| |
Interview with Stan Winston
4-time Oscar winner and legendary visual effects wizard Stan Winston, with a career that spans nearly four decades, talks about his career, more respect for animators, compares practical and digital and what it takes to be a successful artist.
April, 8th, 2007, by Raffael Dickreuter, Bradley Gabe
 |  | Stan Winston, 4-time Oscar winner and
owner of a star on the 'Hollywood Walk of Fame'.
| | | |
| |
| | | |
|
How do you feel about seeing the finished book that summarizes your career?
The book has actually been a highlight of my career. For years people have been asking me what is my favorite project, what is my favorite movie that I have done? I always say I don't have a favorite. The projects are like my children: I love them all. But, I must say that the book has been my favorite project because it's about the body of work. It's about all the people that have been involved. It's not a book about Stan Winston; it's a book about Stan Winston Studio. It's a book about all the people that have been a part of this history - of really spectacular and iconic effects - that I can say, humbly, that I am very thrilled and feel very blessed that I have been a part of… that I was a common denominator…that was done by hundreds of wonderfully brilliant minds… they are all represented in the book. And that is why I love the book. It is my favorite project. It took over a year in developing it and 35 years or more in the content that is in the book. I think it was beautifully done. It tells the story and the history. It's beautifully written by Jody Duncan and it really has an artistic layout. Jim Charmatz and Paul Mejias, from the studio, had a lot do with it. The book publishers also did a brilliant job with it. I am very, very proud of it and I hope it inspired many people. I hope it inspires people to know that so much has been done in the field and so much that yet can be done with the right imagination and the right drive.
What are some character traits that helped you become so successful in this business, besides obviously being just talented?
It might sound very trite and very true, but I believe my success is due to my love and respect of other artists…my ability to collaborate and work with other artists and not believe that I am the only one that knows the answer. I have been successful because I surrounded myself with very talented and very bright people, and I have always said that I am very comfortable with being the dumbest one in the room. I am not going to say I don't believe I am not a good artist because I do. I believe that I have a good eye and a great vision. I am a great fan and love movies but I believe very strongly in all people around me and I know that the collaboration in movies is what makes them work; not an individual. I love people. I am a fan of artists and I walk in here every day and look at the stuff you are looking at here and I go, ‘Wow! This is the coolest thing I have ever seen!’ And I can say that and be humble because I didn't do it. I was one detail…one part of it and I am thrilled that I was a part of it, but I am not going to say ‘Look at what I did.’ I am going to say ‘Wow! Look at what was done by all these great artists!’ There are these wonderful actors, wonderful directors that work under this roof…all these creative minds and how cool it is to be among them to be one of them and to know it's not about me, it's about all the people around me.
In an industry where many people jump from job to job it stays in contrast to many people who stayed at Stan Winston Studio for a long time, why is that?
The answer to the question why people have been here for so long is kind of folded into the reality of my success…it's love. We care about one another. We support one another. We don't compete with one another. We inspire one another. Once you are married it's hard to divorce unless there is a very good reason and you want a growing family. For me this business is about the people as much it is about the work, and then work becomes wonderful because the character that you see that works so great is not one that this guy did, it's one that all these guys did. It's the one that they did…the one that the team put together. And one man is not nearly as strong as a team. There is nobody out there…not one human being out there in the world who can outdo what this team can do because it becomes bigger and stronger, and that's why people hang around because it's family.
Characters from Zathura and the Terminator movies at Stan Winston Studio.
What is your opinion of the ongoing industry shift from practical to all digital effects?
Ultimately, any new technology, if used properly, should be embraced; however, I think it's very important for people to realize what happens whenever a new technology is introduced. I think it's a wonderful new tool to be able to use digital tools to help create magic. But, the secret is creating magic….and you don't create magic by your audience knowing how you did your trick. The downfall is when too much digital is used. When an audience walks into what I call a "live action movie." I am not talking about a digitally animated movie because that is an animated film and that's an art form. “Toy Story,” “Shrek,” and “Nemo” are wonderful and could not be better. They are great stories and told in a particular art form. But when digital is used in a live action movie, people should not be aware that it's digital animation. It must be magic. The only way to make it invisible is not to make it all digital; mix it up. To have live action and digital so that from cut to cut, from moment to moment, you are not aware of what you are looking at. And then it's magic and it's a brilliant tool. Unfortunately it's only a few filmmakers…there are only a handful of brilliant filmmakers who know how to dazzle you and trick your mind and allow you to believe you are seeing something that is real and that you don't know how it was done because it doesn't look like digital…and it couldn't be done live because they couldn't possibly do that with puppets…it couldn't be done with animatronics and it also couldn't be digital because once you no longer know how it's done as an audience then you are watching a movie. You are watching what is happening and it is magic. And anything that helps us do the magic is a good thing. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of great magicians out there and they don't know how to use the tools and so the magic is gone. So, instead of going to see a movie and seeing magic you end up seeing technology and that's a downfall.
'The Winston Effect - The Art and History of Stan Winston Studio'
shows in depth the career of Stan and the work completed at the studio including films such as
Aliens, Predator, the Terminator and Jurassic Park trilogies among many others.
What is the advantage of still doing it practical, what is there that digital can't do?
What digital can't do is help the performance of an actor or the visual understanding of a director. I started out as an actor; I have directed films, have produced films and have worked behind the scenes. As an actor I can tell you…because my son is an actor, a very successful one, some of my closest friends have been some of the most brilliant actors in the business; from Rod Steiger to Anthony Hopkins….any great actor will tell you that fifty percent of acting is reacting. And, the greatest actors will tell you that they give their best performance when they are acting with another good actor. I firmly believe what is good about movies is a good story and the storytellers in that story are the actors. The better the performance of the actor the more you are going to like that movie. So, it's important to give actors the tools that they need to create the best character they possibly can. Imagine telling another actor that he is performing against another actor that is not there. Pretend that this is the guy - this spot you are looking at - and give me your best performance. It is impossible. So if you buy that actors and their performances are important to movie making and storytelling, and if you buy that actors give better performances when they have other actors to react to , then you must, with common sense, understand that if you can do it live and give the actor something to react to…if you can create the dinosaur, if you can create the creature and it's there on set with the director and you are going to do that, then you are going to raise the level of the performance of the actor. You can't do that digitally. You must do that with a live performance. You must bring that character to life on set. It's a disservice to actors and ignorance to the craft to think that an actor can do it as well with as without someone to react to.
You were fighting to get more respect for make-up artists, including having an Oscar category established. Do you think we are at a time where digital animators should get more respect, in the same vein?
Absolutely. I believe very strongly that if you are a part of creating a character, the performance of a character, you need to be treated the same as anyone else who is a key person for creating a performance. That's why puppeteers are part of SAG (Screen Actors Guild), they are considered actors. They go onto the set under the banner of screen actors because they are creating the performance of a character on the set. Actors who are creating the vocal performance get residuals for the voices. If there is a lead animator for that character, then he is creating that performance. Now, I am not talking about every aspect. There are hundreds of people involved in the creation of an animated character when it gets down to the lighting, compositing etc.; but, the performance, the animation, the lead performing animator…absolutely. We should fight for them to get the recognition as they are creating a performance. If the performance is performance capture then it is the actor who created the performance that needs to be credited with the performance. In today’s world we have to understand that many performances are created with optical performance capture as was Gollum in “Lord of the Rings.” That performance should be credited to the actor who created it, Andy Serkis, as any other actor. I don't know what Andy's situation was - if he gets residuals or not - but he should….I can’t imagine he wouldn’t. He created a performance. And I would say the same thing if the performance was created by an animator… same thing….if the performance is created by a puppeteer…same thing. Who ever creates the performance. Not all of the digital technicians, not all of the puppet technicians, but the performing deserve to be treated as what they are, performing actors.
With advances in technology will it change the way we tell stories with creatures?
The way we are going with storytelling with creatures is the same way since the beginning of movies. Nothing is new. Don't for a second think that it is different today than it was 50 years ago. It's only our imagination. The difference is that the stories that we have imagined and the stories that were told in the 30's, 40's and 50's are told technically more believable today than they were then because of our advancements in technology; not in story telling. In the days of 1933…in the days of “King Kong”...I don't believe the story of the new “King Kong” beats the story of the original “King Kong.” It was there and everything that was magical about it was there: a giant gorilla and dinosaurs. In 1933 the technology was not where it is today; but, the imagination was there. It's all about imagination and it's all about storytelling. The story existed, the imagination existed, and they figured out how to do it for that time…good enough, and better than any audience had seen. The audience was in awe at what was done with stop-motion animation and one big mechanical hand - that was your animatronics - and one big head with stop-motion animation. Today it's digital animation. Today the robotics and animatronics are more advanced and do much more than they could have in 1933, but it was being done back then. The story was being told and we will continue to tell the stories in the future, and the technology will continue to improve and we will be able to do more with animation than we did yesterday. We will be able to do more with animatronics and robotics than we did yesterday, but we can't do more with storytelling. You can just imagine how to tell stories in a more interesting way…how have we not seen it told? And that is the imagination of the writer and that does not rely on technology. All the writer needs to know is what the writer already knew in 1933…that you are writing. You don't worry about how they will get it done. Let the technical people figure that out. Write the story. I hope that writers in the future can write with the same vivid imagination that the writers in the 30's wrote with; not worrying about it because now we have the technology. I haven't seen a movie better than '”The Wizard of Oz,'” more creative, more magical. I haven't seen a movie of its genre that affected me more than the original “King Kong.” I have seen a few movies through history that have affected me as much, because the stories were vibrant and new and wow! Stories like the first “Planet of the Apes” and “Lord of the Rings,” which was a brilliant book by Tolkien. Great stories you know and they continue as long as we have wonderful imaginations and with wonderful writers we will always have that. We all have those wonderful movies to make, and we will make them in ways people have not seen them because we will continue to develop technically. Because as humans we are constantly challenging ourselves to do what we haven't done…to push forward. In the future we will see more, but not necessarily better.
Which invention would help to get to the nex step?
There are many things. I am presently collaborating and have been for a few years with MIT on artificial intelligence. The character's name is Leonardo and it is truly an artificial intelligence. There is technology that is being developed that allows this character to be a true A.I. So he can hear, see, and learn, etc. Imagine if you will (and if you followed what I said about an actor about acting and reacting) one of the most difficult things in the animatronic world and the live action world is eye contact. When you have puppeteers that are actually creating the eye movement, head and neck movement, and body movement of an artificial character and there is an actor on the set, it is almost impossible to follow eye contact. The best thing for an actor is to look at a character and have eye contact as you and I are having right now. Imagine if that dinosaur or artificial character is on the set…if you move he follows you and looks at you no matter what…it will freak you out. With that creature’s performance you will believe much more that the character truly is there. It will raise the bar of the performance of the actor because what he is acting at is looking right at him. So if I can, in fact, use the technology that is being developed at MIT and have my animatronic characters have eyes that actually see and track and look directly at the actor, and the actor can look directly at what it is and be that organic on set, it is going to raise the bar. So, you are constantly looking at your characters to have more reality…to be more organic, to be able to do more of what a live character could do…and the more we do that, the better everything becomes. The more photo-realistic the digital world can be, the better it's going to be for the audience. The more finesse there can be with it, so it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is, the better it can be. Always look at what to improve and all these things can improve to be able to create a digital performance and have it done more efficiently. To have it be live and on the set rather than having it all done in post production would be a great advantage to a director and that what is being worked on right now. For a director to actually see what the digital performance is…what the character looks like on set in real time….those concepts are being developed today and you will see a movie using those concepts soon, but, unfortunately, I don't have the liberty to be able to talk about it right now.
What is your advice to aspiring artists who, upon entering the field get sucked into the digital world right away.
It's very important for people who move into the digital world to realize that computers are tools and they are not more than tools…that they are paint brushes…that they are sculpting and character creating tools. What a person going into the field has to realize is that they have to know much more than how to use a computer. They have to understand story, performances and the basics of art. They have to understand you have to know how to draw with a pencil before you even know how to draw with a computer. You need to know how to sculpt with a block of clay before you start sculpting with a computer. You need to feel it…know how to perform. You need to feel performance. You need to feel what an actor feels. You need to know everything there is to know about story telling…from the story, to an actor's performance, to what that character looks like and how that character performs in every aspect of art. So, you must be a proficient artist... and when I say a proficient artist, I mean in every field, and then learning programs on the computer is about how to use that tool to help you be the artist that you already are. That you know how to draw…that you know how to sculpt…that you know how to paint…how to act, and how to tell a story, and then learn how to use that computer to do all those things that you know how to do and not to think that the computer will do it for you.
Related Links
'The Winston Effect - The Art and History of Stan Winston Studio'
Stan Winston Studio
Discuss Article at the forum
| |
|
