Aug 20, 2006

Animation and Magic




The first one I met was Joe Ranft.







That's magic.


Cooked Art said...


That's an amazing story - I had no idea Joe taught at Calarts (much less anyone who was taught by him there!)

Thanks for the wonderful story - please feel free to share more insights!

I've gotta say, I can see the magic in his boards (from the few I've seen).

Oh yeah, and there's one more magic-themed movie coming out this year, dubbed The Prestige by "Batman Begins" and "Memento" director Chris Nolan.


David Germain said...

Hey, Jenny, are you participating in the Friz Freleng blogathon tomorrow? I got my Friz post up now. :)

Bozoette said...

I think that's a lovely story! And I definitely see the connection between animation and magic -- when I was a little girl, my uncle showed me a simple little flipbook, and I was convinced it was magic. Thanks for visiting.

Jhhl said...

The original trick film /magician was Georges Méliès himself! He ran a magic theatre and inherited Houdon's tricks, while making htem hmself. Go find the excellentMéliès documentary (readers too) Méliès The Magician (1997) to see a great number of these films and be astounded at this polymath.

floyd norman said...

As always, very insightful, Jenny.

And, you're right about Joe. Even a brief conversation with him on a street corner made my evening just a little bit better. Of course, his magic was an extra added treat.

Do you think maybe God sent Joe here to enlighten and entertain us? I sure do.

Jenny said...

Hi Floyd-thanks, and--absolutely, I agree with you. I don't have any doubt about it. : )

chris ure said...

Great post, Jenny. I remember hanging out after story class to watch Joe do magic for us. He was always dead serious when he was doing magic, but as soon as the show was over, he was back to his goofy self again. Joe was just the best.

the doodlers said...

Wow! I wish more movie reviewers would take the trouble that you have, to express the depth of feeling a good film can spark!

Thanks for the sweet insight to Joe Ranft. Missed deeply, though we never met him.

mauricio salmon said...

wow jenny that's a very beautiful story, and you told it so well. i'm a recent art school grad so i know what you mean by that love and respect one has for that instructor that pushed you and helped with your craft. that insight i feel will always remain with us.

Anonymous said...

One of the big colloraries shared by magic and animation is the ability to think abstractly. It's all over Ward Kimball's best work in The Three Caballeros and in Mars and Beyond. But it turns up everywhere. If you're boarding something using a limbo set you're thinking in the same terms as the Theatre of the Black Arts.

Rusty Mills said...

Jenny and Floyd I agree so much with you about Joe. He's one of those people that though he's gone he left so much for us. That is the ultimate magic trick.

No doubt Joe would have loved seeing this movie too. Thanks for the insight Jenny!

Kevan said...

What a great blog post, Jenny!

Bruce said...

I didn't like The Illusionist. It was for two simple reasons. One was that the ending is the entire premise of the movie... you can spot it a mile off.

Two is that the "magic" in the film is totally impossible. These aren't stage illusions at all, but things that you can only do with modern motion-picture visual effects.

If the idea of the film is that this man is an "illusionist" and not a wizard in a magical world, he is doing things that cannot be done by any magician who ever lived.

This guy does things that Professor Dumbledore would be hard-pressed to pull off, and would be completely impossible for Gandalf.

So there's no "danger" in the movie. This guy can snap his fingers and turn into mist any time he wants to. Therefore no tension.

Jenny said...

Hmmm...I (of course) felt very differently abou it. But for the record: the illusions shown on stage--the orange tree, the "portrait"--are in fact real, authentic illusions created and performed in the 19th century(The 'orange tree' was created by the famous Houdin, the man Houdini named himself after--even the butterflies carrying the hanky were part of the original act).

Of course there was likely some help in the film from CG, but you're actually incorrect in thinking "they cannot be done by any magician who ever lived". They can and they were. Now, the ultimate "illusions" Eisenheim created were something else--but also, based in actual fact of stage magic AND of "spirit mediums" of the time, with the obvious caveats I won't spoil for the people who haven't seen it yet. ; )
I know it seem incredible, but believe me(I saw a fantastic, several-episode-long documentary on Discovery Channel or somewhere about the history of magic--the "tricks" done in front of audiences back then would blow your mind! They were much more elaborate and sophisticated than you'd expect for 100-150 years ago; of course, as with all magic the underlying principles are actually usually very simple, which is why it's so terrible to learn the secrets of illusions--it makes them sadly small).

And while I read some reviews where the writer too could guess the ending, I couldn't--but likely only because I didn't want to. I was enjoying it all so much--the performances, the atmosphere--that I deliberately let the story wash over & envelop me, going wherever it would. I really didn't mind how it would end up.
As I said, YMMV. No problem with that.
The audience I saw it with--a hard-bitten LA crowd--applauded at the end--well after 1am, I might add. ; )

David Bernal R said...

Great post!! Truly spiring!
As for the relation between magicians and animators reminded me of the Illusion of life. Frank and Ollie state that magicians and animators have a relation/common ability: STAGING.
An animator or story artist has to show a clear point, this is the same thing a magician does to trick us, show us only what they want us to see.

This is why they interact closely with the audience, its easier to trick us.

Bruce said...

I do know something about the history of magic. Just a couple of months ago I visited the Museum of Magic and Prestidigitation in Paris, which housed the largest collection of the illusions of Robert Houdin. I was pleased to see Houdin's mechanical orange-tree illusion prop in person.

The factual nature of the orange-tree illusion is absolutely nothing next to a hero who could turn into vapor when police officers try to grab him. Such a hero has no match in any mortal policeman.

I didn't want to predict the ending either. It would have helped if the director didn't telegraph the clues. It also would have helped if the plot didn't mimick the novel "Carter Beats the Devil", by Glen David Gold.

The plot of the novel is much more elaborate and far better told, as well as being entirely realistic with regard to the presentation of stage illusions.

The political intrigue is quite a bit more interesting, as it regards the assasination of Warren Harding. This film is as if someone decided to simplify every aspect of this novel, even to the inclusion of the investigating policeman in the service of a corrupt regime.