Simplicity Is Key

     When I was considering which movie we watched in class, one idea kept coming back to me. This was the fact that so many young artists do not realize their limitations, because we are all tempted to dream up the ideal painting, feature film, 500 page book, etc. that we are going to create, and it will magically take us roughly 24 hours to get it finished, 3 days to have a buyer, and roughly a week till we are millionaires. Alas, while this is our hope, it is not our reality. That is why the reading concerning not making Pixar-quality shorts, and the film Pfffirate struck such a chord with me.

     I will readily admit that I love some good sophistication. I love detail (seriously, I am about as baroque as they came in my tastes) and texture, but I also realize that if you try too bite off more than you can chew, you will only end up frustrated and confused. That is why this little film caught my attention. While I would love to some day be making extremely visually impressive films, I can also say that films like Pffirate remind me not to lower my expectations of myself, but remind me that having boundaries just adds to the fun of the challenge. I don't believe that 2D somehow restricts and artist, and I don't believe that not being able to create Pixar-quality animation does either. It simply forces you to be more creative than you might otherwise have to be. This only adds to the fun.

A Reminder to Vote

 

     I realize that it is not November 6 quite yet, but since it is nearly hear, I thought I would make a quick blog concerning the need to vote. Now, just as a disclaimer, I will not be endorsing anyone or either party. I am simply reminding everyone that it is important to vote, and realize what the people you are voting for stand for.

     As most of us have just come of the age to vote, voting may seem like an exciting opportunity to show off a new freedom we have. But more fundamentally, it is an opportunity for us to show that we really mean what we say when we give an opinion on something or state the reasons for our beliefs. If you do not show that you truly stand by your beliefs by doing something about them (in this case voting), then, to be perfectly frank, your opinions don't matter. Those people who complain about the shape of our country, get riled up in any conversation that deals with anything political, and then don't vote, are fools and hypocrites of the worst kind. As for the most obvious excuses, let me address those briefly. First, the excuse that your vote doesn't matter. Let us put this into the context of how most people view life. They say that their vote, among the 250 million Americans doesn't matter; but they will, without skipping a beat, adamently hold to the ideal that they are unique amongst 6 billion people on this planet, and that their opinions and hopes do matter. Well, if you hold to the latter argument but don't vote, you are a hypocrite whose opinion doesn't matter. I am reminded about the Bible passage in which Jesus condemns the lukewarm. The second argument goes something along the lines of "Their aren't any good candidates." Listen, there will never be a 100% perfect candidate. So, get over that ideal, and cast your vote with the one who comes closest to your beliefs. To help remind you to vote, and to get you in a patriotic mood, I have included one of the best speeches in cinema history, straight from the movie Amistad.

 



In Defense of Comics

 

     I know that Leeper makes small comments concerning Hollywood, video, games, etc., that not everyone catches onto. While I have my personal problems with the above topics he has spoken of, I would like to concern this particular post with comments concerning comics.

     I recall him saying that comic book movies almost never rise above their genre, and that comics are derivative. This, however, I think is an unfair assessment. I base this on the fact that I happen to know quite a bit about comic books and their creators. I only began to become interested in this topic a little while ago, but since then I have become fascinated with the medium and what it has to offer. Now, before I continue, let me say that I do agree that super hero comics are quite derivative, and other than a few exceptions, so are their movies. However, I am afraid that it is a sign of a small amount of knowledge concerning the medium, when someone says that all comics are the same. This simply is not true. There are quite a few comics in which the creators do something fresh and new wih their medium. These are often found in creator-owned and indie comics. Only someone with serious prejudice could say that all comics are the same. Also, there are plenty of phenomenal artists working in the comic book medium, who are better artists than anyone most anywhere else. In terms of the medium, I do not think it is that much different than a form of picture books, no different than Leeper's beloved Where the Wild Things Are.

 

 

 

 

 

     Finally, in terms of the comic movies that come out of Hollywood, I can safely say that the problem is not that the films are based upon comics, but rather which comics they are based upon. If you chooses nothing but super hero comics to make movies from, then yes, they will seem derivative. However, just because Hollywood only choooses one aspect of the medium to make movies from, it does not follow that the whole medium is bad. This is a logical fallacy. There are more than a few good comics out there, and I wholeheartedly recommend anyone to look at them and give them a chance. Here are some great places to start: Skottie Young's Oz serie; The Stuff of Legend; Bone; We3; and Axe Cop.

  

Constraints

 

      I will readily admit that I find the business side of the industry to be personally fascinating. My natural talents are more geared in that direction. However, I do believe that producers should be more willing to give artistic freedom to the directors. Totally constraining them is not a good idea, in my book. However, in this post I would like to concern myself with the constraints that we talked about in class; namely remembering your limits.

     Firstly, I think that the reminder to know your limits is extremely important, in nearly any and everything, movie-making or otherwise. I am not saying that you should forever be constrained by them. I do think you should be willing to just sit in the same spot your whole life. This will suck the artistic freedom and love for whatever you are doing right out of you. But I think not willing to admit that you have limits to what you can do, or not being willing to admit that you don't know how to do something, is just as bad as not stretching or pushing your limits to better yourself. We have too many people in the world who are unwilling to learn, simply because they are unwilling to admit that they have a lot to learn. This is partially to blame on our culture, I think. But I think that the article on "the Pixar myth" was a stark reminder that we are not in college to make a Pixar quality short film. We are here to learn, and hopefully make at least a good short film by the end of our time here. While I have mostly concerned myself with showing that we should be aware of our limits, below I have included a stunning example of what can be done by one person, with enough time and dedication. (If you don't believe me, look it up. The name of the film is Rosa.)

 

 

Steampunk

 

      A few of my last posts have been concerned quite a bit with the idea of aesthetic. So, I thought I would do a short post concerning an aesthetic style I personally find fascinating, but I also think is extemely hard to pull off (hence it is used so little). The name of this style is steampunk.

     Steampunk is a very unique aesthetic that attempts to mix Victorian style architecture and clothing with technology. However, the uniqueness comes from the fact that said technology is nearly always powered in some form or another by steam. This gives this particular style a very gritty, yet sophisticated look. It also tends to bring back memories of what you can think of as "classical"times. It used very rarely, and pulled off even more rarely. The reason, in my opinion, for this is that this style requires a lot of art and such to pull off the look, and even more work in terms of making costumes and props. Also, I think that this style requires that the director be accutely aware of the uncany valley, because people are aware that we use electricity, not steam, to power modern technology. Getting them to think about a place where something older still remains supreme can take quite a bit of work. But, when it is done well, steampunk can produce some amazing results. See my example below. Also, while the movie does have problems in terms of plot (it's a bit thin), the anime movie Steamboy is pretty good, and in terms of steampunk aesthetic is a true wonder to behold.

 



Another Wonderful Success Story

 

     In a previous post, I took a look at one of the most interesting cases of a success story in recent years; namely, The Piano Guys. This time I am going to do the same thing, but rather than focusing on someone working in the music industry, I am going to look at perhaps an even rarer case: someone who went from a nobody to a very well-respected director in the video game industry. Now, before I go on, I am not going to get into the "video games are art" or "video games are stupid" or "video games are hurting the youth" arguments. I myself play video games, but I think these arguments tend to turn into ridiculous cat fights, and don't get anywhere, and in my opinion, are not necessary or helpful. My intention is only to show that there are those who don't allow some hardships or personal limitations to deny them to work in their field of choice, and provide something unique to the world.

 

 

     All right, let's be honest, the above animation and art would look incredible in a video game today. What if I told you it was from a video game from 1995? Well, it is. Michel Ancel wanted to become and animator, and he thought that video games was the way for him to go. However, there was a major drawback to his dream. Michel was not talented enough to animate a full character with arms and legs. However, he decided that this must not hinder him. So, he created one of the most popular and recognized video game characters of all time, Rayman. How did he do it? Well, he cut losses and made Rayman a character with only a head, torso, feet and hands. Nothing else had to be animated, cutting not only costs and manpower required to animate the character, but also giving Rayman a look unlike anyone else in video games. Ancel's first game as director, Rayman, was released in 1995, and was a great success. But, Michel had something even better in store. A game so beautifully animated, I defy anyone who says it doesn't look as good as most, if not all 2D movies.

 

    

 

      Now. I think we can all agree that most game trailer look way better than the actual game. But what if I were to tell you that the above pictures were in-game shots. Well, they are. Ancel would go on to make another Rayman game after the first, but would then go on to work on other projects. However, in 2011, he decided to release another Rayman game which he helmed. What makes this game so special to be worth talking about. Well, it is the best-animated game I have ever played, and probably the best I have ever seen. How was this accomplished. Ancel once again wanted to "Wow!" his audience when they saw the game. So, he designed a new graphics engine called Ubiart. This system allows the animator to animate anything the concept artist brings to him, from a 3D rendering to and India ink drawing. This allows the work process to be hassle-free, and also frees up the artists to bring about their vision on the screen. Don't believe me? Look it up. The result is simply stunning, and if you need more proof, I have included the original trailer in which it was tried out. All because a young animator wouldn't allow himself to be limited by the fact that he wasn't able to animate a full character, and instead brought his zany French style to life with a limbless hero.

 

 

The Great Gobelins of France

 

     Since my last post was concerned with the idea of truth/beauty and aesthetics, I have decided to show a group who are the masters of what I am talking about; namely, Gobelins School of Animation in France. This school consistently produces some of the most imaginative shorts I have ever seen, and they also tend to cover all kinds of ground, from mythology (such as the above picture), to anti-war and films handling the long-standing tension between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Although their films are extremely short, they cover a lot of ground in the time they are given, and they also show the principle of knowing your story and having a beautiful aesthetic to draw in the audience.

     Because the films that Gobelins students create (typically as commercials to promote the large Annecy film festival in France) are so short, they must immediately draw the viewer in with a pleasing or interesting aesthetic. This is done in so many different forms from these talented students that I am not going to even attempt to describe them all. I have included some videos to give you a taste. However, they are also required to tell some sort of a story in the allotted time. So, although they are pemitted to use amazing visuals, they are not allowed to waste the time of the audience simply showing off said visuals. They must tell a story or at least make a point of some kind. To me, being able to mix both incredible art style and a great story is the highest form of movie-making, and the greatest and most memorable movie-makers understand this principle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Beauty vs. Aesthetics

 

     I have found the discussion in class concerning the idea of beauty/truth and aesthetic to be rather interesting, but I think I shall place myself on the side of those who are having trouble with the films that do not look pleasing (even if the stories are at least decent). Here is my main reason for doing this: I think that a filmmaker should never become so enamoured with the current state of the story as to forget aesthetic, and vice versa. I have seen both cases, and can testify that, while the films aren't necessarily what I would call "really bad", I think that they would be better if told in a different way, or with a different art style. Case in point, the film concerning the two sisters, in my opinion, would have been better if it had been done in live action. Now, I understand that the director was an animator. However, I still think that the film would have been more aesthetically appealing in live action, and might have made the characters more "human", if you will, in terms of their reactions and such. Would the sight of the disfigured sister have been more jarring, sure. But that is the point. She becomes that much more pitiable. Let me say, before I go on, that I am in NO WAY endorsing the idea that art style should carry a movie. However, a great movie that looks boring, is still an incomplete movie, just like a movie with great aesthetics but a seriously lacking story.

     Now, to finish, I will address the issue of the other side of this coin. There are more than a few directors who hide incompetent stories behind stunning visuals (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland or James Cameron's Avatar, anyone). However, I do not think that we should say that presenting a bad story in a beautiful way is necessarily that much different than presenting a beautiful story in a very mundane way. Now, I will say that I understand that not all movies require a Tim Burton level of attention to inventiveness (Forrest Gump likely would not have been as good of a movie in Tim's hands). However, audiences will appreciate both types of moviemaking, because both types are so rare. Don't believe me? Count the number of visually stunning films you have ever seen, along with those who truly hold a great story from beginning to end. Then, divide that by the number of movies you have seen, and presto, you get my point. Being visually creative shows the audience that, although you may have slacked or had trouble in the story department, you still cared enough about your art to show them something beautiful. After all, is not awakening the childlike sense of wonder and imagination in your audience through the pictures they see a form of truth/beauty. I rest my case.

Movie Monster Making 101 with Professor Barton

 

     I bet you have never thought of this, but nearly all great monsters (with some exceptions I will address), from movies to books, have a common theme in them that evokes the terror that makes them so effective. Read on to discover the key to making a classic monster.

     Here it is, the key ingredient to making a monster: the monster must have the ability to somehow meet us at the level of us becoming like it. In other words of saying, there must be the possibility that we could become a monster via the current monster. "What is he talking about", you say? Well, let us take a look at some classic examples. Firstly, we will use the current trending one, zombies. Zombies can eat you, yes. But you must understand that psychologically that is not what makes them so frightening. An army of ants could eat you, in theory. What makes zombies so frightening (when done well), is the fact that you could become one of them, and end up killing other innocents yourself. We wold rather be dead than be a zombie (which is how countless characters die in zombie movies), because as a zombie, any morals, any goodness within us, is gone. This theme plays itself out in a ton of movies, in different forms. We are scared of Dracula, not because he could kill us, but because he could cause us to kill, which is far worse. Same goes with werewolves. Look at The Fly. Or, you can put a rift on it. Look at the Alien movies. Sure, the creatures are trrifying in themselves, but what makes them particularly affecting, especially in the famous chest-bursting scene, is that it inside the character. They have become an incubator, and are no longer, in a sense, human. Or, you can go the route of The Thing, in which the monster is never really shown, except for the fact that we know that someone has the monster in them, or that it at least looks like one of the characters. There are many ways to play off this idea.

     Now, for the dissenters, I will say that I think many of the exceptions, such as Godzilla or The Host, are effective for an entirely different reason. In these movies, the monster represents something. Godzilla directly represents the Cold War tensions over nuclear weapons. This is an entirely different type of monster, and does not so much evoke terror or fear, as it does remind us of an issue or principle (not a bad thing, in my mind). As to the Freddy Krueger or Predator monsters, well, I would have to say it is not them directly that is all that fearful, but how they kill things, which is less fear and more style. It can be shocking, but I am not sure if I would describe it as fear.

     So, remember, if you plan on creating a movie monster, make sure it relates to the audience in a way that shows them, that if they are not careful, they could become the monster they so fear.

Just In Time For Halloween

 

     I myself do not much care for, nor do I celebrate, Halloween. However, I thought that this would be a great time to delve into the idea of darkness and the Christian storyteller.

      First off, I would like to say that I agree with Leeper's assessment that young men are particularly susceptible to want to make films that are extremely dark, and many times rather disturbing (not necessarily in a good way). Lets just be honest, guys, girls are not likely to make the Joker character. However, I think that this is a great place to study the idea of implications and darkness in a film.

     First, let us examine whether or not darkness has its place in a film. My answer to this would be the same as when, in an earlier blog, I said that I have heard the theory that the reason that it is believed that those in heaven will be able to see hell, and the reason that evil exists, is to provide a contrast with light. Light is all the better when one has been suffocated by the dark for too long. Therefore, I think that darkness has its place in a film or a story. After all, the best villains always have a decidedly dark turn in them.

     Now, let us consider how long and to what extent we should be willing to stay "in the dark places of the world." My response hear would be the one that C.S. Lewis gave when he was asked why he didn't create a sequel to The Screwtape Letters. He said that when one stays in the dust, grime, grease, and darkness too long, you risk become suffocated by it and giving the devil a foothold, and you may never find your way out. Therefore, I think we should realize the limits that each one of us has on how much we can handle (in terms of watching movies/reading stories) and how much we can make (in terms of creating movies/stories).

     I will be the first to admit, I love a dark tale. Poe's "The Raven" is one of my favorite poems, and I like others of his tales quite a bit as well. I quite enjoy The Silence of the Lambs and S7ven. However, for me personally, I view them much as I view surfing. I have never surfed myself, but find the sport shearly fascinating. However, I know that without careful attention and much practice, you can die from this sport. Perhaps one day I will surf the big waves, and perhaps one day I will make a dark film. However, I recognize that I have limits, and that if one risks too much too early or too often, one risks being overcome by the harsh waves.

     Below, in time for Halloween, I have included some of my favorite animated films. They aren't very dark, but they definitely have a dark streak in them (which is perhaps why I like them so much).

 

 

 





Art...or a Waste of Money, Time, and Ministry?

 

 

 

     In most of my posts so far, I have given some sort of an opinion on whatever topic I had chosen. This post will be a rare exception. I am going to pose a question, and perhaps a few things to think about, but I will do my best not to give much more.

     Three summers ago, I had the opportuntiy to go to England with my high school soccer team, along with the dads of some of the kids. We were at Westminster Abbey, which is not only a cemetery for the England's great sons and daughters, but is also a quite large cathedral/church. It was quite impressive, and while I was standing their admiring the building, one of the dads came over and said that he wondered whether or not spending so much money on making the intricate building, it wouldn't have been better to spend the money helping the poor. This was a thought that had never occurred to me. Now, before I go on, let me address the people who think that the dad was some non-artistic bigot. He is one of the most friendly, godly, smart, and wise people I have had the pleasure of meeting. If he were a fool, this would not have affected me the way it did. After we got back from the trip, I was reminded of a story in Tolkien's The Silmarillion. In it, we discover that the fall of the Numenoreans (the great men who would later rule Gondor) came about because the kings of the people, rather than concerning themselves with the needs of the people, spent their time in solitude studying the past and building ever grander tombs. This seems in many ways to parallel the rise of the great cathedrals, at least in my mind.

      I will end with this thought. While I do not disregard art, and those who think that the church should have room for it, I also completely understand those who would say that such efforts could be spent elsewhere. After all, while I think few people would argue that Notre Dame (the picture at the top) is not a work of art, yet when I read my Bible, it does not command me to build monuments to my faith, but to live it out.

Commercials Can Be...Art?

 

          I find it interesting that so many of us complain about the ridiculously poor films coming out of Hollywood, and yet we completely neglect perhaps an even greater epidemic: the amount of ridiculously foolish commercials that are produced each year. Many of these commercials are not only poor quality, but they can be downright offensive in their stupidity and lack of logic or relation to the product they are trying to sell. Now don't get me wrong, I know that the very famous commercial from which the above image is taken does not directly talk about the product and its qualities, but the creators at least attempted to appeal to the audience through empathy and in a uniquely heartfelt presentation. Compare this to most modern commercials, and the difference is stupendous. Not only do they not attempt present the product in unique ways, but many times they don't try to push the medium and do something neat with the aesthetic. The commercial below shows what can be done, if the creators choose to push the medium, and present the product in a unique way. The characters in the car are 2D, but the car is 3D. The car may be 3D, but the backgrounds are 2D. To top it all off, the monsters stalking the 3D car are cutouts. I would have to say that it looks like it is obviously influenced by Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are.

 

 

 

     I can't help but wonder whether or not, if instead of relying on slap-stick comedy so much, the creators thought of their work more as art. I think that we should hold those in the art of commercials to a higher standard, just like we should hold Hollywood to a higher standard. Now, before I close I will say that I realize that commercials have a different purpose than movies. But I think that commercials are no different to movies in that both are trying to show you something that will convince you that this is worth your time. I think that commercials could be even more successful if they learned to convince us to like not only the product, but how well they can present it. Below are some more examples (and yes, I know that I said that humor should be used less, but these are handsomely done).

 

 

 

 

 



A Wonderful Success Story

 

 

     I take great proud in finding artists who create great art, but are very underappreciated. Many times their work is better than the most popular stuff that everyone has heard of. I have found many, but perhaps the group that inspires me the most is a group called The Piano Guys. These five guys went from being a group of guys in St. George, Utah, to one of the most popular groups on youtube. They began when Jon Schmidt (Piano Guy) met Paul Anderson ("The" Guy), who owned a piano shop. They made a few basic videos, and then Jon introduced Paul to Steve Sharp Nelson (Cello Guy). The group was rounded out by Tel Stewart (Video Guy) and Al Van Der Beek (Music Guy). This group takes popular songs from today and combines them with classical tunes of old (Jon and Steven are classically trained in their respective instruments), to create something that is quite unique (and sometimes better than its parts, if you ask me), as well as usually being very well filmed. They began posting there works a few years ago, and they have grown in popularity to the point that their new music videos average well over a million views per video, and there total number of views across all their videos recently reached 130 million. For a group of five guys with a passion for their work, this is impressive. To me it is also a great pleasure to see a success story from a little town in Utah, become one of the most popular groups on the internet, and reminds me that Hollywood and Nashville do not own a monopoly on the world of the arts. I have included some of their mot popular videos for your viewing pleasure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Art Is Fun, and Fun Is Art

 

 

     I was once again considering what to blog about, when another fun little epiphany hit me. I was suddenly reminded of a very good friend of mine saying that if you don't love what you do, then don't bother doing it. He has lived this out, and taught me the same thing, even though I am a pretty serious guy in some ways. So, this blog is in honor of fun. I was reminded that, although I have seen my fair share of "realistic" and "gritty" movies, it is almost always just as much, if not more, entertaining to watch people who are just having a ridiculous amount of fun making whatever (or for non-artists: teaching, cooking, performing experiments, etc.), rather than worrying about how "serious" or "realistic" there work is. In some ways, I think that in not worrying about the "art" side of their work, they have gone on to create better art than those who want to make the "high and mighty" art. That is not to say that serious and realistic art, or art with perhaps more weight and depth, is bad. It is just to say that it is not really any better than those who are simply having a ball with their work. Gravity, weight, and seriousness are great in a work, but remember that breaking the law of gravity is far more fun. There is a reason even guys like Speilberg make a Gremlins or Who Framed Roger Rabbit. As a matter of fact, my art class in high school was one of my favorite and best classes, because while we were expected to work and do well, we were allowed to have fun and be goof-offs. And I think that made all the difference. So, if you are worried that perhaps your work is getting a little to dark, or the stories you want to tell are a little bleak, I encourage you to go out and play around with a camera, try a silly cartoon, read Dr. Seuss, or perhaps make another "Call Me Maybe" parody (everyone knows we need more). Below I have posted plenty of funny things to calm nerves and help you have a fun day, and remind you that fun art, is good art.

 

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



A Better Ending

 

      When I was considering what to blog about, my mind jumped back to the ending of my favorite movie, The Lord of the Rings. Then I was reminded of our talks about comedy and tragedy, and I made the connection between tragedy and a sad ending, and comedy and a happy ending. I think, however, that perhaps the best type of ending, and the most realistic type of ending, is neither of these, at least viewed from the perspective of Christians on this side of eternity. I think perhaps the best type of ending is the one that is least used, and that is the bittersweet ending.

I think that, in general, humans tend to always go to one extreme or the other, oftentimes forgetting that the truth many times lies in the middle. This is why there are so many people who either consider only tragedies to be "realistic" stories, and so many people who won't watch movies in which the main character(s) die at the end. The funny thing is, this is exactly how are lives end, is it not? We die, and yet are frequently afraid to die. Yet we must, in order to get our happy ending. Or what about those who die saving others? There is much tragedy there, yet their sacrifice means that another will get to experience more happiness. The funny thing about bittersweet endings, is that they are also the most complex of all endings. A happy ending will only give you joy, and a sad ending usually just makes people frustrated. But a bittersweet ending makes you feel a little of both, and is therefore in many cases more fulfilling. Have you noticed that nearly every book that people never want to end, always end with a bittersweet ending? Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia. What about movies? The Lord of the Rings (again), Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, the Dark Knight trilogy, Toy Story 3. I think that deep in our hearts is a belief that the bittersweet ending is the most truthful ending, and perhaps that is why it is so rarely used. But you will find that oftentimes the most wonderful stories have bittersweet endings, and if they do not, then they still understand the beauty of such things. Even Winnie the Pooh did when he told Piglet : "If you live to be one hundred, I wish to live to be one hundred minus one day, so that I will never have to live a day without you."

Below I have included a recent wonderful (but sorely unheard of) 2D animated short film by Disney that beautifully illustrates the bittersweet ending.

 

 

     



 



The Fall of the Movie Poster

 

 

      Let us simply be honest. The movie poster has long since passed its heyday, in many ways like the movie trailer. Rather than give us a short, beautiful look at the movie, both trailers and posters tend to either bash us over the head with the entire plot in a grand total of 3 minutes (which says more about the movie than it does the trailer, but still), or they give us so much pointless, mindless foolishness that you want to puke (a.k.a., the poster above). Rarely do posters seem to elicit much interest these days. If we are honest, it is not the artistry of the poster that elicits interest in us very often, it is the fact that the movie has our favorite actor or is a part of our favorite series that intrigues us. This is a shame, since I think that posters, just like editing, composing, directing etc., are a great opportunity for the artistic side of movies to come out.

 

 

 

 

     A good poster should preview something about the story, but not give it away. If it is collage (which far too many are), it should showcase the characters, not the actors playing the characters. If possible, it might even be best to leave out the director's and actors' names altogether. This will allow the artist to catch the viewers attention by the content of the movie, not those involved in making it. A few modern films (especially the Dark Knight) got this right. I would humbly like to suggest that anyone interested in seeing some truly spectacular posters check out a group called Mondo Posters. They take movies and make beautiful posters for them, although they are not the official posters for the films (goodness only knows why). I have included a small sampling below.

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Master Artists Helping Movie-Makers 4

 

     For my fourth (and likely final) post concerning master artists contributing to the movie-making industry directly, I have chosen perhaps the most unlikely collaboration of all. Destino is a short film that was created by Walt Disney and Salvador Dali, the very famous Spanish surrealist painter. The movie has a very interesting backstory. It was originally envisioned in 1945, and Dali worked on the concept, but with the coming of WWII, Walt didn't think that they had the money to take the risk of making such an unusual film. So, it was shelved for 58 years, upon which Roy Disney found it. He decided to move ahead with the film, and make it a six and a half minute short. What resulted is one of the most odd, yet visually striking films, there has ever been. It tells the story of the god Chronos, who is often the personification of time, and his doomed love for a mortal woman. The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short in 2003.

 

 



Masters of Art Helping Moviemakers 3

 

 

     In continuation of the theme of "master" artists who have inspired/helped moviemakers, I will be going over in this blog probably the oddest, yet most successful, example their is. Today's artist is the Swiss surrealist H.R. Giger. I will start by saying that I do not enjoy surrealism in the least, and Giger's work brings surrealism to a whole new level. However, his contribution is definitely worth noting.

 





     Giger helped create the greatest, and most famous (other than Godzilla), movie monster in history, the alien from Ridley Scott's masterpiece Alien. It was his work that inspired the moviemakers to attempt to create the most ferocious, yet rather odd-looking alien, that could still be taken quite seriously. Giger was asked if he would not only let them work off of his designs, but was asked to be a part of the moviemaking group. He contributed to the work as a whole, and was awarded the 1980 Academy Award for "Best Achievement in Visual Effects." This is even more impressive when one considers what it took to actually create the monster in the movie, which icluded from my understanding, plastic tubes and other rather crude materials. Yet it was a grand success. The pervasiveness of his work in Alien would carry on to James Cameron's Aliens. While it is true that surrealism can be very hard to bring to the big screen, the fact that they were able to use such odd pieces of art, and yet able to bring it all together into an understandable whole, is a testament to the moviemakers, and to Giger's imagination.

   This is the "H.R. Giger Environment"



Masters of Art Helping Movie-Makers 2

 

      I am continuing with my blog posts showcasing what I will call "master" artists (those who don't work in the movie business normally) who have lent their talents to movies. It is worth noting that these artists almost always only work for a short time (usually about a single movie) in the movie-making business, before going back to their art. But their contributions are oftentimes some of the most unique movies that grace the screen. Last time I wrote about Eyvind Earle and the unique look of Sleeping Beauty. This post will concern itself with another animated feature, called The Secret of Kells.

 

 

     I will admit that I  am taking a bit of a liberality when it comes to the definition of "artist" in this blog. The Secret of Kells is inspired by The Book of Kells, the most famous illuminated manuscript in history. When I say "illuminated", that is simply another way of saying illustrated. But illuminated manuscripts are often done in a very Celtic style, with many details and curvatures. They were  written/illuminated by many monks who lived in monasteries. Therefore illumnated manuscripts do not have a single author. If you get the chance to look up pages from illuminated manuscripts, try to find pictures that magnify the pages. You will see that the amount of detail is nothing short of astounding.

 





 

      The movie follows a fictional account of how The Book of Kells was created. The story may be fictional, but it keeps many accurate historical facts, such as monks working on illuminating manuscripts, and the vikings raiding villages. However, what truly sets the movie apart is the style of animation. The creators wanted to keep the idea of illuminating manuscripts in the design of the movie, so they proceeded to animate in a style that is very similar to ancient illuminated manuscripts, and they achieved the same extraordinary effect. Simply put, the movie looks beyond stunning. They also chose to go the route of hand drawn animation, which only heightens the effect. I highly recommend that anyone looking for something different than traditional animation style, watch

The Secret of Kells. I think you will be amazed.

 

 

 





Masters of Art Helping Movie-Makers 1

    

 

     I was thinking about what to do for the next couple of posts, when it dawned on me that there is a subject that I personally think should be addressed, especially among those who wish to become directors. The subject is the fact that we can't do it alone, and I think that getting the best people, whether it be artists, editors, and so forth, is very important. However, particularly when it comes to getting artists, I have always wondered why it seems that Hollywood shys away. What better people to ask for inspiration in the visual medium than professional, or well-known, artists (whether living or dead). It seems to me that we should remember to ask for their help, as they can often lend something to our films that typical movie artists might not be able to. Therefore my next couple of posts will be on this subject, starting today with Eyvind Earle, a well-known figure in the art community, who passed away recently.

 

     The reason I chose him is that, although on first viewing most people might not have noticed, the art design of Disney's Sleeping Beauty is his work almost entirely. He designed the backgrounds, which set the tone for the design in the rest of the movie. For those that did not notice, or have not seen the film, it is truly unlike anything else, in terms of style, that Disney had done before, or has done since. His style used almost entirely with horizontal or vertical lines, which is meant to give the paintings a primitive style. But the amount of detail is far from primitive, and lends them a quality that is one of the most unique I have ever seen.

 

 

     I must give credit to Walt Disney for letting Earle be such a huge part of a film, and allowing him to help create something unique in the Disney pantheon. Unfortunately, Earle did not work with the studio following Sleeping Beauty, but he did continue to create art. I myself do not much care for more modern or "odd" styles of art, preferring the Renaissance style. However, Eyvind Earle was truly a master of his medium, and his contribution to movies is something beautifully unique. I highly recommend looking at his online gallery, as their are some truly stunning works just waiting to be seen by those ready for something a little different.