Chuck Jones' worst animator?

[angilbas]

Mike Kazaleh (http://www.tooninanimation.net/masters.html#master_kazaleh) has said that Tom Ray,
Richard Thompson and Bob Bransford were not good animators. He's entitled to his opinion ... others can weigh the evidence.

Tom was working in Chuck's unit by mid-1959, as an animator and (starting in 1961) a co-director. He later followed Chuck to M-G-M and directed two cartoons there. Jones seemed happy to have his services as late as 1996 for Superior Duck. He has at least 69 years' experience and his own website (http://www.tomstoneanimation.com/) (now we know his DOB -- 2 August 1919).

Richard had long experience in Chuck's unit. In the two cartoons (Sheep Ahoy; Stop! Look! and Hasten!) where he shares animation credit with Abe Levitow, his work is solid even if it is less imaginative than Abe's. He co-directed Woolen Under Where. Then he followed Jones to M-G-M and later reunited with him on a Warner's project -- Bugs Bunny's Bustin' Out All Over in 1980.

This leaves Bob, the only credited Jones animator of the early 1960s who never directed or co-directed a film. Bob was also the only one who never worked for Chuck at M-G-M. He may have been less ambitious than Chuck's other animators, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the least talented. Personality issues could explain his reluctance to "follow the leader." The frame-by-frame screenshots (http://classicanimation.blogspot.com/2007/04/rudy-larriva-is-best.html) from Boulder Wham! may not be representative of his talent, as that "Killer Animation" was the product of indifferent direction and financing.


-Tony

[J. B. Warner]

Personally, I never really liked Bobe Cannon's work for Jones in the mid-1940s. His scenes always look rushed and sloppy, and the lip-sync is always off. I've only been able to identify his mid-'40s work, though, so I don't know if he ever got any better.

[Matt the Y]

Out of the three "lackluster" animators of Jones' that Kazaleh mentioned, I think Thompson would probably be the best of those three simply because he was the most experienced and had the biggest connection with Jones out of the other two. I have always noticed, though, that Thompson's work seems a bit more stiff and limited than Jones' other animators, even Levitow. The bit in "Stop! Look! And Hasten!" where Wile E. snares a truck, which Thompson animates, is well-done but much more limited in movement than if someone else had done it. Still, Thompson was capable of the typical Jones poses and "nuance" like all his other prime animators... something which can't really be said of either Ray or especially Bransford who never really came into his own as an animator in general in my opinion. Can anybody identify a Bransford scene in Jones' cartoons for that matter? He seems to be a non-entity for the most part. I don't mean to sound harsh but, come on... mention him in the same context as, say, Ken Harris or Ben Washam and it's hardly a comparison.

[Sogturtle]

Not wanting to insult any contemporary animators but I DON'T understand WHY anybody would take the views of Mr. Kazaleh as being more authoritative than those of say, oh, Chuck Jones, Irv Spence, Bob McKimson or Friz Freleng or John Sutherland?!?!?:eek:

Tom Ray had a LONG history at MGM as Irv Spence's fine assistant animator, this was NOT a position for a lousy artist (and a lousy one would've gotten bounced for screwing up Spence's fine animation). Likewise he more than passed the grade as full animator for Sutherland and then McKimson before getting into Jones' unit. Does ANYBODY REALLY think these men did NOT know bad animation from "good" animation??? :rolleyes: And that somehow Mr. Kazaleh knows better?

As for Thompson, once again you have a situation where Jones had been able to monitor his progress for YEARS before his making animator. One has to impute both blindness and stupidity to Chuck Jones to make the case against Thompson. AND Chuck (as Angilbas mentioned) thought enough of Thompson's work that he took him with him to MGM.

[Matt the Y]

Relax, Tim.

Nobody said Mike's opinion was MORE authoritative than any of those men who worked with Ray or Thompson. Tony simply said Mike was entitled to his opinion and he is. His opinion is simply that, an opinion, and moreover, Tony then said that WE should be able to form our own regardless of whether it matches Mike's opinion of these mens' talents or not.

Personally speaking, I'm a bit mystified as to why Kazaleh would not consider Thompson a good animator since he animated on quite a few great Jones-directed shorts and his animation never struck as me as sloppy or poorly-timed or anything like that; although as I pointed out, it does struck me as more limited in movement and a bit less imaginitive than Jones' other boys. Tom Ray, while probably a capable animator in his own right, has no strong ties to Jones outside of his association with the man in the 1960's. His claim to fame seems to have been mostly as an assistant animator.

As for Bob Bransford, almost next to nothing seems to be known about the man or his style at all. His name only starts to appear at Warners' starting on 1960's "Hopalong Casualty" and, with the exception of 1961's "Nelly's Folly", appears on every Jones-directed film made until 1964's "War and Pieces", after which it surfaces on the Larriva-directed shorts (except for "Run, Run Sweet Road Runner" which especially suffers animation-wise for having NO WB animation veterans present on the short at all) and a few Filmation TV shows and DePatie-Freleng TV shows and theatrical series in the 1970's. Hardly an impressive resume for the man which probably explains his obscurity.

Also, in strong defense of Mike Kazaleh, I consider him to be nothing short of an expert on the subject of animation analysis. He has done complete animation breakdowns for various shorts from various studios with strong accuracy levels and has a vast knowledge and love and respect for the medium. I also have always had a deep admiration for the man and his work. Even if I disagree with his opinion of Thompson, he must have a reason for not liking Thompson's style as much as Jones' other animators and I'll respect that; "I may not agree with what [Mike has] to say but I will defend to the death [his] right to say it!"

It's times like this which makes me wish Thad K. hung around this message board as often as he once did as he is very knowledgable and insightful about subjects like this. His input would really be appreciated right about now.

[angilbas]

Can anybody identify a Bransford scene in Jones' cartoons?

Bransford's work can be spotted most easily in Larriva RRs such as Boulder Wham! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E45_ceMioJo) (analysis (http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?p=81695#post81695)) or Tired and Feathered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87nPGSuI2uQ) (analysis (http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?p=85701#post85701)). A Bransford Coyote at his best looks like he stepped out of a Jones cartoon -- understandable, as Bransford was the only Format animator with experience under Jones.

It seems to me that Wile E.'s eyes sometimes look like big buttons under Bransford (as in the Boulder Wham! hypnotism close-ups). Also, the pupils tend to be small.

So ... to identify Bransford's work under Jones, start with Now Hear This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pje1Ebc5v0). Bransford animates the old gent's first appearance up until 2:22 ... then observe the change in the man's eyes as the butterfly passes (that's Ben Washam, whose eye style becomes evident again around 2:36-7 as the bird sings). Bob animates the man's reactions to his body sounds starting at 3:50 up until the yellow eyes appear. I'm not certain of everything after that ... Chuck wouldn't have let Ben and Bob diverge too much ... but the eyes from 5:37 on look much more like Ben's work than Bob's.

In Beep Prepared (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0svj34aRxM), Bransford is at the top of the animation credits ... therefore it's fair to assume that he had more time on this film than the other animators. But time compression on this YouTube showing has to be considered when trying to evaluate animation quality here. The sequence with the bow starting at 1:02 appears to be Bransford's work with "button eyes" at 1:33.

In Zoom at the Top (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjXkQrdf20), I think that Bransford animated at least part of the trap sequence. I sense the 'Bransford look' in Wile E.'s eyes around 3:50.

In War and Pieces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9d6VUHnn68), Bransford may have handled Wile E. starting at 1:39 (nice touch with the twitching nose). Wile E.'s reaction at 1:59 looks Bransford to me and he may have done everything from 5:22 on.

Transylvania 6-5000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfbdwIoIQOQ) toplines Bransford on the animation credits, and I believe that he handled the first two minutes. The movements look competent, but one senses that Chuck's more experienced animators were on a break. The Count looks more boyish when he's introducing himself than when he's reacting to Bugs' telephone request a few seconds later (under Ken Harris craftsmanship).


-Tony

[Sogturtle]

Matt the Y~

Smiling...:) This whole thing requires no relaxation:D or excitement:p on my part . It's NOT a big deal. And of course I'm fully aware that Mr. Kazaleh's views are nothing but opinions. BUT that also cuts to the very root of the underlying problem... All "animation identification" (except instances predicated on 'final drafts' or other historic primary material like the handful of Warner toons animated by a lone animator) is ultimately based on opinion and guesswork. Some of it (like that of our Larry T.) is very fine, and our Larry has admitted that it would be almost impossible to hit levels of even 80-90% accuracy. Stop and think about it... Try selling something to the public that is only reliable 80% of the time ("we guarantee our car's brakes will work a good 80% of the time";) :eek: ).

My own private suspicion is that the real level is more on the lines of possibly 50% accuracy (but I know that view will get me pilloried, tarred AND feathered, so I WON'T say it here:D ). But I WILL note that you never see Mike Barrier or Jerry Beck engaging in the level of "animation identification" that has been going around the internet the last couple of years. It IS almost all educated guesses (much more extreme than my former pet theory of "Hollywood Daffy";) since the i.d.-ing wants to take in ALL vintage animation). I should mention that one person swore that Art Davis had NEVER animated for Bob Clampett, that is until I pointed out that it was Clampett himself who said that Davis HAD animated for him... Our Mark Mayerson has stated that at Warners, animators ADAPTED to the director's unit:eek: ... And that likely explains NOT being able to identify Artie Davis' work for Clampett (i.e. he had adapted his "style" to what Clampett needed). It also means that it is substantially harder to be positive of identifications when concrete primary sources are lacking.
Lastly... On the subject of Mr. Kazaleh, is there a more complete filmography of his work than what's on Imdb and BCDB???:confused: What's there is pretty slight (more full on BCDB) and with the only THEATRICAL full-animation showing being in, well, "Cool World":rolleyes: . Similarly Mr. Duffell shows only a two or three THEATRICAL full-animation jobs. Contrast that with Mark Kausler who shows as having considerably more full-animation THEATRICAL work... Hmmmm, maybe that's a key to it all, that the modern, mostly-theatrical animators avoid "animation identification" and that it's generally the guys who are largely TV animators who are intent on it (for some reason)... Just a hypothesis.:)

[Thad]

Matt the Y~

Smiling...:) This whole thing requires no relaxation:D or excitement:p on my part . It's NOT a big deal. And of course I'm fully aware that Mr. Kazaleh's views are nothing but opinions. BUT that also cuts to the very root of the underlying problem... All "animation identification" (except instances predicated on 'final drafts' or other historic primary material like the handful of Warner toons animated by a lone animator) is ultimately based on opinion and guesswork. Some of it (like that of our Larry T.) is very fine, and our Larry has admitted that it would be almost impossible to hit levels of even 80-90% accuracy. Stop and think about it... Try selling something to the public that is only reliable 80% of the time ("we guarantee our car's brakes will work a good 80% of the time";) :eek: ).

My own private suspicion is that the real level is more on the lines of possibly 50% accuracy (but I know that view will get me pilloried, tarred AND feathered, so I WON'T say it here:D ). But I WILL note that you never see Mike Barrier or Jerry Beck engaging in the level of "animation identification" that has been going around the internet the last couple of years. It IS almost all educated guesses (much more extreme than my former pet theory of "Hollywood Daffy";) since the i.d.-ing wants to take in ALL vintage animation). I should mention that one person swore that Art Davis had NEVER animated for Bob Clampett, that is until I pointed out that it was Clampett himself who said that Davis HAD animated for him... Our Mark Mayerson has stated that at Warners, animators ADAPTED to the director's unit:eek: ... And that likely explains NOT being able to identify Artie Davis' work for Clampett (i.e. he had adapted his "style" to what Clampett needed). It also means that it is substantially harder to be positive of identifications when concrete primary sources are lacking.
Lastly... On the subject of Mr. Kazaleh, is there a more complete filmography of his work than what's on Imdb and BCDB???:confused: What's there is pretty slight (more full on BCDB) and with the only THEATRICAL full-animation showing being in, well, "Cool World":rolleyes: . Similarly Mr. Duffell shows only a two or three THEATRICAL full-animation jobs. Contrast that with Mark Kausler who shows as having considerably more full-animation THEATRICAL work... Hmmmm, maybe that's a key to it all, that the modern, mostly-theatrical animators avoid "animation identification" and that it's generally the guys who are largely TV animators who are intent on it (for some reason)... Just a hypothesis.:)

That's really pathetic.

[Matt the Y]

In Beep Prepared (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0svj34aRxM), Bransford is at the top of the animation credits ... therefore it's fair to assume that he had more time on this film than the other animators.


Actually, Tony, that doesn't mean anything. The credits at Warners were assigned in a rotating manner... i.e. creditwise, the animation team members were assembled as a list roster, for example 1) Ken Harris 2) Richard Thompson 3) Bob Bransford 4) Tom Ray, and, with each new film produced, the credits would "rotate"; Film 1 would list order 1, 2, 3, 4 and Film 2 would list credits in order 2, 3, 4, 1. Film 3 would list credits in order 3, 4, 1, 2 and so forth in that same continuous order. Therefore, the person who appears at the top in the order of animators credited is really just in the "No. 1" spot because it's his turn to be credited first (likewise, the person at the bottom of the credits is there because it's his turn to be credited last).

[Fibber Fox]

Matt the Y~
. Stop and think about it... Try selling something to the public that is only reliable 80% of the time ("we guarantee our car's brakes will work a good 80% of the time";) :eek: ).

<fruit vendor mode on>
Apples! Oranges! Fresh from the tree to you! Get them here! Apples and oranges!
</fruit vendor mode off>

I could just as easily point out if a baseball player hit the ball fair 80% of time, he'd be deemed the best player of all time. It'd still be an irrelevant comparison.

FF

[Sogturtle]

<fruit vendor mode on>
Apples! Oranges! Fresh from the tree to you! Get them here! Apples and oranges!
</fruit vendor mode off>

I could just as easily point out if a baseball player hit the ball fair 80% of time, he'd be deemed the best player of all time. It'd still be an irrelevant comparison.

FF

Yeah Fibber I know it's apples and oranges:D . But the problem is that our "animation identification" friends give the strong idea that they are "analyzing" correctly at or about 100% of the time. And they can't seem to understand that there is frighteningly little CONCRETE info to back them up...

[Matt the Y]

Yeah Fibber I know it's apples and oranges:D . But the problem is that our "animation identification" friends give the strong idea that they are "analyzing" correctly at or about 100% of the time. And they can't seem to understand that there is frighteningly little CONCRETE info to back them up...

That may be so but, after reading both previous posts of yours, I couldn't help getting the impression that you seemed to be demeaning or disdaining the hobby and/or profession of animation analysts. I'm currently aspiring to become an animation analyst myself (and have actually slowly been becoming one for as much as one decade now) and it doesn't feel good to basically be told that myself and a bunch of people that share this ability essentially "know close to nothing".

I realize there isn't really any concrete evidence to support our theories of who animated which scenes but there ARE golden age animators with very distinct styles which could not be easily duplicated by other animators; they came from both the mind and the talent of that individual alone. I mean, I think it's general opinion that no other animator had a style in any way identical to Rod Scribner... or Emery Hawkins... or Bobe Cannon... or Jim Tyer.

[Sogturtle]

That may be so but, after reading both previous posts of yours, I couldn't help getting the impression that you seemed to be demeaning or disdaining the hobby and/or profession of animation analysts. I'm currently aspiring to become an animation analyst myself (and have actually slowly been becoming one for as much as one decade now) and it doesn't feel good to basically be told that myself and a bunch of people that share this ability essentially "know close to nothing".

I realize there isn't really any concrete evidence to support our theories of who animated which scenes but there ARE golden age animators with very distinct styles which could not be easily duplicated by other animators; they came from both the mind and the talent of that individual alone. I mean, I think it's general opinion that no other animator had a style in any way identical to Rod Scribner... or Emery Hawkins... or Bobe Cannon... or Jim Tyer.

Matt the Y~

I'm sorry, I am NOT trying to demean or disdain "animation identification" nor hurt or insult you or anybody else. I'm really just hoping and wishing that everyone could get some perspective that the judgements of "oh this must be ol' so-and-so's animation because the left leg is drawn this way instead of that way" should not be taken as TOTAL "Law and Gospel".

As a hobby it's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that. But for anybody to insist that this or that HAD to have been done by "so-and-so" because it looks like their work is just asking for some serious embarrassments. Ifffff an artist's animating skills are immutable then they should be just as apparent in 1938 or 1939 as they are a couple years later, right? And yeah everybody does cite Scribner as being utterly identifiable, but think about it, I don't know of anyone standing who can pick his animation out of Hardaway and Dalton's cartoons. It's there but nobody can identify it. Nor do I hear anybody picking out Emery Hawkins' scenes from the "Captain And The Kids" cartoons.
To extend this to Jim Tyer think only of his UNCREDITED work at Fleischer where nobody-but-nobody picks out his animation.

The Warner and MGM directors were EXTREMELY strong and they knew full-well each animators strengths and would parcel scenes out accordingly. But they also wanted the cartoons to NOT be discerned as being the works of multiple people by any audience (ala the early Mintz Scrappys;)). They rightly wanted them to be seen as the work of a solo auteur/director. About the only exception that I can think of right now to this is the latter color work of Bob Clampett where according to animator Bill Melendez, Clampett was ceding much of his authority to his animators, BUT this has been hotly contested by other people.

And to be UTTERLY blunt I do NOT think that you or the others"essentially "know close to nothing". I DO think you and the others are quite BRIGHT and with good analytical skills. But I still am trying to get all to realize that they are treading on a sea of hypotheses... I can say this because during my 30 years of animation research I've succeeding in burning MYSELF several times with my own bright deductions and theories;) .

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Mike Kazaleh (http://www.tooninanimation.net/masters.html#master_kazaleh) has said that Tom Ray,
Richard Thompson and Bob Bransford were not good animators. He's entitled to his opinion ... others can weigh the evidence.
The trouble with judging the work of those animators is that they started their animation career late in the golden age, when the budgets and schedules became tighter. Most people would have had a hard time doing good work under those conditions. Good draftsmanship alone wouldn't be enough to compensate for limited animation.

Had they began animating in the 40's we might have a better body of work to judge them by.

[Detroiter]

I'm sorry, I am NOT trying to demean or disdain "animation identification" nor hurt or insult you or anybody else. I'm really just hoping and wishing that everyone could get some perspective that the judgements of "oh this must be ol' so-and-so's animation because the left leg is drawn this way instead of that way" should not be taken as TOTAL "Law and Gospel".

As a hobby it's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that. But for anybody to insist that this or that HAD to have been done by "so-and-so" because it looks like their work is just asking for some serious embarrassments. Ifffff an artist's animating skills are immutable then they should be just as apparent in 1938 or 1939 as they are a couple years later, right? And yeah everybody does cite Scribner as being utterly identifiable, but think about it, I don't know of anyone standing who can pick his animation out of Hardaway and Dalton's cartoons. It's there but nobody can identify it. Nor do I hear anybody picking out Emery Hawkins' scenes from the "Captain And The Kids" cartoons.

I think we need to realize that animation identification is pretty new. Let's face it, we still don't even know who directed all of these films, much less who animated them.

The situation is much like that of identifying uncredited artists in the 1940's comic books, which began 30-40 years ago or so. Over time as more credited art, original art, creator interviews, source documents and business records became available, the comic book aficionados have been able to make better and better educated guesses as to who drew what.

And so it will be with animated cartoons. Except of course where the credits are wrong, one artist signed another's piece of original art, an interviewee misremembers, an animators draft credits the last rather than the primary artist of a scene, and the business records are fudged in order to balance the books. Didn't Tex Avery tell Joe Adamson that he would sometime pick up Hanna-Barbara animators when they were slow, and vice versa? Can anyone spot where this happened?

With the odd exception of someone like 1940's-50's Tyer who does everything he can to make his animation stand apart, all of these talented animators, assistants, inbetweeners, layout artists, character artists, directors and producers were doing their level best to PREVENT us from determining who drew what. It was all supposed to be on-model, and if we're honest, it usually was.

F Flood

[Jack G.]

Ifffff an artist's animating skills are immutable then they should be just as apparent in 1938 or 1939 as they are a couple years later, right? And yeah everybody does cite Scribner as being utterly identifiable, but think about it, I don't know of anyone standing who can pick his animation out of Hardaway and Dalton's cartoons. It's there but nobody can identify it. Nor do I hear anybody picking out Emery Hawkins' scenes from the "Captain And The Kids" cartoons.Obviously artists styles evolve as well as adapt to the situation they are currently in.
Scribner certainly didn't do the style he's famous for until Clampett relieved Bob McKimson from his "head animator" role in that unit.

Still I find fun to identify an animator, but I don't take it very seriously.
It's certainly not an exact science.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I think we need to realize that animation identification is pretty new. Let's face it, we still don't even know who directed all of these films, much less who animated them.

The situation is much like that of identifying uncredited artists in the 1940's comic books, which began 30-40 years ago or so. Over time as more credited art, original art, creator interviews, source documents and business records became available, the comic book aficionados have been able to make better and better educated guesses as to who drew what.

And so it will be with animated cartoons. Except of course where the credits are wrong, one artist signed another's piece of original art, an interviewee misremembers, an animators draft credits the last rather than the primary artist of a scene, and the business records are fudged in order to balance the books. Didn't Tex Avery tell Joe Adamson that he would sometime pick up Hanna-Barbara animators when they were slow, and vice versa? Can anyone spot where this happened?

With the odd exception of someone like 1940's-50's Tyer who does everything he can to make his animation stand apart, all of these talented animators, assistants, inbetweeners, layout artists, character artists, directors and producers were doing their level best to PREVENT us from determining who drew what. It was all supposed to be on-model, and if we're honest, it usually was.

F Flood
While I agree with some of your statements, I have to differ with your last paragraph. Most animators had their particular quirks and styles that still emerged in their work even though they were all struggling to draw the characters alike. Rod Scribner is the most obvious example to me of an animator whose idiosyncratic style really sticks out in the cartoons he worked on, even in the ones where certain directors were trying to quash that style. Other individualistic animators would be Ward Kimball, Emery Hawkins, Ray Patterson, Art Davis, Marty Taras, in addition to Jim Tyer that you mentioned. I usually can spot the work of Robert McKimson, Virgil Ross, Manny Gould, I. Ellis, Don Williams (when he worked for Art Davis) and Ben Washam when he drew Bugs Bunny, but not as well as the first group. Of course there are those who are much better at spotting animator's styles than I am, people like Bob Jaques, Larry T, Greg Duffell, Mark Kausler, etc.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Obviously artists styles evolve as well as adapt to the situation they are currently in.
Scribner certainly didn't do the style he's famous for until Clampett relieved Bob McKimson from his "head animator" role in that unit.

Still I find fun to identify an animator, but I don't take it very seriously.
It's certainly not an exact science.
I can still see some of Scribner's style even in Avery's cartoons. For instance, in The Heckling Hare, it looks like Scribner animated the scene of Bugs placing the tomato in Willoughby's paw. Bugs has the type of wrinkles and furrowed brow that Scribner loved to give to his characters in that scene.

[Matt the Y]

I can still see some of Scribner's style even in Avery's cartoons. For instance, in The Heckling Hare, it looks like Scribner animated the scene of Bugs placing the tomato in Willoughby's paw. Bugs has the type of wrinkles and furrowed brow that Scribner loved to give to his characters in that scene.

Yep, that's Scribner's animation, all right. Rod also animated the simply hilarious scene in that cartoon with Bugs and Willoughby mimicking each other's faces until Willoughby keeps imitating a myriad of goofy facial expressions seemingly against his will ("Silly, isn't he?") until Bugs clobbers the hapless dog with a baseball bat (which breaks in two upon striking Willoughby's cranium! OUCH!!!!!). That is easily the funniest scene in that cartoon and my personal favorite piece of Rod Scribner animation (Sorry, Clampett fans.).

Other animators who have very distinct styles (i.e. they did things THEIR way) would be...

Ben Washam who animated Bugs Bunny a very specific way... he drew Bugs' teeth very sharp and pointy at the end. Most other animators gave Bugs typical rabbit teeth but Washam gave Bugs rabbit teeth more akin to the shape of a chiselled tent stake. Proof enough of this in the Bugs Bunny short, "Rabbit Rampage", which was animated entirely by Washam and, yes, Bugs has those teeth throughout the entire cartoon. Other Bugs scenes animated by Washam include the bit in "Rabbit Hood" where Bugs slyly tricks the Sheriff into buying the King's plot of land leading him to buying an entire house on the King's property before getting wise ("Oooooohhh... I HATE MYSELF!!!!!"), Bugs wiseing up and realizing that "Finster" is really escaped bank robber, "Ant Hill Harry", and delivering exaggerated parental punishment to the pint-sized baddie in "Baby Buggy Bunny", and Col. Shuffle with his rear end lit aflame asking Bugs for spare change to use the water fountain in "Mississippi Hare" ("$1.10, $1.20, $1.21...").

Emery Hawkins who animated very fluidly and rubbery. Very unconventional. You almost have to see it rather than hear it described but as for certain elements of his style... whenever a character snores or sputters, the characters' cheeks puff up like great big inflating/deflating balloons, for examples, the scene in "Fish Fry" where Andy Panda pours his goldfish bowl water into the cat's mouth, the cat comes to, furiously spits the water out of his face, and angrily confronts Andy, also the scenes of Herman (a.k.a. "Ermine") snoring in "A Hick, A Slick, and a Chick" and the zoot-suited squirrel trying to get some "shut-eye" at the beginning of "Porky Chops" until Porky arrives ("Ah, woodpeckers. Such a cheerful sound. [Snore, snn.....] That ain't no woodpecker! What gives here?!"). Also, Hawkins had a special style all his own that I like to refer to has the "Hawkins touch"; whenever a character touches something, the prop becomes suddenly rubbery and malleable at random as in "Doggone Cats" when Sylvester uses the mallet and accidentally clobbers his pal and himself instead of Wellington (you'll notice the mallet's handle becomes all bended and contorted) and in "Fire Chief" when Donald notices his own fire station is where the fire is and frantically struggled to turn his fire truck around (when he furiously grabs the firetruck's steering wheel, the steering wheel stretches and contorts almost like taffy!). Truly a unique individual in terms of animating.

Don Williams who our own Larry T. describes as having a "chunky" animation style because he animated with a helluva lot of quick brush-line "blur" effects to show rapid movement; examples of this are in "What Makes Daffy Duck" when Daffy gives Elmer the sob story of how ducks are always living in fear of being hunted ("Guns! Guns! They're everywhere but ya can't see 'em.....!"), the very beginning of "A Hick, A Slick, and a Chick" with Elmo the hick getting all slicked up for his date with Daisy Lou singing "Rural Rhythm" to himself, and the bit in "The Stupor Salesman" with Daffy turning the gas on at McSlug's kitchen stove but can't seem to be able to turn on the lighter he's trying to demonstrate. Don Williams eventually ended up at DePatie-Freleng when it formed in the 1960's; naturally, with the tighter budgets and all, his work isn't quite as evident at this studio but there are moments where his work still shows up here nonetheless. I believe he animates the bit in "We Give Pink Stamps" where the tigerskin rug comes to life and romances the Pink Panther who is covered with a ravishing perfume, the bit in "The Pink Phink" with the little pointed-nose man and the panther painting opposite sides of a giant pole without seeing one another eventually painting it like a giant barber pole, the scene in "Pink Panzer" where the Panther grabs his gardening shears and lifts up the cover of the box to see what's inside only to discover his angry neighbor is inside who pops up shotgun in hand demanding, "Lookin' for something, neighbor?!", the scene in "Pinkfinger" where the enemy spy plots to do anything with the Panther by luring him into the crocodile trap ("You'll get your taste of flesh soon enough... pink flesh!"), the scene in "Sicque! Sicque! Sicque!" where Deux-Deux frantically rushes to tell the Inspector he has seen "The monster" and the Inspector re-assuring Deux-Deux that they have him where they want him ("But I don't want him!"), and the scene in "Le Quiet Squad" with the Commissioner pounding his fists against his bedside angrily demanding, "Then 'ow about a leetle quiet?????!!!!!". Phew! I don't think animation analysis has even been discussed that much in depth about DePatie-Freleng before; just goes to show how unique Don Williams' style really is!

[Jack G.]

I can still see some of Scribner's style even in Avery's cartoons. For instance, in The Heckling Hare, it looks like Scribner animated the scene of Bugs placing the tomato in Willoughby's paw. Bugs has the type of wrinkles and furrowed brow that Scribner loved to give to his characters in that scene.Hey, I not gonna argue about that! I don't doubt ya at all!;)

Other animators who have very distinct styles (i.e. they did things THEIR way) would be...
Thanks for the descriptions. They help this novice a lot!:)
If you can think of traits of other animators styles, please post em!

[Fibber Fox]

That may be so but, after reading both previous posts of yours, I couldn't help getting the impression that you seemed to be demeaning or disdaining the hobby and/or profession of animation analysts.

Matt, there are people who are paid good money because they can tell you if you've bought a real painting or a very good imitation. They have the knowledge to know painter's style and characteristics. Surely animation can't be much different though, granted, the animator isn't the sole creator of what (s)he's putting on the screen, so I imagine the task is a difficult one.

FF

[Mr. Jinks]

I was never really a fan of Lloyd Vaughn's work.

[Sogturtle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroiter
I think we need to realize that animation identification is pretty new. Let's face it, we still don't even know who directed all of these films, much less who animated them.
....
And so it will be with animated cartoons. Except of course where the credits are wrong, one artist signed another's piece of original art, an interviewee misremembers, an animators draft credits the last rather than the primary artist of a scene, and the business records are fudged in order to balance the books. Didn't Tex Avery tell Joe Adamson that he would sometime pick up Hanna-Barbara animators when they were slow, and vice versa? Can anyone spot where this happened?

With the odd exception of someone like 1940's-50's Tyer who does everything he can to make his animation stand apart, all of these talented animators, assistants, inbetweeners, layout artists, character artists, directors and producers were doing their level best to PREVENT us from determining who drew what. It was all supposed to be on-model, and if we're honest, it usually was.

F Flood



Detroiter-Frank~

Nice to hear from ya here!:) And you're right that we don't truly know who all animated on a given Warner or MGM cartooon. With Art Davis regularly handing off a little part of his animation to his assisant to animate we can start to realize that THAT may be why nobody recognizes the animation Davis did for Clampett OR apparently what he did in Freleng's "Baseball Bugs"... That in those instances it was just Artie animating "undiluted":) instead of Artie PLUS his assistant(s). What our friends think may be indicative of his animation MAY instead be indicative of his assistant's animation...

And yeah, Tex did tell about picking up Bill and Joe's animators when they were behind and vice versa, and nobody to date has tried analyzing out the time(s) where this happened. And even though Tex didn't mention it, the odds would be pretty high that the same thing happened during the comparatively brief period when Tex was directing alongside Rudy Ising (and Bill and Joe) due to Rudy's fabled SLOWNESS...;)

I personally DO find "animation identification" to be a MUCH more interesting and useful tool when applied to cartoons where we DON'T have any credit list of animators. And our Larry T. has come up with what I consider some great ones...

And you're quite right that a massive effort was made to keep all the artists completely on-model (and non-distinctive). BUT almost nobody here is willing to or likely going to listen to you or me about it. :eek:

[J. J. Hunsecker]

And you're quite right that a massive effort was made to keep all the artists completely on-model (and non-distinctive). BUT almost nobody here is willing to or likely going to listen to you or me about it. :eek:
We already addressed that point -- that is, even though all the artists were trying their best to draw the characters alike, certain quirks and stylistic preferences still show up. We've already pointed out the most individualistic animators on this thread and their unique drawing styles, for instance. Why are you unwilling to listen to the people here who can tell the difference between the animators?

[Matt the Y]

We already addressed that point -- that is, even though all the artists were trying their best to draw the characters alike, certain quirks and stylistic preferences still show up. We've already pointed out the most individualistic animators on this thread and their unique drawing styles, for instance. Why are you unwilling to listen to the people here who can tell the difference between the animators?

Exactly. If certain animators did have unique individualistic styles, why would they try to quash that special unique creativity of their own by trying to animate like everyone else just for the sake of blending in and looking "on model"? After all, there is something to be said for artistic expression even in the relatively obscure realm of animated film. I doubt a wild and zany animator like Rod Scribner would ever attempt to animate like any of Clampett's other animators like Manny Gould or any of McKimson's other animators like Phil DeLara just so that his scenes wouldn't "jump out" and be conspicous and throw viewers off. Also, I've heard that Gerry Chiniquy was very resistant to Hawley Pratt's character layout drawings and poses that Pratt would present to Friz's animators; i.e. he wanted to follow his own style, not Pratt's layouts. Therefore, if Chiniquy was unwilling to follow even a layout drawing of Pratt's, it seems logical enough that he certainly wouldn't be willing to emulate the animation styles of fellow animators Virgil Ross and Art Davis.

[Jack G.]

And you're quite right that a massive effort was made to keep all the artists completely on-model (and non-distinctive). BUT almost nobody here is willing to or likely going to listen to you or me about it. :eek: I get your point that animation identification isn't something that can hit the mark every time
(due to the many variables you have mentioned.

But despite the effort by most units to have things be on model you can't deny something
like Ben Washam's Bugs with the pointed teeth?

I'm also reminded of the a bit in the Friz on Film doc where someone talks about Friz reconizing an animator, "That's your father's work." Freleng goes on to describe how animator's work is like a signature. If someone of Friz's stature says that,
I'm inclined to agree with him.

[Sogturtle]

... If certain animators did have unique individualistic styles, why would they try to quash that special unique creativity of their own by trying to animate like everyone else just for the sake of blending in and looking "on model"? After all, there is something to be said for artistic expression even in the relatively obscure realm of animated film. I doubt a wild and zany animator like Rod Scribner would ever attempt to animate like any of Clampett's other animators like Manny Gould or any of McKimson's other animators like Phil DeLara just so that his scenes wouldn't "jump out" and be conspicous and throw viewers off. Also, I've heard that Gerry Chiniquy was very resistant to Hawley Pratt's character layout drawings and poses that Pratt would present to Friz's animators; i.e. he wanted to follow his own style, not Pratt's layouts. Therefore, if Chiniquy was unwilling to follow even a layout drawing of Pratt's, it seems logical enough that he certainly wouldn't be willing to emulate the animation styles of fellow animators Virgil Ross and Art Davis.

I get your point that animation identification isn't something that can hit the mark every time
(due to the many variables you have mentioned.

But despite the effort by most units to have things be on model you can't deny something
like Ben Washam's Bugs with the pointed teeth?

I'm also reminded of the a bit in the Friz on Film doc where someone talks about Friz reconizing an animator, "That's your father's work." Freleng goes on to describe how animator's work is like a signature. If someone of Friz's stature says that,
I'm inclined to agree with him.


Matt the Y~

Matt, you are a nice guy and my friend. And like I said up above I consider you and the others to be quite BRIGHT and with good analytical powers. I've also said that I respect and value particularly "animation identification" when applied to cartoons where we DON'T have a (supposed) full list of animators.


But what concerns me is that much of "animation identifying" seems to be like shooting fish in a barrel, where a person already has a full slate of credits to go on and then watches the cartoon and assigns names to scenes (based on either the handful of Warner single-animator toons of the '50's or someone else's analysis of drawing style and motion).

Did some animators have individualistic drawing styles or animation styles? Of course! Just like some were much more talented than others, and usually the less talented ones didn't get into the major studios. But the thing that every single person loses sight of is that EVERY last Warner and MGM director rigidly controlled the animation via NOT just model sheets but by several other devices. One was by the directors providing an animation layout for EVERY single foot of film, this provided a strong CORE for the animators to work from. Another was the (Disney-invented) pencil-test, whereby the director got a GOOD real-time look at what the animator had turned out and could (and did) call out for revisions until the animator got it right. Still another was that the animators were CHOSEN according to their ability for a scene (i.e. you usually won't find an action animator being given important personality animation or vice versa). Scenes like those are often ALONE a giveaway as to who in a unit was doing the animating. And lastly, the Warner and MGM directors were INCREDIBLY PRECISE as to timing, when they wrote that they wanted a movement done in 125 drawings they MEANT 125, not a 124 or a 126. As such the Warner and MGM directors really called all the shots and ANY individualistic drawing or animation style that got into a cartoon was because that was what they WANTED and EXPECTED from a particular animator, BUT ideally they wanted the entire cartoon to appear as a seamless whole. Did anyone try to get Gerry Chiniquy to animate like Art Davis? No of course not, they just wanted it all to BLEND together as much as possible... We should remember that Bob McKimson DID tame Scribner down a fair amount in his cartoons.
For anybody to go around endlessly dissecting these shorts into individual animators segments really disrespects the director's desires a whale of a lot more than the computer colorization of black and white shorts.


I've already covered the most individualistic animator's "styles" earlier in this thread by pointing out that:
1). People cannot identify Rod Scribner's animation for Hardaway and Dalton. :eek:
2). Folks can't identify Emery Hawkins work in the "Captain And The Kids" (let alone in his slightly earlier Mintz toons):eek:
3). No-one can pick out Art Davis' animation in Clampett's cartoons (Clampett attested to it). Nor in "Baseball Bugs".:eek: :eek:
4). Art Babbitt's work for Clampett remains unidentified to this day. Babbitt was known as among Walt's best and most famous...:eek:
5). Nobody can I.D. Jim Tyer's work in his several years of Fleischer cartoons. :eek:

This is sadly starting to remind me of the time 30-odd years ago when Mike Barrier reported that the famed Clampett Bugs Bunny model-sheet had been drawn by BOB McKimson. He was promptly notified by a very, very talented (then) young animator (whose name I WON'T repeat to avoid re-embarrassing him) that he KNEW that piece had been drawn by TOM McKimson because he could "RECOGNIZE his DRAWING style":eek: . Mike immediately re-contacted Bob Clampett, Tom McKimson and Bob McKimson and they ALL instantly reaffirmed that it had been BOB McKimson who had drawn the model sheet and NOT Tom... Moral of the story was that the well-meaning and very talented young animator was seeing what he wanted to see, and sadly was dead-wrong. [Swiped from an earlier post of mine:D ].


Since all these guys up above are among the best or MOST idiosyncratic animators that ever worked in the Golden Age then it does NOT encourage my trust in a possible "science" of animation identification if people cannot pick out their work at any given time (even if earlier in their career). This of course brings back the idea of an artist having an immutable drawing/animating style (or not). OR it relates tightly to the idea of directors pushing hard for a single "look" to their cartoons that caused even the most ididosyncratic animators scenes to be "ironed" out so that they LOOKED REALLY GOOD, but NOT wildly individualistic. But then again the idea of animation identification will still have to argue that ALL their work is recognizable ("just please don't bring up certain periods in certain people's careers" ;) ).


Did Gerry Chiniquy not want to follow Hawley Pratt's animation layouts? I'm not sure what the source of that is, but it is logical that a FULL animator would be none-too-thrilled to be told to follow layouts made by a guy who was only ever an assistant animator. BUT on the other hand, Hawley's layouts were cleaned up amplications of what Friz had already drawn and then pitched Pratt's way. The point of everything was to attain to that seamless-whole idea and Friz's sometimes hastily only drawing a characer with one-leg was NOT something to send to the animators.


Masked Stinker~

I've mentioned that I agree that some animators do indeed have individualistic styles, either in drawing or in the type of movement, that is a given. But the catch is that the Warner and MGM directors have to seen as having fostered such a thing for it to appear in one of their finished cartoons. IF ALL of the more pointed-tooth Bugs scenes are by Benny Washam then it really just tells us that Jones did approve the "look" in those scenes and did not tell Ben and his assistant to go back and fix the teeth. BUT do we ever really know that all the pointed-tooth Bugs are Ben's?? No we don't, we are just going under the presumption that that is the case because some pointed-teeth scenes were ID'ed as Ben's already.

And likewise I agree that legendary-director Friz would make a statement that an animator's work is like a signature, since Freleng was himself an artist/animator then that would be the logical thing for him to believe and say. AND that after having the same guys animate for him for years that HE would recognize their work (he probably even saw it in his sleep:p ). Conversely Chuck Jones ARGUED to Richard Williams that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Williams or anybody to know which scenes in his Warner cartoons were by a particular animator. The famed pencil-animation dance scene in "Mississippi Hare" which was in Virgil Ross' possesion was honestly believed by Ross to have been his own drawing... But it was Ken Harris', meaning that expert animator Ross couldn't distinguish between his and Harris' work:eek: .

Final note on it all?:p I believe that SOME people can pick out the work of SOME animators SOME of the time... BUT that it is all a lot more complicated and involved than anyone is willing to admit.

[J Lee]

A good test right now, to see if you can spot different animators' styles, is to go over the Pinocchio DVD while checking out the series of posts on Mark Meyerson's blog identifying the animators scene-by-scene, based on records from the Walt Disney studio.

Just going by Myerson's extensive frame grabs -- he's up to Part 18 right now (http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com/2007/07/pinocchio-part-18.html) -- Fred Moore's animation on Lampwick is the only one that really jumps out at me as being from a specific animator; while I find others who later worked elsewhere (WB, MGM, and Lantz) to be completely submerged within the overall Disney "look" of the movie.

[Thad]

Greg Duffell can ID Rod Scribner in the Hardaway/Dalton shorts.

Mark Kausler can ID Emery Hawkins' scenes in the Mintz and MGM cartoons.

Milton Knight (IIRC) can ID Jim Tyer's 30s work.

[Jack G.]

For anybody to go around endlessly dissecting these shorts into individual animators segments really disrespects the director's desires a whale of a lot more than the computer colorization of black and white shorts. I really don't understand why IDing an animator's work takes anything away from the director.

[Sogturtle]

A good test right now, to see if you can spot different animators' styles, is to go over the Pinocchio DVD while checking out the series of posts on Mark Meyerson's blog identifying the animators scene-by-scene, based on records from the Walt Disney studio.

Just going by Myerson's extensive frame grabs -- he's up to Part 18 right now (http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com/2007/07/pinocchio-part-18.html) -- Fred Moore's animation on Lampwick is the only one that really jumps out at me as being from a specific animator; while I find others who later worked elsewhere (WB, MGM, and Lantz) to be completely submerged within the overall Disney "look" of the movie.

Greg Duffell can ID Rod Scribner in the Hardaway/Dalton shorts.
Mark Kausler can ID Emery Hawkins' scenes in the Mintz and MGM cartoons.
Milton Knight (IIRC) can ID Jim Tyer's 30s work.

I really don't understand why IDing an animator's work takes anything away from the director.

John~

That is indeed a good suggestion for all to take a cruise through Mark Mayerson's Pinnochio breakdown, as it is based on authoritative material. It's very interesting that with his long years as an animator and trying to identify vintage animator's work that Mark has gone on record in his recent blogging as pointing out that the animators at Warners ADAPTED to the units...

Masked Stinker~

Attempting animation identification is a fine hobby, there's nothing wrong with it as such:) . But go back and read through a lot of the people's comments when they've been trying to pick out animators... Suddenly it's NOT about how wonderfully directed and constructed and funny a Clampett (or Jones or___) cartoon is, you're suddenly hearing rhapsodies of praise about "ol' so-and-so's" squash and stretch of that female warthog;) and then how wonderfully the next top animator animated the the lovesick look in the male javelina's eyes complete with the pupils pirouetting ever-so-lightly:p . Nearly completely LOST in all of it is who REALLY made the cartoon (namely the director). In reality with the number of top animators that Hollywood had in the "golden age", the major studio's top directors with their STRONG DIRECTING could've gotten nearly any group of fine animators (IF including a couple personality and action animators) to turn out a cartoon I BELIEVE nearly identical to what they made with their regular crew.) And I repeat one last time, it's a fine and a great hobby I know a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. :)

Thad~

Interesting... To date I've never heard of anybody successfully being able to pick out early animation by Scribner or by Hawkins or by Tyer... [Though I've heard of people wishing they could]. Even our Larry T. (a couple years back) told me that he saw some really fine animation in the "Captain and Kids" toons but that he didn't realize that it included work by Emery Hawkins till I told him...:eek:

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Attempting animation identification is a fine hobby, there's nothing wrong with it as such:) . But go back and read through a lot of the people's comments when they've been trying to pick out animators... Suddenly it's NOT about how wonderfully directed and constructed and funny a Clampett (or Jones or___) cartoon is, you're suddenly hearing rhapsodies of praise about "ol' so-and-so's" squash and stretch of that female warthog;) and then how wonderfully the next top animator animated the the lovesick look in the male javelina's eyes complete with the pupils pirouetting ever-so-lightly:p . Nearly completely LOST in all of it is who REALLY made the cartoon (namely the director). In reality with the number of top animators that Hollywood had in the "golden age", the major studio's top directors with their STRONG DIRECTING could've gotten nearly any group of fine animators (IF including a couple personality and action animators) to turn out a cartoon I BELIEVE nearly identical to what they made with their regular crew.) And I repeat one last time, it's a fine and a great hobby I know a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. :)
Identifying and admiring animators' work takes nothing away from the directors who created the cartoons in question. It's like discussing what fine actors Brando, De Niro, Bogart and Nicholson are: it doesn't rob the directors they worked with of any prestige.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

3). No-one can pick out Art Davis' animation in Clampett's cartoons (Clampett attested to it). Nor in "Baseball Bugs".
4). Art Babbitt's work for Clampett remains unidentified to this day. Babbitt was known as among Walt's best and most famous...
I would assume that the scene of Bugs in the taxi ("Hey, you're going da wrong way!") to be Davis' scene. It looks different from the other animation in the cartoon. It's much freer, more exaggerated and cartoonier.

Babbit did the scene of So White swallowing the poisoned apple in Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs, according to Clampett.

[Matt the Y]

Identifying and admiring animators' work takes nothing away from the directors who created the cartoons in question. It's like discussing what fine actors Brando, De Niro, Bogart and Nicholson are: it doesn't rob the directors they worked with of any prestige.

I agree with Hunsecker 100%. What's wrong with appreciating the talents of the director and the animation team equally? Granted, the director DOES deserve more credit because a) he designs everything ahead of time for the animators to follow and b) he assigns which scenes the animators are supposed to animate for them (i.e. Ken, you animate this; Ben, you animate this...) but some of the Warners animators were immensely talented and must be recognized as well. After all, the various Warner directors have received vast recognition for many years while many greatly talented animators have been slighted; isn't it about time some of the underdogs received their share of the limelight?

[Matt the Y]

I would assume that the scene of Bugs in the taxi ("Hey, you're going da wrong way!") to be Davis' scene. It looks different from the other animation in the cartoon. It's much freer, more exaggerated and cartoonier.

Babbit did the scene of So White swallowing the poisoned apple in Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs, according to Clampett.

I believe you are right about Davis animating the scene of Bugs in the taxi cab in "Baseball Bugs". It looks different from the style of animation Davis would later do for Freleng but also different from the styles of Freleng's other animators in that same cartoon (i.e. the work of a "guest" animator).

Also, about Babbitt's animation for Clampett's cartoons... also according to Clampett, Art Babbitt animated the scene in "The Wise Quacking Duck" of Daffy taking off his outer layer of "feathers" the same way a strip-teaser takes off her clothing when Mr. Meek orders him to undress for the oven. Clampett did lie a little about this story, though; he said Babbitt animated the scene with help from a live-action strip-teaser who was brought into the studio for Babbitt to "study from"; Art Babbitt himself refuted this story many years later when he admitted to animating that scene from that cartoon but acknowledged that he animated it completely from his own imagination without any sort of live-action reference.

[Jack G.]

Nearly completely LOST in all of it is who REALLY made the cartoon (namely the director). In reality with the number of top animators that Hollywood had in the "golden age", the major studio's top directors with their STRONG DIRECTING could've gotten nearly any group of fine animators (IF including a couple personality and action animators) to turn out a cartoon I BELIEVE nearly identical to what they made with their regular crew.) And I repeat one last time, it's a fine and a great hobby I know a lot of people have a lot of fun with it. :) I'd say it's an animation unit headed by a strong director makes the films.

I don't think in every case, the work would be the same.

When it came to Clampett's taking over Avery's unit (post-McKimson as head animator), I'd say Rod Scribner made a big contribution to shaping the style that came out of that unit. Without Scribner, Clampett would of still of made great cartoons
but the animation would of been slightly different.

As an aside Mike Barrier's book talks about various artists (animators, character designers, layout people) that influenced
what we were seeing on screen under certain directors (Avery, Clampett, Jones). Yes, I suppose the director would have to approve,
have final say, etc.... But a director doesn't create their work in a vacuum either.

[Sogturtle]

Okay then... Let me rephrase about Art Babbitt working for Clampett...:) To my knowledge no-one was able to just on their own analyze what was Babbitt's work (I even had a person or two argue with me that Babbitt's only work on a Warner's cartoon had been on "Philbert" in '63). It took first Bob Clampett mentioning that Babbitt had worked for him and then his getting very SPECIFIC, coupled with Babbitt coming forward and corroborating his work on "The Wise Quacking Duck" before anybody realized tht he'd ever worked at Schlesinger/Warners in the 'Golden Age'.

As to my mention of Art Davis working on Freleng's "Baseball Bugs"... I first mentioned that a couple of years ago here and it is based on the fact of Artie having a model-sheet of one of the monstrously-huge "Gashouse Gorillas" in his possession. Short of finding a FINAL animation draft of "Baseball Bugs" (or a mention of his working on "Baseball..." by Davis in interview) then that is about as definitive as one can truly get. When I brought it up before, our friends by process-of-elimination crossed out all of the scenes except for the cab-driver scene. And once again that is what's happening here, but no one is saying "OH that looks like Art Davis' work". It goes back to what our friend Mark Mayerson wrote, that the animators at Warners ADAPTED to the units:cool: . And once again it is to be noted that NOBODY is picking out Art Davis animation in Clampett cartoons despite Clampett attesting to it...;)
(And I should add that in about this same period, Friz had at least THREE other full animators working for him full-time but UNCREDITED!!!:eek: THAT makes the analyzing even more difficult...:eek: :eek: ).

Lastly, the Warner and MGM directors had VERY great say in who worked in their units and in who left. Those two studios went to great pains to only hire the most talented people (or train them from scratch), but when a director would dump an animator then his unit continued on without missing a beat:cool: .
Scribner leaves Freleng's unit in 1940 and Friz's cartoons go on unchanged. Clampett gets rid of Sutherland and Ross in the '43-'44 release period and we hardly see a difference (even with Clampett furiously borrowing animators right and left). A somewhat perceptible change DOES occur in Avery's unit when he suddenly delegates more authority to master-animator Bob McKimson, BUT the TYPE of cartoons remain just as quixotically Avery as ever. Jones loses Cannon and Larriva and his toons remain "Jones-ian". Years later Washam quits and not a beat is missed as Chuck's films roll along, just as idiosyncratic as before.
[And in one case "management" hired and forced an artist on Freleng, who Friz adjudged as being awful... The artist's days at Warner's were not very long].

Soooo in conclusion on this topic, I now have to adjudge that my addressing the idea of "animation identification" with my views of it has been, well, really an utter and complete waste of time. As far as I can tell no one has been convinced in the least by my points. And as such I have to apologize for wasting peoples time. [Though it has been fascinating watching a couple of people sidestep some of my points or engage in pitiful sarcasm in a rather sad attempt to discredit things I said...].
And ya know, I learned long, long ago that people believe what they want to believe and only what they want to believe... (so I should've known better:) ).
Henceforth I'll TRY to refrain from mentioning anything else about 'animation identification' lest I anger and upset any more of my friends (or people who are no longer my friends;) ) or waste any more room on the TTTP/GAC server:p :bugs2: .

[Thad]

And ya know, I learned long, long ago that people believe what they want to believe and only what they want to believe...

That sums up all of your posts very succinctly.

[Matt the Y]

(And I should add that in about this same period, Friz had at least THREE other full animators working for him full-time but UNCREDITED!!!:eek: THAT makes the analyzing even more difficult...:eek: :eek: ).


Tim, who were these three other full animators working for Friz during this period? I've never heard this story before until now by anybody except you. AFAIK, Ross, Chiniquy, Perez, and Champin were Friz's only full-time crew during this period. If you know of these three other uncredited animators specifically, could you please at lease name names for those who are curious?

[The Spectre]

I think Jack Bradbury was one of them, no idea about the other two though.

[Jack G.]

Soooo in conclusion on this topic, I now have to adjudge that my addressing the idea of "animation identification" with my views of it has been, well, really an utter and complete waste of time.I don't think it was a waste, but perhaps the way you and I view how a cartoon's identity is slightly different.;)
I see a cartoon as a sum of it's parts, in this case the team that contributes to the making the cartoon.
You seem to see cartoons identity, flowing strictly from the director.

No big deal. I can live with the difference of opinion.
But perhaps we've reached the "flogging a dead horse" point.:p

[Daffysleftfoot]

I think Jack Bradbury was one of them, no idea about the other two though.

But Jack Bradbury was creditted for Jack-Wabbit and the Beanstalk. Dick Bickenbach was also an animator for Friz in the early '40's.

On the LT dvds, Greg Ford mentioned that Owen Fitzgerald worked uncreditted for Friz. Perhaps that's one of the names Sogturtle is referring to.

[Fibber Fox]

I see a cartoon as a sum of it's parts, in this case the team that contributes to the making the cartoon.
You seem to see cartoons identity, flowing strictly from the director.


Well, what I'm reading is he is saying no one can judge, with a large degree of accuracy or consistency, the difference between (as an example) Rod Scribner's animation and Bob McKimson's in a Clampett cartoon.

Others disagree, saying animators had idiosyncracies of drawing and movement you can see if you look frame-by-frame.

I also gather by Sog's Art Davis logic that if someone has the murder weapon in their home, they're the murderer. I wouldn't want him on my jury :)

FF

[Matt the Y]

On the LT dvds, Greg Ford mentioned that Owen Fitzgerald worked uncreditted for Friz. Perhaps that's one of the names Sogturtle is referring to.

Owen Fitzgerald did work uncredited for Friz but as a layout artist, not an animator (then, in the early 1940's, Fitzgerald walked out the door and Hawley Pratt permanently took over).

[Javeman]

Lastly, the Warner and MGM directors had VERY great say in who worked in their units and in who left. Those two studios went to great pains to only hire the most talented people (or train them from scratch), but when a director would dump an animator then his unit continued on without missing a beat:cool: .You don't have to be an animation historian to tell that there's a significant drop in quality in McKimson's cartoons after he lost his original unit in the mid-50s.