I've always read that Winsor McCay is one of the most important people in animation history, and that without him there'd be no Disney, Termite Terrace, Fleischier, Pixar, etc., but it's never been explained to me how this is the case. I know about his films like Little Nemo, How a Mosquito Operates, and The Sinking of Lusitania, and I can understand how amazing that Broadway act with Gertie the Dinosaur must've looked, but at the risk of sounding ignorant, what makes these films and their creator so important in animation history? What is the significance of Winsor McCay?
Among other things, McCay was famous in his own right, having created Little Nemo for the funny pages. His adaptation of it into animation marked the beginning of turning comic strips into cartoons (as Fleischer later did with Popeye). The animated cartoon was also hand-colored in many releases.
Gertie the Dinosaur was a huge public success and was widely exhibited. As a vaudeville performer, McCay "interacted" with Gertie in his public tours. The dinosaur also resonated with audiences and became one of the first really recognizable characters in animation.
The Sinking of the Lusitania was a deadly (in both senses of the word) serious cartoon. Previously, cartoons were a matter of whimsy. Here, an animated film was used for propaganda purposes during World War I; it was a pioneering animated documentary with realistic scenes of victims jumping from the ship and/or drowning.
-------------------------
"Oh boy." -- Allan Sherman
(This post was edited by eminovitz on Jan 17, 2013, 1:00 PM)
Well, yeah, I knew most of that. But I once saw a video about Winsor McCay (http://thatfellowinthecoat.com/coatwinsormccay.php) where the speaker says things like "every animated film in existence can be traced back to Winsor McCay" and "without McCay there would be no Walt Disney, no Fleischier Brothers, no Termite Terrace, no UPA, and no Pixar". Are those things true and, if so, why? What would have stopped all those other animation producers from going into business if there hadn't been a Winsor McCay?
Or, to put it another way, if you were to write an alternate history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history) for animation or visit a parallel universe where the point of divergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_divergence) is that McCay never existed or never went into animation, what would be different about the animation medium in that story or universe? Would anything be different other than McCay's films not existing? Is it really true that a lot of the non-McCay films or producers in this universe wouldn't exist in that parallel universe or story and, if so, why wouldn't they?
(This post was edited by 411314 on Jan 17, 2013, 4:46 PM)
Wow, speculative history. Okay, Winsor McCay didn't "invent" animation any more than William Gates "invented" computers or Henry Ford "invented" automobiles. What these three pioneers have in common is that they took the concept into the public arena and demonstrated that it was marketable. If something has the potential to be profitable, it becomes very interesting.
Before Henry Ford, automobiles were built one-at-a-time, pre-ordered and paid for by wealthy customers, who would wait weeks or months for the mechanics and craftsmen to assemble their product. By introducing the assembly-line method, Henry Ford brought automobiles to the retail level: you pick, you pay, you get.
Computers and their operating systems had already been invented when Bill Gates came along. However, Gates created a way to translate the cryptic C:> prompt commands into point-and-click menus. Giving computers the equivalent of a pretty receptionist put Microsoft on the map.
Animators such as J Stuart Blackton, Emile Cohl, Lotte Reiniger and Vladimir Starevich had already produced animated works on film. The problem was that these works were known only to a few and seen by fewer. Animation was, at the time, little more than hobbycraft and geek projects. Winsor McCay showed that audiences would pay to see animation, making cartoons into a public and profitable venture.
Without McCay, there would still be animation. But the medium itself would surely suffer. McCay proved that animation is marketable, and by attracting money to it, McCay gave a tremendous boost to the medium.
McCay also sank a lot of his time, effort and money into making cartoons, far more than previous animators had done (or were willing to do). Thus, as oneuglybunny indicated, others followed his example.
McCay's films were the first to combine good draughtsmanship with smooth animation. Previous drawn animation had been fairly simplistic in style - McCay showed that newspaper-quality cartoons could be animated on the screen, taking a novelty to a higher level.
His animation worked well because he was such a good draughtsman - he drew the phases of movements with great accuracy.
His second film, "How a Mosquito Operates", demonstrated that a complete short film could be made in animation drawn to a high standard - something that many had dismissed as too time consuming to be worthwhile.
It was probably this film that inspired Raoul Barre to take up animation, forming the first animation studio with partner Bill Nolan 2 years later (although John Bray was close on their heels).
McCay's films consistently improved in quality, showing that both comedy and drama ("The Sinking of the Lusitania") could be handled very effectively in animation.
However, his films were not commercial enterprises but labours of love, and the films churned out by the first animation studios often failed to maintain the standards McCay had set.
It wasn't until Walt Disney's Silly Symphonies that a studio once again put draughtsmanship at the fore and explored the potential of good design.
-------------------------
Back by popular demand - "La-la-La-la.. I can't hear you!"
(This post was edited by peterhale on Jan 18, 2013, 12:53 AM)
However, his films were not commercial enterprises
Are you sure? That's not what oneguybunny said, unless I misunderstood him. And peterhale, if - as you seem to be implying - McCay's films didn't lead to the commercialization of animation or to later productions being high quality, then what makes these films so historically important? Your post seems to explain why the films are good, but what makes them so pivotal in the medium's history? What happened to animation as a result of these films that might not have happened otherwise? Oneguybunny gave me an answer, but now you seem to be implying that that answer isn't correct, so I'm...puzzled.
(This post was edited by 411314 on Jan 18, 2013, 1:09 PM)
I only meant that he put more effort into them than would really be warranted for the returns on them. He earned a living from his newspaper strips, and augmented it by stage appearances as a 'lightning artist' (a common turn in those days). His early films were made to be projected during his act. Having them distributed was rather an afterthought, though a profitable one.
The pivotal point, as I understand it, is that he demonstrated that it was possible to animate drawings as sophisticated as newspaper cartoons, to tell an entertaining story.
Nobody had done that before (Emil Cohl was making cartoon films, but was using very simple stick figures to reduce the amount of work involved), and it inspired other cartoonists to have a go. (it is significant that it was largely comic strip artists who started making animated cartoons - it was an extension of their art.)
McCay had broken through a barrier - he had created the animated cartoon as we understand it. Others turned it into an industry, but he had shown what was possible.
Oneuglybunny was quite correct in his reply - I only intended to amplify on it. I'm sorry if I confused you!
-------------------------
Back by popular demand - "La-la-La-la.. I can't hear you!"
I only meant that he put more effort into them than would really be warranted for the returns on them. He earned a living from his newspaper strips, and augmented it by stage appearances as a 'lightning artist' (a common turn in those days). His early films were made to be projected during his act. Having them distributed was rather an afterthought, though a profitable one.
Oh, I thought you meant that he didn't try to make money off them at all. My mistake. Thanks for the clarification!
Quote
The pivotal point, as I understand it, is that he demonstrated that it was possible to animate drawings as sophisticated as newspaper cartoons, to tell an entertaining story. Nobody had done that before (Emil Cohl was making cartoon films, but was using very simple stick figures to reduce the amount of work involved), and it inspired other cartoonists to have a go. (it is significant that it was largely comic strip artists who started making animated cartoons - it was an extension of their art.) McCay had broken through a barrier - he had created the animated cartoon as we understand it. Others turned it into an industry, but he had shown what was possible.
Ah, yes, I do now remember reading something about most of the early American animation producers being newspaper cartoonists. I hadn't realized that was because of McCay. Thank you for this info!
Quote
Oneuglybunny was quite correct in his reply - I only intended to amplify on it. I'm sorry if I confused you!
Hey, no problem! I'm just glad there's a place where I can get expertise answers about such a niche topic. I'm grateful to everyone on this thread who's responded!
