MILT: "Hey, Eddie...you want to hear my latest thoughts on Clampett?"
EDDIE (VO): "More Clampett theories!!! Go ahead. I'm all ears!"
MILT: "Well, Clampett gets a lot of attention these days and it's easy to forget that at one time he was denied the press that other 40s Warner directors got. Have you ever wondered how that came about?
EDDIE (VO): "Yeah, all the time. At one time Chuck and Friz got a lot of the credit, even though Bob was obviously the better filmmaker. Chuck outlived Bob and was pretty articulate about why he did what he did. I guess it pays to be eloquent."
MILT: "Well maybe, but I think it went deeper than that."
MILT: "The main reason was that Chuck and Friz relied on rules and formulas that were already described in books and magazine articles by the mid 30s. They were ready made for historians and critics to reference. Bob was more visceral and innovative. There were no ready-made words to describe what he was getting at."
EDDIE (VO): "Wow! True enough! In a Jones cartoon the bad guy always deserved what he got and Bugs administered the punishment. That's fine, but it got repetitive. After a while you found yourself yearning for a Clampett cartoon where Bugs just bothered the heck out of a poor, innocent patsy like Elmer. It just felt right."
MILT: "Exactly. Bugs was shaking people out of their complacency. That's just classic comedy."
EDDIE (VO): "Haw! Try to explain that to Chuck and Friz, or to a critic who's obsessed with formulas."
MILT: "I sum it up this way: rules are fine in their place, but let's face it......"
MILT: "Rules are for beginners!"
MILT: "I sum it up this way: rules are fine in their place, but let's face it......"
************
P.S. In summing up Milt's ideas I sometimes resorted to a fictional paraphrase. If I goofed up, I hope he'll correct me in the comments section.
