Documentary animation

Documentary animation might be considered to be more concerned with engaging with authentic physical expression of its subjects within scenarios that tend to take on a more serious message. Caricature, exaggeration and pantomime are generally less in evidence, particularly when the subject matter addressed might be considered to be sensitive, distressing or even addressing trauma. A more sensitive and nuanced approach might more appropriate for such themes. As such, the academic literature addressing the use of animated documentary can provide valuable observations on how animators might approach more serious topics via more restrained rendering of OEB.

To begin, why use animation when live action will do? Paul Wells notes that “animation does draw the viewers’ attention to significant, and sometimes unnoticed aspects of the character, however, and once more demonstrates its usefulness as a different medium” (Wells, 1998, p. 28). It was this ability of animation to heighten small motions that drew me to the idea of creating an animated artifact in order to scrutinize subtle gestures more closely. By filming myself being interviewed on happy and sad subjects, I could create, not so much a narrative animation, but perhaps something closer to what Wells defines as “animation with documentary

44

Why use a documentary format, animated or otherwise? In his book, The Subject of

Documentary (2004), Michael Renov lists four functions that documentary (not necessarily

animated) brings into play.

1. To record, reveal, or preserve. 2. To persuade or promote. 3. To express.

4. To analyse or interrogate.

(Renov, 2004, p.74)

It is the first and last points which interest me, the ability that Renov notices for

documentary to tease out emotion, by virtue of the distance and intimacy conveyed when a person talks into a camera, often allowing them to speak more freely than had they been talking to a person. The camera, “functions as an incitement to confession” (Renov, 2004, p.127). With regards to analysis and interrogation, Renov observes that documentary, in particular the self- documentary or video-diary, allows the film-maker an opportunity to reflect and look inside themselves, “The camera is... a kind of two-way glass that retains a double function: it is a window that delivers the profilmic to an absent gaze and, at the same moment, a reflective surface that reintroduces us to ourselves”(Renov, 2004, p.197).

Honess Roe describes three categories into which documentary animation inserts: Mimetic, Non-Mimetic and Evocation (2011, p.225). I will describe these functions and how they mesh with the context of my artifact.

1. Mimetic: Honess Roe defines this term as animated footage that is used to substitute for missing or unobtainable footage. Such as Winsor McCay’s 1918 short, The Sinking of the

Lusitania, one of the very first uses of animation in a documentary format, with animation used

to express a scene which had no live action footage to show. More modern examples might include animated nature documentaries featuring extinct dinosaurs or other historical, previously unfilmed footage. A realistic approach is usually aimed for, or at least as realistic as can reasonably fit the technological resources available and adequately express the tone of the

45

piece. Within the context of my artifact, while the original footage (of live action film) is available, (and was edited into the final artifact to provide a context to the piece as well as a visual “reset” for the viewer) there is a case to be made that the mimetic approach can be used through animation even when original footage is available. Filmmakers can on occasion make a choice to animate instead of producing live action footage, because of copyright reasons, expense of filming or obtaining original footage, for safety when enacting stunts, or even as an aesthetic choice, such as choosing to render living actors as computer generated characters, (such as Zemeckis’ Beowulf, 2007). Thus I would argue that a measure of mimetic substitution can be voluntary. Thus I chose to begin work on my artifact with a motion captured, computer generated animation, mimetically substituting a dinosaur sythespian (computer generated character) for my own live action filmed person. The context of “realistic” (by which I mean, trying as far as technically possible to maintain close to the original body movements of the original person) substitution could be resolved by the use of motion capture. This would maintain the integrity and purity of the original motions, while at the same time refreshing and resetting the look of the character. The movement remains wholly mimetic, though the physical appearance of the characters might diverge, resulting in a semi-mimetic rendering.

2. Non-Mimetic: Honess Roe (2011, p.225) defines this as replacing real footage with animation which is generally more artistic in approach (not intended appear “real” but clearly and obviously animated, but at the same time remaining true to the original filmed footage (for example, changing the look of characters to conceal their identity but otherwise reproducing their body motions though animation, either from rotoscoping directly from filmed footage or animating to a recorded voice-over.) Non-mimetic substitution makes no attempt to hide itself as an animation, though it might still be dealing with real, non-fiction events. Sherbert Studio’s

Wonderland, The Trouble with Love and Sex (2011) falls into this category. In this film, couples

were recorded talking about intimate issues. It was imperative that they retain their privacy, while still being broadcast on national television using their own voices. Sherbert substituted animated characters, who bore no physical resemblance to the original people. The stylized and clearly animated form allowed distance to be placed between the real people and their cartoon

46

avatars, allowing confidentiality of the original interviewees, while additionally making difficult and potentially sexualized subjects more palatable for television viewers.

To explore this approach within my artifact, I chose the technique of rotoscopy which seemed ideal for capturing details of motion and visually re-presenting them to the viewer. While the rotoscoped animation is still based off the live action footage of my face, the live action has been directly substituted with a deliberately stylized, hand drawn facsimile.

3. Evocation: This is defined as a way of expressing difficult concepts such as emotions and states of mind, often using more abstracted modes of animated expression. Honess Roe points to the use of the animated documentary as a “tool to explore and reveal hidden or forgotten pasts, demonstrating the medium’s capacity for documenting the world from a subjective point of view” (2011, p.229). As the final part of my journey through the production of the artifact, I chose a looser, more emotive and free-form approach to expressing the live action footage.

However, as Paul Ward points out, there is an inherent danger of using animation for documentaries, an “inbuilt scepticism” on the part of the viewer who is aware of seeing footage in an artificial or second-hand manner (2011, p.296), rendered and displaced from the original footage. It is here that the duality of the animated documentary comes to the fore, with the danger of distortion or loss of information coupled with the ability to heighten and underline information of the other. A chance to see information from a different perspective, seeing new and previously overlooked details, to conceal and simultaneously expose (Ehrlich, 2011, p.5). As such, I hoped that by exploring these three concepts defined by Honess Roe via the creation of a self-figurative, animated documentary inspired artifact, I might be able to unravel the hidden or overlooked, evolving and comparing each approach as I worked in order to:

1. Self-reflect as a practitioner on the different approaches to animating and expressing emotion. How would the different approaches compare and inform my understanding?

2. Present the artifact to an audience (with a feedback questionnaire) so try and ascertain which (if any) of the approaches best enabled viewers to pick up on emotional cues, and from their feedback, how future research might build on their responses.

47

To conclude, “animated films offer us an intensified route into understanding the real social world, by virtue of the peculiar dialectic that is set up between knowing that this is a film about a real person (and we can hear their actual voice) and knowing that what we are looking at is an animated construction, with nothing of the indexical correspondence that we have become so accustomed to” (Ward, 2005, p.91). I further explore and apply the categories of Mimetic

Substitution and Non-mimetic substitution within the context of my artifact, see chapter 3 for a

more detailed explanation.