IN ANIMATED FILM IN THE UK
Animated films are increasingly being used in ways where the focus is on communication or in social-political criticism and commentary. Many of these films are non-narrative animation, utilised to critique abstract, historical or contemporary socio-political, economic and industrial agendas, systems and practices, as well as social issues such as immigration, homophobia, and family bereavement and teenage grief. Films such as these not only represent the integration of aspects of radical thought and utilitarian thought in their conception, exhibition and distribution, but, they also integrate tools of propaganda and persuasion.
An early example of the use of animation as a form of social protest is the Norman McLaren and Helen Biggar produced and directed Hell Unlimited (1936, UK), a part live-action, part animated film that illustrates opposition to increased public spending on the military and arms (in the few years preceding the Second World War) by the British Government, corresponding reductions in spending on health and education, the effect on the taxpayer, and how the arms brokers and industry were reaping the profits. A contemporary example is Emily James’ documentary animation film The Luckiest Nut in the World (2002, UK), which illustrates the practices and rationale of the international trade system from the perspective of the nut trade, the dominance of the United States and its peanut in the trade, and the resulting consequences for social and economic justice for people in other nut producing countries. Much of the animation work from the Leeds Animation Workshop, a women’s filmmaking collective, covers issues in which critiques on social, political and educational matters are made.1 Such works include Alice in Wasteland (1991, UK) and Tell it like it is (2000, UK).
Political changes in the UK during the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of funding, specifically the changes in funding sources of filmmakers’ collectives such as the Leeds Animation Workshop, as well as other filmmaking groups that relied on external funding sources, has meant that the inclusion of radical and utilitarian aspects in animated film has significantly shifted to a point whereby the radical aspects have become subdued, with the strongly utilitarian aspects attracting and maintaining access to funding.
This paper will attempt to discuss aspects of “the radical” and “the utilitarian” in animated films that comment upon or critique social and political issues, and how these aspects contribute to forms of social activism, as well as explore how changes to certain aspects of political culture in the UK and the sources of funding has affected the production of these types of animated films. This paper will integrate a comparative analysis with how alternative routes towards social activism have been enacted by individual animation filmmakers, as opposed to filmmaking groups. Two case studies will be looked at to frame the analysis: the work of the filmmakers’ collective, Leeds Animation Workshop; and the experiences of an individual filmmaker, Daniel Florencio.
Animated films and the critiquing of social and political issues
In certain types of animated, issue-based films, there is present the desire of the filmmakers and organisations that support them to make protest, in different forms, against, or in support of, actual events, practices or ideas. Such films use animation to illustrate one or more points of view, usually providing evidence to support one point or to disprove another point. Against the background of the looming world war, the film may have been regarded as a form of “the radical”, in terms of it being perceived, by the establishment, as radical protest. An integral part of protest is in persuading others of an argument or encouraging them to act. The last few minutes of Hell Unlimited used mixed animation and live-action footage to present a kind of “call to arms” calling on viewers to write to their MP to protest increased arms spending, then to march out onto the streets, and finally, if all else failed, to withdraw all labour.
The idea of either presenting information or persuading a viewer or audience of a viewpoint, remain key aspects to considerations of certain animated “social-political” films, such as those produced by Leeds Animation Workshop. The use of animation to persuade others to a point of view, or to do something, has historical precedent, particularly in animated information films and animated propaganda films, produced at various times throughout the 20th Century.
Radical or Utilitarian Approaches? - Tools of Persuasion in Animated Propaganda Films
In order to explore how animated documentary can be considered as a form of social activism, critiquing social and political issues, it is necessary to examine how animated film has historically been used in the UK to present information and how such films have attempted to persuade British viewers to a particular point of view. British animated film “has a long (and somewhat neglected) history of involvement in areas of information, propaganda and documentary production”2 and examples of such animated information films include much of the work of Halas and Batchelor Studio’s Charley series, such as Charley’s March of Time (1948, UK), Your Very Good Health (1948, UK) and Charley Junior’s School Days (1949, UK). Other films include and some of the films by Norman McLaren, such as Keep Your Mouth Shut (1944, UK/Can).
In animated information and propaganda films, there is the desire to present information and persuade viewers to do something, based upon the conclusions of that information. According to Renov, “Documentary discourse has generally pursued deictic goals, that is, the demonstration of ideas, the persuasion of audiences”3, and it is likely that a similar pursuit is the basis of animated public information and animated propaganda films, examples of which are discussed below.
A key technique used to inform and attempt to persuade viewers to a point of view or action in animated information films consisted of the presentation of a situation, where a question would be asked by the main character as to why a certain service of part of the wider system was dissatisfying. The technique would then move on to either the main character discovering information of a new initiative being planned, or an omniscient entity revealing new information to the main character. This revelation would sometimes include being shown an activity or dominant way of thinking and acting, and downsides to those existing ways, explaining why a new way should be adopted and what could be gained by adopting this new path. These techniques are rooted in psychological perception, which “reveals that the mind tends to reject that which is unappealing to it. This subconscious filtering works more efficiently when reading newspapers and magazines than when watching moving images on television, calling for less conscious application and therefore being less selective. In fact we absorb information through moving pictures on television which we would not normally bother with in print.”4
It is likely that with these films it was hoped that the viewer would identify with the existing thinking because it was already happening and familiar and that, therefore, the main character would “become” the everyday person finding out about something new. In some of the films, there were some critical comment on existing ways of doing things within the framework of the topic of the film, but, it is likely that it was not the purpose of these films to neither comment upon nor question, whether directly or indirectly, the interests of those who funded the work. Essentially, these films “appeal[ed] to the emotions than to the intellect”5 which is a key aspect of propaganda and similar techniques have also been used in television advertising.6 Considering O’Shaughnessy’s broader definition of propaganda, animated films critiquing social and political issues would appear to employ similar practices of presenting information, appealing and attempting to persuade others.
Relocating Animated Films, Social Networks and Activism
In order to encourage viewers to act, the film is often a starting point, or one aspect of a wider campaign. Haynes' work on (live-action) documentary as social activism has explored textual and political strategies of several of Robert Greenwald's films, and how social networks use the films to encourage debate and action7. For example, Haynes discusses the “pragmatically driven origins of the distribution and exhibition strategies” jointly developed by Greenwald's production company, Brave New Films, the social activism organisation, MoveOn.org, and the involvement of grassroots organisations. Similar strategies have been employed by animators. The Leeds Animation Workshop, for example, have combined their animated film work as part of educational programmes for children and adults, special interest groups and marginalised groups, alongside other types of learning materials, intending “to provoke discussion rather than simply to entertain”8. Haynes also touches on the use of Greenwald's films as a way of people finding their own way to politics, against a background of declining and restrictive participation in the more formal US political process.9 Similar could be determined from animated films where the social network is the key component of distribution and exhibition, as well as being the determining force behind the value of the film. Many of Leeds Animation's films are illustrative of this.10
In contrast to the film-makers collective of Leeds Animation Workshop, a set of exhibition and distribution strategies of an individual film-maker, Daniel Florencio, provide a different perspective on the relocation of the animated film, the creation of networks and of activism, with his film A Brazilian Immigrant (2005 UK). A Brazilian Immigrant captures the experiences and emotions of three Brazilian citizens going through the UK immigration process. This film benefited from Florencio’s own migration experience to the UK from Brazil, he was able to document and represent the emotional experiences of successful and unsuccessful immigration stories of other Brazilians to the UK. Although he shows his films on YouTube, making it accessible to those with access to a computer, he has also screened it to Malaysian immigration officers, alongside workshops intended to raise awareness of the attitudes of immigration officials. This last point illustrates the re-locating of the film to a non-traditional sphere; that of the working environment of the immigration officer him/herself. In this way Florencio has attempted to speak to the “unconverted” – those perhaps not likely engaged in activist or social movements, and more likely trained not to necessarily view things from the migrants’ perspective.
Florencio explained that the Malaysian Prime Minister’s entourage, which included several immigration officials, was to be visiting at the Likokwing University of Creative Technologies in London, and that he decided to arrange to screen his film to them and to speak to them, felling that “it’d be a good chance to hear the opinion of those doing the same job of those I’m criticizing on my film, even though the situation in Malaysia is very different from that in the UK. I was able to realize the pressures they suffer to do their jobs right. I notice how they’re highly influenced by the media and by what the government policies are. I was expecting to have a little debate about policies and such, but that was not the case. They’re trained to do their job, and all they think of is how they must do it better. There’s no criticism. I doubt here in the UK the situation is different.”11
The animated figures in A Brazilian Immigrant appear to be plain, stick-like, and almost featureless; with nothing in particular that defines one from the other. After viewing the film and discussing it with Florencio, the filmmaker suggested that “the characters are plain, contrasted to a complex and full of details scenario. The idea here was to show how the migrants themselves are seen as plain figures. They have no history, they have no background, they’re not 3 dimensional people, but plain featureless characters.”12 This is Florencio’s interpretation of how immigrants are perceived by the officials when they arrive - they’re only migrants, and that’s it. As for the Immigration Officers, “it’s the same thing. They’re featureless, plain, they have no background, but they’re wearing an officer hat. That’s all they are at that moment, immigration officers. A lot of the officers, when you’re going through migration you see that, they come from a non-British background, but there, they’re only doing their job. Both this featureless migrant and featureless officer are somehow together [sic], inside this complex, 3D, full of features scenario.”13
In taking the type of animated film, described above, out of its traditional “sphere” – that is, traditional television, the cinema screen and, increasingly, the internet viewing portals (YouTube, etc) – and placing it in “non-traditional spheres”, such as the prison rehabilitation programme, primary or secondary school, or community public forum or social network, the use of animated films demonstrates aspects of radicalism, in that the jump is made into these non-traditional spheres, and utilitarianism, where the films’ awareness raising, social commentary functions are performed.
Haynes' work14 is an example of research on the relationship between documentary film and social activism. There is very little research, however, on the specific ways in which groups and individuals combine animation and social activism to raise awareness of issues and try to accomplish change. Also of interest are the circumstances surrounding how topics are chosen, and whether funding issues affect what is conceived and produced. This gap in knowledge demonstrates the rationale for the following case study on the Leeds Animation Workshop, if aspects of “the radical” and “the utilitarian” in animated films commenting upon or critiquing sociopolitical issues, within an activism context, are to be better understood.
Aspects of “the radical”, “the utilitarian”, and Funding Issues, in the work of the Leeds Animation Workshop
Leeds Animation Workshop (LAW) are a collective of women film-makers who came together in the late 70s and are based in the UK city of Leeds, borne of the rise in “feminism and women’s consciousness [which] began to influence the production, exhibition and distribution of film and television, as well as education and the emerging film theory”.15 During the 1980s LAW produced films that attempted to tackle difficult or marginalised, but never-the-less important, issues to raise awareness and improve representations of women.16 Their work during the 1980s was supported under the ACTT Workshop Declaration17 of 1984, which would provide long-term funding and support, and which also became the basis of Channel Four commissions during that decade.18 The development of the Workshop movement saw “[t]he state or public sector as a benign alternative to funding from Capitalist or big business sources”.19
While Leeds Animation Workshop state that their films are not documentaries, they indicate that there are “documentary aspects” to their films.20 For many of their films, LAW conduct research and document a range of people's experiences and stories, but, they take a path through this information, “We use quotations. In one of our early films - Crops and Robbers (1986, UK) - we used only other people's words; in Give Us A Smile (1983, UK) we also quoted a lot from other people, both their words and their images - to add authenticity and make our message more persuasive, as in, ‘Look, this is how bad it really was, this is why we're making a fuss about it.´ But these are also both examples of films that use fantasy a lot to express meaning and to imagine ideal solutions”.21 Whilst not being strictly faithful to the raw material, a narrative is instead constructed from it, “[s]ometimes the stories have been transformed a lot, as in Through the Glass Ceiling (1994, UK) and the other fairytale films. Sometimes they've just been restructured, as in many of the ones on family issues. Home Truths (1999, UK) and Believe Me (2002, UK) are both films aimed at children which were partly based on the experiences of children we talked to, and some of them also read the fictionalised versions of their stories on the soundtrack.”22
The table below illustrates the themes of a selection of films made by LAW during the periods of 1978-1991 and 1992 to the present day.
|Films 1978 - 1991||Themes||(Selected) Films 1992 - Present||Themes|
|Who Needs Nurseries? We Do!||Day nursery provision for preschool children||All Stressed Up||Work-related stress|
|Risky Business||Health and safety at
|Through the Glass
|Absurdity of “civil
defence” in the face
of nuclear weapons
|No Offence||Harassment at
|Give Us A Smile||Visual and sexual
|Did I Say
women in certain
government; impact of
|Home Truths||Children and
|Crops and Robbers||Food surplus and
famine; aid and
|Tell It Like It Is||Gender
bullying and sexual
violence at school
|Home and Dry?||The need for social
|Believe Me||Child sexual abuse|
|Out To Lunch||Sexism;
|Grief In The
|A Matter of Interest||Roots and causes of
|Joined-Up Families||Step-families and
the effects on
|Alice In Wasteland||Human impact on
local and global
|Dads Inside and
|Male prisoners and
with their families
|Out At Work||Sexual orientation
As seen in the table above, films produced by LAW between the late 1970s and the early 1990s (columns 1 and 2) focussed on a range of social issues. The representation of social concerns in many of the films appeared to be rooted in activist discourse e.g. highlighting social (in)justice, gender inequality issues and (particularly) the desire to do something about it. Many of these animated social/political films approached their subject matter in a way that challenged the dominant social and political thinking, ideology and systemic culture of the time. An example of this radical approach was Give Us a Smile, made in 1983, which tackled the visual and sexual harassment of women. This film used recorded quotes from police officers and a judge, to illustrate how the police and legal system tended to blame the victims rather than the perpetrators. At the end it showed how women were fighting back.
A further example is the film Who Needs Nurseries? We Do! (1978, UK), which employed a kind of re-enactment for the purposes of presenting information that attempted to challenge the dominant social and political thinking of the time, that daycare nurseries for children aged under five years were increasingly unnecessary and were cost-prohibitive, and that pre-school children should be looked after by their mothers. The reporter was the embodiment of that thinking, reflected in his line of questioning and in his attitude.
When the reporter asks a passing mother her opinion, the mother's replies are juxtaposed with the actions of her children, who are fighting with each other and calling each other names, suggesting a truth that the mother tries to deny in her answers. The mother does not want to appear incapable of “controlling” her children and so tries to present a well-behaved impression of them to the reporter (or, at least, tries to once she realises they are being “filmed”). Another person the reporter interviews is a father who, while expressing that children belong at home with their mothers, simultaneously abuses them verbally, demonstrates disinterest in them, and reveals himself to be a heavy drinker. The father's view is taken at face value by the reporter.
In another scene, a nursery setting which becomes a town hall meeting with a chair and several contributors, the documentary elements of the film reveal themselves fully. The children in the nursery are given fully-developed speaking voices and it is here that the evidence and debate on the need for more nurseries takes place. The various circumstances of the children are heard and debated, statistics are presented. The actions of the children during this scene have the aim of raising awareness among many mothers about the benefits of nurseries. It is notable that the very evidence and debate that adults appear to internally deny, the young children appear not to fear expressing facts and furthering debate. Not surprisingly, the reporter concludes that, based on the many interviews he has conducted, the majority of parents think that preschool children belong at home with their mothers. His final comments, and the way he says them, highlight how many institutions, including the some of the media, do not really listen to the concerns of many ordinary people, including working mothers and children.
These earlier films also represented aspects of a basic utilitarian approach, whereby the emphasis was on the use of these films as part of campaigns or educational programmes undertaken at the as grassroots level. A strongly radical approach was also present in these films, as the subject matter had seldom been touched upon before and several of the earlier Leeds Animation films, such Risky Business (1980, UK), encouraged the viewer to act upon the information presented. This film, which looked at problems relating to health and safety at work, and looked at them from the worker’s point of view, provided information to raise awareness of the problems that the viewer (worker) could act upon to organise and convince management of the need to improve health and safety. The dialogue in the film demonstrated supportiveness and encouragement, through following the main character’s trials and tribulations in getting management to listen and act.
In addition to support from councils, charities, campaign groups and specialist organisations, for several years between 1980s and 1990s Leeds Animation (LAW) also received funding from British Film Institute (BFI) and Channel 4. This funding allowed them greater freedom to experiment; LAW was able to make several films which were more open ended, and not for a particular purpose. “Up to 1988 we and the other workshops were funded by BFI. That meant that we had more freedom, because we could choose the subjects we wanted without raising any additional funds. From '88 onwards we have had to raise funding for each film separately. Most of our films that we've made recently were made for organizations that contacted us with an idea for DVD”.23
Several changes impacted upon LAWs post-1993 films, including a changing economic model in UK, the shift to more market oriented approach to financing short films and an increasingly dominant culture of short-termism. This played a part in the BFI and Channel 4 withdrawing from the ACTT Workshop Declaration, and thereby removing long-term support, opting for commissioning-only basis. Leeds Animation Workshop suggests that the collective reverted to what it had done since its creation; made films which were essentially utilitarian. In many ways, these funding changes did prompt a change of focus in LAWs work, particularly a return to a utilitarian approach, but, in looking at the subject matter of the later films, as well as the direction of EU social research, the mid-1990s onwards heralded wider implications for LAWs films.
From mid-1990s onwards direct European Union (EU) and state funding, linked to new legislation related to social policy, became available, as "[d]uring the Blair years, which are in many respect [a] continuation of Thatcherism, it has become easier to tap into government funding. We made quite a few parenting films e.g. Bridging the Gap, Joined up Families etc. with Home Office Family Support Grants".24 In terms of EU social programmes, for example, the EU Daphne initiative25, which was developed to prevent domestic violence against children, young people and women, emerged from EU research. The EU offered funding to organisations, subject to successful grant applications and an extensive evaluation process, to develop projects that helped to raise awareness of new legislation. Unlike funding from the BFI and Channel 4, however, EU grants were more closely defined in terms of the aim and content. Leeds Animation Workshop agreed with certain EU priorities on issues such as preventing violence against women and children, child bereavement and protection, parenting, work and equal opportunities, racism and bullying at school, and had wanted to find ways of raising awareness of such issues using animation and documentary modes of representation. The Leeds Animation Workshop was well placed to successfully apply for EU grants.
Comparing the subject matter of the Leeds Animation films made during the 1980s and early 1990, with films made more recently, what can be seen is the development of a much more explicit utilitarian approach in LAW animated documentaries where the worth of the films have been determined by their contribution to particular outcomes. Emphasis is predominately placed on the film’s usefulness in supporting the target audience - for which the subject matter of the film holds significance. In particular there is no explicit exhortation to take action as this has now become more implicit. For example, Out At Work (2006, UK) is a more functional piece of work. There is an attempt to raise awareness of new EU Employment Equality legislation, with the aim of encouraging people to challenge their own assumptions. Although Leeds Animation emphasise, with the Out At Work film, that they try to “embed awareness of the legislation into grassroots consciousness”26, increased funding from national and supra-national institutional programmes still raises the probability that someone else’s voice, in this case, state researchers and legislators, is actually being communicated. As Wolch’s work on non-profit organisations and funding suggests, the provision of public funding to non-profit groups can lead to such funding becoming a necessary part of the survival of that organisation. In so doing, non-profits can become co-opted and quiescent.27 While Leeds Animation considered that, as a whole, “the EU was not a progressive organisation there were progressive pockets of research within it”28, it is likely that, even if a direct grant is provided to fund projects that get the desired message across, and the organisation that carries out the work is left to decide exactly how it is done, any political voice would likely have to be subdued in order to come across as professional and perhaps neutral, in effect, the formalisation of the relationship between direct state funding and third-sector organisations, such as the Leeds Animation Workshop.
This paper has attempted to discuss aspects of “the radical” and “the utilitarian” in animated films that critique social and political issues, how these aspects contribute to forms of social activism, and how changes to certain aspects of political culture in the UK and sources of funding affected the production of these types of animated films, integrating a discussion of how an alternative route towards social activism has been enacted by an individual animation filmmaker, to contrast with filmmaking groups. A combination of “the radical” and “the utilitarian” approaches in the more recent animated films of the Leeds Animation Workshop appear to take a more defined, yet ostensibly narrow and pragmatic viewpoint, although the same underlying themes concerning social progressiveness, gender equality, tolerance, etc. are still present, a different set of issues are being addressed. A more functional approach appears to have enabled Leeds Animation Workshop to obtain direct EU and state funding and continue to make animated films on issues they view as progressive. The more “radical” aspects, as embodied in the earlier films, appear to have become more implicit in the later films, with functional aspects more explicit. Direct state funding for some animated projects is likely to have co-opted the collective to some degree, particularly since it is to a New Labour government that was in opposition during the years of Leeds Animation’s earlier films in the 1980s. Since many New Labour practices and policies are a continuation of those instigated by Thatcher’s Conservative government, the shift to market-oriented funding and the removal of long-term support for grassroots, non-profit making film organisations, and the effect has been to stifle such organisations in some ways, drawing them in using other means. In some ways, however, the fact that certain issues are tackled, such as child bereavement, itself considered somewhat taboo, is indicative of a continued, and somewhat overt, radical approach, although this is different to that of the 1980s.
Hell Unlimited (Norman McLaren, Helen Biggar, 1936), The Luckiest Nut in the World (Emily James, 2002), Alice in Wasteland (Lasse Jarvi, Pete Schuermann, 1991), Tell it like it is (Leeds Animation Workshop, 2000), Charley in the New Town (John Halas, Joy Bachelor, 1948), Charley’s Black Magic (John Halas, Joy Bachelor, 1947), Charley’s March of Time (John Halas, Joy Bachelor, 1948), Charley Junior’s School Days (John Halas, Joy Bachelor, 1949), Keep Your Mouth Shut (Norman McLaren, 1944), A Brazilian Immigrant (Daniel Florencio, 2005), Crops and Robbers (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1986), Give Us A Smile (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1983), Through the Glass Ceiling (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1994), Home Truths (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1999), Believe Me (Leeds Animation Workshop, 2002), Who Needs Nurseries? We Do! (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1978), Risky Business (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1980), Pretend You’ll Survive (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1981), Council Matters (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1984), Home and Dry? (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1987), Out to Lunch (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1989), A Matter of Interest (Leeds Animation Workshop, 1990), Out At Work (Leeds Animation Workshop, 2006)
Seymour Lavine is currently an independent researcher, investigating linkages between animated forms of social and political criticism, state funding, activism and propaganda. Lavine worked, for a brief time, at the Animation Research Centre at the University for the Creative Arts, Farnham, UK, helping to maintain an archive of animated films, artwork, correspondence and other materials, from the Halas and Batchelor Studio and the Bob Godfrey Studio collections. In 2008, he assisted in curating an exhibition of Bob Godfrey materials from the archive.
1 Paul Ward, Documentary: The Margins of Reality. London: Wallflower Press 2005.
2 Paul Wells, British Animation: An Industry of Innovation. London: BFI 2005, p. 53.
3 Michael Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge 1993, p. 2.
4 John Halas, Computer Animation. London: Pergamon Press 1976, p. 15.
5 J. Halas, c. d. (note 4).
6 Nicolas Jackson O'Shaughnessy, Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.
7 John Haynes, Documentary as Social Justice Activism: The Textual and Political Strategies of Robert Greenwald and Brave new Films. In: 49th Parallel: An Interdisciplinary Journal of North American Studies 21, 2007, p. 1-16.
8 Irene Kotlarz, Women's Independent Cinema in Eighties Britain: the Case of Leeds Animation Workshop. In: Annette Kuhn – Susannah Radstone, The Women's Companion to International Film. London: Virago Press 1990, p. 240.
9 J. Haynes, c. d. (note 7); John Haynes – Jo Littler, Cine Manifest. In: Cineaste 32, 2007, p.26 - 29.
10 I. Kotlarz, c. d. (note 8).
11 Email questionnaire about A Brazilian Immigrant with Seymour Lavine, dated 3rd June 2008.
14 J. Haynes, c. d. (note 7)
15 ScreenOnline http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/824060 [accessed online in July 2008]
16 see Antonia Lant, Britain at the End of Empire. In: Lester D. Friedman (ed.) Fire Were Started: British Cinema and Thatcherism. London: Wallflower Press 2006, p. 159 - 181.
17 ACTT: Association of Cinematograph & Television Technicians. This was replaced by BECTU in the 1990s.
18 see note 15.
19 I. Kotlarz, c. d. (note 8).
20 Telephone interview with Terry Wragg, Leeds Animation Workshop, conducted by Seymour Lavine, 2008.
21 Email correspondence of Seymour Lavine with Terry Wragg, Leeds Animation Workshop, 2008.
23 Email questionnaire sent by Seymour Lavine and completed by Milena Dragic, Leeds Animation Workshop, 2008.
26 see note 20.
27 Jennifer R. Wolch, The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition. New York: Foundation Center 1990.
28 see note 20.
© Seymour Lavine, Přehlídka animovaného filmu Olomouc, 2009