Science Fact or Cinematic Fiction

The chase has long been a cinematic story-telling device.  Fast cuts and impossible stunts make characters seem immensely faster than the actors portraying them.  But all too often in chase scenes there is a maneuver or inconsistency that throws off the audience.  You’d think that this would be less distracting and more controllable with animation.  Yes, animation allows for a lot of leeway with its physical laws.  Screenplays are often animated out of necessity or choice to break the laws of physics and to reveal new ideas and worlds that don’t exist.  But an audience that is very engaged in a fast paced scene might be broken from their trance when they feel as if a character or object did not move the way it should have.  This can often be caused by an inconsistency with Newton’s 3^rd law.  This principle says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Breaking the laws of physics in both animated and live action film can be comical or add to excitement, such as in Despicable Me where Gru punches the shark (mentioned in my previous paper).  However animation can be as equally guilty as live action of maneuvers that break the laws of physics in a distracting manner.

In the Dreamworks film Mr. Peabody and Sherman, there are many physical laws broken.  This film contains a lot of chase sequences and time machine travel scenes that could only be achieved through animation.  But even with the wacky physical laws established in the world of the film, there is one scene that feels very wrong while it is playing out. Mr. Peabody and Sherman are attempting to escape a tomb in ancient Egypt. At one point Sherman is unsuccessful at avoiding a trigger that sets off a booby trap.  He and Mr. Peabody get separated and end up in two separate canoe-like boats.  One of the boats is headed for safety while the other is destined for imminent destruction.  Peabody realizes that he needs to get Sherman into his safe boat and uses a rope to jump to him and swing both of them back to safety.  But the downward force of Mr. Peabody and Sherman swinging at the end of a taught rope that is tied to the boat has no apparent effect on the boat’s trajectory.  Since the boat is supposedly rigged to launch and carry its passengers through a small hole, the audience recognizes when the trajectory should have been shifted.  This can be more thoroughly explained by the conservation of momentum theory, though it is related to Newton’s 3^rd Law.  The conservation of momentum theory would state that the mass and velocity of Mr. Peabody must match the mass and velocity of the boat.  While Mr. Peabody is inside the boat, he acts as an internal force. But when he leaves it to retrieve Sherman, the boat should have increased the velocity since mass has been shed.  But even more distracting is the fact that when Mr. Peabody and Sherman’s velocity is changed because they are swinging perpendicularly to the boat, both their mass and velocity should have an effect on the boat’s velocity and the direction it is travelling in.  If the principle were obeyed, then both boats would have surely crashed into the wall surrounding the small exit. So I suppose I understand why the animators executed the scene this way.

In the Pixar animated feature, UP, an old man and a young boy are tasked with transporting a small Victorian house suspended in the air by millions of balloons, across a jungle, by means of rope strapped to their waists.  Yes, this whole premise is physically impossible to begin with.  However, this concept and the animation of it don’t feel unlikely.  What I mean by this is that the audience doesn’t feel on edge that the house will fall and crush Mr. Frederickson and Russell at any moment. This illusion is very successfully maintained until the pursuit scene.  While being chased by hundreds of dogs, Mr. Frederickson and Russell are faced with the challenge of jumping over large gaps between rocks on the mountain.  Russell falls and swings back and forth but this has no effect on the momentum of the house or on his friends who are carrying him now.  Russell mentions earlier in the movie that he and Mr. Frederickson just weigh down the floating house. Therefore, Russell’s weight and his pendular motion would have an effect on the house’s movement.  However the house shows no reaction to his change in velocity.

In the Disney film Tangled, there is a scene where Flynn Rider grabs a hold of Rapunzel’s hair and jumps from a high platform, swinging to the other side of a dam.  Assuming Rapunzel’s scalp is indestructible still does not explain why the force and momentum of a fully-grown man swinging from her hair has no effect on her or the small rock her hair is tied to.  This one of few scenes where the camera shows her while someone is suspended from her hair.  Otherwise the camera doesn't focus on her, and the distance that Rapunzel’s lengthy hair puts between her and Flynn may be the key to keeping audiences from cringing for the poor girl. She could not be capable of rivaling the force that is being put on her body from the people who climb her hair. And in this scene, her hair would easily be broken or her hair would be pulled out from the rock she had no time to tie it to.

Any fast-paced scene worth watching is going to have some sort of effects that make it feel all the more exciting.  Breaking the laws of physics can be a great tool for causing something unexpected to happen.  One of my favorite laws of story-telling written by a Pixar writer says (basically) that coincidences should only be the cause for problems, not be the method of solving them.  I think this rule can altered for breaking the rules of physics as well.  If breaking a physical law is the line between a character’s survival and death, then it shouldn't feel coincidental. In other words, make your animation say what you mean it to.