Not to talk about the thief and the cobbler on main again, because it has many issues (both story based and like. Politically) but the recobbled cut is really fascinating to me in so many ways

As a film it's so uninterested in telling a story, but instead it's only interest is in strange visuals, which is partially frustrating as a viewer, but mostly I have to respect it. It really is just a movie about things happening. Things happen and nothing can stop them

Theres an interesting artistic philosophy to it, it's in constant motion. It functions like a machine, and if one peice of it goes missing, the whole thing falls apart. And that's interesting to me, because that's the whole plot of the film, what little there is anyway

And the climactic sequence is also literally just a machine falling apart in a glorious kaboom because its jammed with a tak. And it's interesting to me, because that's essentially what happened to the film. Its ~auteur~ got canned and the film went to pieces

Its almost as if the original vision of the film had something to say about the nature of art, and more specifically animation, but that the auteur was so blinded by his need to be impressive that he himself became the tak that made the machine go to pieces

Ah hübris. Mans folly and all that what. I kind prefer the thief and the cobbler as an unfinished film, though, because, not only is it MOSLTY complete, but it also provides an interesting perspective on art, unintentionally

Richard Williams had seemingly less than no interest in telling a story with visuals, but instead using the vague impression of story to serve the visuals, which is usually not how it's done. However, if you're into watching something like that, and I am, its wonderful

At least the recobbled cut is. It has no interest in characters either, other than how they can emote visually. Aside from Zig Zag, who kind of carries the film on his back because vincent price is amazing. I mean I do like the characters, but theres not much to them

I will say though, I am biased, I tend to be attracted to fairytale style stories in which the characters have minimal personality and the stories are simple as well. Fairytales are like minimalist storytelling in a way, and that sort of thing makes way for complex visuals

The thief and the cobbler is very minimalist in story and character to make way for the most insanely over complicated and overstuffed visuals I've ever seen in animation. And to be honest I really love it for that, but I'm glad that most other movies dont go for that vibe

Richard Williams didn't really approach animation in the most intuitive or thoughtful way, he seems to have just sort of gone for it. Like the more impressive and overly complicated something can be, the better, and the harder it is to compete, the more value it has.

I personally dont agree with that philosophy, however I still find myself falling into it all the time. So in a way, I see myself in him. I see an artist who's interests lie in creating art in the most complicated way imaginable, even if it means the project falls apart

I think every artist feels this at times, but I struggle with it often. Where do you let go of your vision to make way for the rest of it to be good? What aspects can be simplified or given less love and attention to ensure the completion of a full piece?

For richard William's, that answer was pretty obviously and resoundingly "nothing." And we know this because the thief and the cobbler was taken from him and gutted like a dead fish. I dont really have a final point to this thread, I just have a lot of thots

I guess it also hits close to home to me because my favorite professor told me I animate like Richard William's, who is almost as famous for having been kicked off his own opus as he is for his actually finished works. Like I said, I see myself in his inability to compromise

Just something to consider o suppose