it would not work as such if Mary said this by herself. Puppets/ objects have their own life in story but we still aware of the manipulation behind them just we will forget it because we are distracted by the story. Although he did not answer my exact question, he suggests that feeling with the actor (include objects as well) is a personal thing. Wells said he and his friends look at the same actor in different ways. 

Instead of not getting exact answer, I got other useful information as well! I will mention his thought in the essay and it will be supporting statement and quotes in the essay but I need to structure my essay before putting this information.