Within the excerpts from “Seeing the brick,” is a case study pertaining to realism. The case study focuses on how animation can never be “real” since every process within animation is being constructed. The author says that animation can only mimic something ‘real’ as opposed to live action film. I disagree with this idea; I believe that live action film is just as ‘unreal’ as animation in the sense the text makes. Isn’t live action film something we construct as well? For instance within making a live action film there are people who create the set, which can be a fictional or non-fictional setting. Then there are people who create a script for which other people will read from.  These people will then read from this created script and act out the scenes others have created. In this sense aren’t these actors are the same as the created characters of an animated film? I believe that animation and live action film are both real they just have a different visual aspect to portraying the reality.

The author gives Disney as a basis to measure the amount of ‘realism’ in an animated film. The author states that an animated film can be defined as unreal the further it deviates from this model he gives called “Hyper-realism.” There are several examples within the text to describe the model of “hyper-realism;” the sound an object makes when it is depicting the “real” object determines how real the animation is. The “context and action” of an animated film also determines how “real” it is and finally, how accurately the animation depicts the movement of a human body. I feel as though all these things the author describes for determining how “real” animation is can be said for a live action film.