Stray short

Stray short film from iAnimate on Vimeo.

Nice little short. I think the timing of the end is wrong, i think the audience should of found out about the dog after the character and not before. However, the reason for posting this is because he shrugs twice, and this has been a piece of trivia within my own practice. At 2.17 he does a very subtle one that is also masked with a sighing subtext, and then again at 4.04. This latter action is more significant because it shows the thought process (Confusion!) followed by a choice. 

From 2.27 the walk he does is almost identical to what i was trying to achieve in that he walks and goes down to knee level to take a closer look. However, his use of rhythm in easing into the object is evident where as mine isn't, and it is this slowing down in rhythm that i want to achieve. From the steps to the floor there is 4 steps in about a second, and from the bottom of the steps there is 7 steps in about 5 seconds which ease out. Something i am going to have to consider in amending my next artefact.

"Confusion" ("Путаница")

From the description: 

'Based on the children's story by the famous Russian writer Korney Chukovsky. A bunny tries to orchestrate a choir of animals who grow tired of their own sounds and try out new ones instead - birds ribbit, pigs quack, and so on. The confusion (путаница) grows as frogs take to flying and some wily foxes light a pond on fire.

Directed by Irina Gurvich for Kievnauchfilm studio in 1982'

Although the story is a bit weak in its conclusion, i like the way the visual and audio elements change meaning to imply and produce confusion. The use of audio pushes this, and i wonder if this could of been better if the animals also change dynamics so the pigs sat like frogs and the frogs like pigs etc... a bit difficult for the walks when they're all anthropomorphic. 

This idea of animal sounds as a guide for movement might be my next step in experiments; i really want to play with the frog croak. 

MA Artefact 01

So here is the second pass at the scene i have been working from. As an artefact, this has been built up using the pipeline that is taught at animation mentor. The idea of this first artefact was use reference footage to improve timing and spacing of my animation. The feedback was that the resulting action spaced out effectively but was very pantomime in the gestures. There is quite a bit of over-action and not enough refinement or internal monologue coming from the character. Looking back over the other elements of the artefact highlighted issues with the character design and the reference material. The design of the character did not take into consideration both the aesthetic and movement required. This will no doubt be a result of the character being designed without a specific goal and prior to the narrative I had conceived. There were several issues i had during the generation of the two passes, mainly caused by the size of the hands. The pointing finger dominated much of the scene, which I think is why there is such feeling of over action, which isn't aided by the slight walks in each direction; the latter is a result of the reference footage shot. The footsteps timing was used as the foundation for the performances pacing. A positive offset of this was that the weighting felt much stronger than i have previously done. What was interesting was driving all of this was my own internal monologue; from character design and reference footage of myself.

The other issue i came across was the characters break for the thought process. I noticed while animating that it was far too quick but thought I’d run with it as it kept with the rhythm of the piece. This was noticed by my supervisors, which prompted a discussion regarding my interests. In truth i was waiting for the issue (of the thinking time) to be raised. At the time i knew it was wrong, but my own stimulation from watching it flow overrode (and it represents a good limitation of live-action reference). However, as discussed at the very start of the project that sounds influence on timing and spacing was my primary interest, and after revising it towards my longer-term aspirations, that of character performance, we established that it could actually could be the primary focus of the research, and the others - performance, timing and confusion as secondary purposes that ultimately feed the project. I feel it is good to have made this distinction because it helps build the context and direction towards what I am trying to achieve.

The narrative of the piece was a play on the virtual puppet being given constant (Rhythmic) instructions. Upon meeting the crossroads (A Glitch in the system) he suddenly has to think for himself, which creates the confusion. One question asked was, is the performance right for the story? By this, was the consistent rhythm right? To pull this back to the internal monologue, surely the reaction would be more reserved and frozen up upon reaching the glitch, which is true, I feel it would have been better in that regard also. To conclude, this artefact shows why reference material should be suitable for the narrative. It also signifies the importance of designing and producing a character fit for purpose. It has also highlighted that on some subconscious level I am stimulated and engaged through rhythm through other purposes than just storytelling in a large studio process.

Next step: I am going to produce some really short pieces of a character showing confusion. To increase productivity and to start thinking about how rhythm can be expressed with narrative.

Mapping narrative and action

As result of my investigation into defining confusion, i became aware of the need for understanding the relationships that occur between narrative, action and thought.

'Animation is narrative through movement ... Narrative can be something as concrete as physical action ... the very first questiom is 'why' ... whatever the answer may be, when you animate a shot you must be concerned first and foremost with characters motivation, purpose, intention, drive etc'.

- Aaron Gilman Animation Mentor Tips and Tricks 2 Pg. 19

'Your character should play an action in pursuit of an objective while overcoming an obstacle.'

- Ed Hooks Acting for Animators 2009

Example: Romeo and Juliet: 

Action = Fall in love.
Objective = Get Married.
Obstacle = Their families hate each other.

The narrative I have produced (the key poses i posted yesterday is from a single shot) is as follows:

Our character is a puppet that has spent his whole life following an arrow - this is his equilibrium. He comes across a split in the road, an arrow pointing left and an arrow pointing right - this is the disruption. There is no resolve - yet - as the ability to not be able to decide which way to go creates the confusion. 

Action = Taking clear orders from the road markings.
Objective = To keep his equilibrium: not to have free thought but to serve.
Obstacle = The split in the road; a choice. Having never come across this anomaly before he is forced out of his equilibrium and into disruption by having to make a choice. This is stressful for the character.

The above graph i have created shows the breakdown of the action and reaction in narrative and character performance terms. By filling in the each section it allows the animator to link movement and thought of the character to storytelling poses, and helps aid overall scene planning through developing understanding. Below, i have applied this formula to the key poses i posted yesterday, the action in the poses only describes one shot from the wider context of the narrative. I have produced a rough storyboard which will be posted at some point over the weekend once i have revised it. However, the action in this shot will remain the same although the last action/3 poses has been removed for reason described in the post due to follow regarding today's feedback. 

Starting to define 'confusion'

Confusion.

Confusion n. The act or result of confusing; a confused state.

Confuse 1. To bring into disorder, to mix up. 2. To throw mind or feelings of (a person) into disorder; to destroy the composure of. 3. To mix up in the mind, to fail to distinguish between. 4. To make unclear.

(Dictionary 2001)

Confused adj. 1 Puzzled, perplexed, baffled, mystified, bewildered. Opposite: Enlightened. 2 disordered, disorderly, muddled, mixed up, in disarray. Opposite: orderly.

Confusion n. 1 bewilderment, perplexity, puzzlement, mystification, uncertainty, opposite: understanding. 2 misperception, misunderstanding, mix up, muddle, mistake, opposite: clarity. 3 disorder, chaos, rumoil, upheaval, commotion, opposite: order. 4 embarrassment, awkwardness, disorientation, uncertainty, self-consciousness, opposite: confidence.

(Thesaurus 2002)

Lazarus labelled both confusion and bewilderment as functional mental confusion. He says ‘…they are bound to have emotional correlates and consequences without being emotions [themselves].’ (Lazarus 1991 Pg.83) This corresponds with the dictionary definition that the state of confusion is a result of cognitive processes, and suggests confusions relationship with emotion is that of a catalyst. Function mental confusion must derive from thinking. This is an important element of creating a convincing character performance.

There are other neurological conditions that recognise confusion as a symptom. Senility, dementia and delirium are such examples. Zarit & Zarit citing Lipowski (2011 Pg.72) lists other meanings, at least medically, to the word confusion:

·      -Disorientation

·      -Inability to think clearly or coherently

·      -Poor contact with reality

·     - Reduced awareness of environment

Regarding delirium, Zarit & Zarit (2011 Pg.71) describes its onset as ‘… [A] person who has been functioning adequately suddenly develops global impairment in intellectual functioning.’ They goes onto say (2011 Pg.73) ‘Thinking is often characterised by a dreamlike quality with some merging of dream content with reality.’ It’s important to remember that confusion is a symptom of delirium and not the cause. There are other symptoms that could be the driving force or instigator of confusion. Other symptoms include delusions, hallucinations and illusions. As delirium is a driving force for confusion, and confusion being a state rather than an emotion, an animator might be inclined to borrow actions from other symptoms of delirium to portray confusion, such as a series of gestures that make no readable, literal or chronological sense (dream content with reality for instance). I would suggest there is a risk of miss-communicating the action (thus narrative) to the audience. Particularly when the other meanings listed above would appear to have more substance. If we look at the types of delirium it is possible to start to build possible characteristics to apply to performance.

‘The types of performance have long been recognised (Lipowski, 1990; Ross, Peyser, Shapio, & Folstien, 1991). The first type is characterised by hyperalertness and hyperactivity; patients are restless, agitated and vigilant. In contrast, the second involves hypoalertness and hypoactivity. Patients are quiet and subdued and maybe drowsy. The third pattern involves the fluctuations between the other two types … Patients have difficulty focusing and sustaining or shifting attention.’ (Zarit & Zarit, 2011 Pg.73)

The issues for character performance arise when applying these characteristics to characters that are naturally defined by them (hyperactivity for example). However, with the symptoms physiological reactions being at opposite extremes of considered normal reactionary behaviour speeds, there appears to be an option to suit different character beats.

In science we can see examples of what drives confusion, such as neurological conditions, but in storytelling terms, it is the narrative itself that will drive the confusion. If we look into cognitive behaviours rather than neurosis, such as irrationality in practical cognition, we can see an example of what confusion drives, and gain a deeper understanding of where it is situated in narrative character performance.

Irrationality

‘One way people can behave irrationally is by being broken. If a person suffers a stroke, he may behave irrationally. But this is not the kind of irrationality I am talking about … So when I speak of irrationality in this paper, I am only concerned with those varieties of irrationality that arise in intact cognizers.’ (Pollock 2006 Pg 4)

So confusion can drive irrationality, but irrationality is not confined to confusion. The above quote is important because it suggests that the initial driving force does not have to have a middleman. This exposes a problem in storytelling; if irrational choices in performance arrive from an un-established source we could potentially arrive at the same issue as mentioned above, of miscommunication to the audience. We do not want to risk the loss of believability.

To understand confusion in performance, we have to understand the relationships of conditions and states as actions and reactions to narrative objectives. By touching the surface of relationships in and around confusion we can see an action and reactionary sequence. Delirium (action) can cause (the reaction) confusion and confusion (itself an action) can drive irrationality (also a reaction). If we replace delirium, with say a choice to either go left or right as a road splits (action), and irrationality with a decisive choice (reaction), confusion then, still the central component (action and reaction – the act or result) is thinking. So if a character does not think he cannot be confused. 

Definition (So Far):

Confusion is the process of thinking. Other aspects such as how and why are reliant on the narrative. Exploring whether real-life physiological reactions or narrative subtext will be more efficient in conveying narrative will be fertile ground.

I will be exploring the non-verbal non-expression performance first. 

References

DICTIONARY, 2001. The Oxford Popular English Dictionary. Bath: Parragon.

LAZARUS, R., 1991. Emotion & Adaption. New York: Oxford University.

POLLOCK, J., 2006. Irrationality and Cognition. University of Arizona.

THEASAURUS, 2002. Encarta Essential Thesaurus. London: Bloomsbury.

ZARIT, J. & ZARIT, S., 1991. Mental Disorders in Older Adults: Fundamentals of Assessment and Treatment. 2^nd ed. New York: Gilford Press.