Before I dive deep into the well of theories again I want to comment on a critical internet article about John K and Clampett which appeared a couple of days ago, and which was linked to without comment from Cartoon Brew. The article made me pretty upset but I'll try to respond with restraint since the author seems to be a nice guy and tried to be fair in his own way.
First off, I was disappointed to see Clampett's work described as crazy, crude and exagerrated. He certainly was all these things (I'm assuming "crazy" was used affectionately) but it seems stingy not to add that he was also crucially inventive and highly entertaining. Sergio Leone, Fellini, Mick Jagger and Elvis were also crude and exagerrated at times. So what?
Clampett's style was summarized as having to do with bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs. That's OK so far as it goes but where's the rest of the list? I didn't see any mention of Clampett's innovations in comedy, acting, pacing, animation, cartooning, dialogue, editing, and musical application. It's so strange to see the man's whole ground-breaking effort reduced to a couple of insults.
John K got the same harsh treatment. John's work was characterized by naked boobs and farts. Poor John gets no credit for the uptillion drawing, story, dialogue, editing, pacing, acting and musical innovations. The author casually reduces this bulging warehouse of gifts to the animation industry down to...boobs and farts. At the end of the piece he condescendingly pats John on the head by conceding that the pathetic purveyer of farts at least stimulates discussion about animation. Unbelievable.
Now I'm willing to concede that everyone isn't tempramentally suited for outrageous humor. If you don't like that sort of thing, or can only take it in small doses, then it's natural to resist people like Clampett and John, regardless of their innovations. Maybe it's even natural to nitpick about whatever faults they have. That's OK, I understand that. Just be respectfull when criticizing people who are giants in their field. We need these people and they're getting frightningly scarce.
I just read it too. The guy who wrote that succinct objection to Clampett and John's work doesn't really understand cartooniness. Some profound intelligence in the comments too....sarcasm!
ReplyDeleteCartoon fan-writers are a loathesome bunch, for the most part. People who care very little or at least very undiscerningly for visual skills seem to have cornered the cartoon opinion market or the loudest corner of it, to the point where they have the tumerity to condescend about people and cartoons they cannot even fully comprehend. It's pompous and boorish.
ReplyDelete"First off, I was disappointed to see Clampett's work described as crazy, crude and exagerrated."
ReplyDeleteBetter crazy, crude & exaggerated than bland, boring & generic
"John's work was characterized by naked boobs and farts."
People just can't deal with some good ol' filth - it gets em so upset it clouds their judgment and attention.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThat article was possibly well meaning and not intentionally malicious, but it's also deeply ignorant, and I won't even discuss the comments.
ReplyDeleteBeside being one of the greatest, Clampett is possibly the most misunderstood cartoon director in history. Misunderstood equally by many cartoon fans, historians and even his colleagues. And John shares the equal fate. For the proof, just take a look at numerous Clampett or John K. discussions that took place on various animation message boards and forums during the recent few years.
It seems that many people are simply not able or willing to take the effort and comprehend a rich and multifaced work of art that goes outside the usual trends and formulas. So, they use the common generalizations to describe such work, or tend to ignore everything, and take just one or two characteristics that bother them most (gross humor, sexual content, etc). Thus, we have wise "opinions" like "Clampett's work was just crazy and shallow" or "John is just about boobs, boogers and farts"...
since i found no link to the article here, i thought maybe someone wants to read the damn thing and witness the author gettin all confused by the boobies. screw the lion king.
ReplyDeleteFrom John Martz' original post:
ReplyDelete"...I agree that many of the cartoons on TV today with minimally animated talking heads don’t hold a candle to the fluid, manic creations of Clampett and the other animators from Warner Brothers, or to the original Ren & Stimpy series, for that matter... But certainly there are certain stories and emotions that benefit from more subtle styles. Would the opening scene from The Lion King be improved with that over-the-top Clampett look? I think these arguments possibly stem from a lack of distinction between “animation” and “cartoons”.
This is an amazing statement, given the number of times John has carefully and specifically made the distinction between "animation" and "cartoons". Surely dozens of times within the last few weeks alone. Either Martz wasn't listening, or he didn't understand what he read.
Also, does it really need to be spelled out for him that Clampett was making comedies, and the opening of The Lion King isn't supposed to be funny? (Not intentionally, anyway.)
Have we nosedived so far intellectually as a society that the difference between comic and dramatic film-making actually needs to be explained to people?
That's like criticizing a rave review for BORAT by pointing out that he's no Edward R. Murrow!
As Harry Hoo (on GET SMART) would say, shaking his head: "Amazing..."
Is this the article on Drawn? I found it to be plenty respectful. What's annoying to me is how whenever someone regards John K and his cartoony style as anything less than pure genius, they're regarded as "rude."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is entitled to their opinion. What makes people agree with a specific opinion is if it is a well informed and an intelligible opinion. I tend to think the critics opinion is neither nor.
ReplyDelete"Is this the article on Drawn? I found it to be plenty respectful. What's annoying to me is how whenever someone regards John K and his cartoony style as anything less than pure genius, they're regarded as "rude." "
ReplyDeleteThe article IS plenty respectful. John Martz does not come across as "rude" - and even if he did, that's his priviledge.
However, the article is also, unfortunately, uninformed - and that's a different matter.
His offhand mischaracterization of Clampett's work (to say nothing of John's work) is problematic. Specifically the line: "Does every piece of animation have to have bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs to be a real cartoon?"
Now, this doesn't really do justice to either animator, does it? Anyone who can't see depths of characterization and nuance in TORTOISE WINS BY A HARE or SON OF STIMPY, for instance, doesn't know anything about character animation.
I don't think it's too much to ask of someone doing an analysis of another artist's films to actually be analytical - which includes describing accurately the contents of the films. You must be easily "annoyed" if you object to that.
I posted this to the comments, but it didn't show up...
ReplyDelete------
If you want to hear the opinion of an artist who worked under him, see Eddie Fitzgerald's blog today.
This article is missing an even cursory overview of who John K is, and the comments are packed with distortions. John tells students not to imitate him, but rather to study his influences. That's advice that students who admire Disney would be wise to follow too.
Here's the part that's missing from this post... John Kricfalusi has done more for artists and animators than any other person in animation today.
No other animator in recent times has had more of an impact on television animation than John K. Mighty Mouse and Ren & Stimpy revolutionized TV animation. John K single-handedly pioneered animation on the internet with the very first Flash animated cartoon series. He was the first to speak out publicly against executive-driven animation and point to the artist/creator model of the past as the best system for producing great animation. He's tirelessly championed young artists with talent, and gave them the freedom to make a mark for themselves in his cartoons. He organized his knowledge of the medium and is currently presenting it to aspiring animators for free in his blog and in the $100k Drawing Course Lessons.
John's knowledge of the history of the medium is encyclopedic. I've seen animation historians have trouble keeping up with him in discussions of animation history. He amassed an incredible collection of research material on golden age animation, and donated it to the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive so every animator, researcher and student will have access to it. Someday, this material will be syndicated digitally to an ASIFA chapter near you, and you'll be able to benefit from it too. This work will live on, long after all of us are gone.
Regardless if you personally care for his humor, if you know a little bit about the man, you have to admit that he has passion for the art of animation, dedication to quality, generosity in sharing his wealth of knowledge with others and the skill and creative gift to be able to make a difference. The people who speak highly of him are not "drooling fanboys"... they're people like John with a passion for animation. All you have to do is come down to the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive in Burbank and ask any one of the volunteers or people using the archive. They'll tell you what John K really means to the art of animation.
Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive
www.animationarchive.org
Great post Eddie! And great comments from everyone! I was shocked when I read the article too.
ReplyDeleteHis work is crazy, often crude, exaggerated to the max...
When I read this statement in the second paragraph of that 'Drawn' article, all I could think was "but what about all those subtle McKimson scenes we've been posting about on John's blog the past several months?"
And when the author asks
Does every piece of animation have to have bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs to be a real cartoon?
Well, no.
Bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs are not the ingredients of what makes a cartoon a cartoon. Maybe the author should take a look at John's "What is a Cartoon?" post a little more closely...
Now I'm willing to concede that everyone isn't tempramentally suited for outrageous humor.
ReplyDeleteSuch fucknuts should recuse themselves from that discussion. If you cannot set aside your own humor limitations long enough to comprehend that there is probably more honest cartoon effort on the Lost Episodes dvd than on anything anybody has tried to make in at least 40 years, and acknowlege that as the signifcant event that it is, then you really should shut the fuck up about cartoons. It's only fair.
Hi all -- I had no idea my little article would raise such ire. For the record, I in no way meant to insult Clampett. When I say "crazy, crude, and exaggerated" I don't mean it in an insulting way at all. That's what's wonderful about Clampett's work. Same with bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs. I'm generalizing, sure, but I absolutely LOVE cartoons that are crude, crazy, exaggerated and have bulging eyes and rubber-hose limbs -- I don't dismiss those qualities in the least.
ReplyDeleteMy reactions were primarily based on John K's presentation in Ottawa in which is he claimed that Clampett did everything better than every one. I love Clampett's work, but have to disagree with John K when he says that. Just because the man's a giant doesn't make him right.
And if my descriptions of Clampett's style were condescending it's the result of hasty writing only. I'm describing the things I like about Clampett's work, but also things that I personally don't think are necessary for a cartoon to be good. I'm guilty of generalizing, but I'd never insult Clampett's work.
Best,
J
...I love Clampett's work, but have to disagree with John K when he says that. Just because the man's a giant doesn't make him right.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are discarding is that he has a detailed rationale for this, which he goes into at length. On what basis do you disagree and where is your support? Cite something and refute it. You didn't do it on your page, and you ain't done it here.
What you are discarding is that he has a detailed rationale for this, which he goes into at length.
ReplyDeleteJohn K.'s rationale isn't scientific proof; it's simply his opinion. Clampett was great, but was he better than everybody? You agree with that? I prefer Chuck Jones's acting, personally. I could say that Chuck Jones was better at acting because he was subtler than Bob Clampett, but I'd be just as wrong as John K for saying that Bob Clampett was better at acting because he was more exaggerated than Chuck Jones. And yet we both can still love Clampett and Chuck Jones.
Johnny: Thanks for the reply. I suspected you liked both Clampett and John and that what I took as condescention might be a by-product of the writing process.
ReplyDeleteJohn K.'s rationale isn't scientific proof; it's simply his opinion.
ReplyDeleteHis opinion is based on a life of absorption of his industry. What is yours based on? Anything more objective than your own taste?
Clampett was great, but was he better than everybody? You agree with that?
It surprises me that anybody with eyes can disagree. But it's not just my eyes. It's his additional effort, that the film record makes clear. While everybody watches cartoons, not everybody sees them.
If all you see is boobs and farts and rubber hoses, you ain't seeing John, or Clampett, or what makes their work great, or their theories hold.
ReplyDeleteBut if you kneejerk against a certain surface texture, you may not get to the deeper value of what the work and opinions are striving for.
I find it sometimes fascinating, often sad, and funny, the furor that is whipped up, between people who actually agree more than they realize.
And sometimes, its merely what Lumpy Rutherford and Eddie Haskell called "Giving Beav the Business"- it isn't meant to be a polarizing force as much as tapdancing around someones tunnel of enthusiam.
Its hard being a fan.
>>I could say that Chuck Jones was better at acting because he was subtler than Bob Clampett, <<
ReplyDeleteI've sais that Clampett is both more exaggerated and more subtle than Jones. The acting is much richer and varied and more like real people than Jones.
I've put up tons of examples to prove my opinion too.
And on top of that, I've done more acting in my own cartoons than anyone else to demonstrate what I learned about specifc acting rather than generic acting. I learned about specific acting from first Jones and then Clampett who is even more specific than Jones.I showed many examples at the Ottawa festival to support it.
Look up all the posts I've done about "acting" and "specific" to see what acting in cartoons is in the first place.
"but I'd be just as wrong as John K for saying that Bob Clampett was better at acting because he was more exaggerated than Chuck Jones."
ReplyDeleteThey key word in cartooning is EXAGGERATION and it isn't as simplistic as you make it to be.
One more reply...
ReplyDeleteI've spoken at great length with John K about animation, and I have never heard him say that Clampett was the only great cartoonist.
I have heard him say that Clampett's acting is more varied and expressive than any other cartoon director... But I've also heard him say that Disney had the best effects animation and application of technology, a staff of incredible draftsmen and a production system perfectly designed for the medium... I've heard him call Chuck Jones a brilliantly innovative cartoonist who made some of the greatest cartoons ever made... I've heard him say that the Fleischers made the best use of musical timing, and that their cartoons of the early 30s were better than anything else being produced at the time... That the Fleischer Popeye cartoons are among the most perfect cartoons ever made... and that Paul Terry and Walter Lantz were great because they allowed animators the freedom to work in their own styles. I've heard him talk about other artists too... Grim Natwick, Ed Benedict, Virgil Partch, Milt Gross, Jack Kirby, Mel Crawford... The list goes on and on.
I've spoken to John K at length about modern cartoons, and I've never heard him say that he was the "be all and end all of animation" or that he is the 'god of the medium". I've heard him say that modern cartoons are amateurish compared to the cartoons of the golden age. But I've heard him say that his own cartoons wouldn't stand up to the average cartoons of the golden age either. I've heard John say that a big problem today is that too many artists don't have the drawing skills they need to do work on the level of Jones, Clampett and McKimson. And I've seen him back up that opinion with action to try to correct it.
If all you hear is "Clampett is God and I am the be all and end all of cartoons" you weren't listening, or you just don't understand what he's talking about.
See ya
Steve
But seriously... John takes fart jokes to the next level! "Stimpy's First Fart" is one of my favorite episodes... EVER.
ReplyDeleteI'm no critic, just a fan, but what I love most in Clampett's and John's cartoons is the subtle stuff. I love the exaggerated stuff too..and the rubber limbs, and the boobs, and the boogers, and the farts..I love it all. But I realize there's much more to it than that. I also admire the subtle acting and gags, and I love how those cartoons even leave room for music in the best sort of way. There's also a million other things I love about it too, but it would take too much room to list all of it.
ReplyDeleteI get tired of people who feel the need to narrow things down. And those people only remember the things that shock them; so they only absorb less than 1/3rd of the experience. I feel sorry for those people.
It's not R&S that relies solely on sex, violence, profanity, scatology and controversy for comic relief; rather, it's modern "hip"/ "stylish" shows like SP, FG & DT that do that. R&S is much deeper than that.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care said...
ReplyDeleteCartoon fan-writers are a loathesome bunch, for the most part. People who care very little or at least very undiscerningly for visual skills seem to have cornered the cartoon opinion market or the loudest corner of it, to the point where they have the tumerity to condescend about people and cartoons they cannot even fully comprehend. It's pompous and boorish.
Does anyone ever wonder if "animation" (feh) fan-type people who can't draw cartoons subconsciously hate,, nay, loathe people who can? Thus, the only way for them to cobble together something resembling a reason to live is to become "authorities" (aka fan-writers) on something they'll never, ever be able to do?
No?
Uh, me neither.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHey all! Not sure if some of you are aware of this site. It's got tons of vintage cartoon podcasts on it. Check it out!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.renmenven.org/tooncast/tooncast.html
Argument and opinion aside, I find it amazing and hopeful that a discussion of this intensity can take place over work that was done 60 years ago and work that was done today. Hooray for the Internet!
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the bright side of life!
ReplyDeleteHe seemed to really like the new John K's music videos and Nick Cross' work. Feel the love people.
Speaking of which, I've been following Cross' blog for some time now and dammit I wanna' see Waif of the Persephone myself! Looks great.
I think pacing is what is missing from this arguement. I always say this but no one seems to understand or care. When you group a bunch of "wild" scenes together, it makes them less wild by nature whether how crazy or exagerrated they are. There are limits in cartoons, the director makes the rules. Depending on how far he wants to push it. If 1 is the generic and 10 is the zaniest, and the director is doing 9's and 10's throughout the whole cartoon and maybe a 4 or 5 mixed in there, then the IMPACT of those intense scenes is kind of softened. If a cartoon had a bunch of a scenes, that were 4 or 5, then down to 1 then up to 10 then down to 7, then you have pacing, you have a balance. Tex Avery kind of did this because he would just let a gag grow and grow and grow and by the end of the cartoon the BIGGEST gag would seem really big. I could see how someone watching a clampett cartoon might think that it is too crazy the whole time, that there are not enough times to rest, it's on level 10 all the way through. This isn't necessarily bad. I love all great cartoons just because of the fact that cartoons and cartoony animation appeal to me. As a film however, some might be stronger than others. Would Hitchcock's psycho be good with murder scenes and intense music all the way through? probably not. It is difficult though because cartoons are meant to exaggerate, but i still think you can have exaggeration in subtlety, as much as you can have it in crazy looney scenes.
ReplyDeletethe cartoon medium still has lots of potential. Maybe Clampett was trying to pack all this stuff into a n 8 minute short, to blow the audience out of the water. But we aren't limited by time anymore, or a structure or, gag here, gag there, and you only limit yourself when you make up styles or rules or guidelines you have to follow.
Clampett's films aren't "wild and wacky" all the way through... There are plenty of low volume moments to offset the high volume ones... where Beaky Buzzard shyly says "Ayup... Ayup... Ayup..."; Bugs' carefully modulated death scene in the same cartoon, etc. I could cite a million moments like this.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about Clampett's cartoons is that the quiet scenes are still incredibly expressive and the acting is still specific. The cinematic presentation is taut. It's always focused and moves the picture forward. There's a place for a quiet moment in every picture, but there's no reason for a generic one.
All art is about contrasts. Clampett was a master of providing stark contrasts as well as subtle ones. That's the mark of a director in total control of his medium. The fact that some people seem unable to remember anything but the extreme moments says more about them than it does about Clampett.
See ya
Steve
>>Anyone who can't see depths of characterization and nuance in TORTOISE WINS BY A HARE or SON OF STIMPY, for instance, doesn't know anything about character animation.<<
ReplyDeleteBingo.
So are you making cartoons to entertain character animators, or the TV viewing audience, who OF COURSE doesn't know anything about character animation?
Has the TV viewing audience seen any of John K's work recently?
And if not, are we just going to continue blaming those evil management pinheads until John croaks, unknown and unappreciated? And if so, how does that help anything?
I'm not qualified to answer any of this. Anyone want to take a swing at it?
You don't have to know anything about character animation to recognize and identify with cartoon characters. That's why Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, George Liquor and Ren & Stimpy are so popular. Quality animation and skilled direction make the technique transparent, so all you see is a living personality that seems more real than real because it is based on caricature.
ReplyDeleteSee ya
Steve
Do viewers identify with George Liquor more than they do with, say, Ariel the Little Mermaid, who I'm told has generic CalArts/Disney expressions?
ReplyDeleteWhich is more popular?
Which one has the typical "man on the street" ever heard of?
Haji Baba: There's a difference between "popular" and "well-known". Use a dictionary.
ReplyDeleteTo hell with this "target audience"/"demographic" bullshit.
P.S.- Go to hell, Brian Booth.
I've had to enable Comment Moderation to deal with some annoying spam by someone who has a beef against John. I apologize for the inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of George Liquor, I think of my dad... uncles... family friends. Everyone knows someone like George Liquor. When I think of Arial from the Little Mermaid, I think of no one in particular. She's just a generic girl character. They kept her generic so more kids would identify with her, but they made her SO generic, there's no personality to differentiate her any more. (Now Olive Oyl is a different story!)
ReplyDeleteSee ya
Steve
The bulging eyes and rubber hose enerved me not because of Clampett or John K, it came across as a disdain for cartoons specifically. It seems to stem out of that old idea that comedy is somehow an inferior genre.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to stem out of that old idea that comedy is somehow an inferior genre.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that comedy is inferior, it's comedy that is non-intellectual. It's slapstick and bellylaffs that exist purely for their own sake that are being poo-pooed.
"I like farts and tits as much as the next guy, but hurry up and make a point about something I can relate to on an intellectual level... I would rrather hear myself relected in the verbal ramblings of a popsicle stick than watch cartoon characters do funny stuff."
Mr. Alarm: Steve used "popular", as did I. No one has mentioned "target audience" or "demographic" unless it was in a deleted post. If your concern is between "mainstream" vs. "niche," then feel free to turn your back on the mainstream, but then don't quit your day job.
ReplyDeleteEvcerybody else: I do have a point to all this, and that is that I do not wish to see John K become the animation equivalent of Phil Spector -- sitting in his house year after year, steaming over the public's refusal to embrace "River Deep Mountain High", producing nothing further of consequence except for mucking up the occasional solo Beatle album (and we won't even go into more recent newsworthy events).
It seems to me that the whole John K controversy has turned into a virtual mirror image of the Democrats vs. Republicans, with the John K supporters in the role of the administration. Here's what I hear them saying (moreso than John himself, really): You're either for us or against us. If you oppose us in anything, you are automatically the enemy/an idiot/don't understand. John can do no wrong. Everything else sucks eggs.
No one (with any sense) is denying John K's talent, achievements, knowledge, contributions. That includes the executives at the various networks and studios, who contrary to what you may have heard, are not all idiots, but contain within their ranks the standard mix of smart and dumb that you would find in any large group of people. (No, I am not one of them.)
If they are not buying John's stuff, then there is clearly something wrong, and it's most likely this: They don't think they will make any money.
I don't need to go over the list of what HAS made money in recent times. Everybody here knows it. John rants about how bad most of it is. But he also posits that if you do better, audiences will respond better. So if he really IS doing better, then where's the glitch? Why do millions of people all over the world get totally swept away with the travails of a "badly-animated" mermaid, while nobody outside LA County really cares if Stimpy lives, dies, gets pregnant, or gets taken over by Nickelodeon suits?
Doing your own thing is great and artistic and stuff, but only until the money runs out. Then you either make some accommodations to the mainstream, or you go low-budget independent arthouse like Bill Plimpton, or . . . you turn into Phil Spector and don't do anything but rant about how stupid the whole world is.
Option 2 keeps John and his fans happy, and may be the best solution. Option 3 makes nobody happy, except for maybe that Brian Booth person. Option 1 is the one that is going to have real impact on animation -- like Mighty Mouse and Ren and Stimpy did.
Do John and his crew of yes-people have the guts to really ponder the hero's lack of recent success? To evaluate why the vast majority of America doesn't respond to his undeniably superior expressiveness, timing, and draftsmanship, but forks over $50 million to see "Hoodwinked"? To maybe even endure the terrible yoke of the Frederator in order to get some of John's new work seen?
Is it possible, just maybe, that all these "stupid, untalented, loathsome" critics make the occasional good point?
Is it even conceivable that John **hasn't** found the whole answer to what makes good animated entertainment?
I really do wish him luck and success. He's a good guy -- his support of the Animation Archive and his online drawing courses prove that, with an exclamation point. But he's got to change his outlook if he's going to roar back. How much influence or progress would Bob Clampett have made with only three or four music videos in two years?
George Liquor is one of the greatest characters ever! He reminds me of my own Uncle George, who is so ultra-conservative he makes George Liqour look like a bleeding heart liberal. That's good character animation, which John excels at. I don't see any of that in today's cartoons.
ReplyDeleteCOMMENT MODERATION IS OVER! If your comment didn't appear I'm sincerely sorry. A guy named Giles was giving me a problem but it's over now.
ReplyDeleteOutside of Disney's features, the 1990s minus John= Klasky Csupo.
ReplyDeleteJohn k. is a great difinitive inventive creative mastermind (genious if you will,) and I always look foward to seeing new work from him! every time i draw his theories explained on the Ren and stimpy DVD"S always are a big inspiration! Clampett was a scholarly animator(he was a brilliant master of comic and animated arts!) and to down grade him is awful! my favorite clampett cartoon coal black and de sebbden dwarrfs gave me a whole new found respect for him because he evidently didn't care about people of color calling him a biggot!
ReplyDelete