Tag Archives: arts

Reviews

Animation is hard work!

A wonderful video from the late 1930s, a newsreel, has been posted to YouTube. It depicts Fleischer studios in action, making a Popeye cartoon. In this age of computer animation, when things work differently, it’s a real treat to see animators in action, drawing for a change. Golly, cartoons were sure hard to make! We, as spectators, can’t possibly imagine the incredible amount of work that goes on to produce a 7 or 8 minute cartoon, but this video does a pretty good job of setting us straight on that subject. This is why old cartoons are still relevant. The sheer amount of work it took to make them qualifies them as works of art. We should do our best to preserve them and share them with generations to come.

[via Cartoon Brew]

Standard
Reviews

The Art of Raw Conversion by Uwe Steinmueller & Jurgen Gulbins

The Art of Raw ConversionAesthetically speaking, this book is beautiful – inside and out – which is as it should be, since it deals with the art of photography. The covers are glossy and beautifully designed, the title font choice reminiscent of a DSLR viewfinder. The next thing that one notices is the detailed Table of Contents. A good TOC is a must have for a good instructional book, and a great TOC, one that breaks topics down to their essential line items and makes it easy to find just what you’re looking for, is a joy to behold.

The TOC shows one more thing: the authors were thorough in their writing. They set out to discuss the art of RAW conversion with the tools currently on the market, and by golly, they accomplished it. Each chapter is well put-together and it deals with the topic at hand. The writing is focused and easy to understand. The illustrations are plentiful and do a good job of helping to explain the more difficult concepts.

The first two chapters are dedicated to preparing the reader for implementing a RAW conversion workflow. The next six chapters discuss the features of the RAW converters currently on the market. Finally, the last six chapters teach the reader specialized skills, such as correcting images in Photoshop, doing batch RAW processing, the new DNG format, photo metadata, custom camera profiles, converter calibration and RGB to B/W conversion. A wonderful glossary is included as well, explaining specialized terms.

Whether you are a skilled photographer knowledgeable about using RAW images, or a hobbyist who is just getting to know the RAW format, this books is great, because it will help you find out why you should shoot in RAW, and, more importantly, how to manipulate these images once you’ve transferred them to your computer. Yes, RAW conversion packages for both major desktop platforms (Mac and PC) are discussed, in relevant detail, no more, no less.

If you read this book, you will gain a tremendous amount of knowledge about RAW photography, and you will know how to use the features of the RAW format to your best advantage. In the end, your photos – your end product – will be much better for it.

This book is a must-have. Not only does it deal with a unique subject, about which little quality information is to be found in print or on the Internet for that matter, but it also does it thoroughly and skillfully.

Standard
Lists

Amazing sand art videos

An artist by the name of Ilana Yahav draws with sand on a glass table. Her art is memerizing, and the results are amazing. This page on her site has sample videos of her work. Highly recommended!

Standard
How To

How to find cartoons for children

Stephen Metcalf from Slate wrote a good piece entitled “Beyond Bugs Bunny: The Quest to Find the Perfect Children’s Cartoon“. It reminded me to write about my own thoughts on the issue.

Unfortunately, Stephen’s piece falls short of the truth. While I agree with him on one aspect, that “one is faced with an uninviting… choice: insipidity or carnage” when trying to pick from among the choices, I disagree with his characterization of what constitutes inspidity or carnage in cartoons.

Most Walt Disney cartoons aren’t insipid, in particular the classic ones. I have great respect for the art, and the way in which Disney chose to portray certain things. Look, he was trying to make commercial movies. There was a path to be followed if commercial success was to be the result, and he knew what needed to be done. I don’t think the overwhelming majority of people would consider his movies a compromise, or an example of insipidity.

You want to talk about insipid? What about Ed, Edd and Eddy? What about Codename: Kids Next Door? What about Pokemon? What about Beavis and Butthead? What about Ren & Stimpy? The list is endless. Cartoons like these are a veritable waste of time. They’re not funny, their plots are mediocre, their art is ugly, and one gets up from watching them feeling like they just lost a few hundred brain cells.

I’ve also heard talk of Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry being violent, and I disagree with that line of thought. There’s a huge difference between the violence portrayed in those cartoons and the violence one finds in the cartoons of today, in particular some of the action cartoons, or the anime, which can be extremely violent, to the point of brutal cruelty.

The violence to be found in LT or T&J cartoons was rubbery. Nothing really ever happened to the characters. They emerged unscathed. It was all done for fun and with great comedic timing, and even as a kid, you would know it – I did, at any rate. You also can’t call them children’s cartoons. They were created at a time when cartoons would get shown before movies in theatres. Adults were expected to watch and enjoy them. Some of them won Oscars. The brand of humor to be found in them is a mix of pratfalls and other physical jokes, which appealed to everyone, and jokes that only grown-ups would get. Unfortunately, all of that has been lost on the cartoonists of today, who seem to produce only violence and insipidity.

You want to talk about risqué? What about the Max Fleischer cartoons, which Stephen touts, in particular the Betty Boop ones? Would you call those children’s cartoons? Not by far! They treat themes such as adultery (albeit with subtlety) and theft. Betty has many gentlemen callers, most of them old and rich, and some are married. In some of the cartoons, she’s only in her negligé. There’s a scene in “Poor Cinderella” that would make the fellows whistle even nowadays. What about Felix the Cat? In “Felix in Hollywood”, he peeps into the dressing room of a star, then whistles and exclaims, “Oh, Boy!”. In “Neptune’s Nonsense”, Neptune has a mermaid do a belly dance for him. In “Sultan Pepper”, the same character that fools around with Betty Boop in one of her cartoons now tries to sleep with the entire harem of a visiting sultan. This is clearly not kid stuff. Sure, some of Fleischer’s cartoons are safer, but you’d have to pick and choose.

One has to do the same nowadays. Stephen seems to have stumbled upon a good find with Charlie and Lola. I would also recommend Little Bear, which is an absolutely charming show that doesn’t get aired often these days, unfortunately.

The truth is, cartoons made specifically for children, and in particular cartoons made for infants and young children, to the age of 4-5, are a relatively new thing. Even Disney didn’t make his cartoons just for children. He said that himself. So there’s no point in criticizing the man or the other existing art because it doesn’t work for something it wasn’t originally intended for.

There’s a good reason college kids can’t stand Barney, but little kids love him. His TV show is specifically intended for very young audiences. It’s the same with The Wiggles. I go bonkers watching them, but my friends’ little daughter (who’s also 3 years old) loves them. So you see, one should look at what’s on the market today, and make an intelligent decision based on facts and personal preference.

Standard
A Guide To A Good Life, Reviews

Easter Parade (1948)

Easter Parade“Easter Parade” is a veritable showcase of talent: Fred Astaire, Judy Garland, Irving Berlin, Ann Miller… need I say more?

There are many memorable scenes in this movie. One such scene is at the opening of the movie, where we see Fred, who plays Don Hewes, a famous dancer of his time, strolling through the streets of his town and buying gifts for his sweetheart, who is also his dancing partner. Happy as can be, he loads the arms of his gift carriers, while unbeknownst to him, his sweetheart is signing a contract and leaving their act. In this particular scene, Fred sees a rabbit he really wants to buy. Unfortunately, a little boy has sighted that same rabbit. Fred has to dazzle the boy with his dancing, and manages to draw his attention away to other toys – namely, drums. One can’t help thinking the boy’s mother would have preferred the rabbit! Nonetheless, Fred dances amazingly here. The absolute ease with which he dances still leaves me speechless.

To this day, I have not seen anyone dance as gracefully and as effortlessly as Fred Astaire, and this scene shows why. Every other tap dancer I’ve seen struggled through difficult movements, while Fred lightly tosses them at the viewer, nonchalantly, as if to say, “Look, it’s no big deal, I’m just enjoying myself…” Wow!

Ann Miller plays her usual role of hard-working girl, and her legs take center-stage in one of the movie’s big numbers. I think she manages to show her legs in most, if not all of the movies where she acts, but nowhere as prominently as in Kiss Me Kate (1953). I wonder if she wanted to do that, or the directors pushed her to do it. Peter Lawford also reprises his usual role of the time, that of the English pal, and does a great job at it, too.

Check out the trumpet player in the scene where Judy sings “That’s why I wish-igan I was in Michigan”. He can’t help smiling as Judy stands next to him. He’s starstruck, and it’s pretty funny.

In the scene where Fred tests out Judy as his dancing partner, Judy quips “I’m never sure” when he asks her whether she knows her left foot from her right, then goes on to explain why. When she was little, her doctor advised her family to force her to write with her right hand, even though she was left-handed. You might think that’s just a funny line, but it’s true, and it really wasn’t that funny for the children who were beaten and forced to use their right hands.

Another truly funny scene is when Fred asks Judy (the future “Juanita”) to walk ahead while on the street, so he could see whether men would notice her. The poor Judy tries saying hello to them, only to be ignored ruthlessly, until she makes the funniest face! Suddenly, everyone takes notice of her! To me, this is one of the most hilarious movie moments ever, and ranks right up there with the face that Cary Grant makes in the ending scene of Charade (1963).

Their first dance together as Hewes and Juanita is a disaster, and is worth watching for the wonderful counterpoint that it presents. There’s Fred, being truly professional, looking great, and thrown constantly off balance and out of poise by Judy’s confused prancing. And let’s not forget the flying feathers! The stage is filled with them. Judy ends up looking like a mad mother hen, turning out and looking for her chicks, while Fred, the elegant rooster, is ignored and stepped on. Wonderful, just wonderful!

I couldn’t find out the name of the frustrated head waiter at the restaurant featured in the movie. He’s snubbed not once, but twice, by Fred, Ann Miller and Peter Lawford, when they leave the restaurant without dining. His facial expressions and gestures are great fun to watch.

Fred’s “Steppin’ Out” number is the most interesting and difficult one in the movie. Besides the coreography, which is complicated enough, Fred does something amazing here. When you watch the scene, you wonder why it’s raised by about 2 inches halfway down its depth. Fred and the dancers have to watch out for that ledge, and it just doesn’t make sense, until something amazing happens at its end. The camera angle changes suddenly, and Fred starts moving in slow motion while the dancers in the background continue through at a normal pace. It is then that we realize the raised floor was used to delineate between the two shots, which were superimposed to create this wonderful effect. Today, this might not seem like much, but back then, this was amazing stuff. It’s similar to the special effects used by Fred in the Bojangles dance of Swing Time (1936).

Finally, it’s wonderful to watch the Fred and Judy’s vagabond dance. They’re dressed in the funniest outfits, and they play the roles of two “well-to-do” tramps who would like to make it to the town’s upper crust social events, but have no transportation. Ligia and I were rolling in laughter on our couch as we watched this. Judy’s got the ugliest wig, and they both have one of their front teeth blacked out. Come to think of it, it reminds me of Cary Grant’s wig in I Was a Male War Bride (1949). It does my heart good to see a number like this. It’s just wonderful!

Easter Parade is a wonderful movie, made memorable by the amazing coreography, music, and the chemistry between the actors who play in it – all true masters of their craft.

(This review has also been published at BlogCritics.)

Standard