THE PARIS ART SCENE, CIRCA 1885

There were lots of art schools and lots of type-A art teachers. Here (above) an angry art teacher goes berserk and possibly beats the class with another student.

Paintings often had to be done on a tight schedule. Here (above) an artist puts the finishing touches on a painting as it's being delivered to the buyer.

According to Daumier one painter paints from nature while another paints from what the first painter painted.

Some painters had fancy studios...

...others painted in hovels. No heat, no bathroom. Rats.

Here (above) is Montmare which, because it was situated on a steep hill, had low rents. Lots of artists here.

Here's a Lautrec poster (above) . Is it for the Moulin Rouge? Does it say "The Queen of Joy (Life?) with Victor Jose"? What the heck is that about? Whatever the real meaning the picture, it reminds me that a number of Lautrec's other posters for that club depicted the customers rather than the stars. Sometime the posters seemed to advertize the interesting people and friendly women you'd meet there. Lautrec did a couple of paintings from the vantage point of someone walking behind adventurer-customers looking for excitement.

The Moulin Rouge Gardens. Outdoor entertainment, good food, spirits, a beautiful giant elephant...looks good to me. Why don't we have more places like this now?

KANDINSKY

Am I the only person here who likes Kandinsky? He was a Russian painter who was infuenced by fauvism but left the movement when Matisse declared that fauvism was incompatible with abstraction. How do you like this railroad painting? I think he and Gaugain (spelled right?) "owned" green!

These "Blue Rider" paintings with the colored frames (above) are terrific in my opinion. He sneaks in some white puffballs...more about that later.

This watercolor (above) looks like a tiny model for a stage set. You can see the Matisse influence but he Russianizes it somehow.

Here's (above) an early example of how Kandinsky adopted pointalism to traditional Russian style. The dabs of paint look like little puffballs. When I first saw them they reminded me of cheesepuffs and I found myself wondering where the Russians ever got the idea of painting on black vevet with junk food. After a moment's reflection I figured that was a pretty superficial observation; the picture obviously referenced balls of lint. It's a pretty picture, though. The dots of light are like stars or fireflies. It makes the whole scene seem magical.

SCRIPTS OR STORYBOARDS?

It won't come as a suprise to anyone that I'm on the storyboard side of that controversy, especially if we're talking about animated cartoon comedy. I've written in both script and storyboard formats, and the boarded stories always turn out funnier. That's because a board provides constant feedback on how the visuals are going. Some ideas just don't look funny when drawn and it's nice to be able to toss them in favor of something that draws better.

It's also because scripts are a form of book. They're a medium of their own and what feels good in the medium of print often doesn't feel good in animation. As an example, scripts tend to be dialogue-heavy, even when they're written by artists. That's because ddialogue driven scripts are leaner and easier to read. Dialogue comes in trim little columns surrounded by oceans of white space. It looks better on a page. You can read it faster. It's an amazing but true fact that dull, dialogue-heavy, talking head cartoons get made for the trivial reason that their kind of script is easier to read.

Here's an example. This is an excerpt from a first-draught script I wrote for Animaniacs. A witch's candy-covered house attracts the Animaniacs and she tries to eat them. They turn it around and harass the witch to distraction. The script reads OK whenever it depicts dialogue but watch how hard it becomes to read when it describes visual gags:
Which part would you rather read?

It's also true that stories that originate on storyboards tend to emphasize visual gags, the thing that animation is best at. When I'm drawing I naturally pay more attention to the way a character looks in clothes, the way he bends to pick things up, etc. Sometimes these details are so funny that I end up building a whole sequence around them. That feels right to me. Comedy is best when it's about little things. Scripts, on the other hand, favor the overview, the big things and the complex subplots.

Now that scripts dominate there are very few funny cartoons. Since scripts are uncongenial to visual comedy the powers that be have decided to eliminate visual comedy. This is the shocking price we've had to pay for our script addiction.

COVARRUBIAS

'Just a few pictures by the uber-caricaturist, Miguel Covarrubias. Enjoy!

POETRY CORNER

Here's (above) Sylvia Plath's "Daddy," read by Plath. I like this poem, but it seems self-indulgent and even crazy to me. Boy, Sylvia could certainly can hold a grudge. What could her father have done to her to make her write a poem like this? My guess is...not much. It's possible that he had a mentally disturbed daughter who was willing to throw his reputation under the bus in order to establish her own reputation.

Anyway, love it or hate it, you have to admit that it represents an interesting extreme of revenge literature. The unrelenting, venemous intensity reminds me of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?" and the several pages long curse in the Bible aimed at anyone who touches the Arc of the Covenant.





Here's (above) Allen Ginsberg reading "America." I confess to liking this poem even though I completely disagree with the content. Walt Whitman popularized this kind of rambling, sloppy, stream-of-consciousness dialogue where the poet argues with an abstraction. Like Whitman, Ginsberg is often silly and easy to parody but you have to admit that it's appealing on some level.





Here's (above) Jack Kerouac reading one of his poems on the old "Tonight Show" with Steve Allen. Kerouac comes off as immensely sincere and the poem is an interesting, example of word music, at least when Jack reads it.

THEORY CORNER FOR MEN: PICKUP LINES

Hello men! I get a lot of letters asking for advice about dating. Normally I don't answer because, well, some things can't be taught. I recently changed my mind after receiving a gut-wrenching letter from a Theory Corner men who told me that if I couldn't help then there would be nothing for it but a leap into the Grand Canyon. It occurred to me that I might be able to help this man and through him some of the other luckless, blighted males who frequent this site.

I agreed to meet the letter writer outside my favorite Hollywood disco. Out there on the street we'd talk theory then inside we'd put it into practice. 


Uncle Eddie: "Alright, listen up! The basic format is FMAC: find, meet, attract, close. Got that?"

Student: (writing nervously, nearly dropping pencil) "Got it Uncle Eddie!"

Uncle Eddie: "The trick is to play hard to get by deliberately ignoring the woman you're interested in while winning over her friends, including the men. To do that you employ a device called the 'neg'."

Student: "Huh? What's a neg?"

Uncle Eddie: "The neg is a negative comment, a sort of accidental insult. The purpose of a neg is to lower a beautiful woman's confidence. Maybe tell her she has lipstick on her teeth or offer her a breath mint after she speaks. Now what's the number one characteristic of an alpha male?"

Student: (drops pencil; when he leans down to pick it up his glasses fall off) "Um...er, I don't know, Uncle Eddie!"

Uncle Eddie: "The number one characteristic of an alpha male is the smile. Smile from the moment you enter the club! It indicates confidence! OK, let's go in!"

Uncle Eddie (inside the club...the sound is deafening...Thoomp! Thoomp! Thoomp!) : (shouting) "You see how all the guys are dressed? You gotta be bold, over-the-top! Dress average and you'll fade into the background! Wear a conversation piece! Now go up that group over there and start talking! Don't think about it or you'll chicken out! Did you memorize the dialogue? "

Student: (squints to read his notes) "Yes, Uncle Eddie! I walk over to them and say, 'Hey, it looks like the party's over here.' Then I turn to the girl I want and say, 'If I wasn't gay, you'd be so mine!' (he blushes).

'Um...I don't get it, Uncle Eddie. How do I get the girl if she thinks I'm gay?"

Uncle Eddie: (rolls eyes) "Once she feels comfortable and unthreatened by you, you forget the gay thing."

Student: "But isn't that lying?"

Uncle Eddie: "Naw, that's flirting!"

Well, that's enough for one post. Now I don't want to hear anybody talking about diving into the Grand Canyon. I'm a hiker and I don't enjoy stepping over dead bodies.

Editor's Note: This info was derived from a book: "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" by Neil Strauss.

WHY I'M NOT A FAN OF "IRON GIANT"

Let me start by saying that I have nothing against Giant's director, Brad Byrd. I'm criticizing his film because that doing that helps me to make a point about the way I believe animated films should be made. In other words I'm contrasting my own pie-in-the-sky ideal of film-making against what Brad was able to do in the face of real-world obstacles. It's not a fair comparison and I recognize that. With that caveat in mind watch the clip above and come back here for discussion.

Well, to start with the robot looks pretty good. Whenever he leans there's a great perspective shift and his glancing back and forth at the rock and tree was impressive in the sense that the space between those items seemed immense. I don't know if I've ever seen that awareness of horizontal space in an animated film before. How did they do that? And the grinding metal SFX were great! Anyway, that's what I liked about the sequence. For me the rest of the clip was all about lost opportunities.

There's no art in the way the kid tried to teach the robot to talk. Theatrical dialogue is supposed to be better than the way real people talk. What if Romeo had said to Juliet," Hey, Juliet! It's me, Romeo! Boy, you look great standing there on the balcony!" Would we still remember the play after all these years? There's no excuse for lackluster dialogue. Hollywood is full of dialogue enhancers. Remember how interesting the language teaching sequences of "My Fair Lady" were? It's an interesting subject if it's handled right, even in an abreviated time frame as it was here.

This dialogue problem set a bunch of dominos to falling. Lackluster dialogue led to a lackluster recording and the lackluster recording led to lackluster animation. The reading and animation were convincing all right, you can't walk off the street and do that, but that's the problem. That's all that they were -- convincing. As I've said elsewhere, it's not enough for an actor to be convincing in a role. Real life is convincing and I get all I want of that for free. When I pay for media I want it to be better than life. I want a performance in the true sense of the word, one that'll blow my mind and make me want to tell my friends about it.


Now there were some good animators on this film, you could tell, but they had nothing to work with. The writing wasn't there. did you feel chemistry between the robot and the kid? I didn't. The exchange between them was cold as ice. The boy's mother called and the kid simply turned his back on the robot and matter-of-factly started for home. Didn't it occur to anyone that if boy didn't care for the robot then we had no reason to care for him either? Imagine if the boy had been a real fleshed-out character like Penny in "The Rescuers." A boy like that would have never have willingly turned his back on his new-found friend.

The writing also hurt the interrogation sequence. The CIA guy's threats were so artless and blunt. Imagine a similar scene played by Darth Vader. Fans would have lovingly quoted the threats for decades. The villain is supposed to be a guy we love to hate. I didn't love to hate this guy.

And why the arid silence? Didn't the filmmakers believe in music? Music might have soothed over some of the writing problems and explained the characters' emotions to us. Maybe the money ran out. If they ever re-release this they should add some sound.

Well, that's it.

JOHN CLEESE, ANDY KAUFMAN, SAM KINISON

I'm probably overdoing this YouTube thing. After all, people don't need me to look up comedy shorts. I did it because I was having such a blast watching these films that I just had to share them with someone. Anyway, here's three more and I'll try to restrain myself after this.

JERRY LEWIS, W.C. FIELDS & JIM CARREY

MORE CLOUD DRAWINGS

Here's a quick sketch I did while leaning outside my car window. All the time I was driving there were great cloud formations but I couldn't get my hands free to draw. What a pity; no record will ever exist of the flottila of battleships chasing the runaway amoebas or the indian bracing himself to get hit with pies. Finally these came along, the caterpillar with a bonnet and the people in the school bus throwing dogs and cats out the window. It was too good to pass up! I pulled over to the shoulder and drew fast with cars whizzing by only a few feet from my paper.

Here, to fill out the post, is Jerry Lewis's famous elevator scene from "The Errand Boy."

VINTAGE SID CAESAR

Here are a couple of sketches featuring Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner and Howard Morris. If you're seeing them for the first time then I envy you.



I love sketch comedy and it breaks my heart that we so infrequently see this kind of thing in animation. I'd love to do some short cartoons that are built around funny sketches. Avery's "King-Size Canary" was a arguably a sketch cartoon as was the "Shampoo Master" and lifeguard sequences of John K's "Naked Beach Frenzy."

Before I close here's a tip of the Theory Hat to Steve Worth, the erstwhile wizard of the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive. Steve just won a well-deserved Annie for his work on the archive, escorted on stage by the famous "Annie Trophy Girls." Way to go, Steve!

CARTOON ACTING

Animation acting isn't the same as live-action acting. Our medium requires that whatever action we draw also moves funny. That means the story has to be written with cartoon posing in mind.

In the action above, the story point might have been satisfied by having a nervous character point to the ground and say, "Here! Dig here!" In the drawings above I use twice as many words as that. Why? Because certain actions look good in cartooning and pointing is one of them. I just wanted to milk the drawing opportunity. The words are repeated simply as an excuse to have fun by drawing more pointing poses. Of course the story has to contain characters that would plausibly act like this. Stories written by writers rather than cartoonists seldom do.

WHAT IS GOOD ACTING?

My intention in this article is to contrast what I consider flawed acting with a sample of the genuine article. The flawed acting is contained in the student film above, a two minute 3D animated film called "Interview." This film is far better than a lot of student work I've seen and I have to say I enjoyed it in spite of the fact that I'm about to rip it. My apology to the talented, deliberately anonymous filmmaker who I hope never reads this. OK, watch the clip then come back and we'll talk about it....

Well, what did you think? My problem with it is that the character is simply giving us a graphic description of what the words say. The visual doesn't add anything. In other words, they're's not acting. Good acting isn't just mouthing the words. Good acting is performance. Good acting is just like tight-rope walking or juggling or ballet dancing. You have to pull off something difficult and entertaining that an audience would be willing to pay for; something they'll imitate and talk about the next day.

A good actor creates a memorable character. He's not content to settle for acting that's simply "convincing." Convincing behavior is all around me, right outside my window and it's free. I don't need to pay an actor for it. What I am willing to pay for is hyper-reality: clever, beautiful, fun artifice that I'm willing to accept as real but isn't. Watch the Peter Lorre clip below and you'll see all these factors operating. Lorre could have played the role as a straight-forward psycho thug. Instead he creates a character who's a sickly, spacey, oddly-appealing troll. See what you think!

MORE RUBENS!

I hadn't intended to put up another fine art post so soon but I'm too sleepy to write something original and these Rubens drawings really are worth seeing. Be sure to click to enlarge.

The picture of the young girl above is from 1630 or so, done in red and black chalk with a little red ink brushed in and with white chalk for corrections. This stands out even among Rubens' other drawings. The girl is a specific person. We can see how in real life she'd be riddled with flaws as we all are, and yet at the same time she exemplifies an ideal of grace, depth and intellect.

I may have posted this one before, I can't remember. It's a study for a picture showing Daniel in the Lion's den.

I can't remember what this drawing was for. Maybe a crucifiction scene. The right side of the body and the elbow in particular leap out of the drawing. The figure has incredible solidity and weight.

BABY ANATOMY

Have you ever noticed that babies have an expressive furrow above their eyebrows?

It's not the result of a bulging skull. Here (above) you can see the furrow moves independently of the skull. It seems to be brought about by a muscle that's much more subtle in adults.

My guess is that the furrow exists to make crying expressions read better. Nature really wants us to pay attention to crying infants.

Babies cry a lot broader than adults. They put their whole face into it. This (above) is an interesting picture. Look at the way the baby's chin is tucked up under his lip and the way the lip covers it.

Why on Earth do babies have such big sex organs?

And why are their chins and lower jaws so small? You don't see any babies with Katherine Hepburn chins.

MORE ABOUT T. S. SULLIVANT

T. S. Sullivant fans should be in heaven now because John K wrote something about Sullivant at the same I started this. If you haven't read it then run, don't walk, over to John's blog "All Kinds of Stuff' and read the entry, "Being Enslaved" which is a brilliant argument for originality in character design, exemplified by Sullivant. I'm incredibly busy today so my own Sullivant entry is much more modest. I simply note my own discovery that he did some of his best work when he was in his 60's. Imagine that! The picture above was done in 1921 when he was 67 years old! For comparison, Vlaminck petered out when he was 30. Boy, you never know when the axe is going to fall!

Jim Woodring, who wrote the article I'm referencing (The Comics Journal, special edition, winter 2002), says he's seen some of the originals and they appear to have been chipped and scraped with a knife in an effort to make the lines look scratchy. Fascinating! My dad was an amateur pen and ink artist and he was always scraping his pictures with a razor blade. More than once he told me that half the work on a picture is done after it's drawn. I wonder if he picked that up from Sullivant?

A COUPLE MORE FAUVE PICTURES

Most of the cartoonists who visit here hate the Fauves. Me, I love them. Here's (above) a 1906 Derain showing the Thames near Charing Cross bridge in London. His color seems to have poured down into the water, caught fire, then was guided toward the indigo bridge by seething bits of green energy. What's not to like?

It would be a mistake to think of this as some kind of drug-induced LSD vision. Derain uses false colors in order to make us realize that the colors we see every day are just as bizzare. We should see color the way a formerly blind man would see them on his first few minutes of sight. For such a man shadows wouldn't be subordinated to local color, they'd be independent forms. Lines would just be lines, they wouldn't define a shape and colors would battle for dominance. This is the violent, alien world Derain paints for us!

Here (above) is Vlaminck, also 1906. Red leaves on the red trees are no longer content to be decoration. They radiate and burn themselves into the blue sky behind them. Leaves seperate from the trees and gyrate in mid-air. The red and pink path carries this crazy energy to other trees. It's an alien force being unleashed, a force that was there all the time but we never noticed it.

Of course I'm only guessing that this is what Vlaminck had in mind. Artists need to have fantasies about the pictures they paint so they can see their subjects in new and exciting ways, and the same goes for viewers.

Here (above) is Matisse's famous green stripe painting, also 1906 I think. The face is both flat and three-dimensional. The colors in the backdrop refuse to be background and come forward to compete with the foreground. The face plane is stressed and appears to be in danger of splitting.

The green strip painting influenced a lot of painters in Matisse's time and continues to exert an influence today. Here (above) is a Matisse-influenced face by illustrator Phillip Burke. The surface tension is much reduced from the Matisse original but the color is still exciting.

A THEORY CORNER EDITORIAL

To Theory Corner Men:

Men, let's face it. We've been selfish. We never talk to women the way they want to be talked to, the way they CRAVE to be talked to. They want their men to hold their hands and talk to them Don Juan de Marco-style, like this:

"There are some women...fine featured...a certain texture to the hair, a curve to the ears that sweeps like an eternal nautilus...these women have fingers with the same sensitivity as their feet...and when you touch their knuckles it's like pressing your hands around their knees..and touching this tender, fleshy part of their fingers is the same as brushing your hands around their thighs...and..."

OK, it sounds hokey to us but women eat this stuff up. And if they like it so much, why not give it to them? Consider that one half the world (men) has it in their power to make the other half of the world (women) substantially happier without spending a single cent. What a huge improvement for such a small effort!

I hear you say that that modern women would never fall for something this corny. NOT TRUE!

I've tried this on my family and female friends and it worked 100% of the time! I don't mean I tried to seduce them, just the opposite. I bragged before hand that I could get a reaction from them, whether they liked it or not, with over-the-top purple prose, then I read the dialogue hesitatingly from a dog-eared piece of paper in the presence of other people. Even under these circumstances, even with the most skeptical of women, after only a couple of minutes they were all reduced to shell-shocked puddles. Don't take my word for it, try it yourself and improve the world.

BTW, the picture is by the young Robert Crumb.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO DERAIN AND VLAMINCK?

Here they are: Derain's portrait of Vlaminck (above, left) and Vlaminck's portrait of Derain (above, right). They were at the top of their form at the start of the fauve period in, say, 1905 and by 1910 they were passe'. What happened?

Here (above) is a Derain from 1905. it's full of verve and vitality.

Here (above) is a Derain from 1909. It's OK but what a come-down! What happened? Maybe the answer is that he bought a house in the country and fatally removed himself from the influence of his friends in the city. Or maybe he acquired depressing friends out there in the country. He hung out with German friends in this period and maybe they didn't understand color the way the French did.

Here (above) is a Vlaminck from 1905. Minimal shadows, unreal color on the tree trunks, color used to contain space...it's a really wonderfull example of the fauve style.

Here (above) is a Vlaminck from the 1920's. It's OK but the painter clearly wasn't interested in experimenting anymore. What happened? Why the precipitous decline? Historians speculate that he was demoralized by his association with Picasso. Apparently Derain felt old-fashioned in the presence of Picasso's Cubist rebellion and in 1907 he destroyed his fauve paintings when he moved to a new studio. Imagine that; fauvism starts in 1905 and one of the leading practitioners feels passe' by 1907. That's how fast things were changing in those days.

Here are photo portraits of Derain (above) and Vlaminck (below). Neither had to desert fauvism. The movement still had a lot of vitality as we know from Matisse's work. Matisse stood up to Picasso and matched him, innovation for innovation. What a pity that Derain and Vlaminck chose to capitulate rather than fight.

THEORY CORNER FOR WOMEN (NO MEN ALLOWED)

Hello, Sisters! I reckon I'm not good at public speaking so I guess I'll begin plain and direct by showing you this plea for help that that I wrote to Uncle Eddie (above) a few weeks ago....

"Dear Uncle Eddie:

Beulah Bradshaw here. I'm sorry to burden you with this. I know you get thousands of letters from lonely females, more than you could ever answer, but I have nowhere else to turn. If you don't help me I'll just just have to buy a one-way ticket to the river, if you know what I mean. Won't you please help me? Here's my problem...

I've had affection for David, the boy next door, ever since I can remember. When he studied to become a doctor, I decided that being a nurse would be my career so that our work would bring us together. And that's exactly what happened. Then Chad, a handsome folk singer came into my life and suddenly there was...well, a new song in my heart. Now I have to choose. David is handsome and talented and has a plush society practice. Chad is something of a wastrel but his touch makes me tremble. What should I do?

Yours Expectently,

Beulah Bradshaw"

I don't know if I really expected Uncle Eddie to answer but a few days later his secretary called and told me that Uncle Eddie would be pleased to meet me that very afternoon at his villa in the Hollywood Hills. Within hours I was shown into the consevatory where I snapped this picture (above) of him lying down and shirtless, evidently in a state of near exhaustion after rescuing a kitten from a nearby tree. After introductions were made and the situation explained, the following conversation took place (transcribed from a tape recorder):

Uncle Eddie: "Beulah...may I call you Beulah?...please take my hand."

Beulah: "Gasp! You want ME to take YOUR hand!!?? Wait til I tell my girlfriends about this!"

Uncle Eddie: "Beulah, I want you to look into my eyes and answer the question I'm about to ask as truthfully as you possibly can. Will you do that?"

Beulah: "(Gulp!) ok...I mean, OK, Uncle Eddie!"

Uncle Eddie: "This, this Chad...can you speak to him without holding back? When you're with him do you hide anything from him?"

Beulah: "(Gulp!) Uh...no, I don't think so."

Uncle Eddie: "That's good! Now listen to me closely! Every woman is a mystery to be solved but she never hides anything from her true lover. Her skin color tells him how to proceed. The hue speaks like the blush of the rose, pink and pale, and she must be coaxed to open her petals with a warmth like the sun. Is this not so?"

Beulah: "Um...uh...(Gulp!) (Gulp!)...um...it's getting awfully, uh, hot in here."

Uncle Eddie: "And under her true lover's gaze the pale, dappled skin of her redness yields to the lust of his wave crashing to the shore, stirring up what lies beneath and bringing the foaming delight of love to the surface, does it not? And when he touches his fingertips to yours is it not like pressing your hands against his knees with the tender, fleshy part brushing...."

At this point I brushed against the recorder and accidentally turned it off. Anyway, after only a few minutes with Uncle Eddie I realized that Chad was the man for me. I want romance in my life! I want to live!!! Thank you, Uncle Eddie! You've changed my life!
!

DO YOU PLAY WITH YOUR NOSE WHILE THINKING?

I do. These pictures were assembled from the margins of papers I was doodling on while thinking yesterday. These aren't good drawings but I include them here because they help make a point, namely that without cartooning we'd never be able to record a lot of the little things in life.

I don't know about you but my life doesn't contain many super events. When I'm not working most of my day consists of waiting while old ladies argue with the cashier, trying to eat while driving, complaining about the state of the world, oogling girls, trying to find a pen that works, etc. Illustrators like super hero artists aren't interested in stuff like this. If cartoonists didn't draw it then it would go completely unrecorded by artists.

I just saw a DVD of "Cars" and was struck by how little "small event" acting the film contained. The cars displayed fear of the dark, shyness and awkwardness when the story required it but these were clearly subordinated to the story and were never allowed to dominate whole sequences. For contrast think of how W.C. Fields devoted entire sequences of his movies to micro events like trying to shave when someone was blocking his view of the mirror. 

TAKING A COUPLE OF DAYS OFF!

RALPH BAKSHI: HERO

I put up something about Ralph a few months ago but there's a lot more to say about the man than I was able to say in a single post so here I am, telling the same story again in more detail. Everybody knows that Ralph directed ground-breaking films like "Fritz the Cat" and "Heavy Traffic" but a lot of fans don't know what a decisive role he played in starting up the animation boom that started in the late 80s.

If you remember, the animation boom had two causes: "The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse" and "Rodger Rabbit." I don't know the story about how a flamboyant project like Rodger Rabbit ever got OK'd by Disney but I was at ground zero for the Mighty Mouse show. Here's the way it happened....

At the outset of the project Ralph called in his three directors, John K, Bruce Woodside and I, and begged us not to do anything drastic that would get him in trouble with the networks. Ralph explained that he had a reputation as a pornographer because of his X-rated features and was anxious to get a foothold in TV animation where he could turn out charming, beautifully executed cartoons for kids and make a legitimate and uncontroversial dollar. This show was all about building his credibility as a mass-market, quality film maker. He said he knew that we were all chomping at the bit to make something edgey but that we should put a lid on it for a season or two. Later, when he'd proven himself, he'd give us more slack.

I was genuinely moved and resolved to do what he asked for. So was John. We both did relatively sedate first cartoons. They were so sedate that the first show won an award for "pro-social filmmaking" from the then powerfull Action for Children's Programs (or is it "programming?" I can never remember).

The problem was that we had a really hot studio with a lot of gifted artists mostly picked by John. Not only that but John was in the throws of a personal creative explosion. He was always sharp but now that he was in his element, living his dream and surrounded by every physical asset needed to turn out great cartoons, he went into ecstatic creative overdrive. I wish I'd kept the drawings and written down the ideas that came out at lunchtime and during breaks. Every one of them was side-splittingly hilarious! Add to this that Ralph himself was a first-rate cartoonist and could appreciate what was happening even while he was struggling to control it...add that and well, it was a ticking bomb that was bound to explode.

Ralph could see where things were going. He kept reminding us that this show was his nest-egg and that we needed to rope ourselves in but he couldn't prevent himself from laughing at it all. This was a high-stakes game for Ralph and I can only guess at the anxiety all this must have caused him. He must have had moments when he'd wished he'd never met any of us.

I imagine that the network was also getting antsy but, like Ralph, they were also aware that they had something unique and special on their hands. I'm sure the good reviews helped but Ralph still had to spend a lot of time on the phone, soothing things over. At some point in all the complicated negotiations Ralph decided to dig in and fight for the show as it really was. He was no longer pitching it as a harmless show for 5 year-olds but as an unashamedly funny show for all age groups. He crossed the Rubicon. I heard him say to someone in the corridor: "I'm Ralph Bakshi! My name is on this show! I'm not going to put my name on something second-rate!"

Well, the rest is history. Ralph backed up John and TV animation was never the same again. Ralph risked everything to make it happen. He didn't have to do it. He did it because he was a true artist and because, when push came to shove, he had guts and integrity. So, by the way, did Judy Price, the network executive who had to stand up for all this to her superiors; two courageous people that we all owe a debt to.

BTW, the drawings here are all telephone doodles by Ralph Bakshi.