thoughts on storytelling

In the previous parts of this series I have first written about how animation isn't about creating movement but about creating life , how as an animator you achieve this by using only three tools and the basics of how these three tools, the pose , the timing and the spacing , work. But knowledge is worth nothing without experience. It is by combining knowledge and experience that we get the wisdom that we need to be able to start to master the basics of our craft. As always, saying this is one thing, doing it another. Although the animator only uses three tools, the usage of these tools gets complex. Not only can they be used in several ways on their own, they also always influence each other. Change one and you chance the rest.

In this series I've already explained how animation is the art of giving life and how this is done by using three tools . I've gone through the basics of the first two tools: the posing and the timing , and now it's time for the last of the tools: the spacing. Compared to the pose and the timing the spacing probably is the tool that is the hardest to understand how to use efficiently.

Previously in this series on the basics of animation I've talked about how animation is about revealing character and how the animator only has three tools to do this . In the last article I talked about the first to: the pose , and now I will get in to the second tool: The timing. The timing is the time, or amount of pictures/poses between two key poses, or two breakdowns. The timing can also be the time the character takes to react to something. Or a simpler way of putting it: The timing is what creates the rhythm of the scene.

Previously in this series I've covered that we as animators always need to remember that our job is not to create movement, but to create life , and that we only have three tools to get the job done . In the animators toolbox the tool that is the easiest to grasp probably is the pose. The poses are the individualpictures in the animation. There are the "key-poses" (sometimes called "storytelling-poses") which are the poses that are the most important to communicate the message of the scene or WHY the scene is in the film, then there are the breakdown poses which are the most important poses needed to communicate HOW the character gets from key-pose to key-pose. Last but not least are the inbetweens, the poses in-between the others, the poses that creates fluidity in WHAT the character is doing. Although the inbetweens often are seen as the key-poses illegitimate younger brother, they are just as important as the key-poses and breakdowns.

Animation = to give life, as I wrote about in my last article . Saying this is one thing, doing it is a whole other matter. This article will cover the basics about how animation is done. When we first get in to animation, and have learned how to make things move, I think we all always try to take a too big leap forward. Instead of mastering the basics of our craft we start looking at small technicalities, like worrying about if the inner or outer part of an eyelid that moves first in a blink. Although we theoretically may know that we need to learn the basics, we yet often need to take these leaps to learn this on a deeper level and understand that we need to take a step back. But at times, instead of admitting that we need to learn the basics, we continue to work on things out of our reach. The irony here is that it is our fear of looking incompetent that keeps us incompetent. To develop as animators, and as people, we need to develop humility to see that we always have a lot m...

People often misunderstand animation as making characters move although proper translation of the word "animation" is "to give life". Movement does not equal life. We don't see life in characters that only behave as robots controlled by the animator. For us to interpret life in the character her movements need to be motivated by the character herself, her psychology, her emotions, wants and needs. Movements not motivated by the character herself is bad animation.

The storyboard is a universally accepted step in the process of making an animated film. But how often do we question why we actually make the storyboard? Generally the answer is that the storyboard is a tool to make the plot of the screenplay visual. In my opinion this is not a good reason. Everything in a film, from the screenplay down to each individual shot or sound, should be there to help convey a message or theme. If we, while storyboarding, focus on the plot, which itself also is a tool to convey the message, we're only focused on illustrating a tool that tries to convey the message and not on illustrating the message itself. This may seem like nit-picking, but in my opinion, if we want to make a film that really moves our audience, we need to use every possible chance to improve on the how the message is conveyed. If we only storyboard the plot of the screenplay, we don't take the storyboard as a chance to improve.

Here in Sweden there is an over reliance on voice over in animated films, and its done to the degree that, if you would turn of the sound when watching them, you'd have no idea of what was going on. All of the story is told in the voice over, the animation and visuals are only in the films to give some visual stimulation to the audience while they listen to the voice over telling them the story. You could say that most Swedish animation is illustrated radio rather than film.

This is a continuation of the article Subtext Through Metaphors and Metonymies. If you haven't read the previous article, please read it first . I learned a new and shiny word the other day "Lacuna", the word meaning a missing segment in a text or a silent part in music. Lacuna is a word that I think nicely describes what this article will get in to, how 1 + 1 can equal 3. The answer lies in the missing part...

The way I've planned the Concrete Babylon project differs from how I've worked previously. I used to plan my film projects very linear where I started with the story, decided on a theme and then wrote a synopsis before moving on to the outline to the treatment and to the screenplay, then I did the character and set designs, storyboard and the animatic before moving on to do the animation and, after a huge amount of time, when I was done I moved on to the editing and sound design. On paper this always looked good. One element building on top of the other, constructing the film one step after the other. But the problem was that nothing in the world works perfectly linear.

The wish of making a feature film has been with me for several years but I have always had too big fear of failing, because of lack of knowledge, lack of skill or of finance or because of some other excuse, that I've never tried to fulfill my wish. I only spent my time trying to educate myself and "waited for the time to be right". But theoretical knowledge is only knowledge in theory until applied in practise and experienced, and waiting for the right time is waiting for something that never will happen since waiting never makes anything happen. I've decided that now is the only right time for Concrete Babylon to happen.

Storytelling today seems to only come in two packages. Either they are only about the spectacle, the explosions and car chases, the huge surround sound and the 3D-glasses, the chocks and the provocations. All just attempts of grabbing the audience's attention and distracting them from the total lack of content. They are stories that may be box office hits but still, after a few months, are totally forgotten. On the other side are the stories that are often called artistic, independent or labeled as being very original. These are stories that mainly are about the creator and about the creator being a super intellectual demigod who stands far above the meagre minions that are the audience. There often a hint of a message but in reality these stories tend to be just as shallow as the spectacle stories, just as greedy and even more egocentric.