On the right: directing tyros John Musker and Ron Clements.
Artist/Animator/Director Will Finn has an excellent new blog named Small Room. And in that Small Room he had, a few days back, an excellent post.
Will was talking about the creation of a key scene in Aladdin, and the pushing and pulling that went on getting it made. Fascinating, behind the scenes stuff. But this bit from Will about him (the animator) not liking the directorial changes that Ron Clements and John Musker (the directors) were making to the storyboards caught my eye:
I immediately started protesting when I got the layout (frame by frame printouts of the rotaing BG with stand-ins for the characters). Doesn't it say somewhere in one of Frank & Ollie's bibles that you should never be in motion while a character is changing expression? Or even worse, be on their backs instead of their faces? Here we had an integral moment when the guy's whole personality is going to change and I kept saying it wouldn't work, it was technically impossible. I wanted to stick with the simpler composition. I must have bellyached for the better part of a week about it and was going to the mat. Finally Musker looked me in the eye and said: "Just try it this way and if it doesn't work we can do it over." He said it quietly, he said it diplomatically, but something in his tone made me hear what I think he really meant:
"Quit being a diva and do it the way we told you or we'll give it to someone else."
The above is a neat little example of how artists -- or corporate employees generally -- can louse up their careers.
The boss, after long (or maybe short) thought, decides how he/she wants something done. He goes to the subordinate that he wants to execute the decision and says: "I need you to do this." It might be animating a scene. It might be writing a script. It might be repairing the muffler on a car. Doesn't matter what the task is. All the boss wants to hear is:
"Yeah! Great! I'll get right on it!"
Now, why do they want to hear this? Simple. Because somebody with more power, a higher salary and a way bigger office is on their tail to move the project along, and they have a couple hundred other decisions to make. And the last thing they want, the event their supervisory hearts least desire , is a long argument over how the task at hand should be done.
This doesn't mean, by the way, that the boss person is right. It only means that the boss person is going to hold it against the subordinate if he gets a lot of lip over the way he wants something completed.
It's not fair, it's not right, it's not equitable.
It's just the way it is.
I've got lots of anecdotal evidence to back up this theory. I was pretty argumentative at Disney (ask Ron Clements). I believed it a moral duty to fight for the "right" artistic vision. By and by I ended up unemployed. Two years later, I was the picture of happy cooperation at Filmation, and I stayed aboard the company ship until it slid beneath the waves.
A long stretch of unemployment in-between those two studios was a strong motivator in getting me to reevaluate my earlier position.
Over the years, I've seen lots of talented artists who've prided themselves on their contentiousness. There's no issue too small for them to fight over. They're usually more unemployed than their more cooperative brethren. Just last week, I was sitting with an artist in his office talking about a designer we both know. The designer argues and defends every drawing, in every situation. And he argues in a loud voice.
I don't know what's with Harry," the artist said. "When the A. D. wopuld swing by to say he needed a character's eyes redrawn so he's looking more to the left, Harry'd get defensive about it. 'They're looking left, I already drew them looking left, what's wrong with them?...' And on and on. It gets tiresome. I wasn't surprised he was the first of the crew to get laid off."
Harry's currently looking for a job.
Moral of the story: Pick your fights. Learn to say "yes" more. And smile when you do it.
Posts
12 comments:
Being unemployed really makes those complainers humble. LEARN TO SHUT YOU TRAP AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE DIRECTOR ASK YOU! Otherwise, go fill out an application at Mcdonald's. When you are directing a film, then fight for what your vision is.
These old Disney folks can be such little Princess.
I think in a good environment, artists should get their take first, then if it's not right, the director's take.
That's the way I've always had it work, and 9 times out of ten the director or art director says it was much better than what they had roughed in.
the point is, artists aren't a wrist, they're a brain. That brain lives and breathes inside the shot. There's a reason my shots look better than the roughs or the concept art... I spent a lot longer and focused on only one shot. Artists PLUS the work, we're not just sitting around making the storyboards move.
The other part of the equation is to not get bugged at all if it's not what the director or art director wants. It's a valuable talent, to be able to say "great, we'll do it your way" and give 100% enthusiasm to that version as well.
Good places know that if you are allowed to give your input enough, you won't be bugged when you're told they're going with a different idea than yours.
Good artists know how to get behind a director's vision and give them what they want before they know it themselves.
I'm fortunate. I work in exactly that environment.
If you have a director that has the balance of vision and openness, then this isn't a problem. You can't have a "too many cooks in the kitchen situation" just as you can't have a "who's driving this ship" situation either. It takes balance and leadership, and that needs to come from the director.
There are directors out there who are very, very good at what they do, and it usally involves having a very good idea of what they want, but being open to what the artists who are creating the film have to bring to the table. In this way the director both motivates the artists with vision and leadership, as well as creating an environment where the artists truly feel like they can contributing to the film, and feel a sense of ownership.
"being open to what the artists who are creating the film have to bring to the table. In this way the director both motivates the artists with vision and leadership"
I totally agree, sometimes the directors that are leading the ship is headed towards a giant iceberg.
but we also should remember there is no really ownership to something that involve a ton of people.
its easy to complain, its human nature. you have to remember that its also a job. and if your not happy, quit.
if you think your ideas are better, than open up your own studio and see how well your ideas are. i bet you'll be begging the studios for a job afterward. Just ask Will.
if you think your ideas are better, than open up your own studio and see how well your ideas are.
It doesn't have to be an animation studio. On his own, an artist can crank out a graphic novel or a short animated film that showcases his unique vision. He could do this on the side while keeping his day job at a studio.
It's always a balance.
Some artists land at a studio and right off the bat start fighting with peers and supervisors. (Not many, but some.)
Nobody is going to listen to a newbie who comes in and starts complaining, even if the complaints have merit. They just resent the complaints.
Usually it's a good idea to come in, get the lay of the land, build up a positive reputation, and then take on an issue that you believe is important.
There was a young, passionate, highly-talented artist who came to Disney twenty-plus years ago and complained mightily and loudly about the lacklustre product the place was doing.
He was right in what he disliked. But all the yelling and screaming antagonized the studio power structure. After a time, it got him fired.
(Today they guy is an animation icon, but I often wonder what the trajectory of his career would have been if, in the beginning, he'd been a wee bit more diplomatic...)
"I think in a good environment, artists should get their take first, then if it's not right, the director's take."
Horse sh*t. The director has lived and breathed the film for a helluva lot longer than the artists. In many cases having written the film supervised the boarding. A good director should never be threatened by a better idea, but deserve to see their vision FIRST. The second you let everyone do what they want is the second you end up with the crap the Disney studios made from the 60's through the early '80's.
The artist should just have to grit their teethes and grab their ankles sometimes.
To find a person that can push a mouse, you need only to go to the street and pick the first person...
To find a good animator...it's a different story altogether.
Yes, what a drag it is to deal with a primadonna...
Artists mature though, but management doesn't seem to!!!
Too many factors are in place, not the least of wich is EGO. Look at the last post?!? Do the scene yourself then!!!
Rufus.
"A good director should never be threatened by a better idea, but deserve to see their vision FIRST. "
Which guarantees that that's the only version they'll ever see.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree with you on that point. (Notice I didn't say YOU were full of horseshit.)
"The second you let everyone do what they want is the second you end up with the crap the Disney studios made from the 60's through the early '80's."
Again, I respectfully disagree. The problems during that era weren't because the artists got their own take to plus the work. The problem was a deficit of ideas during the writing process.
That and a prolonged period of ossification in the wake of Walt's death.
No...the problem with the deficit of ideas and writing was because the animators in charge wanted to control the process. The Disney animation department after Walt passed was RIFE with intense politics. They wanted to masturbate via animation, which is exactly what they did. They weren't going to let some "director" tell them what to do. No matter how good an animator is, he's just an animator--not a director. He or she need to concern themselves with their part of the process, while the director is keeping EVERYthing in mind.
And who cares if it's the "only version" anyone will see? It's the DIRECTOR'S vision...not the animators.
Animators are only a part of the film making process..and not even the most important part.
I agree, they're not the most important part.
I think we're both disagreeing with the most extreme all or nothing, black or white characterization of the other's position.
It's a balance, man.
Peace.
Post a Comment