BREWMASTERS NOTE: This week Cartoon Brew takes a closer look at the five Academy Award nominated animated shorts. Each day at 10am EST/7am PST we will post an exclusive interview with the director(s) of one of the films. Today, we discuss Studio AKA’s A Morning Stroll with its writer/director Grant Orchard:
Amid Amidi: At Pixar, when artists pitch their short film ideas to John Lasseter, if Lasseter really likes the idea, he hugs you at the end of the presentation. Did you get any hugs at Studio AKA when you pitched A Morning Stroll, and if so, who hugged you?
Grant Orchard: Not really, some curious questions and then an – ‘OK, we trust you, give it a go’. I bet you think we’re all very Downtown Abbey over here. All arch and stiff, but no, it’s all free hugs and love man. In fact it sounds like Mr. Lasseter is holding back a little, he should share it around a bit more.
Amid: More seriously, how did you convince Studio AKA, which is the studio that reps you commercially, to make this film?
Grant: I did pitch it as a brief, diverting 3 minute film. Ultimately it doubled in length to a very brief, diverting 7 minute film. So maybe the partners at Studio AKA (Sue Goffe, Philip Hunt, Marc Craste & Pam Dennis) initially thought it might not be that much of a risk; but it was still a risk as we had no outside funding and had to find a way of making it without affecting the commercial work that was coming through the studio. Also they’ve had significant success with their previous shorts, so it would have been easy for them to have rejected the idea, because it’s not the type of film that you can be sure its going to work until it’s pretty much made. Due to its structure I don’t think I could have conveyed it to them any other way than to actually make it. But they’re all filmmakers and have gone through the same commercial demands as me over the years. People won’t trust us (or acknowledge our experience, skills etc.) to develop a project as it progresses – we usually have to deliver absolutes & fully resolved ideas as part of a pitch. So when it comes to self-initiated work, the partners like to show a bit of faith. Which I think is great.
So in a nutshell, we didn’t make the film with an aim to make it profound or thought provoking – rather the point of it was to be a bit playful in our process – and I think everyone was of the same mind; that we make a really fun, interesting film that people would get a kick out of at festivals.
Amid: I read the original story on which your film is based, and it’s less a story than a six-sentence memory capturing a moment in time. When you read that, did you instantly see a film in it, or did the idea evolve over time?
Grant: It definitely evolved over time. Reading that extract just got me thinking of that scenario in lots of different ways. It felt like an urban myth, and urban myths always get exaggerated and pulled in different directions with each re-telling. Originally I was going to animate three different versions of the story alongside each other. All would have the same shot compositions and length, but would vary in quite subtle ways. Then I guess I had the idea of setting each section 50 years on from each other, and that’s when the chronological three-act structure took shape.