Showing posts with label Jungle Book. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jungle Book. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2021

Beyond the Catchy Tunes: George Bruns and Craft of Transparent Underscoring

Video essay about George Bruns and the craft of transparent underscoring within Walt Disney's music department during the Wolfgang Reitherman era (Sleeping Beauty 1959, Goliath II 1960, One Hundred and One Dalmatians 1961, The Sword in the Stone 1963, The Jungle Book 1967, Aristocats 1970, Robin Hood 1973). Made as part of the audiovisual section of the NECSUS Autumn 2020 issue #Method, curated by Liz Green.  

More information about my intentions HERE.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Two Links

Before posting the last part of the Wes Anderson series later this week I’d like to guide you towards two Disney related pieces:

Fantasia mosaic
Steven Hartley is literally in the middle – he has just reached the intermission – of posting a Fantasia mosaic using the drafts to comment on who animated what on Walt Disney’s ground breaking third feature. Steven seems to be a bit disappointed that he doesn't get too many reactions from readers. In any case, these mosaics come in very handy as a starting point for researching an animator's particular work.

Walt Peregoy in his own words
Most of you might have already seen this as it was on cartoonbrew last week, but as someone who is interested in animation backgrounds and 101 Dalmatians in particular I feel obliged to mention it here as well:
Steve Hulett has just posted a new interview with Walt Peregoy over at the TAG blog in two parts (here and here). It’s always interesting to hear the veterans tell their story in their own (in this case explicit) words. While recounting the facts and putting them into context is better left to the researching historians, such interviews reveal more about the way these people think and how they see themselves within their working environment and society.

However derogatory Peregoy’s remarks about his fellow employees may be, he does show great respect for the fans – the people who research animation history - and he knows that he is famous among them. If anything, he likes Amid Amidi’s book Cartoon Modern an awful lot, especially the comparison of his and Eyvind Earle’s backgrounds for Paul Bunyan (see Amid’s online version here).

From the interview, we do not get too much insight into Peregoy's artistic point of view other than that he is very proud of his unique work. I would have loved to hear him talk about the thinking behind his color concepts or how he approached work on a new film.

There’s one instance where he questions one of the “trite clichés” as he calls them: According to Steve Hulett, on Jungle Book, his father (Ralph Hulett) wanted the characters to read light on dark, because he thought that jungles were dark, but Woolie wanted them the opposite way, dark on light backgrounds. Walt Peregoy: “your father was wrong in this sense. I did most of the key Jungle Book backgrounds, they were colorful. And here’s the thing: your father suffered from the ancient “reading them characters”. […], anything that moves reads."

Light characters on dark background: Cinderella's pastel colored characters were often staged against shadow areas - day (left) or night (right).
Dark characters on light background: with little exception all the Jungle Book characters are seen against lighter backgrounds - day (left) and night (right).
While this is basically true and you could get clear silhouettes across easily by strong outlines and such, this was the opposite of Disney’s intentions to minimize the outlines around the characters. Woolie had his way and Al Dempster finally did the conventional key backgrounds for the version of The Jungle Book that got made (after Walt Peregoy was fired und Bill Peet left the studio).
One of the few Jungle Book color keys by Walt Peregoy found in Pierre Lambert's book.

Later on, Peregoy referred to this again saying: “If it reads, the thinking is, it’s a flat inked and painted image over a flat background. But that’s not necessary and I know this”, because of his work on The Lone Ranger series and The Shooting of Dan McGrew.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Advent Calender 2010 - Dec 1 [Updated]

It's this time of the year again and luckily I'm less busy than the past few months. So I try to do an Advent calender again. Most of it will be color guessing again (not all of it, though).

How the color guessing works: I post an image with one area completely desaturated or modified otherwise. Underneath there are several color propositions for the desaturated area. If you think you know the correct color, write a comment with the letter corresponding to the picture you think is correct. Of course you could always guess, it’s multiple choice after all. I will withhold comments for at least the day after, so that you don’t see what other people already have guessed. As long as you don't see any comments on a post you can still answer, even if the next one is already up.

Later I will also post the original image. There might also be additional questions like trivia or one or two "normal" posts inbetween.

If I get three answers I will continue, else I will stop posting those images.

I'm putting together a list of participants just for fun to see who got the most answers right. 

December 1: what color do you think Baloo is in this beautiful preliminary color sketch?


modified image (Baloo desaturated)
A

B
C

D
 The solution is B
I've taken this sketch from Pierre Lambert's gorgeous book Le Livre De La Jungle
Unfortunately, there is no artist credited.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Shedding light on Mowgli

After what feels like an eternity of blogging hibernation I'd like to warm up with a short Jungle Book scene I'm sure everybody remembers. Note: I haven't forgotten the promised follow-up to my last post but, frankly, I bit off a bit more than I could chew when I started comparing some 40 full-scale movie reviews...

While reading the dialogue chapter of Nancy Beiman's new book "Animated Performance" I felt the urge to click through some favorite Baloo scenes frame by frame which reminded me of the following change in lighting:


After I saw the film in a theater as a child I was wondering how they achieved the change from blue night colors to the warm colors of the rising sun without the audience noticing it any sooner than Baloo does during the conversation.


From what I've seen in stills I then figured that the background lighting changed from shot to shot but wasn't really sure if what I've seen was really there or just in my imagination.

In 1994 I was lucky enough to project a 16mm print of the whole movie twice on the same day and was able to have a closer look at the scenes I was always thinking about. Turned out that I was right and it was no big deal of special effects, "just" careful background planning (I had secretly hoped that it was achieved by some magical lighting change effect during the shots, though).

This is a good example for the relatively inexpensive devices in the late nine-old-men features (especially post-Sleeping Beauty) that suggest rich special effects. Of course, "inexpensive" may not be the right word if you look closely at the backgrounds: there are a lot more different background paintings than would have been absolutely necessary, just look at the differences in the left hand tree in 7 of the following screengrabs:



For many shots the night lingers on without change, then after we start to feel the length of the conversation, dawn seems to break faintly giving Baloo a deadline to confront Mowgli (these are not all the shots of the sequence, just a subjective selection).


Despite the intuitive feeling that the change happens gradually from shot to shot, the advent of light comes in stages with always a few BGs kept in roughly the same amount of yellow light.



Note: I happened to see a Technicolor print from the 1992 re-release version a few days before I first saw the latest DVD presentation. And while the print featured the warm and dark brown Baloo, Hans Bacher is talking about here, I can also say that the colors overall were a bit darker and richer in this version but probably "remastered" from the original as well (as the sound obviously was).

Monday, February 1, 2010

Pierre Lambert's Lavish "Le Livre De La Jungle"

French author Pierre Lambert once again publishes a ridiculously expensive art book that is worth every cent. Although in numbers there may be less artwork on display here compared to the usual “Art of” book, but with so many production backgrounds reproduced in the most astonishing print quality, Lambert’s large format volume about Walt’s last feature The Jungle Book is nothing less than marvelous.

The Art Of Animated Features
Nowadays, “Art of” books accompany the release of almost every American animated feature. More often than not, those books simply seem to remind us how much individual style had to be suppressed to come up with widely acceptable mainstream aesthetics. The historical information these books provide seldom goes beyond self-congratulatory making-of stories common in DVD special features, which looks less embarrassing printed on glossy paper.

One gets the impression that, according to these books, the “art” of animated films is based on “unique” superficial styles (later considerably toned down for the finished film), focussing on design rather than on animation. Without wanting to sound too conservative, in the case of the features made during Walt Disney’s lifetime, most often I actually like what ends up on the screen and not just the preliminary artwork. Already back then, the mantra that you couldn’t get too graphic in a feature without losing character believability was repeated over and over, but even the blandest character designs came to life through animation.

Before the 1990s, “behind-the-scenes” material was only available in a few Disney endorsed books, especially the luxuriously illustrated but heavily biased ones by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. Meanwhile there are lots of wonderful Disney endorsed books by historians like John Canemaker and Brian Sibley that are full of preliminary art and lavish color plates. On the other hand, such indispensable independent books as Didier Ghez’s self-published interview collections or Michael Barrier’s thoroughly researched works cannot rely on the same wealth of artwork.


The Art Of Making Art Books
There is a third way, though: French author Pierre Lambert’s way. What makes Lambert’s independently published books so unique is their dignified presentation and the amazing print quality of his handpicked reproductions (backgrounds with cel overlays are even printed on gleaming paper to simulate real cel overlays). Currently, there is nothing comparable on the market.

I first heard of Pierre Lambert in 1997 when his lavish "Pinocchio" book was released in English and reviewed on German television. I wasn’t too familiar with the internet back then and without a credit card I wasn't able to order the book through amazon.com. Later on, when I finally figured out how to get it, it was already out of print.

So when I heard about Lambert’s new release "Le Livre De La Jungle" (The Jungle Book), I knew I had to get it immediately at all costs, since The Jungle Book has always been my favorite Disney movie and I’ve been waiting for such a book for what seemed like centuries.

Most books that deal with Disney studio history in general do not devote more than a few paragraphs to Walt’s last feature, most often dismissing it as below average but extremely popular with audiences.

On a side note: the most interesting background information so far can be found in the special features DVD of the platinum edition that presents many previously unpublished storyboards and other preliminary sketches. The highlight for me was the collection of abandoned Terry Gilkyson demo recordings and a more Beatles-inspired demo of “That’s what friends are for”.

Kipling, Peet, Disney – Three Opposing Forces
But back to the book. Pierre Lambert’s French text is a little gem all by itself (sometimes it comes in handy that in Switzerland you’re forced to learn French in school). Even though there is no newly acquired information (all the interviews have already been published elsewhere), this is the first time all these sources have been put together so neatly. Lambert starts with Bill Peet's recollections of the project’s origins and then compares Kipling’s, Peet’s and Disney’s version of the story. For every crew member he introduces he seamlessly incorporates a short but very insightful biographical overview, largely focussing on the people whose contributions finally made it to the screen.

While Lambert obviously writes from an admirer’s point of view, he never feels the urge to gloss over ruptures and studio mythology incompatibilities. He adresses re-use and questions the “time-saving” part of this strategy by quoting John Ewing about having to redraw a chase sequence from Mr. Toad. As The Jungle Book is much more character than story driven, Lambert structures his text around the development of the characters.

The Selected Artwork
One can only dream about what film this would have been had Peet, Peregoy and Gilkyson got their way. But while not suppressing any evidence of different versions Pierre Lambert focuses on the artwork of the film that finally got made. Mostly production artwork - animation art, that is.

After about twenty pages of text the artwork is presented in the order of the events in the film. While sketches by Ken Anderson and Al Dempster as well as a lot of uncredited works are present, most of the book is filled with gorgeous background paintings (sometimes with cels and overlays) and animation drawings. The only non directing animators featured are Eric Larson (vultures) and Eric Cleworth (elephants).

I don’t know how much of Walt Peregoy’s original concept art is still buried somewhere in the ARL or if he has taken it with him when he left the studio in 1965, but at least there is one painting of the man village credited to him in the book (page 217).

Compared to the strange Jungle Book selection in (John Lasseter’s ?) “Archive Series: Animation” the selected animation drawings here - from the loosest Ollie Johnston drawing of Mowgli hugging Baloo to Frank Thomas’ solid King Louie - really do justice to their creators.

The same cannot be said of many of the reproduced cels, though. Hardly any of the selected (available?) original production cels are key frames. While it is desirable to have setups that differ from the familiar ones, not every inbetween is a great drawing (which is ok in motion).

The Trouble With Cels
That’s also where the process of reproduction reveals its only flaw: cels and overlays look like they have been photographed/scanned in front of a white background, then digitally rotoscoped/cut-out and overlaid over the production backgrounds. Sometimes the white edges show, sometimes the pencil outlines are cut fuzzily. Also some of the multiplane overlays and imitated special effects don’t work very well, as is the case in some Shere Kahn cels with grass overlays (page 197) that originally looked slightly translucent (like in the screenshot on the left).

In order not to gray down the backgrounds that are the main attractions, this process is understandable and thus acceptable. What is not, in my opinion, is that some of the cels are wrongly adjusted or even in front of the wrong backgrounds, like the one on the cover. Why would anyone want to do that? These layouts may not have been planned to be seen in their entirety but they certainly have been planned with character positions in mind.

cover setup (2009) vs. story book setup (1982) 
vs. screenshot (Platinum Edition, cropped at 1:1.75)

I have another minor quibble though: I was a little disappointed that apart from one or two preliminary backgrounds attributed to Al Dempster, there are no background or layout credits at all. I guess there’s no way to find them out as there seem to be no background drafts, but if someone knows, I’d be glad to put a reference list together.

Already A Personal Favorite
One of my personal discoveries was how much of the character designs is still present in Bill Peet story sketches, although he left the studio before Walt commissioned the re-write by Clemmons, Wright and Gerry and remains completely uncredited. There are sketches of Kaa and Shere Kahn that really put Ken Anderson’s and Milt Kahl’s contribution in context. While Bill Peet was vengeful about Tytla getting credits for Dumbo animation Peet thought was already present in “his” storyboards, Kahl has made the two characters so much stronger by just a few alterations (Peet’s version of Kaa resembles the one in the beginning at night and not the later daytime design).

All points of criticism aside, this is already one of my most beloved Disney books ever. Get it while you can, even if you don’t speak French, because it’s the reproduced artwork that makes this book special. There are already rumors that there may be an English version sometime soon.

All screenshots from The Jungle Book Platinum 2-Disc Edition DVD.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Dec 22: Maugli - The Russian Jungle Book [Updated]

If you know me personally, then you are probably aware of my interest in all things Jungle Book. Although as a film critic I could give you a whole list of things that are wrong with Walt Disney's 1967 version of the book it all just doesn't matter to me; I adore it, no matter what.

For this post however, I have chosen some screenshots from Maugli, the Russian series by Roman Davydov. Made between 1966 and 1971 as a five-part series, it was assembled into a 95 minute feature (1973). At the same time, there was also a charming Russian version of Winnie the Pooh.


 Many of the animals have different eye colors that are constant throughout the picture.
Which of the colors A-E correspond with the eyes of the following characters 1-5?
(For example: 1A, 2B,...)

 
1. Baloo

 

2. Father Wolf

 

3. Tabaqui

 

4. Bagheera

 

5. Rama, the bull


 

A                 B                 C                 D                 E 

The correct answer is: 1B, 2D, 3E, 4A, 5C
I'm quite impressed by Soriah's answer which reveals her thinking to be totally correct. Here are the original pictures then: