I was wondering if anyone has this short. It was a 3 minute long animated short directed by Tony Bancroft. It's notable for being made the old fashioned way with animation cels, watercolor backgrounds, and shot on 35mm film. It first premiered at the art festival The Venice Biennale, and now plays at the Art Institute of Chicago. But at one point, the full short was fully available on Youtube and other parts of the internet, but seems to have disappeared. The only thing I could find was this 50 second clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6BqEsBoWAU
I was wondering if anyone saved it before it disappeared.
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Nice, looks like something out of the 1940s.
HOT DAMN THAT'S GOOD!
I love it, gotta call out that just in that clip though, all those animals seem to be a bit too recycled from Disney shots. That being said, great dance animation. Wonder where the rest is.
I could not find it in the only Sikrit Klub I have access to.
bumping for interest. according to the youtube comments though it's been entirely scrubbed from the internet. what a waste if no one ever downloaded it.
>BUT GUYS! THE INTERNET NEVER FORGETS!..........
I guarantee you there's a very likely chance that if you find the link to the original deleted video then archive.org will have the page saved. I've always been able to find deleted YouTube content this way
I just tried with a YTP, and every snapshot does not work.
BUMP for BIG interest.
Been seeking for this, as well.
it's so weird, even though it's all done with the traditional methods, something about the way it's animated specifically feels too "modern". Like if you showed this to me and said it came from the 40s or 50s, I wouldn't really believe them/ I can't really explain it (it's really nicely done, though)
I think it's the combination of the fact that it literally is modern, so the wear and tear that you usually see in old cartoons isn't there here, and that the donkeys movements are more 90's Disney than 30's, like it feels more smooth. Like you said it's not bad, it just doesn't have the weird movement that 30's/40's cartoons had. Not surprised since a lot of Disney veteran animators did this
This is gonna sound a little autistic, but the drawing isn't solid enough.
Rewatch Snow White or any of those early Disney films and you'll notice that all on-screen characters are incredibly solid forms with clear weight and dimension. Complex forms like Bambi's skull or the chest of a bluebird feel like they could tangibly exist because they're drawn and animated so masterfully.
Everything produced following the death of the old masters (who were illustrators-turned-animators trained to master simple rubberhose shapes before intensely studying life drawing for animation) is good, but it's a copy of a copy. There are bound to be mistakes. The Disney Renaissance is a phenomenal achievement, but everything's changed. The acting is flashier. The forms become mushy. The weights become inconsistent.
This short represents the state of that era of animation. It's all still technically accomplished and leagues better than what most 2D animators today are capable of, but it's a clear step down from the titans who developed animation into what it was.
https://watch.movingimages.ca/products/dream-geometry
Anybody got 50 Canadian Dollars to rent/rip this?
Let's have a bumpity bump bump bump post to keep this alive. I usually don't do this, but when I do, it's for rare stuff like this.
It's hopefully not lost, just not online
I mean, comments section makes pretty clear it’s a museum piece. It’s strange it was never downloaded by someone if the full thing was uploaded online before, but it’s not lost, just not on display.
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/222909/imitation-of-life
I wish it was available. This looks really cool.
I don't know if it's that strange. I've followed animation news for a long time but never heard of this short before. I'm guessing it was a bit too obscure to get a big audience when it was up on Youtube. And only a small percentage of people have a habit of downloading everything they encounter just in case the content might get deleted later.
Still, bumping the thread in case there might be some archivist anon who did download this.
Another victim of children thinking if it's on YouTube it's on there forever and everyone has a copy ready to reupload
I feel like the sort of people capable of seeking this out would be the same people likely to archive it. But yeah, I've never heard of it either. It's not even listed on imdb.
SOUL
That sucks. It looked good
Just ask Tony Bancroft himself.
He already posted a reply to a comment chain where people were lamenting that the full clip can't be found anywhere. He didn't offer any help.
It might not be up to him to share it. The short seems to be owned by Mathias Poledna. Some old website that talks about the short shares this link:
but the page says it's been taken down because of a copyright claim by Poledna.
That is really good.
Cinemaphile be like "this akukually isn't lost and you shouldn't search for it because it's in a museum somewhere"
Who's saying you shouldn't search for it? Autism.
Recent lost media threads had the talking point "it's in an archive so it shouldn't be searched for as it's not lost"
Anon was not talking about any talking points.
I've watched several shorts at ACMI (formerly The Australian Centre for the Moving Image) that are not available online, including Jon Rowdon's Penguins off the Page, Grant Noble's Blue and Pic Related (Patrick Crawley's Take me to your Lager)
I went to ACMI and saw this exhibition about the history of "vloggers" i dont remember most of the people but I only remember that lonelygirl15 was in there and poppy too, its unavailable also too.
Get lost media gays on this, they've been begging for a new animation thing to find
They won’t be interested unless it has preschool characters.
I found a 2 min 23 sec version on FunnyJunk of all places, but its very low quality.
aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWdhLm56L2ZpbGUvaDQ5M2hSTEkjcUFuVXJzU2V2T003WGFRUmZaUUVPUU9ibHJzOWpHQUFhY1hkU3A3clgwSQ==
Use a (base)d Nintendo (64) to get the link.
He's a Pleasure Island escapee
is this the full thing?
I’m guessing the full thing minus the credits. Although I’m only saying that because it fades out at the end.
TY
Thanks, anon. Good to see the full thing even if the quality isn't the best. Never expected it to end up on FunnyJunk though; that's kinda surprising.
A couple of websites mention that the short is 3 minutes long. If it has any more content, it's probably just the credits.
porn of the donkey? please?
Neat.
I legitimately don’t understand what the incentive structure behind keeping animations out of public access and locked up is. Even in terms of just making cold hard cash from it, how does it benefit the owners of the animation more than doing literally anything else with it?
Thanks for uploading it to YouTube anon, now let’s wait and see if it gets nuked by YouTube copywrite or whatever it’s called.
Same reason corporations (see: powerful people) keep the rights to something they don't want to release. The feeling of power over others.
frick yea
Nice find, anon.
stupid ass question let say someone said frick it and made a full length movie using the old stuff like how the short was made anyone want to take a rough on how much it would cost in today money?
there might only be a dozen or so people with the skills to do so in the world currently, and a dozen lifetimes probably isn't enough manpower to make a full length movie. So the cost would include art training for a bunch of additional staff. But there aren't enough people in the world who can teach those skills to a full production staff, so you probably are looking at 2 generations of training before you could start pre-production
It's not coming back. It's lost. We lost a great art form in my lifetime and I feel relieved at this point to simply recognize it.
Trends never go in one direction forever. There are patterns throughout history, each era and epoch a reaction to and reflection of the previous one and it’s failings. Now take a look outside and guess how the world as it is now will inform the qualities of the next eras cultural trajectory.
Corporations in the present day are to erroneously narrowly focused on making the most revenue in the least time possible to allow for personal initiatives like that to take precedence. You only see that in certain places. where accountability is abdicated to someone else until you end up at someone who actually has to do the work, but also isn’t really held accountable to anyone. Like moderators and jannies! Or because the incentive structures make it so that petty power grabbing and money grubbing is a successful strategy. Again, because there’s no mechanism holding them to any standard that would otherwise be there. Like with media companies on YouTube. Or career politicians saying whatever they have to in order to get the vote. Since they perceive their office as a job for money rather than a public service of giving back to society and upholding the republic. And because voters nowdays just want short term gibs since the middle class is shrinking and more people are poorer.
The actual richest and most powerful people in the world right now, or any super big celebrity or piblic figure want now, is mostly just fame, renowned, and being remembered. If more power and money gets them that then that’s what they’ll do. If they aren’t interested in that, then it’s because they are apart of the current bureaucratic collage educated elite, who gain more power from pushing their class interests more than anything else.
There is currently a movement for more traditional beautiful architecture building up. The balls just gonna keep rolling here as far as my knowledge goes.
https://youtube.com/@the_aesthetic_city?si=xdznszuKhSWcePiv
I always love a meandering wall of text as reply.
You do it tradigitally. Simple as. You may or may not use paper, but you WILL ink and colour digitally, and use digital tricks to make things happen faster.
I don't think we can build classical Greco-Roman buildings anymore either. We're stupifying ourselves through cheap tech. Look at us, missing the mark. Well, at least we saw it once, huh?
People built those things not just because they had technology that made it easy (and conditions on the Earth were more chill), but people were also terrified of the Gods, and built monuments as a simping exercise.
>please do not cause destruction again, see, I built that just for you!
It is not that they cannot be built it is the effort to train and produce these things takes longer than the interest to sustain production.
So, who came up with what happens in the short? Tony says he was the animation director, but that does not mean he decided what happens.
A guy named Mathias Poledna
He seems like a modern art type of prick but I'm glad he managed to make something this charming.
The donkey is CUTE
would
Yeah I don't buy this being cel animated. Are there any proofs of this?
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/222909/imitation-of-life
>https://www.artic.edu/artworks/222909/imitation-of-life
I don't know. Are there any images of physical cels, like being drawn, held and sold and shit? There ought to be just SOMETHING, since this is the entire selling point. Looks extremely digitally colored and composited to me.
Some art websites claim that
>Through a laborious process, Poledna produced 5,000 handmade sketches, layouts, animation drawings, watercolor backgrounds, and ink-rendered animation cells in order to create this three-minute film.
I can find photos of pencil-drawn frames on Google, but no photos of any actual cels. Bancroft mentioned on Youtube comments that the backgrounds were hand-painted with watercolors, but he didn't say anything about actual cels either.
If they had used cels, I feel like that would be a bigger deal than the hand-painted backgrounds.
Maybe whoever wrote that introduction blurb didn't know how animation or cels work. I mean, that text almost makes it sound as if Poledna wrote, drew and sang the entire short instead of presumably hiring a bunch of artists to work on it.