The Animation Show 2005

Friday I went to see The Animation Show at the Cleveland Cinematheque. It was re­al­ly good. Here is what is play­ing in 2005.

Mini-re­views with­in.

Bunnies — Jakob Schuh, Saschka Unseld
This short short hops to it and wel­comes us to the Animation Show.

Guard Dog — Bill Plympton
You can see a clip of the film and oth­ers here.
This brief ‘toon is about a man’s best friend who is a bit too con­cerned with pro­tect­ing his mas­ter. It has the typ­i­cal Plympton twist at the end of the film and quite a few bark­ing laughs.

Fallen Art — Tomek Baginski
Trailer and stills here.
I was re­al­ly look­ing for­ward to see­ing this Polish an­i­ma­tion, ever since I saw the pre­view for it a year ago. It didn’t dis­ap­point and had the char­ac­ter­is­tic gal­lows hu­mor that I’ve come to ex­pect from Poles.

Rockfish — Blur Studio
Watch the whole thing here. [em­bed­ded hirez .mov]
This is a sci­ence fic­tion ver­sion of ice fish­ing. A tall tale come true of a man and his pet on a fish­ing trip. Old sto­ry rewrit­ten with a new hook.

The F.E.D.S. — Jen Drummond
Stills here.
This short is done just like Waking Life and since Jen Drummond worked as an an­i­ma­tor on that film I guess I’m not sur­prised. It was too much like Waking Life for my taste, and is about those peo­ple who hand out sam­ples at the gro­cery.

Ward 13 — Peter Cornwell
Trailer here.
This clay­mat­ed short was ex­treme­ly well done. There is a cane-fight as good as you would ex­pect from a live-ac­tion movie, a Cthulhu-like mon­ster and a cou­ple per­fect in­stances where the viewer’s ex­pec­ta­tions were dead wrong. It had me in stitch­es.

L’homme sans om­bré — Georges Schwizgebel
The National Film Board of Canada does not spon­sor crap. The Man Without a Shadow is Faustian in much the same way as Beat the Devil. Except, in­stead of American riproar­ing it con­tains a melan­choly that even­tu­al­ly leads to wis­dom. I can’t think of a pun to put in this re­view.

Hello — Jonathan Nix
Clip here.
This is a charm­ing love sto­ry in­volv­ing an analog guy and a dig­i­tal girl. It even has an old Victrola men­tor. Another new spin on the same old tune, but worth a watch for all you au­dio­philes.

When the Day Breaks — Amanda Forbis, Wendy Tilby
Clip here. [.ram]
I knew this was an­i­mat­ed by a wom­an [or in this case, wom­en] from the first frame. It has a pow­er­ful mes­sage that is de­liv­ered quite del­i­cate­ly and the tech­nique they used in an­i­mat­ing this short was beau­ti­ful and worth the ef­fort. The an­i­mals look like peo­ple and when they get lemons they make lemon­ade.

Pan With Us — David Russo
While this film wasn’t the most in­ter­est­ing in con­tent, I think it was the best in form of the whole fes­ti­val. It is stop-mo­tion an­i­mat­ed us­ing hu­mans in-frame as the sup­port for the an­i­mat­ed pieces. Robert Frost’s po­em is read as ac­com­pa­ni­ment. It does al­most in­spire pan­ic and def­i­nite­ly evokes a sense of wilder­ness. No pun here.

The Meaning of Life — Don Hertzfeldt
In-depth stuff here.
Technically amaz­ing, this fell through a lit­tle bit on the con­tent scale. Hertzfeldt seems to do a lot bet­ter with his dark hu­mor, and while I ex­pect­ed this to be a more se­ri­ous work [hav­ing fol­lowed its pro­duc­tion for a few years] I’m not sure most of the oth­er peo­ple there were as en­light­ened. The com­plex­i­ty of an­i­mat­ing the crowd scene and the ex­per­i­men­tal cam­er­a­work was worth the ef­fort, quite ground­break­ing.

Fireworks — PES
Watch it here. [em­bed­ded .mov]
This short short is just de­li­cious.

30 thoughts on “The Animation Show 2005

  1. It had a very fem­i­nine feel to it. I un­der­stood it on a vis­cer­al lev­el, not a cog­ni­tive one. Hence, in­ef­fa­ble.

  2. I think I would prob­a­bly be less ar­gu­men­ta­tive about this if you had just said, “It had a fem­i­nine qual­i­ty to it” rather than “It was ob­vi­ous­ly made by a chick” b/​c there’s kin­da a big dif­fer­ence be­tween those two ideas.

  3. To say that “it was ob­vi­ous that a chick made it” is to as­sume that all fe­males do art a speci­fic sort of way.

    To say that “it was fem­i­nine in its sen­si­bil­i­ties” does not re­strain it to be­ing cre­at­ed by a male or fe­male. It just states that it has qual­i­ties that are of a fem­i­nine na­ture but could have been cre­at­ed by a male or a fe­male who has said fem­i­nine artis­tic sen­si­bil­i­ties.

  4. i bet you would be “in­ef­fa­bly” fooled by much art as to whether it is cre­at­ed by a M or F. Your re­ac­tion to the an­i­ma­tion could be due to what i pre­sume is a dearth of F an­i­ma­tors out there, so it would be more log­ic mas­querad­ing as in­tu­ition.

  5. “it was ob­vi­ous that a chick made it” is to as­sume that all fe­males do art a speci­fic sort of way.

    Well, I didn’t phrase it quite so com­bat­ive­ly. I knew this was an­i­mat­ed by a wom­an [or in this case, wom­en] from the first frame. is what I ac­tu­al­ly said. I see noth­ing wrong in as­sum­ing that all fe­males do art in a speci­fic sort of way. It is en­tire­ly pos­si­ble that dif­fer­ent brain chem­istry and brain use be­tween the sex­es pro­vides a sub­tle but dis­cernible dif­fer­ence in the way each sex cre­ates things.

    To say that “it was fem­i­nine in its sen­si­bil­i­ties” does not re­strain it to be­ing cre­at­ed by a male or fe­male. It just states that it has qual­i­ties that are of a fem­i­nine na­ture but could have been cre­at­ed by a male or a fe­male who has said fem­i­nine artis­tic sen­si­bil­i­ties.

    I’m go­ing to re­tract my first at­tempt at ex­pli­ca­tion. It didn’t have a fem­i­nine feel, it had a fe­male feel. You should know by now that I re­ject cat­e­go­riz­ing things as fem­i­nine or mas­cu­line be­cause those terms can mean any­thing nowa­days. However, I do think that there are in­her­ent char­ac­ter­is­tics of each sex that the oth­er sex can­not suc­cess­ful­ly im­i­tate. And I think that is what I picked up on. If that makes me a ig­no­rant fool, so be it.

    Perhaps the­se char­ac­ter­is­tics aren’t phys­i­o­log­i­cal. Perhaps they are just seem that way due to up­bring­ing, but un­til we’ve got males be­ing raised as girls and vice ver­sa and every step in be­tween or out­side, no one is go­ing to have a good enough an­swer.

  6. It’s re­al­ly bizarro to me that you are will­ing to state THIS – “You should know by now that I re­ject cat­e­go­riz­ing things as fem­i­nine or mas­cu­line be­cause those terms can mean any­thing nowa­days” – and yet that same way of look­ing at things doesn’t spill over to the female/​male po­lar­i­ties for you at all for some rea­son…

  7. Heh heh. You’re such a [edit­ed for con­tent, AH], Mr. Parsing.

    What am I sup­posed to be ex­plain­ing?

  8. “ – and yet that same way of look­ing at things doesn’t spill over to the female/​male po­lar­i­ties for you at all for some rea­son…

  9. I just think it’s cu­ri­ous that you are will­ing to ac­cept that the idea of “fem­i­nine” and “mas­cu­line” is kin­da gray (or not able to be pinned down to a sin­gu­lar de­f­i­n­i­tion) and yet you do not think the same of “male” and “fe­male.”

  10. That is be­cause I feel that there are things that are black and white and there aren’t re­al­ly any good words to use to de­scribe those things. Ineffable again. Male and Female are less grey than Masculine and Feminine.

  11. But doesn’t in­ef­fa­bil­i­ty equal gray­ness to some de­gree. And if the rea­sons you could tell that short was made by a fe­male are “in­ef­fa­ble”, then aren’t you kin­da con­tra­dict­ing your­self? I guess I am just try­ing to get you to ac­tu­al­ly de­fend what it was about the short that made it clear to you it was made by a wom­an. Because this damn “in­ef­fa­ble” thing just seems like lazi­ness. Turd. ; )

  12. In an em­pir­i­cal sense, in­ef­fa­bil­i­ty = grey­ness but I have no em­pir­i­cal ev­i­dence for a feel­ing, and I’m not an em­piri­cist. Peppermint’s com­ment comes in­to play here. Perhaps it was eas­ier for me to iden­ti­fy that par­tic­u­lar short as be­ing done by a wom­an be­cause most oth­ers were done by men… I dun­no.

  13. i’m with lau­ren.

    some things are black and white. yes, like bi­o­log­i­cal males have a penis, fe­males have a vagi­na.

    But what you view as es­sen­tial­ly “fe­male” is sub­jec­tive and so it is gray again. I think you picked up on fem­i­nine at­trib­ut­es. It’s on­ly in­ef­fa­ble b/​c we are so so­cial­ized to rec­og­nize sex/​gender.

  14. We will just have to re­main in ami­able dis­agree­ment then.

    Either of you read Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides?

  15. lau­ren, tsk tsk, that’s not a very fe­male thing to do!
    (be­sides you should use some­thing larg­er to beat him with)

  16. now, lau­ren, be a nur­tur­ing fe­male and dry his eyes be­cause the BURN must hurt! 

    mid­dle­sex, no.

  17. Nope. I haven’t ei­ther. Will I reach en­light­en­ment about the need for stereo­types if I do read it?

Speak your piece