“There is great excitement about the future possibilities of immersive or interactive entertainment, but also the fear that digital technologies are leading film into a descending spiral of spectacular superficiality.” Lister and Dovey (2003, p.134 )

What Lister is describing is an uncertainty of the future of animation. What began as a handcrafted means of making moving images, with an animator drawing hundred upon hundreds of frames by hand, is now a CGI super force, with computers overtaking traditional means of animation, and making traditional animators obsolete. Is there a danger of animation, something that provides the illusion of real life, to become too realistic? Computer generated technology becomes more advanced with each animated film released, taking the world of moving images a step closer to realism each time. Timeless animation such as 60s and 70s stop motion animations and the first Disney cartoons hold the illusion of reality that makes them engaging to viewers, so is 3D animation taking the concept of real life too far? If an animated film resembles reality and is no longer just an exaggerated imitation of it, does this still make it a creative material, or something entirely different? Most importantly, is the overbearing influence of computers really necessary, and would the same story fare as well in a hand crafted animation style?

I will be discussing the concepts of hyperreality and “The Uncanny” in animation using the theory of Sigmund Freud, and the critical theories of Martin Lister and Jean Baudrillard.

Freud theorises that a simulation, or physical representation of a human being evokes a sense of fear into us. In the 1919 essay titled “Das Unheimlich” Freud comments:

“The subject of the 'uncanny' is a province of this kind. It is undoubtedly related to what is frightening — to what arouses dread and horror; equally certainly, too, the word is not always used in a clearly definable sense, so that it tends to coincide with what excites fear in general. Yet we may expect that a special core of feeling is present which justifies the use of a special conceptual term. One is curious to know what this common core is which allows us to distinguish as 'uncanny'; certain things, which lie within the field of what is frightening.” Freud (1919)

As humans we review anything that evokes a feeling of the uncanny in us. Objects such as wax models, dolls and mannequins, of which their appearance is based on a human form, hold the impression that they could be human, which in turn causes us to react to them like another human being. Imagine being in a department store and thinking you are standing in someone’s way or accidently bump into someone. Upon turning around you have mistakenly accepted a shop mannequin for a person. With this impression, there is also an irrational expectation of this figure becoming animate, and the assumption that this will be something negative, or cause us harm in some way.

Freud also remarks:

“The uncanny effect of epileptic fits, and of manifestations of insanity, because these excite in the spectator the impression of automatic, mechanical processes at work behind the ’ordinary appearance of mental activity” Freud (1919)

This is a good example of how we can be evoked with the uncanny by a real person. The disjointed, static movements of a person in the throes of a fit is a far cry from the usual fluid grace of normal movement. It is alarming for us to see a human moving in a strange way that it frightens us. The jerking movements of the fit are reminiscent to that of a clockwork doll or figurine, and this displacement of movement makes us uncomfortable, perhaps without realizing why at the time.

Despite the concept of dolls and mannequins filling us with a sense of the uncanny, children who had dolls to play with show that children do not have a strong sense of the uncanny as adults do. Freud comments “we remember that in their early games children do not distinguish at all sharply between living and inanimate objects, and that they are especially fond of treating their dolls like live people.” It is true that we held that childhood belief that our toys came to life in the night, and were not unsettled by this, and instead perhaps wanted it to be true for the idea of having a “real” companion.” The idea of a ‘living doll’ excites no fear at all; children have no fear of their dolls coming to life, they may even desire it.” However, the film industry began to play on this concept with films such as “Chucky” making what is a symbol of childhood comfort something terrifying, and changing the way we see dolls and toys.

“The uncanny valley” a term coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori, explores the theories relating to the development of humanoid robots. The graph, or “valley” showed that a point is reached in a robots likeness to a real human where it will evoke a negative response from us. It was theorized that a robot that is almost human in its responses and appearance will be “uncanny” to us and will not gain any rapport through interaction with a person. It could be explained that because the sense of the uncanny has already been evoked, there is a sense of disgust towards the robot, as any discrepancy in the anatomy will cause an aversion to it, due to the resemblance to disease or infection. This could also be taken into account over our avoidance to human corpses, the idea of disease and not just the sense of unfamiliarity over a still human body. Freud elaborates on the concept of death and the uncanny “Apparent death and the re-animation of the dead have been represented as most uncanny themes. But things of this sort too are very common in fairy stories. Who would be so bold as to call it uncanny, for instance, when Snow-White opens her eyes once more?” (Freud, 1919) This could also to referenced back to childhood immunity to the uncanny, where characters in fairy stories would come back to life, despite being “glamorized” in its representation.

http://convergencedivergence.blogspot.com/

I have noticed the theories of “the uncanny” in my own work, due to the difference of reception between two animated puppets I have created. On one hand the dragon-like puppet provokes a positive response from an audience, whereas the vaguely human one evokes a sense of repulsion or fear, because of its vague likeness to a human face and body shape. It becomes jarring for us to look at because of the confusion in conceptual codes: a toy figure- harmless, something associated with children, games and innocence, yet these codes do not add up to the feeling of discomfort the figure invokes. Even though it is clear that these models are toys and not “realistic” beings, they still use the codes of a living being such as responding to gravity and being receptive like a living being. My animation touches upon the concept of hyperreality; these characters, despite being existing object in the real world, (toys) have become animated inanimate objects. Because of my animation being a stop motion and having enough elements in it to distance it from become too “real,” it disperses the sense of the “Uncanny.” I further confuse the codes of narrative by twisting the assumption of an uncanny character being an antagonist. Oliver Postgate, creator of stop motion cartoon “The Clangers” (1969) uses techniques of mime and sound to engage a younger audience as well as an older one. Michael Rosen (2010) quotes: “You’re leaving a space for a child to do the interpreting.” This way, the cartoon becomes active television- leaving a child to interpret the story by omitting “real” dialogue, and in the case my animation, omitting any dialogue at all, and leaving the story open to interpretation on different levels. A child will grasp the concept of the two characters on screen and some of the convergence concept, whereas an adult will be able to decipher the language codes underneath in breadth.

This recording is to be used only for non-commercial educational purposes under the terms of an ERA Licence. For terms of use and to find and record more programmes please visit BoB National.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S25/53/99A37/index.xml?section=topstories

An example of an “uncanny” CGI would be the 2004 film “The Polar Express, which harnessed groundbreaking CGI motion captured technology as used in the creation of “Gollum” for the 2001 film “The Lord Of The Rings.” The film created characters in a close likeness as possible to real people, however, the resulting characters appearing more disconcerting than appealing, bearing a likeness to waxy, Madam Taussaud models. The CG models of the humans are uncomfortable for us in a way that is not possible with a CG creation of what does not exist in the real world, such as monsters. I agree with Listers’ comment of the danger of animation in film “descending spiral of spectacular superficiality” as computer effects become depthless and superficial as demonstrated by the 2007 film “Beowulf” in which all actors were motion captured and animated with CGI technology. The end result was disconcerting as the actors’ movements were too smooth and calculated to be believable. The characters facial expressions are closely simulated to real human expression however there is certain point when familiarity becomes more strange than appealing. The negative response from the uncanny has been likened to how much of a threat an uncanny being is to an individual or how life threatening or dangerous it could be. Despite Mori’s findings, CGI animation in films and games still strive to make human models as lifelike as possible, despite the risk of the end product falling into the uncanny valley. A small discrepancy in a CGI model can instead make the model lifeless instead of lifelike, such as the plastic-like quality to the character’s skin in “The Polar express.” In contrast, Mori discovered that switching a character’s features to become more carton-like, yet still with the ability to mimic human facial expressions eliminates the feeling of the uncanny and creates a sense of empathy towards the character. This suggests how films such as “The Incredibles” received a more positive reaction towards its characters.

The problem with attempting to recreate a human form is the simulation of nonverbal signals in the facial movements. Facial expressions such as surprise or happiness are less noticeable as uncanny, as they provide little threat to our wellbeing, however emotions such as anger may be interpreted as uncanny if the nonverbal signals are inaccurate, making the depiction of the emotion more difficult to read. A study at Princetown University found that apes also respond in a humanlike way towards the uncanny. When exposed to CGI simulations of apes, a negative response was evoked in the apes. Instead of interacting to engage the attention of the simulated ape, the apes would avert their gazes. This suggests that the human response to the uncanny is a defensive primal response to protect us from something that has the potential to harm us, or that may spread infection. During the experiment, the apes would also scrutinise the images carefully, similarly to how humans will observe an obvious human simulation and pick out the flaws that make the simulation obviously fake.

It is also possible for nonverbal signals to become confused, for example if a character is smiling, yet the nonverbal signals for anger or sadness are present in the top section of the characters face, making it strange to look at.

“Are the people who enjoy the spectacular realism of CGI merely dupes; seduced and exhilarated?” Lister and Dovey (2003, p.145) I disagree with Lister’s statement that an audience is duped by visual media such as computer generated films and video games. “Escaping from reality” is typically seen as a way of relaxation and escapism from stressful modern day, and playing games and watching films is typically seen as a leisurely activity to “wind down” with.

In contrast to the hyperreal CGI animation styles, it is also possible for the uncanny to be present in stop motion animation. Jan Svankmajer’s “Alice” (1988), which features a combination of stop motion and live action techniques. The film uses techniques such as bringing inanimate objects to life or giving objects a human quality, such as the anthropomorphic characteristics of the white rabbit or a set of human dentures embedded in a sock puppet. The concept of the white rabbit is similar to what I have tried to incorporate in my work creating stop motion puppets. Despite the white rabbit obviously once being something “real,” it now takes on the form of a toy animal, yet is still unsettling with its humanlike movements and reactions. Despite my models not bearing a close resemblance to human, it is possible for the viewer to empathise with them through my use of incorporating human body language and signals into their movements. This is enough to evoke feeling of empathy towards the characters, and still being far away from replicating a human model to be uncanny.

The use of stop motion in replicating human movements also poses a danger of evoking the uncanny, as the movements are represented as being too jarring, or “jerky” similar to the way that the CGI characters in “Beowulf” moved too fluidly to be entirely believable.