<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Cud
Review: The desperate need for historical documentation and 'serious' academic thinking on animation has resulted in a lot of unnecessary books (ie. cud).Wells lamely applies outmoded film theories from the 70s to animation....and they don't fit. In general...his formalist/structuralist approach is weak (just as it was in the 70s) because it fails to situate the films within their specific contexts. The book is also filled with spelling errors (eg. Norman McClaren!!!). Avoid.
Rating: 
Summary: For the students of art science
Review: This is essentially a scholar book for students of art science: lots of texts, few pictures, and in black and white. It contains a good discussion on the origin of animation, and it tries to specify its specific characteristics. It contains many and very diverse examples, but, of course, they work best as such, when one is able to see the mentioned films. I think this book really helps the reader 'understanding' animation (at least it helps to develop an analytical view towards animation as an art form), but I don't think it is suited for the average animation fan.
<< 1 >>
| 
