MGM's "The Dot And The Line"

[jlppr]

i just saw this short after years since the last time. it is a very simple cartoon yet very well done. i enjoyed much better than i used to. good way to teach about shapes and from there even a little math. chuck jones did a great a job and received a well deserved oscar for this short. released in 1965.

[Glowworm]

It is indeed a very enjoyable cartoon for me. The story actually did come from an actual book of the same plot and title.

[jlppr]

yeah i saw that.

[frizfrelengfan]

I like this one a lot. I recorded it off the old Chuck Jones Show on CN. Some people don't care for it. I like the story, and the droll narration by British actor Robert Morley (best known in the U.S. for British Airways commercials). And the amazing part to me is the fact that all those geometric drawings were done without the help of a computer.

[jlppr]

wow to do those shaped without a computer really takes a lot of talent. don't know how people don't care much about this short. it truly is a masterpiece. makes me want to read the book just for the fun of it and see what i think. i enjoyed this short much more this time around than when i was a kid

[Ray Pointer]

I like this one a lot. I recorded it off the old Chuck Jones Show on CN. Some people don't care for it. I like the story, and the droll narration by British actor Robert Morley (best known in the U.S. for British Airways commercials). And the amazing part to me is the fact that all those geometric drawings were done without the help of a computer.

I suppose those who don't care for it have a narrow perception of what the animation medium can do. If it's not some BUGS BUNNY cartoon or something like a THREE STOOGES slapstick comedy, it doesn't qualify for them. Perhaps it's too "cerebral," pretentious, or "high brow" for them. The fact is that animated shorts had to become more sophisticated for theaters. This became the trend in the post WWII years until the mid 1960s. The only traditional cartoon shorts for theaters were being produced by Walter Lantz, and DePatie-Freleng. But these cartoons simply could not compare to those from the Golden Age that we embrace here. So the wave of sophisticated animation was simply a new direction to appeal to theater audiences post 1950.

[jlppr]

I suppose those who don't care for it have a narrow perception of what the animation medium can do. If it's not some BUGS BUNNY cartoon or something like a THREE STOOGES slapstick comedy, it doesn't qualify for them. Perhaps it's too "cerebral," pretentious, or "high brow" for them. The fact is that animated shorts had to become more sophisticated for theaters. This became the trend in the post WWII years until the mid 1960s. The only traditional cartoon shorts for theaters were being produced by Walter Lantz, and DePatie-Freleng. But these cartoons simply could not compare to those from the Golden Age that we embrace here. So the wave of sophisticated animation was simply a new direction to appeal to theater audiences post 1950.



the reason i didn't like this cartoon before was because it didn't have a major character like "bugs bunny" or "tom and jerry". when i was a kid that is what i really wanted to see not some cartoon about a line in love with a red circle. but now that i'm older i can look past that and i have found many great cartoons that don't feature a well known character. and often they can actually be better than those that do feature a a major character. i'm not saying this is the best cartoon because it's not, but it is a great one

[Ray Pointer]

the reason i didn't like this cartoon before was because it didn't have a major character like "bugs bunny" or "tom and jerry". when i was a kid that is what i really wanted to see not some cartoon about a line in love with a red circle. but now that i'm older i can look past that and i have found many great cartoons that don't feature a well known character. and often they can actually be better than those that do feature a a major character. i'm not saying this is the best cartoon because it's not, but it is a great one

In 1965, it was considered the "best" considering the competition, which wasn't much. And perhaps we want to avoid the mistake of calling THE DOT AND THE LINE a "cartoon." It's an "animated short," not a "cartoon."

[jlppr]

In 1965, it was considered the "best" considering the competition, which wasn't much. And perhaps we want to avoid the mistake of calling THE DOT AND THE LINE a "cartoon." It's an "animated short," not a "cartoon."


i think it deserved the award. what i meant to say was that it's not the best animated short in all the history of GAC, but i agree it shouldn't be called a "cartoon".

[Studio Toledo]

In 1965, it was considered the "best" considering the competition, which wasn't much. And perhaps we want to avoid the mistake of calling THE DOT AND THE LINE a "cartoon." It's an "animated short," not a "cartoon."
Which is why the academy eventually changed the category name to suit that term in the 70's.

[Ray Pointer]

i think it deserved the award. what i meant to say was that it's not the best animated short in all the history of GAC, but i agree it shouldn't be called a "cartoon".

Then a consideration for "the" best cartoon is history may spawn a new thread.

[larriva9/11]

the reason i didn't like this cartoon before was because it didn't have a major character like "bugs bunny" or "tom and jerry". when i was a kid that is what i really wanted to see not some cartoon about a line in love with a red circle. but now that i'm older i can look past that and i have found many great cartoons that don't feature a well known character. and often they can actually be better than those that do feature a a major character. i'm not saying this is the best cartoon because it's not, but it is a great one

Proof, perhaps, that the kiddie TV/viewing/consumption realm isn't the best platform to either present or consume such fare (also cf. opinions on "Now Hear This")

[jlppr]

Then a consideration for "the" best cartoon is history may spawn a new thread.


never thought about doing a thread on that, but now i'm curious to see what others think may be the best. i'm sure some of the same shorts will be repeated in many people's list.

[jlppr]

Proof, perhaps, that the kiddie TV/viewing/consumption realm isn't the best platform to either present or consume such fare (also cf. opinions on "Now Hear This")



yep that's another cartoon. as a kid i hated it. i still haven't seen it as an adult but i'm on my way since it is in one my sets. some shorts aren't for kids. most kids just look for the cartoon star, if they don't see it then for the most part that short will be dismissed by them. that's basically what i did for many animated shorts. although some will still be captured by them

[WoodpeckerWoody]

but I think calling this cartoon the best in whole history GAC sounds like an insult too lots of great cartoons. I didn't find it that particular funny or great.

[Mr. Semaj]

I suppose those who don't care for it have a narrow perception of what the animation medium can do. If it's not some BUGS BUNNY cartoon or something like a THREE STOOGES slapstick comedy, it doesn't qualify for them. Perhaps it's too "cerebral," pretentious, or "high brow" for them. The fact is that animated shorts had to become more sophisticated for theaters. This became the trend in the post WWII years until the mid 1960s. The only traditional cartoon shorts for theaters were being produced by Walter Lantz, and DePatie-Freleng. But these cartoons simply could not compare to those from the Golden Age that we embrace here. So the wave of sophisticated animation was simply a new direction to appeal to theater audiences post 1950.

Agreed.

The problem is, from the day we were born, we have conditioned ourselves to believe that animation must always always always adhere to the requisites of a comedy. Anything besides that makes it a dud by default. (Animated drama? Forget it.) Disney and UPA, in spite of their ideological differences faced that challenge during their high periods.

Yet we still try to argue that the animated film is a legitimate art form. But my question is, how can we stop the laymen from forever labeling animation as a child's genre when even those in the animation industry won't allow their products to be art?

[jonmayo15]

but I think calling this cartoon the best in whole history GAC sounds like an insult too lots of great cartoons. I didn't find it that particular funny or great.
Nobody called this the best cartoon of the golden age.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

Nobody called this the best cartoon of the golden age.

I didn't read Jipplar is post carefully enough I was quoiting with out quote it. :shame:

[jlppr]

but I think calling this cartoon the best in whole history GAC sounds like an insult too lots of great cartoons. I didn't find it that particular funny or great.

i know it's already been pointed out that i no one said it was the greatest, but i agree. if someone does call this short the best it is an insult to the other even greater shorts that have been created. but IMO this short wasn't really intended to be funny. at least i didn't find it funny at all but that to me just made it even better. it was done very well, with no major character and gags to make you laugh but it still i consider it a masterpiece. i don't think an animated short has to be funny or star a famous cartoon to be a masterpiece. the same goes with anything in the entertainment field.

[Fibber Fox]

i think it deserved the award. what i meant to say was that it's not the best animated short in all the history of GAC, but i agree it shouldn't be called a "cartoon".

Well, to me it consists of filmed drawings of characters engaged in a narrative. That qualifies it as a cartoon as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I've always thought it was a charming, unassuming little piece. Robert Morley does a fine job with the narration and the music track by Gene Poddany augments the action on the screen very nicely.

The problem is, from the day we were born, we have conditioned ourselves to believe that animation must always always always adhere to the requisites of a comedy. Anything besides that makes it a dud by default. (Animated drama? Forget it.)

What? Disney's Snow White is a comedy? ;)

In this particular case, Mr. S., I've read people here talking about watching it on TV as a child and disliking it. That's not surprising. The subject matter is romance, which is not something that attracts too many ten-year-old boys.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[Ray Pointer]

but I think calling this cartoon the best in whole history GAC sounds like an insult too lots of great cartoons. I didn't find it that particular funny or great.

Someone isn't reading. THE DOT AND THE LINE is NOT A CARTOON!
It's and ANIMATED SHORT SUBJECT. It uses moving graphics and camera techniques, but is definately not a cartoon because there is no CARTOONING involved per se.

[Fibber Fox]

Someone isn't reading. THE DOT AND THE LINE is NOT A CARTOON!

Taking your advice, I decided to do some reading. I read the final title card on the film. It says:

"A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Cartoon
Made in Hollywood, U.S.A."

It was probably the line's best role. Certainly better than his performance in the Merrie Melodies opening titles for Warner/Seven Arts.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[Ray Pointer]

Taking your advice, I decided to do some reading. I read the final title card on the film. It says:

"A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Cartoon
Made in Hollywood, U.S.A."

It was probably the line's best role. Certainly better than his performance in the Merrie Melodies opening titles for Warner/Seven Arts.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

It says "A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Cartoon" because that was the label they had for animated shorts. Also, it was a "prestige film" that Jones was able to slip into the distirbution package while he was producing TOM AND JERRY cartoons. But by true definition of a 'cartoon," THE DOT AND THE LINE is not really a cartoon per se, it's an animated film for the reasons mentioned. Once again, you can't always believe what you read nor interpret it literally.

[oceansoul]

I think nobody stated that cartoons must have comedy values to be great. In fact, considering them as a slapstick/comedy is the exact opposite of the common belief which thinks cartoons are for kids.

The most well known animated features (like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Fantasia etc.) are definately NOT comedies. Even considering golden age cartoon shorts, the most well known ones are the visually appealing, or emotional films, which are not particularly famous for their comedic values. Peace on Earth, The Little Match Girl (which happens to be the most well-known Columbia short), The Old Mill, or What's Opera Doc? are not exactly lough-out-loud happy films.

Actually, pure comedy cartoons without groundbreaking animation, artwork, musical score, vocal talent, original plot etc. are largely ignored. There are very very few exceptions, like Tashlin's Porky Pig's Feat, or some of the Tex Avery filmography (Bad Luck Blackie, King-Size Canary), but these must be very special to be rated. Even these are not as famous as most musical shorts, or ones with groundbreaking animation.

I see a bad trend actually, that many people prefer to rate artsy auteur cartoons more, than comedy cartoons.

---

As for Dot and the Line, it's a charming little animated short, worth watching.

[larriva9/11]

some shorts aren't for kids.

Or more that some shorts aren't meant to be presented in a typical "kid's TV" context, repeated ad nauseam--even if "great".

Heck, I felt the same about "One Froggy Evening" as a kid: great cartoon and all, but do they have to be so fixated on its greatness to show it over and over again? It's a little like how the oldies and classic rock radio of yore had a way of getting us sick and tired of "Satisfaction" or "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay" or "Stairway To Heaven", and make us long for deeper and lesser cuts...

[Ray Pointer]

Or more that some shorts aren't meant to be presented in a typical "kid's TV" context, repeated ad nauseam--even if "great".

Heck, I felt the same about "One Froggy Evening" as a kid: great cartoon and all, but do they have to be so fixated on its greatness to show it over and over again? It's a little like how the oldies and classic rock radio of yore had a way of getting us sick and tired of "Satisfaction" or "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay" or "Stairway To Heaven", and make us long for deeper and lesser cuts...

Adding to this, "Familiarity breeds contempt." I feel the same way about many classics that tend to be overexposed. One in particular, if you'll pardon the diversion is KOKO'S EARTH CONTROL. It's as if this is the only
film of that series that exists, or is worth viewing. It makes you wonder when the public gets enough of these things, or how many times it takes for the impact of their greatness to register. Surely people are not quite that dense. I'm willing to expect that the general public has more intelligence and perception than that.

[Mr. Semaj]

I think nobody stated that cartoons must have comedy values to be great.

That's the implication run by too many cartoon fans, where some go further to suggest that the artsy stuff "ruined" the industry.

The Dot and the Line is a perfect example, where the same group would prefer to see Chuck Jones' late 1940's cartoons over his experimental 1960's cartoons.

[jlppr]

Or more that some shorts aren't meant to be presented in a typical "kid's TV" context, repeated ad nauseam--even if "great".

Heck, I felt the same about "One Froggy Evening" as a kid: great cartoon and all, but do they have to be so fixated on its greatness to show it over and over again? It's a little like how the oldies and classic rock radio of yore had a way of getting us sick and tired of "Satisfaction" or "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay" or "Stairway To Heaven", and make us long for deeper and lesser cuts...


one froggy evening was one cartoon that i always did enjoy but i would have to agree there is no need to show it over and over again all that would do is get anybody to end up hating it, the same goes with music, shows, movies, books, whatever you can think of. i used to live in chicago and every year in school it was the same field trips to the same museums by the time i got to the 8th grade i hated going to these places. back in 2000 my family and i moved to florida where we still live. i haven't been back to visit and now i miss going to museums. what happens is that you become sick of these things you've seen countless of times and take it for advantage but if it's scarce you learn to appreciate it more. i think the same thing applies to animation and any other industry for that matter

[frizfrelengfan]

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

The opposite of that is,

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder."

[larriva9/11]

The Dot and the Line is a perfect example, where the same group would prefer to see Chuck Jones' late 1940's cartoons over his experimental 1960's cartoons.

Or maybe more properly, being overly absolutist in such a preference, without considering that both periods might be equally valid (and symbiotic, too) in their own way...

[jlppr]

i was actually fond of all chuck jones cartoons from the early days all the day to the 60's including the tom and jerry shorts. the one cartoon that didn't do it for me though was "the bear that wasn't". i didn't like it as a kid, and i just saw it maybe a couple of weeks back and i wasn't too fond of it. the part that i really hated were when the secretaries kept saying "come in" in that singing voice. i found it annoying.

[Jack G.]

Adding to this, "Familiarity breeds contempt." I feel the same way about many classics that tend to be overexposed. One in particular, if you'll pardon the diversion is KOKO'S EARTH CONTROL. It's as if this is the only
film of that series that exists, or is worth viewing. It makes you wonder when the public gets enough of these things, or how many times it takes for the impact of their greatness to register. Surely people are not quite that dense. I'm willing to expect that the general public has more intelligence and perception than that.Certainly there are other's besides KEC. But as far as being overexposed, I guess I never ran in that circle.
Outside of silent cartoon affectionados and animation historians, who's heard of it?
I've seen KEC maybe twice, so I'm not tired of it at all.

KEC is certainly a film I'd love to get the Inkwell Images treatment along with others from the Inkwell Imps series.
That is, if you ever get the rights to do an Inkwell Imps program. ;)