More

Animated Man: Cartoon Expert Michael Barrier Decries Pixar, Computers

Toy Story 3

First Posted: 02/25/11 09:21 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

"Toy Story 3" was the highest rated movie of 2010, bringing moviegoers young and old out to the theaters in massive, excitable numbers. An animated film managed to send them home in a haze of emotion, happy to be reunited with their friends and nostalgic at all the time that had passed since the original film -- 16 years!

Now, "Toy Story 3" is the overwhelming favorite for the Best Animated Picture Oscar on Sunday -- not to mention being the third animated movie to be nominated for Best Film -- but not everyone is so sold on its charms. Count animation expert and historian Michael Barrier as a doubter.

An author and widely respected expert in the field, Barrier views "Toy Story," along with its illustrious producers Pixar, not as leading an exciting new frontier in a new Golden Age for cartoons, but instead as creating mechanical, manipulative series of films that don't capture the magic of the yesteryear.

"Animation of any kind is inevitably an industrial process in large part, but I've always felt watching computer animated films and comparing them to hand drawn, there's a stronger sense of the industrial process, the constructions process, in the computer animated films vs. the hand-drawn film," Barrier said. "What I'd call the direct connection between the animator and the character that you have when the animator is drawing the character with a pencil on a sheet of paper, it simply doesn't have an equivalent as far as I'm aware, or if it has an equivalent, it's much harder to establish."

In other words, the soul of the animation has been lost in translation. That, of course, is a question of artistic tastes -- for someone who grew up during an era in which animation truly came of age and flourished, the idea that decades of evolution have been in part rendered moot can be an unwelcome development. While similar principles apply to both kinds of animation, in some ways, the slate was wiped clean in the transition from hand drawn to computer animated, and so the thrill of animation that looks strikingly like our world holds less of an appeal.

That's an aesthetic choice -- though Barrier may be more qualified than most to make that educated judgment, given his encyclopedic knowledge of the medium -- but as a historian, it's about more than what we see now. There's a ceiling on computer animation, he says, with a trajectory that is dwarfed by, well, a certain seven dwarfs.

"If you look back, we've had computer animated features for 16 years going back to 'Toy Story,' and we've had computer animated characters before that, I have not seen the kind of evolution of those characters anything like the extremely compressed and dramatic evolution of the hand drawn characters in the 30s," Barrier observed. "When you think about how Disney went from 'Steamboat Willie' in 1928 to 'Snow White' less than ten years later, I think that's an extremely compressed [growth] that I dont think computer animation has nearly approached. What you have instead in computer animation is a continuing elaboration on texture and surfaces and three dimensional space without anything comparable for characters.

Indeed, Barrier has a point about the rapid growth of animation in the 20's and 30's. "Steamboat Willie," the first Mickey Mouse short, was a quick, music-filled opus that, while dropping the jaws of audiences nationwide at the time of its release, soon seemed like a series of quick sketches by the time Disney began producing its timeless classics. Largely, Woody and Buzz and company looked the same last summer as they did in 1995 -- whether or not that's a bad thing, of course, is another question. The starting point, now, is a bit different than when those great Silly Symphonies began to be shown.

As animation has become more and more main stream, a regular part of our lives, perhaps we've grown less impressed with it, whether it's hand drawn or computer-derived. With that in mind, emphasis has become on story and character -- witness now all the big movie stars voicing characters and increasingly complex plot lines. Animated films such as "Toy Story" have emotional pulls that exceed many live action movies at this point, vaunting them beyond fun niche category. Barrier, though, takes exception with the way that the transition has been made, at least in the way Pixar -- and its ace director, John Lasseter -- has handled it.

"I think they are emotionally manipulative in a fundamentally dishonest way. I dont think the people making the films are necessarily dishonest, but they don't seem attuned to what their stories are saying," the historian alleges. "One example, in the opening montage of 'Up,' you're essentially being strong armed into shedding tears about Carl and Ellie.. to me, it was grotesquely sentimental and a lot of people were looking for an excuse to break into tears, and obviously this was for them. And 'Cars' has, there's a sentimentality in most Pixar pictures that are very manipulative and completely unconvincing to me. They are congratulating their audience for feeling these synthetic emotions and, to me, that's offensive."

As for films of yesteryear that are more organic in their storytelling, Barrier cites "Dumbo" and "Snow White" as two examples. He does allow that "The Incredibles," another Pixar film, had a more honest emotional core, though his praise for the company is few and far between.

As Barrier admits, the trajectory of animation points firmly at an era of computer-created films; while hand drawn can still prosper in places, especially TV, our feature films are moving rapidly away from the Disney classics of yesterday. As with any art form, and especially with film, the merits of that change can be debated; clearly, audiences are responding strongly to the new type of film, and as we become further entrenched in this era, the more normal the new style will seem.

Of course, whether we can look back on the characters created in films today as fondly and universally as we do the Snow Whites and Cinderellas of the world, that will be the great arbiter of new animation's merit. We'll just have to watch and see.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST ENTERTAINMENT

"Toy Story 3" was the highest rated movie of 2010, bringing moviegoers young and old out to the theaters in massive, excitable numbers. An animated film managed to send them home in a haze of emotion,...
"Toy Story 3" was the highest rated movie of 2010, bringing moviegoers young and old out to the theaters in massive, excitable numbers. An animated film managed to send them home in a haze of emotion,...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 106
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
04:39 PM on 02/28/2011
Mr. Barrier may be an animation historian, but he's clearly never dabbled in the art himself. I've worked in both 2D and 3D, and he is absolutely wrong to treat them as if they are significantly different.

It's true that 3D animators don't design, model, or rig their own characters, he seems to forget that the 2D animators don't do any of that either. The days of an animator designing his own character are long gone. They use model sheets, which give clear direction on how each character must be rendered for consistency's sake.

Those who mentioned story are absolutely correct: the essential element of any film is story. Pixar stories attract so many viewers because they've captured relevant themes to people's lives (e.g. Finding Nemo and parenthood, Toy Story and jealousy/friendship, Toy Story 3 and willingness to face change). That doesn't mean the characters aren't deep.

In fact, it's the opposite. He acts as though early Disney characters' depth has not been equaled in the Pixar films. To cite one example, I find it incredible that he will both attack Up's opening sequence as manipulative but then won't criticize the equally 'manipulative' scene in Dumbo (which he cites favorably), where the baby elephant is cradled by his jailed mother and the song 'Baby Mine, Don't You Cry' playing in the background. Both scenes deepen our understanding of the characters.

And why is 'emotional manipulation' bad? It seems to me that ALL films do that...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Janek
05:17 PM on 02/27/2011
I completely agree with the writer. Disney has recently tried to bring back traditional pencil-drawn animation with "The Frog Princess" and I think there is a lot they are still capable of doing. The opening short to "Toy Story 3," "Night and Day" was animated using hand-drawn and contemporary methods. There are unbelievable concept artists working at Pixar that have, what I feel, is often more beautiful work than the finished Pixar films, and John Lasseter likely knows it, as a student of Disney's animation program.
03:52 PM on 02/27/2011
Dead? No. Like vynil records it will make it's way back to a smaller and apreciative audiance. CGI has yet to make a classic like those made in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's.
03:12 PM on 02/27/2011
Sounds like an old guy who is afraid of the future.

Disney hasn't made a good animated film without pixar in 20 years.
10:55 AM on 02/27/2011
The soul of animation is lost?

It's a different approach in the same genre..... Both are successful and the box office and DVD sales prove that.

If you have a really good story with good animators, character voices and direction - the soul goes on just fine ....
10:17 AM on 02/27/2011
The guy is blaming the studio (Pixar) for the public's choices.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kendall Curtis
04:21 AM on 02/27/2011
I think I see his point. If you compare a movie like Cars or Bolt to a movie like The Incredibles there is definitely a great deal more depth in The Incredibles that truly earns the emotional reactions rather than doing it cheaply. And if you compare those films with earlier Disney films like the Lion King you can say that they were arguably far more rich and the emotional responses far more intense and that was with far less detail in texture than there is today. Case in point, it is far easier to see a glint in an eye or tear on a characters face than it was 30 years ago, and yet the weight of that glint or tear still holds more value in The Lion King or Pinocchio than it does in any modern animated film with the fact of their computer generation seeming to be irrelevant except to further draw the distinction and prove the point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Bee
A robot in disguise
01:36 AM on 02/27/2011
this is the dumbest opinion ive ever heard. just an old man who cant get with the times
09:35 PM on 02/26/2011
Computer-animation and hand-drawn-animation use the same painstaking skills. Michael Barrier doesn't seem to have experienced doing computer-animation so he doesn't recognize the 'sameness.' For example, hand-drawn animation is done by first by drawing the storyboard, then drawing the key frames, then drawing the in-between frames to produce the animation.

The process for computer-animation: draw the storyboard, draw the characters, create computer models of the characters, create the key-frames...now the next part, the in-between, can be automated, but at Pixar, they're so dedicated to making the best cartoons possible, they usually manually create every frame, tweaking the character's facial expression, gestures, etc. to add more to the story and its impact. That's why it takes days to make seconds of Pixar cartoons. The animator puts his personality, his skills, his craft, in those tweaks. An untalented animator wouldn't know that moving an eyebrow while the character turns around would create a greater emotional effect, but at Pixar, they're very aware of this, just like old-school, hand-drawing animators of which Pixar's founders were schooled in. In fact, in all Pixar films, you'll find reference to the Disney room number where old-school animation took as a homage--I forget the number. It was mentioned in a BBC documentary on Pixar.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bryan Young
I'm a filmmaker and author
03:24 AM on 02/27/2011
This guy also seems to forget that story comes first. I don't care how it's animated, I want a great story. I'll take a thousand Toy Story movies over one Home on the Range any day.
08:12 PM on 02/26/2011
Yes, the first 10 years of Disney showed an amazing amount of growth and innovation. That was because animation was so new that people were still inventing the art form. By the time Pixar came along, however, the art of animation had been mature for 50-60 years. In fact, some of the very people who developed that art form at Disney taught John Lasseter at CalArts. Unlike Disney's animators of the 30's who had to figure it out themselves, Pixar animators already know the tricks of the trade. For Barrier to expect a similar amount of growth and progress from them is rather unfair.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Shaffer
50 yo US citizen, 25 year resident in Bilbao Spain
07:11 PM on 02/26/2011
Uh, false!? Animation has grown, not shrunk. Hand drawn animation continues to be done aided by computers, just because Disney is slipping into a shadow of it's former self, doesn't mean the rest of the world have just given up. Japanese animation is largely hand drawn and they're producing enough to support an industry there, that is consumed worldwide. Computers have even enhanced motion pictures to convert standard images to an animated version. There's still lot's that hasn't been tried, and lots still to do. 3D animations are here to stay but I doubt that they'll become some industry imposed standard any time soon. Barrier is a nostalgic and so am I, but I think he's become blind to that which he will not see. The entertainment industy's been on the slippery slope some time now. They cut corners and end up cutting things like decent story writers, they produce films in 3D with well practiced methods and experienced people without innovating. Lot's of crazy creative people with computers out there and more everyday. With a little luck, maybe we won't need the entertainment industry much longer, maybe something better will grow up in it's place.
05:31 PM on 02/26/2011
I've been following Michael Barrier through his website for about six years. Although I'm far from a cartoon historian, animation history has long been a passion of mine. I have found Mr. Barriers knowledge of the golden age of animation to be well researched and his many articles and interviews to be an invaluable historical record. However, I have come to regard his opinions on modern computer animation as analogous with the 1950's father who hates that new devils music called Rock & Roll. With every new release of a computer animated film Mr. Barrier has relentlessly derided modern animation and Pixar in particular. Just like my grandfather hated Elvis and never conceived of any social value in Rock & Roll, Mr. Barrier will go to the grave hanging on to his belief in the superiority of hand-drawn animation. As a fan of his writing, I'm weary of his inability to create compelling arguments that don't rely on simply comparing computer animation to hand drawn animation. Come on grandpa, computer animation really does stand on it's own, Pixar really does make great movies, and hand drawn animation isn't the panacea.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:30 PM on 02/26/2011
just saw 'the illusionist'. proof that good animation isn't gone. not all, but most of the pixar stuff is pretty good.

sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bsmkchan
11:22 PM on 02/26/2011
I agree. I was so moved by "the illusionist" that I cried in the end. It was by far a way better story than "toy story 3"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quixoto
seeking lost squire
02:50 PM on 02/26/2011
I don't think one medium is necessarily better than the other. Both computer-generated and hand-drawn cartoons can be great. However, it is certainly disappointing that one method has to die out so that the other can thrive.
02:13 PM on 02/26/2011
For the best true animation that's currently out there, buy/rent/watch Venture Bros. on Adult Swim