Brando

I was thumbing through a magazine the other day and ran across this photo from "A Streetcar Named Desire". I haven't seen this movie in years.

Anyway... I started drawing Stanley and Blanche.

I was amazed to find how Brando's profile resembled the classic profiles of Renaissance sculptures and painting. Very chiseled - opposing curves and arcs. I supposed it's the Italian look.
(Michelangelo's Libyan Sybil for the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Note the similarities in the bone structure:)

Trying harder to capture the anger in his eyes here. Still not sure I got it.

I started getting more and more caricatured. And included Vivian Leigh in this one. I didn't get the tilt of her head quite right. She's tilted a bit toward the camera in the photo. It was a bit too subtle for me to capture. Especially since I went straight to ink - no pencil underdrawing.

I intentionally pushed them closer together. I liked the intimacy & tension in the moment. So pushing them closer and increasing Brando's leaning angle kept that feel.
Then I just started doodling random faces in pencil, trying to see how much information I could capture with a minimum of detail.

Kurtz & Friends

This is an original production cel from a 1970s commercial by the animation house Kurtz & Friends. I have no idea what the product is. If anyone can shed any light on it, please let me know.

I got this art in trade for something years ago. Bob Kurtz was one of my animation heroes as I was growing up. He and his staff have produced tons of great animation, from commercials, to film credits, to George Carlin routines.

Watching this the off-the-wall approach to animation, design and storytelling was a great contrast to the high art of Disney that I was constantly feeding myself. It was like enjoying a shot of bathtub hooch after sipping on fine wine. What a wake-up call!

Check out the line work. Even though it's rough, the drawing is solid. The shape doesn't change form from drawing to drawing. They style might look whimsical, almost childish, but the artist knew what he was doing. It's  great drawing. 

UPDATE: I just got this email from Kenneth Smith at Kurtz & Friends:

This cel is from a Holly Farms 30second commercial called "Frozen" - 

Agency: Long Haymes Carr - dated 9/1/89

This cell refers to the line "Chicken-cicles" - in another scene there's a chicken frozen from the neck down in a block of ice. There were 2 other spots in the series, "No Preservatives" with a chicken mummy and "Color" with technicolor chickens, none of which would be acceptable to the folks at Holly Farms.

"Time & Chance" on IMDb

I don't mean just the listing. I mean you can see the entire film on your own computer now!

Click here.

I hope you enjoy it! (But you won't hurt my feelings if you don't).

Animation and Profit

Keith Lango just posted an item talking about the box office performance of many non-major animated films these days (Coraline, The Tale of Despereaux, etc). If I understand Keith's point clearly, he appreciates smaller, lower budget films and their modest needs to turn a profit.

I am inclined to agree. But it's difficult for studio execs to see this paradigm in the shadow of Dreamworks' Panda & Shrek box office haul not to mention Pixar's impeccable batting average. Not enough people see the place for a small animated film, yet many get made and succeed all the time (Persepolis, $9.99, Waltz With Bashir, Hoodwinked).

I think it's interesting that all of the major players (except Disney) have only been open since the mid-90's, after The Lion King & Toy Story set records* and studio execs saw dollar signs. Everyone (including the overlords at the House of Mouse) forgot that only 2 or 3 of the films Walt personally released made a profit on their initial box office run. (Snow White, Cinderella & The Jungle Book -- I'm counting JB even though it was released a few of months after Walt passed.) Everything else lost money. Dumbo would probably have made more if it hadn't been released just before the Pearl Harbor attack - I think it pretty much broke even, but I could be wrong.

From 1938 - 1988-ish (the Little Mermaid/American Tale era), conventional Hollywood wisdom said that animated films are a money pit. Can you think of any non-Disney animated film that made money during that time? Most (Gullivers Travels, Fritz the Cat, Secret of NIHM, Charlotte's Web, Gay Purree, etc.) were lucky if they broke even. 

Walt somehow managed to stay afloat by looking at the long haul... and by embracing new mediums, like TV theme parks, and diversifying in to live action films. While all those other studios closed. (Or in the case of Hanna/Barbera just got out of the feature business).

The sad thing is that everyone wants to be Pixar... or at least have their bank account. But success like that not only counts on risking everything you've got, but you also have to commit to creating the best idea possible... or at least an idea that appeals to the widest audience. If you want to create a niche film, fine! Just don't spend $150mil on it and expect a $300mil return. 

Others want to create the animated version of the success of some of the recent indie hits, i.e. Napoleon Dynamite, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, el Marichi, etc. They forget about the modest successes of low-budget films like Dan in Real Life or Little Miss Sunshine. I think Coraline and Despereaux fall into this category. They're not huge bankrolled films, and hopefully investors aren't counting on more than a modicum of return.

I think that's about all I've got for now. Feel free to tell me all the films and studios I forgot to mention that counter my point.

- T

* In all fairness to Laika, this studio didn't "spring up" in the wake of the 90's animation boom like the others. It was an "outgrowth", shall we say, of Will Vinton Productions, who produced the Claymation® feature "The Adventures of Mark Twain", after years of commercials, TV specials and feature effects.