This column originally appeared on Jim Hill Media on July 27, 2006 as the second installment of a three-part series about the Warner Brothers release of “The Ant Bully”.

I talked with Ken Mitchroney, the Head of Story and Director of Digital Photography, about many of the in-jokes & film influences that can be found in this animated feature.

If you were looking for someone who has experience in story on animated productions at most of the players in Hollywood, then this guy would be well placed on the list. The name of Ken Mitchroney is found on the credits of many animated television and film productions. Usually as part of the story crew, but for "The Ant Bully," he steps up to the plate as a utility fielder, as it were. It seemed as if he was there to help fill a number of roles on the production.

You've seen his work before as he was part of the story crew for Pixar's "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters Inc.," Dreamworks "Shrek 2" and Disney's "Mickey's Three Musketeers." Prior to that he worked on animation productions for Disney, Warner Brothers and more as well as drawing for a number of comic book titles. For a brief period, he even had his own animation studio in Florida.

Branching out into other well-known art forms, he learned the art of pin striping and other gifts from classic car culture icon, Ed "Big Daddy" Roth. But he really seemed to find his stride working in Irving for DNA. It was the right place at the right time as he put all of his talent and experience together to be an integral part of the film's crew. During a recent interview, he shared some thoughts on the production.

Roger: We chatted a bit about using traditional film making techniques for this animated film. Can you tell us about how that was helpful in this production?

Ken:   Over the years, it's becoming increasingly important to use filmmaking techniques in all facets of animated films. I mean, we ARE making a visual representation of the story. 

The use of good staging, character placement and composition, and understanding of camera usage (lenses, dolly equipment and so forth) really are important tools in the telling of the story.

On "The Ant Bully" especially, I introduced our crew to the use of director's viewfinders. We found these tools invaluable. I've been using them for years, but introducing it to the story crew helped them immensely.

If a storyboard artist is having trouble composing a shot, we would mock up a quick set, get a few story artists - or "victims" - whoever was standing around - and as you would on a live set, work your shot out from there, using the viewfinder. This way, the story artist can see the shot he needs to draw, and then can break it down mechanically in a down-shot overview and start placing cameras for preceding shots in his sequence.

When we launched the story artists on a sequence, I tried to give them a down shot of the set and where the actors were, so they could move their characters and compose their shots. We'd work it out as if you were shooting live action, so as they place cameras "on the down," and as they place their  actors, they're using their natural story visual talents to draw what is actually being seen through the lens. This now gives all the departments in the production a road map of camera moves and character path, and it doesn't waste the story artist's time trying to guess what he wants.

Ken Mitchroney and his element of choice
Photo by Roger Colton

I have an old Mitchell viewfinder from a camera used in the late '40s and '50s, and when shots went through animation after being composed in layout, I brought that into the screening room for animation dailies. I could check and balance out shots after they were animated, using the cross hairs in the old Mitchell, which automatically shows you all four quadrants of the screen for balance. What started out as a gag prop turned into an incredibly useful tool.

The folks at Panavision in Irving were kind enough to bring cameras and equipment for a one-day seminar for layout and story departments. The artists were able to work with the cameras and dollies, and get a feel for what it's really like to shoot and use cameras, as opposed to staring at their monitors and trying to imagine. That was eye opening for the whole crew.

One good use of just the plain viewfinder went as far as animation: In dailies, there was a problem with a scene because the camera moves seemed flat. I knew what the problem was, but the animator was the one who needed to fix it.

So I called him in my office, took out the viewfinder, and let him watch two or three camera moves from classic films off my monitor through the viewfinder. When he saw this, he could feel in the center of his chest the move.

Then we looked at his scene through the viewfinder, and he saw the flatness. So we worked on the move. I left him the viewfinder to double check and triple check his scenes, and when we both looked at it together when he was finished, you could feel it as well as see it. You gotta love these toys! . .  

Roger: Within that context, we discussed how a frame is set to provide emphasis on a particular element within the frame, be it a character, characters or objects. Can you tell us a bit about why that was important?

Ken:   Composing a frame is key to making the point of that shot. Where should we be looking? Which way is the action going? What is the point of the shot? Using set dressing to help eye-line and using character placement for emphasis are all part of composing one shot.

Every shot in the film is important. There are no "bridges." If you're recording a shot on film, it should not be wasted as a "transitional element." It exists because it's important. Using compositional skills helps make that point clearer.

It's said I have an unhealthy obsession with the Warner Bros. films of the late '30s, '40s and '50s. Sadly, it's true. But learning early on - and even today - from compositional greats like Mike Curtiz, John Huston and Raoul Walsh, just to name a few, helped me when I was in film school (and even now) to realize just what a good looking, useful tool good staging composition is to move your story forward.  

Roger: Over the course of the production, you mentioned showing the crew various scenes from classic films to give them examples of some of these techniques. Was there one scene from a particular film or director that somewhat got the message across what you wanted them to find?

Ken:  Here's something silly I did, just to sort of give an on-the-nose example:

In the 1941 Errol Flynn film, "Footsteps in the Dark," Errol and his sidekick, Allen Jenkins, are having a conversation. They are standing and having a conversation in a room full of paintings.

Errol stands up in the shot with an idea to tell Allen Jenkins. He turns and looks at Allen and gives him the information. Now, Flynn is taller than Jenkins, which gets your attention. He's the one with the power and the information. Jenkins is lower than him, and is receiving the information.

And placed between them, to help Errol Flynn's eye-line connect with Allen Jenkins' eye-line, is a rather large, Erte-esque painting of a woman pointing in the direction of Allen Jenkins, with her shoulder off Flynn's eye-line but her finger pointing at Jenkins' eye-line.

It's so on the nose it's hilarious.

But I blew that frame up and put it in layout and story, and I put it on my door with a note that says, "It's not just us." Meaning that it may sound like nit-picking to compose shots by moving the set dressing or the actors or what have you, but I just wanted to let them know that this is what filmmakers do.

I tried to show the crew as many good, classic films as possible, and I constantly hounded them to watch Turner Classic Movies. "American Idol" is nice, but it's not going to show you how to shoot a boardroom scene.

The film I used the most to show them what we wanted in "The Ant Bully" was "Lawrence of Arabia." We wanted the scale, scope and depth that David Lean achieved in this great film.

This also suggested our lens theories for our film, which was 20mm and below lenses for the ant world, to make it huge in scale, and 50 mm and above lenses for the human world, which is our standard eye forward, keeping the human world as cramped as possible. This worked out great, and gave us a visual language for the film. All I can say is, "God Bless Lawrence!" It really helped in the pre-visualization stage.

Roger: The concept of work booking was something I found rather interesting. Can you explain a bit about the concept and how helpful was it to everyone working on the various elements of the production?

Ken:   Work booking is the visual conduit from the storyboard drawings to the layout department that is composing the movie on computer screen. Early on, I suggested work booking to help speed up production and to take the pressure off the layout department somewhat, and to give Director John Davis and myself one more chance to change the visualization before things went down the pipeline.

What our version of work booking entails was copies of the sequence in storyboards printed on a page; the key frames were blown up and next to those key frames was a down shot of camera placement and character, and the lenses to be used. This also included art department previsualization of the scene. These were pinned up and the editor, the director of photography and the director, with the help of the head of work booking, could walk through the entire sequence, agree on everything from camera to lenses, etc., sign off on it, and send it to layout.

This provided a no-questions-asked road map for the layout artists. So, what would take six hours to try to figure out on the fly would take three hours for first-pass layout. It saved us a ton of time.

Personally, I had not used work booking before, but the production needed it. I'd seen it in operation at Disney, and it eliminated any guesswork. You could put it in front of the layout artists, and BANG, you had everything you needed to get the first shot together.

Roger: And yes, thank you, what homages to other sources should people notice or not notice?

Ken:   I've always considered this to be a film made by fans. I mean this in a GOOD way. We've been to the conventions. We've done the panels. We've watched the same science fiction movies, the same junky old TV. We can talk "Star Trek" with the best of them. We know all the Ray Harryhausen movies, chapter and verse. And it was just fun to tip our hat to some of our "obsessions" and inspirations.

There's a "Talos" bowling trophy in the Nickles' living room (Talos is the statue from "Jason and the Argonauts.") The sound effect of the ants in the Warner Bros. movie, "Them!" runs throughout the film. There are homages to my favorite filmmakers in various shots. Even Ricardo Montalban (Head of Council) speaks lines reminiscent of lines from "Fantasy Island" and "Wrath of Khan."

It's just the Joe Dante in us, I guess, that causes us to add these elements and keep all of us fans in the loop. Things like that make it a hell of a lot more fun. And you can't do it anywhere else except at DNA Productions. We're not making fun of it - we're celebrating it!

Roger: On the subject of story, with the book as a starting point, how much freedom did the story crew have to work with?

Ken: When John Davis delivered his adaptation of the book - his script - what I did was launch the artists on their sequences, with the understanding that they were allowed to expand only after they did what John had on the script. Visually play with it, but don't wander too much. If you want to do something different, offer it as an alt (alternative) and we'll pitch it to John. I never say no, no matter how weird it is. Just do what John wants, and offer the alt after the story pitch.

The thing I love about working with John Davis is he always allows you to challenge him. He may not like the idea, but he's always open to hear new material. I think that's one of his strong points. He's just so open to anything, and that allows me to be the same with my crew.

________________________________________________

And if you’re interested, here was my review of the film. A nice little family film, that everyone I saw it with enjoyed.

Also, just to show that some critics did enjoy the film as well, here is a review by Ruthe Stein of the San Francisco Chronicle.