In the cartoon world, the effort has primarily been to anthropomorphise the characters drawn by artists and imbue them with human skills of talking, laughing,walking on two legs, etc. Walt Disney films exemplified this approach and transported the viewers into a fantasy world.
In the second phase, these popular cartoon characters stepped out into the open. In theme parks and birthday parties, human beings were dressed like or were made to don masks or hoods to look like the cartoon creatures. I don’t know what children made out of this reversal of roles. Were these creatures, humans in cartoon form or cartoon characters in human form? What was their appeal to children?
The ZooZoo character of the popular Vodafone ad raises more questions. The ad agency has taken elaborate pains to publicise the fact that the film has not been animated but has been acted out ballet-style by real human artists. Why so? When it would have been far easier to create the same effect with animation? What difference does it make to the viewer if the film contains graphically-created characters or real actors made to look like sketched or animated characters?
Do you think that there exists a parallel universe, where artists work on zoozoomorphising of human beings for the benefit of the zoozoo audience?
A friend of mine who worked for an ad agency shared with me one of the ads he had helped create for a 100cc bike. The ad showed the rider fully covered- in leather pants, leather jacket, gloves, ankle boots and helmet with a hood of dark glass. My friend claimed, and claims to this day, that he was that rider in that film. Apparently, he had decided that it was unnecessary to go in for a professional model when no part of the body was going to be visible. My response was, what difference did it make? Why was he wasting his time trying to convince me that it was him out there in that ad? It could have been anybody under that hood. For all I cared, it could have been a cartoon character or a ZooZoo inside.
In the second phase, these popular cartoon characters stepped out into the open. In theme parks and birthday parties, human beings were dressed like or were made to don masks or hoods to look like the cartoon creatures. I don’t know what children made out of this reversal of roles. Were these creatures, humans in cartoon form or cartoon characters in human form? What was their appeal to children?
The ZooZoo character of the popular Vodafone ad raises more questions. The ad agency has taken elaborate pains to publicise the fact that the film has not been animated but has been acted out ballet-style by real human artists. Why so? When it would have been far easier to create the same effect with animation? What difference does it make to the viewer if the film contains graphically-created characters or real actors made to look like sketched or animated characters?
Do you think that there exists a parallel universe, where artists work on zoozoomorphising of human beings for the benefit of the zoozoo audience?
A friend of mine who worked for an ad agency shared with me one of the ads he had helped create for a 100cc bike. The ad showed the rider fully covered- in leather pants, leather jacket, gloves, ankle boots and helmet with a hood of dark glass. My friend claimed, and claims to this day, that he was that rider in that film. Apparently, he had decided that it was unnecessary to go in for a professional model when no part of the body was going to be visible. My response was, what difference did it make? Why was he wasting his time trying to convince me that it was him out there in that ad? It could have been anybody under that hood. For all I cared, it could have been a cartoon character or a ZooZoo inside.
2 comments:
Exactly, I don't care if zoo zoos are cartoons, animations or real people zoozoomorphed - I just love them. And their laughter.
Usha, that's the right attitude. Does it make a difference if Iliad was written by Homer or by someone else by the same name?
Post a Comment