The Art Of Experimental Storytelling

Experimental storytelling for me is the most challenging of all the brain teasers any art can ever face. In this storytelling method they challenge the hearts and minds of the audience with bold ideas to both inspire and provide insight. The plots do not obviously point out the structure of the story because the work itself respects the intelligence of the viewers who can figure out the plot on their own with some guidance from the creators. The productions have a sincere desire to challenge themselves by redefining itself through cerebral concepts, nuanced character development, and groundbreaking writing. It is quite rare to see any art attempting this route because of the sheer difficulty and hardships it creates for all who seek it. To me it is worth acknowledging those works that try to attempt this feat for that is what separates the unique from the crowd. Even if we disagree on the outcome, it is still nevertheless a worthwhile experiment for everyone to take note of for what the idea represents. Experimental storytelling and animation have come hand in hand since the art form's origins which for me is what makes deconstructing this aspect of Mad Men all the more fun to write about as it was one of those few shows that traveled down this path.

For much of my life I had only known of experimental storytelling as simply one school; however, since Mad Men’s arrival there are now two schools of thought on this plain of storytelling. The original method is what we can refer to now as the Old School which has been around for the past more or less eighty years. Its influence can be felt in the classic works of Walt Disney, Chuck Jones, & Brian Wilson which carried on through contemporary works such as The Simpsons & PIXAR to name a few. The second one is nowadays the emerging New School which came about from David Chase’s groundbreaking The Sopranos which was the series that redefined the drama in how it operates on multiple layers in a conceptual and deep manner from the perspective of the writer. Matt Weiner, a protégé of Chase, continued from where The Sopranos left off by further expanding on the literary and visual vocabulary of the New School through his own naturalistic style of writing and observations. This new artistic development mirrored what had occurred earlier in the Animation Renaissance during the 1990's as the movement successfully revived the creator-driven aesthetic of the Golden Age cartoons. While the Old and New School shared the same artistic ambitions regarding experimental storytelling, the two diverged in several key understandings relating to how one should approach certain creative areas along with the self-restraints we have become accustomed to as artists.

This very subject brings up a very interesting and fascinating question. To what extent should any definite work of art loosen the restraints on itself when experimenting with aspects such as timing & pacing, character development, tone, and the manipulation of abstract imagery? This hypothesis is of great interest to me because as artists we wonder how far we can go with our tinkering before we inevitably pause and ask ourselves if we have reached as far as we could take the concept. It's a moment that all artists tend to expect and even worry from time to time because it forces us to take a second look at our work and begin to form a boundary of sorts around the vision for the goal we seek. This unique experiment would not only expand on the literary and visual vocabulary of the New School but it would also put the approach itself to the test as well. So if there was any series that was bold enough to carry out this experiment it would be none other than Mad Men to see what the results from this brain teaser could be. Let's explore the differences between the Old School and the New School with specific examples on these four key areas as they relate or contrast to Mad Men, what the series was striving for in its ambitions later on, and what it all means with regard to experimental storytelling in the end.

If there was any person you would go to for inspiration on timing & pacing it would be none other than Chuck Jones, for you never have to look at your watch whenever you watch any of his kickass films. In fact we are always surprised to find out that in spite of the amount of story packed into his shorts they only run for six minutes if you ignore the title cards. The reason why his films play out that way is because Jones knew exactly how much time he would devote to a sequence before pacing onto the next scene. Filler is not a factor in his films because the guy knows when to cut the superfluous from the big picture. Jones' cerebral magnum opus What’s Opera Doc? is the perfect example of his meticulous approach to this area as he pays homage to Walt Disney's Fantasia, satirizes the pomposity of Richard Wagner’s operatic music, and provides a poignant finality on the Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd rivalry within a span of several minutes. That is truly a lot of material to digest in such a short amount of time, but a pro like Jones knows how to wisely condense all those ideas within the allotted time he has on his plate. As a result the story never runs overly fast or slow to the point where we can’t allow ourselves to absorb the intimate moments in the story. This was true when Bugs & Elmer gracefully danced together, or when Mel Blanc and Arthur Q. Bryan sang beautifully in character, and to the heartbreaking climax as a remorseful Elmer realizes he actually killed Bugs in what is arguably one of the greatest moments in all of film. This balanced pacing is why people took away soo much from the picture from beginning to end.

A key aspect of the New School is to have a show pace itself more leisurely without fearing or considering the constraints of the allotted time. This is awesome because it allows a show like Mad Men to take the time in telling the story in a graceful and poetic manner just as the Japanese animators have mastered. It allows the audience to really focus in on the little details that we often take for granted that help tell the story. After the fourth season though the show began to spread out their plots in a more passive way throughout the course of a season. As a result the series padded their stories with unnecessary filler that really slowed down the stories to a snail's pace. Even the stately Japanese animators understand the need to keep the story going in order to not lose the interest of the audience in the long run. I found myself getting bored and looking at the clock more frequently around this time which had not crossed my mind before. The hour long stories seem to run much longer than they appear to be because the timing & pacing just anchored down the story, especially the two hour stories. This is why the pacing of the season six opener “The Doorway” was sluggish given that too much emphasis is spent on what was essentially Don & Megan Draper's uncut travelogue to Hawaii. The only key moments I took away was Peggy Olson siting alone in the new firm, Don picking up an object of deep significance, and Don going back to his old ways with his affairs at the very end. Jones put out what they thought was needed to the story relative to the several minutes he had to tell it whereas the series wrote more disproportionally to what it wanted to fill for the next hour or two which made the audience become less engaged.

The tinkering over a character’s humanity is a tricky issue that can drive the artists at the helm mad and often pushes the audience over freak outs regarding changes made to the subjects they love dearly. If you think about it the situation really is a difficult juggling act for the artists to find themselves in because they have to consider showing the dark side of an individual while still having the audience invested in their guy. The awesome folks at PIXAR are among the very few that are the masters of this subject. They understand how to effectively translate the not so desirable aspects of the subject in an insightful way that still makes it acceptable for the audience to digest. The animators are also acutely aware of themselves when they crossed the line between making an awry but relatable human being into an aloof cardboard figure. Take for instance the scene from the groundbreaking Toy Story where Woody the Cowboy pushes Buzz Lightyear off the window of Andy’s room. In conception the scene was supposed to show how much envy Woody had for Buzz’s popularity with the toys and how low he would go to make himself feel like he was on top of the world. But the scene in the storyboard reels did not play out with test audiences as well as the animators had hoped because Woody appeared less like a person with blemishes and more like an unsympathetic jackass who you just wanted to punch. So the animators rethought their entire approach to the character by making him an individual with foibles who, while capable of making serious errors in judgement, was not soo dis-likable to the point of revulsion. I think that was a huge reason why the Woody character became such a well-rounded and complex character. Later in Mad Men's run we see Don Draper, like Woody, fall apart because of his faults which creatively makes sense. After all, we love stories that involve characters losing their way before seeking their redemption in the end. It makes for insightful character development and compelling storytelling because we can relate to their pursuits. So the New School had an interesting approach to this area that emphasized less on moderation and relying more on heavy doses in conveying the character's negative attributes to the audience. In this case the show was raising his negatives because it wanted the audience to turn on a troubled character they once rooted for. This I believe was a big mistake however because the nuance of Don's personality was lost as he was made into a caricature of his former self. His growth as a character had been stunted as we saw distasteful situations of the guy choking a lover to death in a dream, throwing money at Peggy as if she were a prostitute, and him embarrassing her about the Ted Chaough fling in front of the board. Honestly I just wanted to kick the man to the curb. On paper these moments were supposed to reveal a fallen man, but in execution it shows a very detestable character who we could not understand his sincere wants and desires. If he was written to be Walter White or Michael Corleone, that would be fine...but this is Don Draper we're talking about here. We found ourselves suddenly labeling him a villain which goes against the naturalism the show was striving for in which all the characters were portrayed as flawed human beings with shades of grey. Don doing an irritating impression of a baby unintentionally brought to focus what had gone wrong with the character, for if you were to draw a business suit over Woody from the story reel you will sadly find the Don Draper of later years.

It is only a natural way for us to be sad in times of despair, for whenever there is happiness there must also be grief. We need to vent out or cry once in a while in order to fully flush out all our emotions. Once we have licked our wounds can we then move on and be happy once more. If we always ignore the blues in our lives then we can’t truly experience the human condition. That’s why it is important to showcase all sides of the human spirit…even if it means exploring the dour side of our nature. That is what creates truly great drama and comedy, because it adds meat to the story and is therapeutic for the artist alongside the audience. And with that emotion comes another unique challenge: how morose can you take a work before the sensation itself takes over the tone? One of the few shows that was able to effectively tackle on that question was The Simpsons during their creative zenith in the seventh and eighth seasons with conceptually dark stories like "Homer’s Enemy". It is no wonder that some of the talented people who worked on the show eventually found their way into PIXAR and Disney afterward. The plot works magnificently because showrunners Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein were able to juggle between the melancholies of the concept with the dry humor by trying to write it through the lens of the audience as they were once themselves. The story could have been overly gloomy to the point of it being hard to swallow, but there was some moderation involved. While the episode was somber by its shockingly hilarious end it never is soo depressing to the point of the emotion dragging down the entire story. The misery is measured so we can actually be disturbed while also absorb the commentary with laughter along the way. You can see around a decade later from that episode how Mad Men was channeling for that window into the human condition in order to push the boundaries of the show like The Simpsons did before. Mad Men was truly a reflective show as we consumed the sadness of the characters who were continually dealing with their woes before trying to let go. Its moving portrayal of those intimate moments was one of the defining hallmarks of the show for that very reason. I believe this is why we had those aforementioned scenes of Don among other significant moments during seasons five and six especially because we were meant to absorb the pure doldrums and angst of his mind which I understand and get. But sometimes such things are a lot to take in for anyone before it becomes at some point unbearable to consume. Despair can be a powerfully intoxicating emotion for any artist to handle when left uncapped, believe me as I struggled for well over a year on my animated short to finally find a way to cap the emotions. The feeling is soo mesmerizing that without some type of imaginary barrier the artist may find the bleakness spilling over to the rest of the artwork. The downside to this frequent use of gloom during the course of a season was that it lessened the emotional impact of the character's plights on the viewers. This unchecked melancholy anchored down the mood which consequently rendered it not as enjoyable as it once was. I didn't realize till much later that the creative use of an invisible rhythm to balance out the emotions was the main reason why works such as The Simpsons, Toy Story, Bambi, Pinocchio and Pet Sounds were able to provide an enjoyable experience while delving deeply into the human experience.

The use of abstractions is no easy task because of the challenge in creating cryptic messages without losing the audience. This is why the artists’ manipulation of those themes is crucial to the overall effectiveness of the method. If Bambi represented the type of ambiguity that exists in a definite story then the avart garde masterpiece Fantasia explored a vagueness that is music simply for its own sake, otherwise known as absolute music. We saw that showcased in the kick-ass sequence "The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" where the surreal and trippy visuals hover around us in a variety of ways that are honestly hard to put down into words. Such obscure visuals in their purest form could only work in an absolute piece like the Fugue because with no definite story to be had the boundaries were limitless for the animators’ imagination. But even with that open canvas the animators still restrained themselves in some areas. The artists knew they could not leave the audience hanging because then the viewers would protest against the absolute imagery. So after some debate the animators’ manipulated the visuals in order to guide the viewer to their world without sacrificing the conceptual nature of their animation. This is why the visuals segue way from the musicians performing the score to imagery that suggests instruments before the abstractions became more cryptic in nature during the duration of the sequence. The result is twofold: that the viewer is not lost in the picture and that the visuals are theoretical but not so much that it hinders them as well. I love ambiguity and abstractions because it tests the viewer with coming to their own conclusions over that the imagery represents. The visuals play with our minds very much like a intricate puzzle. Just as the pieces from the panel vary in size the imagery can range from the surreal to the nonsensical which is what makes them so unique in the arts. Mad Men was a fun show in that sense because we left to figure out on our own what certain symbols or suggestions actually meant in the bigger picture. The genius of the mystery was that it got us talking about the episode for days at a time until the next one aired. So at a certain point the show decided to render some of their plots in a more aggressively cryptic manner than previous years. It was trying to rewrite the rules of ambiguity by countering that in a definite story there needs no restraint for the obscure imagery to be effective as it would be cheating the audience if it were so. And while you have to admire them for accepting that challenge, the show in the end is not an absolute work like the Fugue but Bambi as it is trying to tell an explicit story to its viewers. Of course this doesn’t mean it can’t have abstract imagery or meanings in its story...that would be crazy. What it means though is that the method must be handled with more care and thought given that it is playing under a whole new set of rules apart from an absolute work which the show handled less artfully in that regard.

Remember how Bambi & Mad Men were once on the same page in how they used vagueness in framing the floating questions as a lead in to a much bigger inquiry? Around this time the show was diverging from that path by setting up newer inquiries that I felt were diverging from the thought provoking questions that had clearly defined the show. Some of the lingering situations that come to mind include: Don Draper having these abrupt spasms and sickly coughs, a stranger named Grandma Ida who claims to be Don’s nanny, and the mysteries surrounding Bob Benson and Diana Bauer. All of these threads set up very interesting angles that pointed to a variety of possible parallels to Don’s mortality, checkered family history, ambition, and duality. Yet after such tantalizing speculation these vague plots were disappointingly revealed to be meandering red hearings that really added nothing to the story. Perhaps most frustrating to me was Diana which the series spent quite a lot of time framing her as Don’s spiritual soul mate only for her to disappear into the night as a plot device. If you were to take away these vague characters and situations from the series you will find that they will have no discernible impact on the show along the lines if Man was written out of the story of Bambi. When you have a show that is telling a well-defined story there are in fact limits to how far one can go with the ambiguity before you begin to lose the audience along the way. Even an absolute piece like the Fugue took that thought into deliberation as well. I appreciate that the show wanted to have these threads to be abstract in the artistic sense like the Fugue, but at some point the approach became too much of a good thing as it eventually came across to me as maddening, formulaic, and even silly to its own detriment.

Well, you probably figured out by now that I belong to the Old School which I personally find to be superior and still relevant today in works such as from the likes of Disney and PIXAR. On the surface all those examples may vary in aesthetics that delve into the cartoony, realistic, or abstract. Underneath the surface, however, they all had an artistic and disciplined understanding of those critical experimentations that challenged those works to become the sophisticated and novelistic influences we continue to look towards for inspiration. Even in a limitless canvas like animation, all these groundbreaking works still went by a set of rules that made the situations believable to their unique realms for us to accept and not question. It can be called a “discipline” as Chuck Jones described it or as Walt Disney called simply “the plausible impossible”. This is why throughout these two parts I reviewed the show through the ways of the Old School. I feel this way because as animators we have to artistically control ourselves in order to make sure that the uniquely personal touches we bring to the table become creative flourishes to our stories as diverse artists like Ralph Bakshi, Don Bluth and John Kricfalusi showed during their peaks. Without this crucial eye these special traits become distractions and our work consequently suffers. Mad Men in my view lost its way around this time because of its missteps in those areas. I guess that explains why I see flaws in those aspects of the New School and how I get frustrated from time to time by the show's excursions and excesses. As Leonardo Da Vinci once said soo poetically,"the supreme misfortune is when theory outstrips performance." But aside from my critique and frustrations with the New School I don't fault Mad Men for experimenting in its own way. After all, I can’t recall a show that has intellectually challenged my own perspective on experimental storytelling in a way that the show has clearly done. While I may be a follower of the Old School I'd be lying if I said the New School didn't expand my understanding of storytelling or inspire me in my own work as well. As an animator trying to understand from the artist’s perspective in these works, I admire that the show was aiming for something of greater spiritual depth and gravitas through their testing. I am an opened minded artist that way because animation is an art form where many different styles such as Disney, Warner Brothers, and UPA influence one other. My God the religions and political parties of the world would be envious over the diverse interpretations that exist under this kickass tent. In the bigger scheme of things you will find throughout the history of the arts storytelling evolving in a variety of ways. Just look at Medieval and Renaissance paintings; observe Dadaism and Surrealism artwork; watch Traditional, Stop Motion, and Computer animated films; and listen to Folk and Art Rock music. Yes, this can even apply to a structure like Experimental Storytelling itself with the advent of the Old and New Schools. This alternative take on the method provided by Mad Men and other similarly themed shows reflects the times that we live in nowadays just like the aforementioned movements of the past. When Gene Siskel reviewed Fantasia for its 50th anniversary he said there were two ways of enjoying the film: one for the animation and the second from a cultural historical point of view. The same can be said for Mad Men. You can watch the show through its study of the human condition and critique it as a definite work of art trying to make do without some of the creative self-restrains we have become accustomed to as artists. It makes for a very fascinating observation because Mad Men is playing by its own rules and unique interpretation of discipline and that is different from what others before have defined it which I accept. The series did more than just simply expand on the vocabulary and visuals of the school it represents. If you think about it the aesthetics the series promoted it could have easily disappeared following the conclusion of The Sopranos as there was no other show of its kind that would continue in its footsteps. But Matt Weiner filled in the gap, made it into his own, and proved that it was a new style of writing that was not limited to just one show. More importantly the show confirmed that its technique was in fact an alternative track of experimental storytelling set apart from the old that Mad Men deserves credit for helping create. It really is a huge accomplishment, for it’s not every day you find a work leaving behind a new art in storytelling...which in itself is the legacy of the show.