The Vodafone 'Zoozoos'

All of us must have at some point of time in the recent months seen the new series of Vodafone ads that have appeared on TV. The cartoonish like characters that communicate the Vodafone message are weird yet funny. Many people believe that they are either animated characters or puppets that were used for this ad series.


In fact they aren’t animated characters nor are they puppets. They are human beings who were made to wear body suits. Surprised? Shocked? Read on....


The design of the characters is such that one gets fooled into thinking it is animation, which was indeed the very illusion that had to be created. In a sense, it can be said that it is ‘live’ animation given the fact that it was all shot live!


The commercials have been directed by Prakash Varma, ad filmmaker, Nirvana Films. He says that the greatest challenge in this ad series was the creation of the ‘Zoozoos’ as these characters are so called. The practical aspects of how they would move, talk, gesticulate and emote were very important. Essentially, costume design and artwork were crucial elements.


There were two fabrics that were considered for the body suits for the ‘Zoozooz’, and one was rejected for it had too many wrinkles and was shiny. The wrinkles would have shown when the characters moved, thereby shattering the illusion of animation and hence the more practical, thicker fabric was chosen.

The production team divided the outfit into two parts: the body and the head. The body part of the outfit was stuffed with foam in some places, while the head was attached separately. To make it look bigger than a human head, a harder material called Perspex was used, which in turn was stuffed with foam (with scope for ventilation).

If one wishes to understand the size of this head, here’s a fact: a human head would typically reach up to the mouth level of this giant Zoozoo head. The production team kept the hands and legs thin, which is why they primarily cast women – and occasionally children – for wearing the costumes. The thin limbs, contrasted with big bellies and a bulbous head, all added to the illusion that these creatures are ‘smaller’ than humans. Sets were created to suit the size of the Zoozoos.
Cinematically, this ‘size’ was a trick: the creatures look smaller than they actually are on screen, to portray a different world of sorts. For this, the speed of shooting was altered: Nirvana shot it in a high-speed format to make them look the size that they do. If one might want to draw a parallel, this same technique was used in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies while filming the ‘Hobbits’ sequences. The effect is there for all to see.

Furthermore, simple sets/backdrops were created and spray painted with neutral Greys – a colour of choice so that attention wasn’t diverted from the main characters. For a supposedly ‘outdoor’ shot, even the shadow of a Zoozoo was kept ‘live’ and not done in post production: it was painted in a darker shade of grey on the ground. An even lighting was maintained throughout.


There was virtually no post production work done.


The films were shot by Nirvana in Cape Town, South Africa, with the help of a local production house there, called Platypus. Incidentally, the same combination of people also worked on the ‘Happy to Help’ series last year.


The new Vodafone ad series involving these ‘Zoozoos’ are truly a revelation. The simplicity of the communication in terms of visuals and the messages both is what works for this ad series. Truly amazing eh????

Religous Symbolism

It was interesting to see this debate on TV the other day about how a young 16 year old Muslim kid was not allowed to sport a beard as per his tradition. So this case kid’s case was taken up to the Supreme Court which upheld the earlier judgement to disallow him to sport a beard. It was ok until this point when the presiding judge made a remark that there needs to be a limit to secularism and that we do not need ‘talibanisation’ in this country.

In the course of the debate there were many interesting and thought provoking points that came up until my father who was watching this debate with me remarked that this was nothing but timepass by the channel. This remark really got me thinking and made me angry at him at the same time and a debate ensued between the both of us.
The underlying sentiment here is that why do we individuals avoid raising issues that are morally provoking? Why do we choose to avoid them just because it isn’t our concern? I asked my father, “Dad, what if you were in his shoes? Would you still carry the same line of thought? Wouldn’t it affect you?” Similarly if you were a Sikh, whose turban and beard are his sects fundamentals, wouldn’t you protest against the French govt that disallows any display of religion in its schools? So why do we avoid these issues that have answers that are difficult to hear?
So i started thinking about it, about the Supreme Court’s decision. The Constitution of India, gives us the freedom to practise the religion we choose to believe in, the way we want and that’s what makes this great country proudly secular. But, we no longer live in a peaceful but an extremely polarised world that tests our very principles of secularism to the last straw. I am a moderate person who wants a peaceful co-existence and a mutual respect for each other.

So my question to the esteemed judge, a person much more learned and experienced than I am, is a very innocent one in asking is that if a Sikh is allowed to keep his turban and beard as a part of his faith, why can’t a Muslim whose interpretation of his faith makes him want to keep a beard allowed to do so? Is it because he is a school kid that’s why? But there are many Sikh boys who sprout beards while in school. So what about them? Will you disallow them as well?

A corollary to this is that do I, an individual practising a particular form of faith have to display the signs of my religion? If I don’t does it make me a non – believer or any less a religious man? My father is a very pious man, who regularly prays to god and does puja at home. I don’t. So I asked my dad if it made me a non – believer or any less a Hindu? As long as I remembered and thanked God for my life once a day and didn’t display any religious insignia, had god in my heart wasn’t I still a Hindu? So is a person who cuts his hair and doesn’t sport a beard not a Sikh although he religiously stands by the edicts of Sri Guru Gobindji?

This brings me to another judgement that based on the corollary above the French govt was right in its stand in banning religious symbolism in its schools. The principle in this is that if you were a houseguest, you would follow the rules followed by your guests and not those of your own. Its that simple. If you can’t do that what do you do? You leave.

My friends know me very well and know that I respect every religion immensely and mean no disrespect to any religion, all of whom i consider to promote the same principles. I agree that we live an immensely polarised world, the cause of which is us in more ways than one but the question is do we draw a line? If yes, then where? And until when do we continue to avoid these morally questioning issues or pass them off as none of our concern?