Skip to main content

Cucalorus Responses (Two Responses)

My Life as a Zucchini
The first event we went to at Cucalorus was a 10:45 am showing of My Life as a Zucchini, a French stop motion animation, which was shown in Thalian Main Theater. The theater itself was incredibly striking, with the red-velvet covered seats, antique furniture, and colorful embellishments around the stage itself, such as the cherub painting on its ceiling. It made it so that the screening was more than the film itself; it was an experience that as a result heightened the respect for the film by nature of its surroundings. If we’d walked into a barren garage filled with metal fold-up chairs, we still would have appreciated the film, but I don’t think to the complete effect would have been the same at all.
What I liked most about My Life as a Zucchini is that it is another step forward for animation as a mode for serious content, since it’s a medium that, in my experience, isn’t taken seriously at all by the general population (an animated film equals a kid film, which then, in the eyes of people I’ve encountered, completely illegitimates it). It was amazing hearing from the girls I was with (all from class, one being my roommate) how emotionally and mentally affected they were by the film and how it dealt with the topic at hand. Although they commented about the quality of the animation and laughed during comedic moments, that wasn’t all the film was boiled down to for them; it wasn’t a cheap, juvenile amusement. This adds support, I think, to my belief that animation is a medium for all ages, and has the potential to be used in the mainstream cinema to deal with more serious, philosophical topics, not just kids’ entertainment (though that is a valuable genre as well, of course!).

Tweenie Shorts: Youth
The second Cucalorus screening we went to was the Tweenie Shorts at 1:30 pm, in the Thalian Ball Room. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect from the screening, so I was surprised by the diversity of subjects, narratives, and mediums. The varying skill levels of the submissions that Cucalorus accepted struck me (Although, granted, some were by children.). One filmmaker (Brad Lambert, Do the Scrub) made his animation in Photoshop, a relatively basic tool that is accessible to many different groups of filmmakers.
The screening location was less impactful than the Main Theater (for My Life as a Zucchini) had been, however, it was still beautiful, with the green curtains on the windows. I do think the venue (or the materials they used in it) did some damage to the showing, though, since some of the image also fell behind the screen. I think it must have been that the image at points was to big for the projection screen, but there might have been another reason I don’t know about.
Although many of the submissions were beautiful, my favorite may actually have been The Little Giraffe, by Anna Kamoroff, a 2-D animated film that follows a giraffe and hippo. Although not the most complex narrative, the film was effective, reminding me of John Lasseter’s (of Pixar Animation Studios and Disney Animation Studios) simple, but not simplistic, technique of taking any creature (or object!) and, by making them sympathetic and human in a sense, effectively creating an attachment and emotional investment in even the shortest amounts of time. By humanizing characters via basic human emotions, suddenly the audience becomes connected. At least half, if not all, of our group agreed that this was their favorite of the shorts. That wasn’t because of an incredible technical ability the filmmaker had, or an extremely complex of narrative, but because of the characterization. Although I don’t agree with the notion that the popularity contest of simple preference properly judges the actual quality of films, I think the effect films like this one seem to consistently have on at least some section of the audience is valuable.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post #11 (Blog Assignment #13): How Has This Class Affected You?

Through this class, I learned it takes time to think cinematically. I’m used to visual design and writing being intuitive, with fixing problems and visualizing projects coming naturally, so not knowing how to make something look “right” was an unnerving experience. I also learned that I have a hard time working in groups while maintaining any kind of artistic identity, and that I liked working behind the camera more than I thought I would. As for filmmaking in general, I learned that it depends a lot on the people you’re working with, which I had already had an idea about, but now I've gotten to see it play out in person. Finally, I also found that if you don’t have a strong understanding of tech, making films is a painful, uphill climb. We had lots of tech problems throughout the course of the semester that slowed down the creative part.

Post #8: Editing the Master Shot Scene

Editing the Master Shot Scene was, of course, different from the documentary. We had many more cuts than in the documentary and had the extra-added concern of trying to match action and uphold continuity. Even though the documentary was in parts when it went to editing, the main structure of it – the interview – was intact. The footage for the Master Shot Scene was in scattered pieces, with even the master shot itself not resembling the final product's effect. Editing made the scene slowly come to life. From the rough footage, it turned into a cohesive series of events, the titles helped it to seem like a unit, and the music infused the identity into the project. While editing sometimes revealed problems we couldn’t recognize on set, it also was the time when our film really formed. We made changes to the storyboard throughout the project, modifying and moving things during editing beyond what we’d intended during principal photography.