Here's what we've got so far (me in yellow, him in red)
Clearly, you haven't seen much animation, or you haven't paid much attention when you have. If you're seriously making the case that traditional cel animation was incapable of depicting facial expressions, then you apparently require some grounding in the genre. It astounds and irritates me to see a movie critic so ridiculously uninformed in his own area of "expertise". I suppose it just goes to show that there is very little criteria involved in becoming a movie critic, even down to just having seen a lot of movies.
"Imagine what Disney might have done with this in the creation of the Seven Dwarfs"? Good lord, man.
It's not a matter of information but of preference. I prefer the look of motion capture animation to cell animation, at least in the examples I've seen.
But that wasn't what you said. Your article stated, among other things, that cel animation "never had the ability to show the human face. There was never any point to a close-up in an animated film -- there was never really anything to see". That's not a matter of preference. Certainly, as you approach a higher level of realism in art, you're going to have more ability show realistic expression. That doesn't, however, make the less realistic art form inexpressive. It's a little like saying that photography is a superior art form to painting, since the painting is a less accurate depiction.
Hand-drawn animated character have always shown plenty of facial expression. In most cases, the expression is more exaggerated than a real face, but this tradition continues in Pixar's CGI characters as well. My point here is that just because the motion-captured faces show more realistic depictions of emotional expression, it doesn't mean that cel animated faces were frozen, expressionless masks. And anybody who's seen a lot of classic animation should know that.
No, this is a matter of preference. You would have it that anybody should know that a close-up of the seven dwarfs is worth looking at. Well, maybe as an example of visual art, but not in a way anything like a close-up of a person. You can tell yourself that anyone with any brains and discernment should have your opinion, but you're going a lot farther than I am. I'm just stating my preferences -- and I'm not saying anything about you, your taste or your professionalism.
Well, I have to apologize for coming across as attacking you in the first letter; that was probably out of line. It's just that I find your position an odd one for a movie critic, somebody who presumably loves film and has a lot of history with it.
The fact is, cel animation and CG are very different art forms. To view CG animation as an advancement, and say "Imagine what Disney might have done with this in the creation of the Seven Dwarfs" seems a little wrongheaded. It's a bit like saying "Imagine what Carol Reed could have done with The Third Man if he'd been able to make it in color". It's a different process, a different kind of filmmaking.
I suppose time will tell with this technology; maybe face-captured performance will be the new standard, and in the future, all animation will be done this way. Personally, I hope not. I'd rather see it become part of the myriad of animation techniques, rather than see it destroy all the others.
I agree with you, and that's the anxiety I sense behind all this anger coming my way from animators. I certainly don't want it to become the only way to animate characters; I just like it and find it satisfying and interesting in a new way.
