Essentially, what I will have called visual realism can be measured by the resemblance of any given shot - considered purely in terms of its appearance as a still image - to a still photograph of the real world. In considering the degree of visual realism found in a shot, it is important to note that it is usually not appropriate to consider all elements within the shot in the same way. Animation usually uses multiple drawings in each shot, and the degree of visual realism for different components varies. Those elements of a shot that move are treated differently to stationary elements, since the latter are drawn once for each shot while the former must be redrawn between frames.[1] Generally, this distinction breaks down into backgrounds and characters, with the characters painted on transparent celluloid sheets - “cels” - overlaid on a painted background. (More recent animated features combine drawings within a computer, but the principle remains the same). Characters and backgrounds are therefore subject to quite different design imperatives, with the potential for realism differing for each. Visual realism is just one objective in character design, and arguably a minor one. Even if the intent is to present a fully photo-realistic character, circumstances of drafting skill, time, and budget tend to dictate that the appearance of a character will need to be simplified to facilitate redrawing. Background artwork, however, remains static, and need only be drawn once for each shot. This allows a greater degree of visual realism in the backgrounds. By comparison, prior to the use of cel animation, background art was redrawn every frame and subject to many of the same limitations as character drawings. Thus, in Winsor McCay’s Gertie the Dinosaur (1914), the background is drawn with roughly the same degree of detail - and by the same artist - as the central character.[2]

Once the character and backgrounds are separated, there is an almost unlimited possibility for visual realism in the backgrounds. For example, there is no real technical obstacle to using a photograph as a background. However, the contrast between the drawn character and the photographed background in such a scenario would self-consciously highlight the means of construction of the film. As such, the blending of drawings and photographs (or moving live-action footage) is usually used only in circumstances where the narrative foregrounds the juxtaposition, for example by fashioning a story of the real world colliding with the animated fantasy world.[3] For much the same reasons, the use of model environments as a background occurs relatively rarely in Hollywood animation. The main proponent of this process was the Fleischer Studio, which used it for a number of shorts in the 1930s.[4] Here the emphasis was placed on the resulting appearance of depth, rather than photo-realism: the background’s status as a model “set” was usually disguised to hide the manner in which the effect was created. While these model sets are an atypical process, the urge to hide the means of construction is illuminating about more standard practices in background design. While backgrounds must be considered a separate element, and will usually show a greater realism of detail than characters, there is a need to avoid an obviously discordant effect. Photos, live-action footage and models are not usually used because they highlight the artificiality of the animated characters. Backgrounds are also usually considered secondary in importance to the characters, and are designed to be visually recessive, without creating obvious disharmony.

For these reasons, backgrounds are usually provided as painted backdrops to match the painted cels to be placed upon them. Within the constraints on realism inherent to a painted environment, however, the norm for background design in the early Disney features is a literally realist approach. The visual realism of backgrounds could be analysed with regards to many components, but for my purposes we can consider two main aspects: detail and dimensionality. These concepts are largely self-explanatory, with detail describing the extent to which the background depicts complex particulars of the environment, and dimensionality referring to the extent that an illusion of depth is created. With regards to both measures, the typical approach in the early Disney features is to provide the greatest amount of realism possible within constraints of technology and budget. In the early scene of Snow White where the title character washes pavings on a stairwell and then sings into a wishing well, for example, the backgrounds show such details as the shadow cast by the balustrade, cracks and pockmarks on the stonework of the stair and well, and water stains on the side of the well. Dimensionality is achieved partly through drawings the backgrounds with realistic perspective, and also through separating the drawings into layers so that the “background” can include foreground details. As Snow White moves from the stairs to the well, for example, she walks behind the bough of a tree and is obscured. She is also slightly obscured by the frame of the well Such an effect can be achieved most simply by layering drawings on a conventional animation stand, but for complex movements involving shifting perspective, the Disney studio developed a multiplane camera that suspended drawings in separate sheets of glass. This allowed (simulated) camera movement while maintaining perspective, and is most conspicuous in Snow White as the title character moves through the forest.

This is not to say, however, that the general literalness is not modified on occasion to better serve the story. Minor changes to the background style to subtly enhance mood (the murky, ill-defined imagery in the dark wood early in Snow White, for example) are common. When used in a restrained manner that does not contradict a literal depiction of the story world, such design serves the same supportive function that atmospheric lighting, set design and cinematography do in Hollywood live-action cinema. However, more extreme examples do occasionally occur in these Disney features that rupture the literal depiction of the story world, and in these moments, the cartoons venture towards more expressionistic modes of filmmaking. Perhaps the most extreme such moment occurs in Fantasia when Mickey Mouse, in a frantic rage, cuts up an enchanted broomstick with an axe. As he does so the screen turns a deep crimson that is at odds with the established colours of Mickey’s environment, and in the aftermath of his rage the colour recedes into an equally incongruous monochromatic scheme. In the early Disney features, such instances occur only at moments of extreme narrative motivation: a story moment of sufficient intensity to justify the design and limit the audience’s awareness of the expressionist design. The maintenance of narrative and character realism, in effect, is motivating a limited departure from literal visual realism. This qualified, but generally applicable adherence to literalism of backgrounds can be contrasted with other traditions in Hollywood animation, such as the heavily stylised or even abstract backgrounds that occurred in Chuck Jones’ cartoons in the period around 1942 to 1943, and then later across the industry following the success of the UPA studio in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The widespread adoption of abstract and stylised backgrounds that followed the UPA breakthrough represented a fundamental shift in the conventions of visual realism, yet it gained widespread acceptance remarkably quickly (aided in no small part by pragmatic concerns: simpler backgrounds were cheaper to produce). Now that such approaches are familiar and accepted by audiences, even quite conventional animation productions now enjoy remarkable freedom in designing background artwork, with abstract backgrounds not perceived as a threat to the overall visual realism of the scene.[5]

The discussion of the realism of characters is complicated by factors related to the movement of the character. The “performance” of a character achieved in animation (realism of motion) is arguably the greatest determinant of the realism of that character, and as such the design of a character needs to facilitate this performance. The driving force in character design was therefore the gradually improving abilities of animators, and the consequent styles of motion they employed. Hence in the silent era until the mid 1930s, a period dominated by “rubber hose” animation, characters tend to a corresponding design style where the head, torso and other body features are kept to simple geometrical shapes, even when rules of logic and perspective might dictate otherwise (Mickey’s ears always remain circular, as if each was a perfect black sphere). Limbs are drawn as tubes that join these body parts. In the 1930s, as Disney led the charge towards “squash and stretch” animation, there was an accompanying sophistication in character design. The whole body became more obviously a single unit, with less reliance on geometric shapes, body parts that merged realistically with the torso, and more attention to details (facial features, clothing, etc). It is these designs that we see in the classic Disney features. Yet the arduousness of animating a character that was excessively detailed kept the character designs further from a literal realism than the backgrounds. Lines are kept relatively simple, and colours are usually flat and consistent, without shading.[6] Thus while backgrounds could freely aspire to the realism of landscape painting, character artwork necessarily remained at the level of caricature rather than portraiture.[7] While character design did shift marginally further toward caricature for limited animation such as late theatrical or television animation, if considered purely in terms of visual realism the essential conventions of character design have remained remarkably unchanged since the late 1930s. The amount of detail in a character from Snow White is not greatly different from that seen in an episode of “The Simpsons.” What has changed in the latter example is the greater stiffness of the poses and the limitation of movement.

Dimensionality of character design is a slightly more difficult issue to address. Animation drawings in 1940s animation tend to present depth in character drawings very faithfully: if Pinocchio moves his arm in an arc towards the screen, the animation drawings will accurately record the perspective shortening of the limb. In that sense dimensionality is very much a feature of the character’s visual realism. Yet the process of painting cels favours areas of colour that are even and flat. The lack of shading means that there is a “flatness” associated with cel-animated characters, since there is rarely any indication of the play of light across a three dimensional surface. The exceptions to this rule are illustrative. Firstly, there are sequences where the animator has included the animation of shadows in their animation drawings, abandoning the traditional approach of drawing characters as line drawings and animating texture and shape.  The most famous example of such an approach is Vladimir (Bill) Tytla’s animation of the demon Chernobog in Fantasia. The effect in this sequence, with the demon strongly lit from above and below to emphasise the contours of his body, is startling for the feeling of reality it evokes: the sequence is still cited as arguably the most accomplished sequence of animation ever drawn.[8] Yet Tytla’s bravura animation is famous precisely because the effect was so difficult to achieve, and such an exceptional display of artistry makes an impractical basis for standard practice. An easier method for achieving a shadow effect is “modelling,” where standard animation drawings are coloured to simulate the play of light from a single light source across a three dimensional form. This effect is used occasionally in the Disney features (as in the sequence where the Dwarfs discover Snow White in their house in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Such shadowing can be achieved by either modifying the colouring of the character when the cels are painted, or for more recent productions, through computerised shadowing effects. In either case, however, the animation drawings remain the same: the character remains essentially a line drawing, and the shadows are an effect applied subsequent to animation. Such an effect is generally only used in classic cartoons where circumstances of lighting would throw characters features into relief and the absence of shadows would therefore be particularly incongruous. It qualifies, but does not seriously challenge, the essential “flatness” of animated characters.

Modelling in Fantasia (left) and Snow White (right)

What this discussion highlights is the extent to which visual realism is dominated by convention, and the way in which these conventions evolve in opposite direction for th characters and backgrounds. Background artwork, relatively easy to make literally realistic, was conventionally highly literal from an early date, a convention which was then slowly relaxed. In the area of character design, by contrast, the necessary primitiveness of early character artwork meant that a graphical shorthand that emphasised caricature came to be widely accepted by audiences. As the skill of animators increased, visual realism was increased. However, most animated characters remain highly caricatured in design, since increased visual realism is secondary to other needs that are difficult to reconcile with highly intricate character design. Primary amongst these is realism of motion, which will be described further below.

Continue to Part 3 - Aural Realism

[1] For details of the production methods of traditional animation studios, see Culhane, S. 1988, Animation: From Script to Screen, New York: St Martin’s Press and Gray, M., 1991, Cartoon Animation: Introduction to a Career, Northrdige: Lion’s Den Publications.

Contents

Introduction

Visual Realism

Aural Realism

Realism of Motion

Narrative & Character Realism

Social Realism

Conclusion