Dinner analysis

Birdbox have created some very interesting animated shorts, "Dinner" is one of them and it tells the story of a dog trying to eat it's dinner. 

The dog has the primary motivation of food and so this transfers through into excitement which the dog emits through it's hyperactive running. This primary action at the start of the video is enough to call this the primary action although as the video progresses, the primary action changes to that of the dog trying to get the dish out from under the desk. The clear secondary action is the wagging of the dog's tail. This is a secondary action due to how it adds to the characterisation of the dog without having any major impact on the story. It is a subtle movement that may be overlooked by the viewer but presents a sense of appeal in a more subliminal form. 

The main action of the plot does change as I stated earlier but continues with other actions such as the movement of the paws in order to receive the toy. These would be part of the story and so, would become the primary action. The motion of the ears and tail would continue to be secondary. It could be argued that primary and secondary action has a fine line of differentiation. When the dog is running and eating, could one of the two be considered a secondary action? Possibly the running would become secondary as the viewer would focus on the eating and the story involving the movement of the bowl. 

The secondary action has a subtle way of showing the emotions of the dog and this impacts hugely on our empathy towards the character. If we feel the realism of a character, no matter what the look or animation style then surely this will add to the effectiveness of the overall animation. Overall, there may be some debatable factors in the animation surrounding certain elements and their classification with regards to which principle they fall under but some are more obvious than others and they definitely add to the appeal of the animation and its story.