DAVIS & KURTZMAN DRAW THE SAME STRIP

Kurtzman wanted to pitch a comic book version of Dickens' "Christmas Carol" but after doing one page he decided the project was more likely to sell if he brought in Jack Davis to do it. Consequently we have the same page, even the same panels, done to a finish by two interesting artists. Which do you prefer?


I should mention the book I got these from but I can't find it. The title was something like "Interviews With Artists."

ITALIAN FASCIST SCUPTURE

These statues were commissioned by Mussolini to decorate The Mussolini Forum, which was to house the 1944 Olympics before WWII intervened. As decorative sculpture they're not bad; as art...well, what do you think? Me, I'd say no. The technique is highly professional rather than artful and there's no transcendant quality in them.

The statue above (topmost) put me off when I first saw it because it seemed to be glorifying a bully or a thug. I think I was wrong because beefy guys like that have been universally admired since the 30s. Even Captain Marvel (above) used to look that way. If you look close you can see some sensitivity and intelligence in the statute's eyes.
These are physiques (above) that I associate with Nautilus machines. I used to think exercizes that emphasize specific muscles were a modern invention but you see figures like this in Rubens and other old masters so I guess I was wrong. The guy on the right looks like he had a killer bowel movement.

I like this kind of manly sculpture (above) but the hair looks like it was turned out without much thought. Zaidenberg (the 40s how-to-draw author) used to draw deco hair like that using charcoal to make quick, chisel strokes. Ruskin in "Seven Lamps of Architecture" warned against schlocking what appears to be unimportant details like the hairline. I think he was right.

DISNEY'S NEW GOOFY CARTOON

Warning: I'm about to criticize a cartoon that I haven't seen yet (it hasn't been made), that I've only seen two tentative concept drawings from (one shown above, topmost), and whose story I only know from a description in the newspaper. Not only that but I'm terribly hurt that they didn't ask me to work on it so I may, without knowing it, have a mean, small-minded desire to snipe at it from the sidelines. There, that's my disclaimer. Now the criticism...

I have to say that I'm wondering if the project is getting started on the wrong foot. According to the newspaper the story is about Goofy's attempt to install a new, high-tech TV in his house. Is that really a good idea? It's the type of premise that has no suprises built in. The gags and the acting could all be predictable. Not only that but it's a frustration story and frustration premises (like Pluto and the flypaper) tend to pass on their frustration and unease to the audience. When you think about it, the best Goofys - the ice hockey, football, and basketball cartoons, aren't about frustration. They may seem to be, but they're not.

On another subject, it seems to me that subtext of every good Goofy cartoon is the weird universe that Goofy inhabits and the delight the character takes in doing things with his amazingly agile hands and feet. The character is a full-animator's dream. He's also a physical actor's dream. Goofy is not the average guy next door any more than James Bond is the average spy. Goofy and Bond are hyper-characters and anything less than star-quality scenes will diminish them. Goofy can either exude charisma and magic as in the best Kinney cartoons or he can be a bland guy-next-door-type the way Reitherman treated him. Which way will Disney go? I guess we'll see.

Thanks to Amid's "Animation Blast" for the excellent Sibley animation drawing above. Drawings copyrighted by Disney.

PARTY AT THEORY MANSION!

Gee, I guess that's the end of the party. I gotta get Mike to a doctor. If you don't have a ride home just sack out on the sofa! See ya!

T. S. SULLIVANT: GENIUS

This isn't a post, I just wanted to put these pictures up for friends. Beautiful aren't they?

PARTY INVITATION!

But to ease the pain of two days without Theory Corner......


I invite everybody to a party at the world famous THEORY MANSION (above)!!!

PLAYBOY'S LATEST CARTOON ANTHOLOGY!

The best current book bargain I know of is "Playboy 50 Years: The Cartoons" which originally sold for $50 and is now an overstock selling at Barnes & Noble for $13. The colors have been "remastered", i.e., simplified and drained of their subtlety, but for thirteen bucks, hey, it's still worth it!
I organized a few of the better pictures above (topmost) by colorists I like: Sokol, Dedini, Davis and Kliban. I also put together a collage by artists whose colors I like a lot less (above) (come to think of it, the center artist above isn't bad...he should be in the "good" pile). What's the difference? Why are the colorists on top so much better than the guys below?

Right away I can see the better artists use a lot more darks. Most of them also use more white. The good ones also seem to have a bold plan while the lesser artists are content to use whatever seems unoffensive. The red, white and blue schemes don't work...maybe they'd look better with more pure white areas.

 
Nobody ever talks about Kliban's color but the examples in the book are all first-rate. His color is funny, it actually enhances the gag. This restaurant picture is especially good but I can't figure out what the color's doing. Anybody care to venture a guess?