SMALL ROOM

The Style Thing

2012-01-25T23:10:00.000-08:00

One of the comments I got early on when I started posting my own artwork was something to the effect of "Wow, you've got a lot of styles..." Which I guess I do, but I am leery of them all. While I pretty much enjoy the act of drawing for it's own sake, I have always had a personal aversion to locking in to one signature style. That's because on some innate level I just dread the thought of doing one thing one way forever. Perhaps without meaning to I have developed a default style anyway at this point, but even if that's true, I'm no less leery.

Style is important in drawing and sometimes in cartooning it seems like everything. But to me, style can become a kind of mannerism that gets carried away with itself. It can be a straightjacket as much as a hallmark. I get nervous about the limitations of a single style and the expectations that can set in. One has to be very careful not to let a style devolve into a gimmick. Or worse, start out as one and stay that way.

Which is not to say that it always does and often even the most established stylists let their styles evolve naturally, rather than calcify.

Starting out as kid, of course I always had heroes to emulate, who all had distinctive styles of their own. I would copy someone as best I could until I could mimic their style with my own drawings for a season or so. But soon I would get the itch to try something else and learn a different style. Let me quickly say, like most kids, I didn't master any of these styles by a professional standard; (hey, I was a kid!). But the influences to one extent or another crept into my toolbox. The up side was that this kind of self-teaching helped me as an animation artist, where learning various styles is important. The downside was that I was really just clumsily copying surface tics of each artist without really understanding them, let alone fully grasping the basic drawing principles that were so well integrated that they seemed subordinate to style.

Needless to say, in hindsight, I had it completely backwards. If there was one thing I would encourage young and beginning artists to do it would be draw who and what is around you, with less emphasis on graphic style and with more intention on capturing likeness and understanding of the things you are drawing. By understanding I mean several levels of understanding :

1. Structual understanding; knowing anatomy, architecture, perspective, proportion - the inherent STRUCTURE of things.

2. Historical understanding: costume, architecture, furniture construction. WHY things look the way they do.

3. Human understanding. If you are not sure why you are drawing something it will show. If you don't like it, that applies even more. If you aren't even sure what it is, you are even worse off still. But stay curious and force yourself to draw what you don't excel at from time to time, don't rest on your strengths. I am guilty of that and I find that when I trying to fake something new it won't work. I have to make the effort to understand the actual thing involved and then trick myself into enjoying it. When I can do that, it's most often successful. Otherwise, I miss the mark.

No one can draw anything and everything of course, so it is important to figure out your niche. But any time you have an advantage to get an understanding of something new, make the most of it.

It is of course very important to have a unique mode of expression, and graphic style is one of the main ways people will recognize you and seek you out. No mistake, recognition is a big deal. But be patient with yourself and allow time to develop fundamental abilities that will be the backbone of your work. If you do this, over time an organic style is more likely to develop that is even more useful and unique than if you just copied everybody else to the exclusion of the basics.

Congatulations Golden Globe Winner

2012-01-16T18:15:00.000-08:00

...of 1991! I just learned BEAUTY & THE BEAST has taken the second position at the weekend box office horse race this past weekend, which is not bad for a 20+ year old film. As Cogsworth might say: "How time flies!"

One of my personal favorite scenes. Nik Ranieri of course did "Lumiere" here.

I have not seen this 3D version as, ironically, I presently am on the road far from anywhere to check it out, but all the same: hats off to the cast and crew of colleagues from "Cogsworth's" Supervising Animator, Yours Truly. Tony Bancroft, Mike Show, Rej Bourdages, Barry Temple, Tony DeRosa and Bill Waldman rounded out Cogsworth's animator crew, with Nancy Kneip, Julliett Stroud-Duncan, and Bill Thinnes on the Assistant crew.

More Campbell Grant

2012-01-07T23:13:00.000-08:00

Still more, from THE CLASSICS RE-CLASSIFIED by Richard Armour

Famous First Words

2012-01-01T23:58:00.000-08:00

"Well, he looks harmless...!"

Happy Holidays 2011

2011-12-18T13:14:00.000-08:00

The Equestrian Syverson

2011-12-11T19:41:00.000-08:00

I don't know if Henry Syverson was a horse-owner, (maybe just one of his bosses was), but he did a number of horse gags for Saturday Evening Post back in the 1960's. For more Syverson joy, click the tab below.

ROBIN HOOD poses by Ken Anderson

2011-12-04T11:34:00.000-08:00

With both late Autumn and tales of "Robin Hood" protests in the air, now seems as good a time as any to share this lovely piece gifted to me by the late great Ken Anderson, way back in December 1973. I had earlier written a fan letter to Ward Kimball, who was gracious enough not only to personally reply, but to pass my enthusiastic praise of Ken Anderson's work along to the man himself. I had seen some of Ken's work in Disney magazines and had been delighted by a preview of the then upcoming ROBIN HOOD movie, and my letter to Kimball touched on that. Years later, long after my letters had been forgotten by both gentlemen, I was able to piece together from the few times I got to meet and speak with them that Mr. Kimball was no fan of the movie nor did he seem particularly close to Mr. Anderson. In fact, Mr. Kimball was so at odds with the studio around that time that he was in the process of what amounted to a de facto early retirement. It says a lot about their professionalism that I had no clue of any of this from their responses to my correspondence.

I have to confess that even as a kid, I was disappointed with ROBIN HOOD when I finally saw it a few months later. Still, it was a thrill to get this lovely original and doubly thrilling when I discovered it also appeared in Christopher Finch's THE ART OF WALT DISNEY (Andreas owns the beautiful character lineup on the same page, I believe). It retains a fond place in my collection, along with both artist's kind notes of encouragement, which in no small part have kept my enthusiasm for my career path (checkered as it has sometimes been) alive and well.

The Great McGonnicle

2011-12-01T22:14:00.000-08:00

More Campbell Grant

2011-11-06T08:12:00.000-08:00

From THE CLASSICS RE-CLASSIFEID, by Richard Armour.

The Homeric Cycle. (Eat your heart out Jay Ward).

'Ween greetings from Snelgrove's

2011-10-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

Chortles galore on the annex blog.

QUICKIE

2011-10-20T19:07:00.000-07:00

"BAZ" New? Improved...?

2011-10-18T22:20:00.000-07:00

Baz of "Baz & Basil" gets a thoroughly arbitrary make-over. Someday I will learn to draw something the same way twice...

THE WIZARD OF ID: Classic "Smart Stupidity"

2011-10-09T00:38:00.000-07:00

I've been eagerly waiting for this book ever since it was announced almost two years ago. After several delays the publisher has finally come through, answering my cartoon nerd prayers--and hopefully enough prayers of other fans to merit a follow-up. Find it here and help the cause. Don't wait : order it online; I spent weeks driving around to book and comics stores in LA with no luck. Like most other sacred mainstays of The Small Room, it seems to be an acquired taste.

Brant Parker & Johnny Hart's WIZARD OF ID is probably my favorite long-running comic strip, after George Herriman's KRAZY KAT (sorry Snoopy!). Not nearly as poetic, of course, but existing in a fantasy world every bit as visually unique in it's own way. The land of Id resembles the caveman world of Johnny Hart's B.C. but the subtle differences lie in the distinctive cartooning of Brant Parker, who was Hart's mentor and later collaborator. I can't quite pinpoint what it is that sets Brant Parker's artwork apart from Johnny Hart's (their styles are virtually identical) but Parker's ID has a slight edge over Hart's B.C. for my taste. Maybe the medieval setting gave him more to work with visually. Maybe it's because Parker was older, more experienced--he had worked in animation at Disney in the mid-1940's and his sense of posing / staging is flawless. He was more or less pioneering the style that Hart absorbed and ably limned nationally with B.C. around 1960. Of course, I like them both, but Parker's art is perhaps 2% more lumpy, goggle-eyed and more ferociously committed to cartoon big-nosedness, all qualities that I can't resist.

ID embodies a 1960's school of cartoon design I think of as "smart/stupid". To me, the "smart," modernized stylization that took the cartoon world by storm in the 1950's had a tendency to get too slick, too sterile and too just plain flat for it's own good. By a decade later though, guys like Parker and Hart were seemingly satirizing that look with a looser, more spontaneous and "stupid" approach, almost as if they were trying to louse it up on purpose. And in doing so, they "warmed it up" in every sense of the word, even as they "dumbed it down", making it feel more organic, informal and light-hearted. I have to admit, that it's probably no coincidence that the smart/stupid style was in high gear in my kid-hood. Nostalgia no doubt plays a part in it...

All the same, it's a drawing style I kind of felt guilty for loving at the time. I was also nuts about classic animation of the 1930's and 40's, and that aesthetic seemed more respectable, if only because it seemed more obviously difficult. Maybe too the smart/stupid school was too contemporary and familiar to me, whereas the bygone work of the golden age animators seemed exotic by comparison. Happily, that's changed and I appreciate this kind of cartooning with unabashed admiration. Now when I sift through the pages of books like this one more than ever I marvel at the sheer rightness of the drawings. Settings, minor characters, even props give me as much pleasure as the main cast. For me, it's very close to the enjoyment of George Herriman's art, the Mount Everest of cartooning.

Despite the allusion to Freud in the title, the writing is not exactly cerebral but it has a post-modern sarcasm and deadpan quality that can still make me laugh. Giving the center stage to the King, its least like-able character, was an idea kind of ahead of it's time. By the year this volume's strips had been published, it was hard not to see Richard Nixon in the King's noxious personality. Even when not being specifically Nixon-like, he's still a ruthless selfish and un-redeemed a-hole; in short (heh-heh) a fink. There seems to have been an agreement made in the beginning by which (unlike other strips), these panels will never offer much in the way of a wistful, dewy-eyed sentiment, or anything weepy or apologetic. ID is a bleak, hard-knocks kingdom where gallows humor prevails, along with established stereotypes like funny drunkards, battle-axe wives, and smirking torturers. Some of these elements seem awkward and unenlightened subjects for humor today, but I can't help forgiving that. Believe it or not, it was hip at the time.

And the drawings, particularly around this era are sublime. They fill me with joy and envy. What more could I ask?

Three jeers for the Fink! Three cheers for the publishers! Hurry the next installment and don't spare the lumpy, cross-eyed, ski-footed, big-nosed horses!

Consistency is for the weak

2011-10-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

Four years ago last month, I posted this TRIBUTE TO MONTY, a selection of "off-model," spontaneous doodles of my favorite SIMPSONS character. Part of the subconscious urge to draw these came from the certainty that the designs for the beloved yellow Springfieldians are solid enough to withstand almost any stylistic interpretation.

On Sunday, John K's surprise 'couch gag' took that idea infinitely farther that i would have even dreamed of doing. It turned out to be not only a standalone showcase for his latest take on the 2D medium, but also a high-profile conversation-starter about the fate of hand-drawn animation in these troubled times.

Personally, I enjoyed the piece in all it's crazy glory. John's insatiable urge to scratch deep below the well-worn surface of the medium is an inspiration. It makes me want to animate again. John's full frontal assault on the "on-model" mentality that remains the cornerstone of production dogma is a welcome kick in the ass. One wonders, now that John has re-booted MIGHTY MOUSE, YOGI, and even HOMER, if a SPUMCO treatment of Mickey, Donald & Goofy couldn't work miracles for Disney? Maybe a SPUMCO Snow White? Come on Bob Iger, you know you want it...

some scribbles

2011-09-25T19:36:00.000-07:00

The thing directly above is "The Puce Moose", a character designed to embrace several design ideas I generally hate.

On hand also are Baz and Basil, who sometimes inhabit my woefully un-tended comics blog. They are unemployed at the moment but on my mind a lot lately.

Me by Pete

2011-09-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

Still furiously sorting through the decades and finally re-located this little gem.

Around 1992 or 93 Nik Rainieri and I were invited to do a kind of "chalk talk" at a convention of Disney collectors, among several other artists and contributors to the Disney empire who were invited to appear. I believe this was the first time I got to meet Pete Emslie, who was also one of the guests. A week or so later, Nik and I each got our Emslie original caricatures in the mail, compliments of the man himself. A nifty and flattering likeness of the younger me it is too...

Thanks Pete!

UPDATE: Pete was nice enough to send along this photo from the event, which he verifies as occurring all of 19 short years ago.

My Little Donkey

2011-08-21T17:45:00.001-07:00

I have been swamped with busy-ness on so many fronts I haven't had time to draw anything for fun lately. Still, one thing I am doing is sifting thru my "archives" of artwork over the years and every now and then something jumps out that looks worth sharing. These little donkey sketches are from a shelved project I worked on about four years back.

Willard Mullin IN COLOR!

2011-08-11T21:31:00.000-07:00

I should probably have waited 'til World Series time to pop these on but given my tendency to lose track of things, just pretend it's Autumn already. This is a small paperback book with a dozen or so B & W sketches inside, not including these images which were copied and colored for the cover. Click to embiggenate, the scans are large. I will get the rest of them on here, hopefully before hockey season.

Going back in Time

2011-08-06T18:05:00.000-07:00

Two years ago Charles Solomon interviewed me for an ART OF BEAUTY OF THE BEAST book, celebrating the movie's umpteenth anniversary. At the end of the interview he asked me if I had any roughs to show and oddly enough, I had just stumbled across a few which he asked me to scan and send. As fate would have it, I then misplaced said sketches and never found them in time to make it into the book (sorry Charles!).
As I am going thru decades of drawings and sketchbooks at present, I just stumbled across them again. Too late for the book (which came out last fall I think) but here for your enjoyment.

A "guide rough" for a key pose in the scene where Lumiere first calls to Maurice to notice them.

Small sketches done on copier paper during story meetings. I generally don't make detailed thumbnails because making tiny drawings out of scale and context never made much sense to me. I prefer to make working roughs right at the layout size that I can flip to preview (as in the top image). Still, I sometimes will practice a certain pose or attitude in advance of doing the scene.

This pose above is quite far from the actual pose I wound up animating into (thank God).

This one is close to something I did use, however.

This was a guide design for an actual ceramic wall clock a company called Schmidt made for merchandise. They initially wanted to put the working clock part in his stomach because the drawing they did followed the model sheets, which showed his nose too high to fit the clockworks properly. I asked them to give me an hour or so to tweak the model enough to fit the clock and still look like the character. Happily, producer Don Hahn allowed me to submit this drawing, which was used to a more sensible effect.

Here are my cleanups for the final. Of course, marketing insisted on a "happy face" option, which thankfully lost out to a more characteristic worried expression.

Just a doodle for fun, most likely. I really loved animating this character.

I always loved this bit where he comes down the stairs in a soldier's hat with a sword (and pistol in the movie). I did this sketch in the meeting where this idea was screened (I think Kevin Harkey did the story sketches, or Roger Allers). Tony Bancroft did the actual animation for the movie, and quite wondefully, I might add.

I found another tranche of similar artwork that I will scan and post at some point in the future. Frankly there is so much stuff turning up my scanner may have to apply for overtime...

The copyright for the "Cogsworth" character from BEAUTY & THE BEAST is property of the Disney Company.

Mort's MAD Mostel Montage

2011-07-12T22:06:00.000-07:00

Here's a sampling of Mort Drucker's brilliant caricatures of Zero Mostel in MAD MAGAZINE's 1973 parody of "FIDDLER ON THE ROOF." This was a unique take on the MAD movie parody because they did not satirize the actual film of "FIDDLER", but instead used the songs and template to send up the neurotic petite-bourgeouis problems of a modern upper middle class family vs. the hardships of their poorer-but-wiser Russian-Jewish ancestors. It's more of a social satire than a film parody.

This unique approach called for some creative casting: the awe-inspiring Zero Mostel had played the lead on stage but had been frozen out of the movie (as was bafflingly typical of the time) where his role was taken over by an actor named Topol. Given the license MAD was taking already with the material, they took the laudable liberty of bringing Mostel back to the central role, although the surrounding characters (with the notable exception of a cameo by Woody Allen and the whole cast of the movie version at the end) are all Mort Drucker's inspired and unique inventions (as far as I can tell anyway). These are all remarkably well drawn but I will leave you to track down the original to check them out. Here I wanted to focus on Mort Drucker's gob-smackingly beautiful draftsmanship in rendering Zero's many moods and faces with his commanding talent. To think this was long before video reference is amazing. Even using still photos for reference (as he likely did), these are not merely excellent cribs, but each and every drawing is customized and "animated" to the exact point in the script of the original text. I love that he not only captures the man's broadness but also his wonderfully nuanced "passive" expressions with equal perfection. There's nothing forced or off-balance or intrusive ever going on... By the time you've turned the last page, it's clear that there is not a single attitude, pose or expression Drucker couldn't render with utter mastery and complete fidelity to the subject. That he does this with as mercurial an actor as Zero Mostel is astounding. What is even more astounding is that it is typical of Drucker's treatment of every single subject he's ever taken on. Mort + MAD + Mostel = MAGIC!

Zizek

2011-07-08T08:04:00.000-07:00

2002

2010

Yeah, another blog...

2011-07-02T14:42:00.000-07:00

I was talking with some friends at work last week about how often we produce work that goes largely unseen, unpublished, strictly for fun or just never comes to light for one reason or another. I suggested we start a group blog to put up some of this ad hoc stuff and they agreed. The thing all this artwork shares in common is that for one reason or other, it wasn't part of the usual professional output, or in other words it was: "Stuff I Didn't Get Money For"...

Carolyn Gair is first up, with one of the many delightful self-published books she has done for family members (pictured at right).

Soon to follow, more delightful cast-offs from Keith Baxter and yours truly...

Father's Day with Bob & Ray

2011-06-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

Another animation done in under half a day. This one's dedicated to my father James E. Finn Jr. (1924-1967). He was a big fan of Bob & Ray, and by some miraculous coincidence, so am I...

(Bob & Ray audio copyright is owned by The Radio Foundation, visit HERE for more).

Campbell Grant Redux #1

2011-06-15T00:17:00.000-07:00

Way back in this 2008 post, I mentioned Campbell Grant, who had illustrated a number of humor books by Richard Armor. These were favorites of mine in trolling the humor section of my High School library as a kid. As I mentioned before, the books were patterned after a late 1940's humor sensation THE DECLINE AND FALL OF PRACTICALLY EVERYBODY, which was written by a satirist named Will Cuppy, who died before his book was published. That book was copiously illustrated by William Steig, in a style somewhere between his rather pedestrian early work and his later vivid, expressionistic style. Though it was the precursor to the Armor/Grant series, I only just stumbled across it around ten years ago.

I guess in the aftermath of Cuppy's sudden decline and fall someone had to take over the historical parody biznizz and Armor took on the mantel with great success. Armor's humor has a lighter touch, but it's clearly in the same vein, with punchlines turning up frequently in the copious footnotes. And the artwork of Steig and Grant is clearly influenced by Ronald Searle. Campbell Grant had been a Disney story artist in the 1940's and in his case that influence is also evident. Maybe because Armor lived on the West Coast they decided to pair him up with a West Coast illustrator too. I think by this time Mr. Grant was out of Disney's employ and devoted to researching indigenous cave painting of the Southwest, a genuine passion apparently. That's about the extent of my biographical knowledge of him. Joe Grant (no relation) didn't have much to add when I asked about him...

These are selections from AMERICAN LIT RE-LIT, spoofing classic literature of North America. Although many of the subjects are caricatures of authors whose likeness could be researched, even better, I think, are the invented "generic" characters, which are beautifully designed.

This caricature of E.A. Poe had a big impact on me, for some reason.

"BIRD DOG AFTERNOON"

2011-06-09T23:12:00.000-07:00

I had lunch with some animation pals yesterday, including the multi-talented ART VITELLO. I freelanced model designs and storyboards for a good number of shows that Art produced and directed for Disney TV, DIC, and WB TV, including several TINY TOONS ADVENTURES.

Art mentioned that a "one-shot" I storyboarded and did models for was favored by none other than Chuck Jones, who called Art up to compliment him on it and he was nice enough to say the storyboard was one of the show's strenghts. Art's direction is the real strength though: as always smart, character oriented and entertaining... I guess the character never appeared in any other cartoons, but it was a pantomime dog named "Byron." Art did a rough sketch of a kind of basset hound-Sharpei mix and the jokes had a lot to do with his slow movements and floppy skin. Then I did the story board and a model with lots of poses and animation ideas. We worked out that he could change direction by sort of inhaling his head into his folds of mass and have it come out the other end, (somehow without turning inside out!).

The short was called "BIRD DOG AFTERNOON" and I believe this is the only show from that series that I worked on that I ever got a chance to see on the air. Somebody put it up on YouTube, where it shows up around the 3:56 mark.

I thought a lot of it turned out nice, with decent animation and lots of attention to what was posed out in the storyboard. There was a gag of the dog fastidiously adjusting a crooked picture on the wall that Art enhanced by having him exit the frame and then returning to fix the picture. The only other thing I think that got changed (maybe to get a better silhouette?) was the climatic shot of the cat on the chimney, where I had put the neighboring roofs in more of a dramatic downshot. My sketch is crude, but I think the idea was right... As alterations go, that's a quibble I guess I can live with...

I also remember suggesting an alternate title: "THE HOUND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE", but by then it was too late. Oh well. Working with Art is always a pleasure and usually a tremendous learning opportunity too...

UPDATE: 08/07/11

TINY TOONS writer-producer Tom Reugger visited the comment section to describe the true-to-life genesis of this story:

"Bird Dog Afternoon" was based on an incident in my back yard. A bird built a nest under the eave of our backyard patio, and baby birds hatched. Our basset hound Lucy spent most of her life on that back patio. So, one day, we heard non-stop barking coming from out back. I went out there and found our basset hound worked up into a lather, barking non-stop at our cat who was also out there on the patio. Normally, this cat and dog completely ignored each other. But the reason for the racket was this: the baby birds had leapt out of the nest and had landed on the patio and were peeping and jumping around down there. The cat saw them, allowed its instincts to take over, and was going in for the kill. But the basset hound would not let that happen. Lucy the basset kept the cat at bay and actually managed to herd the baby birds into a corner where she could defend them successfully from the cat. Wild. (Well, the basset hound did own the patio.) The baby birds eventually figured out their wings and took off.

Your board was great, as was Art's direction, and the cartoon worked beautifully -- and Byron's personality really came to life.

And yes, the Tiny Toons character named Byron Basset was a shout out to both TT director Byron Vaughns and poet Lord Byron.

(thanks Tom!)

EVEN MORELY MORE MORE MULLIN

2011-05-30T18:05:00.000-07:00

Here's the last of the illustrations from CLOWNING THROUGH BASEBALL (1941) by Al Schaact. Willard Mullin is so good he even makes baseball look entertaining. Enjoy! (Click to enlarge)

Hope everybody had a nice Memorial Day Weekend...!

ALAKAZAM, the Not That Bad!

2011-05-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

ALAKAZAM THE GREAT! (1960) is streaming now on Netflix and I've watched it a few times recently. This used to come on TV in Syracuse around 1970. It seemed to come out of nowhere, which is to say that it was one of the very few non-Disney animated features around. The fact that it was Japanese and also relatively recent was an added attraction. Seeing a fully-animated feature on TV back then was an experience so rare it was almost unheard of. That this one came from no known studio brand or western story gave it yet another layer of intrigue...

I don't know much of anything about the behind the scenes production story of this movie, but of course it's based on JOURNEY TO THE WEST and seems to have been adapted from a manga (which I have never seen) by Tezuka. The animation tries very hard to be "Hollywood" and for all intents and purposes, it does a remarkably serviceable job. I don't mean that praise to sound as damningly faint as it comes off, but though it mostly lacks the true essence of "personality animation", it at least manages to achieve a solidly consistent execution of character animation's technical properties (timing, posing, weight, overlap, etc) which is no small thing. Overall it has the kind of kinetic fluidity that some of the post-war Russian movies did and I wonder if there was some collaboration there...?

Visually it certainly is derivative as all get out but it seems to be pretty respectful of the standards it emulates, even though it gropes around stylistically in the process, generally favoring a default generic ethic. That said, overall there is a surprising effort to get things right in areas where Hollywood studios were already beginning to drop the ball. The color palette is intelligent and the backgrounds are carefully painted. It's a wide-screen movie and though the cutting is sometimes clumsy, the layouts are effective and occasionally some multi-plane effects are achieved with care and subtlety. Effects animation is at least as involved as anything done in Hollywood at the time (OK, not exactly Josh Meador, but able and ambitious). The voice cast is post-dubbed, but they do a decent job-- whoever thought of snagging Johnathan Winters as "Pigsy" deserves a nod for a pretty inspired bit of casting for 1960... He is right in line with the anachronistic humor, much of which seems typically Tezuka (not that I'm an expert), although the script is ultimately pretty corny. Other voices include Sterling Holloway and Arnold Stang, Frankie Avalon ("Alakazam's" singing voice) and a cast of familiar English language dubbing stalwarts who comport themselves refreshingly absent of the grating, stylized delivery associated with post-dubbing just a few years later, (and pretty much still prevailing today, alas).

The score (for the English language version anyway) is by bandleader Les Baxter, and although the songs are utterly forgettable, the background music is surprisingly detailed, full and lush at it's best and avoiding sounding stupid or childish at least. It has a very harsh and tinny mix, and doesn't blend with the subtlety of a Disney score, but for a first effort it is intelligently done.

Inevitably, the narrative suffers from the uphill battle of trying to adapt a largely culturally unfamiliar Buddhist myth to American kids circa 1960. The whole point of the pilgrimage to spread the word of Buddha is confused by no mention of purpose, dismissing the onscreen depiction of Buddha as an ersatz cosmic spirt called "King Amo". Making things even more confusing is the addition of figures like "Merlin:" and "Hercules" to the cosmic pantheon along with a couple of heavenly Christian looking "angels" to round out the epic buffet of spiritual influences. The priest who the Monkey King and his cohorts accompany is converted generically into some sort of Prince, (no mention of the intention of his pilgrimage: he just has to get from the beginning to the end of his vague but danger-filled journey safely). The spine of the story at the kid (and main character) level is a trite morality tale of "Alakazam" going from being a selfish dick to a hero who wins the admiration of his adorable girlfriend. His impact on other characters as that happens is typical of most kid's morality stories and while it is tedious, at least here it is no more heavy-handed than usual.

There are a lot of monsters in the story and a good deal of very weird and surreal shape shifting sequences. These are the most intrinsic to the original source story and are some of the most entertaining bits. The animators have a ball with them too, with a lot of unusual and original flourishes. Thankfully martial arts movies really didn't exist as a genre yet so although there is a good deal of fighting, it is done without having to reference the tropes of kung fu movies, either legitimately or as parody.

The end result is more curious than satisfying or memorable. The mythic aspect provides a few thinly developed characters with an episodic series of challenges that are mildly diverting while the emotional story is familiar as it is predictable. Still the native quality of the story and execution is refreshingly unique, and compared to the wheezy dull American fare produced around the same time (GAY PURR-EE, HEY THERE IT'S YOGI BEAR!, MAGOO'S ARABIAN NIGHTS) it holds up respectably well in a number of aspects. If you know anything at all about animation production, the one thing you can't call it is lazy or cheap looking.

I am pretty sure I would find this a good bit less endearing without the nostalgia factor, but still, given how much can go wrong making an animated movie (especially back then) they did themselves at least as proud as any of Disney's feature-length rivals up to that time, including the Fleischers in my opinion. Hell, compared to a lot of stuff done much later and even now, it's surprisingly decent. The fact that the third of the three features mentioned above left me cold even as a kid says as much as the fact that the former two I can't manage to sit thru anymore even out of auld lang syne. ALAKAZAM is dandy enough eye candy at least.

I have to add, that as much as most (not all) anime also leaves me cold, I am glad Japanese animators abandoned the quasi-Hollywood standards of ALAKAZAM not too long after it's disappointing release. They didn't do too bad trying to imitate Hollywood, but if that's all they had continued to do, they probably would not have done a whole lot better... Anime is at least it's own thing and though I don't "get" most of it, lots of other people obviously do.

Anybody who has any background on the production please chime in!

UPDATE:

Charles Brubaker sends along this super cool link to a whacky Tezuka style TV version. I love it!

Thanks Charles!

HIRSCHFELD rarity

2011-05-08T09:55:00.000-07:00

Mostly on the mend today and thanks for all the well wishes. In the meantimes..here's a fun picture you may not have seen before... Years ago in my quest to scare up Syverson drawings, I stumbled across this full color illustration by Al Hirschfeld in the June 23,1962 edition of THE SATURDAY EVENING POST.

The picture accompanies a Ray Bradbury short story called THE PREHISTORIC PRODUCER, about a Ray Harryhausen-type creature animator who channels his obnoxious producer's personality into the monster he has been hired to sculpt and animate. It's pretty minor work for a Bradbury story, but the illustration is interesting as a rare non-caricature Hirschfeld, in color too, acrylic I suspect.

This issue only had a few tiny Syversons, which I'll scan and post later...

Bleeccchhh....

2011-05-03T12:22:00.000-07:00

A series of back to back maladies (meddlesome but minor at least) has had me intermittently under house arrest and less productive of late. Back to the old swing of small and roomy posting soon...

Just another Mammoth Monday

2011-04-11T08:11:00.000-07:00

Plus, more of these damn mice!!!

Mood swing for a gloomy April evening...

2011-04-02T19:44:00.000-07:00

"Next...?"

GOOD ADVICE

2011-04-01T09:10:00.000-07:00

Gone viral already, I saw it on DRAWN!

http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/comment-page-2/#comment-42257

And a cartoon by yours truly...

HEY MICKEY!

2011-03-30T09:16:00.000-07:00

HEY ANIMATORS! If you've got roughly 70 minutes to kill and you enjoy studying pitch-perfect acting, hurry over to hulu and watch Mickey Rooney starring in THE COMEDIAN.

Here's my original post on this vintage TV one-shot starring Mickey Rooney as a cut-throat TV funnyman unable to resist bullying everyone in his orbit. My friend Rick Farmiloe and I have been mutual fans of this little-seen 1957 Rod Serling teleplay since it re-surfaced on PBS about 30 years ago and it has been an endless source of quotable gold ever since. If you can see past the creaks, blurry picture and tenuous plotline you too may become a fan. Nearly impossible to find on DVD, the invisible hand of the internet has stepped in to make it available to everybody. No excuses. All you have to do is watch a few new car ads, which is probably a lot less than the original live viewing audience had to put up with.

P.S. a couple new posts over at SNELGROVE'S. Take your time...

New comic on the other blog

2011-03-06T17:15:00.000-08:00

A new installment of THE INCIDENTALS over at LORD SNELGROVE'S.

Sorry for the lack of posts, but otherwise busy as all get out...

THE UNUSUAL SUSPECTS: NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA

2011-02-20T15:51:00.000-08:00

There are certain cartoons, studios and creators that are so universally beloved that to merely mention them in a blogpost insures a zillion hits. Last week I referred to them as 'The Usual Suspects' and although I appreciate them as much as anybody, as time goes by I find less and less to say about them that hasn't already been said, and often more astutely than I could say it.

Instead, here's a salute to a some cartoons that I feel are too often overlooked and under-appreciated; many are from the NFBC, aka the National Film Board of Canada. I was lucky enough to snap up a couple DVDs worth a dozen years or so ago, none of which seem to be widely available any more. Happily, YOU TUBE users step in to fill the gap and provide uploads of some of them.

First up is GET A JOB, by Brad Caslor. This came out around 1985, well before ROGER RABBIT, and it pays a sterling tribute to the golden age of LOONEY TUNES, (particularly Bob Clampett) with impeccable style, clever writing, and drop-dead perfect timing and posing. There's a segment around 6:20
where 'Bob Dog' more than triples in size and it is done with amazingly sophisticated camera work, layout and staging. The 'old-timey' homages are noticeable but lovingly done, and more than made up for with original ideas. Ostensibly an "educational" film, it makes its point with great humor, hectic energy and non-stop kinetic buoyancy. I love this cartoon.

Next is THE BIG SNIT (also mid-1980's), probably my favorite NFBC cartoon. Daft, unpredictable, dark and silly all at the same time, the Scrabble opening even inspired the opening scene of one of the first SIMPSONS (according to my recollection of Matt Greoning's commentary). I suspect the wife character's hairdo might have influenced Marge's coiffure, (though hers also suggests Dr. Seuss as well). Directed by Richard Condie.

SNIT's yelling couple put me in mind of HOT STUFF, by Zlatko Grgic, another "educational" short ostensibly about fire safety from the early 1970's. This one used to show on Chuck Jones' CURIOSTY SHOP (ABC Saturday Morning answer to SESAME STREET) and I met the author and voice star Don Aroli many years later when Chuck Jones was making CHARIOTS OF FUR. The timing and acting (both voice and animation) are quite funny without owing much of anything to previously made cartoons. That alone makes it worth watching. The embed code was disabled, so please copy & paste this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht6lRb8y_AQ

Cartoonists and animators in my age group will recall these films both fondly and readily, but I am surprised how many younger artists I meet have never heard of them. If you haven't--give them a look--it looks like they were done with a lot of talent and love.

UPDATE 2/22/11: YOWP directs us to the NFB online database, which has added many animated titles since I last visited a few years back--check it out for more Canadian wonders... (Thanks YOWP! and Amir...)

THE INCIDENTALS (#05)

2011-02-16T08:01:00.000-08:00

When visiting the SMALL ROOM, why not stop by my other measly blog? It's free with every internet connection...

Cheesey Valentine Interlude

2011-02-14T09:24:00.000-08:00

No mass upload of frantic arbitrary scribblings this week. However in honor of everybody's favorite blood-pumping organ, here's a few heartfelt Valentine's Day sketches of WTF MOUSE.

Also, when in the SMALL ROOM, please feel free to check in to the Other Small Room...

Influence, Maps, and The Usual Suspects

2011-02-13T10:40:00.000-08:00

Influence Maps first came to my attention a few months ago, when sites like SHANE GLINES began mentioning them. The concept of making a proportional collage of your top ten influences as an artist/animator/cartoonist has genuine merit, and although I did not make one of my own, a mental image of my Influence Map is not hard to imagine…

The depressing thing is that it would be virtually identical to at least hundreds of others. Influences are tricky things, they guide us but they can also suffocate us (what I call "Prisoners of Love Syndrome"). Cartooning is still a relatively young pursuit and also a commercial one, which both tend to suggest that is not a particularly deep one, in fact notoriously shallow. Sadly, a good deal of proof supports the shallow thesis, but I am not going to despair too much over that. The notion of the Influence Map may hold the keys, both to the problem and the solution...

Over the years I began making a mental list of what I call "The Usual Suspects" : iconic, watershed artists, films and artworks that have become universally canonical to animation & cartooning. I refrain from listing them here for two reasons:

1. If you're an animation artist or animation art enthusiast you already know who they are.

2. Someone is sure to misinterpret me as "bashing" these greats. Far from it, their status, quality and influence is perfectly understandable and I share the praise and elevation of it along with everybody else. My concern is that the limited and consistent quantity of their influence runs the risk of homogenizing the general pool.

About ten years ago I actually wrote up a short list of The Usual Suspects and it indeed was alarmingly short; shorter still were the actual wellsprings of these influences: Disney Studio, Warner's, H-B, MAD, PUNCH, New Yorker Magazine, a smattering of newsprint & comic book publishers rounding out the scant few others. A few contemporaries of my generation have been added since I was first starting out, but they'd largely be either from the same sources or influenced by the previous generation to a considerable enough extent to make them almost a sub-set of the original list.

As I said above, these artists and films are all understandable and I would not discourage anyone from them. For that matter, the contemporary studio HR departments seem to have learned how to recognize the best disciples of the cannon and to hire accordingly, so far be it from me to talk any students out of potential employment. But a restless spirit in me is always eager to switch things up a bit, to re-shuffle the deck in hope of staying fresh. For instance, up until about 5 years ago, my general influence pie-chart would have been at least 70% "Disney" whereas today I would put that percentage at less than a third of that size. Thanks to internet exposure, I have been particularly jazzed by the classic cartoonists of South America such as DiVito, Abel Ianiro, and Fantasio, along with many others from other places and times. I have also made a point of coming back to examine artists I previously under-estimated to evaluate subtle merits I overlooked before. I would encourage anybody to do the same. Just as we should coldly scrutinize out favorites for their blunders, weaknesses, and routine tropes, we should also take a second look at some we may have dismissed to see what they were doing right, even if only occasionally and marginally. Also, if you notice that all or many of your influences are decades old (or older) make a point of scouring the contemporary landscape (bleak as is sometimes seems) for somebody or something current to take heart from. It you can't, then go in the opposite direction, deep into antiquity...

For that matter, I would encourage map-makers to consider making more than one Influence Map: apart from the artists you are influenced by, try making a map of other influences: what music inspires you? Which actors? Photographers? Writers? Architects? What are your favorite type fonts? Animals? Patterns?

For an even more soul-searching map: who are the friends, family and real people in your own life who influence & inspire you? What are the places you love to be in? What landmarks in your daily experience mean the most to you? What's your favorite food? Chances are, these are going to be the influences that can be the most constructive in your artistic process and since they are unique to you, the most important. Don't be afraid to let them affect your work. In fact, make a point of it...

THE INCIDENTALS (#04)

2011-02-11T07:48:00.000-08:00

Also: When at The Small Room, please feel free to visit my new other blog: it's lonely: LINK.

THE INCIDENTALS (#03)

2011-02-09T08:22:00.000-08:00

Sunday Doodle Deluge

2011-02-06T12:50:00.000-08:00

Baz & Basil "work" as incidental characters in animation. The rest of the time they goof off. It's not easy to tell which is which...

Resident Clone Trooper

Bidniz Man

More incidentals....

Inexplicable dinosaur gags coming up in 3...2...1...

Word to the wise: they really do.

THE INCIDENTALS (#02)

2011-02-04T08:36:00.000-08:00

THE INCIDENTALS (#01)

2011-02-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

They're Cloning Wooly Mammoths of Love...

2011-01-30T22:21:00.000-08:00

...but not for me...

The Good, The Bad, The Doodles

2011-01-23T20:47:00.000-08:00

The week in doodles

2011-01-16T21:44:00.000-08:00

Meanderings from the past ten days or so.

GILBERTOON

2011-01-12T23:11:00.000-08:00

(Not overly graphic but NSFW language, so be forewarned.)

I did this little clip of the great Gilbert Gottfried recently, from one of his notoriously classic DIRTY JOKES and hope to be working on another soon. It's been posted to FUNNY OR DIE, which for me is a big first!

(No plans on tackling THE ARISTOCRATS! Some things are best left to the imagination...)

UPDATE: Gilbert has just launched his own website featuring tweets, news, etc.

Drawing of the day

2011-01-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

Small, worried dinosaur. Omen for 2011 or just a symptom of sketching while listening to the news...?

Subliminal Cliff Sterrett/Charles Schulz tribute scribble

2010-12-27T20:46:00.000-08:00

I did this after pouring over the new POLLY & HER PALS book, which I got for Christmas. A really wonderful book I have to say it is too. I have been lucky enough to get my hands on a good bit of Cliff Sterrett's reprinted work over the years and, like everyone else, I find it one of the great masterpieces of cartooning.

This drawing made no sense to me when I made it under the heavy Sterrett influence until I remembered the first time I saw his work: 40 Christmases ago when my mom gave me the book CHARLIE BROWN & CHARLES SCHULZ, based on a lengthy TV profile of Schulz the same year. Early in the book he mentioned his childhood favorites, offering examples of POLLY and also KRAZY KAT, the first time I saw either. I've been a rabid fan of both ever since and perhaps I always subconsciously nod to Schulz for bringing them to my attention in the first place.

The new POLLY book, (like the 2 volume series in the early 1990's) focuses on the mind-blowing Sunday strips of the mid 1920's: jumbo excursions into Art Deco Surrealism that the strip is known for. There's a lot of previously un re-printed stuff here and the gigantic format is even more expansive than ever. I hope somebody gets around to re-printing some of the classic dailies at some point, I have seen a few years' worth of them and while the dailies don't afford the epic compositions and color of the Sundays, I find his posing and expressions every bit as enjoyable without them.

Hats off to Cliff Sterrett, and the makers of this wonderful book...!

HO HO HO

2010-12-23T13:44:00.000-08:00

Santa MONOCLE, get it...? Oh, you did... My apologies...

INTERNATIONAL VERSION: (pour mes amis)

Why I'll never make it in comics

2010-12-13T22:09:00.000-08:00

Just can't get the hang of correct dialog balloon placement.

OSS-117:LOST IN RIO

2010-11-30T20:24:00.000-08:00

Looks like 2010 is my year to catch up with French-language films, with the animated A TOWN CALLED PANIC being a recent favorite, and a huge hit with my kids.

OSS-117:LOST IN RIO is not animation but it's star Jean Dujardin has managed to breathe new life into the James Bond parody genre (something I would not have thought possible at this late stage) and having watched it today on Netflix, I recommend it for it's startlingly precise 1960's Kodachrome visuals and it's antic (and admittedly hit-and-miss) grab-bag style of wildly inappropriate humor. It's been a long time since a movie made me actually glad to be alive, but this one did it. I guess it's the second in the series and I am working up the courage to see the first one (NEST OF SPIES) hoping I won't be disappointed. Check it out if you don't mind subtitles and like a good laugh.

QWERTY the Dinosaur IN COLOR

2010-11-26T21:23:00.000-08:00

HAPPY HOLIDAY

2010-11-23T20:56:00.000-08:00

QWERTY on the YouTubes

2010-11-16T08:36:00.000-08:00

I've uploaded a higher resolution copy of QWERTY THE DINOSAUR onto YouTube, where you can see it more clearly in all it's scratchy, jittery, slightly less fuzzy glory.

Weird, creepy and kinda cool (possibly)

2010-11-11T21:51:00.000-08:00

I love Japan but I confess I am not typically a fan of Anime. Nor of Mo-cap CGI (from any country), but united together and projected as a hologram I have to admit they both held my attention in this video. HATSUNE MIKU is an entirely un-real performer who nonetheless appears onstage with a live band and performs to wildly cheering fans by way of what appears to be a startling holographic projection. I just stumbled across this on a news media blog, where they were clucking about the awfulness of it all, but to me it seems like an intriguing new concept for stagecraft and animation.

I have seen videos of GORILLAZ performing live behind flat screens where giant projections of the characters as CGI animations are shown, but if this really is an actual hologram, it takes that idea a step further. The possibilities are endless and very intriguing. With enough firepower a "live" animated arena show could be done in the round--adding a genuine 3-D experience to a feature length story. Call me crazy, but I think it's ultimately kinda cool.

WHOOPS: UPDATE: A more careful study shows this is probably also a flat projection, on some sort of screen (there seems to be some sort of rectangular scrim around the character). Although some of the camera rotation shots make it look like the CG figure is actually 3D, that may be only an illusion served by a well-timed camera move in sync with the character's rotation. In that event, this would be a much closer cousin to the GORILLAZ experiments in 'live' animation, which I also like quite a bit (but are years old already).

Oh well. If someone has gotten this far, maybe the real [unreal] thing can't be too far off...

more poo

2010-11-10T18:32:00.000-08:00

SKETCH DEPOSITS

2010-11-08T01:46:00.000-08:00

T shirt

2010-11-08T00:09:00.000-08:00

I got a lot of good responses on the cat image below when I published it last year. I have opened a Red Bubble account in addition to my art site. A full color version can be yours on a t-shirt for around 20 bucks. If you've got better things to do with your money, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised...

Visit my Red Bubble Store

Reunion

2010-11-01T15:11:00.000-07:00

Me, Nik Ranieri, David Pruiksma

My friend animator Dave Pruiksma currently teaches at Laguna College of Art and Design, where he recently hosted a reunion for Nik Ranieri and me to join him discussing animating our characters for Disney's BEAUTY & THE BEAST, released all of 19 years ago this month (which is hard to believe!). Dave was the primary animating hand behind the lovable "Mrs. Potts and her son Chip", Nik did the same for "Lumiere" and I did same for "Cogsworth." It was very invigorating to speak to and with the talented students and to visit and reminisce with Dave and Nik at length for the first time in too long. Dave has a slideshow HERE.
(Thanks Dave!)

I'm for sale

2010-11-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

After more than a year of working on it, I have finally launched a separate site for selling digital giclee prints of my artwork at http://willfinn.net/ . A few of the prints I will be making available are derived from designs I have posted here, but most of it isn't and for the time being I am going to incline toward artwork I have done that is more decorative than narrative or character-oriented. In other words, most of it is not closely animation related in any direct way, which is why I decided to keep it separate. In any event, it's a stab at something new and I look forward to seeing how it turns out. I have a sizeable backlog of artwork I am preparing and will be adding stuff as I go along.

This blog remains my first and foremost home for cartoon and animation love and jabber. Like it or not, it isn't going away.

Getting small in a big way

2010-10-25T11:27:00.000-07:00

I just read Steve Martin's 2007 memoir BORN STANDING UP and encourage anybody creative to read it also, if you have not already.

If you're under, say 30, I don't know if it is possible to fully grasp the phenomenal sensation that his standup routines created in the mid 1970's. Like a lot of ephemeral pop entertainment, in hindsight the act itself doesn't pack the wallop it did at the time, though it is all still very funny. But for about five or six years, he was the life of the global party: the man of the moment; someone considered so uproariously funny that just to quote a fragment of one of his routines would invoke a kind of dizzy cheer. His act was so vivid, broad and delirious that somehow, he seemed oddly like a member of the family hiding behind the persona of a nearly innocent goof who might in fact be insanely smart.

If George Carlin hadn't used the title first, Steve Martin's act could have been called OCCUPATION: FOOL, (to me Carlin always seemed more of a pissed-off contrarian and nobody's fool); from the late 1960's on, Steve Martin's genial clowning had been a kind of staple of TV shows from supporting roles on THE SMOTHERS BROTHERS and SONNY & CHER to regular appearances on THE TONIGHT SHOW, all of which he documents here. Somewhere around the advent of his first SNL hosting gigs, his humor caught the general imagination and funnybone of the country in a way most performers can only dream about. It was a kind of harmonic event in media culture: the medium had finally caught up with what he was doing just as he was perfecting it. His stand up was a kind of sly, meta-comedy: full of corny old props, dated banjo music and general foolishness, but with a cerebral edge that drew attention to the inherent absurdity of performing in general, while simultaneously genuinely loving the corniest things about it. He made fun of performing while being terribly funny at it, with ebullient and childlike energy that it was infectious.

Interestingly, he catalogs the nearly two decades of relentless effort he spent "rehearsing" for his seemingly "overnight success" with a kind of refreshing candor : there is discouragement, anxiety (in the extreme sometimes), flashes of insight followed by long dry spells, his foibles and faults as a person and a performer are all touched upon. None of this seems indulgent, instead he is generous with his debt to various contemporaries on the way up. Very interesting to me is the fact that although he admits being initially inspired as a child by famous comedians like Jack Benny, he spends far more ink paying tribute to the unsung, unknown, or largely obscure theme park entertainers he first worked with as a teen in Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm, which suggests that he was innately as influenced by these talented unknowns as much if not more than any superstar. At another point he documents a couple of salient bits of advice he picked up from a musty instructional pamphlet for budding magicians that are like lighting bolts even to read them today.

If any of this is applicable to cartooning and art in general, I suggest these two nuggets:

1.) that his own innate talent may have made his peak form seem effortless, but that was teased out one grain at a time over a long, long haul of trial and error that might seem familiar to anyone learning any creative trade. Even as he became something of a "name", prior to becoming a "somebody" he was basically a "nobody." Giving up seemed like a viable option at several points, even immeidately before his stupendous headliner status. At that point, he then seemed to onlookers like me to be a thriving working minor comedy star; he was in fact, laboring diligently to stay barely afloat by working literally anywhere he could and continuing to both technically and creatively grope towards higher standards he set for himself. When his break finally came and his style gelled you get the feeling he certainly had earned his success. And it seems clear that he was aiming for creative success first and foremost, and not merely for fame.

2.): The amount of praise he has for his early mentors as a theme park "cast member" is genuine but it also indicates that he was building his core concepts, attitudes and values from talented folks he actually knew and liked and admired, even though they were far from famous. In doing so, he was either consciously or unconsciously forging a more original path than someone who might have been more inclined to primarily copy famous comedians everybody already knew and loved. To the extent he is aware of this, he says at one point that early on he realized that he would have to stop relying on old well-worn bits cribbed from over-exposed jokebooks and find his own comic voice. He admits this was not an easy revelation either, but it was necessary. In the same breath, he notes the importance of originality, which is also a hallmark of what made him inimitable as a comedian. I think in cartooning, there is a tendency to hew too closely to the established cannon (I like to call them "The Usual Suspects"), which tends to make the gene pool seem thinner than it needs to be.

This is a reminder to me, at least, and hopefully anyone else thinking about it, that while copying our heroes is natural and often a useful exercise, overdoing it can lead to mannerism as opposed to a genuine process. Inventing your own process is difficult and often discouraging because you are forced to discover by trial and error, but if you have the tenacity to endure it, (as opposed to simple stubbornness), it can be very rewarding.
(thanks Robin!)

Two of my favorite sources of inspiration

2010-10-18T21:27:00.000-07:00

I met MIKE SMITH about a dozen years ago, thru my good pal Rej Bourdages. Mike is a wonderfully talented guy: a human tsunami of a dizzying variety of styles and ideas. I watched him storyboard a soft drink ad featuring a giant monster skulking thru a city and I could not get over how seemingly effortless he made it all look... I discovered a his website awhile back and got back in touch, glad to know he is as brilliant as ever...

One of the music videos Mike directed and designed for George Thurogood is a classic example of Mike's dazzling style, and it also happens to feature animation that I suspected could have only been done by another friend, colleague and source of endless inspiration: DAVE FEISS. I caught up with Dave for lunch a month ago or so and it turns out he indeed collaborated with Mike on the video. Of course Dave is best known for his hilariously demented COW & CHICKEN series from CN, but I will never forget spotting some earlier standout comic book work he did for the series THE MAXX, where he ghosted a dream sequence, (turns out THE MAXX creator is a relative of Dave's and they jammed together just for fun.) I finally got to work with Dave a few years ago and the whole time I was almost dizzy with admiration for him. A genuine cartoonists' cartoonist if ever there was one.

The Butler that didn't...

2010-10-14T21:26:00.000-07:00

"Edgar" in Disney's THE ARISTOCATS is one of those great tour-de-fource Milt Kahl characters that shows off the animator's raw talent and skill in a less-than-excellent film. I've always liked the character tho, who was voiced by British comedian Roddy Maude-Roxby, and probably modeled more or less on Arthur Treacher, the gold-standard bearer of Hollywood character actor English butlers. Disney legend Burny Mattinson once mentioned to me that around the same time there was an ongoing interest to get Robert Morely, another great UK talent to do a voice for a Disney character over the course of several films, but Mr. Morley, whose mobile face was even more expressive than his spectacularly unique voice, was apparently completely dis-interested is seeing himself animated. Still, possibly Morley's paunchy frame and expressive face guided this character to some extent...

Michael Hordern, a less well known but every bit as wonderful actor always somewhat reminds me of "Edgar"as well, but I have no idea if he provided any influence. Hordern was a masterful UK stage actor, featured in many great Shaekspearean roles on stage and the small screen, but his movie appearances were generally 2nd or 3rd tier supporting character roles. One memorable such performance can be seen in Richard Lester's uneven but enjoyable adaptation of the Broadway burlesque A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM (1967), where Hordern plays the horny, hen-pecked head of a household next door to a tempting brothel. I have seen that show performed on stage many times and the father is always played as the broadest comic character in a show full of broad and comic types, but Hordern goes about it in his signature understated style that steals every scene he's in.

Co-incidentally a Netflix search of his name turned up an intriguing made for TV comedy from England called FUTTOCK'S END starring Ronnie Barker. I can't reccommend it, it is singularly lousy and boring, but in the story (played entirely in pantomime) Hordern plays a dodgy butler who goes about on a motor scooter, albeit one without a sidecar. I was kind of flabbergasted at some of the similarities to the ARISTOCATS' character even still. Here's a few frame grabs...

Butler Hordern in FUTTOCK' END

Did this influence the cartoon character? Not terribly likely: both films were made at the roughly the same time and released in the same year (1970). Although MONTY PYTHON would be a cornerstone of PBS a few years later, English comedy shows were rarely shown on TV in the USA back then so it is doubtful anyone laboring away in Burbank would have seen it. It still is a funny co-incidence. Almost as intriguing as this one was a model sheet I once saw for Milt Kahl's conception of "Flewder Flamm," the bumbling bard in THE BLACK CAULDRON. That design looked for all intents and purposes EXACTLY like Michael Hordern to me. Maybe Milt Kahl liked this actor too, but who knows? That design was unused, (I don't own a copy of it) and both men are long gone, alas.

Skribblz

2010-10-06T11:07:00.000-07:00

I like to think that I'm never too busy to doodle, but lately that's the case. These are mostly from way back in May I think...

JIM TYER FANS REJOICE: ASIFA Hollywood Archive delivers!

2010-10-06T09:46:00.000-07:00

My pal Dave Nethery has directed our attention to the esteemed Asifa Hollywood Archive blog, where a series of Jim Tyer storyboard drawings are on display! Not quite the same as having actual animation ruffs, but in any case, we get to see both ruff and finished artwork by him, both of which offer a peek into his process. Check it out....LINK!

Tyer-less Tyer

2010-09-28T21:34:00.000-07:00

Fan art only. Character is copywritten property of Disney. No wagering please.

Lately I have wondered what it would have been like if Jim Tyer had ever drawn Disney characters.

I have been on a Tyer kick lately and it only got more intense when Kevin Langley posted THIS quintessential Tyer epic, one of the last (if not THE last) theatrical MIGHTY MOUSE shorts.

I loved Terrytoons as a kid, they were in heavy rotation on Saturday morning TV in the early 1960's but then they kind of disappeared until Turner revived them in the mid-1980's. By then I was already a working animator and when I saw them as an adult I was mesmerized by Tyer. I still am. There was nobody like him, before or since in a century of animation (Emery Hawkins is probably the closest cousin). I don't think Tyer could have achieved his ultimate signature style in any other studio, probably because no other studio was so cheap, so driven by deadlines and cost cutting measures, and so beleaguered by hackneyed gags and characters. And all of that inverted discipline of making the bottom line work at all costs allowed Tyer's nutty character to evolve to unparalleled heights.

Which remains a funny comment on the nature of creativity. The subjects of the shorts were so weak that he had considerable liberty to be so funny in his execution. We can't really know for sure, but if the characterizations or situations had required something more crisp and specific from a conceptual standpoint, he might not have been able to be as loose and spontaneous. Fortunately, the gags are almost always routine, tame, lame, derivative and stupid, but Tyer takes this as an excuse to let his animation chops run wild. When his scenes come on, it's almost as if the cartoon suddenly gets drunk; everything from the lip sync to the locomotion goes completely haywire, and yet somehow makes its own strange sense. It is almost as if he spent his formative years learning the basics of the craft and then just said "Ah the hell with it" and just allowed the muse to guide his errant pencil wherever it wanted to go. It is savant-like animation, almost completely devoid of technique (he has some trademarks but he rarely does anything the same way twice) and more vividly expressionistic than any other mainstream artist has ever achieved. Add to this that his work has an effortless, off-handedness and you have one of the most unique careers in animation. I doubt he ever expected to have his name whispered in reverence by so many ardent fans so long after his passing, but happily his cult continues to grow.

Like I said, he probably would have been fired at any studio where discipline and "artistry" were held in any esteem, which says something wonderful about a schlock-house like Terry and the oddball atmosphere that permitted his diamond-rare style to flower. It also says something about the youth of the medium even back then (the late 1940's thru to the 60's) : today the mainstream studios have gotten so systematized that it is hard to picture someone as individual as him being allowed to so wantonly violate norms of the trade...

Doggypuppy: Revised model 9/7/10

2010-09-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

Slowest...blogging season...EVERRRRR!

2010-08-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

Despite global tensions on many fronts and seemingly in all quarters, personally this has been a mellow, pleasant summer for me and my family, something I don't take for granted. It has also been a busy one. This has led to slower blogging than ever but although the internet has been labeled officially dead (really? it seems more comatose to me), I haven't given up yet. I thank all readers and viewers here for your continued and patient support...

Since I don't have a TwitBook account, here's some bit-sized reflections on events of recent weeks:

1. Pres Romaillos, who died in July, was a phenomenally talented artist, a dedicated member of the animation community, and a kind, good natured, sincere human being. I remember him as a young student barely out of school eager to learn and eventually ranking in the top of the heap as a Supervising Animator on films like MULAN and SPIRIT. My thoughts and condolences go out to his family. Like anybody who knew or worked with Pres, I will miss him.

2. On my son Danny's birthday in July we all saw DESPICABLE ME and it was a huge hit in this household and obviously many more. Simple story, fun to look at and lighthearted cartooniness. 3 qualities rare enough in animated features, and this one was a monster hit to boot! Maybe this will help re-define what an animated movie can be: in other words: not overly gross but certainly not too precious; off-beat in topic, setting and execution (the minions were happily unexplained and entirely accepted by audiences everywhere), and generally not overly grounded in the typical animation "reality." Kudos to the film makers, not least of which was the incomparable Sergio Pablos, who came up with the original story.

3. Despite my crabbing about the publicity art, I did in fact attend the Chuck Jones exhibit at the Motion Picture Academy here in Los Angeles, (the exhibit closed today), which was, in fact quite good. I went several times and it never fails to inspire when a selection of original art from the golden era is on hand to see. Oddly, they did have the Friz Freleng cel I griped about back in April, but what the hey, most of the artifacts were choice: from Mike Maltese's thumbnails for WHAT'S OPERA DOC? to the first model sheet of Pepe LePew to a good number of sketches, character layouts, washes and doodles by Jones himself.

4. Having finally caught on to 2009's A TOWN CALLED PANIC, I have also downloaded Season One of the film's precursor TV series and tracked down some other choice clips by the creators Stephane Aubier and Vincent Patar . Here's my favorite: an early entry of PIC PIC THE MAGIC PIG. They've artfully married Tex Avery craziness to the deadpan post-modern humor of Gary Larson. Why isn't more animation like this?

5. I recommend the book WALT IN WONDERLAND (out of print, but worth looking for) as a insightful companion to viewing the early ALICE and OSWALD Disney silents, which I did recently. The authors make some salient and objective points about Disney's faltering first seven years as an animation producer, notably tracking the development of certain gags and themes as well as mis-steps and dead ends.

6. I immediately followed up checking out the Disney silents with a re-viewing of the black & white Mickey Mouse shorts. If the previous films had been an uneven training ground for Disney, Iwerks & co, Mickey comes on the scene with unprecedented authority: the first five films (the ones Iwerks had the most influence on) are, in my opinion the best of the lot. Later films piled on more technical advances and artistic enhancements, but few to none capture the crisp purity of PLANE CRAZY, GALLOPIN' GAUCHO, STEAMBOAT WILLIE, THE BARN DANCE and THE OPRY HOUSE. After these films and Iwerks' early departure, the drive to increase the amount of visual detail (both in the graphic vocabulary and the animation mechanics) ironically makes many of the subsequent films feel more crude; (Iwerks own studio films suffer identically, IMO, so the trend must have been endemic). It's strange but it seems to follow a persistent pattern: something starts out raw and scrappy and instantly pleasing, then success ushers in an era of technique heavy improvements that often obscures the original charm. It's too bad.

Last but least, I have found a few odd moments to do some unpaid drawing here and there, although a full work load has limited my time for that. I will sift thru the bunch and post a few in the near future if anything stands out as worth sharing...

Cheers!

God's Gift to the Animated Movie

2010-08-05T11:17:00.001-07:00

Without a doubt, one of the most original films I have ever seen, animated or otherwise. Recklessly and relentlessly funny and oddly touching at the same time; it's a triumph of pure and simple film technique and outrageous narrative originality. My highest praise really can't do it justice. My admiration to the filmmakers.... This is one of those movies I wish I had seen in the theater first, but check it out on DVD... You aren't likely to be sorry...

"Go on, have a cup..."

2010-07-11T10:38:00.000-07:00

"Go on, go on, go on..."

Wading back in

2010-06-23T15:26:00.000-07:00

Still swamped a bit but a few stray scribbles here and there... Here's a quick caricature that came out ok of the late, great Dermot Morgan, aka "FATHER TED."

A short pause...

2010-06-03T08:17:00.000-07:00

I did this goofy drawing a few weeks ago that evolved into the kind of still artwork old TV talk shows (like Johnny Carson) used as bumpers in between the show segments and commercials. As it turns out I can put it to good use here because due to general bizzy-ness I may not be posting anything for a week or two. I will be back soon...

Small Room Anniversary

2010-05-27T12:34:00.000-07:00

Blogging away since May 27, 2007. And...loving every minute of it.

Again with the Sam.....

2010-05-26T16:43:00.000-07:00

"Oh! OAAUOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!"

An actual gag

2010-05-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

A Farce in the Crowd

2010-05-25T11:33:00.000-07:00

Rare bird

2010-05-21T17:32:00.001-07:00

A rare pair of model sheets.

Rare as in : completely made up...

...because I am getting tired of all the same old ones...

More COTTA...

2010-05-16T11:53:00.000-07:00

Ignacio Ochoa was kind enough to track down some more Cotta images, which he sent along.

He also sent me some links to posts on other Argentine cartoonists that are equally inspiring:

http://ignaciocarlosochoa.blogspot.com/2009/09/lino-palacio-billiken.html

http://ignaciocarlosochoa.blogspot.com/2009/02/carlos-constantini.html

http://ignaciocarlosochoa.blogspot.com/2008/09/da-de-la-historieta-national-comics-day.html

This confirms my high opinion of the excellence in cartoon art coming out of Argentina, ever since the late 1940's.

Thanks again Ignacio!

COTTA: who? when? where was he...?

2010-05-05T13:09:00.000-07:00

This is one of two pages by an artist named "COTTA," which popped up on the indispensable CARTOON RETRO a few years ago. Nothing more by him has surfaced, and yet I remain fascinated--these are great examples of truly, boldly stylized figures in my opinion. CR has opened my eyes up to many such cartoonists, particularly from South America, Spain and Italy. Wouldn't you know it, Cotta is the most intriguing, and the scarcest.

Anybody got any leads on bio information or where more art can be seen...?

UPDATE: IGNACIO OCHOA sends us this link to several more choice images, as well as supplies some biographical details in the comments here.... Gracias Ignacio!

Are Movies Therapy?

2010-05-04T10:02:00.000-07:00

...and if so, should they be? A great deal of my professional work, from the earliest days right up to the present, has been in that elusive field of entertainment alchemy called "Story." After decades of it, it still strikes me as difficult as ever. "Story" is of course the essence of a movie experience and a great deal has been written, lectured, postulated, foisted and otherwise posed on (and by) people who make their living from it. I've read my share of books and been to my share of seminars, and there is a lot of good advice out there. But as with everything else, a healthy bit of skepticism can't hurt.

As a practicing (in every sense) "Story Guy", I myself have no advice to offer in general, because I think each individual story is unique and should be dealt with accordingly. It may very well be that the correct approach for one story would be absolutely ruinous to another. That said, here's a trend struck me as worth opening up for comments...

A few assignments back, I began to sense that "story sessions" and "brainstorms" sometimes felt like "group therapy" with team members sharing personal experiences that were supposed to be relevant to a story problem a project was wrestling with. To some extent, this is not really unique to any one project, and to another extent, I think it is actually desirable. The more personally "real" something feels (even if it's supposed to just be a joke), the better. That often makes it unique. There is of course a point where it can be over-indulgent and irrelevant, but on the whole it can be way preferable to the tedious trend of everyone simply quoting fragments from other movies and trying to reverse engineer how they can be applied to the problem at hand... (This is even more prevalent and odious than you think it is and that's even for those of you who think it's quite prevalent and odious...)

There's another kind of session however, which is similar to "group therapy" but a lot more limited in my view. I'd call it "Character Psych". By extension it becomes a kind of contrived "Audience Therapy" which runs a terrible risk of feeling disingenuous, condescending, or simply artificial. Probably because it seems to put the filmmakers in the role of "the analyst," and the audience in the role of "the patient" with the main character acting as surrogate. I guess it began with the original STAR WARS and remarks by George Lucas that his approach to the story was indebted to Joseph Campbell's lectures, books and ideas about Classical Mythology, culminating in Campbell's "The Hero's Journey" series.

These lectures are rich, authentic and legitimate, but in the aftermath of Luke Skywalker's monumental moneymaking success, they attained a holy grail like patina which devotees (some astute, some woefully less so) have ever since applied to every story, every character, every movie to the point of reducing the whole thing to a kind of crushingly academic dogma. Back when I was starting out, it seemed like whenever a movie was successful, one of Campbell's self-anointed acolytes would crawl out of the woodwork to trumpet how the key to it all was Uncle Joe's patented super secret story sauce. Never mind how many times the same thing could be just as scrupulously applied to a movie that tanked...

Worse still, the whole Campbell thing has sort of diffused and degenerated into a kind of pedantic, yet over-wrought psychoanalytical approach to how characters are supposed to act in movies, leading to an ever narrowing set of moral and ethical standards. This in turn can lead some participants over-identifying with the main character(s) to the point where they can't stand seeing them do anything less than "Ideal" or "Heroic" at any point in the story. In the end, we wind up with less of a story than a kind of canned 12-Step program starring idealized characters who have licked all the problems of life all while being generally flawless to begin with.

My earliest memories of watching non-cartoon movies are of seeing the Marx Bros. or W.C. Fields in old black and white B movie comedies that were in heavy rotation throughout the 1960's. My dad particularly loved these movies and we kids all enjoyed watching with him. Most of these films (even with commercials) ran under 90 minutes, at the end of which we were all happy and satisfied. DUCK SOUP and IT'S A GIFT are still two favorites of mine, and smack in the middle of this time period Dick Lester delivered a kind of "mod" homage to such loosely defined films with the Beatles' HELP!, another favorite. One of the things I love about all these movies is that they seem to be blissfully scrubbed of "the hero's journey" and other Campbellian mandates--they just deliver fun. There seems to be an aversion to this kind of thinking, ironically enough, especially in animated movies. I don't know why this is.

I know none of the movies I just mentioned are really "story movies",--they are more like vehicles for people who are already proven talents. Still, it is worth noting the way these movies embraced entertaining set pieces, seemingly arbitrary ideas and eccentric characters, simply for entertainment's sake. And each one progresses fluidly, with it's own kind of "logic" to a satisfactory end. Each one is uniquely non-imitable to the point of being pointless to copy. Which makes them more marvelous to me. Maybe the "Campbell" brand of story is easier to reverse engineer, deconstruct and generally theorize about than actual entertainment.

Joseph Campbell was a great thinker and his insight is very useful in approaching and understanding storytelling, especially in a classical sense that applies to long, sophisticated stories with a tradition of seeking to unravel mysteries of life. And no offense to George Lucas for singling him out as an inspiration, he had every right to. But as an unfortunate by-product, Campbell's intelligence, scholarship, humor and humanity have often been reduced to a kind of dubious formula for manufacturing "hits." One that doesn't necessarily address every problem of the business of entertaining people as honestly, energetically and imaginatively as one can.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

2010-05-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

NYCWTFMOUSE

2010-04-28T08:49:00.001-07:00

dedicated to "Kalo"....

BEING JERRY SPRINGER

2010-04-28T08:44:00.000-07:00

I have added a long-winded post script to the end of this post, after the blinding light of a few days on CARTOON BREW. Long and windy a post it is too, but hopefully the last word (from me anyway) on this topic.... Hopefully too it is more in the spirit of a "Springer" final thought than a case of Olbermann's Syndrome....

Plugs

2010-04-26T11:32:00.000-07:00

Somehow, even without Facebook & Twitter, I still manage to have friends.

Three of them have sites I recommend today:

JASON LETHCOE has started a homesite for his alter-ego, CAPTAIN CRUMPT and some of his original creations, including "PIPE THE PELICAN", a combination of Fliescheresque innocence and Robert Crumb weirdness. Enjoy!

LORI MAXWELL is a fellow Art Institute of Pittsburgh alumnus. She is putting up her lively personal and professional artwork and illustrations for general consumption...

Not everyone gets to see BRANDON JEFFORDS artwork every weekday, like I do, but there's plenty to admire on his blog.

Tribute to...who now?

2010-04-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

Man this is the topic that just doesn't quit.

After spending two solid days ripping on this innocent little image, I was willing to give my inner snarkmeister a rest.

And then this arrived in the mail:

Not so bad you say? Surely we've seen worse. Here's the rub: it's the cover of an invitation from the Motion Picture Academy to come see an exhibit of CHUCK JONES' artwork.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, CHUCK JONES, probably the most instantly recognizable visual stylist of all cartoon directors.

Hey, look, I am grateful they are doing it and look forward to seeing it, but how in the blazes is this representative of the Chuck Jones even a casual fan would recognize? Is it even from anything by him? Looks more like middling Freleng to me... (I like Friz, but the guys were worlds apart and knew it). I mean, with a whole collection to choose from, this is what they pick? Might as well put a still of Snoopy on there, or Betty Boop or the Kool Aid man. Imagine a tribute to Jim Henson featuring a shot of "Peanut." Or a Hitchcock film festival represented by an obscure still from the "ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS" TV show. It's a classic case of aiming for the ground and missing...and then not being aware of it.

I have a minuscule collection of original animation art but both the Chuck Jones pieces I own are more representative than this. Almost any google check at random would produce something better. Heck, even a sub-par gallery cel by him would have made more sense. It seems in the almost 4 decades since Joe Adamson wrote eloquently and hilariously about the sloppiness of cinema scholarship regarding animation, (something Mr. Adamson has done a heroic job of correcting), the general attitudes still prevail.

Chuck Jones is an icon. He created in his lifetime dozens, if not hundreds of iconic movie images. Whatever this is, it isn't one of them and he deserves better, especially from an organization as esteemed and knowledgeable as AMPAS.

For all you young people out there who love this stuff here's one warning: be prepared for a lifetime of seeing what you love get disrespected even when they are trying not to!

DEVOLUTION

2010-04-23T09:41:00.000-07:00

I am sorry to keep beating up on this image, but
the longer I look at it, the more it pisses me off.
Mainly because by my own personal standards, the design priorities of this series once actually stood for something. In subtle but significant ways, those priorities were gradually and deliberately undermined. A look that was successfully, intelligently and pretty solidly worked out gets basically ruined by "improvements." Two rules to come away with here, as far as I'm concerned:

1. Less is more

2. Leave well enough alone.

Here is a comparable frame grab of a group shot from season one of the original show. It just makes me smile. As deceptively simple as it looks, it displays professionalism that the more recent image lacks.For one thing, notice that in the more recent picture, the layout "rakes" the perspective of the floor line a bit, creating a diagonal that forces the composition elements into something of a diamond. Normally, a diagonal can create a sense of dynamism, which is often desirable, but here it is arbitrary. The figures, after all are literally, self-consciously "posed" in static positions to accommodate the idea of the whole family having their picture taken.Which makes one wonder: what is the camera doing in the image? All it does is clutter up space. If the intention was to create a posed picture of the whole family, why not just draw them as the "camera" would see them and give us a genuine portrait? Why include the actual prop and cramp the already limited space? Especially with ten (count 'em!) ten figures to cope with in a single, limited image!

Where is the camera that took the picture of them posing for this camera? Why not show that one too? The whole idea seems mangled. What is the meta-thinking behind a "candid" snapshot of a group consciously posing for yet another snapshot by a different camera?

If this is from a show (and not a one-off "gallery cel"), why not set up the camera in a separate shot?

Not least of all: notice also that no one (other than those with the last name "Rubble")appears to be looking at the actual camera but well to the right of it.

In the first series, more often than not, the floor line is a relatively straight horizontal line, somewhat irregularly drawn. The irregularity goes with the organic feel of the concept of a largely organic world, and the horizontal quality lends maximum space for the stylized figures to appear in. It also allows props (like the piano) to have a slight diagonal witout being forced into paralell perspective like the couch (above).
The nice thing about the straight horizontal horizons of the original series is that the show was concieved on a strict budget and very stringent schedules: lateral motion of both character and camera are easy and quick to plan and execute (as opposed to "perspective" actions). Someone, somewhere knew back then that it was better to work with the limitations of the whole setup instead of against them. Furthermore, the general flatness of it compliments both the scale and scope of a TV screen, and the level of detail in the characters is accordingly simple. And that simplicity goes to everything in the designs, including the boldness of the actual contours of each line.

Note too that the production image features six adult characters (only one less adult than the gallery cel) but everyone is clearly readable, drawn as simply as possible and no obvious tangents appear. Pretty impressive, given that this is probably not a key and was not intended to be viewed as a static setup, like the later one.

In the later work, the lines suggest a bit more form and complexity of contour, for reasons that make no sense to me. They have moved from looking like characters built precisely for the medium, budget and schedules they are intended for, to looking like hybrids of their old selves and the sort of more "sophisticated" designs we might associate with a more lush production.

And yet all this at a time when the actual money and time spent on each project was almost certainly shrinking, relatively speaking.

The subject of this art is also unsettling on a conceptual level. I don't know if this is from an actual show or if it is that despicable spawn of merchandising satanism known as the "gallery cel", but in either case there is a conspicuous sense of pandering to "Wilma's Mom" in the whole thing. This stinks of a marketing division barking forth the directive that "we need a Mother's Day image and we need it fast. One that particularly flatters "Grandma"." Even the colors here lean toward a mash-up of matronly pastels instead of the concise, well managed and limited palette back in the day.

Nothing against grandmas, but this is the last straw for a slapstick cartoon based on cavemen ostensibly derived from Jackie Gleason's Ralph Kramden character. When I was a kid the idea that a cartoon would appeal to either of my grandmothers made it automatically suspect. Here we see that the "target audience" of the "product" is in fact, the one person who in my day would have hated the whole medium. It's as if the whole point of cartooning has been utterly subverted and turned into its opposite.

Something that was originally, intentionally crude, stylized, grotesque and comic, geared to the manic impulses of kids, has been transformed into an icon to warm the hearts of old ladies. Utterly baffling. I guess if things had kept going, nuns would have been calling the shots at Hanna Barbera.

4/28/10 POST SCRIPT: Afterthoughts in the aftermath of related a CARTOON BREW link:

Reflecting on the comments generated by an unsolicited mention of this post at CARTOON BREW, I have a few things to add (and a couple to repeat).

Being linked on 'BREW is always something of a surprise, albeit a welcome one and I am grateful that Amid was kind enough to choose quotes from this post that were accurate and representative (I am always startled how many people miss a general point) Thanks Amid...

At the same time, several commenters felt any attention at all to this post seemed unwarranted on 'BREW, justifiably so: this was a piece of basic instruction/observation and not really intended to be newsworthy. Even I was surprised to see this on 'BREW, given that there it would largely seem merely an easy, gratuitous potshot at characters over half a century old, comparing their original state to where they arrived some 30 years later.

BREW Commenter "robcat" wins the golden protractor award for pointing out my diagram of the angle on the 1990's image is not perfectly accurate. I'd say I'm off by about 30 percent but the tilt still serves to crowd the group and make them appear to be standing on a diagonally sinking ship...

'purin' is made nervous by my "Grandma" issues...inferring that I am subscribing to a theory that women "emasculate" cartoons... I'd say guilty, but only in regards to this particular show (and a few others like it). You will see in the comments here, I am content to let "Grandma" cartoons thrive, there are many in this genre IMHO. Likewise, I have hopefully shown evidence throughout the site that I bear no ill will toward the female gender or the elderly, or even individuals who are of both categories. However, THE FLINTSTONES (1960) was, initially at least, a marked alternative to the classic territory of contemporary cartoon rivals, such as (coincidentally) Disney's SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959), with it's typically rarified elegance, balletic motion, central female protagonist(s) (and antagonist!), and floral color scheme. As if to delineate their own separate territory, THE FLINTSTONES was deliberately primitive, blunt, broad and rough, visually as well as conceptually. In a word: masculine, like the sitcom it was largely inspired by. Which in turn was not devoid of a strong, sturdy feminine influence, but in both cases, masculinity was essentially a (the?) dominant theme.

To see this arrive finally in "GrandmaLand", with the dominant alpha lunkhead reduced to sitting in the corner, largely obscured, impotent, dopey, literally marginalized, surrounded by a crazy quilt of lavender pink, violet and teal is, yes, "emasculating" in my view, and diminishing the central appeal of the original idea. Of course that appeal began to erode long before this image was conceived....

For some reason, for instance, very early on, the flexible goofyness of the original character designs was corrupted with "fixed" construction and other "improvements": coy postures of the Fred Moore type, Tom Oreb "scallops" or reverse curves or whatever you want to call them.In any case the sort of subtle "Disney" mannerisms that seem less well suited to a show designed for speedy execution... And so on with the color and layout etc... As I already commented, the effect of "prettying up" THE FLINTSTONES is comparable to hearing someone try to play Sousa marches on a harp. That's as good a metaphor as I can wrangle for this.

Mark Kausler, Animator/Director/Creator of the award-winning IT'S THE CAT (among other things), is also the most inerrant source of animation wisdom I know. He chimed in to sight George Nicholas as the animator of the "Season One" still. Glad to know it. The number of animators I can accurately call at the drop of a hat could be counted on fewer fingers than can make a fist...

SCOTT SHAW! bemoans the frustration of handling the more faithful ancillary art for the franchise while not being allowed time or access to influence the TV productions of the time, which must have been very frustrating...

Lastly, I think it's important to address that in my view, the erosion of the strengths of the original series is not something I would willingly lay at the feet of individuals, including those who made the cautionary frame shown here. My take is that the erosion was gradual and deliberate, yet not consciously coordinated. In any case, it was systemic, and not just isolated to this franchise, this studio or even this industry. The system that made the 1960 image was probably not ideal, but it was made up of a small group of highly seasoned and intelligent pros, working in what must have been some kind of harmony, in top form, inspired by the new medium, and under the direct supervision of a very small handful of focused genuine leaders. These few were still freshly minting the style so beloved by us purists, for a streamlined process still so new that literally they were likely unified as much by limitation of time and resources as by their considerable talent. No less important: they were all surely keen to make the venture of a prime time network series (the first of its kind) successful: quite literally the fate of the whole young studio (the success of which could only be guessed at back then)was at stake...

By contrast, the 'Homage to Grandma' done more than a generation later, was one of any number of "products" done around that time, in a factory fashion; the umpteenth in a huge, successful system that had become corporate, far-flung, over-managed, undercut by shrinking budgets and second-third- and -hundred and third guessed into a kind of consistent, familiar mass-replicateable mush. In addition, the later image was likely produced by at least a high percentage of my generation of animation artisans: and for all our passion we were not only startled by the animation boom that hit us around that time, but compared to the generation of FLINTSONES: SEASON ONE, we were vastly more inexperienced, undereducated, and frankly unprepared. We were grateful, but relatively few were as disciplined as our forebears. My take on the reasons for that is probably fodder enough for another post altogether...

Art School 101: TANGENTS

2010-04-21T10:25:00.000-07:00

Friend, colleague and teacher MARK KENNEDY has done a series of art instruction refresher posts lately under the heading "A kick in the head" parts one , two and three on his essential " TEMPLE OF THE 7 GOLDEN CAMELS" blog.

Mark's first post concerns, fittingly enough, silhouette: probably the single most important of all art rules. I highly recommend it. He covers the subject so thoroughly I don't have much to add other than the anecdotal remark that I don't ever recall hearing anyone stress it's importance until my first week as a professional, back in Eric Larson's animation training course at Disney. As far as I can recall, even Preston Blair fails to mention it in his first ANIMATION book (he gets around to it in the second) and I don't even remember it being brought up much in art school, though we did cover negative space quite a bit, which is a roundabout way of thinking of silhouette.

Silhouette is one of those rules that is so important, so fundamental, that it isn't just important to animation: it is essential to clarity in all graphic art, including painting, sculpture and photography. I confess like many "bullheads" when I first heard about it: I immediately questioned whether it was 100 per cent valid in every circumstance. After all, when we are animating, we will have to draw many angles of a figure and many phases of action. True enough, but for that reason, it is important to remember to keep silhouette in mind for all key poses, unless the angle and composition forbids it. If you need (or want) to make an exception to this rule, you better know what you are doing and follow through intelligently.

To put it more simply:

If you can put something in silhouette, you should.

It invariably makes it read better. If it is impossible, make sure that your overlapping forms have good silhouette within the contour of the whole figure.

Allow me now, with Mark's permission, to sidetrack onto the related subject of tangents.

If silhouette is desirable, tangents are not. Tangents occur when lines or shapes begin to collide hap-hazardly, usually right on the contours they are describing.

Here's the Oxford definition of a tangent:

"a straight line or plane that touches a curve or curved surface at a point, but if extended does not cross it at that point."

I also expand the definition to include shapes that collide awkwardly and uneccesarilly, almost invariably compromising silhouette.

To illustrate, here are some examples from a glossy catalog of a Hanna-Barbera museum show that toured in the 1990's. First up: a classic image of the SCOOBY DOO cast on the run.

Never mind that I hate this show and the characters, let's note that there is an incredibly noticeable tangent at the point "Shaggy's" nose encounters the back of "Velma's" head. Forgivable one might say, since this is derived from a cycle of animation containing five characters all running.

Well, yes and no. While it would not be a crime in a single transitional frame of animation, as a key, it is less forgivable, and as a piece of art clearly cleaned up and codified as an icon, it just doesn't make sense. Someone either didn't know enough or care enough to rectify it. These are the sort of errors that always push H-B into the second rate category, even when they are trying to be first class.

In any event, as a still image, and even as a key, it would be better if there were any perceptible "air" between his nose and her head, or, failing that, if these two forms overlapped each other definitively, even if only slightly.

The area where "Fred's" arm encounters the "Daphne's" torso is also awkward and technically a tangent, though less obvious than the one just observed, but again, in these circumstances, hard to rationalize.

Ironically, this complicated little area between "Scooby's" 'up' legs and the figures behind him has been relatively intelligently worked out. Also, For clarity's sake, someone has either wisely or accidentally kept a few legs from breaking Scooby's silhouette any more than necessary, although it's a toss up who's leg that is back there. Someone has decided to paint it as the "Daphne's" leg, but it looks more like "Velma's".

Also, this area, where "Scooby's" tail drags along the same line as "Shaggy's" leg is nearly a tangent, but avoids tangenting by slight degrees, which is all it takes to rectify such errors.

The fact that the tangent rule has been so haphazardly applied is something both to ponder and also to be avoided. Similar to the rule of thumb for silhouette:

If you can eliminate a tangent, do it.

Here's another example, from the same catalog: a group shot of the FLINTSTONES, characters I love, but from some crappy TV special done decades after the characters lost all spark. Probably the single worst tangent here is where "Wilma's mom's" hair intersects "Betty's" eye and collides with her pupil. Given that this is a slick cell setup, signed, published and probably sold at a premium price, this is just sloppy and stupid, beyond the weakness of even the artwork.

Likewise is the improbable way "Dino's" nose slips behind "Mom's" arm, despite the fact he is sitting clearly in front of her. Probably just an error of stacking or registration, but it is not the kind of error you want in an image that's supposed to be any kind of icon.

I'll have a little more to add about this image next time.

Coming soon: "What's wrong with this picture?"

2010-04-20T20:29:00.000-07:00

I mean, technically wrong. (Not including the paint errors)

BLARGS

2010-04-16T09:26:00.000-07:00

Two blogs of note:

My art school pal and erstwhile doppleganger MIKE GILLETT has revamped his blog "BLANK FIELDS" to concentrate exclusively on his prolific, crisp and funny print cartoon art. Check it out...

The blog of "Michel la Souris" (aka "PouchJunior") is a never-ending source of visual delights. If you have not visited before, prepare to dive in to a stack of hilarious and fresh character designs. People like this give me hope for cartoon-kind!

DORGS

2010-04-16T08:22:00.001-07:00

SCANdide

2010-04-12T11:09:00.000-07:00

Hopping on the bandwagon of TODAY'S INSPIRATION Sheilah Beckett posts, allow me to add these scans of her illustrations from a 1959 paperback edition of Voltaire's classic satire CANDIDE. (click on each to enlarge image)

I could not have been happier to come across this book, bringing to life a favorite story of mine with pictures by a favorite artist.
Candide is a kind of gullible bumpkin of illegitimate origin who grows up in a castle of a petty Germanic baron. He falls in love with the baron's daughter Cunegonde, earning him the disfavor of the baron and causing him to be ousted from his homeland, which is shortly afterward invaded and razed.
Candide spends the rest of the story traveling the entire globe in search of Cunegonde, often accompanied by his mentor, the insipidly optimistic philosopher Dr. Pangloss. Candide's predisposition to believe the "best" in everyone and everything sets him up for every imaginable trick, con, misfortune and horror the world has to offer. Although eternally innocent, he has a natural skill for swordplay and manages to kill a number of characters here and there, albeit typically in self defense and he always feels terrible about it afterward.
CANDIDE is a satire, often describing unpleasant and even awful situations (including pillage, cannibalism and the Spanish Inquisition) with exaggeratedly mild euphemism. A number of characters are mutilated, molested and killed, although several manage to survive all three fates.
There's a bit of sex here and there, but again it is euphemistically and sometimes obliquely described for comic effect. Given the reputation for raciness paperbacks had back in the 1950's, no doubt the editors wanted to play this up a good bit in the illustrations.

In my opinion, the kind of soft "R" rated nature of these drawings strangely does not seem out of step with much of Sheilah Beckett's more "G" rated artwork. Her figures often strike me as having a hint of sexiness to them, although not in a gratuitous or crude way. Similar to my eye as the romantic sensuality of Art Nouveau masters, particularly Alphonse Mucha.
Candide and Cunegonde are re-united several times in the book, but some new course of action invariably separates them and Candide's travels continue. By the time they eventually wed, both are tired and jaded. By then they have collected a little ensemble of characters from their travels, including a scullery maid from their lost homeland, now the companion of a fairly liberal man of the cloth (above). After all their searching (in vain) to find "true love" and the "meaning of life," a very ordinary farmer offers the group some highly practical common sense advice and they all settle down on a modest farm. Everyone winds up older, sadder and while not exactly wiser, more resigned to the the less than ideal nature of humankind.

This is the last picture in the book, when Dr. Pangloss turns up near the end after having been thought hanged by the Inquisition (being an optimist, he takes it altogether cheerfully). A surgeon buys his corpse to dissect and study, only to discover that the good Dr. is not quite completely dead. By this point in the story however, pretty much all the characters are dead to his claim that "this is the best of all possible worlds."

Be sure to check out Leif Peng's series of Sheilah Beckett's posts (if you haven't already) starting here. Also see Sean Smith's site , Sean is Sheilah's son and is an artist and photographer in his own right. You can contact him for information about available prints she has done, including scenes from Shakespeare and Gilbert & Sullivan.

Sheilah Beckett interview on TODAY'S INSPIRATION

2010-04-11T10:29:00.000-07:00

Lief Peng has done a wonderful and much appreciated current interview with Sheilah Beckett, one of the great illustrators of children's books and other publications. He has several posts this week covering her extensive career, associations and latest work. Many beautiful images collected there, as wells as links to many more. At 97 and still doing stunning art, she is truly an inspiration.

(thanks Lief and Steve!)

Crack a bottle...

2010-04-06T09:11:00.001-07:00

...let yer grizzly waddle...

More mouse

2010-03-24T13:27:00.000-07:00

A plogg I'm hefta givvink...

2010-03-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Craig Yoe's MILT GROSS Complete Comic Books and Life Story is here at long last. I was relishing the book last night till all hours, it's a wonderful tribute and the sumptuous quality of the book design and printing exceeds expectation, even as an avid fan of ARF! and Craig Yoe's other stunning publications.

Hopefully more people will turn on to Gross, who of all the "golden age" comic strip artists, is somehow frequently overlooked. Perhaps because like Tex Avery, Gross capitalized on gags & style over character: he skipped from one title to the next and led a more varied career than many of his contemporaries. As a result, his work is more eclectic and less comprehensive than peers who mined a single series over a lifetime. And his life was tragically cut short by heart disease at the age of 58, when he was planning to launch into TV animation.

The trade off is that he wrote prose (often in lovingly humorous Yiddish dialect), contributed to stage shows, was drafted to help Chaplin gag at least one feature, wrote for the radio, did advertising, published several books and launched his own original comic books, which are reprinted in full in the book.

I first stumbled across his newspaper comics in a nostalgia magazine when I was around 11. Already a fan of George Herriman's KRAZY KAT, I was thunderstruck when I saw Gross' COUNT SCREWLOOSE, BANANA OIL and NIZE BABY tucked in with more familiar characters. My first thought was : "WOW! THIS is what cartoons are SUPPOSED to look like! Who was this guy?" When I found the artist's name I was jolted again, this time by the copyright dates: mid 1920's and early 30's---His style was so sharp and lively and polished, it seemed decades ahead of his contemporaries... Even the best comics of the 20's-30's sometimes feel labored, hap-hazard, scratched out with sweat and effort, but Milt Gross's world was different: vibrant, fluid poses, explosive expressions, clear as a whistle staging, and crisp confident linework--the closest thing to it in my opinion didn't come along until Kurtzman's HEY LOOK! (I think his closest contemporary rival was probably the equally inimitable Cliff Sterrett, another idol, but even his work seems sedate by comparison). Something about it hinted at animation too... As it turns out, he brought his unique signature style to a few MGM cartoons in the pre-WWII years and even worked at Disney in the late forties for a few months.

I began collecting and have been a rabid fan ever since. Everybody who loves cartoons should get to know Milt Gross. Whether you already do, or haven't heard of him before, this book is a great way to get more acquainted with the man's genius.

NOT A HATER

2010-03-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

When I wrote this post a little over a week ago, I was literally seized by a gut reaction I had looking at a drawing and musing over the fate of cartoons in a world of encroaching realism.

I did not expect Cartoon Brew to link to same but was interested by the comments generated there and was pleased that Amid went to pains to extract quotes that went to the heart of the issue. Namely: is the appetite for cartoon art shrinking in Feature Films (including lots of fine CGI cartooning) in favor of more realistic styling, whatever the medium? Most people seemed to get the gist of the whole thing and the varying opinions were interesting to read, but frustratingly, many who commented seem intent on reading it as me championing (to oversimplify it a bit:) "the holy hand-drawn animated image versus the evils of CGI."

That just isn't the case.

Maybe because I am associated with 2D, maybe because people didn't read the whole thing, maybe because people read what they want into things, or maybe because I did not express it well enough, (though I admit I have re-read the thing several times and don't know what more i could have said without going on a lot longer).

Normally I would be content to let people make of it what they may, but at this point, with my intent still being misconstrued, I realize I run the risk of being associated with a "crusade" I don't actually endorse. So if I was not clear enough in the first place, let me add to the confusion by championing some of the cartoony CGI I have enjoyed:

First up is my absolute favorite CGI character:

"PATO" , from POCOYO, a series of shorts for toddler aged TV. These are pure perfection.

Second, Dreamworks' MADAGASCAR franchise. Probably the cartooniest characters yet in CGI features. What's not to love?: Beautiful Craig Kellman designs, expert animation and wonderfully warped humor from directors Tom McGrath and Eric Darnell and co.

My favorite design work on a PIXAR movie is probably in RATATOUILLE, which owes a debt to both director Brad Bird's keen eye and originator Jan Pinkava's sensibility, first on display as early as the wonderful GERRI'S GAME.

Another Rat movie (which I think was sadly under-rated) was Dreamwork's FLUSHED AWAY, a CGI version of the wonderful Aardman Studio's look.

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS was the most thouroughly satisfiying CGI Feature Cartoon experience I have yet had. Funny, smart writing and direction, with great characters, very specifically designed and animated with genuine wit and enthusiasm.

I could go on a bit, but hopefully these make the point. I've enjoyed all the CG projects I have worked on and hope to enjoy working on many more. By the way, I don't hate many of the more realistic ones either, or the hybrids. As a concept, it's fine, there's a lot of room in the entertainment playing field, hopefully. My concern remains that as animation continues to be in demand as a commodity, that the space for cartoony animation in CGI, Stop-Mo, Drawn, whatever, still has a place.

Because in my opinion, even the best of what has been done has only scratched the surface of what could be... An exciting thought as long as there is room enough for that which is below the surface to be beckoned forth...

As a final point, I have a weak spot for live action films that are cartoony in a certain way (THE [original] PRODUCERS, THE LOVE BUG, HARVEY, HELP!, LITTLE MURDERS, BARTON FINK, etc) to name a few. Recently I watched Jared Hess' GENTLEMEN BRONCOS, probably the most enjoyable "cartoon" feature I have seen in a while (and I pay the "c" word to this live action film as a compliment, I hope that's obvious). Alas I learned it was so badly received that it was not even released theatrically and was unfairly and savagely reviewed...

So I am back to worrying about the fate of cartoons... ALL cartoons of all mediums....

TGi...WTF?MOUSE!

2010-03-15T08:02:00.000-07:00

CARTOONS

2010-03-07T15:01:00.000-08:00

Recent odds & ends:

MILK & CHEESE! (apologies to E. Dorkin)

Out of the Frying Pan, Into the 'Wood

Temptation

Phrase Book

Where, oh where has my little cartoon dog gone?

2010-03-06T17:57:00.001-08:00

I noticed this lovely image on the TAG blog just now, in reference to artists who passed away this past year being remembered at the annual day of remembrance that the union holds.

After noticing that they had listed the artist's life as having lasted from 1917-2011, I could only think that either: 1. my Saturday afternoon snooze had lasted a good bit longer than usual; 2. someone was amazingly prescient; or 3. very likely an innocent typo was to blame. Not being the world's leading fact-checker myself, I find the error is so innocent, it is barely worth mentioning. The person's next of kin might care tho, so I did point it out.

What this led me to think about next, however was how rivetingly ingratiating this image is. LADY & THE TRAMP is not really my favorite Disney movie, but it is a fine one and has some very unique qualities. For instance it was the first animated feature in a panoramic format, and is one of the rare (really the only) Disney features to be concocted as an original story, rather than being based on a well-known fairy tale or work of literature. And as original stories go, it is not ground breaking but so expertly done that it bears watching time and again.

It is also a transition, in my opinion anyway, from the "literal" animal locomotion animated in BAMBI to the looser, more caricatured style of 101 DALMATIONS. The skill on display in the film is frequently flawless. The animals are animated with solid believability and very little rotoscope (if any) was used. Probably why it is so good. The crutch of roto would have only hurt the animation anyway.

But (and here finally is MY POINT:) it also occurs to me that if LADY & THE TRAMP were made (or re-made?) today it would: 1. NEVER be drawn, 2. now not even likely be an all-CGI film; 3. almost certainly would be a live action hybrid of the CATS & DOGS type, in other words, for all intents and appearances, a film comprised almost entirely of live action footage of dogs, augmented in post by CGI. And it occurs to me in turn, that this approach would probably suit audiences of all ages just fine.

Hell, if it were funny enough and engaging, I'd probably enjoy it as well. The fact that I have a hard time imagining why it would be done otherwise is partially what bothers me...

I could see George Clooney and Jennifer Anniston being equipped with AVATAR helmets to help record and faithfully transfer their emotions and lip sync to cgi-augmentations which would be integrated with live action footage of the real dogs they were portraying and that the whole thing would probably be a massive hit. (I have zero inside track at Disney by the way, but if they like the idea, they can send me a check ahahahaha.)

Something about this though, suggests a trend I find unsettling. It suggests to me that the tolerance for a well-crafted cartoon image, even one as sedate and safe (albeit expert) as any in the original LADY, even if it were faithfully re-created, rendered and impeccably lit in CGI, is pretty much shrinking in the hearts of the public and the minds of the power brokers. As the world of CGI expands the roles of animators and animation, it also somehow seems to ever marginalize the space cartoon art occupies in animation, especially features.

This isn't the old CG vs. 2D thing I am lamenting here, it is the encroaching realism even on CG cartoons, just as realism encroached on 2D. It is about realism vs caricature, specifically cartoony caricature and how the tide seems to be turning ever more toward the former and away from the latter.

Not to slam ALVIN (full disclosure: I did a bit of uncredited boarding on the SQUEAKUEL and had no qualm [thanks Chris!]) but it only now just dawned on me that the characters (which I don't mind for what they are) are what passes for "cartoony" in the 21st Century paradigm. Which as an industry wide standard doesn't jibe for me. No, they aren't "real," but they are "realistic", more akin to a kind of elaborate illustration than a cartoon would ever need to be. Everything about this kind of character design is compromised by the necessity of needing to blend in with live action. And the public (including my own kids) have voted vehemently in favor.

I get the appeal of CGI and have liked some of the films (CLOUDY, which I loved, has held up under repeat viewings and gets even better every time). Pretty much all my employment in the past 6 years has been on CG films and as adjustments go, it is one that doesn't bother me that much. As a process, medium, whatever you want to call it, I both welcome and enjoy it. What I will have a more bothersome time with is the evaporation of cartoon as a dominant style of feature animation regardless of what techniques are used.

I don't think this has happened and if it does, it will likely take time even so. I think there will for the long haul, always be cartoony looking films (of a type anyway) but I fear that in the aftermath of AVATAR and films like it the public and the industry may find cartooniness to be too quaint, too passe, too childish, all the specious negatives that threw up roadblocks in my early career days. I sometimes think that many of the full time CG places already seem to be hedging their bets: a cartoony one here, a more realistic one there, an even more realistic hybrid over there... It could be possible that one day cartoon styling in a feature film would be as unconventional as an all-jazz score.

What attracted me to animation in the first place is that it was where cartooning and film intersected. That intersection seems to be gradually detouring toward a superhighway of CG animation where fantasy and film intersect in a ever less cartoony manner.

Hope I'm wrong, (I frequently am) but anyone who wants to talk me down is welcome to...

UPDATE: A follow-up post, written in the aftermath of some of the comments....