Wasteland is a feature film (~80 minutes) made up of 5 shorter films; The Earth is Flat (6 min), Goodbye Forever Party (20 min), Dr. Sam Mulaney’s Burden (4 min), We Are All Dying in the Wasteland (4 min), and The Final Exit of the Disciples of Ascensia (45 min). Each of these films builds on top of themes established by the last, and while they can all be viewed separately, when viewed all together they become a cohesive piece that discusses the subjectivity of reality, worldviews defined by emotion rather than logic, mental illness, and living life in the midst of pain.

An integral aspect to the point of this overall series is visualizing and externalizing different characters' worldviews through what visual medium is being used and how their view of the world is presented, & establishing an internal visual and aural vernacular inside the series of films that make certain subtle aspects make sense to people who are paying attention. The 5 different parts can all be viewed individually and are meant to make sense on their own, but when viewed together and in sequence bring a different and more interesting context to each of the pieces. 

Something I was interested in with the Wasteland, was using an unconventional narrative structure of telling a cohesive emotional arc through 5 films, having them flow together and create a larger point when viewed all together. Individually, each film has its own message and has its own themes, together, all the themes come together and act as stepping stones to the next theme. In the final film, The Final Exit of the Disciples of Ascensia, every emotion comes together and is given a conclusion.

Every visual choice, especially The Earth is Flat, Goodbye Forever Party, and The Final Exit of the Disciples of Ascensia, is intentional and meant to contrast with how popular animation and the way we typically consume it. I’m of the belief that every single “rule” that we are presented in animation school, and in the animation industry at large, are all fake. I think we’re in a postmodern era of animation, and as a general audience we’ve been conditioned to understand shorthand of movement and character design, and we’ve had enough exposure to cartoons that now things that aren’t completely clean and pristine in presentation can still be understood. I’m also interested in making the process of animation as fun and intuitive as possible, rather than engaging with some arbitrary perimeters of what is acceptable.

The presentation is purposefully messy, the films are consistently inconsistent on purpose, and in my mind, further the point about the subjectivity and fragility of reality. Design wise, I decided to rely on lowbrow/childish design choices, for instance, eyes that resemble Garfield, and minimalist landscapes made up of squares and triangles. The landscapes themselves are meant to resemble the kinds of landscapes I would draw as a child, the design of the Wasteland itself based on how I would try to draw the LA area when I was a kid. I also used a lot of atmospheric long shots of these simplistic landscapes, despite the fact that they aren’t beautiful or realistic. The design decisions are contrarian to what the mainstream considers acceptable, the idea being that you don’t need consistency for animation to look good or acceptable, or for the audience to be captivated in the story. 

One intentional design choice in Wasteland is the “Garfield eyes”. It’s a conscious decision to ironically displace lowbrow iconography in the context of high emotion. Consider, what does it say when we as an audience see someone with Garfield eyes truly hurting, Garfield eyes in the context of someone weeping over loss. Falling in love, even! This displacement creates a very specific emotional depth that is hard to completely define. A lot of my choices in presentation are supposed to create a layer of detachment to make you consider your place as a viewer, so you’re engaged in the story while also conscious and hopefully thoughtful of what you’re being shown. When we see someone with the eyes of Jon Arbuckle who is suffering from a chronic mental illness, and when we are forced to truly empathize with her immense pain and suffering, what is the emotion that is created in that headspace? We are forced to empathize with her despite what her appearance reminds us of, the lowbrow, the childish, the cliche. Is it emotionally realistic, does it say something? I think so! Who’s to say that Jon Arbuckle is not a living, feeling man? Who’s to say that Lilith is not a living, feeling woman? Who’s to say that Mira and Celisse are not falling in love with each other? We watch The Little Mermaid and come away with the idea that Ariel and Prince Eric love each other. It is real to us, we get invested with the lives of fictional characters when the story is presented in a way that we can engage with emotionally. To me there is no difference between Ariel and Prince Eric’s love, and Garfield’s love for lasagna. We associate the Garfield eyes with the lowbrow, and the eyes of Our Little Mermaid with the highbrow, the way that she is rendered, with her semi-realistic-yet-exaggerated facial expressions, is meant to say, “Take me seriously!” Jon Arbuckle’s eyes are meant to say, “Laugh at me! I am a cartoon.” Yet there is no real difference between Ariel and Jon, they are both cartoons. They are both cartoons with the same capacity for emotion. Wasteland explores high emotion within the context of lowbrow design, portraying real, felt emotions within the context of scribbles and half-remembered cartoon design logic. 

I’m interested in what questions are raised when I present my films in this matter, when you’re forced to look past the scrappiness of the presentation to engage with a personal and engaging story. According to many members of my audience, the scrappiness often heightens the story and makes it even more engaging. Interesting!

My main goal is for the films to be strong, entertaining, emotional and interesting, despite not following established rules of both storytelling and animation. My other main goal, is to get you as an audience member to engage in a unconventional yet well-told story, despite the fact that it constantly reminds you that it isn’t real, and is only paper.