


BTW, I didn't draw the picture of power Lad and his Powerful Beams of Power above.
I've only read a dozen pages or so. When I put it down Callow was relating the story of how Welles rehearsed the actors in "Magnificent Ambersons." He recorded the rehearsel on records then played the best parts back when it was time to film it. Welles thought actors always spoke their lines too slow infront of the camera and he wanted to remind them how good it sounded when they spoke fast in rehearsel. Callow thought it had the unexpected effect of making the scenes feel awkward because the actors couldn't find the natural rythym of the present, infront of the camera.
Welles put a lot of emphasis on the reading that was done in rehearsel. I'm proud of myself because I deduced this before I ever read it, in fact I did a blog entry about it. You can hear it in the way he delivered his lines in " Jane Eyre." The lines sound like they're being read! You might think that would be a liability but it wasn't. It sounded great that way! I read ahead in the Jane Eyre sequence and discovered that he walked on the set and started directing from a podium just like a conducter, even though he was only hired to act.
How fearless Gross is! The guy (above) doesn't fall, though he's leaning and is painfully top-heavy. He doesn't fall for the perfectly logical reason that it's funnier if he doesn't.
I love Gross' walks. Strides like this (above) just beg to be animated funny.
This ball-throwing pose (above) probably worked better in print than it would in animation. Even so, the way the forms squash into each other certainly is interesting. Animators shouldn't be put off by the flat, print bias of the pictures. Even the flatest ones are terrific conceptual blockbusters.
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.