[Note: A version of this column first appeared at The Woodshed.] Just because you can animate doesn't mean you should. By Dan Allison 
RECENTLY, I went to see Richard Linklater's film adaptation of Philip K Dick's novel A Scanner Darkly. (Don't worry, no plot spoilers here.) I hadn't read the book, so I didn't know much about the premise of the film, but I was very excited to see it nonetheless. The primary reason for my excitement was the use of the computer animation program Rotoshop, which turns live action footage into animated footage through a process called interpolated rotoscoping. Flat Black Films owns Rotoshop (which is not available to the public) and is currently the only company using it. So there aren't many Rotoshop'ed films out there. The rotoscoping technique itself, on the other hand, has been used in animation since the early 20th century. It uses live-action film as a reference to be traced, frame by frame, by an animator, thus turning it into an animated film.
I love animation. It's my favorite genre of film. However, with the rise in popularity of computer animation, I've become somewhat disheartened. Although there are many computer animated films that I adore (such as those created by Pixar Studios), the overall cold precision of computer animation, which reeks of algorithms and calculated perfection, has a distinct quality of lifelessness to it that is just ... well ... lifeless. When I saw Linklater's first Rotoshop'ed feature Waking Life (the only other Rotoshop'ed feature film currently in existence), I was blown away, and my faith in computer animation was revived. While the film was in fact computer animated, it still retained the deliciously imperfect human quality of hand-drawn animation. It was obviously based on live-action footage, but the animators only used that footage as a loose guideline to base the animation around, and they creatively explored the possibilities that this form of animation allows. However, I am sad to say that A Scanner Darkly did not continue with this trend. As I sat in the theater, watching the movie, I kept thinking to myself, "This would be so much better as a regular, live-action film." In fact, it essentially was a live-action film, the animation being merely a fancy after-effect. A while ago, I read an article about the making of the film, and it emphasized how the animation made the shooting of the live-action much easier because there was no need to worry much about lightning, set design, makeup, film exposure, costumes, etc. All of that would be added in during post-production, or rather, the animation phase of production. In other words, the animation was a short-cut to make the live-action look good, or perhaps it's the other way around. I'm not sure. As I was watching it, the nature of the images were making me somewhat frustrated and confused. When you see a recognizable face, for example Keanu Reeves (who still makes me think of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure), who has the same manorisms and tone of voice and everything about them is as you would expect it to be if you saw them walking down the street, but is simultaneously an animated cartoon character, it does something to your brain. It's like the two hemispheres of your brain... are competing? (Sorry, cheesy reference to the film). But perhaps that was the intended effect. It does go right along with the theme of the film. All in all, it was an interesting film, but not much more than that. I was thoroughly disappointed, perhaps because I had high expectations, or perhaps because it really was a lame film. I didn't care much for the storyline (Sorry, PKD fans). Like I said, interesting, but not much more. But that's not to discourage you from seeing it. Go see it and write me with your opinion. Here's the trailer if you haven't watched it yet: —Dan Allison regularly offers newly created artwork on his site the (w)hole. NOT YET A SUBSCRIBER TO POLYSEMY? Make the choice to become one today — click here for POLYSEMY Print, or here for POLYSEMY Digital. ©2006 Polysemy. All rights reserved. |
