Today, March 22, is Milt Kahl's birthday. I have posted many tributes to Milt over the years, so here is something different.
As I pointed out before, Prince Phillip was his least enjoyable animation assignment. But as always he did a terrific job, the way he brought him to life with subtlety and humor.
Years ago I was lucky enough to purchase all key drawings from a Phillip scene that ended up being cut from Sleeping Beauty. That scene has the Prince seated at the beginning, before he hears Aurora's singing in the forest. He gets up, walks screen left, then comes to a stop and looks to the right. He is trying to figure out where this beautiful voice is coming from. It might have been Milt's first production animation of the character, because the design looks different from the final version. As you can see in the first image, his face is a bit more stylized.
Walt Disney asked for a change in the character design. Apparently Phillip did not look handsome enough in Milt's early version.
The second image shows a few adjustments, particularly in the facial area. This look would become the final model, and I have thought that Milt drew this sketch as well. But in taking a closer look, I believe that somebody else did the "draw over". It is my educated guess that Marc Davis re-drew this Phillip pose.
There is an attempt to simplify the shoulders and the chest, and the line work reminds me of Marc's graphic style.
As much as I prefer Phillip's final design, the first drawing is a masterpiece.
Then again all of Milt's drawings are.
Here is the link to my first first post on Milt Kahl years ago...:
Damn you, Andreas. I think you're right: The final # 9 drawing isn't Milt's work. May I suggest letting Mike Van Eaton have it? I'll take it from there.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, there have always been a couple features to the #9 final that bothered me. One is that ear --- we both know that's not a Milt ear. The other is the right hand---actually both hands [Crap, are we up to three features? Or do a pair of hands only count as one feature? Art criticism can get so tough]!
P.S.
Just get in touch if you need Van Eaton's private #. If I were you I'd want to keep my Milt collection 100% pristine.
Speaking of Milt, I recently saw an interview w Imogen Sutton and animator Joanna Quinn, and Joanna said Richard Williams inbetweened one of Milts Medusa scenes, putting it on ones, and it looked BETTER than the original scene. Have you ever seen this and if so, would you agree it was better? Hard to believe anyone could improve Milts animation!!! Someone needs to post that!
ReplyDeleteWow! I would LOVE to see that!
DeleteIt is somewhere online.
DeleteHey Paxton, can you post a link to the interview? I can not find it!
DeleteSure...https://www.britishanimationawards.com/animator-survival-toolkit/
DeleteAnyone have a link to the Williams Medusa animation? I cant find that!
Wonderful! Thanks!
DeleteI knew I remembered that Joanna had posted it before!
DeleteThough who's to say what's "better" or not, you know
https://www.instagram.com/p/BLeko7Ghusy/
Thank you, Marc! I loved seeing this, looks really nice on one's! Thanks for posting it!
DeleteThanks for the link Marc! Honestly, its hard to say which is actually better!
ReplyDeleteThe determination of what defines "better" animation appears to be based on personal interpretation. While Richard Williams does not provide a clear definition in his book when discussing animation on one vs two, he does state that he found seeing animation on ones more captivating. He particularly mentions that walks "look better on ones," which may explain his decision to inbetween Milt Kahl's original animation. Personally, comparing Williams' rendition to the original reveals how beautifully crafted and intelligent Kahl's animation is. Williams' inbetweens further underscores Kahl's decision to emphasise Madame Medusa's flamboyant and eccentric personality, as seen by the prominent double bounce during the walk.
ReplyDeleteIf I remember doesnt Williams says in his book he thinks EVERYTHING looks better on ones, with one exception but I dont remember what that is....I think it was just a specific individual piece of animation he said just looked better on 2s for some reason
ReplyDeleteYes, he was an advocate for all animation to be on ones. He recounts in his book that he used to film all his animation on ones, only to later experiment by eliminating every other frame to see how it looked on twos. Although he felt the animation on ones always produced better results, the sole exception was the moment in 'The Thief and the Cobbler' where the Mad and Holy Old Witch takes out a doctor's stethoscope from her pocket. Although he could not pinpoint the exact reason, he found the animation resonated better on twos. He goes on to say more in the DVD version of his book, implying the comic timing was improved on twos, maybe due to a less fluid but more direct outcome.
DeleteIf Williams is correct and things look better on 1s, is it so much better that its worth the extra work? Idk which is better but with 2s its nice to have the individual drawings spend a little more time on screen...I wonder what Milt or the other 9 old men would say about this (or maybe they have talked about it?).
ReplyDeleteIt boils down to personal preference and what the budget and schedule allows. Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston do discuss the advantages of working on twos in their book The Illusion of Life. They believed it saved substantial effort for the animators and resulted in smoother animation, particularly for slower movements. Furthermore, they considered that animating on twos added a sense of vitality and energy to fast-paced actions, as opposed to adding inbetweens to make it work on ones, which they felt made the overall timing too even and reduced the vibrancy of the animation. I have not come across any references to Milt Kahl discussing this topic, but I would be interested to learn more if such sources exist.
Delete