tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post5968237192246171433..comments2023-11-03T11:37:13.579-04:00Comments on Something Old, Nothing New: McKimson and DavisJaime J. Weinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15128500411119962998noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-90881031744860740122008-08-11T16:46:00.000-04:002008-08-11T16:46:00.000-04:00Mr.Semaj, not only was there kitty abuse as you ri...Mr.Semaj, not only was there kitty abuse as you righetously put it in Tweety and Speedy shorts involving Sylvester...there also was "A Kiddie's Kitty". Good point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-21304250385694128482008-08-04T03:21:00.000-04:002008-08-04T03:21:00.000-04:00PS I meant in the first paragraph to type in J.Lee...PS I meant in the first paragraph to type in J.Lee, obviously, but mispelt it.<BR/>Sorry...S.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-70262695200725327542008-08-04T03:20:00.000-04:002008-08-04T03:20:00.000-04:00J.Eee, on George Hill:He seemed to love working wi...J.Eee, on George Hill:<BR/>He seemed to love working with Davis or else Warner Bros. or Edward Selzer just teamed them as a two-ti9me occaison, and George Hoill alkso seemed to love extermination stories and Porky, given the blending of said elements.'<BR/><BR/>Also on "The Pest That Came To Dinner": I've seen the Scott/Turner-written "Doggone Cats' from '47 on YouTube with titles, and it is Prod #1054, after the first known post-1948" library (before the Turner buyout, of course, of 1996 of most of the earlier shorts) project made with Bugs Bunny, McKimson's "Hot Cross Bunny" (also the older released Bugs in the former post-1948 catalogue), preceded by Jones's splendid Marvin the Martian debut, #1052, "Haredevil hare", the last released pre-1948(Jones's "You Were Never Duckier", and now thanks to Dave Mackey and WHV we can say it is prod #1046, is the oldest released WB short in the old post-1948/post-"a.a.p. library") Warner cartoon. (McKimson's "Upstanding Sitter", Prod #1087, is the last produced one.) <BR/><BR/>Anyhoo, "The Pest that came to Dinner" is in the post-1948 category, being released fall 1948 (same date as a modern day attack in NYC.. more to worry about than termites). I've gone over the Dave Mackey 1947 and 1948 modules for his excellent, though synopsys-less, "The Warner Bros. Cartoon Filmography", bearing in mind Cinecolor shorts (like "Doggone Cats",a pre-48 bearing the earliest use of Scott and Turner that I know of in a Warner Bros.cartoon), and Technicolor shorts (like "The Pest that Came to Dinner", post-1948, bearing George Hill and animator John Carey--not to be confused with that Democratic senator/Presidential hopeful!!)--NOT Emery Hawkins--is listed, but in the Prod.#1054 "Doggone Cats", Emery hawkins Is listed, showing this was made afterwards, and showing a clue as to whcih of those was made first, and may be one of the oldest produced cartoons in that former post-48 package with the Jones Daffy one ("You were never duckier', which as I have said, released on 8/7/48, almost 60 years AND Stan Freberg's birthday to boot, was Warner's first release of a cartoon they would always own, never to sell to a.a.p. Incidentally, this was obviously the first also reissued of the post-48'[s, too, creditless Blue Ribbons, brown 1954-55 rings, with four other earlhy blue Ribbon reissues of post-1948 entries, but that is taking me off topic. Incidentally, I noticed a few other things about these first two early cartoons that eluded "a.a.p." owndership due to Technicolor's much later finishing of processing (they printed both of those)---Tedd Pierce..NOT Michael Maltese wrote Jones's Daffy/Henry Hawk epic, though they'd worked simulatenously and together for both Jones and Freleng, and Maltese had worked once for Clampett (On the ten minute masterwork "Horton", predating Jones and Fox's versions), and again for Freleng & Jones, individually. A few more for Freleng for Maltese and Pierce, through Friz's first known cartoon made winding up in the post-1948 catalogue, but released after a few of his opthe,r later made ones, the one in fact made right after Davis's 1947 Cinecololor earlier release (thus getting the pre-1948 "Blue Ribbon Print by Technicolor" treatment in 1955(?)), "Doggone Cats"(which was as stated by me WB Cartoon Studio Prod. #1054--"Kit for Kat" by Freleng's Prod.#1055, and was his last with Maltese, now solo writer only for Jones as mentioned above.)<BR/><BR/>Finally, "The Pest.." had the LOONEY TUNES legend at toon's end with no "Reg US PAT OFF" on, typical of some of these then current brown ring Looney Tunes, maybe to save ink and paint, but no "Reg U.S." patent notice under the LT phrase and above the "That's All Folks" one (note some 1947 and early 1948 releases with the brown rings..the earlier 1946-47 Technicolor blue/red rings, reprised in 1951-1952, retain the mandatory patent office notice under the Looney Tunes. Finally, Doggone Cats and The Pest.. have the same lettering for the writing..but that is just the geek in me (sheepish grin).<BR/><BR/>-S.CarrasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-82551052447636465192008-08-04T02:49:00.000-04:002008-08-04T02:49:00.000-04:00Edward H. and Paul E. probaly made the best point ...Edward H. and Paul E. probaly made the best point here about the animation. I've thought of it as liquid-like, paticularly in shorts like "Foxy Duckling" & "What Makes Daffy Duck". :-<BR/>S.CarrasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-49261666794421537072008-06-12T18:11:00.000-04:002008-06-12T18:11:00.000-04:00The opinion that McKimson was a better animator th...The opinion that McKimson was a better animator than director was actually held by both Clampett AND Jones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-21518197685829983402008-06-11T00:06:00.000-04:002008-06-11T00:06:00.000-04:00Is it just me, or does it looks like Art Davis' in...Is it just me, or does it looks like Art Davis' inbetweeners were on vacation, giving the animation in his cartoons a weird "jerky" style?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-8660165216045744052008-06-10T13:25:00.000-04:002008-06-10T13:25:00.000-04:00Jaime: I take it when you meantion "The Super Snoo...Jaime: I take it when you meantion "The Super Snooper" you're referring to "The Stupor Salesman".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-55480348366331745602008-06-10T12:23:00.000-04:002008-06-10T12:23:00.000-04:00Great post! I don't know when the next Bugs Buddie...Great post! <BR/><BR/>I don't know when the next Bugs Buddies book will be out (or if it's out now), but my interview with Bill Scott, in which he discusses working with Davis, is slated to be in there. Bottom line: Davis wasn't crazy about being a director, did not have fun running a unit. <BR/><BR/>The absolute best these guys had to offer as directors (pretty darn good) gets compared to the cream of the crop at Warners, the gold standard in comedy. Davis and McKimson shared the unenviable task of being "Shemps", competing with Jones at his peak and directly following the best films of Clampett, Tashlin and Freleng.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Jaime's points - McKimson nails the Warners brand and the Davis films, especially his one-shots, frequently resemble something from another studio (just swap Stalling's soundtrack with Calker or Kilfeather music and presto, you have some akin to a Culhane Lantz cartoon or a Marcus Screen Gems) - while finding the 1940's films of both directors more enjoyable than the later formula stuff from the 50's.<BR/><BR/>McKimson had been a mainstay at Warners longer than anybody but Freleng and helped build the brand, while Davis was creating oft-kilter, sometimes wonderful cartoons with Sid Marcus at Columbia. <BR/><BR/>Davis' spin is different, featuring unexpected, subtle touches in details, camera angles, timing and uninhibited animation, much of which can easily be missed on a first viewing. He is more akin to Tashlin in that regard. I prefer both to McKimson's more conservative approach.<BR/><BR/>And the story of what happens to ace animators who become directors is a topic in itself.Paul F. Etcheverryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16039423552957022688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-28621458798092645342008-06-10T11:04:00.000-04:002008-06-10T11:04:00.000-04:00It's probably true that Davis' cartoons don't quit...It's probably true that Davis' cartoons don't quite fit the house style, but I've always thought that was one of their strengths. "Bowery Bugs" especially reminds me more of Harvey Kurtzman-era MAD than anything else going on at contemporary animation studios, and I would have loved to see that continue. Much of that picture's flavor comes from Scott and Turner--and of course, they'd continue in a similar style with Jay Ward--but I love the "weightless" animation in Davis' stuff, and many of his gags are breathtakingly well-timed.Edward Hegstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07664617657765541939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-17366090781690316582008-06-10T10:14:00.000-04:002008-06-10T10:14:00.000-04:00Clampett himself is fairly overrated and only real...Clampett himself is fairly overrated and only really had one speed (if that isn't true why are everyone's favorite Clampett shorts wild from start to finish).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-40353140721276653192008-06-10T08:56:00.000-04:002008-06-10T08:56:00.000-04:00McKimson evolved into a truly horrible director as...McKimson evolved into a truly horrible director as he entered the 1950s, completely void of all vidual & creative inspiration (Bill Melendez told me he used to argue with McKimson over the rigid policy on layout drawings). <BR/><BR/>The fact not one animator returned to McKimson's unit after the shutdown (while Chuck & Friz's remained mostly intact) says a lot! Clampett himself said years later McKimson was a great animater who should not have become a director.<BR/><BR/>Art Davis was clearly, IMO, the superior director and I think he had valid cause to be bitter over this issue in his later years.Larry Levinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02796712092304761340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-85155023191298203792008-06-10T01:42:00.000-04:002008-06-10T01:42:00.000-04:00Davis' most Warnerseque cartoons tend to be his ea...Davis' most Warnerseque cartoons tend to be his earliest ones, and it's not quite clear if it was the change in writers and/or Artie's preferences (all those years at Columbia may have taken their toll) that cause the stories to develop a slightly off-kilter feel.<BR/><BR/>"Mexican Joyride" is probably the most 'normal' WB cartoon - it could have just as easily come from the Freleng unit, as could the second half of "Catch as Cats Can" (take away the retarded voice and Davis and writer Dave Monahan came up with some great Sylvester gags). "Mouse Menace" also feels pretty much like a standard WB short, and was written by George Hill, who had only one other WB writing credit, "The Pest that Came to Dinner", which -- after Davis had been working with Bill Scott and Lloyd Turner -- looks and sounds like a Scott-Turner scripted cartoon and not like anything Friz, Chuck or Bob would have done.<BR/><BR/>As for Clampett, the 1941 slowdown in pacing allowed Bob and Warren Foster time to figure out how to improve their story structure, which apparently was demanded if Clampett was going to do color as well as B&W cartoons. By the time we get to "Porky's Pooch" Bob's pretty much got things figured out so he can start picking up the pace again with characters that were far more interesting than most of the ones he surrounded Porky with in 1939-40.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-54166989391380099062008-06-10T01:19:00.000-04:002008-06-10T01:19:00.000-04:00There may be some weight as to who was the "better...There may be some weight as to who was the "better" director. By 1949, McKimson had his fair share of hits with the mainstream characters, and had developed his very own series from Walky Talky Hawky, reusing Jones' Henry Hawk character, and creating Foghorn Leghorn. Davis, however, had a relatively mixed record, had only ONE Bugs outing, and a bunch of miscellaney shorts that failed to gel into a successful series.<BR/><BR/>Also, the bit about management change could explain why McKimson would later become scapegoated for a lot of the "formula" injected into a given WB cartoon, and why there was no effort, either from his own animation team or from the senior directors, to make McKimson a "stronger" director thru the 1950's. <BR/><BR/>I'd say Freleng was the weakest (of the three) in terms of utilizing a formula, as he tended to favor a lot of annoying characteristics. Aside from the gratuitous kitty abuse in the Sylvester and Tweety or Speedy series, he also made Daffy an out-and-out villain, once he got around to using the character's loser persona, which would send him to the point of no return when DePatie-Freleng took over the Looney Tunes series a decade later. McKimson tended to experiment with formulas, whether his attempts succeeded or failed.<BR/><BR/>Despite that, nobody seemed to care that he lost SEVENTEEN animators between 1946 and 1955, or that he had relatively little clout throughout his career, despite having longer tenure at WB than either Jones or Freleng. <BR/><BR/>Kinda makes we wish he DID become director when he was first offered in 1938.Yeldarb86https://www.blogger.com/profile/10131603833394294520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-50591343248816596172008-06-09T23:54:00.000-04:002008-06-09T23:54:00.000-04:00If you don't consider a season where the best cart...If you don't consider a season where the best cartoon is The Henpecked Duck (note: there is nothing funny about "I WANT A DIVORCE" screamed for half of a seven minute cartoon) terrible, I, I, don't know what to say.Thadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04443425643665474645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-57479423512866888982008-06-09T23:23:00.000-04:002008-06-09T23:23:00.000-04:00"Terrible" is not a word I'd use for Clampett's 40..."Terrible" is not a word I'd use for Clampett's 40-41 cartoons either. They remind me a bit of some of Avery's weaker cartoons from the late '40s and early '50s; the style he'd been using was no longer in fashion and he had to adjust and find a slightly different way of doing things.Jaime J. Weinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15128500411119962998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-26800786237836801062008-06-09T23:14:00.000-04:002008-06-09T23:14:00.000-04:00Jaime, this is an excellent post, but what should ...Jaime, this is an excellent post, but what should be noted is that they didn't really think in terms of who was a 'better' director. Davis got cut simply because he was the bottom guy, not because his cartoons were least liked.<BR/><BR/>As a director, Davis was sort of a hybrid of Clampett and Freleng. The drawing style varies from animator to animator and was exagerrated, but the stories and gags were down to earth (though the Turner-Scott pictures were a little more sharply written than Friz's). In fact, I could see this as the direction Clampett could have went in, had he stayed at the studio.<BR/><BR/>That said, Davis ranks over McKimson with me. The pedantic layouts and witless writing waters Bob down too much, even in this period. I do agree that he got the house-style down better than Davis, most likely because of Davis' background directing at Columbia. (McKimson had experience co-directing with Jones in the earliest days. They did not get along.)<BR/><BR/>And yes, the bulk of Clampett's 1940-41 cartoons truly do suck, and anyone who thinks otherwise can insert a large iron pole in their anus.Thadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04443425643665474645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6956070.post-85297928579703010082008-06-09T22:59:00.000-04:002008-06-09T22:59:00.000-04:00That's a good point about Davis' cartoons. I hadn'...That's a good point about Davis' cartoons. I hadn't thought about it before, but you're right, they do kind of feel like they could be another studio's. Particularly Bowery Bugs, which I have never been all that enthralled with and which makes Bugs just too darn mean. <BR/><BR/>And I don't think Clampett's 1940-41 shorts are terrible. Not his best work, and you're right, a little slower than we're used to from Clampett, but not terrible. Now, excuse me while I stretch myself out, to prepare for some self-fucking. I hope I don't let myself down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com