Any fan of Clampett's Book Revue?

[houserunner]

Any fan of Robert Clampett's Book Revue? This classic is one of my favorite Clampett shorts. I wanna talk about several points for this masterful short.

First, Book Revue is in my opinion, best book covers come to life short in animation history. Other directors did this basic theme many times, but Book Revue clearly high point of that matter. For example, caricatures of Frank Sinatra also appears other classic shorts. Two best examples: Frank Tashlin's Swooner Crooner (my favorite Tashlin short) and Tex Avery's Little Tinker. But I love other shorts as well, Clampett's short shows perfect caricatures of Frank Sinatra and other musical giants. Many love Book Revue's second half more, but I love first half as well. All parodies and caricatures always made me happy. (What about opening drunken cuckoo clock bird, I really love that scene:) )

Second, Book revue has some of the best wild takes in cartoon history. Tex did many incredible takes,too (Little Rural Riding Hood,particular) but Clampett truly showing amazing takes for Book Revue and proving that, he's indeed king of wild takes. ( That daffy became one big eye take simply made my jaw-dropping)

Third, hysterical speed of Book Revue's second half. Nobody ever did more faster than some of Robert Clampett's best shorts. ( Book Revue and The Wise Quaking Duck, two best examples of Clampett's cartoon speed)

And last but not least, daffy duck's manic performance. I think Book Revue is one of daffy's finest efforts. He's incredible scat is amazing. (actually, I'm not an English spoke person. So, sometimes I can't understand what daffy says. But, even then he's still funny:p ) And wolf's closing line is classic.

Book Revue is one of the greatest cartoon shorts of all time. And, Robert Clampett is brilliant animation director showing what true talents is all about.

[oceansoul]

I prefer Great piggy bank robbery and Kitty kornered to this one, but very hilarious short indeed, as always from Clampett.

Like Tex Avery, he was a real heart and soul cartoon director. :daffy:

[BloodyChamp]

LOL is this a serious question? I don't think anyone hates this awesome cartoon. Very few rate it less that phenominal, actually. Of course 10 or 11 people will now reply and say it average but they'll be the only people in the owrld who think so :daffy:

[Marty26]

Hell yeah! This is easily the best "Books Come To Life" short ever. The animation, music, everything is topnotch.

[Matt the Y]

This is far from my favorite Bob Clampett cartoon but it certainly ain't his worst either! I agree with most of the points Houserunner already made about this film and it is an admirable attempt of Clampett's to create an out-and-out funny cartoon.

Best of all, Clampett is still able to push the envelope and be funny without crossing the line into a cartoon that just abandons plot and credibility just for the sake of obnoxious silliness (Sorry, guys. I've never liked Clampett's "Kitty Kornered" for this very reason). Clampett is able to be silly but still times and delivers the cartoon in which his silliness is still credible and, after all, funny!!!

My favorite Clampett cartoons will always be "Wabbit Twouble", "Wagon Heels", and "Great Piggy Bank Robbery". But "Book Revue" is nothing to scoff at either.

[lonesome-lenny]

Clampett was really on a roll with his 1945 and '46 cartoons -- the ones he finished, that is. While I like "The Big Snooze" and "Bacall To Arms," they are unfinished works, and their lack of completion and coherence is evident.

"Book Revue," on the other hand, is one of Clampett's great cartoons. Everything in this cartoon is on fire. It's one of the funniest, most frenetic and zany cartoons ever released. I really, really like Daffy Duck in these late Clampett cartoons. Clampett and his gag writers came up with a superb combination of the early, insane Daffy and the more in-control, scheming Daffy we'd see in the '50s.

"BR" is also one of Clampett's least sloppy jobs as a filmmaker. Every element of it seems in control, and there aren't any raggedy cuts or incomplete/incoherent bits. (Just watch 1941's "Meet John Doughboy" if you want a glimpse at Clampett in recklessly-sloppy mode.)

Along with "Kitty Kornered," "Great Piggy Bank Robbery," "Draftee Daffy," "Baby Bottleneck" and "Gruesome Twosome," "Book Revue" suggests that, had Clampett somehow kept his act together and continued in theatrical animation, he might have really kept things lively at WB well into the '50s.

It's sad that none of his post-WB material meets the potential of his '40s theatrical cartoons. I've come to admire and enjoy Clampett's '40s material -- particularly the '45/'46 cartoons -- as much as I love Avery's MGM cartoons. And that's a whole lotta love.

[frogboxer]

Hell yeah! This is easily the best "Books Come To Life" short ever. The animation, music, everything is topnotch.

I agree. This is one of my all-time favorite Bob Clampett cartoons. Definitely an example of Clampett at his best.

[oceansoul]

Along with "Kitty Kornered," "Great Piggy Bank Robbery," "Draftee Daffy," "Baby Bottleneck" and "Gruesome Twosome," "Book Revue" suggests that, had Clampett somehow kept his act together and continued in theatrical animation, he might have really kept things lively at WB well into the '50s.

It's sad that none of his post-WB material meets the potential of his '40s theatrical cartoons. I've come to admire and enjoy Clampett's '40s material -- particularly the '45/'46 cartoons -- as much as I love Avery's MGM cartoons. And that's a whole lotta love.

Very well said. Clampett's mid-40 toons are the absolute highlight of his carreer, and also the highlight of theatrical animation. Too bad he left the studio so early before the brand new stars of the studio have been born, he should have kept the real Daffy Daffy Duck, and the real Porky Pig alive more, and shouldn't let Tweety to be ruined so badly.

[Sogturtle]

Ohhhhh "Book Revue" is without a doubt an extremely fine and funny cartoon, no two ways about it, it is a genuine classic. And it is a clear fact that the years from 1942 (not just the mid-40's) were the absolute highlight of Bob Clampett's career. BUT in part THAT was because his black and white cartoons from 1938 to the end of '41 were so, well, incredibly spotty... Some GREAT cartoons, some fair ones, and some just plain bad ones where Bob was obviously bored out of his wits and didn't care what the heck he turned out...

...And the bulk of all Clampett's directing of Porky was as a very, very ill-defined sort of character, only his last handful of Porkys show greater characterization. While it is in his Daffy toon "Draftee Daffy" that we first see the craven-coward and utterly-selfish duck appear:daffy:. It's true that "Book Revue" essentially features the "looney" Daffy. But "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery" showed NOT the original "looney" Daffy, but a daydreaming one of much higher I.Q. (basically paving the way for "The Scarlet Pumpernickel"). Sooooo on that basis, I think we can pretty confidently say that Clampett's FUTURE Daffy cartoons would've veered all over the "personality road" if he'd been allowed to stay at Warners.

BUUUUUUT I REALLY have to draw the line on the notion that Clampett's mid-40's toons were the highlight of theatrical animation!:rolleyes: That is just plainly pure opinion and it tremendously slams Tex Avery, Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, Bob McKimson, Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera (at MGM) etc. I'm sorry but I don't rank ol' Bob's comparative handful of Forties cartoons as being vastly higher than any of theirs. And to be fair to all concerned, as much as I love Clampett's cartoons, he is derivative of Tex Avery. Tex is the brilliant, utterly original one, Bob is the wonderful copy. Tex created a number of STAR characters, Bob created one star (Tweety, or two if you want to include Beaky Buzzard).

[oceansoul]

You're right Sog, I have to correct myself. But in my opinion it was really Clampett, along with Tex Avery of course, who started to make theatrical cartoons really funny and highly memorable. For most people the earlier, 30s cartoons from Harman, Ising and other directors aren't really attractive, they simply don't have the terrific animation and fun factor.

That doesn't mean I don't like Jones, Freleng, McKimson, Hanna and Barbera... I love their work in their best years, but did they make a real revolution in animation history? I think no... it was Tex Avery who made it mostly for MGM, and Bob Clampett who made it for Warners. After Clampett's departure, most of the directors (especially the new ones, McKimson and Davis, but for a brief period Jones either) made their work on the same vein as Clampett. They used animation itself as a humour, and their cartoons were all about crazyness, looneyness and laugh. The Jones-revolution in the 50s (intellectualizing cartoons and building formulas) deserves the credit, but it also resulted some negative influences, the plots of the cartoons lost their charm, and originality became very rare.

[Fibber Fox]

I think we can pretty confidently say that Clampett's FUTURE Daffy cartoons would've veered all over the "personality road" if he'd been allowed to stay at Warners.

Sog, in your estimation, is it because Clampett was more interested in gags than a definite personality? Or do you think he just took a random personality trait and then blew it up out of proportion (eg. 'Draftee Daffy')?

FF

[mmtper]

I love this cartoon dearly, and have for over 40 years. Though I should admit that I'm a sucker for "the-store-comes-to-life-at-night" cartoons (Have You Got Any Castles is another favorite). But Book Revue is probably the greatest of the genre.

A few years ago I presented a program at my local public library: three nights of the History of Golden Age Cartoons. I showed cartoons and gave a little lecture between them, approximately 90 minutes each. Part I was McCay, Sullivan & Fleischer, Part II was Disney, Part III was Warners & MGM. I tried to give a fair overview and introduce a neophyte audience to the major directors. I chose Book Revue to represent Clampett. I tried to point out these features:

Clampett had a fast, crazy, pop-eyed, in-your-face energy, very show bizzy, completely willing to be silly for the sake of silliness. He encouraged his animators like Rod Scribner to use bouncy rubbery movement and wild exaggeration (after I showed the whole cartoon, I rewound the tape some and replayed the chewing-on-Riding Hood's-leg-GIANT-eyeball-take again in slow motion, which got a lot of ooohs & ahhhhs & laughs).

There's also brilliant work by Carl Stalling. Note his hairpin turns of moods and collages: a little Beethoven, then musical puns, then some manic big band swing, then some Grand Opera (Donizetti), etc. His contributions really help launch this and many other Warner toons into orbit. Not to mention Mel Blanc...

A great work of art is both of it's time and timeless. Book Revue is a time capsule of 1945, it couldn't have been made much before or much after. With all it's big band leader, Danny Kaye, and Sinatra caricatures it is firmly, stubbornly rooted in the 5th decade of the 20th Century. Yet it can still reach out and tickle & excite & fascinate a little kid in the 1st decade of the 21st Century who doesn't know Gene Krupa from a hole in the wall ( my son, for one). Amazing.:) :) :daffy: :) :)

[Sogturtle]

You're right Sog, I have to correct myself. But in my opinion it was really Clampett, along with Tex Avery of course, who started to make theatrical cartoons really funny and highly memorable. For most people the earlier, 30s cartoons from Harman, Ising and other directors aren't really attractive, they simply don't have the terrific animation and fun factor.

That doesn't mean I don't like Jones, Freleng, McKimson, Hanna and Barbera... I love their work in their best years, but did they make a real revolution in animation history? I think no... it was Tex Avery who made it mostly for MGM, and Bob Clampett who made it for Warners. After Clampett's departure, most of the directors (especially the new ones, McKimson and Davis, but for a brief period Jones either) made their work on the same vein as Clampett. They used animation itself as a humour, and their cartoons were all about crazyness, looneyness and laugh. The Jones-revolution in the 50s (intellectualizing cartoons and building formulas) deserves the credit, but it also resulted some negative influences, the plots of the cartoons lost their charm, and originality became very rare.

Sog, in your estimation, is it because Clampett was more interested in gags than a definite personality? Or do you think he just took a random personality trait and then blew it up out of proportion (eg. 'Draftee Daffy')?

Oceansoul~

I have to pretty much disagree with you historically...:). Take a look at the early Thirties Harman-Ising toons, they are FUN cartoons (same thing can be said about a lot of other studios output for the same era). The Schlesinger cartoons of Fall 1933 to the coming of Avery are slower and only humorous (rather than wildly funny), and for good reason, the studio was being built from scratch, the censors were watching, and the studio was under great pressure to succeed (even if just by imitating Disney).

The REALLY funny cartoons do begin with Tex Avery, but at Warners not MGM (despite some people complaining that his Warner Brothers ones are too slow). Avery was breaking rules and rewriting the whole playbook while at Schlesingers. Just before "A Wild Hare" he slowed his timing down and THAT allowed the full realization of a complete and exceedingly well-developed character in the little gray wabbit:bugs2:, and that was a brilliant move and ultimately an ultra-sublime creation. By the time Tex left, his timing was picking up again (watch his 1941 toons "All This And Rabbit Stew" and "Wabbit Twouble"-despite it being falsely credited to Clampett). The first one (okay besides Frank Tashlin :cool: ) to seemingly take note of what Avery was doing at Schlesinger's was the guy most people would peg as least likely to go for funny-fast-paced cartooning... and that was Hugh Harman!!:eek::eek: In 1937 he came up with four strange-as-heck entries in that area for MGM-release, check out "Swing Wedding" and the three "Lil Ol' Bosko's" made that year, and they all boast extremely fine animation from people like Tom McKimson, some wonderful gags, and very good timing from Harman. The SECOND person to really take note of Tex's wild-style of cartooning was Bob Clampett in his first VERIFIABLE solo cartoons in 1938. There are a number of really funny and excellent cartoons early on for him, but NONE of them would've been possible without Tex blazing the way. And then as Tex goes on making funny and warped cartoons, both fast and slow, abruptly the Clampett output falls into its unpredictable (and not in a good way) period.

And no... Nobody but nobody in the classic-era ever imitated Clampett in any big way. As far as can be told now, NONE of his Schlesinger/Warner peers even greatly liked his cartoons (and yeah I'm the one who brought to the board the quote from Friz that he "liked some of the things Bobby did" ;)). However, Bob was regarded as (and this is a quote from one of his peer group) "as having no taste". Soooooo with THAT attitude they sure as heck were NOT going to imitate him. Each major director went his own merry way making cartoons the way each saw fit.



Fibber Fox~

I THINK it's really much more that Bob was ultra-interested in gags and that he hammered that into his storymen. To say that Bob Clampett and his writers (Foster, Lilly, Sasanoff etc.) were definitely interested in gags in a major way is an epic understatement:p. As late in his career as 1944's "Hare Ribbin'" (or even "Buckaroo Bugs") we find him suddenly turning Bugs Bunny downright mean (in a way that makes the 1960's Daffys look like a near saint). In fact for no good reason Bugs becomes a cold-blooded murderer (in "the director's cut" of 'Hare Ribbin'"). This shows not just a total misunderstanding of the character, but a complete lack of care about Bugs as a comedic HERO. The GAG has become the all-in-all ("HEY it'd be REALLY funny for Bugs to stick a gun in this Russian dog's mouth and pull the trigger for real!!":eek::rolleyes: ). "Buckaroo Bugs" fares a LITTLE better in that at least he didn't have the gray wabbit try to authentically snuff the complete moron that was hounding him. Robbing a person with the I.Q. of a turnip with a magnet and in musical time till he's buck naked is quite enough!!! One of his peers characterized Bob's verson of Bugs Bunny as an "amoral lunatic", and sadly that does hold true in a number of his cartoons.

His Daffy seems to be ultra-mercurial, changing from cartoon to cartoon... And again I think it really is just the OBSESSION to somehow get the biggest, loudest gags in, and that that attitude completely reshapes the character in each cartoon. Like I said up above, in his last year and half's worth of Daffys, the character is actually no fewer than three different personalaties:daffy:.

[Daffysleftfoot]

and tying him to a railroad track is quite enough!!!

Whoops!! ;)

Bugs never tied Red Hot Ryder to any railroad track. He faked a train robbery but there was never any train or railroad tracks in sight. You might be confusing it with what Bugs did to Elmer in The Big Snooze (by Bob Clampett c. 1946).

"Good gravy! HERE IT COMES!! THE SUPERCHIEF!!!"

Anyway, the great thing about the four bigtime characters :ham: :daffy: :befuddled &:bugs2: is that many directors handled them at the studio and so each one put a little of their own personality into each of those characters. The idea of shooting the Russian dog, as well as bugging both Red Hot Ryder and Elmer unprovoked is just Clampett adding his prankster mannerisms into Bugs. This became one of the many aspects of Bugs' personality which can be seen also in Hare Tonic (by Chuck Jones c. 1945) and Foxy by Proxy (by Friz Freleng c. 1952). I certainly don't hate what Clampett did to Bugs, but I'm also glad that it's not the ONLY version of Bugs available.

[Sogturtle]

Went and corrected my obvious error (thanks to Daffysleftfoot for pointing it out). I have to stop de-composing these things in the middle of the bloomin' night! :p

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I'm also a big fan of Book Revue. In fact I think 1946 was a peak year for Clampett, as theyear also saw the release of Kitty Kornered, Baby Bottleneck, The Big Snooze and my all time favorite cartoon, The Great Piggy Bank Robbery.

***

I noticed that some on this board are putting forward the theory that Clampett was interested strickly in gags while Avery focused on character for humor. I see it as the complete opposite. Avery's cartoons at MGM were strickly about gags, usually exposing the artifice of film. He had few recurring characters there, outside of Droopy, the Wolf, Red and the annoying Screwy Squirrel. Droopy didn't have much depth as a character, his phlematic nature was his only trait. Screwy was just insane -- a throwback to Avery's thirties version of Daffy Duck.

Avery did create the two most popular cartoon characters in animation history while at Warners, Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, and for that he deserves credit. However, Avery made only a few cartoons with those characters -- in fact, he made the same amount of cartoons starring the weird character Egghead. Can anybody tell me what personality Egghead even had?

Avery was also interested in cartoons that were strictly about gags, with no starring characters or plot, such as those travelogue parodies and spotgag cartoons like House of Tomorrow. In fact, I believe Avery invented that formula.

It was up to the other directors at Warners to develope the characters Avery invented, and those other directors and writers gave Bugs and Daffy more depth.

I find the Daffy in Clampett's and Tashlin's cartoons of the forties to be the most emotionally developed -- as well as being the best designed and funniest of all the Daffy cartoons.

[Thad]

Avery's Bugs Bunny cartoons clearly define the character. There's not much too argue against there.

Agreed on Clampett and Tashlin with Daffy, but many of Jones' shorts with him are just as good (or better, depending on your taste) emotionally-wise. "Tom Turk and Daffy", "You Were Never Duckier", "Daffy Dilly", "The Scarlet Pumpernickel", and "Duck Amuck" are all fine examples.

Friz's Daffys are good but don't reach that level. Anything by McKimson outside of Foghorn after 1950 or so is a liability as far as I'm concerned.

[Matt the Y]

Avery was also interested in cartoons that were strictly about gags, with no starring characters or plot, such as those travelogue parodies and spotgag cartoons like House of Tomorrow. In fact, I believe Avery invented that formula.


While you made some good points in your post, in fairness to Tex, he later revealed that he didn't particularly care for the "spot-gag" cartoons he made ("A Gander at Mother Goose", "Fresh Fish", plus the whole Tomorrow series from MGM) and pointed out that he would only ever attempt them if he was REALLY at a loss for ideas. In fact, in interview, when Joe Adamson mentioned to Tex that he had recently seen his "Car of Tomorrow", Avery stammered and replied, "Ooh. Not too good."

(Even though I personally think "Car of Tomorrow" is a brilliant cartoon. Oh, well...;) )

[lonesome-lenny]

One thing that must be mentioned about the late Clampett cartoons is that they do show a fascination with character. The animation in these cartoons is "acting" of the highest order.

I marvel at the subtle shades of emotion and personality that come through in the '45/'46 Clampetts. Daffy's performances in "Draftee Daffy," "Baby Bottleneck" and, especially, "Great Piggy Bank Robbery" are more lively and seemingly real than any live-action performance I can think of, from that same era.

That didn't just happen by accident. Clampett worked with his talented animators to breathe that extra bit of life into them.

I think Clampett was just getting into this facet of filmmaking when he quit doing WB cartoons. He may have been inspired by some of Avery's efforts in a similar vein--the death scene in "Wild Hare" certainly contains some superb, subtle and emotionally convincing "acting" on Bugs' and Fudd's part.

It was quite a change from the reflexive, zany nature of his earlier cartoons--especially the late '30s Porkys, which frequently trade kookiness for character depth. (That's not a bad thing, as the cartoons are wonderfully funny, energetic, and engaging.)

[J Lee]

When you look at Avery's Warner cartoons, and then take a look at the early Jones shorts and the ones Clampett did after Chuck took over Tashlin's unit, you get a strong impression that Bob and Chuck were the ying and yang of Avery's unit in its early years, in terms of gags-over-story vs. story-over-gags, and that it took all of them a while to find the perfect balance (why, you could almost picture Jones as an angel over one of Tex's shoulders telling him he should try for Disney-like characterization while Bob appears over the other shoulder with the pictchfork, urging Avery to go for the raunchiest gags).

Avery's full-time move over to the Merrie Melodies series wasn't the worst thing in the world, even though it went against Tex's straight gag impulse -- having to focus more on personality sometimes didn't work out too good, as in Tex's three cute mice cartoons, but when McKimson arrived in his unit a few years later and the overall level of story and design had improved, you not only got Bugs and Elmer but the birth of the memorably dumb (and Avery-voiced) Willoughby in "Of Fox and Hounds" that both he and the other WB directors would use repeatedly over the next 20 years. And while Tex veered more towards straight gags in many of hi MGM shorts, there were still cartoons like "Little Tinker" or "The Flea Circus" that went more towards Jonesian (or as Avery told Joe Adamson "cutesy-cutesy") personality animation.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch on Sunset, Jones' and Clampett's work in 1939-40 come across as if you split Avery's MM cartoons into their component parts -- Chuck's cartoons were all story and personality animation for the most part, with the pacing slow and the gags few and far between, while Bob's were gag-filled and fast paced, but with only the barest of storylines and with few attempts at personality other than to try and clone Daffy Duck as a wacky cat, fish or whatever, the way Hardaway had done with his rabbit. It's not until you get to 1941, when Schlesinger decides that Chuck has to do B&W Looney Tunes while Bob finally gets to do color Merrie Melodies, that you start to see Jones' cartoons speed up and begin to fill with more gags (despite the crappy rabbit voice, the end of "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" is pretty darn fast), while Clampett slows his cartoons down, accepts Freleng's redesigned Daffy and begins to add better story lines and more personality to his shorts, before speeding his pacing up again by the end of 1942 (which is why Chuck Jones could never have remade a Clampett cartoon from 1939 or 1943, but was able to redo Bob's "Porky's Pooch" almost point-for-point seven years later as "Little Orphan Airdale", only with a faster-paced ending).

Chuclk's cartoons at times over the next couple of years could still tend towards being a little too quiet -- or as Michael Barrier put it, seven-minute cartoons with five-minute plots -- until he started collaborating full-time with Michael Maltese, while as Tim mentioned, Clampett ran afoul in 1944 of a writing staff that just didn't get the proper balance between gags and characterization in some of the shorts, and came up with cartoons that could be unnerving due to their over-the-top violence in the same way some of the worst of the Famous Studios stuff of the late 40s and early 50s would take their violence past the funny stage to the "He didn't deserve THAT" level. It's only in the final year, when Lou Lilly & Co. are eased out and Warren Foster starts focusing more on Bob's unit after working primarily with Tashlin for a spell that Clampett's cartoons finally find the right balance between the wild gags and the story line to come through without leaving an uneasy feeling in the audience's heads.

[magadizer]

(why, you could almost picture Jones as an angel over one of Tex's shoulders telling him he should try for Disney-like characterization while Bob appears over the other shoulder with the pictchfork, urging Avery to go for the raunchiest gags).

That's fantastic. That would be great if someone could draw that one up, in the manner of some of those in-house WB doodles that they always made of each other.

Josh

[lonesome-lenny]

...Clampett ran afoul in 1944 of a writing staff that just didn't get the proper balance between gags and characterization in some of the shorts, and came up with cartoons that could be unnerving due to their over-the-top violence in the same way some of the worst of the Famous Studios stuff of the late 40s and early 50s would take their violence past the funny stage to the "He didn't deserve THAT" level...

I don't really care for Clampett's 1944 cartoons, and this eloquently explains why, J Lee. For years now, I've found those '44 cartoons-- especially "Hare Ribbin'," "Buckaroo Bugs" and "Old Grey Hare"--problematic. They all have good ideas in them, but Bugs' vicious, spiteful personality leaves a bad aftertaste.

I wish Warren Foster had moved into the Clampett unit earlier. But we've got what we've got, and those few superb late Clampetts are something to treasure.

[J Lee]

I don't really care for Clampett's 1944 cartoons, and this eloquently explains why, J Lee. For years now, I've found those '44 cartoons-- especially "Hare Ribbin'," "Buckaroo Bugs" and "Old Grey Hare"--problematic. They all have good ideas in them, but Bugs' vicious, spiteful personality leaves a bad aftertaste.

I wish Warren Foster had moved into the Clampett unit earlier. But we've got what we've got, and those few superb late Clampetts are something to treasure.

Foster did work with Clampett in 1944 some, but not as much as before (he was Bob's main story man from 1938-43), and not as much as in Bob's final year at the studio. You can see the difference in the ending of one of the few Foster-Clampett collaborations in '44, "Birdy and the Beast", compared with how stories from folks like Lilly or Sasanoff would likely have handled it.

As with the ending of "Hare Ribbin'", we're to take it from the final explosion in "Birdy" (and Stalling's menacing music) that Tweety has killed the putty 'tat. But the explosion happens off-screen; in a story, say, by Lilly, the explosion would likely have been shown on-screen, the way Bugs' sticking the gun in the "Mad Russian" dog's mouth and shooting him was. And unlike "The Old Gray Hare", where the explosion (and the implied death of Elmer) is the final gag, we get the shot of Tweety putting another stamp on the tree before the iris out, which serves to soften the previous explosion/death gag (and would be used again by Freleng to wrap up "I Taw A Putty Tat", though the fate of Sylvester is a little more ambiguious here).

Audiences will give you a lot of leeway with your characters, and you can even kill them off, as long as they're still "alive" in spirit at the end of the short, as with "Mouse Mazurka" or "Show Biz Bugs". But when you make the match-up too unfair or the gags too painful to be really funny, you leave the audience feeling a little unfulfilled and/or uneasy. That's the problem Clampett's 1944 cartoons had, which fortunately he was able to overcome for the 1945 and '46 release seasons.

[lonesome-lenny]

Yeah, I forgot Foster was with Clampett earlier.

In a strange co-incidence, I finally watched "Bugs Bunny Gets The Boid," from LTGC 1, with Barrier's commentary. He plays some Clampett interview tapes where Clampett says that he didn't like Foster's approach to the cartoon, so he had his high-school buddy Ernest Gee sit and brainstorm a new scenario with him at a drive-in restaurant!

Foster's name is on the credits, but apparently his scenario was thrown out the window.

Foster is credited on "Baby Bottleneck," "Book Revue" and "Great Piggy Bank Robbery." "Kitty Kornered" would also appear to be his work, although he isn't credited on-screen. I suppose that, by this time, Foster and Clampett were more in sync. Or, perhaps, after floundering with the Lilly scenarios of '44, Clampett appreciated what Foster brought to his cartoons, and made better use of his wit.

[J Lee]

One of the things Avery told Joe Adamson about his main MGM storyman, Heck Allen, was "He could talk me out of things" -- i.e. Avery may have been his own best gagman, but Allen was there to keep Tex from going too far. Foster seems to have played the same role with Clampett in the final few years Bob was at Warners. Clampett's other writers either couldn't reign in his story excesses or contributed to going too far in the mean-spirited direction (and based on Lilly's really derogatory story for Jones' "Angel Puss", its safe to assume the story department shares at least a bit of the blame).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Avery's Bugs Bunny cartoons clearly define the character. There's not much too argue against there.

Agreed on Clampett and Tashlin with Daffy, but many of Jones' shorts with him are just as good (or better, depending on your taste) emotionally-wise. "Tom Turk and Daffy", "You Were Never Duckier", "Daffy Dilly", "The Scarlet Pumpernickel", and "Duck Amuck" are all fine examples.

Friz's Daffys are good but don't reach that level. Anything by McKimson outside of Foghorn after 1950 or so is a liability as far as I'm concerned.
Some of Jones' Daffy cartoons from that period were good, like the ones you mentioned (Duck Amuck is great, but it is from a later period). I don't think they're as good as the ones Clampett and Tashlin were making in the same time period. I think the early McKimson and Davis Daffy Cartoons -- such as Daffy Doodles, Birth of a Notion, Stupor Salesman, & Riff Raff Daffy -- were even better than some of Jones' early efforts.

I do give credit to Avery for establishing Bugs' persona. I just think the other directors expanded on what Avery set up and made funnier and better
Bugs Bunny cartoons.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

While you made some good points in your post, in fairness to Tex, he later revealed that he didn't particularly care for the "spot-gag" cartoons he made ("A Gander at Mother Goose", "Fresh Fish", plus the whole Tomorrow series from MGM) and pointed out that he would only ever attempt them if he was REALLY at a loss for ideas. In fact, in interview, when Joe Adamson mentioned to Tex that he had recently seen his "Car of Tomorrow", Avery stammered and replied, "Ooh. Not too good."

(Even though I personally think "Car of Tomorrow" is a brilliant cartoon. Oh, well...;) )
Matt,

You're right, I remember reading that interview too. I still think Tex went more for gags, though, even in his better cartoons. Usually in Avery's MGM cartoons a situation would be set up and the rest of the cartoon would be variations on that theme until the end gag and fade out. (Similar to a Tweety and Slyvester cartoon, but funnier and cartoonier.) The type of jokes he favored weren't necessarily based on character, but on the unexpected and surreal. For instance, Spike the dog hits the ground and shatters like glass, or the Wolf runs so fast in the cartoon he skids off the film strip and we see the film sprockets on screen. Avery's characters still have personalities, but the gags don't derive from that. The characters only need to be certain types, such as the slow-witted lummox and his smarter, short tempered friend, or the rube being taken by the city slicker, and not much else for his jokes to work.

Contrast that with the scene from Baby Bottleneck where Daffy is answering the phones. There aren't any jokes in the typical sense of a set-up and pay off. The humor comes from Daffy's behavior, not what happens to him. His expressions and movements are also funny. Even though Avery is known for his extreme and wild "takes" I think Clampett, of all the golden age cartoon directors, really utilized animation to it's fullest potential to achieve a humorous effect. (Jones relied more on pose to pose style animation, but his layout drawings were so good and expressive that it worked to his advantage.)

[Sogturtle]

Yeah, I forgot Foster was with Clampett earlier.

In a strange co-incidence, I finally watched "Bugs Bunny Gets The Boid," from LTGC 1, with Barrier's commentary. He plays some Clampett interview tapes where Clampett says that he didn't like Foster's approach to the cartoon, so he had his high-school buddy Ernest Gee sit and brainstorm a new scenario with him at a drive-in restaurant!

Foster's name is on the credits, but apparently his scenario was thrown out the window.

Foster is credited on "Baby Bottleneck," "Book Revue" and "Great Piggy Bank Robbery." "Kitty Kornered" would also appear to be his work, although he isn't credited on-screen. I suppose that, by this time, Foster and Clampett were more in sync. Or, perhaps, after floundering with the Lilly scenarios of '44, Clampett appreciated what Foster brought to his cartoons, and made better use of his wit.

Lonesome Lenny and JLee~

Saying this absolutely as briefly as I can...;)

Bob Clampett also mentioned once that Ernie Gee's father had talked him into quitting the Katz studio pretty early on to pursue a more mundane (my words:p) occupation.

I've covered this once before, the WHOLE issue of who was really writing Clampett's toons is much, much thornier than it appears, DESPITE what the credits of 1942 to '45 (okay and '46) claim. Clampett mentioned (and his unit photo of 1942-43) clearly shows not only Warren Foster as one of his writers, but also Melvin "Tubby" Millar, AND Don Christensen.:eek: Okay, everybody always associates Don Christensen purely with Norman McCabe as director. The reality is that the three storymen were doubling up writing for both units, BUT with Foster being credited only on Bob's cartoons and Christensen on McCabe's. Bob Clampett reportedly once referred to Christensen as one of the best cartoon storymen!

This situation definitely continued on when Tashlin took over for the drafted McCabe. Then when Christensen left the studio is when suddenly people like Lou Lilly and Michael Sasanoff and Hubie Karp got the chance to write for Clampett. Foster and Millar were writing for both Clampett and Tash.

The uncredited Clampett stories of 1946 PROBABLY were originally set to bear the credits of the departed Sasanoff. Adding to the confusion, the photo of the STORYBOARD session for "Great Piggy Bank Robbery" shows Clampett conferring with Mike Sasanoff and Hubie Karp (while Tom McKimson looks on), no sign of Warren Foster but his name was on the credits!!!:rolleyes::p

[J Lee]

I remember the earlier post, Tim. It's just clear that for some reason, Clampett's cartoons released in 1944 have a disdain for their dumb characters that's not apparent either in the period before or after.

Before then, Clampett understood the same thing Avery learned -- that the less mentally-armed a character is, the more resilliant/triumphant the character should be (unless the character is armed with a weapon, as with Bugs vs. Elmer). You can have Bugs knock around Beaky Buzzard physically or mentally, but you don't totally destroy him. That's like sticking Paris Hilton in a WWE steel cage death match - just a little too much punishment on a dumb character for the audience to truly enjoy.

Bob's cartoons followed the rule except in 1944. Chuck Jones followed the rule as well in the early 40s, in cartoons like "Hold the Lion, Please", and when he had some ealier mis-steps, like in "Good Night, Elmer" or "The Bird Came C.O.D." it was more because the dumb characters weren't given strong enough material to play off of. The only real exception with Jones that I can find is the one cartoon penned by Lilly, "Angel Puss", where as with Clampett's work in '44, the dumb character is treated with contempt by his adversary (even if the main character had been white, the tone of the cartoon would still have been all wrong).

Beating the crap/dignity out of the fall guy isn't bad, if the fall guy is Adolf Hitler ("Russian Rhapsody"), and even though the ending to Lilly's last credited cartoon at Warners, "Draftee Daffy" is similar to all his others -- with the main character dead and/or buried, the final gag has an upbeat feeling that the other cartoons lack. So it's possible by then that he and Bob's other writers besides Foster were getting better at grasping what did and didn't work, but thanks to the studio's misleading credit system, we'll never know exactly why Clampett's cartoons got into their "mean" period or what caused them to pull back from that a year later.

[Harukuro]

Yep!:D This is one of my favs on Looney Tunes Spotlight Collection 2 (along with Back-Alley Uprour and some others)

[Sogturtle]

I remember the earlier post, Tim. It's just clear that for some reason, Clampett's cartoons released in 1944 have a disdain for their dumb characters that's not apparent either in the period before or after.

Before then, Clampett understood the same thing Avery learned -- that the less mentally-armed a character is, the more resilliant/triumphant the character should be (unless the character is armed with a weapon, as with Bugs vs. Elmer). You can have Bugs knock around Beaky Buzzard physically or mentally, but you don't totally destroy him. That's like sticking Paris Hilton in a WWE steel cage death match - just a little too much punishment on a dumb character for the audience to truly enjoy.

Bob's cartoons followed the rule except in 1944. Chuck Jones followed the rule as well in the early 40s, in cartoons like "Hold the Lion, Please", and when he had some ealier mis-steps, like in "Good Night, Elmer" or "The Bird Came C.O.D." it was more because the dumb characters weren't given strong enough material to play off of. The only real exception with Jones that I can find is the one cartoon penned by Lilly, "Angel Puss", where as with Clampett's work in '44, the dumb character is treated with contempt by his adversary (even if the main character had been white, the tone of the cartoon would still have been all wrong).

Beating the crap/dignity out of the fall guy isn't bad, if the fall guy is Adolf Hitler ("Russian Rhapsody"), and even though the ending to Lilly's last credited cartoon at Warners, "Draftee Daffy" is similar to all his others -- with the main character dead and/or buried, the final gag has an upbeat feeling that the other cartoons lack. So it's possible by then that he and Bob's other writers besides Foster were getting better at grasping what did and didn't work, but thanks to the studio's misleading credit system, we'll never know exactly why Clampett's cartoons got into their "mean" period or what caused them to pull back from that a year later.
John~

All very, very true!:) Interestingly Friz stated a number of times that the REAL reason for the existence of Yosemite Sam was because of his own distaste at the idea of repeatedly pitting the MUCH smarter Bugs against the none-too-bright Elmer. That it was simply grossly unfair!!! Now whether Friz arrived at that concept due in part to watching Bob's misfires of 1944 (and thereabouts) is something we'll never really know, but the idea of it is very intriguing!

Like I stated several months back I personally love ALMOST all of Clampett's COLOR cartoons :cool:. Annnnnd "Draftee Daffy" and "The Old Grey Hare" have always been near the top of my list of favorite Clampett efforts, whether because of their wilder humor or greater efforts at characterization or more likely both!

And I stated up above (somewheres;) ) that I do believe that gags had become the real lodestone for Bob by this period. And that those very gags at times led Bob and writers to actually create new nuances (or even perversions:rolleyes: ) of personality in both Bugs and Daffy to help justify particular gag usage. And as such Bob and crew ARE DUE the credit for coming up with the whole concept of a craven-coward Daffy! Even if it was purely to justify the gag of trying to draft Daffy into WWII, and then ending it with a capper-gag in hell, where it's better to be there than in the clutches of the little man from the draft-board (sounds like Milton :p ). And to explore the possibility of old-age and its infirmities striking Bugs and Elmer whilst their undying battle still rages on would result in a capper-gag of Bugs finally blowing Elmer to smithereens before the Grim Reaper gets them both naturally...:p

I'd SUSPECT that one totally-unexplored avenue which we haven't gone down as far as WHY the Clampett "mean character" bent occured in 1944 is this... I'd say there is a darned good possibility of Bob and crew attempting to outdo the returned Frank Tashlin... The "mean-streak" couldn't occur in the release years of '42 nor much of '43 (no Tash till then ;) ). But only abruptly AFTER Tashlin started directing color cartoons again!:eek::eek: And it keeps up really through the end of 1945! It may have been a scenario of Clampett telling his storymen "Okay guys, look... we gotta go ALL OUT to keep ahead of Frank"... There is ALSO a possibility of Tashlin (via the "no no conferences") as being the possible author of at least SOME of the very gags that are cruel...

I'll freely agree that we have NO ONE else to blame for the sick-comedy utter-disaster of Chuck's "Angel Puss" except Lou Lilly, since from every evidence Chuck just took it as written. And since Lou was travailing in the bowels of Bob's unit in utter ignominy (an ENORMOUS comedown for a former director-writer) I have no doubt that Chuck took and did Lilly's story "as is" to show all concerned that Lou really could write... And of course Lilly's obvious love of sick-humor does appear to pervade much of Clampett's 1944-'45 toons, but I have an ever-so-hard-time laying all the blame on him... Bob was in control!!! Bob called all the shots!!! Accepting or rejecting a story (or gags) was totally Clampett's domain, not Lou Lilly's...:)

[The Spectre]

If Clampett really was trying to out-do Tashlin, maybe he decided the best way to do this wa to let Lilly do his own sick-humour stuff and not impose his own writing style?