<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digital Dogsbodies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=218</link>
	<description>Bob Rehak&#039;s Blog about Special Effects, Videogames, Film, and Television</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:18:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Rehak</title>
		<link>http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=218&#038;cpage=1#comment-5534</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Rehak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=218#comment-5534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arf!

Your thoughts on the unintentional pathos of dog acting make me think, weirdly, of pornography I&#039;ve seen -- not at all to equate human and dog bodies, but to point out how untenably fragile the illusion of &quot;pleasure&quot; can be when it&#039;s all too clear that what&#039;s happening on screen is less about some freely willed performance than the churning of a heartless industrial engine.

I was disturbed enough by this gap between preferred diegetic reality and inferred profilmic reality to ask my wife whether the dogs in &lt;em&gt;Space Buddies&lt;/em&gt; struck her as being freaked out. She assured me the dogs would be panting if they were scared or tired ... but it didn&#039;t completely put my worries to rest.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arf!</p>
<p>Your thoughts on the unintentional pathos of dog acting make me think, weirdly, of pornography I&#8217;ve seen &#8212; not at all to equate human and dog bodies, but to point out how untenably fragile the illusion of &#8220;pleasure&#8221; can be when it&#8217;s all too clear that what&#8217;s happening on screen is less about some freely willed performance than the churning of a heartless industrial engine.</p>
<p>I was disturbed enough by this gap between preferred diegetic reality and inferred profilmic reality to ask my wife whether the dogs in <em>Space Buddies</em> struck her as being freaked out. She assured me the dogs would be panting if they were scared or tired &#8230; but it didn&#8217;t completely put my worries to rest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan North</title>
		<link>http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=218&#038;cpage=1#comment-5471</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan North</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=218#comment-5471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Who&#039;s a good boy, then? You are. Yes you are. Yes you are. Nice post. It&#039;s as if you translated my &quot;WTF?&quot; blog into a coherent argument. 

You&#039;re right. Dogs can&#039;t unionise. You don&#039;t need to pay them repeat fees or a cut of the grosses. They&#039;ll work for scale and/or Mutt Mix. I said this on my own comments page, but I&#039;m all for recycling, and it seems pertinent here: My problem with dog movies is that dogs are just terrible actors (with the notable and unfair exception of Gromit). Whenever they&#039;re asked to portray any kind of emotional state (running the gamut from cute to worried via defensive or confused), I don&#039;t see the performance - all I see is a dum labrador eyeing up the scooby snacks that are being dangled in front of them just out of shot. Either that, or you can tell that they&#039;re desperate to stop reshooting that &quot;hilarious&quot; skateboard scene; in those cases, I always assume there&#039;s some kind of cattle-prod or other instrument of coercion just off camera. Invariably, talking movie dogs are supposed to convey &quot;sassy,&quot; when all I can see in their eyes is &quot;hungry.&quot;

But I like your idea that dogs (and other animals) are intermediate test cases (hey, we experiment on them to test shampoos and airbags, so why not this?) for digital performance enhancement. &quot;Man&#039;s best friend&quot;? More like &quot;man&#039;s cheapest proxy&quot;. Puppetising animals has been Disney&#039;s stock-in-trade for decades, and I can&#039;t help wondering if it has cumulatively helped us to antropomorphise animals for real. You like to think you have an empathetic bond with your dog, when really you&#039;re just the guy who knows how to work a tin opener. OK, that&#039;s a bit cynical.  Maybe I&#039;m not qualified to comment on a bunch of movies I&#039;m deliberately avoiding...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who&#8217;s a good boy, then? You are. Yes you are. Yes you are. Nice post. It&#8217;s as if you translated my &#8220;WTF?&#8221; blog into a coherent argument. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re right. Dogs can&#8217;t unionise. You don&#8217;t need to pay them repeat fees or a cut of the grosses. They&#8217;ll work for scale and/or Mutt Mix. I said this on my own comments page, but I&#8217;m all for recycling, and it seems pertinent here: My problem with dog movies is that dogs are just terrible actors (with the notable and unfair exception of Gromit). Whenever they&#8217;re asked to portray any kind of emotional state (running the gamut from cute to worried via defensive or confused), I don&#8217;t see the performance &#8211; all I see is a dum labrador eyeing up the scooby snacks that are being dangled in front of them just out of shot. Either that, or you can tell that they&#8217;re desperate to stop reshooting that &#8220;hilarious&#8221; skateboard scene; in those cases, I always assume there&#8217;s some kind of cattle-prod or other instrument of coercion just off camera. Invariably, talking movie dogs are supposed to convey &#8220;sassy,&#8221; when all I can see in their eyes is &#8220;hungry.&#8221;</p>
<p>But I like your idea that dogs (and other animals) are intermediate test cases (hey, we experiment on them to test shampoos and airbags, so why not this?) for digital performance enhancement. &#8220;Man&#8217;s best friend&#8221;? More like &#8220;man&#8217;s cheapest proxy&#8221;. Puppetising animals has been Disney&#8217;s stock-in-trade for decades, and I can&#8217;t help wondering if it has cumulatively helped us to antropomorphise animals for real. You like to think you have an empathetic bond with your dog, when really you&#8217;re just the guy who knows how to work a tin opener. OK, that&#8217;s a bit cynical.  Maybe I&#8217;m not qualified to comment on a bunch of movies I&#8217;m deliberately avoiding&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
