ARTV2613

I have never seen a documentary with animation elements in it before so I got intrigued immediately when I saw the hand-drawn scene. But I also wondered why they used animation in a documentary instead of just making a film with actors. Then I realised the mass shooting happened in 1966. It had been too long before the documentary was produced so it might be hard to recreate the scene as realistic as it was. Given this fact, using animation to do most part of the story telling is actually a great idea.

The type of the animation used in the documentary is known as Rotoscoping, which is drawing over live-action footage of actors, then juxtaposing their moving bodies and faces against photographed or illustrated backdrops (Seitz, 2016). That explains why the animated scenes are far more realistic than common animations. Using animation to record such a tragedy is quite a bold move. I think the point is about the animation part. How to use it properly to recreate history precisely in a more engaging way without being accused of being too entertaining.

I really love the story telling throughout the whole documentary. From this perspective, no doubt the animation element are successful as it plays an essential role in describing the crime scenes.

References

TOWER | Film about Survivors & Heroes of 1966 Univ. of Texas Shooting | Independent Lens | PBS. (2020). Retrieved 14 June 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/tower/

Seitz, M. (2020). Tower movie review & film summary (2016) | Roger Ebert. Retrieved 14 June 2020, from https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/tower-2016

Tower (2016 film). (2020). Retrieved 14 June 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_(2016_film)