Introduction to Making of: Mirror Acting Exercise and Secondary Actions- a further insight. (Week 7)
- Nov 16, 2016
- 6 min read
Nov 16, 2016 In this week's session, we built upon the secondary motions that we had analysed in the session before. This time we were tasked to direct another person to carry out the same motion that we had done in the previous session. This was to present to us that no two people, or in our case CHARACTERS ever carry out a motion in the same way. This was evident when comparing my chair jump to the chair jump I directed Jeff to do. My chair jump:
Jeff's chair jump:
I also tracked the motion path in photoshop, I noticed how we both raised a different leg first and how far we actually tucked in. On top of this Jeff's dismount was a lot quicker than mine and took less frames, perhaps because his legs were shorter or we weigh different amounts? It was interesting to observe all the same. In essesence one could say the mine and Jeff's different personalities or 'character' influenced this.
We then switched things up a little more an I directed Jeff to click his heels in the air whilst leaping over the chair. This was to add a more flamboyant personality to the motion and thus create a character around it.
We switched POV to better view the heel click and the difference.
I tracked out the motion in photoshop and noticed the principle of weight come into play, as Jeff was mid jump and clicking his heels, clearly illustrating the illusion of him almost hovering in the air at that point.
Mirror Acting Exercise Our second task for this week was another study of exaggeration and character in motions. We were tasked to film ourselves in front of a mirror displaying some sort of motion that was clearly influenced by character and communicated said character to the audience. Much like what we tried to achieve with the exercise above. Our tutor, Kris, referred us to this article, written by Andy Goule, which emphasised the importance of observation and reference for an animator. Essentially the message was that an animator has to empathise and familiarise themselves with a character so much in order to convincingly animate that characters personality. We need to get inside the head of the character we are animating. ANIMATORS HAVE TO BE METHOD ACTORS. Acting, motion and character are the three pillars of character animation, you can't have one without the other two.
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/acting-animation-observation/ "Acting not Actions" One of the most animated actors that came to mind whilst reading this article was Jim Carrey, in the video below, the comedian touched on the subject of "Transitions" that I thought would be perfect for my mirror acting exercise.
Here is another good video displaying Jim Carrey's infamous 'Clay face', There are some fantastic real life examples of the squash and stretch principle that I didn't even think were possible for a human face.
Carrey really communicates his characters well and one can clearly see he must have spent hours meticulously perfecting his facial poses in order to mould his expressions into the likeness of distinct famous actors. He makes it seem easy, which is far more inviting for the audience to watch. This is what I tried to emulate or at least study for myself in my own video.
Analysis of Mirror Acting Exercise For my mirror acting exercise I outlined a very short idea and narrative of a character having a casual and humorous conversation with someone that quickly goes sour when the other person says something that has offended and angered him. I set up my phone camera by my bedroom mirror and leant it against some books, so I had the freedom to move my hands. I filmed two clips, the first being my first recording, which I entitled my standard acting. When I was acting this out my only concern was getting from one emotion to another, I deliberately made this my priority because I knew this would be the closest thing I would get to a more literal and legitimate conveyance of emotion. My second recording was rehearsed more and was far more flamboyant with a focus on hyperbole of the face. This was entitled "Exaggerated acting". It payed more homage to the likes of Jim Carrey and also ended up revealing far more about animated acting than I originally intended, but I'll get to that in a minute.
Before I began analysing my clips, I conducted some research by reading about flexibility and the squash and stretch principle in Richard Williams' book: The Animator's Survival Kit. The information I found really articulated for me what I was trying to analyse.
I noticed whilst I was watching back both clips that William's theory was indeed present. The transition of emotion for my character changed at different rates from A to B in both clips. In the standard acting the transition was typical and straight forward. In other words a basic "A to B". This is our 'A' position.
As the character is listening and laughing there is a brief 'aha' moment of realisation that is only clearly seen when breaking down the frames.
1 frame of transition to 'aha' moment
'aha' moment
the character immediately changes facial expression.
The transition from offended to angry happens too quickly.
This perhaps is acceptable when dealing with live action acting as real actors can be easier to read on a psychological level. However when you're dealing with actors that are made up of lines/polygons or modelling clay, the audience obviously cannot pick up on such nuances.
And indeed this did end up being less convincing, or at least was not giving the audience enough credit. When compared with the exaggerated acting in the second clip the journey in the first clip seems too short and quite one-dimensional. The exaggerated acting takes the "A to X to B" approach, thus making the character's emotional transition longer. In addition to this, it offers more layers of interpretation on perhaps what the character is getting angry at... We start with the 'A' position with the character at the end of their previous motion of nodding their head in agreeable with something.
Extra augmented head nods are added to clearly communicate this to the audience.
It's here that perhaps the other person has initially said the offensive or angering thing but it appears to briefly go over the character's head with a subtlety of subconscious realisation but the main 'aha' moment has not been conveyed to the audience.
The character is almost about to carry on the conversation without even responding to what they are about to fully realise they're angry at, it's almost misleading to the viewer but at the same time, it adds to the elements of surprise. when the 'aha' moment is reached, the audience may have that extra level of being able to relate to the character, as both have experienced the realisation at the same time.
There is an additional sequence of the character quickly darting his head back and forth, in a half shake to add a cartoony level of shock to their imminent disgust.
The eyes here really pop, more so than in the previous clip
Popping my eyes and stretching out my face was something from Jim Carrey that I was really trying to emulate, I knew that trying to get that live-action squash and stretch principle was key to conveying character and would make a good reference for acting in animation.
Pulling faces like this felt almost unnatural but when I watched them back I knew it was essential. There is no mistaking that the character is indeed distraught.
The addition of a secondary action (the mauling of the hair), adds an extra layer of personality is to the character, suggesting they are in great disbelief or stress, or even that perhaps they have some psychological tendencies of OCD with the fixing of the hair being something they have to do all the time even in times of great emotion (it may be going a bit far to suggest the latter) BUT
all of this is a subconscious communication to the viewer, something that is not subtle, something that could be conveyed through an arrangement of lines, polygons or modelling clay.
It is here in this second clip that we really see examples of William's theory working. The entertainment and story lies in the not-so-subtle subtitles of going from A to G to X and finally to B.
'B' position.
The audience is clearly shown the moment where the character realises they have been offended or angered.
The journey form A to B took way longer but is definitely more effective and those extra few seconds provide the audience with so much more to relate with and learn about the character. Overall this has been a really insightful and interesting exercise, I feel like I've really learned a valuable lesson about how vital acting is in animation. I'm keen to try this out in future when making my next animation. and perhaps directing a few other people to get different outcomes.
Comments