http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/
They're storyboard drawings from a Paramount cartoon called "Barking Dogs Don't Bite." You can find a video of it somewhere below. I'm putting all this up because the story doesn't work, and I thought it would be fun to talk about why.
It's a pretty simple story. Olive Oyl leans on Popeye to walk her dainty little French Poodle and Popeye reluctantly gives in. Of course Popeye runs into Bluto who's walking his killer bulldog.
The whole middle of the cartoon is action gags where Bluto beats up Popeye, and the bulldog beats up the poodle. After a ton of beatings, the good guys manage to score some spinach and massacre the two bullies. Popeye now has new respect for the poodle who, with the aid of spinach, has proved himself a real man. That's the story.
At first glance the story seems perfect: it’s clear and simple, builds in a logical way, and has lots of opportunities for gags. It’s only when you see the story executed that you realize how flawed it really is.
Compare it to the the best of the black and white Popeyes. They’re full of digressions, and are as much about the funky world that Popeye lives in as they are about Popeye.
In those cartoons Popeye was alternately violent and sentimental and so was the world he lived in. The wonderful, built in contradictions made it difficult to make slick and logical stories, so the studio didn’t even try. They aimed for a logic of the heart rather than a logic of the mind.
On a different point, I’d hate to be an animator working on a slick and logical comedy. There’s no breathing room. In a logical cartoon all the animator can do is move the storyboard poses. Any deviation is seen as subverting the story.
Sometimes I think the present industry should be called the storyboard industry or the writing industry because the animator’s contribution is so slight. Isn’t this supposed to be their industry?
Aaaargh! I've digressed way too much. What I want to convey here is how easy it is, even for professionals, to get seduced by a "tight" story like this one. Sometimes a story can be too tight. It can exclude any spontaneous humor in favor of gags that aren't really funny, but just happen to fit the subject at hand. Stories like that get an "A" for logical consistency, and an "F" for entertainment.
Okay, here's (above) the whole film.
**********************
BTW: Michael Sporn is working up a promotional reel for an animated film about Edgar Allan Poe. When I was a kid I read everything of Poe's that I could get hold of. My favorite book was "Tales of the Grotesque and the Arabesque." I used to love the way Poe used ornate speech to convey horrific ideas. It made humanity seem so frail. He has us put up a tissue-thin wall of eloquent words and manners in the belief that it'll protect us from an unimaginably hostile universe.
Take a look at what Michael is doing with the story, which is heartbreakingly tragic in parts. http://www.indiegogo.com/PoeProject
18 comments:
Are there any of the later Popeye cartoons that really made you laugh, Eddie? "Symphony in Spinach," "Shape Ahoy" and "The Hungry Goat" were always just a few of my favorites. I always had a soft spot for the Popeye cartoons Famous made in the 40s, but they definitely ran out of steam by the early 1950s when they just moved the storyboard drawings around rather than trying to innovate upon the gags and animation, even though they still moved much more than characters in modern cartoons.
I think instead of calling it the storyboard/writing industry, just call it the stick figure industry since a lot of the cartoons I've seen being made now have all these ugly, unappealing, cliched, and stiff poses with characters that hardly move at all. The dialogue is sometimes even worse than the drawings that I've seen, often taking up way too much time and not being funny, possibly due to a hack writer's influence. Why do you think layout is now ignored in the process of making cartoons?
It should be noted that this is a remake of a Fleischer Popeye called "Protek the Weakerist".
I'm wondering if you've seen this. Seymour Kneitel's daughter posted a "bible" that the Fleischer studio put together near the end of its run; it was subsequently put into use at Famous. This may explain some things about the cartoons they made.
As someone who is currently looking for work in animation, yeah, there’s some truth when you say “storyboard industry”. Sherm Cohen said something to the akin that they're "mini-layouts".
I remember you saying that modern-day storyboarding is close to directing. This is especially true in Japan; in fact, Japanese animation directors often do the storyboards themselves. This was the standard back in the ’60s and it’s still somewhat true today.
Wait...Isn't this basically the same story as a B&W Popeye short "Protek the Weakerist"? Why don't you compare the Famous short to that one?
Frankly, Eddie, you might be overthinking this one. The cleanups are sloppy and the timing is weak - those are MY problems with it. Also, regardless of what works or doesn't in any given cartoon with any given characters at any given studio, this is a POPEYE cartoon. Popye cartoons are not supposed to have stories this straight. More inherently expressive characters -like, say, ones that don't have ungainly proportions and dots for eyes- might not require such a peyote-laced definition of entertainment to be put across compellingly. Even Clampett was more about story than the Fleischers, and no one ever accused HIM of being rigid or anti-fun, right?
Eddie, what is your overall take of Famous Studios? For this former animator, their early output was pretty decent but once Sam Buchwald passed away, Famous tailspun into oblivion.
http://www.davemackey.com/animation/paramount/para40s.html
offers history of Famous Studios.
FYI, Famous's facilities produced Don Oriolo's TV version of FELIX THE CAT.
Wrt Robert's comments: could today's heavy reliance on poses come from the huge influence manga/anime has had on the entire animation industry?
kurtwil,
You mean JOE Oriolo, right? He was a former Fleischer animator who later started his own studio. Don is Joe's son.
Joe Oriolo produced the Felix cartoons at his own studio; Famous had nothing to do with it, although it did employ alot of ex-Famous animators, including Al Eugster, Johnny Gent, and even Jim Tyer. In addition, Oriolo utilized music by Winston Sharples. Blurring the line between the two facilities.
Here's one of the TV Felixes that Jim Tyer animated. The man was nuts even with limited animation.
Yup, I meant Joe Oriolo..thanks for correction and for confirmation that J. Tyer animated on Felix.
There are interesting differences between the 1937 "Protek the Weakerest" & "Barking Dogs Don't Bite" from the forties. You can see a shift in public attitude after the US got into the war.
Have you seen the Fleischer's non-interventionist fable "Leave Well Enough Alone" from the pivotal year, 1939?
Regarding a 1/29/10 post on what I called the flawed Milgram experiment, Anonymous wrote:
"The author of this article is a complete idiot, as are most of the people leaving comments about completely irrelevant points. You have done nothing but demonstrate how little you know about the field of modern psychology, its vast fields, its history, it's scientists, and its techniques. If you were to apply to a graduate program in any area of psychology, the overall acceptance rate is like 12-15%! The people in this field are some of the brightest, most clever individuals in any of the behavorial and cognitive sciences."
Anonymous: Haw! Well, I wrote the article so I guess I'm the idiot you're talking about.
You declined to comment on the evidence I presented. Your own statement is only backed up by the assertion that smart people are attracted to the field. I'm not so sure that's true, or that it's a meaningful statement if it is true.
Inquistors were bright and educated for their time. Germany had the most educated population in the world when it rallied behind Hitler in the 30s.
I remember reading a conclusion of a study done on propaganda during WW2. It said the group most vulnerable to propaganda was the educated, maybe because they'd been taught to mistrust common sense.
I'm envious of smart people, and I benefit every day from things they've made possible, but I'm not inclined to write them a blank check.
I think the Fleischer Popeyes are some of the best cartoons ever made.
Their stories are really tight and (almost) always in character - at least until around 1940.
The animators don't have to "deviate" from the stories in order to make them entertaining.
But rather than merely illustrate the storyboard poses with movement that links them; they enrich the story, gags and characters with custom animation appropriate for the specific scene.
Fleischer's Popeye, Olive and Bluto all have their own unique ways of moving while not resorting to stock. They always have funny walks that are as entertaining as the "written" gags.
The stories are conceived with the animators in mind and the animators were obviously encouraged to add what only they could do.
"A Dream Walking" is a good example of a perfectly structured story with lots of gags and personality in it. It might work well as a comic book but the animators really add a lot of life and showmanship to it.
Something obviously happened to the series after the Fleischers left.
I think part of the problem was the New York animators started imitating the west coast animation style and that kind of movement didn't work as well for those characters.
They stopped moving according to their own personalities and to the animators' personal touches by conforming to animation rules being created in Los Angeles - rules that the New York animators didn't seem to really believe in.
They even lost sight of who the characters were after awhile - Popeye himself became a hapless sidekick in some of the cartoons.
I'm sure there's much more to it than that, but not deviating from the story is hardly what I would call a sin.
The story should take advantage of the animation and be structured for it, and the animators should do their best to enrich the meaning of the scenes and the personalities of the characters - without rewriting the story.
What a waste it would be if everyone on a cartoon threw out what the artist before created for him.
Everybody: Yikes! This post got interesting and insightful comments, which deserve a much better reply than I'm able to give them now.
I think my point was misunderstood, but it's my own fault. I didn't really articulate what I was getting at til the last large paragraph, and that was too condensed to be convincing. I knew the post was in need of a rewrite but I just didn't have time.
If I had rewritten it I would have made the point that strongly thematic stories are easy to write badly, but hard to write well. Sometimes it's best to avoid them.
I'll borrow an example from a book. Imagine that Chaplin had two ideas for a short film and had to choose between them. Both start with Chaplin being hungry and having no money.
In the first scenario he decides to box a huge gorilla of a guy for the prize money. All the gags would have to do with boxing. Studio executives love thematically tight stories like this.
In the second scenario he wonders up to a hot dog stand and taps customers on the shoulder from behind to distract them while he takes bites out of their hot dogs. Maybe he befriends a homeless dog and tries to get food the way the dog does. Maybe he meets a girl that he wants to woo but his growling stomach gets in the way. Lots of opportunities for gags here, but studio executives don't like story ideas like this because they're too hard to summarize.
I'll pose the question: which of the two stories should Chaplin make? The first has appeal because it's simple and direct and will remain in peoples' mind as "the boxing film." The problem is that it won't be fun to write. There's a reason why joke books never have a section on boxing. It was only funny in one cartoon.
The second film meanders all over the place but is full of gag potential. you can imagine that the writing session on a film like this would be lively in the extreme. Studio executives hate stories like this because they're considered thematically vague.
I think Chaplin should choose the second story. Even professionals can forget that it's not our job to make slick, neat little films. It's our job to be funny.
Am I saying that thematic ideas can never be funny? Of course not. I'm just saying that we should be aware that they can backfire, and be prepared to toss the idea out if nobody can think of first rate gags for it. The best idea for a story is one which generates real excitement and enthusiasm at the gag writing stage.
I'm not sure that John K would disagree with this, but if he does then I'll defer to him...to him, but not to anyone else. John's produced masterpieces using his own method and you can't argue with success.
The story and gags of this Famous Studios remake are extremely close to the story and gags of the B&W Fleischer version. The reason this cartoon sucks and the Fleischer one is great doesn't have anything to do with the story... It's how the action is timed and animated. The difference in quality is due to the direction and animation, not story and gags.
Eddie,
Check this out. It's another Famous Studios storyboard, this time by Irv Spector, one of the most brilliant storymen in the theatrical era of animation.
www.cartoonbrew.com/classic/irv-spector-storyboards.html
Look at the storyboards first. You can just imagine a great cartoon that can come out of it.
Then look at the finished product. It's a letdown from what you imagined when you looked at the boards.
Yeah, the directing style in Famous was always lacking. Oddly enough, the 1960s cartoons written by Irv Spector (as well as those by comedian Eddie Lawrence) were probably the funniest cartoons to come out of the place.
Mr. Fitzgerald, your last set of comments reminded me of this:
http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2009/07/ideas-arenas-modern-way-to-write.html
It also reminds me of what I've been thinking lately about TV dramas. TV shows seem to die quickly when the setup overly restricts the stories so there is no wiggle room in which creativity can flourish. They end up filling the stories up with interpersonal bickering, buying time till the season finale where the story arch can be finally be laid to rest.
I do see differences in the 40's version. Olive is more glamorous, less shrewish & demanding. Popeye doesn't protest the slight to his he-man image, but meekly/gallantly takes the snobbier, gayer & less sympathetic Frenchie for a walk. Bluto swaggers, as does his dog, in imitation. In the original, he's leaning backwards as the dog strains at the leash. The 30's dog is friendly, likes Popeye & eats the spinach himself, in admiring imitation instead of having it fed to him.
I think the remake is an attempt to clean up the franchise, make it less slummy & more morally instructive. Popeye & Olive have had their romantic ambivalence sanded off. You can't see this Olive in a love triangle. This Popeye wouldn't even look at another woman.
In jamming it into a pure & puerile good vs. evil framework, they have damaged the characters' humanity & lowered the dramatic stakes. It's the dawn of the PC cartoon.
Nice info Eddie and JK!
Eddie, it would be great if you offered a Theory as to why today's audiences mostly prefer the FAMILY GUY class of animation! When I tested video games, the under 30's liked Anime, Machinima and (mostly) illustrated radio shows like FAMILY GUY, while older testers like me preferred animation that actually told a story through unique personalities, acting, and timing.
What gives with today's animation? I know JK's done a few ads and great Simpson intro. Where's the rest of animation like that gone?
Eddie, your analysis of this bad cartoon is, as usual, smart and right on. I find a ot of the comments here clever but off the theme of your piece. Some of the storyboard drawings for this cartoon are just gems, but overall it's bad writing for animation. Watsching the final film, you can see that there is some deviation from the boards, but it's obvious this was expanded in the layout stage, which is where you can really snuff out any life in a film.
The Paramount studio tightened the reins and every small department became more specialized in what they did or thought they could do. Some of the Paramount artists who worked for Hubley were lost. He left too much for them to do, and they didn't think it was their job to do any of the planning or plotting ... they were just animators. I was used by hubley to try to help out a lot of those guys.
Michael: Fascinating! What you described sounds like the kind of thing that happens.
It's odd to think that a lot of animators like to be on a short creative leash, and be responsible only for execution. Me, I prefer the most freedom I can get, so long as what I do fits the story.
Post a Comment