Research Article

Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O'Reilly's non-mimetic films

Volume: 23 Number: 2026 August 11, 2026
EN TR

Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O'Reilly's non-mimetic films

Abstract

Traditional animation, particularly within narrative structures, considers mimesis as the primary criterion for believability. This study investigates how non-mimetic animation which consciously rejects a representational relationship with the physical world maintains viewer engagement. Drawing on three films by independent animator David O'Reilly as comparative case studies, each work is analyzed through the ten layers of Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The resulting matrices demonstrate that the "believability" of O'Reilly's works is created through "substrate persistence," defined as the architectural adherence of each layer to a holistic rule system. Four key findings emerge from the analysis. First, raw digital aesthetic effects function as a distinctive directorial signature. Second, internal consistency rather than the uniformity of surface features directs viewer interest toward the substrate rather than the depicted space. Third, a pictorial 3D (three-dimensional) style acts as a signal, ensuring the maintenance of consistency (fidelity) across sequences with differing narrative structures. Finally, substrate unity preserves holistic coherence despite significant visual diversity. The analysis is qualitative and text-based. Two limitations are envisaged as a result of the analysis: the consistency mechanism derived from the "substrate" may not apply to a specific audience namely, mainstream viewers who rely on photographic cues; Furthermore, visual components created personally by the artist reflecting their subjective perspective and decisions may not be adaptable to industrial processes involving multi-team collaboration.

Keywords

Non-mimetic animation, believability in animation, substrate of meaning, stylization of reality, aesthetics of raw imagery

References

  1. Akmeşe, Z. (2025). The aesthetics of imperfection: a theoretical evaluation of the meaning layers of glitch aesthetics in communication design and cinema. CINEJ Cinema Journal, 13(2), 812–844. https://doi.org/10.5195/cinej.2025.905
  2. Balestrini, M. (2025). Pratiche visive e immaginazione algoritmica / visual practices and algorithmic imagination. Itinera 30, 45-56. https://doi.org/10.54103/2039-9251/30236
  3. Bateman, J., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). Multimodal Film Analysis: How Films Mean (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203128220
  4. Bosward, M. (2025). Outer worlds: animated documentary and critical realism. Animation, 20(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/17468477251379717
  5. Duan, T., Dong, W., Wang, F., & Yao, Y. (2024). Computational algorithms and aesthetic impact in animated visual effects. IEEE Access, 12, 188890–188901. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3437254
  6. Ehrlich, N. (2020). The animated document: animation’s dual Indexicality in mixed realities. Animation, 15(3), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746847720974971
  7. Elleström, L. (2020). The Modalities of Media II: An Expanded Model for Understanding Intermedial Relations. L. Elleström (Ed), Beyond Media Borders, Volume 1: Intermedial Relations among Multimodal Media. (pp. 3-91). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49679-1
  8. Hattler, M. (2025). The abstracted real: speculations on experimental animated documentary. CityU Scholars, 6(3), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.24140/ijfma.v6.n3.03
  9. Houssani, M., & Elajraoui, T. (2025). Motion beyond the frame: post-cinematic storytelling and the architecture of digital craft. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 1(1), 43-54.. https://doi.org/10.34874/prsm.ijact-vol1iss1.6286
  10. Jukes, A. P. (2017). 3-D computer generated animation and the material plane - an investigation of the material qualities of 3-D computer generated animation and relations to space and form. [Doctoral Thesis, Royal College of Art]. Royal College of Art
APA
Zengineken, E., & Balaban, Y. (2026). Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 23(2026), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1991965
AMA
1.Zengineken E, Balaban Y. Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films. OPUS JSR. 2026;23(2026):1-14. doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1991965
Chicago
Zengineken, Emre, and Yüksel Balaban. 2026. “Believability Without Mimesis: Coherence As Architecture in David O’Reilly’s Non-Mimetic Films”. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23 (2026): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1991965.
EndNote
Zengineken E, Balaban Y (August 1, 2026) Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23 2026 1–14.
IEEE
[1]E. Zengineken and Y. Balaban, “Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films”, OPUS JSR, vol. 23, no. 2026, pp. 1–14, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.26466/opusjsr.1991965.
ISNAD
Zengineken, Emre - Balaban, Yüksel. “Believability Without Mimesis: Coherence As Architecture in David O’Reilly’s Non-Mimetic Films”. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23/2026 (August 1, 2026): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1991965.
JAMA
1.Zengineken E, Balaban Y. Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films. OPUS JSR. 2026;23:1–14.
MLA
Zengineken, Emre, and Yüksel Balaban. “Believability Without Mimesis: Coherence As Architecture in David O’Reilly’s Non-Mimetic Films”. OPUS Journal of Society Research, vol. 23, no. 2026, Aug. 2026, pp. 1-14, doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1991965.
Vancouver
1.Emre Zengineken, Yüksel Balaban. Believability without mimesis: Coherence as architecture in David O’Reilly’s non-mimetic films. OPUS JSR. 2026 Aug. 1;23(2026):1-14. doi:10.26466/opusjsr.1991965