Thanks to Will and Manny, I thought the friendly arguments between them about narrative and non-narrative art form can be stretched out further, so I writing this post. also, I'd like to discuss specifically under realm of ANIMATION/FILM.
Narrative and non-narrative seems to be pretty big thing even in CalArts (California Institute of Arts) where has Character Animation program and Experimental Animation program. Maybe that could be only my assumption but I mostly have seen lots of great narrative animation films from Character Animation students and Experimental Animation students have produced beautiful non-narrative films. I understand it is a stupid thing to judge which form is 'better' or 'valuable' although the film is meant to be something very specific.
Narrative form of film is informative, easily understandable and relatable to audiences, which offers certain methods to provoke certain emotion, reaction or messages. I can't easily say non-narrative films can't do any of those. Maybe they are even more powerful to create pure emotions and reactions, even messages. here is an example of great experimental animation that is not narrative but certainly expressive in its way.
the first video is the animated visualization of various 'taste' from Ratatouille. I am sure most people would recognize if you watched 'Ratatouille, Pixar' Both of them are done by Michel Gagne. Both of animation definitely visualizes the certain music or emotion and they work in their way. especially the end of 'GOT IT!' animation piece is so powerful as it just dies into muddy color of bubbles. IT certainly has ups and downs like like narrative films and emotional in its way. I am keep saying oh, both can to this stuff that stuff and i know i sound very pluralism. but yes, here are the questions.
What are distinctive direction of purposes or functions in narrative and non-narrative film/ animated films?
Beyond a question of which form of film is suitable for a specific subject matter or applications, How differently do they approach to audiences?
PS- I am seriously concerned about my grammars now.
I really like this topic. I will be brief since I have to get back to work. First I agree with Manny and Will about an artists having purpose in their art: a psychological reason for making it, rather that simply copying what they see in in front of them literally (I would call that practice/ learning and its a stepping stone to developing an artistic voice). On the subject of narrative and no-narrative film-making to explore human emotion: I think that both have their own reasons. there are certain emotions that are only able to be conveyed in a visceral scense, and stand alone without any narritive context. Dali comes to mind for me: his paintings don't necesserily have a nrrative behind them but the imagery is self contained and creates its own narrative. The emotion is evoked with or without the context that these are interpretations of his dreams and nightmares. These emotions are very powerfull, especially if they presented in motion such as with experimental animation.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly there are concepts that one can only explore only with a cohesive narrative, where the emotions are dictated by the context of the the scene before the current scene. BUT, at the same time film is a visual medium and the way images are composed, and their consecutive structure is very important. You can takes certain scenes from film like the professional or start wars out of context and they would still make you feel a certain way because of they art direction and visual execution much like experimental film. Look at certain shots from the Professional or Star Wars or Blade Runner , they tell a story, and theme, an emotion regardless of what their relationship is to the story. Hence very much like experimental film.
I think of Stanley Kubric and how he uses experimental visualization in his film in the Shinning with the blood spilling out of the elevator, or 2001 with the crazy acid trip sequence. They could be stand alone pieces that make you feel certain ways. But they also Inform the story because of the mood it invokes with the metaphor.
So I think in the end both have their merits based on the fact that they are visual mediums. In essence though I think a smart marrige between experimental and narrative filmmaking makes, for me anyway, a great film.
I guess this wasn't at all brief, but oh well. I just wanted to see if I could verbalize my thoughts on this because I have often thought about it, and sometimes what I remember most about movies is VISUALS. Certain haunting Shots or Colors, whatever. Maybe I am completely wrong. Tell me if this makes sense?
Yea, way to keep it brief Vitaliy, hahaha. I completely agree with what you are saying. I actually watched "The Empire Strikes Back " again while I was laying in bed sick so I had a chance to really study each shot and comp. And your right, every scene has some type of purpose. On the snow planet when Luke gets lost everything outside is so vast with almost nothing in frame but tiny Luke walking endlessly through the blizzard. Then when he is swept away by the snow monster, everything is sharp and diagonaled to convey danger and the feeling of not escaping. I guess my thought here is that everything in the film should be thought up from the inside out. "To the story". I guess this is what Ralph Egglestein was talking about at the lecture (sorry for those that didn't make it). But he talked about shots that back up the characters and the story. Which to me are the most important part of a film. So again ill agree and repeat what Vitaliy said. A great story should have great characters and great experimental visuals to back it up.
ReplyDeleteI like Vitaly's idea of "brief" hahah... but then again I can't help writing novels in response to these topics here too. A belated thank-you to Eusong for this awesome blog experience :)
ReplyDeleteJust a thought on the subject of "distinctive purposes/functions in narrative or non-narrative films"...
I felt after seeing Michel Gagne's work above was that though his methods were non-narrative and somewhat abstract, he sought to and achieved the same thing that a narrative film maker seeks to do: evoke a certain response in the audience. Remi's taste synesthesia scene was portraying the emotional thrill Remi has for food and taste. If non-narrative animation isn't your cup of tea, you could probably achieve the same thing with some creative character animation too, through facial or body language. In fact in the film, Remi is next to the moving shapes and colors with blissful expressions and savory chewing motions; same idea, different methods.
If the impression you were trying to make on the audience was the finish line, narrative and non-narrative films probably take very different routes, and use very different methods to get there, but in the end they are both going for the same goal: to make an impact on the audience.
Of course, they could be aiming for the same idea, but leave completely different impressions, and that's where the choice lies. Brad Bird probably wanted to show how real and vivid taste was for Remi, and wanted a representation that would feel just as vivid to the audience. Gagne's animation does that wonderfully.
I don't mean to gush about Ratatouille, but the thought to bring abstract imagery to a feature film that is so character/narrative based is great, and was a really powerful sequence.
YAP YAP YAP! I agree with most of stuff that's been mentioned by everyone above. I guess i can summarize the contents like, experimental animations or non-narrative films are more visual-oriented, momentarily expressive and intriguing...and narrative films are more story-oriented, chronologically progressive, directional and intentional. combination of two different perspective can be combined stylistically to evoke emotions and convey a story. um....right?
ReplyDeleteLot's of artworks, experimental animations or experimental films had been influential in visual aspect of narrative films. they had changed lots of visual styles of narrative films to provoke emotions and convey informations in use of cameras, colours, editing and all. since what variety of visual expressions are extended through experimental films and narrative film makers just utilize what's been pioneered for purposes to tell a story. and that's being creatively smart of already creative stuff. agree? then do you think things changed kind of stories we tell too because of visual?? or how we understand certain visuals for certain emotion??
ReplyDeleteI am just thinking the other way around. since things are changed over time, modern visuals are different. and there are things that are meant to be told with specific visuals. which means, changes of visual qualities may have changed kind of stories what we tell. people might have created visual qualities to tell different stories but, considering speed of growth in modern technology and speed of inventing new visuals along the technology, i can't ignore maybe we are following the visuals? what do you think?
To me, that is the major problem with films nowadays. I guess directors think they need to wow the audience with spectacular visuals and 3D. But that is not telling a story. If your visuals take you some where other than the feeling you are trying to convey with your story, then you are no longer telling the same story. That is what movies like Avatar, most super hero movies, and every Michael Bay film try to do.
ReplyDeleteIf you think about the word "experiment", what do you think of? I personally think of it as trying things out and pushing the limits of something to come up with something new. And thats what i think experimental film is all about. Trying new mediums to express yourself. It should all be from the inside out.