Final Exam Blog
The blogs for my final exam are blog posts are:
1. http://christensanderson.typepad.com/christens-history-of-animation-blog/2010/04/blog-post-13.html
2. http://christensanderson.typepad.com/christens-history-of-animation-blog/2010/04/blog-post-11.html
I edited both blogs for minor errors.
Blog Post # 13
I went and saw The Princess and the Frog as Professor Petrik asked us to during the winter break. The animation was awesome...it felt like I was watching an animation that I grew up with because it was hand drawn. I thought it was a good movie. The only somewhat negative thing I thought was that it might be a little dark and creepy for younger children with all the voodoo. As I was looking up reviews of the movie, I came across several websites discussing "The Princess and the Frog controversy." The controversy is that some claim that Disney was wrong by making the Prince, Naveen, another race other than African-American. The princess, Tiana, is the first African-American Disney princess (long overdue by the way), and some say that it was wrong to make her love interest Prince Naveen...since he is not African-American. Was it wrong for Disney to make Naveen another race other than African-American? Or was it brilliant because it promotes interracial relationships? Are we too critical? Do we take things like the characters in cartoons and find fault with them for silly reasons?
The controversy started when Disney originally stated that Tiana was to be named, "Maddy." Critics say it is too close to the ethnic slur, "Mammy." Tiana was also originally going to be a maid working for a white family. Disney then changed her name to Tiana, and made her a chef instead of a maid. I agree that if Disney had gone ahead with making Tiana a maid, it would have been a bad thing. But then again, there are other Disney princesses that are maids...Cinderella for one. However, with the first African-American princess...why go that route?
Prince Naveen is from a made up land, but it is obvious that he is not black or white. Critics say that the first African-American princess should have the first African-American prince. However, was Disney trying to promote interracial relationships? It is unclear what Disney's intentions with Naveen were, but the question is not why he is another race, it is why isn't he black? Why make the prince for the first African-American Disney princess NOT African-American?
Are we being too hard on Disney? Are these arguments valid or does everybody just need to calm down and enjoy a fun animation? I believe that yes...sometimes...we do go too far. We do try to pick out things that might not be there. However, because of Disney's previous intentions for Tiana (to make her a maid for a white family)...there might be something there to examine further. I don't think there is any right or wrong answer...it is all based on opinion, but some choices for the film were rather strange. I think overall...it was a nice movie, great animation, and a fun story line, but if you read between the lines...there was some questionable choices made.
I commented on Ian Crawford and Bonnie Hansen's blogs this week.
Blog Post # 12
While looking up videos for another class on the Holocaust, I came across this animation made by Disney. It is very strange to say the least. It is called Education for Death: the Making of the Nazi. It was produced by Disney and released in 1943. This cartoon portrays Hitler, Goebbels, and others in humorous ways, but ultimately—through the progression of Hans’ life—shows that Nazis were evil. It is an interesting piece of anti-Nazi propaganda.
This animation takes the audience through the progression of Hans’ life. It starts off showing Hans’ parents trying to register his birth. The speaker declares, “Nazi control over a German child starts as soon as its born.” Hans’ parents have to prove that they are 100% Aryan. The animation then shows a strange scene in which instead of being told the normal nursery stories other children around the world hear—Hans is told alternate versions of those nursery stories. Those stories include Hitler, Germany, and democracy disguised as famous nursery tale characters like Sleeping Beauty and the Wicked Witch. Very strange section of this animation.
There is another section of this animation which shows Hans at school. The teacher shows the students an animation on the chalkboard in which a fox eats a rabbit. The speaker says the teacher is giving the students a lesson in “natural history,” which is meant to represent how Nazi Germany tried to prove to the world through propaganda films and documentaries of their own that the human race is much like the animal kingdom. The process by which the Nazis tried to eliminate the Jewish race, the disabled, the mentally disabled, and so many other groups of people is what they called, “natural selection,” but was in fact—genocide. Hans is upset that the rabbit was eaten, and the teacher yells at him. Hans is then forced to wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner. The teacher asks another student what the correct answer is. The speaker says that the child states that, “the world belongs to the strong,” “and to the brutal,” and “the rabbit is a coward and deserves to die.” Hans then agrees with the other students saying that he HATES the rabbit, and “there is no room for weaklings.”
The next set of scenes seem to be references to Kristallnacht. There are images of fire, and broken stained glass windows. The animation ends with Hans marching from boyhood up to adulthood. The marching soldiers then become a literal graveyard.
This was a strange animation in that the evil monsters that were Hitler, Goebbels, and others were portrayed as comical. This animation does succeed in telling the audience that Nazis are bad, and that the world should beware of them. It is a very interesting piece of animation/history.
I commented on Brittney Alberry and James Davis this week.
Blog Post # 11
People in Animations
After watching Pocahontas in class last week, and discussing the way in which humans were animated in that particular movie...I started thinking about other animations and the different ways that human beings are animated. The way in which human beings are drawn in animations affects the way the viewer feels about them...and about the animation in general.
I always remember wondering as a child why I couldn’t see the faces of the humans in Lady and the Tramp. I understand that it was the animator’s way of showing what the world looked like to a dog…but it still struck me as strange. It made the humans seem foreign to me. Someone in class mentioned that Beauty and the Beast did a great job with animating humans. And I agree. They don’t look too realistic…and that is important when animating humans. The humans in Pocahontas seemed foreign and distant, and it was hard to fall in love with them. It was easy to fall in love with the humans in Beauty and the Beast because they weren’t too realistic. They had character and a wide range of expressions because they lacked realistic characteristics. When a human is animated too perfectly…or too realistically…it makes them seem distant. It is harder to connect with them…and their range of expression decreases because the animators are too concerned with being realistic. The humans in An American Tale were animated pretty realistically because the audience wasn’t meant to fall in love with them…they were meant to fall in love with the mice—so the humans didn't matter too much.
The ways in which humans are animated makes the audience either connect and fall in love with them…or remain distant and detached from them. In some animations…it works out perfectly! But in others…like Pocahontas…it ruins the movie!
P.S. I have added a clip from Family Guy. It is an episode called “Road to the Multiverse.” It has a great part in it about what the world would look like if everything was animated by Disney. Enjoy! Notice the difference in the way Peter, Lois, Stewie…etc. are animated in this clip compared to their regular animations.
Sorry for the bad quality of this video...if you can watch this whole episode...worth it...very funny!
Forgot to mention in my post that Lady and the Tramp animates certain humans well...and the audience likes those humans...like Tony...at the restaurant, and the lady with the cats.
Blog # 10
The Snowman
The Snowman is a beautiful animation shown on television around Christmas time. It tells the story of a little boy and a snowman (that comes to life at midnight). This animation is beautifully drawn, and it uses no words (except for one song in the middle) to tell the story. Animations that have no words spoken (just music and animation) to tell the story force the viewer to notice every detail, and in some cases make the animation more enjoyable.
The story of The Snowman begins when the snowman himself comes to life at midnight. The little boy brings the snowman inside the house, and the snowman explores the home and different things inside. The boy and the snowman then go on a motorcycle ride through the forrest, and they disrupt lots of forrest animals in the process. After the motorcycle ride, the snowman takes the little boy to the North Pole. They fly there, and while they are flying the only words spoken during the entire animation are heard-a beautiful song, "Walking in the Air." The animation of the Northern Lights is beautiful! The colors are truly elaborate and beautifully drawn. The animation ends with the little boy waking up and seeing that the snowman has melted.
The animation is done using traditional animation techniques...using mostly pastels and crayons drawn on pieces of celluloid, which were traced over hand-drawn frames. The camera pans around and actually swirls around in the end...much like the motion of a snowflake. The Snowman proves that animations can be beautiful, and can function quite well without words.
I commented on Brenda Weber and Emily Witt this week.
This is my animation project! It has a little over 60 frames...took a long time to do this! I'm proud...and now I see how hard it is to do things like this and claymation...wow! Anyways...enjoy!
Blog Post # 9
Comparison between Dumbo and Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day
Disney’s Dumbo was made in 1941. Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day was made in 1968. Both of these animated movies have similar scenes in which the main character has a hallucination containing elephants, and both scenes can be somewhat disturbing to younger viewers.
In Dumbo, Dumbo accidentally becomes drunk and “pink elephants” begin dancing around above Dumbo’s head. The song that plays during this segment is called, “pink elephants on parade.” It is filled with all sorts of different elephants—most of which are pink. They are all sort of menacing, and they multiple and disappear in strange ways. One giant elephant will clap cymbals together and create out of the one elephant…dozens of new tiny pink elephants. Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day has a similar scene. I didn’t know until today that Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day was also produced by Disney. The scene with Winnie is called, “heffalumps and woozles.” Similar creatures to the pink elephants in Dumbo come to Winnie in a dream. He is dreaming that the “heffalumps and woozles,” have come to steal all his honey.
Both scenes have similar sequences containing some of the same material. For example, both scenes contain an Egyptian scene. Both scenes also contain a fairly muted background. The emphasis is on the “pink elephants” and the “heffalumps and woozles.” In Dumbo, the scene is mostly black, and in Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, it seems that the background is watercolor. Both scenes also contain images of larger creatures stepping on smaller creatures and crushing them, and both contain some strange faces. Dumbo has many more scary faces than Winnie the Pooh, but they both contain images that are at least confusing, if not disturbing for some younger viewers. I think they are most confusing because younger viewers would probably not understand what was happening, especially to Dumbo.
I commented on Brittany Alberry and Ian Crawford this week.
Midterm Blog Post Links
I made minor gramatical changes in both blogs. I picked these two because I felt they had the strongest thesis statements. I also added a video to enhance post # 2 on Up.
Blog Post # 8
Animation and Amusement Parks!
I am a huge fan of amusement parks, but my favorite park ever is Universal Studios! Universal Studios is different from other parks in that it uses different techniques, mediums, and stimuli to create the ultimate theme park experience. Instead of just having a roller coaster based on some fairy tale character, or another theme such as, "the Wild West," Universal Studios uses different techniques to make theme park attendants experience the ultimate thrill ride. One of these techniques is the use of animation and 3D animation to enhance rides. Thrill seekers would not be wowed without the use of animation at Universal Studios.
Thrill seekers would not be able to experience the movies and shows turned rides at Universal Studios if it was not for the use of animation. Universal studios uses animation in almost every ride and attraction, and without those animations, the rides would be nothing special. The 3D rides like "Spiderman" and "Jimmy Neutron" offer the riders an experience like no other. It seems as though riders are sent flying through the air, sent crashing towards the ground, and plunged into water to mention a few scenes. These thrills would not be possible without the use of 3D animation. Attractions such as "Twister" and "The Mummy" have certain scenes or parts that are animated to bring about effects that wouldn't be possible otherwise. In "Twister," a small tornado is seen ripping through a field at the beginning of the simulation. It gets larger and larger until a "real" tornado is seen in the center of the stage. Without the opening animation of the tornado, this attraction would not be as appealing or real to thrill seekers.
Animation has changed the way we experience our world, so why should it also not change the way we experience thrills?
Blog Post # 7
Racist Disney Animations
While looking back over my old Disney movie collection, I came across Dumbo and remembered hearing how the crows were racist. I looked over a few YouTube videos on Dumbo and the crows and found that they were quite offensive. I also found quite a few other racist cartoons that Disney produced over the years. It is one thing when a show like Family Guy produces a cartoon with racist or stereotypical references in it. Audiences (should be adults only) come to expect things like that in cartoons such as Family Guy. However, when Disney produces a film, or short animation that has racist or stereotypical references in it...it is just wrong! Number 1 because Disney produces its feature-length animations and short cartoons for children...not adults. Number 2 because it just seems like a really snake-like thing to do to a children's cartoon. They won't get it; so why put it in there? To amuse a very small percentage of adult viewers?
Perhaps the most shocking example of Disney racism is found in Dumbo. I found out that the lead crow is actually named, Jim Crow! Another example of racism found in Disney animations is found in Song of the South. It was released in 1946 in the theaters, but because of its stereotypical references towards African-Americans, Disney has never released the full length movie in the United States for fear of causing rumors that Disney is racist. Yet another example of racial stereotyping in Disney animations is in Aladdin. The opening credits feature a lone rider in the desert while a voice sings in the background, "Arabian Nights." The words to song are actually, "where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face...it's barbaric, but hey, it's home." When Disney released Aladdin for home viewing, they replaced the previous line with a less offensive one. However...the fact that Disney choose to include that in their children's animation in the first place in shocking and inappropriate.
Note: Parts of Song of the South are animated and some is live action. The above clip is live action...there are animated clips on YouTube.
I commented on Ian Crawford and Cory Finch.
Recent Comments