I received an interesting comment on my film yesterday which, despite its vagueness, I believe purported that it could be made in live-action and thereby raised the question as to ‘why do something in animation if it can be done in live-action?’
I agree with Marshall McLuhan in that the medium should fit [and is an integral part of] the message, but I do not believe the medium should be dictated by it per se, much less the message by the medium. And so while the question holds some validity in that it asks the film-maker to analyze why they have adapted a certain media and how they can use it to the best of its abilities in bringing about their message, it simultaneously imposes some severe limitations by underestimating the power of animation. Saturday morning cartoons and gabbering animals have their place, but I agree with instructors’ sentiments when they say there is an enormous amount of unexplored potential within our medium. Approaching subject matter in a new or unusual method allows the viewer to dwell on something in a different ‘setting’ or frame of mind; to poke and prod at it and flip it over a couple times.
Do we limit ourselves when we define things, label them, tell them what they ought and ought not be?
2 weeks ago