Winnipeg’s critically acclaimed (read: ton-o’-awards) animator Richard Condie, who tackled nuclear war/sawing addiction in The Big Snit, is now tackling computer animation, which may well prove addictive for him now that he’s Getting Started.

Condie is midway through Playroom, a five- or six-minute computer-generated animation (cga) comic opera which he hopes will be ready by early spring. As he toils away in the digital field on his first computer-animated film, the National Film Board is releasing Richard Condie’s Family Album, a deceptively simple cel-tour-de-force compilation that includes Cel Mates, touted as an ‘insider’s view of cel animation.’

Reluctantly (‘I hate analyzing my stories’), Condie gives a plot summary of the latest project, saying there’s temptation involved: ‘I placed a character in a playroom with a bunch of toys and he can do anything but one thing, and of course he does it.’

Playback wanted to know how Condie’s maiden digital voyage is going, so we checked in with him for a progress report on the creative curve from cel to mouse…

PB: What made you decide to give computer animation a shot?

Condie: I don’t know what triggered it… I think I wanted something fresh, as a technique. I had been playing around with my Amiga for years, but it didn’t have the right resolution. Now I’m working on another program, more high-end… I don’t know what high-end means.

PB: What are you using now?

Condie: It’s a Silicon Graphics workstation, the Iris.

I’ve got the unit installed in my house so I can work on it at two in the morning if I want, which turns out to be what I’m doing.’

PB: Software?

Condie: SoftImage.

This program was designed by a filmmaker, Daniel Langlois, so it is a lot nicer to work with, it’s ‘The One’ I think, if you’re about to make a switch.

There’s an exciting exploration feeling you get working in it, it’s a good program.

PB: As to the actual computer animating process, what are the advantages?

Condie: Some things are a lot easier and some things are harder.

PB: What about time frame, is the project going faster than it would using a traditional approach?

Condie: Although some things are faster, right now it’s working out about even. Being able to see the results of a test quickly is an advantage, no more lab work, waiting and waiting and waiting…

It’s a huge change going from drawing to modeling. If I was drawing I would probably take just as long, though speed isn’t the most important thing you should be concerned with when you’re making a film. I don’t think speed is king. I would rather take more time, and do it right.

PB: What are the disadvantages?

Condie: If there’s a hardware failure it’s a huge disadvantage… as opposed to sharpening a pencil, which takes two seconds. I found that to be a real downer.

PB: On the creativity front, is it limiting at all? Some folks fear they’ll spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get things done – that they’ll be doing fidgety technical things.

Condie: I’ve got a handle on it now, but there was, at first, an early start, stop, scratch your head, figure things out stage. Once over, it’s a lot easier.

When you’re learning the program you’re into the whole technical aspect of how to do things. You have to get past that and back to telling a story.

It’s a different medium, you’re dealing with three dimensions; it’s more like theater, where you make a set and move the characters around.

The technique is always secondary, whether its drawing, modeling, whatever. Get past that and start moving along like you’re used to. Even though you’re using all this high-tech stuff, the story is still the most important thing, what happens, the contents.

PB: Does this change your creative process?

Condie: I don’t think so… No.

PB: I just wondered if there was more of an ongoing evolution to the process?

Condie: Well there is that, because with computers there’s so many choices to make. I used to tell a cameraperson how I wanted a shot, now I can control a cameraÉthat’s the creative process.

PB: Does the quick reaction/capability of computer animation affect the project?

Condie: I would say so to some extent; you find out more. There’s an exploration angle to this thing that I find exciting. You could take one of these programs and explore its permutations for years.

PB: Are you sold? After you finish Playroom are you going to do another project on computer?

Condie: I hope so, because I’ve learned the skill. It’s hard to project. I try to dodge questions about what’s going to happen in the future, because nothing ever works out the way you think. Nothing. I could say that probably I would want to stay in this medium.

PB: Can you foresee combining traditional cel technique with this 3D computer animation process?

Condie: You can’t; they’re so vastly different.

PB: Given your probable intention to stay in this medium, are you taking your trademark buggy-eyed, big-tooth folk along on this cga journey?

Condie: Well, I’m trying my best to make the characters pretty dumb looking and act that way too, trying to stay in the same kind of, quote unquote, tradition that I was in, whatever that involved.

I tested it out beforehand, if I didn’t think I could make dumb-looking characters I wouldn’t have got into it at all.

Well it’s reassuring that the beloved exaggerated people that star in Condie flicks have adapted well to 3D.

As to the music, director/producer Condie says it’s also digital: ‘I’ve been using digital sound since ’87 and haven’t looked back.’ Patrick Godfrey is writing the score, and although Condie wrote the libretto – featuring such gems as ‘Ah mie vacche! Che velocita!’ (Ah, my cows! Such velocity!) – his dulcet tones immortalized in The Cat Came Back chorus will not be among the lead vocals on this production; singer Jay Brazeau will perform the opera seria. Ches Yetman shares producer credits with Condie.