HIGH SCHOOL SWEETHEARTS

UNCLE EDDIE: "Amanda!!!! It's so good to see you again!



UNCLE EDDIE: "Waiter! Get this girl anything she wants! It's on me!"

"Amanda, you should try the lobster, it's really good here! And for wine, try the Cuvee Royale. It's pricey, but it's worth it!"



AMANDA: "It's good to see you too, Eddie. It's been a long time."




UNCLE EDDIE: "Yeah, we were high school sweethearts, remember? Amanda and Eddie; Eddie and Amanda! We were inseperable."



AMANDA: "Those were the days alright! I remember you used to draw a lot."



UNCLE EDDIE: "Yeah, I became a cartoonist! I moved to LA, and got into the animation industry...I have a family now, and two kids...life's been good! How about you!?



AMANDA: "Oh, a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I think about you a lot."




UNCLE EDDIE: "Me!? You think about ME!!? Awww, that's sweet."




AMANDA: "Yeah, I think about you all the time. That's why I wanted to have lunch with you. There's something I've always wanted to show you...something...awfully... private..."




UNCLE EDDIE: "(Gulp!) Show me? Private????"



AMANDA: "Yeah, it's the gap on my record shelf where my Phil Collins records used to be! Rmemember I lent them to you? What did you do with them? I could get a good price for them now."



UNCLE EDDIE: "Phil Collins?



UNCLE EDDIE: "...Um, you said Phil collins, right?"



UNCLE EDDIE: "Well, um...let's see now...you moved away and...OK, now I remember! Yeah, I had those records on the shelf for years."



UNCLE EDDIE: "Finally I just gave them away. I mean they were Phil Collins records, for Pete's sake! Even the Salvation Army wouldn't take them! The guy kicked me out of the store."



AMANDA: "You gave them away? That's men for you! Not an ounce of consideration."



UNCLE EDDIE: "But...but... they were Phil Collins records..."



AMANDA: "Men are such beasts."



UNCLE EDDIE: "Don't worry! I'll look for them on eBay! You'll get them back, I promise! Look, it's getting late. I'm really sorry, but I gotta go."




UNCLE EDDIE: "Waiter! Get this girl anything she wants!!! It's on me!

(Eddie To Amanda) "You gotta try the grilled cheese sandwich here! And don't miss the tap water! It's to die for! Well, I gotta go now!"

TOO SLEEPY TO WRITE! I'LL BE BACK MID-DAY TUESDAY!!

**************

THE INDIAN SUPERMAN

Am I the only one who hadn't seen this film yet? I never heard of it til yesterday! Anway, here's a song from an Indian film which shows Superman and Spiderman teamed up to fight crime with disco dancing.




But wait! Some of those moves are ripped from Napoleon Dynamite, right!?

SOME CREEPY HALLOWEEN PICTURES

When I was a kid I would have thought this guy (above) had one of the best jobs in the world: professional mask-maker...every kid's dream! I wonder why there's no such a thing as a kids' store where comic books, toys, masks, fake guns and swords, science stuff, chemistry sets, exotic sodas, fake mounted dinosaur heads, magic tricks, fireworks, etc. are sold all year round.






TV weather stations should emphasize bad weather and ominous natural events around Halloween time. The unspoken, subliminal message should be that a menacing witch's spell is settling on the Earth.



There's lots of kinds of masks. Why don't we see fake African witch doctors and Balinese demons (above) on Halloween night?



I love home-made masks, even when they're made with paper plates like these (above) are.




Ghoulish descriptions of hell are great but is there a Biblical passage that justifies them? Maybe all that came from the imagination of people like Dante. If even fallen angels are so intellectual how come they find pleasure in biting people's faces? Maybe Dante unintentionally did us a disservice. I imagine that after reading him, the medieval torturers perceived their mission as kind and caring. After all, if Hell was as bad as this (above) then racking or burning someone to save his soul would be positively merciful.



A colorful Nolde painting (above).




The evil is so intense here (above) that the air is saturated with howling demons and the people walk funny, as if they were half dead marionettes.



This Hindu mask (above) is terrific!




At first glance this collage (above) seems kind of amateurish and badly executed, but the more you look at it, the more convincing and creepy it gets. Nothing in the picture looks the way it should. You imagine that the witch moves in a jerky, pixilated, unnatural fashion. The very air around her warps as she moves through it, as if a field of something antagonistic to nature surrounds her. If this were on film I picture it done in the style of the film-within-a-film in the American horror film, "The Ring."




Talking about unnatural, I like the graphic way that people were depicted in the old, silent horror films (above). It's easier to be scary when you're not tied down to a naturalistic look.




Here's (above) one of the Japanese masks a commenter recently linked to.










Painting with light! I love it!




Nice poster!



Here (above) the ghost of a long-dead hunter is caught, prowling the forest. Some primitive cultures attach a lot of significance to unexplainable motions perceived for an instant out of the side of one's eye. Often they're regarded as forest spirits which can't be viewed straight on.


Thanks to Pierre and Karswell for most of the pictures!

A WEIRD HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

I thought I'd muse over a question that used to bug me: the American 18th and 20th centuries were so different; what changed us? How could only a hundred years have made such a big difference? Even if you're not interested in this, I think you'll find the unusual view of American history expressed here to be fascinating. It has to do with utopianism.


As every schoolkid knows, a lot of immigrants came to America to escape religious intolerance in the old country. The unification of Germany where the Catholic South was awkwardly combined with the Protestant North; the puritans versus the Church of England: It was a mess. A lot of people who had the means bailed and came to America.

The English puritans were the original utopian immigrants. Except for their opinions about witches and sex, they were an admirable people, but I'm not sure I'd have wanted to live around them. They were a feisty lot. The English monarchy was glad to see them leave, and for good reason. Eventually they made war on the government, chopped the King's head off, and ended the monarchy. That's Cromwell, one of the puritan leaders, above; a no-nonsense kind of guy.




A lot of Christian farm socialists like the Amish came here in the 18th century. I hate to admit it but I don't know enough about European history to know what drove them to emmigrate, or why they chose to live in farm communes when they got here. The Amish were Swiss weren't they? What was going on in Switzerland that was so horrible? Why the emphasis on farm socialism? I'll make a guess that Calvin's Geneva which was a bit socialistic captured the imagination of people at the time, but I'm usually wrong when I make guesses like this.

The Amish communes in the New World prospered, maybe because the Amish were professional farmers and knew what they were doing. When urban American intellectuals like The Transcendentalists tried farm socialism (that's Brook farm above) the result was a disaster. The country is littered with small towns whose utopian origins and subsequent schisms and break-ups are reflected in their names: "Harmony," "New Harmony," "Truest Harmony."




The farm commune concept pretty much ended with the Civil War. It was on the decline anyway since so few of the farms worked, and during the war people had no attention for issues that weren't war-related.

After the war an odd thing happened. The mean-spiritness that had overtaken European utopians since 1848 now began to influence Americans. No more farms. No more lion lying down with the lamb. No more swords being beat into plowshares. No more winning converts by example. Increasingly there was a feeling that big issues were best settled by direct confrontation with one's enemies on a giant scale. The newest immigrants brought the latest utopian theories with them, including Marxism, radical unionism, and anarchism.



It's hard to imagine now but anarchists were a big intellectual force in 19th century Europe. The most drastic of them believed in killing people who worked for the government. The theory was that if every office holder felt threatened with death, then nobody would ever want to hold office, and the people could be truly free. Conrad wrote a novel about these guys. They were really creepy. A lot of people holding this belief escaped to America, one step ahead of the law.

Another European phenomenon that got shipped over was syndicalism and revolutionary unionism. By revolutionary unionism I mean unions whose true goal was to not to promote better wages and shorter hours, but rather a general strike that would topple the government.

Then there were the Marxists, but everybody knows about them already. Anyway, all these people came to America along with everyone else.



America became a kind of safety valve for Europe. We got their discontents.

Anyway, by the time Woodrow Wilson took office we were a changed country. We definitely weren't Marxist, or anarchist or syndicalist -- those guys lost, in the sense that they didn't get what they wanted -- but they were not without influence. The new Progressive Era adopted the utopian belief that small government was ineffectual.

When modern politicians call themselves progressives, people erroneously take the term to mean "those who desire progress." Actually, the meaning is more specific than that. Wilsonian progressives conceived the U.S. as a democracy more than a republic, and once elected they believed the president should have sweeping powers. The system of checks and balances was seen as somewhat outmoded. How, they reasoned, can a government solve problems if it's designed by checks and balances to be constantly at war with itself? Isn't it the job of government to identify problems and solve them? How can it do that if it doesn't have lots and lots of power? Just for the record, I think this is a terrible idea.

Anyway, it's not the system that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington had in mind. It's a change brought about by 19th century utopians. Interesting, huh?

NITPICKING ABOUT GOOFY

I only had a chance to see the new Goofy short, "How to Hook up your Home Theater," once before Disney made YouTube take it down, so here's a review based on a first impression. The review: "It's great! Go see it! It's a credit to everybody who worked on it!" And that really is my opinion. This is a big, big event for Disney. I was deliriously happy to see that they still have the muscle to do funny, full animation shorts in the Jack Kinney style. Let's hope the studio treats these animators real nice, and continues to put them on challenging, funny projects.

My longer review, intended only for other artists who are sympathetic with the film, is a little more critical. Take what I say here with a big grain of salt. I'm comparing this film to an imaginary version made with unlimited time and money, in a dream studio surrounded by fields of unicorns and griffins.

OK then, a couple of technical things to start: The character outlines might have been thicker, maybe imitating the thick and thin you get from ink lines. Also, the pacing was too fast. The gags were all great so maybe the crew couldn't bring themselves to cut any of them, but it would have been nice to linger over some of the terrific animation.



Still nitpicking, I'll mention that the cartooning in the new film might have been stronger. Here's (above) a detail by John Sibley from an one of the old, vintage Goofies (Goofys?). Wow! The drawing has so much life and energy! I miss that in the new film. To be fair I'll add that Sibley was a cartoonist of rare ability, even compared to his buddies in the forties.

In most ways the new cartoon is solidly Jack Kinney, but there's an occasional Reitherman influence. Reitherman was a good animator but a poor director and he didn't understand Goofy. Kinney's Goofy is not, and never was, a lanky, good-natured, enthusiastic bungler, as Reitherman believed. No character worth his salt reduces down to something as simple as that.

Kinney's Goofy was first and foremost a vehicle for creative, imaginative, full animation. He was conceived to make us aware of how funny a walk can be, or how funny it is that we have hands that can pick things up, and faces that can make expressions. In some respects the character was a blank slate made to absorb the personalities of the funniest people who worked on him. He was a vehicle through which the audience could appreciate their own good natures, their own bodies, and the weirdness of world around them. He was all that first...then, and only then, was he Reitherman's lanky bungler.





The colors in the interior of the house might have been a little darker and more contrasty. Compare the background in the new cartoon where Goofy sits in his easy chair (way up above, second from the top), to this vintage background (above). The old BG immediately above is darker. Even the 40s Goofies (Goofys?) used light colors sometimes, but my favorite Goofy backgrounds were slightly ominous, as if he was living in Hell.

When you think about it, that's exactly where the Kinney character was living. His was a stylized world where everybody mysteriously looked like him, neighbors hated each other, and nothing ever worked. We admired his heroism, because Goofy somehow managed to be happy in this bizarre world. I loved the new cartoon but I'd have loved it even more if it had a greater awareness of...this thing.



Here's (above) a well-done scene...









...well-done, but maybe it still needs something.You can't fault the staging. This (the four drawings above) is a really nice reveal. The problem is that it needs a topper.




I wish I could see the film again. I can't remember what Goofy did with the remotes. The thing I want to gripe about here is that I should have remembered it. What Goofy did should have been so memorable that I couldn't have forgotten it even if I'd tried. Goofy is a star and stars require star scenes. That sounds like a lot to ask for, but the best moments in the best films manage to pull it off. What we do in Hollywood isn't supposed to be easy.

So, to sum up, my criticism of the film is that it was paced too fast and didn't play sufficiently to subtext. It straightforwardly set out to what the title promised, which in my opinion is always a mistake. Films that do that risk being too predictable.

Does any of this matter? Not really. The film was still great, and definitely fun to watch. It was packed with the kind of gags that look good in animation. There were so many possible pitfalls and the film managed to avoid 99% of them, which is amazing for a crew that's not accustomed to working with the character. Disney should make more Goofies with this crew and consult them about the other projects in the studio, which would benefit from the input of these people.