动画设计外文文献翻译

文献出处：Amidi, Amid. Cartoon modern: style and design in fifties animation. Chronicle Books, (2006):292-296.原文Cartoon Modern: Style and Design in Fifties AnimationAmidi, AmidDuring the 1970s,when I was a graduate student in film studies, UPA had a presence in the academy and among cinephiles that it has since lost. With 16mmdistribution thriving and the films only around twenty years old, one could still see Rooty Toot Toot or The Unicorn in the Garden occasionally. In the decades since, UPA and the modern style it was so central in fostering during the 1950s have receded from sight. Of the studio's own films, only Gerald McBoing Boing and its three sequels have a DVD to themselves, and fans must search out sources for old VHScopies of others. Most modernist-influenced films made by the less prominent studios of the era are completely unavailable.UPA remains, however, part of the standard story of film history. Following two decades of rule by the realist-oriented Walt Disney product, the small studio boldly introduced a more abstract, stylized look borrowed from modernism in the fine arts. Other smaller studios followed its lead. John Hubley, sometimes in partnership with his wife Faith, became a canonical name in animation studies. But the trend largely ended after the 1950s. Now its importance is taken for granted. David Bordwell and I followed the pattern by mentioning UPA briefly in our Film History: An Introduction, where we reproduce a black-and-white frame from the Hubleys' Moonbird, taken from a worn 16 mm print. By now, UPA receives a sort of vague respect, while few actually see anything beyond the three or four most famous titles.All this makes Amid Amidi's Cartoon Modern an important book. Published in an attractive horizontal format well suited to displaying film images, it provides hundreds of color drawings, paintings, cels, storyboards, and other design images from 1950s cartoons that display the influence of modern art. Amidi sticks to the U.S. animation industry and does not cover experimental work or formats other than cel animation. The book brings the innovative style of the 1950s back to our attention and provides a veritable archive of rare, mostly unpublished images for teachers, scholars, and enthusiasts. Seeking these out and making sure that they reproduced well, with a good layout and faithful color, was a major accomplishment, and the result is a great service to the field.The collection of images is so attractive, interesting, and informative, that it deserved an equally useful accompanying text. Unfortunately, both in terms of organization and amount of information provided, the book has major textual problems.Amidi states his purpose in the introduction: "to establish the place of 1950s animation design in the great Modernist tradition of the arts". In fact, he barely discusses modernism across the arts. He is far more concerned with identifying the individual filmmakers, mainly designers, layout artists, and directors, and with describing how the more pioneering ones among them managed to insert modernist style into the products of what he sees as the old-fashioned, conservative animation industry of the late 1940s. When those filmmakers loved jazz or studied at an art school or expressed an admiration for, say, Fernand Léger, Amidimentions it. He may occasionally refer to Abstract Expressionism or Pop Art, but he relies upon the reader to come to the book already knowing the artistic trends of the twentieth century in both America and Europe. At least twice he mentions that Gyorgy Kepes's important1944 book The Language of Vision was a key influence on some of the animators inclined toward modernism, but he never explains what they might have derived from it. There is no attempt to suggest how modernist films (e.g. Ballet mécanique, Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari) might have influenced those of Hollywood. On the whole, the other arts and modernism are just assumed, without explanation or specification, to be the context for these filmmakers and films.There seem to me three distinct problems with Amidi's approach: his broad, all-encompassing definition of modernism; his disdain for more traditional animation, especially that of Disney; and his layout of the chapters.For Amidi, "modern" seems to mean everything from Abstract Expressionism to stylized greeting cards. He does not distinguish Cubism from Surrealism or explain what strain of modernism he has in mind. He does not explicitly lay out a difference between modernist-influenced animation and animation that is genuinely a part of modern/modernist art. Thus there is no mention of figures like Oskar Fischinger and Mary Ellen Bute, though there seems a possibility that their work influenced the mainstream filmmakers dealt with in the book.This may be because Amidi sees modernism's entry into American animation only secondarily as a matter of direct influences from the other arts. Instead, for him the impulse toward modernism is as a movement away from conventional Hollywood animation. Disney is seen as having during the 1930s and 1940s established realism as the norm, so anything stylized would count as modernism. Amidi ends up talking about a lot of rather cute, appealing films as if they were just as innovative as the work of John Hubley. At one point he devotes ten pages to the output of Playhouse Pictures, a studio that made television ads which Amidi describes as "mainstream modern" because "it was driven by a desire to entertain and less concerned withmaking graphic statements". I suspect Playhouse rates such extensive coverage largely because its founder, Adrian Woolery, had worked as a production manager and cameraman at UPA. At another point Amidi refers to Warner Bros. animation designer Maurice Noble's work as "accessible modernism".This willingness to cast the modernist net very wide also helps explain why so many conventional looking images from ads are included in the book. Amidi seems not to have considered the idea that there could be a normal, everyday stylization that has a broad appeal and might have derived ultimately from some modernist influence that had filtered out, not just into animation, but into the culture more generally.There was such a popularization of modern design in the 1940s and especially the 1950s, and it took place across many areas of American popular culture, including architecture, interior design, and fashion. Thomas Hine has dealt with it in his 1999 book, Populuxe: From Tailfins and TV Dinners to Barbie Dolls and Fallout Shelters. Hines doesn't cover film, but the styles that we can see running through the illustrations in Cartoon Modern have a lot in common with those in Populuxe. Pixar pays homage to them in the design of The Incredibles.Second, Amidi seeks to establish UPA's importance by casting Walt Disney as his villain. Here Disney stands in for the whole pre-1950s Hollywood animation establishment. For the author, anything that isn't modern style is tired and conservative. His chapter on UPA begins with an anecdote designed to drive that point home. It describes the night in 1951 when Gerald McBoing Boing won the Oscar for best animation of 1950, while Disney, not even nominated in the animation category, won for his live-action short, Beaver Valley. UPA president Stephen Bosustow and Disney posed together, with Bosustow described as looking younger and fresher than his older rival. Disney was only ten years older, but to Amidi,Bosustow's "appearance suggests the vitality and freshness of the UPA films when placed against the tired Disney films of the early 1950s".That line perplexed me. True, Disney's astonishing output in the late 1930s and early 1940s could hardly be sustained, either in quantity or quality. But even though Cinderella (a relatively lightweight item) and the shorts become largely routine, few would call Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and Lady and the Tramp tired. Indeed, the two Disney features that Amidi later praises for their modernist style, Sleeping Beauty and One Hundred and One Dalmatians, are often taken to mark the beginning of the end of the studio's golden age.In Amidi's view, other animation studios, including Warner Bros., were similarly resistant to modernism on the whole, though there were occasional chinks in their armor. The author selectively praises a few individual innovators. A very brief entry on MGM mentions Tex Avery, mainly for his 1951 short, Symphony in Slang. Warner Bros.' Maurice Noble earns Amidi's praise; he consistently provided designs for Chuck Jones's cartoons, most famously What's Opera, Doc?The book's third problem arises from the decision to organize it as a series of chapters on individual animation studios arranged alphabetically. There's at least some logic to going in chronological order or thematically, or even by the studios in order of their importance. Alphabetical is arbitrary, rendering the relationship between studios haphazard. An unhappy byproduct of this strategy is that the historically most salient studios come near the end of the alphabet. After chapters on many small, mostly unfamiliar studios, we at last reach the final chapters: Terrytoons, UPA, Walt Disney, Walter Lantz, Warner Bros. Apart from Lantz, these are the main studios relevant to the topic at hand. Amidi prepares the reader with only a brief introduction and no overview, so there is no setup of why UPA is so important or what contextDisney provided for the stylistic innovations that are the book's main subject.译文现代卡通，50年代的动画风格和设计Amidi, Amid在20世纪70年代，当我还是一个电影专业的研究生时，美国联合制片公司UPA就受到了学院和影迷们的关注。