The Jones "Clampett Letter" [Archive]

JIM ENGEL

02-28-2008, 08:24 AM

Well, here you go:

http://www.oddballcomics.com/jones_letter.doc

Just a word on this---it may spark debate, which is fine, but it's not my intention in posting this to ratchet up the Jones VS Clampett wars that are so popular these days. I wanted to see it for its historical value, as I gather others have as well.

I AM on record all over these forums as having been a friend of Bob Clampett's, and someone who took huge inspiration from him, and felt blessed to know him. He was very kind to Chuck Fiala and I as young cartoonists, and I loved the guy. He was exactly what I wanted one of my Termite Terrace heroes to be---a wacky CARTOONIST to the end.

I've also gone on record countless times as being put off by Jones' pompous public personna--- posturing, Twain-quoting, Karsh-posing, name-dropping, retro-fitted rule making, etc., to the point that it started to take the fun out of his work for me...he was just what I thought a Termite Terrace guy wouldn't be.

That said, I ultimately hugely admire and am interested in the work of both (and their lives), and both have influenced me tremendously as a cartoonist. I've studied their work all my life, and unlike some here, I DO have a great interest in the lives of the WB artists, life at Termite Terrace and beyond, ASIDE from the work itself.

As I said in my first post, Milt Gray's Clampett memories pointed out to me that this Jones letter has been mentioned in books, articles, and interviews for decades, yet aside from quotes FROM it, I'd never actually SEEN something that had pretty wide distribution. It's fascinating to finally see it.

Take it as part of animation history, and I'm certainly not endorsing Jones or Avery's comments, not just about Clampett, but also about Mike Barrier & Milt Gray, who are essentially the Roy Thomas & Jerry Bails of Animation Fandom, and to whom we all owe a debt.

Duck Dodgers

02-28-2008, 08:44 AM

I don't care at all about the stupid fights between Jones-ians and Clampett-ists.
I only look at this for what it is: an historical document.
Thanks for sharing it.

Tex' comments are hilarious! Made me LOL several times.
Same for Jones'. The "little guy" one is terrific.

Funny how Bob cared "to make clear" that Sniffles was "his creation". That character sucks.

JIM ENGEL

02-28-2008, 08:55 AM

I did, as I was reading it, start hearing a "George & Lenny" quality to Jones & Avery's comments...

Kind of ironic...

Bugsmer

02-28-2008, 09:52 AM

Thanks for sharing this, Jim! I had read Barrier's interview with Clampett before (for anyone who hasn't, it's on Barrier's site here (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/Clampett/interview_bob_clampett.htm); this interview is one of the inspirations for the Clampett letter), but I had never read the Clampett letter before now. It really is a fascinating look through the eyes of the Termite Terrace team. Tex's comments seemed to complement Chuck's prose perfectly.

Thad

02-28-2008, 10:56 AM

Well, that was a great read. Thanks for sharing!

What's so bad about that? All of the stuff Chuck and Tex are talking about is true. Maybe you guys are too blind from your fond memories of Clampett's crafted persona in his later years (just like Jones' own crafted persona... all the best filmmakers have them) to accept the fact that he may have been an ass-hole to people on the job. (And I know others that went to 'parties' at Clampett's place who have no trouble accepting that he may have been a bit of a spin-doctor.)

Jones was sorta hard on Barrier in it, though.

How about this quote?
"Bob Clampett was a good director and made some fine funny pictures - why must he besmirch his own record as well as the rest of us in this reckless need to garner ALL the credit?"

Thad

02-28-2008, 11:14 AM

BTW, Avery also verifies what I said in the past: that the model sheet shown in Bob Clampett Superstar labeled "Clampett's Rabbit Model" really was his unit's.

Leviathan

02-28-2008, 12:01 PM

After all this after-the-fact Specualtion. I'm eternally grateful to be able to see an actual, authentic, Honest-to-God primary source of the Jones-Clampett thing.

However, I'm a little disappointed. Based on how this letter has been referred to for the past 30 years, I was expecting nothing less than an all-out, no-holds-barred character assassianation of Clampett, full of all sorts of made-up atrocities and low blows.

Nope, Chuck merely quotes Clampett's Funnyworld claims VERBATIM, and presents his snarky rebuttal of them in parenthesis. As a matter of fact, the forged Avery/McKimson Jones rabbit model brings up can actually be verified with proof (it's brief presence in Superstar).

As for Avery's comments, I'm not sure what to make of them. He speaks highly of Chuck (perhaps a little too highly), maybe he was bullied by Chuck into signing off on them as the legend goes, which is what led to his recanting of them, but FWIW his takes on the various parts of Warner history mostly seem to go along with Chuck's.

Jones' comments about Barrier were indeed harsh, though.

Oh Yeah, and Tex only refers to the White Seal as being his favorite of Chuck's later films, not his masterpiece or the greatest cartoon ever as Steve Worth let on in the Usenet days. Well at least I know where I should flush down his credibility.

FleischerFan

02-28-2008, 12:55 PM

Thanks for giving us all a chance to read this thng for ourselves. I pretty much agree with Leviathan's post directly above. Jones simply seems peeved with Clampett hogging more credit than he deserved.

I did not see Jones trying to claim credit for himself, but spreading credit around through numerous animators, writers, and directors.

Jones also includes a declaration that Clampett made many fine, funny cartoons, whcih Avery agrees with.

I really don't see all that much that Avery would need to "recant." He basically agreed with Chuck that Warners' cartoons were a collabortive effort.

That both Clampett and Jones should have some character flaws comes as no surprise. I may even have one or two myself. :rolleyes: In no way does it diminish my admiration for the legitimate contributions both made to the history of American animated cartoons.

Duck Dodgers

02-28-2008, 01:23 PM

Jones also includes a declaration that Clampett made many fine, funny cartoons, whcih Avery agrees with.

That's the only thing that,IMHO, reveals the conflict between the two. If Chuck says that Clampett was only a good director and made some fine pictures what he would have to say about McKimson? :D :D
I remember Jones said the same about McKimson too (guess in "Chuck Amuck" or in some interview) and I don't think Clampett can be considered on the same level of Mckimson. The two share only the name.
Yeah, to consider them on the same level can be Jones' opinion and must be respected (I'm a liberal you know) but it is an opinion, still IMHO;) , that is a consequence of their "feud" at the time.

It would have been better to say "Clampett is up there with us (Jones and Avery) but the man is not quite as great as the director".
However, such a statement would have made Jones' letter perfect and perfection is not of this World.:D

Seriouslyly, Jones is extremely objective during the letter and I love how he speaks of the works of the units instead than the work of the single directors.
Cartoons were made by storywriters, gagmen, musical directors, animators,voicemen, not by directors alone.

I prefer to love and admire the works of Jones, Clampett, Avery, Tashlin and Freleng and consider them among the best directors of the Golden Age of cartoons.
I don't care about Maradona's private life. I care about wha he did as a player;)
Woody Allen may be a maniac:D (LOL) but I still love his movies.
And I prefer to live my life and do something that will let me remembered, and not to study and analyze other people's.

Treadwell

02-28-2008, 01:44 PM

He speaks highly of Chuck (perhaps a little too highly)

Remember that Jones was Tex's junior at the studio, so there is a certain mentor/protege subtext to Tex's comments that must be taken into account.

Thanks for posting the letter, and the link to the Barrier interview!

P.S. I had never heard of the book Movie Lot to Beachhead before, but now I have it on order thanks to this thread. ;)

Eugene the Jeep

02-28-2008, 01:56 PM

I agree with those who say it is not nearly as nasty as they were expecting.

Thad

02-28-2008, 02:51 PM

Jeepers! It all makes sense now! Clampett's cartoons of 1939-41 are so terrible because he was helping create Bugs Bunny to save Avery's unit! So noble! >sniff<

BTW, they let me keep it in a jar.

cpdavison

02-28-2008, 04:25 PM

Thad:

Let me know when this goes up on eBay.

Craig D.

janiepooh34

02-28-2008, 04:43 PM

Thanks for sharing, that was a great read.

Duck Dodgers

02-28-2008, 04:54 PM

Thad:

Let me know when this goes up on eBay.

Craig D.

I know someone who'd outbid you.

nickramer

02-28-2008, 05:08 PM

Jeepers! It all makes sense now! Clampett's cartoons of 1939-41 are so terrible because he was helping create Bugs Bunny to save Avery's unit! So noble! >sniff<

BTW, they let me keep it in a jar.

Thad, could you please act more mature here? I don't want to see you get in trouble on this fourm again.

Thad

02-28-2008, 05:51 PM

You're a little confused, buddy. What I posted is called inflammatory.

Craig, sorry, but I'm keeping it as a souvenier. A reminder of my devotion to the matyrdom of the Savior of Termite Terrace.

Leviathan

02-28-2008, 06:26 PM

I've notcied that Jones' numerical dates are a little off.

Frinstance, Clampett's first Bugs (more or less Wabbit Twouble) came a little over a year after A Wild Hare, but Chuck was right on the money on it being the seventh real Bugs cartoon.

Then, Clampett's first Porky, Porky's Badtime Story, comes two years after I Haven't Got a Hat, but it's the 23rd Porky Made, very close to Jones' ballpark.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animation.warner-bros/browse_thread/thread/99132c5ecaeb7f7d/caf257b143ae36e4 (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animation.warner-bros/browse_thread/thread/99132c5ecaeb7f7d/caf257b143ae36e4)

Thad

02-28-2008, 06:31 PM

Leviathan

02-28-2008, 06:49 PM

Thad,

that's where my "more or less" comes from. Clampett probably contributed enough to it to earn actually earn screen credit as Supervisor, as opposed to the complete lack of such credit for the other Avery cartoons Clampett finished.

J Lee

02-28-2008, 10:58 PM

Clampett in his recollections, said that he and Tex worked to "fatten up" Elmer into the Arthur Q. Bryan-looking character that debuted in "Wabbit Twouble". If nothing else, it does show preliminary work on the cartoon was done by Avery (Bob's first solo Bugs work was probably the "Any Bonds Today?" short that was rushed out in late November and early December 1941). Chances are Clampett's work here was similar to what Art Davis did finishing up "The Goofy Gophers" after Bob did the preliminary work.

As for Chuck's anger at Barrier, if you read his book, you can see whatever beliefs he held about what Clampett did and didn't create changed radically between 1969, when he interviewed Bob and published the information that angered Jones in the 1970s, and 1999, when "Hollywood Cartoons" came out. Which in a way makes some of the wrath directed at Barrier by the core Clampett cultists today pretty similar to the way Scientologists treat heretics who leave their movement (Clampetologists? :eek: )

J. J. Hunsecker

02-29-2008, 04:07 AM

After all this after-the-fact Specualtion. I'm eternally grateful to be able to see an actual, authentic, Honest-to-God primary source of the Jones-Clampett thing.

However, I'm a little disappointed. Based on how this letter has been referred to for the past 30 years, I was expecting nothing less than an all-out, no-holds-barred character assassianation of Clampett, full of all sorts of made-up atrocities and low blows.
The "no-holds-barred character assassination" of Clampett by Jones was not done in that letter Jones wrote. Jones would say them in person, off-the-record. Some of the outrageous claims made by Jones against Clampett were:

Clampett and Jones were hired as co-directors after Ub Iwerks quit making Looney Tunes, but that Clampett somehow robbed Jones of his credit. (The way Jones would tell the story was pretty funny. In it, Jones seemed like a patsy that Clampett conned with a phony story about how Clampett didn't have much time to live because of his weak heart, and it would mean so much to his mother if she could read his name -- and his name ALONE -- in the credits of the cartoon. Jones, of course, graciously allowed Clampett to take sole credit, and then, as Jones tells it, "The son of a b*tch didn't die!")
Clampett would roam around the studio at night, peek at the storyboards in the Jones unit and steal their jokes. (Honestly!)
That when Clampett was confronted with this fact he faked a heart attack.
That Clampett was fired from Warner Bros. because the studio bosses hated his cartoons, but also that Clampett faked a heart attack (again) to get out of his contract.

Here is Milt Gray's rebuttal (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Essays/Milt_Gray/Gray_on_Clampett.htm) to some of Jones's claims.

J. J. Hunsecker

02-29-2008, 04:12 AM

Wabbit Twouble was most likely an Avery picture that Clampett finished. The only way he would have genuinely directed was if it got rushed out due to Bugs' popularity. (Unlikely, as Avery left the studio in July 1941... five months before the release of that cartoon.)

Look at the difference between how Scribner is utilized in Wabbit Twouble and Wacky Wabbit. Night and day.
Are you sure? Because if it's true, then Avery is guilty of making Bugs, as Jones used to complain, an unmotivated heckler. That's something that Jones used to condemn Clampett for doing. Elmer isn't even hunting Bugs in that cartoon. He's just trying to enjoy his vacation. (Jones also credits Clampett with the fat Elmer in Chuck Amuck or Chuck Redux -- I forget which one.)

AndrewGilmore

02-29-2008, 04:45 AM

That when Clampett was confronted with this fact he faked a heart attack.
That Clampett was fired from Warner Bros. because the studio bosses hated his cartoons, but also that Clampett faked a heart attack (again) to get out of his contract

Are you sure we're talking about Bob Clampett and not Redd Foxx? :p

Thad

02-29-2008, 09:20 AM

The "no-holds-barred character assassination" of Clampett by Jones was not done in that letter Jones wrote. Jones would say them in person, off-the-record. Some of the outrageous claims made by Jones against Clampett were:

Clampett and Jones were hired as co-directors after Ub Iwerks quit making Looney Tunes, but that Clampett somehow robbed Jones of his credit. (The way Jones would tell the story was pretty funny. In it, Jones seemed like a patsy that Clampett conned with a phony story about how Clampett didn't have much time to live because of his weak heart, and it would mean so much to his mother if she could read his name -- and his name ALONE -- in the credits of the cartoon. Jones, of course, graciously allowed Clampett to take sole credit, and then, as Jones tells it, "The son of a b*tch didn't die!")
Clampett would roam around the studio at night, peek at the storyboards in the Jones unit and steal their jokes. (Honestly!)
That when Clampett was confronted with this fact he faked a heart attack.
That Clampett was fired from Warner Bros. because the studio bosses hated his cartoons, but also that Clampett faked a heart attack (again) to get out of his contract.

Here is Milt Gray's rebuttal (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Essays/Milt_Gray/Gray_on_Clampett.htm) to some of Jones's claims.

The discussion is about the Jones-Avery letter, which is probably the most balanced refutal of Clampett I've ever read from Jones. It's referred to several times in that rebuttal and it's nowhere near as nasty as it's made out to be. One gets the impression (as I did) that a lot of those off-record claims were made ON-record in the letter.

BTW, how serious can you take an essay that starts with "My favorite cartoon director was a beautiful person who I had the pleasure of knowing"?

Thad

02-29-2008, 10:43 AM

Are you sure? Because if it's true, then Avery is guilty of making Bugs, as Jones used to complain, an unmotivated heckler. That's something that Jones used to condemn Clampett for doing. Elmer isn't even hunting Bugs in that cartoon. He's just trying to enjoy his vacation. (Jones also credits Clampett with the fat Elmer in Chuck Amuck or Chuck Redux -- I forget which one.)

Maybe Jones wasn't aware of the behind-the-scenes details on the production of that cartoon and just assumed Clampett did it all. (His name is in the credits after all.)

He does go on about how even Avery "got the character wrong" in Tortoise Beats Hare in "Chuck Amuck".

Daws Butler Jr.

02-29-2008, 02:22 PM

I love a lot of Bob Clampett's cartoons, but if you need any more proof about "Bob the Terrible Person", as Milt refers to him in his rebuttal, then talk to Stan Freberg. I've said this before, but there were only two people in the whole world that Daws Butler hated... Ronald Reagan and Bob Clampett.

Bob, during the Time For Beany years, consistently took credit for things he didn't do. So why shouldn't we believe that he was taking credit at Warners for things he didn't do? If you want another example, in the Beany and Cecil cartoon end title credits, his name "types" onto the screen, making you think that he wrote all the cartoons himself. And the one time I saw Bob in person, he was walking around with a Cecil puppet, talking to it and doing the voice, as if he was always the one who did the voice. I remember thinking to myself at the time, "I never knew Clampett did the voice in the cartoons!" It wasn't until later that I would learn about Irv Shoemaker.

I know a lot of people who knew Bob in those later years and he was evidently very generous with his time and knowledge and I don't take that away from him, or from the people who had these wonderful relationships with him. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't credit grabbing, too.

Leviathan

02-29-2008, 02:31 PM

Of course Clampett did many good things for the people of the time. But that's the ONLY side of him that ever gets discussed (or is allowed to be discussed), unlike all of the walls of text that recount in graphic detail Chuck Jones' latter-day assinine rancor. So since the Usenet days, the "Chuck's a scumbag, Clampett's a saint" mantra has been permanently grafted onto all discussion of the matter.

This letter has been referred to as a key support for the anti-Jones side since almost that long (since it supposedly featured Chuck being, at best, being malicious and possibly libelious about Clampett), yet it has never been published or posted in its entirety in all this time. Now, that we've had a chance to actually see it instead of taking Milt Gray's or Steve Worth's words for it, , we're learning that Chuck stuck with the on-record Funnyworld interview and neglected to bring up the "faked heart attacks" or whatever, with an absolute minimum of actual character asassination (he even compliment's Clampetts and his cartoons to boot). Doesn't that just seem a little aggrivating?

Daws Butler Jr.

02-29-2008, 03:22 PM

Well, I also wonder why Tex would have apologized for his participation. Aside from it being on the sarcastic side (would you expect Tex not to be a bit wacky with his comments?), I don't really see anything in there that he needed to apologize for.

I feel more like Milt Gray caught him in a weak moment more than Chuck did. It doesn't look like Chuck twisted his arm at all, but merely asked if it was his (Chuck's) memory that was faulty and could Tex corroborate.

J. J. Hunsecker

02-29-2008, 07:02 PM

Maybe Jones wasn't aware of the behind-the-scenes details on the production of that cartoon and just assumed Clampett did it all. (His name is in the credits after all.)

He does go on about how even Avery "got the character wrong" in Tortoise Beats Hare in "Chuck Amuck".
Jones obviously wasn't aware of many of the "behind-the-scenes details" yet comments on them in his infamous letter. He criticizes Clampett's behavior during 1931, when Jones wasn't at the Harman-Ising studio. How would he know what Clampett did or didn't do back then?

"Clampett was either 15 or barely 16 at the time. Precocious Kid." Perhaps Jones didn't realize that Clampett dropped out of high school to join the studio. Also, youth and inexperience wouldn't necessarily hinder creativity.

Jones also takes a unnecessary swipe at Clampett's ignorance of the difference between surrealism and abstract art, when Clampett mentions the backgrounds for Porky in Wackyland. Why bring this up since it has nothing to do with Clampett claiming credit for others' creations? It seems like Jones just couldn't resist illustrating that he was more educated than Clampett.

From Jones's letter: "'As I recall, Friz was away when we made the first three or more Bugs Bunnys.' (It was Clampett who was away - Friz directed two or more Bugs Bunnys before Clampett directed his first...)" Well, Clampett was right in this. Friz was at MGM when Bugs Bunny was created.

"Note: Clampett now contends that he left in 1948..." Actually, I've never read an interview with Clampett where he stated he left the Warner studio in 1948. Where did Jones hear this information?

"...In his (Clampett's) pictures he credits not one idea, gag or piece of animation to anyone but himself." Not true. In the original Barrier interview Clampett credits Chuck Jones and Bob Cannon with the test animation of Burrough's Carter of Mars, Robert Givens and Robert McKimson with the model sheets of Bugs Bunny (but claims credit for supervising them); and lists all the animators who worked for him, including those who never received screen credit like Shamus Culhane and Art Babbitt. Although they are not his pictures, he also credits Schlesinger with initiating the idea that led to I Haven't Got a Hat, and states, "You know, Tex (Avery) was the first one to come out with the gag of a man's shadow on the screen."

"Bob Clampett was a good director and made some fine, funny pictures..." It sounds as if Jones is being magnanimous here (or he's damning with faint praise), but I think he is hiding his true feelings. In later interviews Jones was far more critical of Clampett, suggesting that he tried to imitate Avery's cartoons and failed.

"Clampett's contributions to the birth of Daffy Duck, the growth of Porky Pig and the so-called wacky humor of Termite Terrace was not more significant thatn any of the rest of us who worked for Tex." This is based on my own personal feelings, but I think Clampett's contributions were more significant that the others who worked for Tex. Clampett's crazy animation of Daffy in Porky's Duck Hunt was a major factor in the popularity of that character. In Clampett's own cartoons Porky and Bugs were solidified to the pleasing character designs that the other directors would eventually use. Clampett's cartoons were also wilder and funnier than those of his peers, so he did a lot to contribute to the "so-called wacky humor" of Termite Terrace. Jones was a better draftsman, but he didn't seem to come up with any humorous animation for Tex, and as a first time director spent many years making cartoons that were humorless and turgid, completely antithetical to Avery's philosophy of what cartoons should be.

I won't defend the false credits Clampett claimed for himself, but he took the Warner cartoons to new heights during the 40's, at a time when Jones was struggling to make good cartoons.

I also find it odd that Jones never blamed Freleng for getting Bugs Bunny wrong, since Bugs appeared as an "amoral, unmotivated heckler" in cartoons like Fresh Hare.

J. J. Hunsecker

02-29-2008, 07:05 PM

FleischerFan

02-29-2008, 07:23 PM

It's a shame that two very creative talents from the Golden Age of Hollywood cartoons now have "camps" of followers who are firing salvos at each other. The situation is almost comical enough that it would make a great cartoon!

What seems obvious to me is that both Clampett and Jones had their personality defects. Clampett did try to take too much credit - there's ample evidence of that. Milt Gray kind of tries to sweep that aside with a sort of half-admission. But Gray's so-called rebuttal is not at all fair and balanced. He starts by admitting that Clampett was his mentor.

That Jones had a prickly personality and held a grudge is also obvious.

What gets lost is that both men made some marvelous, funny cartoons and hugely contributed to the field. I enjoy the work of both men. There is ample scholarship available now that any serious student can suss out who did what when.

Bottom line: I really could not care less that these two guys did not get along and have no interest in taking sides.

In the interests of full disclosure, I met Bob Clampett in his later years and found him to be a warm, genial man who still exuded a love for cartoons that was palpable. I found him by accident. He was setting up a projector and screen in our student union (University of Wisconsin). His lecture wasn't until the next night. It had not been well publicized as I did even know it was happening. So it was a shock to hear cartoons coming out of the great hall and a greater shock to find him there, essentially all by himself.

When a small group of us gathered as Clampett was adjusting the projector and sound system, Clampett warmly welcomed us in and we spent the rest of a long evening screening cartoons with him (most of which did NOT figure into his lecture the next evening).

Leviathan

02-29-2008, 07:39 PM

J.J.

I'm referring to the pre-TTTP newsgroups (alt.animation.warnerbros and suchlike) where the original Jones-Clampett discussions took place.

Here's one of the meatier Usenet Jones/Clampett strings (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animation.warner-bros/browse_thread/thread/99132c5ecaeb7f7d/caf257b143ae36e4.) (there might be others, but this one has the most relevant commentary in one place).
Steve Worth and Earl Kress are most definitely present, and I have reasons to believe GAC-ers Greg Method and J Lee might be in there too.

Yes, some people have discussed Clampett's shortcomings or have come on Jones side (outside of Sogturtle and Greg, I don't think anyone has really done this though), but no one has really taken a look at Jones' side of the controversy, like the essays for Bob's side by Milt Gray and Robert Clampett Jr. (both of which are more accesable than most forum comments), nor is anyone on Jone's side as influential as John or Steve. For all intents and purporse, for the past 8-9 years ago the default evalutation of the Jones/Clampett thing has been lopsided, pitting nothing but the good side of one against nothing but the bad side of the other.

Thad

02-29-2008, 08:45 PM

I personally would have rather seen Jones criticize Clampett in his autobiographies, than treat him as a non-person. But he said that he liked Clampett's family and didn't want to cause them any more pain.

"...In his (Clampett's) pictures he credits not one idea, gag or piece of animation to anyone but himself." Not true. In the original Barrier interview Clampett credits Chuck Jones and Bob Cannon with the test animation of Burrough's Carter of Mars, Robert Givens and Robert McKimson with the model sheets of Bugs Bunny (but claims credit for supervising them); and lists all the animators who worked for him, including those who never received screen credit like Shamus Culhane and Art Babbitt. Although they are not his pictures, he also credits Schlesinger with initiating the idea that led to I Haven't Got a Hat, and states, "You know, Tex (Avery) was the first one to come out with the gag of a man's shadow on the screen."

Jones' claim about the animation may be along the lines of Clampett taking credit for 'acting out' the scenes.

"Bob Clampett was a good director and made some fine, funny pictures..." It sounds as if Jones is being magnanimous here (or he's damning with faint praise), but I think he is hiding his true feelings. In later interviews Jones was far more critical of Clampett, suggesting that he tried to imitate Avery's cartoons and failed.

No, he made plenty of statements giving [faint] praise. There's some sort of write-up he did for a calendar (?) where he calls Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid one of the best of the early Bugs pictures.

Clampett's crazy animation of Daffy in Porky's Duck Hunt was a major factor in the popularity of that character.

Larry T. thinks that that's really Chuck Jones' animation. The "It'th me again!" definitely is his. Maybe he just forgot to refute it. Or maybe Clampett did the layouts or something.

I also find it odd that Jones never blamed Freleng for getting Bugs Bunny wrong, since Bugs appeared as an "amoral, unmotivated heckler" in cartoons like Fresh Hare.

"Friz Freleng stepped into the picture in June 1941 with Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt, and he, too, joined Tex and me in not quite understanding what the hell was going on, and he, too, went wide of the mark in understanding Bugs's persona. Not as wide as I did and Tex did, but 'twas enough, 'twould serve." --- "Chuck Amuck" p. 199

Leviathan

02-29-2008, 09:29 PM

jonmayo15

02-29-2008, 10:49 PM

dendawg

02-29-2008, 10:49 PM

What gets lost is that both men made some marvelous, funny cartoons and hugely contributed to the field. I enjoy the work of both men. There is ample scholarship available now that any serious student can suss out who did what when.

Bottom line: I really could not care less that these two guys did not get along and have no interest in taking sides.

Quoted for truth. As FleischerFan said above, practically anybody willing to do the research can figure out the truth for themselves.

Clampett stole ideas from Jones. Fine. Does that in any way detract from the fact that both men are animation legends?

Pissing matches like these are one of the reasons I don't post here very often. (That and the fact that the question is already answered before I put in my two cents. :p)

Eugene the Jeep

03-01-2008, 12:12 AM

Daws Butler Jr.

03-01-2008, 01:39 PM

One more thing: reading Tex's comments, I find it really hard to believe that he was reluctant to comment on this subject. He seems downright enthusiastic (not to mention angry). I'd like to know exactly what (and how) he recanted.

That's what I said above. It seems like if he was caught in a weak moment, it was when he recanted. The tone and content of the comments don't seem to have been made under duress.

Perhaps he was sorry later on for signing onto the letter and adding his name to the controversy, thinking it would have been more prudent to have left his opinions unaired. When I worked for Tex in his last years, he was very quiet to the point of almost being introverted. But I don't know that he would have actually recanted his opinions.

Madison Carter

03-01-2008, 02:37 PM

From what little I've read, know and understand of this whole thing, it seems (to me, at least) that Tex wasn't exactly sorry for the comments, just for making them in a manner that went public.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 05:04 PM

Jones' claim about the animation may be along the lines of Clampett taking credit for 'acting out' the scenes.

Again, how would Jones know how Clampett worked with his animators? A person saying they "acted out" the actions for their animators is not claiming credit for the animation itself, anyway. As far as I know, Clampett only made this claim about Robert McKimson, who Clampett said had a photographic memory. He also said that McKimson sometimes didn't need layouts because he would capture what Clampett acted out so well, almost like he photographed it. That sounds more like Clampett complimenting McKimson's amazing abilities, not like someone trying to grab credit for another man's work.

No, he made plenty of statements giving [faint] praise. There's some sort of write-up he did for a calendar (?) where he calls Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid one of the best of the early Bugs pictures.

In his later years Jones mellowed out a bit with his animosity towards Clampett's version of Bugs. He called Clampett's version of Bugs an "amoral lunatic -- with flashes of brilliance" (emphasis added) on one occasion.

Larry T. thinks that that's really Chuck Jones' animation. The "It'th me again!" definitely is his. Maybe he just forgot to refute it. Or maybe Clampett did the layouts or something.

That scene is the second appearance of the Darn Fool Duck, and may well have been by Jones. I'm talking about the scene where Daffy hops, pirouettes and "woo hoo's" into the distance when we first meet him. That scene does not look like it was animated by Jones. The animation of the second appearance of the embryonic Daffy is much more subdued than his first appearance. It is the crazy animation of Daffy (in my opinion) that caught on with audiences and led to his stardom -- and that animation looks like it was done by Clampett.

"Friz Freleng stepped into the picture in June 1941 with Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt, and he, too, joined Tex and me in not quite understanding what the hell was going on, and he, too, went wide of the mark in understanding Bugs's persona. Not as wide as I did and Tex did, but 'twas enough, 'twould serve." --- "Chuck Amuck" p. 199
Weird, since Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt is actually more in line with Bugs' wise-acre personality as seen in Avery's A Wild Hare. Bugs is not an unmotivated heckler either, since he is the prey of a hunter, unlike in Jones's early cartoons, Elmer's Candid Camera and Elmer's Pet Rabbit. A better choice would have been Freleng's Fresh Hare, where Bugs is a criminal and Elmer is a Mounty just doing his job. The Bugs in that cartoon is more like the "amoral lunatic" description Jones always used towards Clampett's version of Bugs Bunny.

Thad

03-01-2008, 05:16 PM

Again, how would Jones know how Clampett worked with his animators? A person saying they "acted out" the actions for their animators is not claiming credit for the animation itself, anyway. As far as I know, Clampett only made this claim about Robert McKimson, who Clampett said had a photographic memory. He also said that McKimson sometimes didn't need layouts because he would capture what Clampett acted out so well, almost like he photographed it. That sounds more like Clampett complimenting McKimson's amazing abilities, not like someone trying to grab credit for another man's work.

I'm not saying Jones was right, but do you really think he wouldn't? Unlike Sogturtle's perpetuations in the past, it's not impossible that the directors would know how the others worked with their animators.

That scene is the second appearance of the Darn Fool Duck, and may well have been by Jones. I'm talking about the scene where Daffy hops, pirouettes and "woo hoo's" into the distance when we first meet him. That scene does not look like it was animated by Jones. The animation of the second appearance of the embryonic Daffy is much more subdued than his first appearance. It is the crazy animation of Daffy (in my opinion) that caught on with audiences and led to his stardom -- and that animation looks like it was done by Clampett.

Larry says Jones most likely did it. His eye is sure better than mine. The same animation is reused in another cartoon, What Price Porky, and it syncs up almost perfectly with the Jones animation that preceded it.

Weird, since Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt is actually more in line with Bugs' wise-acre personality as seen in Avery's A Wild Hare. Bugs is not an unmotivated heckler either, since he is the prey of a hunter, unlike in Jones's early cartoons, Elmer's Candid Camera and Elmer's Pet Rabbit. A better choice would have been Freleng's Fresh Hare, where Bugs is a criminal and Elmer is a Mounty just doing his job. The Bugs in that cartoon is more like the "amoral lunatic" description Jones always used towards Clampett's version of Bugs Bunny.

I think you're grasping at straws here.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 05:19 PM

Yeah, that reminds me, Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt came before Wabbit Twouble/Any Bonds today?/The Wacky Wabbit.

Clampett used Bugs in a cameo in Patient Porky, with the prototype voice and coloration, but he didn't actually make a REAL Bugs cartoon until after Friz' first.

And from Jonmayo15...

The way Clampett dismisses Freleng's contributions to Bugs' character in Michael Barrier's interview are astounding, especially given the fact that Freleng directed an "official" Bugs Bunny cartoon almost 6 months BEFORE Clampett. Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt was released 6/7/41 and Wabbit Twouble was released 12/20/41. So Clampett's (about 1/3 to 1/2 Avery's) cartoon came over six months after Freleng's did.

Actually Clampett compliments Freleng's Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt in the Barrier interview. He only mentions that Freleng was at MGM when Bugs was created. He never states that he himself directed Bugs Bunny cartoons before Freleng did. Perhaps you're confused by Clampett's usage of the word "we" as in "the period we made the first three...Bugs Bunnys..." I think he meant the Schlesinger studio as a whole, and not specifically his animation unit.

Quoted from the Barrier interview:

Clampett: As I recall, Friz was away during the period we made the first three or more Bugs Bunnys, but he returned and was assigned direction on the seventh Bugs Bunny made, which was his first. That was "Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt," an excellent cartoon. (Emphasis added.)

Hey, I don't mind people complaining about Clampett's behavior, but at least complain about the things he actually did. Let's not read bad behavior into innocuous statements, though.

Leviathan

03-01-2008, 05:44 PM

Actually, Sogturtle was one of the first to let on that the Jones-Clampett letter might not have the monster that it was implied to be in the various essays, so he deserves a little bit of credit there, regardless of how SOME around here might feel about him.

created. He never states that he himself directed Bugs Bunny cartoons before Freleng did. Perhaps you're confused by Clampett's usage of the word "we" as in "the period we made the first three...Bugs Bunnys..." I think he meant the Schlesinger studio as a whole, and not specifically his animation unit.

Be that as it may, given how Clampett recounted his "participation" in cartoons like "Porky's Hare Hunt" and "A Wild Hare", is it really likely that Clampett was trying to be as collective as possible (the whole Schlesinger studio) by using "we"? He had already attached himself to those key rabbit films, which would theoretically give him seniority over Friz in actually handling Bugs.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 05:57 PM

I'm not saying Jones was right, but do you really think he wouldn't? Unlike Sogturtle's perpetuations in the past, it's not impossible that the directors would know how the others worked with their animators.
First of all, it's irrelevant since I showed that Clampett never claimed credit for the animation in his cartoons in the Barrier interview. You're just assuming Jones might have meant the part about Clampett "acting out" scenes for his animators. If so, there is nothing inherently suspicious about a director giving directions to his animators.

As for if Jones ever witnessed Clampett directing his animators, I have no idea. He never mentioned it before, and I doubt he would have gone to visit Clampett's crew since it seemed they were not on friendly terms.

Larry says Jones most likely did it. His eye is sure better than mine. The same animation is reused in another cartoon, What Price Porky, and it syncs up almost perfectly with the Jones animation that preceded it.
Maybe you're confused about the scene I'm talking about. It's Daffy's first scene -- where he says, "I'm just a darn fool duck" -- which looks nothing like Jones's style of animation. Clampett claimed credit for that scene in the Funnyworld interview, and neither Jones nor Avery refuted it in Jones's letter. Odd, if Jones did indeed animate that scene, that he would let Clampett off the hook for that one infraction.

Then there is also this sentence from Barrier's "Hollywood Cartoons", page 349: "It was Clampett who animated Daffy as he bounced wildly across the lake, whooping like a maniac. Chuck Jones, who was also animating for Avery then, remarked in 1976 that 'if Clampett had been able to move that way, he would have moved that way himself.'"

Even Jones gave Clampett credit for that scene!

I think you're grasping at straws here.
Why is that? Fresh Hare fits perfectly with the complaint Jones made about getting Bugs's personality wrong. Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt does not fit the category. Plus Freleng also directed Rabbit Transit, the 3rd time Bugs played a sap to Cecil Turtle. (Hare Brush is yet another uncomfortable "Bugs as loser" cartoon by Freleng.) Yet Jones never complains of those cartoons. I think it makes Jones a little hypocritical to complain about one director's approach to a character, but not when other directors took the exact same approach.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 06:18 PM

Be that as it may, given how Clampett recounted his "participation" in cartoons like "Porky's Hare Hunt" and "A Wild Hare", is it really likely that Clampett was trying to be as collective as possible (the whole Schlesinger studio) by using "we"? He had already attached himself to those key rabbit films, which would theoretically give him seniority over Friz in actually handling Bugs.
Clampett never claimed to have directed those films, just that he added gags or drew storyboards or model sheets for them. Or that he watched over Avery shoulders when Avery was directing A Wild Hare, in order to steer Avery in the right direction on the character. These are the claims that have been refuted by Jones and Avery in the letter.

Even if Clampett's claims were true, he couldn't take credit for the finished films, just that he had a hand in the creation of the characters.

As such, whether you believe or disbelieve Clampett's statements, it in no way implies that he made Bugs Bunny cartoons before Freleng did.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 06:31 PM

Quoted for truth. As FleischerFan said above, practically anybody willing to do the research can figure out the truth for themselves.

Clampett stole ideas from Jones. Fine. Does that in any way detract from the fact that both men are animation legends?
Uh, when did Clampett steal ideas from Jones? Jones wasn't even making funny cartoons when he started directing, so what would Clampett have to steal from anyway? If anything, Jones borrowed from Clampett -- Jones created Charlie Dog based on Clampett's cartoon Porky's Pooch.

Thad

03-01-2008, 06:45 PM

Maybe you're confused about the scene I'm talking about. It's Daffy's first scene -- where he says, "I'm just a darn fool duck" -- which looks nothing like Jones's style of animation. Clampett claimed credit for that scene in the Funnyworld interview, and neither Jones nor Avery refuted it in Jones's letter. Odd, if Jones did indeed animate that scene, that he would let Clampett off the hook for that one infraction.

Then there is also this sentence from Barrier's "Hollywood Cartoons", page 349: "It was Clampett who animated Daffy as he bounced wildly across the lake, whooping like a maniac. Chuck Jones, who was also animating for Avery then, remarked in 1976 that 'if Clampett had been able to move that way, he would have moved that way himself.'"

Even Jones gave Clampett credit for that scene!

No I sure exactly know what scene you're talking about. It's above par what I and others have figured out to be Clampett's animation (it's usually really badly drawn). Maybe he improved. But thanks for pointing out the Jones credit. Barrier's book is so full of facts that you can get lost in them.

Why is that? Fresh Hare fits perfectly with the complaint Jones made about getting Bugs's personality wrong. Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt does not fit the category. Plus Freleng also directed Rabbit Transit, the 3rd time Bugs played a sap to Cecil Turtle. (Hare Brush is yet another uncomfortable "Bugs as loser" cartoon by Freleng.) Yet Jones never complains of those cartoons. I think it makes Jones a little hypocritical to complain about one director's approach to a character, but not when other directors took the exact same approach.

You're grasping at straws because Freleng directed about five times as many Bugs cartoons as Clampett did. In most of those Clampett shorts, Bugs' character, as Barrier writes, "goes off the rails". In most of Freleng's, he does not. The cartoons you cited of Freleng's were the exception and not the rule. Which Jones wrote about.

I think it is grasping at straws assuming that Jones had every cartoon burnt into his brain. I mean, he cites Mexican Cat Dance as one of Friz's best pictures!!! Maybe he meant another one? Or maybe he was high?

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 08:32 PM

You're grasping at straws because Freleng directed about five times as many Bugs cartoons as Clampett did. In most of those Clampett shorts, Bugs' character, as Barrier writes, "goes off the rails". In most of Freleng's, he does not. The cartoons you cited of Freleng's were the exception and not the rule. Which Jones wrote about.

I think it is grasping at straws assuming that Jones had every cartoon burnt into his brain. I mean, he cites Mexican Cat Dance as one of Friz's best pictures!!! Maybe he meant another one? Or maybe he was high?
I see your point about Freleng directing more Bugs Bunny cartoons than Clampett did, and indeed, only a few of those cartoons had Bugs miscast. However, it's not fare to compare a Freleng cartoon from the 50's with one of Clampett's from the early 40's. Bugs Bunny had mellowed in the post war years, basically following Jones's conception of the character. If you look at Freleng's earlier Bugs cartoons, you'll see that he made some of the same transgressions that Clampett made with Bugs Bunny. In fact, almost all the directors did. Freleng admitted so in an interview quoted in Joe Adamson's book "Bugs Bunny: Fifty Years and Only One Gray Hare". "We started out with Bugs going hunting for trouble," as Freleng explained it to The New York Times in 1945. "That wasn't successful because it wasn't true to type. He never starts the scrapes he gets into anymore."

Clampett basically followed Avery's conception of Bugs, except Clampett made the character a little more emotional and aggressive at times. The cartoons of McKimson continued this aggressive streak in Bugs after Clampett left. (I wonder if this is due to sharing Warren Foster as writer?)

I disagree with Barrier's assessment that Bugs "goes off the rails" in the majority of Clampett's cartoons. While that may be true for a few of Clampett's Bugs cartoons, (like in Buckaroo Bugs and the director's cut of Hare Ribbin') for most of the Bugs Bunny cartoons he directed Bugs heckles Elmer Fudd for the same reasons he did in A Wild Hare. I also think Clampett made the best solo vehicle for Bugs with What's Cookin', Doc?

***

Jones may not have had every WB cartoon burnt into his brain, but he certainly had a good memory of the ones he didn't like. He used them quite often as examples. I just have a suspicion that he may have had an ulterior motive for dismissing Clampett's contributions to Bugs's filmography, while praising Freleng's.

And yes, Jones was indeed high when he praised Mexican Cat Dance. (I kid!)

Matt the Y

03-01-2008, 08:32 PM

You're grasping at straws because Freleng directed about five times as many Bugs cartoons as Clampett did. In most of those Clampett shorts, Bugs' character, as Barrier writes, "goes off the rails". In most of Freleng's, he does not. The cartoons you cited of Freleng's were the exception and not the rule. Which Jones wrote about.

I'd have to agree with Thad here. Freleng's ratio of "in character/out of character" Bugs shorts is much more even than Clampett's is, having worked with the character longer and given the chance to direct more shorts with the character. In every cartoon Freleng directed that pitted Bugs against Yosemite Sam, for example, it is very well-established that Sam pretty much deserves everything he gets from Bugs (which is why Freleng created Sam in the first place; he didn't want Bugs seen as a "bully" by picking on someone who didn't deserve it for no reason so he created Sam, a despicable, ornery enough character who needed a good thrashing beat into him from the rabbit). In "Ballot Box Bunny", Bugs retaliates against Sam because he threatens to wipe out all rabbits from the United States if elected mayor! In "Hare Trimmed", he stands up for a wealthy woman who Sam plans to marry and therefore rob of her fortune and use that tremendous wealth for underhanded and fiendish, self-serving purposes. Sufficient enough justification to spring into action. Contrast this with "The Wacky Wabbit" in which Bugs heckles Elmer Fudd just because he's in the desert looking for gold and Bugs apparently thinks Elmer's having too much of a good time. Or "Falling Hare" in which Bugs, for once, is the fall-guy victim to a wise-guy gremlin throughout the whole cartoon. Or "Buckaroo Bugs" in which Bugs is actually the cartoon's BAD GUY and constantly heckles the "hero" (who is unfairly pitted against Bugs to begin with since he's far too mentally inept to be a serious challenge to anybody; he makes Elmer Fudd look like a rocket scientist) without any real justifiable provocation. Clearly it seems that Freleng's vision of Bugs gels with Jones' vision of the character much more so than Clampett's does.

Daffysleftfoot

03-01-2008, 08:33 PM

I think it is grasping at straws assuming that Jones had every cartoon burnt into his brain. I mean, he cites Mexican Cat Dance as one of Friz's best pictures!!! Maybe he meant another one? Or maybe he was high?

Maybe because the cartoon borrows some footage from Jones' Bully for Bugs and that made him feel all squishy inside. :o

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 08:39 PM

I'd have to agree with Thad here. Freleng's ratio of "in character/out of character" Bugs shorts is much more even than Clampett's is, having worked with the character longer and given the chance to direct more shorts with the character. In every cartoon Freleng directed that pitted Bugs against Yosemite Sam, for example, it is very well-established that Sam pretty much deserves everything he gets from Bugs...Contrast this with "The Wacky Wabbit" in which Bugs heckles Elmer Fudd just because he's in the desert looking for gold and Bugs apparently thinks Elmer's having too much of a good time. Or "Falling Hare" in which Bugs, for once, is the fall-guy victim to a wise-guy gremlin throughout the whole cartoon. Or "Buckaroo Bugs" in which Bugs is actually the cartoon's BAD GUY and constantly heckles the "hero" (who is unfairly pitted against Bugs to begin with since he's far too mentally inept to be a serious challenge to anybody; he makes Elmer Fudd look like a rocket scientist) without any real justifiable provocation. Clearly it seems that Freleng's vision of Bugs gels with Jones' vision of the character much more so than Clampett's does.
I already mentioned in the post above that in the early forties Freleng also directed cartoons where Bugs was an unmotivated heckler. I also mentioned the quote in the Adamson book where Freleng admits this in a way.

As for Bugs as the bad guy, Freleng directed Fresh Hare where Bugs was on the wrong side of the law, and McKimson made Rebel Rabbit with Bugs Bunny at his most aggressive. And almost all the major directors made cartoons with Bugs cast as the loser -- the ones by Clampett just happen to be the funniest.

Matt the Y

03-01-2008, 08:44 PM

I already mentioned in the post above that in the early forties Freleng also directed cartoons where Bugs was an unmotivated heckler. I also mentioned the quote in the Adamson book where Freleng admits this in a way.

As for Bugs as the bad guy, Freleng directed Fresh Hare where Bugs was on the wrong side of the law, and McKimson made Rebel Rabbit with Bugs Bunny at his most aggressive. And almost all the major directors made cartoons with Bugs cast as the loser -- the ones by Clampett just happen to be the funniest.

I had not read that post when I began posting my post (it did not get posted until after my post was finally finished and submitted) so those points were overlooked by me when I had started to type. Also, I said that Freleng's vision of Bugs gelled with Jones' vision moreso than Clampett's did. I.e. Friz admitted and realized that Bugs heckling others for no reason like a bully didn't seem to work and wasn't successful so he went alongside Jones in setting up a sort of provocation for the character and making him less overzealous and aggressive so that audiences would respond better. Clampett, by contrast, never seemed to adjust to that, at least, IMHO. Even in the shorts Clampett directed where Elmer is hunting Bugs, Bugs seems to get far too much pleasure in trumping Fudd particularly in "The Old Grey Hare" which climaxes in him tricking elderly Fudd into a freshly dug grave and then burying him alive!

nickramer

03-01-2008, 08:54 PM

Fibber Fox

03-01-2008, 09:32 PM

. I'm getting sick of this "Clampett said this" and "he made Bugs out of character" junk.

Then don't read the thread. There are a bunch I skip because I don't have interest in them. But someone else might. To each his own.

F. Fox

gdX

03-01-2008, 10:52 PM

Actually, this is the most even-handed Clampett-Jones thread I've seen to date.

You lose me when only there's unyielding insistence that Bugs Bunny only works when a prescribed set of rules is followed... it's OK – I'd say preferable – to step outside the box occasionally... especially for a cartoon... keeps 'em fresh.

Besides, all the directors did it, including 'theorist' Jones – OK, his were clunkers, maybe that's what informed his rule book.

That's not why I posted – I've got a question.

Has Barrier ever publicly changed his stance on his interviews?... or is he still willing to buy even the most egregious Clampett character creation claims (Sniffles, Yosemite Sam, the Bugs model sheets etc)?

:sniff:

Eugene the Jeep

03-01-2008, 11:02 PM

He says above his Clampett interview that he came to believe that Clampett exaggerated his role in the creation of Bugs (though he thinks Clampett was sincere in claiming he contributed to the character).

nickramer

03-01-2008, 11:37 PM

Then don't read the thread. There are a bunch I skip because I don't have interest in them. But someone else might. To each his own.

F. Fox

The trouble is that whenever a new post comes up, I want to see it. It's like looking at a package that's label "do not open till Christmas". I just don't have the will power to resist opening it.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-01-2008, 11:41 PM

Has Barrier ever publicly changed his stance on his interviews?... or is he still willing to buy even the most egregious Clampett character creation claims (Sniffles, Yosemite Sam, the Bugs model sheets etc)?

:sniff:
I'm not sure if you've read Barrier's book "Hollywood Cartoons", but it is even-handed in regards to controversial topics. For instance, this is what he writes about the claim that Jones was really the codirector of Clampett's earlier cartoons, but was cheated out of credit:

"Clampett was at the beginning not fully in control of the cartoons that bore his name. He said that he felt 'conservative' directing the first few because he was uncertain about his crew, a mixture of Schlesinger and Iwerks people. Perhaps for that reason, Chuck Jones filled the gap. Jones even claimed that he and Clampett were sent to the Iwerks studio as a team -- as equals -- and after Iwerks's departure worked as codirectors, although Jones received screen credit only as an animator. Some of the animators who worked with Clampett and Jones at the Iwerks studio did, in fact, speak of them as codirectors. Clampett emphatically rejected Jones's account, but he was heavily dependent on Jones at the start."

Yosemite Sam was said to be based on Freleng's own physical characteristics and on Red Skelton's cowboy character Deadeye. No mention of Red Hot Ryder as the inspiration.

The '43 model sheet is credited to McKimson, but under Clampett's direction with the other animators giving their input (because McKimson had a habit of drawing the details too small).

mmtper

03-02-2008, 01:46 AM

There was another big Clampett & Jones thread about two years ago:

http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=5932&page=1&pp=10

My big ol' posts are #10 & #15. I hope I'm now smarter, wiser & a better writer than I used to be, but I stand by my comments from back then. Thanks to Jim Engel for posting the famous letter. The thing that caught me was, that after many years, Tex still had the neat, elegant hand-lettering of a guy who learned his cartooning skills in the 1920's.

Again, how would Jones know how Clampett worked with his animators? A person saying they "acted out" the actions for their animators is not claiming credit for the animation itself, anyway.

I have to respectfully disagree with J.J. on this one. Besides the fact that the directors weren't that isolated from one another, and besides that the animators worked for different directors at different times and no doubt discussed the different techniques & approaches (McKimson worked with everyone at one time or another). It's just that Jones was no doubt intimately familiar with Clampett's methods because Jones was one of Clamp's animators for about a year or so, in about 9 cartoons. In the Golden Collection 3 John K. & Eddie F. comment on how great Chuck's animation is of the drunken dog is in Porky's Party.

As for the eternal (and for some endless) interest in Chuck vs. Bob, well it's not like two average guys had a feud. Or that someone like Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber had a feud (I don't know if they did..I'm just using their names). It's just that these two men were the two greatest animation directors in history, and by extention, the two of the greatest film directors in history, which makes them two of the greatest artists in the 20th century, and I don't really think I'm exagerating in saying this. We want to understand why this art, this stuff, affects us so much. In art the artists reveal themselves---almost everything they do is a self-portrait. Jones & Clampett's toons are, in a certain way, self-portraits. You can certainly enjoy art without knowing a thing about the creator, but knowing the life behind the art does add to the understanding. And if you really really love the art, and you think you understand it, maybe you'll start to understand something about yourself as well.

Whew! Now someone open up the window and let some air in here! Whada load of pretentous twaddle gas! But I still think there's something to this. Plus the Jones-Clampett story is so darn dramatic. Because it wasn't as though they disliked each other from the start, that would have been less interesting: they were friends. Good Friends! They believed in each other's talents! And somewhere in there, there was some sort of betrayal or double-cross, and that led to no simple dislike, but a bitter wound that apparently never healed in a lifetime..... It's possible the other party never gave it a second thought:Hey, bizness iz bizness! The tragi-comic comi-tragic aspects are so powerful. Bob pushing himself in front of the career line....Chuck's shaky first efforts at direction.....Bob the big-time TV puppeteer while the newly fired Chuck knocks meekly at Disney's door....Bob the "has-been" but still a braggart trying to shape history in his image.....while Chuck, now a big "am-is" producer fumes and seeks help from their old mentor Tex....

You don't think that's terrific human interest?! Why hasn't there been good, well-researched, sympathetic to both sides but frank book written about this yet? I understand there was once a script floating around Hollywood about the Termite Terrace days, I wonder if they covered this matter:confused:

mmtper

03-02-2008, 02:01 AM

Yosemite Sam was said to be based on Freleng's own physical characteristics and on Red Skelton's cowboy character Deadeye. No mention of Red Hot Ryder as the inspiration.

.

Yosemite and Red Hot Ryder share DNA because of Red Skelton. Red Skelton's Sheriff Deadeye couldn't get his horsie to Whoa! true, but Red Hot is much more like Skelton's bumpkin character Clem Kadiddlehopper (Clem even used to sing a little "duh duh de duh duh" song to himself, like Red). Deadeye was a loud braggart, like Sam. So, Clampett thought it went like this:

Skelton----> Red Hot------>Yosemite

when it should really be more like:

Red Hot<------Skelton------->Yosemite

oceansoul

03-02-2008, 03:11 AM

Maybe because the cartoon borrows some footage from Jones' Bully for Bugs and that made him feel all squishy inside. :o

I think he meant Mexican Boarders. If not I don't know what Jones was smoking at that time.

As for the debate, I have to agree with those who says Bugs went wrong in Clampett films. He made a lot of amazing and great cartoons, but heck... I can't recall a single Bugs film I rate as a classic from Clampett. That character had a terrible personality and he is very uncomfortable to watch. Jones is right, and I can share his animosity for some extent. (It was definately down to Warren Foster though, because early McKimson Bugs films followed the same vein.)

I don't want to comment on the other Jones-Clampett controversy. Both guys had their personal flaws, as many said here, but yet they are top directors, and that's what I care for at the end.

oceansoul

03-02-2008, 03:15 AM

Honestly, I think this whole thread is going nowhere. I'm getting sick of this "Clampett said this" and "he made Bugs out of character" junk. I mean everyone has their own faults, including me. I'm starting to see why Sogturtle isn't on this fourm that much anymore.

I think this thread and the opinions are quite interesting. More interesting than your usual moaning about "why you dared to say this" posts.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 03:17 AM

I have to respectfully disagree with J.J. on this one. Besides the fact that the directors weren't that isolated from one another, and besides that the animators worked for different directors at different times and no doubt discussed the different techniques & approaches (McKimson worked with everyone at one time or another). It's just that Jones was no doubt intimately familiar with Clampett's methods because Jones was one of Clamp's animators for about a year or so, in about 9 cartoons. In the Golden Collection 3 John K. & Eddie F. comment on how great Chuck's animation is of the drunken dog is in Porky's Party.
Oh yeah, good point. I forgot that Jones animated for Clampett. Actually, I think Jones did layouts for him, too.

BUT, Jones's initial accusation against Clampett -- namely that Clampett took credit for every gag, idea and piece of animation in his own cartoons -- is simply not true. Clampett listed all the animators who worked for him in the Funnyworld interview, including Chuck Jones.

If Jones had just stuck to refuting Clampett's contributions to the main characters' creation I would have no problem with his unpublished letter. But he wrote about things he would have no knowledge about, like Clampett's years at Harman-Ising, and taking pot-shots at Clampett's knowledge of modern art.

As for how Clampett directed his animators, according to Barrier's book, "John Carey said that as Clampett made rough sketches to show what he wanted in a scene, 'he'd practically animate the whole scene sometimes,' and so enthusiastically did Clampett act out what the characters were supposed to be doing that 'it was just like seeing a floor show, going in and picking up a scene.'" Of course that was for the black and white Looney Tunes. For McKimson, he's sometimes just act out a scene without giving him layouts to follow.

Duck Dodgers

03-02-2008, 06:32 AM

More interesting than your usual moaning about "why you dared to say this" posts.

:D :D :D

I agree. It shows how GAC is gone to a superior status. We are now able to discuss quietly and without insults:D
In the past we had too many verbal fights here.

By the way, I ask you this because I was always curious about it.
Jones made a star, Charlie Dog, outta the dog in Clampett's "Porky's Pooch".
Rarely this fact is mentioned.
"Little Orphan Airedale" is basically a remake of Clampett's picture, with just a few changes.
Anyone knows about it?
Did Jones ever say that Clampett at night entered in his office, stole the storyboards for the cartoon Jones was working on and then happy-go-lucky runned away with a "Nyah-nyah-nyah. It's mine now"?:D
Did Clampett ever say that one night, 't was raiing outside, Jones came into his house, crying to obtain the permission to use that character, Clampett said "Go ahead, you lower lifeform you, go ahead", Jones kissed his feet and
then happy-go-lucky runned away with a "Nyah-nyah-nyah. It's mine now"?
Seriously, anyone know more? This looks like pretty interesting stuff to discuss about.

FleischerFan

03-02-2008, 10:16 AM

As for the eternal (and for some endless) interest in Chuck vs. Bob... It's just that these two men were the two greatest animation directors in history... Can I, in a polite and non-insulting way, quite respectfully disagree with you?

Two OF the greatest, certainly. But the two greatest? That is a matter of personal opinion.

Personally, I would rate Tex Avery higher than either gentleman. Disney also had some very talented people directing their shorts through the years. For all the guff Dave Fleischer's reputation seems to take, there is a noticable difference between the cartoons that bear his name as director and those that followed during the Famous Studio years.

I am equally sure there are champions for Hanna-Barbera and Friz Freleng as well. (And Tashlin, and Harman-Ising, etc.)

It may be a heresy on this board, but Clampett would not make my top 5 list of greatest cartoon directors.

Thad

03-02-2008, 11:52 AM

Purleeze. "Wabbit stories in 1931"? That should have sounded bogus even considering the time and context of the interview to the uninitiated.

jonmayo15

03-02-2008, 12:00 PM

And from Jonmayo15...

Actually Clampett compliments Freleng's Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt in the Barrier interview. He only mentions that Freleng was at MGM when Bugs was created. He never states that he himself directed Bugs Bunny cartoons before Freleng did. Perhaps you're confused by Clampett's usage of the word "we" as in "the period we made the first three...Bugs Bunnys..." I think he meant the Schlesinger studio as a whole, and not specifically his animation unit.

Quoted from the Barrier interview:

Clampett: As I recall, Friz was away during the period we made the first three or more Bugs Bunnys, but he returned and was assigned direction on the seventh Bugs Bunny made, which was his first. That was "Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt," an excellent cartoon. (Emphasis added.)

Hey, I don't mind people complaining about Clampett's behavior, but at least complain about the things he actually did. Let's not read bad behavior into innocuous statements, though.

Sorry, I seem to recall Clampett making a different statement. My mistake.

J Lee

03-02-2008, 12:47 PM

:D :D :D

I agree. It shows how GAC is gone to a superior status. We are now able to discuss quietly and without insults:D
In the past we had too many verbal fights here.

By the way, I ask you this because I was always curious about it.
Jones made a star, Charlie Dog, outta the dog in Clampett's "Porky's Pooch".
Rarely this fact is mentioned.
"Little Orphan Airedale" is basically a remake of Clampett's picture, with just a few changes.
Anyone knows about it?
Did Jones ever say that Clampett at night entered in his office, stole the storyboards for the cartoon Jones was working on and then happy-go-lucky runned away with a "Nyah-nyah-nyah. It's mine now"?:D
Did Clampett ever say that one night, 't was raiing outside, Jones came into his house, crying to obtain the permission to use that character, Clampett said "Go ahead, you lower lifeform you, go ahead", Jones kissed his feet and
then happy-go-lucky runned away with a "Nyah-nyah-nyah. It's mine now"?
Seriously, anyone know more? This looks like pretty interesting stuff to discuss about.

The argument on this board nine years ago (God, this never ends) over whether or not Clampett learned anything about story construction from the other directors devolved into an argument between Steve Worth and I on whether or not Clampett had slowed his cartoons down in the 1941-42 period to improve on his (IMHO) weak stories in most of his 1939-40 B&W Looney Tunes. Steve took the position that by 1940, Clampett didn't need to learn anything from anybody (much less Friz Freleng, upon his return to the studio), while I pointed out at the time that there was no way Chuck Jones could have remade a Bob Clampett cartoon from 1939 or 1943, but he was able to do a virtual point-for-point remake of "Porky's Pooch" as "Little Orphan Airdale" because Bob slowed down his pacing when he was making the transition from all B&W to color cartoons.

As for doing the borrowing, Warners (and Paramount, and even Disney) saw no problems in the 1940s in saving time and money by remaking their best B&W cartoons in color, since by 1944 there was no longer any market for theatrical B&W cartoons. Clampett remade a couple of his own B&W efforts, but even before Bob left the studio, Friz got credit for remaking Clampett's "Injun Trouble", and Freleng later did a semi-remake of Tashlin's "Puss N' Booty" (of course, he also remade "Porky In Wackyland", but no director's credit was given there).

Matt the Y

03-02-2008, 01:13 PM

but even before Bob left the studio, Friz got credit for remaking Clampett's "Injun Trouble", and Freleng later did a semi-remake of Tashlin's "Puss N' Booty" (of course, he also remade "Porky In Wackyland", but no director's credit was given there).

You mean "Scalp Trouble", not "Injun Trouble". "Scalp Trouble" was the Clampett cartoon Friz re-made in 1944 as "Slightly Daffy". "Injun Trouble" was Clampett's own cartoon that he re-made in 1945 as "Wagon Heels".

gdX

03-02-2008, 01:21 PM

"Hollywood Cartoons"... even-handed in regards to controversial topics.

"Clampett was at the beginning not fully in control... Jones filled the gap... Some of the animators... speak of them as codirectors... Clampett emphatically rejected Jones's account..."

Yosemite Sam... No mention of Red Hot Ryder Thanks.

Hollywood Cartoons is one of the few books I haven't read... sorta stopped collecting them some years ago in favor of nosing around the web.

So while the book may be more careful to not buy into one man or the other, I get the sense from the interviews posted on his blog/site that generally buys Clampett's claims (with occasional disclaimer updates) and is somewhat wary of Jones' claims for all his obvious grudges.

Just curious if this high-visibilty published researcher has a more current, better-informed POV... or do we all simply have to take every interviewee's claims with a grain of salt, and expect to never fully document who did what with any accuracy?

I guess we're running out of people to talk to.

:ham:

Duck Dodgers

03-02-2008, 01:32 PM

As for doing the borrowing, Warners (and Paramount, and even Disney) saw no problems in the 1940s in saving time and money by remaking their best B&W cartoons in color, since by 1944 there was no longer any market for theatrical B&W cartoons. Clampett remade a couple of his own B&W efforts, but even before Bob left the studio, Friz got credit for remaking Clampett's "Injun Trouble", and Freleng later did a semi-remake of Tashlin's "Puss N' Booty" (of course, he also remade "Porky In Wackyland", but no director's credit was given there).

Yeah, of course.
What I meant was that, due to the fact that the two couldn't exactly be considered friends, it seemed strange that Jones would have made a remake of a Clampett's cartoon.
However, I should have to consider the possibility that the arguments between the two started only when both were older and when Clampett started to claim he indeed created Porky, Daffy, Bugs, Sniffles, Sam, Sylvester, the telephone and several planets.

mmtper

03-02-2008, 01:37 PM

Can I, in a polite and non-insulting way, quite respectfully disagree with you?

Two OF the greatest, certainly. But the two greatest? That is a matter of personal opinion.

.

Oh yes, yes, please disagree if you feel this way. This part is just my opinion, which will get you a free cup of coffee at Starbucks (with an additional 5 bucks, of course:) ). In those "what's the ten best directors" lists, I always put Jones first and Clampett second. All the usual suspects (Avery, Freleng, Tashlin, McKimson, H&B) come later, and I usually try to include Disney's Wilfred Jackson and maybe David Hand in the mix. And I'm a Fleischer fan, too!

Trying to clarify my thoughts, I guess, I've come up with this: If Chuck & Bob were scientists, or politicians, or religious leaders, or gangsters, etc. but still had the same career patterns, their story would still be fascinating human drama, if ultimately, a little sad or pathetic.

A question I've never heard a really good answer too: how did Clampett earn money in his last decade or so? Was it mostly from college appearances?

Thad

03-02-2008, 01:54 PM

A question I've never heard a really good answer too: how did Clampett earn money in his last decade or so? Was it mostly from college appearances?

Yup. Bobbie Clampett whines about all the financial hardships his dad had over Beany & Cecil in the one section of Barrier's site. None of the people I know who were friends with Clampett got the impression he was any less than well-off. He had a beautiful home in the Hollywood hills.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 02:35 PM

Yup. Bobbie Clampett whines about all the financial hardships his dad had over Beany & Cecil in the one section of Barrier's site. None of the people I know who were friends with Clampett got the impression he was any less than well-off. He had a beautiful home in the Hollywood hills.
Thad,

Clampett probably bought that house when he was earning a great salary -- say as producer for the Time For Beany puppet show. He could have used up most of his savings by the time the sixties came along, when he no longer had steady work.

I think his studio also made animated TV commercials, once the Beany and Cecil animated cartoons was done. I don't know how much he would have earned form that.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 02:48 PM

Purleeze. "Wabbit stories in 1931"? That should have sounded bogus even considering the time and context of the interview to the uninitiated.
Read the interview carefully. Clampett said, "Here, I'll show you one of those 1931 sketches on which I changed the original inscription of "Rudy Rabbit" to "Wudy Wabbit." (Emphasis added.)

So it orginally read as "Rudy Rabbit" and Clampett changed the inscription sometime after the success of Elmer Fudd.

Thad

03-02-2008, 03:01 PM

larriva9/11

03-02-2008, 03:14 PM

However, I should have to consider the possibility that the arguments between the two started only when both were older and when Clampett started to claim he indeed created Porky, Daffy, Bugs, Sniffles, Sam, Sylvester, the telephone and several planets.

Oh, and you forgot the Internet. Maybe Al Gore should sue Clampett's estate:D

Thad

03-02-2008, 03:20 PM

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 03:29 PM

And he also said:
"During the ensuing month or two, I thought up a steady stream of "wabbit" hunting jokes, some of which reached the screen seven years later in the first Bugs Bunny cartoon."

Suuuurrre.
Well, that's all hearsay. Did some of the gags at Rudy Ising's expense end up in Porky's Hare Hunt? I don't know. But there does seem to be a contradiction here by Clampett. He also said that some left over gags from Porky's Duck Hunt were used by him for the new Hardaway hare hunting cartoon.

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 03:35 PM

What also got ignored in this discussion, re: Friz using Bugs as an 'amoral heckler' is that he was developing Bugs into a much richer character (with Mike Maltese) in cartoons like Little Red Riding Rabbit, Hare Trigger, and Baseball Bugs.... All done while Clampett was at the studio.
You don't think what Bugs does to Red Riding Hood at the end of the cartoon is not amoral? It's funny 'cause she's annoying, but she doesn't represent a threat to him.

I also don't think Bugs is amoral or an unmotivated Woody Woodpecker type heckler in Clampett's Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid, The Old Gray Hare, Falling Hare, What's Cookin' Doc?, A Corny Concerto, & The Big Snooze.

J Lee

03-02-2008, 03:39 PM

You mean "Scalp Trouble", not "Injun Trouble". "Scalp Trouble" was the Clampett cartoon Friz re-made in 1944 as "Slightly Daffy". "Injun Trouble" was Clampett's own cartoon that he re-made in 1945 as "Wagon Heels".

You're right -- not double-checking the post got me in "Trouble" trouble. :rolleyes:

J Lee

03-02-2008, 03:52 PM

You don't think what Bugs does to Red Riding Hood at the end of the cartoon is not amoral? It's funny 'cause she's annoying, but she doesn't represent a threat to him.

I also don't think Bugs is amoral or an unmotivated Woody Woodpecker type heckler in Clampett's Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid, The Old Gray Hare, Falling Hare, What's Cookin' Doc?, A Corny Concerto, & The Big Snooze.

The problem with Clampett's 1944 Bugs cartoons is he dishes out more than his designated opponent (the Russian dog, Elmer and Red-Hot Ryder) deserves, which is why Barrier labels Bugs as a bully in those cartoons. In Freleng's "Little Red Riding Rabbit" (with Maltese) and "Hare Force" (with Pierce), Bugs hangs a teenage girl over burning coals and throws an old woman out into the snow to freeze, which on paper (or a forum message board) sound horrible.

But those endings work because Friz makes Red and proto-Granny annoying enough to the audience so that we want to see somthing bad happen to them, and Freleng leaves the ending so that the bad things are merely implied. In Bob's 1944 Bugs shorts, he puts it all on screen for us to see (except for the shaking end-title explosion), so that there's nothing left to the imagination. "Bucaroo Bugs" doesn't bother me as much as the other two, since Ryder is buried, but not dead at the cartoon's end, as in "Hare Ribbin'" and "The Old Gray Hare" (Clampett did a number of cartoons in the 1944-45 period where death is a main end gag, but where you could have the Gremlins kill Hitler or the little man from the draft board follow Daffy into Hell, those type of endings just weren't right for Bugs).

Clampett's first cartoon with Bugs showed him as an unmotivated heckler, but the heckling he did was really pretty tame, and there's a large chunk of the cartoon were Bugs doesn't appear at all while Elmer fends off the bear. So we can enjoy the cartoon without thinking Bugs is really being unfair to camper Fudd. And his Bob's last WB cartoon, he uses a dream sequence to really give it to Elmer, so that the actions can fly off towards Wackyland surrealism, while the motivation to keep the Bugs-Elmer team together, is unique and very self-aware in a way that brings the audience in better than the cartoons from 18 months earlier.

nickramer

03-02-2008, 04:34 PM

I think this thread and the opinions are quite interesting. More interesting than your usual moaning about "why you dared to say this" posts.

Hey at least I'm not the one who critcizes people's hypathetical list of cartoons that will be on the next Golden Collection.

oceansoul

03-02-2008, 05:18 PM

Hey at least I'm not the one who critcizes people's hypathetical list of cartoons that will be on the next Golden Collection.

Then be proud to yourself. :)

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 05:45 PM

The problem with Clampett's 1944 Bugs cartoons is he dishes out more than his designated opponent (the Russian dog, Elmer and Red-Hot Ryder) deserves, which is why Barrier labels Bugs as a bully in those cartoons....In Bob's 1944 Bugs shorts, he puts it all on screen for us to see (except for the shaking end-title explosion), so that there's nothing left to the imagination. "Bucaroo Bugs" doesn't bother me as much as the other two, since Ryder is buried, but not dead at the cartoon's end, as in "Hare Ribbin'" and "The Old Gray Hare" (Clampett did a number of cartoons in the 1944-45 period where death is a main end gag, but where you could have the Gremlins kill Hitler or the little man from the draft board follow Daffy into Hell, those type of endings just weren't right for Bugs).
Well, those characters aren't really dead in the traditional sense, since they pop back to life for a closing gag. The dog in Hare Ribbin' stops the iris out to make a comment after he shot himself. Even Hitler pops up from the grave in Russian Rhapsody and has to be hammered back down by a gremlin. I also never thought Elmer died at the end of The Old Gray Hare, since he's survived so many blasts and explosions in the past. It seemed more like that bomb was one more indignity to suffer.

I also never thought of Bugs as a bully in those cartoons, but I won't argue with others if they feel that he was.

mmtper

03-02-2008, 09:04 PM

Well, those characters aren't really dead in the traditional sense, since they pop back to life for a closing gag. The dog in Hare Ribbin' stops the iris out to make a comment after he shot himself. Even Hitler pops up from the grave in Russian Rhapsody and has to be hammered back down by a gremlin. I also never thought Elmer died at the end of The Old Gray Hare, since he's survived so many blasts and explosions in the past. It seemed more like that bomb was one more indignity to suffer.

I also never thought of Bugs as a bully in those cartoons, but I won't argue with others if they feel that he was.

May I respectfully & totally agree with J. J. on this? I, too, never thought the characters were really, really dead in these cartoons, not even Hitler. In cartoons, a guy isn't dead unless you see them in the clouds with wings & a harp (or a "red union suit"). Clampett, I feel, always looked at his characters as actors in a film, which is why he thought he could abuse them so much, because they'll suddenly turn to the camera (thus the audience) and say "Gruesome, isn't it?' or "I'd better cut this out, I'll start to like it!" to show they've read the script in advance. Don't worry, I'm only a cartoon! No matter what happens, I'll be back is the message.

As for Bugs the Bully, the Clampett's I think fit that bill are Wabbit Twouble & The Wacky Wabbit, two early efforts where Elmer is just minding his own business. In the other cases, Bugs's victims have come looking for trouble and Bugs is merely defending himself (though he has a great time doing it).

And Red Hot Ryder's own horse abuses him more than :bugs2: does. Talk about bullies!

J Lee

03-02-2008, 09:28 PM

Well, obviously, someone thought even the dog's iris out line wasn't enough to overcome what came immedately before that, or else we wouldn't have gotten the Director's Cut version of "Hare Ribbin'" on LTGC Vol. 5.

The revised version is better in terms of who Bugs is, and what the standard WB chase-and-violence formula is -- i.e. it's funnier when the villian does himself in (by suicide or otherwise) than to have the cartoon's "hero" off him before the picture ends. But Clampett's story department, as far as understanding what did and didn't work with Bugs, seemed to go off the rails a bit when Warren Foster was taken off full-time duty with Bob's unit to split time with Clampett and Tashlin.

Clampett's two Bugs cartoon with the fat Elmer came in the period when he was still pacing his cartoons slower, with less physical interaction, which IMHO works better with Bugs, because he's not really a character who physically interacts with his opponent other than the counter-intuitive kiss on the lips -- Bugs normally does in his foes through trickery, which can get pretty violent, but not in a hands-on way.

Senior citizen Bugs can gruesomely choke Elmer in "The Old Gray Hare" and it's OK, because we're dealing with two older and supposedly infirm version of the characters, so the shock value makes us laugh. Regular-looking Bugs pulling Red-Hot Ryder's fillings from his mouth and then smashing him to the ground ... well, that may be one step too far over the line (something Friz and Maltese get around in "Little Red Riding Rabbit", by silhouetting Bugs under the wolf's nightgown when he burns his butt with the hot coals -- we see what's going on, but we don't really see what's going on).

samtheq

03-02-2008, 10:01 PM

One thing that I can't help asking about from the Jones letter is Clampett's claim to have written "over 1,000 songs"! I mean, I recall that he claims to have written the (very simplistic) "Food Around the Corner" ditty the Hobo Flea sings, but can anybody name any of the other (over) 999 songs? Enquiring minds want to know!

brant

J. J. Hunsecker

03-02-2008, 10:26 PM

Mark J

03-02-2008, 11:13 PM

Wonderful letter! Thanks for posting it Jim!

JIM ENGEL

03-03-2008, 12:01 PM

Yeah, of course.
What I meant was that, due to the fact that the two couldn't exactly be considered friends, it seemed strange that Jones would have made a remake of a Clampett's cartoon.
However, I should have to consider the possibility that the arguments between the two started only when both were older and when Clampett started to claim he indeed created Porky, Daffy, Bugs, Sniffles, Sam, Sylvester, the telephone and several planets.

I believe they WERE friends originally, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt that. They're giddily posed in pix together, and I believe (unless i'm recalling wrong) that Barrier printed a sketch that showed Chuck & Bob "walking" with their backs together to keep from geting stabbed in the back by anybody ELSE.

Chuck Fiala & I once asked the Clampetts about the whole "feud", and Bob said that in fact he & Jones had been great friends and even roomates.

Bob & Sody felt (and i DO believe this is a huge part of Jones' animosity, ASIDE from FUNNYWORLD, supposedly getting screwed out of "director" credits, etc) that there was a lot of resentment and jealousy of Clampett's post-Termite Terrace success & fame. That's no surprise.

In a nutshell, I think Jones read FUNNYWORLD & flipped out because HE had labored on at WB in relative obscurity for all those years, 'til the bitter end, and now here was Clampett--not content with all his personal success, dipping back into the world he'd LEFT in '46, and not merely jumping on whatever bandwagon that represented, but also OVERSTATING his involvement---making claims to things that weren't HIS, but done by the poor schmoes like Jones who'd stayed on! I have no doubt that it rubbed plenty of salt in Jones' wounds.

Ya know, as a cartoonist (& as a kid), I thought that working at Termite Terrace in the '30s & '40s would've been the dream job of all time. What could be better? All those incredible zany talents making the best cartoons about the best characters of all time??

It was Clampett who told us something I'd never thought about...he said a lot of those guys wanted to sell a COMIC STRIP---something PERSONAL, in their own "voice" that they could own & be famous for. THEIR work. Comic strip artists were CELEBRITIES then.

I was really surprised---you mean there's something better as a cartoonist than working on Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck??? I grew up & realised--yeah, it's working on stuff YOU own, steer, and make the money from. It's trading in your name being in smaller type AFTER a giant WB shield & Leon Schlesinger's name for the booming voice of a sea-serpent SINGING your logo-ed name with a chorus of kids singing along at home.

It's going to some kid's birthday party where Walt Disney's also in attendance, and the kids are more jacked about the Beany & Cecil merchandise you brought for everybody than they are about the Mickey Mouse stuff Disney brought for the same kids.

Artists are in large part motivated by ego. Animation is collaborative, and individuals & egos are sublimated in the very process. Those guys didn't OWN Bugs or Daffy any more than Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko owned the FF or Spider-man. Most animators (and comic book artists) do their greatest work on somebody ELSE'S property. That's frustrating in a lot of ways (and I can personally attest to it).

I'm sure that when FINALLY someone was actually INTERESTED in animation history besides the DISNEY stuff, everybody wanted their career-legitimising day in the sun, and anybody claiming more than their fair share (as Clampett seems to have done) would quickly end up on s**t-lists.

It happened to Stan Lee, too, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Ultimately, though, Jones' stick-to-it-iveness (or lack of personal motivation or need for personal gratification) paid off. Beany & Cecil have shuffled off to obscurity, and the name Clampett evokes THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES to most people.

JONES came as close to a household name as a cartoon director's likely to get. HE had the legion of celebrity admirers. He's the guy most associate w/WB toons. HE (not Clampett, not Freleng, not even AVERY) got a lifetime achievement Oscar. HE became the public celebrity that got all the adulation for an entire studio's output.

Hey, wait---I thought CLAMPETT was Stan Lee!....

Thad

03-03-2008, 12:45 PM

Clampett and Jones used to sunbathe together. That's how they got their skin cancers.

Daws Butler Jr.

03-03-2008, 01:57 PM

That's obviously an exaggeration. But I think Clampett was including work from "Time For Beany" and "Beany and Cecil".

What? Is he taking credit for "Rag Mop", too?

Treadwell

03-03-2008, 02:01 PM

Concerning OLD GRAY HARE, I don't find fault with Bugs' characterization, but rather with the storytelling structure.

In the "present", Elmer daydreams about (or is actually taken to) to the future. Okay, the present is just a vehicle to tell a future story. It would have worked better to just start out in the future to begin with, but fine. But then, future Elmer and future Bugs look at a photo album and flash back to when they were babies! So now we've gone in reverse and passed the point where we started. And while we do get back to the future, we never return to the present. And the flashback had no impact whatever upon the story.

It's like, make up your mind, Bob. If you wanna make a cartoon about the characters in an unconventional time period, then pick one and try to tell a complete story about it.

Thad

03-03-2008, 04:31 PM

What? Is he taking credit for "Rag Mop", too?

LOL!

Daffysleftfoot

03-03-2008, 10:52 PM

It's like, make up your mind, Bob. If you wanna make a cartoon about the characters in an unconventional time period, then pick one and try to tell a complete story about it.

Actually, that's something I love about Clampett's work. He has the audacity to create cartoons that make people say things like the statement above. He starts at Point A, moves in the direction of Point B but then takes a crazy detour into Point C before we realize what happened.

I'd love to make a film like that someday. :cool:

larriva9/11

03-03-2008, 11:29 PM

Ultimately, though, Jones' stick-to-it-iveness (or lack of personal motivation or need for personal gratification) paid off. Beany & Cecil have shuffled off to obscurity, and the name Clampett evokes THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES to most people.

And, coming from a direction opposite Chuck Jones, note how in the annals of clever early 60s limited-animation kiddie TV full of pop-cultural references, Jay Ward wound up overshadowing Bob Clampett.

Fibber Fox

03-04-2008, 02:53 AM

Ultimately, though, Jones' stick-to-it-iveness (or lack of personal motivation or need for personal gratification) paid off. Beany & Cecil have shuffled off to obscurity, and the name Clampett evokes THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES to most people.

I don't think it was stick-to-it-iveness. He simply outlived Clampett. I'm betting it would have been a little different were Clampett still alive, say, in 2001.

DB Jr .. the same thing about Rag Mop crossed my mind.

Rudy911 .. Ward overshadowed Clampett because his cartoons were more readily and regularly available to view than Beany and Cecil, and he came up with more than one cartoon show.

You know, it's funny, I had a Cecil in a Box when I was a kid, and watched Beany and Cecil, but it always struck me as kind of odd. The Ward stuff, by contrast, I always thought was clever and silly and liked it a lot more.

F. Fox.

FleischerFan

03-04-2008, 08:03 AM

Rudy911 .. Ward overshadowed Clampett because his cartoons were more readily and regularly available to view than Beany and Cecil, and he came up with more than one cartoon show.

You know, it's funny, I had a Cecil in a Box when I was a kid, and watched Beany and Cecil, but it always struck be as kind of odd. The Ward stuff, by contrast, I always thought was clever and silly and liked it a lot more.

F. Fox.I think you hit the nail on the head with your final comment. I think Jay Ward's stuff is more readily available because it WAS better than Beany & Cecil (taking nothing away from Beany).

I think Ward's stuff always was aimed at a more adult audience, a hipper audience than Beany and Ward's writers and voice artists really hit such a consistently high mark throughout his various series (maybe Crusader Rabbit not so much).

I think Beany was aimed at a younger audience with the occasional joke aimed at an older segment.

Although if you look at the prices being commanded for that one Beany DVD, there is still quite a loyal following out there.

Thad

03-04-2008, 09:40 AM

I don't think it was stick-to-it-iveness. He simply outlived Clampett. I'm betting it would have been a little different were Clampett still alive, say, in 2001.

Or more people just liked his cartoons more.

Or they prefered the sophisticated blowhard who actually wrote about how animation works over the shill touring colleges in a Tweety jacket telling fairytales.

speedy fast

03-04-2008, 11:36 AM

I was thinking about this thread, and thought about listing all of my favorite Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones cartoons, to see which one directd more cartoons that I like. But then I figured that would be unfair, since Chuck Jones directed a lot more cartoons at Warners than Bob Clampett did.

Geezil

03-09-2008, 09:16 PM

Well, here you go:

http://www.oddballcomics.com/jones_letter.doc

Has anybody else had major trouble getting this to open and/or download? I've logged a half-dozen attempts thus far, and still no go. Thanks in advance for any possible solution.

FleischerFan

03-10-2008, 08:22 AM

Geezil

03-10-2008, 11:37 PM

Geezil:

Nope. Works just fine for me. It does take a little while to load and comes up as a Word Document with the letter being a picture file inserted into the Word Document.

Do you have Microsoft Word on your computer? If not, you won't be able to open the document.

Yep, Microsoft Word is in place here, but attempts 7 and 8 ended the same way as before. If this letter is really worth the struggle, let's see whether there might be another avenue of access.

Chooch

03-11-2008, 12:22 AM

If this letter is really worth the struggle, let's see whether there might be another avenue of access.

Worth the struggle? I dunno . . . . But anyway, here's another avenue:

http://www.mediafire.com/?zmlondrg4tl

Gossamer

03-13-2008, 11:29 PM

And, coming from a direction opposite Chuck Jones, note how in the annals of clever early 60s limited-animation kiddie TV full of pop-cultural references, Jay Ward wound up overshadowing Bob Clampett.

I watched and loved both when I was a kid. I've tried watching Beany as an adult and turned it off after a few minutes.

I can still watch any of Ward's stuff and find it entertaining today.

Bob Clampett, for all his ability when he was at Warner Brothers, had become the equivalent of a "borscht belt" comic by the time he did Beany and Cecil. Ward's stuff is more enduring.

May this find you happy and healthy.

Robert Reynolds
Tucson AZ

larriva9/11

03-14-2008, 09:46 PM

Bob Clampett, for all his ability when he was at Warner Brothers, had become the equivalent of a "borscht belt" comic by the time he did Beany and Cecil. Ward's stuff is more enduring.

Funny thing is, that exotically anachronistic quality (highlighted by the fact that by the time it "hit me", the series was already some years old and relegated to really weird wee-hour timeslots) was probably what drew me more to B&C as a youngster--while not unenjoyable, Jay Ward's oeuvre came across as "too hip by half" by comparison...

J Lee

03-14-2008, 11:45 PM

Clampett's B&C cartoons are far stronger on the visual gags than Ward's cartoons are -- a holdover from Bob's Warner Bros. period. But there's also that diacotomy people like Barrier and others mention with Bob's childish obesssions mixed with gross imagry, which is also mixed in with a decade of work on the KTLA puppet show.

Some of the B&C stories "talk down" to the audience in a way the Ward cartoons don't, which iroincally gives them some of the same "too cute" problems that infected Chuck Jones' cartoons over the years. The excess of corny gags at times seem to come from a combination of having to work within the limits of 1950s television on the original Beany & Cecil show, and the limits of having to deal with 1960s TV budgets (though Bob does get far more visual laughs out of this animation than the people at any of the other studios were doing with their made-for-TV shorts in the early 60s). Ward's cartoons would also throw in corny gags, but like Avery, part of the fun was in the characters themselves acknowlging the gags wre awful.

Jack G.

03-15-2008, 02:47 PM

J. J. Hunsecker

03-15-2008, 03:11 PM

Glad to finally read this letter.
Like others have said, the letter doesn't seem venomous as I expected it.

One thing I'm wondering about. Did Jones just send this letter to Avery?
If he wanted others to back him up, why not send similar letters to Freleng and Bob McKimson?
Jones did send his letter to Avery. That's an interesting point you bring up. I've never heard of a reason why Jones didn't send the letter to Freleng or McKimson to also sign. Maybe because Freleng already made his claims public in interviews, contradicting not only Clampett's version of the history of the Looney Tunes characters, but also some of Jones's. Freleng also stated that he felt Clampett was an innovator, and tried to incorporate some of the things Clampett did in his own cartoons (but toned down, of course). I'm sure that statement didn't please Jones.

*EDIT* I forgot to mention, Jones didn't seem to think too much of McKimson as a director. Perhaps maybe that's why he didn't think to send the letter to him.