CAT HOTELS

(I'm still on vacation but I can't resist putting up just one post)

Jobs are getting hard to find but one business seems to be thriving: I refer to the cat hotel business. If you're willing to put up say, a dozen guest cats in your home, you can make what a beginning engineer makes. No kidding.

Of course it helps if you have a nice house and look like Aunt Bea. People like to think their cats are taken care of by a loving granny.

 A friend recently had to board his cat in a cat hotel for a few days. He didn't mind the expense because he thought the owner earned every penny. Taking care of cats isn't easy.

The hotel had automated litter boxes.

I'm surprised that cats use them. I mean, cats are usually so fussy.

Amazingly, the cats get along with each other. The older cats just lie on their backs all day and the kittens do nothing but play.

The hotel had a whole room full of cat trees. I wonder if they were as nice as the ones above.

Probably not. Most cat trees are weird modern art objects covered in rug.

I'd like to be around when people of the future dig up these things and try to figure out what they were for.

I imagine there's even more money to be made in the dog hotel business, but those would be hard dollars to make. Some dogs are aggressive...some are even psychos. Yikes!

HITCHCOCK'S "VERTIGO"

Here's a question for the film buffs out there: what non-Hitchcock film most closely resembles the kind of film Hitchcock used to make? "Diabolique"? "Charade?" "Arsenic and Old Lace"? "Portrait of Jenny"? I say none of the above. For me the film that most approximates Hitchcock is the 1953 Technicolor thriller, "Niagara," directed by Henry Hathaway. 

Niagara had some classic Hitchcock icons: the imposing falls at Niagara, the hint of fate,  a menacing supernatural presence, and the characters who dare to venture into the abyss and are unable to extricate themselves. 

The film must have rattled Hitchcock. It must have seemed like the industry was on to him, that all his innovations were on the verge of becoming standard practice. It's tempting to speculate that his response was to remake Niagara, and do it in such a way that it would be clear to everyone that only Hitchcock could do Hitchcock. That remake would have been "Vertigo." 

I remind the reader that Hitchcock was famous for his use of monumental icons. Here, from Hitchcock's "Saboteur" is a shot from the fight scene on the torch of the Statue of Liberty.

Taking a page from Hitchcock, Hathaway staked his claim to Niagara Falls (above). For Vertigo, Hitchcock would have to find something else.

And he did...San Francisco and, in particular, The Golden Gate Bridge. It's a water motif again, only with a more art directed feel. The awe-inspiring bridge is made to feel like the creepy entrance to another world.

Hathaway also flirted with the idea of another world with a doorway into our own. From Niagara, that's (above) the monumental arch that used to grace the Canadian side of the falls. Arches are a classic surrealist symbol for the beckoning unknown.

Vertigo (above) employed a similar arch.

Niagara (above) is about a man's obsession for a woman.

So is Vertigo (above).

Niagara's climax takes place in a bell tower (above).

So does Vertigo (above).

Above, the corpse in Niagara

Above, the corpse in Vertigo. 

Niagara starred the openly sensuous Marilyn Monroe. For Hitchcock this was a mistake. He's quoted as saying:

“As for myself, I prefer a woman who does not display all of her sex at once – one whose attractions are not falling out in front of her. I like women who are also ladies, who hold enough of themselves in reserve to keep a man intrigued.... When a man approaches her, the audience should be led to wonder whether she intends to shrink from him or tear off his clothes.”

Hitchcock's lady was Kim Novak. I think he would have preferred Grace Kelly.

One final speculation: Vertigo was a marvelous film but I'm guessing that Hitchcock felt he'd lost control over it and made a film the public wouldn't understand. Even so, the taste of freedom and experiment was intoxicating and Hitch found he couldn't go back to the type of film he'd made before. At the threshold of old age, and at great risk to his career, he cast about for something new, and that search would eventually lead to "Psycho" and "The Birds." 

That's all I have room for here. Before I go let me thank Joel Gunz. Some of the opinions and pictures here are stolen from his excellent blog:

http://www.alfredhitchcockgeek.com/search/label/Niagara

RANDOM EDDIE DOODLES (AND ONE BY JOHN K)

That's a John K panel above.  John's the best storyboarder in the industry.

DUMB ANIMATION CHARACTERS

Here's (above) the classic dumbell design favored by Tex Avery. It works great.

IMO Clampett's version of dumb is even better. He always adds some other trait to the stupidity. Like Clampett's Beaky Buzzard: he's dumb but he thinks he's smart.

That long, deliberately awkward neck allows for some great poses.

When humans try to do what Beaky does (above) it doesn't look right. The girl above looks pitiable rather than funny. 

According to the chart above, Beaky's "S" shaped torso is actually a deformity. It's called "Thoracic Kyphosis." 

This cat (above) from Clampett's "Kitty Kornered" has a different ailment: Lumbar Lordosis!

You could argue that Donald has a pear-shaped body because he's a duck, but what's Mickey's excuse? Lumbar Lordosis strikes again! Goofy appears to have Thoracic Kyphosis accompanied by Buckle Leg.

Knock kneed and bow legged characters abound in animation. Sometimes they walk almost normal then settle into their deformity when they relax in place.

Not all unusual alignments are problematic. Here (above) Tex's wolf shows a waist that's situated high, immediately under his rib cage. It works...in fact it looks good.

Here's (above) proof that Tex didn't make up the rib cage waist. Some people bend that way.

A MUSEUM OF FUNNY ART

Every once in a while I mull over the idea of a Museum of Funny Art.

I don't think most museums should give themselves over to this type of thing. Art has been trivialized enough in our time...I'd hate to add to that. But a museum that shows nothing else but funny, well...that's different. Funny art belongs in a funny place. 

What would hang in such a museum? That's a tough one. Everyone has their own idea of what's funny and what's art.

Then there's the question, do all funny things belong under the same roof?  Take this  drawing (above) by John K...it's hilarious and skilled, and certainly deserves to be in a museum...but what kind of museum?  

Some would argue that it belongs in a seperate museum of comics or animation art. That's because the best comic art of the last century is so uniquely effective at getting a laugh that it would reduce the impact of every other art form in the museum.   

Yikes! Is that what the future holds for museums? Is contemporary funny art destined to be parceled piecemeal to various niche collections?

Lots of people can't imagine contemporary funny artists sharing a wall with funny artists of the Eighteenth Century like Gillray (above).

Once you've seen Gillray you can't think of the 18th Century the same way again. Here (above) he parodies the women who wore thin dresses and insufficient petticoats in his time. Now I understand why hoopskirts became popular. 

I don't doubt that Gillray would be delighted to know his work shared a wall with our own Basil Wolverton (above).

I think this large painting of Marylin is funny but I have friends who might disagree. 

Animation could provide lots of funny material, but much of it would have to be derived from frame grabs. The originals don't exist. Is it proper to hang frame grabs on a museum wall? I don't know.