Hollywood Cartoons

[Thad]

After putting it off for awhile, I finally managed to grab a cheap copy of Barrier's book, Hollywood Cartoons on eBay. Hole-eee crap. If there's a source for people who have revulsion for animation historians, it's definitley this.

Don't get me wrong. Barrier was invaluable to animation history, interviewing just about everybody alive whoever worked in theatrical animation. But this book comes off as if Barrier hates cartoons (he sure doesn't like a lot of them).

My favorite bits/pieces from this book:

- Barrier's fetish over Grumpy puts any of our own to shame
- Describing the Terrytoon output as 'flaccid'
- UPA gets a whole chapter, while Lantz gets 4 pages, and Terry and Famous get a few paragraphs
- McKimson's animation hurt most of Clampett's color cartoons
- Hatred of the 'sexual undertones' in "Peter Pan"
- Barrier having a problem with the gag of the Fox putting roman candles in the Crow's sandwich in "Plenty Below Zero"
- The sheer 'impossibility' of Jerry being able to kick a frog precisely into Tom's drink, and Tom not noticing sucking the frog through the straw in "Cat Napping"

My reply to most of this is... It's just a f---ing cartoon. Relax. I love reading gushing essays about animation related subjects, but when it's as excessively pessimistic as this book, I don't.

I wish Barrier just published the interviews. There's quotes from John Gentilella, one of my favorite animators, that I've never read anywhere else. I'm sure there's thousands more from various animators.

Rant over and out.

[J. B. Warner]

I read that book two years ago. I couldn't really get through it without constantly muttering to myself "Oh, come on..."

[nickramer]

I agree with you for once, Thad. That book is a snoozefest. Mike just takes too much time on talking about the behind the scenes of these cartoons. I prefer Maltin's book over this since it dosen't get repeitive and is easier to understand.

[Mr. Semaj]

I've only read parts of the book, namely bits about Disney animation from the late 1930's to early 1940's and Warner Bros. animation from the 1940's. And yeah, I remember the line where he says "Terrytoons were flaccid and Famous Studios was rigid".

Michael Barrier is not a bad critic, but the problem with the book, something Steve Worth mentions, is that he obsesses too much on his own subjectives than on the actual HISTORY of animation (Go grab a textbook on American History and see if the editors spout off worthless opinions on racism in the 18th and 19th Centuries).

If you think Barrier's book is bad, you might also want to read Charles Solomon's book, "The History of Animation". :eek:

[Studio Toledo]

Last year, I had borrowed the book from my public library, and it took me nearly a month or so to get though, but I felt it was worth the long time getting through that one. As some had told me, yes, he is rather critical over how he judges certain productions, and often the weaknesses are often drummed up over the strengths of each studio or series.

[Toonami]

What a coincidence, I took it out of the library last week and have been going though bits and piece of it, the parts I'm interested in) Two days ago I started at the beginning and I'm having alot of trouble getting thoguh the Disney history, but the book has inspired me to dig out my old tape of Snow White and see what the fuss is about after 10 years without seeing it. I've really enojyed reading about Clampett and Avery.

[Studio Toledo]

What a coincidence, I took it out of the library last week and have been going though bits and piece of it, the parts I'm interested in) Two days ago I started at the beginning and I'm having alot of trouble getting thoguh the Disney history, but the book has inspired me to dig out my old tape of Snow White and see what the fuss is about after 10 years without seeing it. I've really enjoyed reading about Clampett and Avery.
The Disney portion seemed like a breeze to me! Wait till you get to the part after WWII when they started relying more on live-action filming for their later features! :p

[lonesome-lenny]

I admire Barrier's scholarship, but the guy's a sourpuss. I've thought so ever since I read his essay "Carl Barks And The Art Of The Comic Book," back in the '80s. His commentaries on the LTGC collections are, in a word, glum.

I sometimes wonder why he is so devoted to classic animation if he likes so little of it. Or perhaps he's from that school of criticism in which you must knock more than you boost.

I found his book an interesting read, altho' I, too, uttered "Oh, come on!" about 1,000 times. His complaints seem odd at times and obsessive at others.

It's a frustrating book. It's more substantial than Maltin's OF MICE & MAGIC, yet it seems less of a film history and more of a skewed personal bias disguised as a history.

[Bartman]

I have read his book as well and I guess I'm with the majority here when I say: "RELAX - IT'S A FREAKIN' CARTOON!"

On an ending note and only speaking for myself - I think the stick up his butt has a stick up its butt!!:D

[Sogturtle]

Welllllll I've gently mumbled my two cents worth before...:p But I'll repeat it...

Mike is of absolutely unparallelled importance to animation history and research, bar none (okay except the great Joe Adamson:)). Barrier really started the ball rolling all those years ago for ANY kind of consideration of cartoons as filmic art (others had claimed that for UPA because of their own artistic pretensions :eek:. But Mike's interviews with all the principals involved, and his other research were summits nobody else had ever dared approach before. I'd hoped for years and years that they would be the core of his long, long awaited book, to just let us all read what everybody remembered (no matter how much trouble it created :D)... For all of us animation historians THAT would've been a treasure trove (with pitfalls;)). But woe and alas such was not his feeling or desire... (Though he's a very nice man and quite helpful:)).

Barrier's feeling (keep in mind he's a very intelligent lawyer) is that all cartoons should be held up to THE MOST extreme critical analysis to winnow the field down to the teeniest group of truly great cartoons... Including those of the bonafide creative geniuses/master cartoon directors (Avery, Jones, Clampett, Freleng etc.). I for one have NEVER shared that extreme belief (point of fact I reject it), and actually I try to take a far gentler, more accepting approach of "HEY!!! The bulk of these are designed to make adults laugh:p!! Do they do that?? And to what extent in each case?? Those are what I believe SHOULD be the REAL criteria for critiquing the classics...

Whenever I read his book I actually come away depressed for hours (seemingly on end).:( Siiiiiiiigh...

Thank you Mike for all the great research though!!

[Detroiter]

When people began writing seriously about film in the late 1920's or so, one of the basic purposes was to determine what is good, what is bad, and what the difference is, exactly, between the two.

In live action film, there is a body of critical writing that over the years has given us tools that help us articulate why Alfred Hitchcock (or Ford or Capra or whoever) is a great director and someone like William Beaudine is a shlockmiester. Or why MGM turned out one kind of consistently high quality product and Monogram turned out one kind of consistently low quality product.

That body of writing didn't stand still. The "auteur" theory - that is, the film director is everything - was pretty hot stuff for a number of years. Recent scholarship has called into question how much a director was able to completely control even the smallest film. Such theories ebb and flow in acceptance.

I think that this is what Mike Barrier is trying to do with cartoons: create a critical framework on which to evaluate these films, and then do so. As Sogturtle noted, he was the first to even try this. For example, he puts a high value on the sort of cartoon acting that Bill Tytla accomplishes with Grumpy or Dumbo, and makes positive or negative evaluations of other cartoons in comparison. If you don't agree, that's fine. But instead of decrying his dismissal of cartoons that you may like, come up with some alternative ideas. He says Terrytoons are flaccid. Maybe I disagree, but that in and of itself doesn't make him wrong. Why is he wrong?

But all the critical theory may be beside the point when we sit down and watch a movie. We might both think that a Hitchcock film like ROPE is a badly acted yawn-fest and that Beaudine's Bowery Boys films could be pretty entertaining. I've been watching the Terrytoons lately, and I come to the same conclusion that I did when I was a little kid. I like them. At the same time, Famous has never done much for me. Why? I'm not sure yet. Ultimately for each of us, though, the important question is "Did I like this?"

Frank

[cpdavison]

For example, he puts a high value on the sort of cartoon acting that Bill Tytla accomplishes with Grumpy or Dumbo, and makes positive or negative evaluations of other cartoons in comparison. If you don't agree, that's fine. But instead of decrying his dismissal of cartoons that you may like, come up with some alternative ideas. He says Terrytoons are flaccid. Maybe I disagree, but that in and of itself doesn't make him wrong. Why is he wrong?

That's exactly what folks like Thad, Larry, John K, et al are doing via their blogs.

But all the critical theory may be beside the point when we sit down and watch a movie. We might both think that a Hitchcock film like ROPE is a badly acted yawn-fest and that Beaudine's Bowery Boys films could be pretty entertaining. I've been watching the Terrytoons lately, and I come to the same conclusion that I did when I was a little kid. I like them. At the same time, Famous has never done much for me. Why? I'm not sure yet. Ultimately for each of us, though, the important question is "Did I like this?" Frank

Bingo, sir! (And Beaudine had a long, storied career pre-Monogram...)

[rex racer]

Welllllll I've gently mumbled my two cents worth before...:p But I'll repeat it...

Mike is of absolutely unparallelled importance to animation history and research, bar none (okay except the great Joe Adamson:)). Barrier really started the ball rolling all those years ago for ANY kind of consideration of cartoons as filmic art (others had claimed that for UPA because of their own artistic pretensions :eek:. But Mike's interviews with all the principals involved, and his other research were summits nobody else had ever dared approach before. I'd hoped for years and years that they would be the core of his long, long awaited book, to just let us all read what everybody remembered (no matter how much trouble it created :D)... For all of us animation historians THAT would've been a treasure trove (with pitfalls;)). But woe and alas such was not his feeling or desire... (Though he's a very nice man and quite helpful:)).

Barrier's feeling (keep in mind he's a very intelligent lawyer) is that all cartoons should be held up to THE MOST extreme critical analysis to winnow the field down to the teeniest group of truly great cartoons... Including those of the bonafide creative geniuses/master cartoon directors (Avery, Jones, Clampett, Freleng etc.). I for one have NEVER shared that extreme belief (point of fact I reject it), and actually I try to take a far gentler, more accepting approach of "HEY!!! The bulk of these are designed to make adults laugh:p!! Do they do that?? And to what extent in each case?? Those are what I believe SHOULD be the REAL criteria for critiquing the classics...

Whenever I read his book I actually come away depressed for hours (seemingly on end).:( Siiiiiiiigh...

Thank you Mike for all the great research though!!



Yep, what's lacking in Mr. Barrier's writing style is a amplification of the spirit of what animated cartoons are usually about, namely joyous goofing off ! :p

Actually I found Mr. Barrier's book a fine read, but like you, really wished he'd provided an less filtered presentation of his extensive research. Thankfully we've his website for referencing some of his interviews, but that's probably only the tip of the iceberg. www.michaelbarrier.com (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/)

[Thad]

We're all allowed our opinions, sure, but these are cartoons we're talking about. We don't need to dissect them on the terms of physical and human reality.

This book was like one long memory of my childhood of watching cartoons with my cousin. He loved those Jack Hannah Donald vs. Chip n' Dale cartoons, which are fine and funny, but for the most part bland, but when we watched MGM Tex Avery shorts, it was always "Oh that could never really happen in real life..":rolleyes:

Really, that may be suitable as some sort of dark, twisted observation from an eight year-old, but what's Barrier's excuse?

[Detroiter]

We're all allowed our opinions, sure, but these are cartoons we're talking about. We don't need to dissect them on the terms of physical and human reality.

This book was like one long memory of my childhood of watching cartoons with my cousin. He loved those Jack Hannah Donald vs. Chip n' Dale cartoons, which are fine and funny, but for the most part bland, but when we watched MGM Tex Avery shorts, it was always "Oh that could never really happen in real life..":rolleyes:

Really, that may be suitable as some sort of dark, twisted observation from an eight year-old, but what's Barrier's excuse?

I don't think the point is that it couldn't happen in real life. Rabbits don't walk on two legs, stand up to bullies and say "What's up, Doc" in real life.
A dwarf with a nose half the size of his head with serious anger issues to boot doesn't really exist. But when handled by the masters, at the top of their game, Bugs Bunny or Grumpy are as alive as Cary Grant. And that's the magic of this particular art form. A flurry of drawings of things clearly not possible produces something that our brains tell us is alive. And the more real the character - Snow White, Gulliver - the less alive it seems.

To write a scholarly, comprehensive history of anything, decisions have to be made as to what is and isn't important. Barrier decided that Disney, Warners, MGM and UPA were the most important cartoon studios, and they're front and center. I can't say that he's not right. There are more books on Charlie Chaplin then on Lloyd Hamilton. Lloyd who? you ask. Hamilton was a well respected comedian who worked from the teens into the thirties and drank himself to death. Chaplin and Keaton both admired him greatly. But he died young, had career setbacks and most of his films are gone. That there are no books about Lloyd Hamilton doesn't mean he wasn't important or wasn't good. But he is obscure, and film writing leaves him out.

Ultimately, I think a book twice the size of HOLLYWOOD CARTOONS could easily have been written, giving much more extended treatment to the other studios. Given the time the book took to write, I suspect a much longer book probably in fact was written, and edited down to huge. There is a lot about the Mintz/Screen Gems, Iwerks, Lantz, Harman-Ising, Terry and Fleischer/Famous cartoons, and about Disney, Warner, MGM and UPA for that matter, that has yet to be said. Which is what we are all doing, isn't it?

So Thad, what are the top ten reasons that Barrier was wrong about Terrytoons, given that he does praise Jim Tyer?

Frank

[Thad]

So Thad, what are the top ten reasons that Barrier was wrong about Terrytoons, given that he does praise Jim Tyer?

Barrier does not praise Tyer in the sense that he was an absolutley fantastic animator in his own right, only in comparison to the "cynical hackwork" of the other animators.

Maybe it comes off as if I have a problem with Barrier not liking Terrytoons. Wrong. Leonard Maltin doesn't like them either, but at least he gave the studio a decent amount of history. Barrier doesn't do that.

I don't think I can come up with a "top ten reasons why Barrier is wrong about Terrytoons" :rolleyes: because I don't even like them that much.

My other main problem is how the book is passed off as a history textbook, when it's really just a book of personal fetishes on Disney and Warner animation. Other studios are screaming for attention, and Barrier could've did them justice. But he chose not to.

Go buy Maltin's book. It's a far more easier read and better history than anything out there. I wish he'd revise his book!!!

[Studio Toledo]

Welllllll I've gently mumbled my two cents worth before...:p But I'll repeat it...

Mike is of absolutely unparallelled importance to animation history and research, bar none (okay except the great Joe Adamson:)). Barrier really started the ball rolling all those years ago for ANY kind of consideration of cartoons as filmic art (others had claimed that for UPA because of their own artistic pretensions :eek:. But Mike's interviews with all the principals involved, and his other research were summits nobody else had ever dared approach before. I'd hoped for years and years that they would be the core of his long, long awaited book, to just let us all read what everybody remembered (no matter how much trouble it created :D)... For all of us animation historians THAT would've been a treasure trove (with pitfalls;)). But woe and alas such was not his feeling or desire... (Though he's a very nice man and quite helpful:)).

Barrier's feeling (keep in mind he's a very intelligent lawyer) is that all cartoons should be held up to THE MOST extreme critical analysis to winnow the field down to the teeniest group of truly great cartoons... Including those of the bonafide creative geniuses/master cartoon directors (Avery, Jones, Clampett, Freleng etc.). I for one have NEVER shared that extreme belief (point of fact I reject it), and actually I try to take a far gentler, more accepting approach of "HEY!!! The bulk of these are designed to make adults laugh:p!! Do they do that?? And to what extent in each case?? Those are what I believe SHOULD be the REAL criteria for critiquing the classics...

Whenever I read his book I actually come away depressed for hours (seemingly on end).:( Siiiiiiiigh...

Thank you Mike for all the great research though!!

That's how I look to the book as well, I come out being depressed too that I now knoe WAY too much over the ins and outs of a cartoon and it becomes less enjoying to watch them outside of a few screenings, but I can get them in my head to a point that I look more for the technique or other interesting tidbits I could cypher from it.

[Mr. Semaj]

If we're going to give a full, comprehensive study on the history of animation, we have got to put our actual sentiments on the cartoons aside.

If a person wants to read about Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland, what WILL matter was that the film WAS a failure in its debut, and that it was a major pain for most of the animators who worked on it. But nobody wants to read some unknown author babbling endlessly about how "This film is all wrong, because it betrayed the classic Lewis Caroll novels, etc."

History need FACTS, not opinions. Opinions are what we have Arts & Entertainment articles in our newspapers and magazines for.

[Bamse]

As someone who has done some history writing (not on cartoons, though), I am sorry, but "FACTS, not opinions" is unaccomplishable in real life. A historian, even though he may be aiming for objectivity (whatever that means), necessarily has to choose which facts to include and how to interprete them in order to write a coherent text. This means deciding what is important and what isn't (opinions!), and, (and this is often the sign of a good history writing), giving an explanation on what grounds the choice is made. Attempting to explain Hollywood animation to the (film-)scholarly community, as opposed to writing purely for the enjoyment of animation fans, it is understandable that Barrier chose to concentrate only on what he thinks are the most artistically accomplished or innovative periods and films in the history of the genre, rather than writing in the aficionado-style that gets overtly obsessed with obscure details. Whether he gave good enough reasons for his choices and whether he practiced what he preached is up for debate, but his book is certainly the most serious take on Hollywood animation that I know of.

[lonesome-lenny]

As I said earlier, I admire Barrier's scholarship. He certainly had a knack for getting great interviews from surviving cartoon filmmakers. But, as with his treatise on Carl Barks, there is a joylessness to the Hollywood Cartoons book.

It's an impressive effort, in terms of tying together all the disparate stories of the various studios. I appreciate the utter lack of wide-eyed, jeepers-creepers fanboy mentality. But Barrier seems to suffer from anhedonia. In all his writings, I find a smothering lack of enjoyment.

This tight-lipped, grim viewpoint would serve a history of World War II, or some other historical event. But to apply it to Carl Barks' comics, or Warner Brothers cartoons, seems utterly incongruous with the subject matter.

I think the book has more content than Maltin's OMAM, but neither of them really satisfy me, in terms of providing a reliable, compelling history of the studio cartoon era. Maltin's is too lightweight and fannish; Barrier's too joyless and gruff.

I've written about these cartoons myself. I wrote a paper on Tex Avery's MGM cartoons in college, and I've written several newspaper articles on various classic cartoons. It's not easy to convey in words the mixture of catharsis and vibrancy that comprises the animation viewing experience. But it can be done.

Barrier's book often reads like a surgical report by a slightly squeamish medical assistant. It's as if he feels embarrassed by his interest in animation, and has to temper it with a harshness and gravity. If he'd found a middle ground, his efforts would ring truer to me.

[Jack G.]

I finished up this book a couple weeks ago.

I would call the book informative and well researched. I learned a few things.

But the book is incredibly critical.
I don't think any cartoon Barrier discussed in detail didn't have some critical comment made about it.
In that respect it was kind of disappointing. I know the cartoons aren't perfect - but come on!
Reading the book only enforces the reason I don't like his commentaries on the Golden Collections.

I do give Barrier credit for conducting interviews while these talented people were still alive. He should compile them and release that.

Leonard Maltin's book is still my fave, because all the studios get a fair shake. And Leonard has the enthusiasm of a fan.

[Toonami]

>My other main problem is how the book is passed off as a history textbook, when it's really just a book of personal fetishes on Disney and Warner animation. Other studios are screaming for attention, and Barrier could've did them justice. But he chose not to.

It was a CRITICAL HISTORY.

I heard there's gonna be a documentary about Michael Barrier on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection vol. 4. Let's hope Mr. Thad K is not involved.

[Thad]

I heard there's gonna be a documentary about Michael Barrier on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection vol. 4. Let's hope Mr. Thad K is not involved.

Who told you that? And who'd actually watch it?

[Toonami]

I heard there's gonna be a documentary about Michael Barrier on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection vol. 4. Let's hope Mr. Thad K is not involved.


Hey! What have you got against Thad Kausler?

[Thad]

Oh I get it, lame joke. Hahaha!

I don't hate Mike Barrier, bud, sorry to tell you. Didn't I say I have utmost respect for him for what he did for animation history? Or actually, creating such a thing as it?

The book doesn't come off like that. It's just a book of opinions. That's fine, but putting every thing ever animated up to such astronomical standards of human reality is just crazy.

[Javeman]

Hey! What have you got against Thad Kausler?It wasn't funny the first time, what made you think it would be funny the second?

[Thad]

Frank asked me ten reasons why Mike Barrier is wrong about Terrytoons, excluding Jim Tyer. In the Thad K fashion, here's my answer...

1. Miami Maniacs
2. Post War Inventions
3. Triple Trouble
4. Cat Happy
5. Barnyard Actor
6. Hare-Breadth Finish
7. The Power of Thought
8. Mother Goose's Birthday Party
9. Blind Date
10. How to Relax

Geezil oughta like that one. :mighty:

[Thad]

BTW if there's any confusion to why I listed "Terrytoons as 'flaccid'" in my list of favorite pieces from the book, it's just that the first thing I think of when I think of Terrytoons is Jim Tyer or Heckle & Jeckle, not erectile disfunction.

[mmtper]

I guess a lot of people were bemused or perplexed by a hefty tome that treated the creation of cartoons with the sobriety of an analysis of the Treaty of Versailles.

[QUOTE=lonesome-lenny]I admire Barrier's scholarship, but the guy's a sourpuss.

There were long passages which I heard in my "mind's ear" read in vinegary tones by the late John Houseman, the actor who played the imperious Professor Kingsley in the movie & TV versions of "Paper Chase" (showing my age there:rolleyes: ). I would start to worry if there was going to be a mid-term test. And I disagree with some of Barrier's conclusions and/or critiques, finding them picayune and/or too harsh. He doesn't appreciate two of my favorites, the Fleischer Popeyes or Friz Freleng. (Sometimes he nails it for me though, like with Clampett & much of Jones).

Yet, when all is said & done, I admire Barrier greatly. The man has devoted over 30 years, most of his adult life, tracking down, interviewing, researching, etc a subject that was treated with near contempt for so many years. He has tried to be scrupulously accurate and has published revisions & corrections at his website. He's paid his dues and is truly entitled to his opinions. His book is a personal, critical history, as most history books are. Don't read just one book or article or website, kids, read lots & lots & lots of 'em. Including Barrier. I look forward to his biography of Disney with anticipation,...and quite a bit of dread.

And Barrier the Man may be more open and flexible than Barrier the Author & Critic. I, too, thought he was the Compleat Sourpuss, and I know he doesn't rate Freleng highly. He probably dismisses the bulk of the Tweety/Sylvester toons as formula dreck, in no way advancing the Mighty Art of the Moving Image. Yet here he is on LTGC1, doing the commentary for Tweety's S.O.S., and during his critique, he starts to chuckle . Maybe it was planned, but it sounds spontaneous to me, like he's suddenly realized that what he's watching may be minor, but it's actually funny.And for that moment I liked Mike Barrier, he's succumbed to just plain fun despite himself.:tweety:

[Studio Toledo]

BTW if there's any confusion to why I listed "Terrytoons as 'flaccid'" in my list of favorite pieces from the book, it's just that the first thing I think of when I think of Terrytoons is Jim Tyer or Heckle & Jeckle, not erectile disfunction.
That's OK, we can see the meaning you were going with.

[Thad]

I just wanted to clarify this though...

I think "Hollywood Cartoons" is the BEST-RESEARCHED book ever written on animation. Barrier is a bright and kind man. But his writing and critiquing is unnecessarily harsh and makes it seem that he hates animation and what it stands for (which I know couldn't be further from the truth).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

We're all allowed our opinions, sure, but these are cartoons we're talking about. We don't need to dissect them on the terms of physical and human reality.

This book was like one long memory of my childhood of watching cartoons with my cousin. He loved those Jack Hannah Donald vs. Chip n' Dale cartoons, which are fine and funny, but for the most part bland, but when we watched MGM Tex Avery shorts, it was always "Oh that could never really happen in real life..":rolleyes:

Really, that may be suitable as some sort of dark, twisted observation from an eight year-old, but what's Barrier's excuse?
Thad, you're too harsh on Barrier. His criticism is thoughtful and well researched, not like you're cousin's, which was based on "realism". Barrier never complains in his book that something in a cartoon "could never happen in real life." When Barrier does criticise a gag in Tom & Jerry, it's because it doesn't work on it's own merit and logic.

I enjoyed Barrier's book and I think it's the best book about the history of animation so far. Yes, it's very critical, but why shouldn't it be? If we really think these cartoons are special then they will hold up against such mordant analysis. Live action films and creators are written about is this manner, why not cartoons and their creators? Because they're supposed to be fun? So are the majority of live action films!

Besides, Barrier likes all the directors and animators that we all like, too. After all his acerbic reviews it's clear that he loves the films of Avery, Clampett, Disney, Jones, etc. I even had a new found appreciation for Freleng, thanks to Barrier's evaluation (basically that Freleng was one of the few directors to give Bugs Bunny an adversary that was worthy of him).

And Thad, Barrier basically seems to be in agreement with you about the merits of UPA.

[Thad]

Too hard? Didn't I just say it was the best researched book out there? But it's definitley not the best overall. Sure I agree with Barrier on various points ("What's Opera Doc?" is "a hollow triumph", "Cinderella is as much a live-action/cartoon feature as Three Caballeros", and yes that UPA blows, I know how to read..), but the overall tone of the book is cynical, and that's the overall consensus with decent people I've talked with.

It's definitley worth having, but it's not a pleasant read.

[J Lee]

Somehwere there's a thread that's about 6-7 years old on the board that goes over the same criticisms about the book when it first came out in 1999. There's really only a handful of cartoons from Disney, Warners and MGM that Barrier seems to believe were truly successful on their own merits, while stuff like the early Fliescher sound cartoons and a handful of others, like "A Wild Hare" seem to be dismissed as happy accidents -- i.e. they were successful, but their creators just stumbled upon their success by chance, which makes those cartoons less worthy of praise.

Michael also gets certain ideas in his head and will make his points even if there's evidence to the contrary available (I see Steve Worth's post about Grim Natwick on this thread over at the Animation History forum that references his and Barrier's 2002 spat at the Animation Nation Board; from a Warners standpoint, he uses Chuck Jones' 1949 cartoon "Long Haired Hare" to highlight the breakthrough collaboration of Jones and storyman Michael Maltese in terms of Bugs' personality/motivational development, after denegrating Jones' earlier work with Tedd Pierce. But he never mentions that the cartoon is merely a reworking and improvement on the 1943 Jones-Pierce cartoon "Case of the Missing Hare", which Barrier takes time to note earlier in the book for its use of stylized backgrounds and color. So it wasn't that he simply forgot or had never seen the first cartoon, but if he had mentioned its plot alongside his mentions of its designs, it would have ruined part of Barrier's later theory on Bugs' development under Jones and Maltese).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Too hard? Didn't I just say it was the best researched book out there? But it's definitley not the best overall. Sure I agree with Barrier on various points ("What's Opera Doc?" is "a hollow triumph", "Cinderella is as much a live-action/cartoon feature as Three Caballeros", and yes that UPA blows, I know how to read..), but the overall tone of the book is cynical, and that's the overall consensus with decent people I've talked with.

It's definitley worth having, but it's not a pleasant read.
Thad~
Your admission that Barrier's book was the best researched wasn't posted when I was typing my defense of "Hollywood Cartoons".

I disagree that the tone of the book is cynical. Barrier doesn't seem contemptuous of classic cartoons. He praises as much as he condemns certain animated shorts and features. He may be hypercritical, but it's backed up by lucid analysis.