Friday, August 08, 2008

MILT'S CLAMPETT ARTICLE (CONCLUSION)




An awful lot of Theory Corner people also read John K's blog, so I'll assume that people here are familiar with the excellent article, "Milt Gray on Clampett" that was serialized there recently. If you're not, then try the June 3 and May 12 installments at http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/

Anyway, if you're like me you were frustrated beyond endurance when John wasn't able to run the final installment. He just didn't have time. Well, I have time, so here it is, complete with pictures chosen by the author. It's a preeeety interesting piece, something that oughta stir things up a bit. Enjoy!



MILT GRAY ON CLAMPETT (CONCLUSION)

In 1941 Bob is finally rewarded for his successes -- he is given the best color unit when Tex Avery leaves to go to M-G-M. Bob’s first cartoons are completing the cartoons that Tex had begun. Since it takes about nine months to complete a single cartoon, and a cartoon is in each stage of production (story, design and recording, layout, animation, inbetweening, etc.) only about five to six weeks, that means that each director has at least a half dozen cartoons in production at any given time, each one in a different stage of production. So Bob inherited several Avery-created cartoons, which share Avery’s and Bob’s sensibilities to some degree. But once Bob begins cartoons created entirely by himself, he sets a level of creativity and originality that has never been equaled. Every Clampett Warner cartoon from this time on is a unique new subject. On those rare occasions that Clampett does use an established formula -- like Bugs racing the tortoise -- he adds some really over-the-top elements that lift the cartoon(s) to a whole new level.






Clampett was always reaching for the new and unexpected, and not just copying things that were well done before. He was always focused not only on fresh subjects, but also on eccentric (and precise) acting, and visual surprises for the audience. He was, in his heart, an enthusiastic entertainer.











He never took the easy way, and his animators had to share his ambition or be replaced by someone who was eager to do his very best. For example, Virgil Ross, an excellent animator, admitted many years later that although he liked Bob and admired his work, he just wasn’t willing to do all the ambitious things that Bob always asked for, and so Virgil volunteered to be traded into the Freleng unit where the standards were much lower and the work much easier.

The only other director at Warners to come close to Bob’s level of energy was Frank Tashlin, on his third stint at the Schlesinger Studio, from about 1942 to 1944. Friz and Chuck struggled to try to keep up, and were extremely relieved when Bob left Warners to pursue an independent career. In Bob’s absence, the energy in the Warner cartoons quickly dissipated, as Friz and Chuck relaxed by making mostly cartoons in which the characters just stand around and talk (like Duck, Rabbit, Duck).















Chuck Jones once commented on the Clampett cartoons: “Most filmmakers pace their films by starting with a relaxed tempo, introducing the characters, and then gradually increase the tempo until they reach the climax on a high crescendo. But Bob Clampett was different. Bob would start his films at the top -- and from there he would go up!”









I think one of the biggest reasons that Clampett has so seldom gotten the recognition he deserves, especially for his 1940s Warner cartoons, is that critics and cartoon historians (including myself) have been largely unable to even describe in words what Clampett excelled at. By contrast, Friz and Chuck were primarily concerned with “respectability”, and so whatever the “rules” of filmmaking were -- which were already described in words in books and magazine articles even by the mid 1930s, and therefore ready-made for critics and historians to reference -- Friz and Chuck were anxious to adhere to. Plus, Friz and Chuck were focused on a linear exposition of story structure, with dialog that defined character -- which is also easy for critics and historians to write about. Clampett was certainly aware of these “rules”, but did not make himself a slave to them. Instead, Clampett was much more of an innovator, and his innovations were largely in the visceral areas of expressive movement, and the use of color, sound and cutting, that convey or resonate emotions in non-literal, purely intuitive ways. He let himself be guided by his emotions as much as by his intellect. These are the things that make movies powerful, and unique from books (or even comic books), but they are almost impossible for critics or historians to describe in words. As a consequence, these achievements that Clampett excelled in are almost never written about, while the works of Chuck and Friz are easy to describe and to praise. This, then, has left Clampett relatively defenseless against Chuck’s smug accusations that “Clampett was an irresponsible renegade who never followed the rules.” Frankly, the “rules” are for beginners. =

[That's the end of the article, but you might be interested in a couple of captions Milt wrote for the final five pictures. Check them out below].









CAPTIONS:

About the pictures of Porky and the cats on the doorstep, Milt writes: "From Kitty Kornered: Clampett anticipates color with color: The open door is yellow, reflecting the warm light inside the house; the closed door is white, reflecting the cold light of the winter snow; but the inbetween door is green -- giving an extra snap to the changes of color."

About the final two pictures where the cat bashes into the closed door, Milt writes: "From Kitty Kornered: Two successive frames within the same scene: As the cat leaps at the door, the background changes perspective for additional impact to our senses."

Thursday, August 07, 2008

BOY, I LOVE THIS LANGUAGE!

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...man, when you undertake to speak and write in English, you really are picking up a Strativarius. This language is a fine instrument, arguably just as expressive now as it was in Shakespeare's time. There's a lot of fine modern examples. Here's a few, taken from an internet monologue site. The first is from a TV script written by Stephen Fry (below):


"I think it was Donald Mainstock, the great amateur squash player, who pointed out how lovely I was. Until that time, I think it was safe to say that I'd never really been aware of my own timeless brand of loveliness. But his words smote me, because, of course, you see, I am lovely, in a fluffy, moist kind of a way.

I walk, let's be splendid about this, in a lightly-scented cloud of gorgeousness that isn't a far shot from being quite simply terrific. The secret to smooth, almost shiny loveliness, of the order which we are discussing in this simple, frank, creamy-soft way doesn't reside in oils, unduants, balms, ointments, astringments, creams, milks, moisturizers, linaments, lubricants, embracants or bolsoms, to be simply divine for just one noble moment; it resides, and I mean this in a pink, slightly special way, in one's attitude of mind. To be gorgeous and high and true and fine and fluffy and moist and sticky and lovely, all you have to do is to believe that one is gorgeous and high and true and fine and fluffy and moist and sticky and lovely. And I believe it of myself, tremulously at first and then with mounting heat and passion because, stopping off for a second to be super again, I'm so often told it. That's the secret really."

Wow! That's over-the-top gay English raised to the level of fine art! I love lines like, "I walk, let's be splendid about this, in a lightly-scented cloud of gorgeousness, that isn't a far shot from being simply terrific!" Of course a good English sentence doesn't have to be fluff. How about this (below) from "There Will Be Blood"?



Plainview: "Ladies and gentlemen... I've traveled over half our state to be here tonight. I couldn't get away sooner because my new well was coming in at Coyote Hills and I had to see about it. That well is now flowing at two thousand barrels and it's paying me an income of five thousand dollars a week. I have two others drilling and I have sixteen producing at Antelope. So, ladies and gentlemen... if I say I'm an oil man you will agree. You have a great chance here, but bear in mind, you can lose it all if you're not careful. Out of all men that beg for a chance to drill your lots, maybe one in twenty will be oilmen; the rest will be speculators-men trying to get between you and the oilmen-to get some of the money that ought by rights come to you. Even if you find one that has money, and means to drill, he'll maybe known nothing about drilling and he'll have to hire out the job on contract, and then you're depending on a contractor that's trying to rush the job through so he can get another contract just as quick as he can. This is the way this works."

Man: "What is your offer? We're wasting time."

Plainview: "I do my own drilling and the men that work for me, work for me and they are men I know. I make it my business to be there and see to their work. I don't lose my tools in the hole and spend months fishing for them; I don't botch the cementing off and let water in the hole and ruin the whole lease. I'm a family man- I run a family business. This is my son and my partner, H.W. Plainview. We offer you the bond of family that very few oilmen can understand. I'm fixed like no other company in this field and that's because my Coyote Hills well has just come in. I have a string of tools all ready to work. I can load a rig onto trucks and have them here in a week. I have business connections so I can get the lumber for the derrick; such things go by friendship in a rush like this. And this is why I can guarantee to start drilling and put up the cash to back my word. I assure you, whatever the others promise to do, when it comes to the showdown, they won't be there..."

Holy Mackerel!..a plain, blunt style, emphasizing harsh consonants and delivered in a battering ram rhythm! Veeery nice!!!!


Talking about rhythm, what do you think of this passage (below) from "How To Get Ahead in Advertising"? I've already posted the relevant clip from the film elsewhere, but thanks to the monologue site I have a printed transcription this time, and it's revelatory! What do you think?.........


Dennis Dimbleby Bagley: "Let me try and clarify some of this for you. Best Company Supermarkets are not interested in selling wholesome foods, they are not worried about the nation's health. What is concerning them, is that the nation appears to be getting worried about its health, and THAT is what's worrying BestCo, because BestCo wants to go on selling them what it always has, i.e. the white breads, baked beans, canned foods, and that suppurating, fat squirting little heart attack traditionally known as the British sausage. So, how can we help them with that? Clearly, we are looking for a label. We need a label brimming with health, and everything from a nosh pot to a white sliced will wear one with pride. And although I'm aware of the difficulties of coming to terms with this, it must be appreciated from the beginning that even the nosh pot must be low in something, and if it isn't, it must be high in something else, and that is it's health giving ingredient we will sell. Which brings me to my final question: Who are we trying to sell this to? Answer: We are trying to sell this to the archetypal average housewife, she who fills her basket. What you have here is a 22 year old pretty girl - what you need is a taut slob, something on foot deodorizers, in a brassiere." (laughter)

Student: "I'm not quite sure I can go along with that Mr Bagley, I mean if you look at, like, the market research..."

Bagley: "I don't need to look at the market research, I've lived with thirteen and a half million housewives for fifteen years and I know everything about them. She's 37 years old, she has 2.3 children, 1.6 of which will be girls. She uses 16 feet 6 inches of toilet tissue a week, and fucks no more than 4.2 times a month. She has 7 radiators, and is worried about her weight, which is why we have her on a diet. And because we have her on a diet, we also encourage her to reward herself with the little treats, and she deserves them, cause anyone existing on 1200 calories of artificial synthetic orange-flavoured waffle a day, deserves a little treat. We know it's naughty but you do deserve it, go on darling swallow a bun! And she does. And the instant she does, the guilt cuts in. So here we are again with our diet. It's a vicious but quite wonderful circle, and it adheres to only one rule: whatever it is, sell it. And if you want to stay in advertising, by God you'd better learn that!"

Bruce Robinson, the writer of these words, is clearly a genius. Of course, I have to say that this example sounds as gay as the Fry piece. Somehow gays managed to figure out how the language works while everyone else was struggling with it. How did that happen? My guess is that English works best when it's pushed and caricatured. Gays had a playful attitude toward the language and they reaped the benefits.

Here's a link to the YouTube version of the How to Get Ahead scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCxVUsMsWLw

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

WHICH HAS THE BETTER BACKGROUND STYLING?

I can't stand the backgrounds in most 3D animated comedies. They're too realistic and "airbrushy"...but maybe I'm just hard to please. I'd be curious to see what Theory Corner readers think. Which do you prefer: the background styling in Kung-Fu Panda (above)....


...Wall-E (above)....


...and Horton....


...or the Viewmaster background styling (above and below) from 1961? Come to think of it, which character styling do you prefer? Which conveys the most warmth? The most humor? The most "good-time" feel?







All these pictures stolen with gratitude from Bob Logan's blog.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

RECENT SPACE PICTURES

Here's (above) the surface of Iapetus, a moon of Saturn. Those blistered lumps are mountains but they look like little details on the surface of a cracker.


Another aspect of Iapetus (above). This is turning out to be one of the most interesting of Saturn's moons, but we only have a few pictures and there's no plans to go back anytime soon.


Here's the "Eight" nebula. You see a lot of ring nebulas with a string across the middle but nobody knows what it's doing there.


Three nebulas (above) which appear to have some influence on each other. The colors and shapes look like oil paintings on a canvas.


Here's (above) a crater on Mars, seen from the point of view of a wandering robot rover. The crater is the size of a sports stadium. Like all the pictures here, you have to click to enlarge


A Pluto probe took this picture of Jupiter's weather. Lots of interesting close-up detail.



Here's (above) a nova remnant that appears like a rectangle when you squint. Actually it's probably a hollow cylinder and we're seeing it from the side.


Some dark shapes (above) within a nebula.


An Earth-based picture (above) of The Milky Way.


Another nova (above), no doubt with a flower name.


A nova remnant (above).

Sunday, July 27, 2008

HOW MANY KIDS, AND WHEN?


I changed my mind! The San Diego Con has one more day to go (today) and I figure I can afford to indulge myself with just one more purely personal post, on a possibly unpopular subject. That subject is: "How many kids should I have, and when should I have them?"

My answer is: the ideal number of kids is three, the ideal time to start having them is twenty-three for the woman, and the ideal spacing between kids is four years.

My wife and I started when she was thirty-four and we figured we'd have just one kid, who would be a super kid that would have all the advantages that you could have from having the income and undivided attention of two parents directed at them. I thought the kid's early years would be the difficult ones where he cried all the time and was a real bother, then later he would evolve into a real human being and a pal and best friend. Boy, was I wrong.


The early years were unexpectedly great. I mean really, really great! I used to hate kids but you never feel that way about your own. Things I used to see in the street that bothered me about kids just never came up. And the crying? After the first six months the crying dropped off to a trickle. Anyway, it was so good that after five years we had another kid, also a ton of fun. My only regret is that we didn't have a third.

The reason for spacing the kids four years apart is so one is clearly older than the other and they're less likely to think of each other as rivals. The age difference means that the older kid is more inclined to protect the younger kid than bully him. The kids are more likely to grow up liking each other.


The reason for starting at age 23 (the girl's age) is that it gives the mother time to finish college and have some life experiences. If she has three kids, once every four years, that's twelve years. meaning she has her last baby at age thirty five, and the last one is almost as likely to be healthy as the first. As you know, after 35 that changes.

Another thing to consider is that all kids will snub their parents when they reach age 13 or so. After that they go directly to their room when they come home from school and they only want to hang out with their friends. That's catastrophic if you've become addicted to the kid's cuteness and affection for the previous twelve years, but what can you do? It's nature's way! Nothing much, except.....

...Except if you decide to start at woman's age twenty-three and have FOUR kids! Do that and you'll have a new baby just at the time your oldest kid is beginning to snub you! That's years and years of wall-to-wall cuteness, enough sugar for anyone! After that, get a dog!







This post will disgust readers who hate kids. I know how they feel. I used to hate the little rugrats myself. The thing is, you're hard-wired to have them. The day will come when you hesitantly test the water and then you'll be hooked. The first time you come home from a really hard day at work and your kid spontaneously runs into your arms, just delighted to see you...you'll be a changed man. All that adulation and cuteness and kid happiness is more addictive than heroin. You'll become an addict like so many people before you.

Many, many thanks to Fatbear who found an embarrassing math mistake in the previous incarnation of this post!



I JUST OPENED A TIME CAPSULE / BUCKET OF FILTH



I know I said I wouldn't post anything til Monday but it occurred to me that since everybody's in San Diego at the Con I can do something completely stupid and self-indulgent and no one will ever know. OK...so here's a quick post about my daughter's bucket of filth. It's something so personal that it would interest only me but, hey... I'm the only one reading this!

Today I discovered a cardboard box in the garage that appeared to be full of knick-knacks that my kid owned when she was seven. I blew off the dust and there it was, a real time capsule from my daughter's youth. I waited for her to come home and we opened it together. There in the middle of the box, surrounded by old pens, sock puppets and diaries, was a real seven year-old's bucket of filth (John K's term) contained in an instant coffee jar.


With infinite caution my daughter opened the jar and smelled the brown liquid inside. No, no...I know what you're thinking, and it wasn't that. No, it was something weirder; you could tell what it was from the smell: ketchup, soy sauce, dirt, turpentine, chili powder, hot sauce, powdered toothpaste and English Leather cologne. SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO MY ENGLISH LEATHER!!!!!! I got that as a present and never got to try it out. It mysteriously disappeared!

I asked my kid what the concoction was for and she replied matter-of-factly that it was meant to resurrect witches. As witches are want to do, before they step into the fiery lava that will end their reign of evil, they turn to the nearest kid and describe the chemical that has the power to resurrect them. It's a heavy thing to be trusted with a formula like that, and she went through much soul-searching about the ethics of bringing witches back to life, but the lure of science proved irresistible.


Also in the box was an old tee shirt, the one she was always putting on the dogs. If the dogs were nice guys and accepted the cumbersome tee shirt they were rewarded with having their back legs tied together with scarves.

There were also diaries full of misspelled complaints about friends who snubbed her and long multiplication problems like a hundred trillion times eleven. It also looked like she was at work on a personal written language that looked like what you see on Celtic rune stones.

OK, enough personal stuff! On Monday we'll return to solving the world's problems.