Random semiconscious musings

Don Williams

2008-12-04T22:48:00.008-05:00

In my last post I mentioned that I was going to focus my next few entries on one of my favourite animators from the Golden Age of animation: Don Williams.

In doing so, there is another bonus.... I get to present one of the most beautifully-animated, magnificent cartoons of all time, bar none.

OK, where to start- Mr. Williams had quite a history of roving between workplaces during the entire span of the Golden and Silver Ages of Animation. He has had a presence at pretty much every major studio in Hollywood- some accounts say he never stayed anywhere very long because he bored easily of animating characters with designs that were too simple and inexpressive. Other accounts say he had trouble holding a position anywhere due to his excessive drinking and nonconformist attitude. It's most likely a combination of the two, but the end result is that his career can be tracked by spotting his distinctive style on many famous characters in dozens of great cartoons.

In his early years Mr. Williams did what most young artists wanting to break into the business did, which was freelance on newspaper illustrations and advertisements. The earliest credit I've seen of his was at Warner Brothers Studios in 1933 on the Merrie Melodie cartoon, "Sittin' On A Backyard Fence"... so I have no idea if he actually animated anywhere else prior to that since his style was not yet discernible. It's quite likely that this was his break into the business because in the 30s when film and animation were exploding industries, almost anyone who could manipulate a pencil could get a job rather easily due to industry demands. He was apparently in his mid-teens.

Don's film credit at Warner's continues until 1936 in the film, "At Your Service Madam", when he suddenly disappears. There has been speculation and testimony by his grandson, Darrin Walter that he did a brief stint at Disney from 1937 - 1939, and has animation in several cartoons including Lonesome Ghosts and The Brave Little Tailor. I will watch these cartoons soon see if I can recognize his developing penmanship in either one of them, especially on the scenes he is attested on doing. (By these dates Don's animation must be a little more obvious because the 1941 MGM cartoon in today's entry, only two years after leaving Disney, showcases his inimitable style and timing which lasted for several years afterward, and it's very unlikely that his exceedingly distinctive talent suddenly developed in two years. That would be like saying your own handwriting completely changes within a matter of a few months). In my previous post featuring the Buddy cartoon "Buddy The Detective", the scenes I am aware that Williams did still do not quite resemble that which we've come to recognize, although there are brief glimpses of his timing skill here and there.

Don Williams has screen credit and animation in a few MGM cartoons up to 1942. Today's focus is on the magnificent Hugh Harman cartoon, "The Field Mouse".

From the cue Sheets for this production, the other animators listed include Irv Spence, Ray Abrams, Paul Sommer, Leonard Sebring, and David Treffman. I've broken down this cartoon with the animators that I know did the specific marked scenes, keeping in mind that cue sheets are not always the last word on who contributed what.

Enjoy the cartoon. This is a prime example of what can be done WITHOUT sh!tty computer-generated graphics replacing raw artistic talent. The layout is superb, the action fast-paced, and the storytelling is A-1. Some of the best names in the industry worked on this production, and it is a first-class representation of a spectacular Hollywood animated cartoon.

Oh yeah, and enjoy Don's wonderfully quirky style... more on that in my next post.

BTW, that old guy moves pretty good for someone with the gout.

On a dark and stormy night.....

2008-10-29T23:08:00.004-04:00

It's that time of year again (when I need to update this blog) and pull a spooky cartoon out of my collection for Hallowe'en.

And my pick for frightening, eerie spooky cartoon features....

BUDDY!!!
WOOOOOOO... Now that's scary!!

OK, I chose this cartoon for two reasons: firstly, part of it lends towards a Hallowe'en theme, and secondly it features animation from an artist I am going to focus on in the next few blog posts because he is one of my favourites: Don Williams.

Though not as obvious as his later stuff in the 40s and up, there's some cool Williams animation in this short. He did the scene at the beginning where the tree comes in and plays the piano ("Bahhh!!! Jazz Music!!!). Another scene in particular he did is where Cookie is on the telephone and the Mad Musician is trying to hypnotize her (one of the first on-screen appearances of a telemarketer, no doubt). It's the scene when Cookie says, "no, no, no" and finally drops the phone and gives in, walking out the door.

One of Williams' strongest points is how sturdy all his characters appear. He was a master of character acting and whenever he was given a facial closeup, there are subtleties in the expressions that not every animator could capture. His animation has an imperfect, quirky quality to it, which is why I enjoy it so much. And all action is nicely exaggerated.

Even though this cartoon is one of Buddy's better outings, as some of the gags are funny, especially with the skeletons- the potential is there for something better but never quite reaches it.... the problem with this short is that it doesn't really know where it wants to go. It begins as a somewhat macabre thriller, introducing the psychotic musician who wants inspiration for a masterpiece. It then turns into a crime-mystery, where Cookie disappears and Buddy becomes a Sherlock Holmes-type gumshoe. Once in the house, it becomes rather surreal, bordering on becoming a spooky, fantasy ghost story of weirdness and curiosity. And finally, it finishes as a humourous romp with Buddy and Cookie doing what they do best, cheery jazz music.

Would it be fair to assume that Jack King was not the only director, which is what caused this confused plotline? Or maybe he had so many ideas, and the story just unfolded as they were incorporated into the cartoon? Nobody really knows... that's spooky in itself.

Either way though, there is some great atmosphere in this cartoon...

Enjoy... and Happy Halloween.....!!

Revisiting the Future

2008-09-01T12:04:00.006-04:00

I've been on a binge lately. I've been indulging in watching exceptionally bad cartoons.

Call it an absurd curiosity if you will, but my focus is not to view these to see how bad the cartoon really is, but it's more like examining the thought process of what the person who created it might be thinking when they believed what they were doing would actually be considered funny.

This is a problem with many films these days- even as open-minded as I can be, there are just some things out there in the entertainment venue where no matter what angle I try to understand the creation / execution process, the final result just plain stinks.... even the most uncultured person still wouldn't find these funny (like any film featuring Ben Stiller or Will Ferrell, which are just plain embarrassing...).

So this takes me to today's post.

I admire Chuck Jones and the huge contributions he gave to the animation industry. He's a man that you can look back at his animation career and pretty much try to understand where he was mentally during each phase of his lifetime achievements...
the Pre-Disney days,
the "I wanna be like Disney" days,
the "I wanna be anything but Disney" days,
the "I've got lots of great ideas" phase,
the "but I want Tom and Jerry to be more refined and emphatic" phase,
the "I'm much more creative than you're making me out to be" phase,
the "I'm ready to sell out" phase... you get the picture.

Even up to his final creations, Jones' cartoons are at best watchable. At times he reminds me of a frustrated artist trying to evoke some response to his work but just never hitting the mark, so he tries again using the same tools and character devices in a repeated process. He gets very close with many of his fantastic directions.... but then there's still a sign of unsatisfaction and the next production ensues.

The following film is an example of Jones' fondness for his creations. Even though it's not all that funny in itself, or fast-moving, or even spectacular in its execution, I can't help but watching it through and comparing Jones to a elderly man taking out a box of his toys that he so enjoyed as a child and fondly revisiting memories while playing with them again. He presents them all with a kind and thoughtful manner- not self-effacing them by killing them off or adding exceptionally unbearable violence to them (kind of like what John K did to Yogi Bear). (The only questionable part is the scene where Daffy turns on his eager young space cadet... bad jokes warrant killing him? And it's done in such a slow, unusual pace, too- we can hardly tell Daffy is even angry).

And so Jones revists the future.... and goes from the 24 1/2 century to the return of the 24 1/2 century.

This is the full version of this cartoon, 9 1/2 minutes long. I understand it's hard to come by with every scene intact, so I hope you all enjoy it.... and maybe keep in mind that although it's not a real knee-slapper, you can apply some of your appreciation and fondness for the first cartoon and its characters which still holds up so many years after its original debut.

Censored Cartoons suck

2008-08-04T16:16:00.010-04:00

What is it August already? Holy moly, where does the time go. Better dust off those cartoons and get posting again.

A.K.A. THE LESS INTERESTING SIDE OF BOB CLAMPETT

OK- I agree that Bob Clampett made some cartoons that were real masterpieces. I also agree that he contributed to the Golden Age of animation in huge offerings. He had a fantastic staff of writers and an even better roster of animators at his disposal.

But I will not consider him a god.

There were no directors in the history of WB's studio that had a perfect track record. Each and every one of them had standouts, and each and every one had real dogs. But the more I watch Clampett's cartoons, the more I see his either relying on topical references, other entertainment venues, or borrowing from previous directors (especially Tex Avery). It's more of a case of, "When he was good, he was very, very good- but when he was bad....."

So today I thought I would bring to you one of Bob's lesser received efforts. What's really odd is that this cartoon is bookended by two hilarious cartoons of his, "Porky's Last Stand" and "Ali Baba Bound". At times I wonder if he just wasn't under pressure to submit something to the output schedule, since it seems like this entry is rushed and stuffed with long-winded, one-note reference jokes, so he threw together whatever he had available and called it a cartoon.

Back to the title: I hate censored cartoons- mostly because as a grown man, I don't appreciate someone else preaching to me what is and isn't appropriate for my viewing pleasure. I think I'm old enough to choose this for myself by now, and should have the full intended version available to me if I want it.

This particular cartoon has been televised and severely edited in the process. All the caricatures of the African Natives have been excised, trimming the length of this cartoon from 7:14 to 3:38.... pretty pathetic, isn't it. And there really aren't any derogatory jokes made from the caricatures either (like direct slavery references or mocking the Natives' facial features). They're just drawn as caricatured Natives.

Clampett threw a couple of topical references into this cartoon- one is boxer Tony Galento, seen at approximately 2:33.

Later on in the cartoon, we are treated to the big band sounds of the "Professor of Swing", Kay Kyser... I love that big band sound, hotcha.

He also uses a running gag featuring Spencer Tracer as "Stanley" parodied from the 1939 movie, "Stanley And Livingstone", who continually looks for Livingstone. Notice when we first see Kay Kyser in Spencer Tracy's exposure, he originally looks like "Livingstone" from the movie as well, until he pulls off the mask.

The title is also a parody of the previously released movie from Columbia Studios in 1930, "Africa Speaks".

Does anyone know who the Mayor is that's caricatured at 3:35?

Also, listen for the Elmer-ish sounding Kangaroo at 3:21.

So here is Clampett's "Africa Squeaks" in its total uncut form... yes, it's a real groaner, many jokes lost due to dating of the references.... so at least enjoy the wonderful animation by John Carey and Vive Risto.

1940-AfricaSqueaks
Uploaded by DJLarryT

The blog is not dead....

2008-02-15T11:44:00.006-05:00

Just in case you may have thought that I have abandoned this blog.... I haven't (yet). However I am extremely busy with many things at the moment which won't allow me time to post cartoons for another month or so.... I am moving at the end of the month, trying to get another fitness certification, etc etc etc.

So for now, here's something that's almost as funny as a cartoon.... Corporate illiteracy.

One thing I find inherently amusing is poor spelling. It's just such a basic necessity for communication yet so many individuals couldn't care less if they spell correctly. It's even better when the same ignorance passes several levels undetected. I have even seen misspelled words on civil signage... nice....

Here's a company I wouldn't have to think twice about investing in. This ad was in rotation on one of Microsoft's solution database pages. The fact that a word was initially misspelled is a small issue.

The fact that it went through the graphic artist who created the ad and remained misspelled makes it even better.

The fact that management OK'd it to be forwarded to the web page..... better even still.

The fact that it is being rotated to millions upon millions of potential clients on the web... priceless.

I'd rely on this company to solve all my promblems too.

Toys For Christmas

2008-01-02T09:54:00.000-05:00

For those who celebrate it, the Christmas holiday has now come and gone.

Many kids were disappointed with opening gift after gift of clothes, clothes, clothes.... funny how our tastes change as we get older (or they should anyway! Wait a minute.... ).

So for those of you who still didn't get toys for Christmas, I'm going to make it all better..... enjoy this merry sing-a-long from Famous Studios all about toys.

Cool things about this cartoon:

The main body of the cartoon is the focus of a piece of music you'll recognize from countless other cartoons, especially those from Warner Brothers (the drag scenes in particular). So if you've ever wanted to sing along when Stalling uses this cue, now you can.
There are a couple of neat-o cameos.... especially a certain B&W film star finally rendered in colour for a few brief seconds.
There's some really nice animation by Myron Waldman, and George Germanetti.
It's uncut.... the laughing roly-poly was excluded from many prints.

Hope you like it.

Showboating with my Buddy

2007-11-18T14:39:00.000-05:00

With the recent release of the most magnificent Looney Tunes Golden Collection Vol. 5, we've been treated to some wonderful Black & White goodies from the Warner's vault.

Many people seem to dislike those oddball cartoons from the 30s with no starring character- "I've Got To Sing A Torch Song" from Vol. 5 for one.... probably because there's no familiar character to relate entertainment with like Bosko or Bugs or Daffy, and the humour and/or references don't make sense due to being out of context because of their age.

I, for one, heavily enjoy these obscure things. I think it's because without a familiar starring character, what's left for the rest of the cartoon has to be entertaining enough to sustain the seven minutes in one way or another. This often inferred intertwining mishmash gags with a song or some kind attempt at amusing audiences of the 30s. That's what I find entertaining- watching what's thrown onscreen and, with my knowledge of the mindset of those who premiered the film, laughing at how simplistic or even low-functioning those with money to go watch these things must have been, and how those who wrote the gags were not far from that mentality themselves.

What's even more entertaining is seeing a flopping fish of a film taking stabs in the dark at humour and failing... embarrassingly.

Which brings me to this blog's cartoon: Buddy's Show Boat.

Now Buddy himself is forever under scrutiny. He's not funny, he's bland, he's as congenial as vanilla ice cream. But think of the mentality behind him- audiences were in the midst of a depression... things were gloomy all over and hardship was staring everyone in the face. His job was to give these poor sods a few minutes of escapism with whatever vehicle he had. Keeping this in mind, it's actually possible to enjoy his feeble efforts to lift the spirits of the audience.

I chose this selection because it's a weird mishmash of ideas as mentioned above. I suppose looking at it loosely, it's about Buddy's traveling showboat and how he lands in town-to-town entertaining anyone that may be interested in attending. But there's so much added to this cartoon that it literally shouts out "straight-ahead" scriptwriting, meaning the writers started somewhere and made themselves to the end of the seven minutes by adding interjections, "Now let's make him do this....", "now let's make Betty Boo-- I mean, Cookie do that", "OK now we need a conflict or plotline of some sort...." and finally winds up with the bad guy getting what he justly deserves... a spanking.

Also, this version is the uncut one, and there's some pretty off-colour / rather tasteless jokes in it. Oh, I don't mean the throwaway racist characterizations of the coal boys or the Maurice-Chevalier-ish Aborigine.... some even more risque: like the telephone ringing its bells which by no accident, have a direct resemblance to a cabaret dancer's breasts (don't believe me? just watch them); or the 'ferry' boat gaily making a pass as he prances past the barge; or the dung birds that walk in the parade then rip into formation as the horse in front of them lifts its tail readying to take a dump on the street.... Unrefined farm humour at its best....!!

There's a nice scene here where Buddy is ringing the steamboat whistle- the animation is so rubbery and fluid. It's probably Jack King- since he'd have been recently acquired from Disney prior to doing this- but really, that's just a guess. This, and the scene where Buddy telephones Betty Boo- er, I mean Cookie, are the only scenes where Buddy has these pointed, pinned-back ears, so whomever contributed this scene was probably new or on loan from another department. Maybe Irv Spence?

This version of the Looney Tunes theme used for the opening titles is my favourite one- it's a little slower and smoother than the ones used later. Anyone know the name of this song?

Here's a challenge... try to find at least something enjoyable about Buddy's character... he's such a perky little smiley-faced guy....!

Happy Hallowe'en

2007-10-31T11:44:00.000-04:00

It's Hallowe'en...

Without further ado here's a great ghostly cartoon featuring a haunted house, spooky goings-on, and "those white things that go MWwwwwwaaaaaa-haaaahhhhhhaaaa--haaaaaaaaaa--haaaa-haaaa!!!" (animated by John Carey... my favourite joke in the cartoon, too).

Yes, that is Pinto Colvig, better known as the voice of Disney's "Goofy" who does the vocals for the ghost. I also like how Warners' cartoons from these early years incorporated the songs into the cartoon too.. brings back the meaning of "Looney Tunes"... it's very creative.

Great sight jokes, nice animation from Vive Risto and John Carey.... hope you enjoy it.

Stinking Rich and Scared Silly

2007-10-24T17:44:00.001-04:00

My blog this time around is going to focus on two different items of interest.

The first item is to plug the most excellent compilation book by Jerry Beck and Leslie Carbaga.

Many of you will remember those horrible adaptations of the original character, Richie Rich, the poor little rich boy because unfortunately, the novelty of Richie and his wealth became the subject of his popularity when his likeness exploded onto the namesakes of the 70s comic books, television shows, and movie later on.

However, Richie started off as a rather endearing character- a clever little boy who just happened to be stricken with unenumerable riches. In the early stories he was still rather childlike, usually trying to fit in someplace with his humble, poverty-stricken friends, or learning a youthful lesson with the help of his schoolmates or parents. He had smarts- he felt the same things as any other kid- and his mentality was still reflected as a child his age should, which is what made the character interesting.

Anyway, the best Richie stories are included in the above book with the master penmanship of Steve Muffatti, Warren Kremer, and Ernie Colon.

Which brings me to my second point of interest: Hallowe'en- the one time of year when we are justified in pretending we're someone else.

I am especially enthusiastic about well-drawn comic book art. I do believe that comic books promote literacy in children that would otherwise be disinterested in further forms of educational reading... as long as the comic books have SOME literal value in themselves. When I was a boy, I loved reading comic books... and although my parents monitored the type of reading I was allowed to do, I could fully read any book,. and this included textbooks, from cover to cover by the time I was 6.... as well as multisyllabic words, not just "Mr. Muggs". I really owe it to the Harvey comics of the mid-60s.

There was one story in particular which I recall even to this day- a Hallowe'en themed issue of Richie Rich "Diamonds" from 1972. This story particularly freaked me out when I read it as a boy.

It is one example when Richie is totally disempowered. If anyone who is familiar with Richie can only remember his being in control of things, mostly because of his ability to buy his way out of anything (at least in the later stories), you will enjoy this story. It's creepy, bizarre, and best of all- magnificently drawn by Ernie Colon.... comments to follow.

I like how Richie's wealth always inspires everyone else into greed. He's innocently the target of extortion many times... often to the taker's misery... (a slight jab at society in a comic magazine intended for a younger audience...) his response to Gloria in the first panel of the next page is one of those examples of his childlike way of thinking that I mentioned earlier... "Only $2000!!".

This witch reminds me of my stepmother. She even looks like her. She especially acts like her, but my stepmother didn't have the spectacular magic. I'd have preferred Walla over her. Anyway, I like how Richie and Gloria are still rather polite at this point.

It's still an illusion, kiddies.... or is it.... these illusions actually interact though... very sophisticated.. it makes Richie nervous....

What kid reading this is going to understand the ghost's utterings anyway? (Inside joke: translated, the ghost says, "Quite rotten, the art of Colon."... good one, Ernie)

This is starting to get a little too weird... heh heh- Richie and Gloria are all messed up in the pie....

I like the "Black Christmas" eyeball reflection in panel two. It's more than I'd expect from a kid's comic book. It's also amusing to see that Richie's refined nature (that he's assumed from so many finishing schools) has worn out when he erupts at Walla. I guess rich kids do throw tantrums just like any other.

And now, let's have a little break. In this same comic book was a two-page insert advertising the Saturday morning cartoon lineup for September 1973. You nostalgia hounds should appreciate this. There's a light smattering of classic stuff intermixed with the throwaway limited animation productions made in those days... I actually watched, "Sealab 2020" and it was lame... I think I stopped watching cartoons after around 11:00 when the "Barkleys" ended. Ah... I miss those days when it was worth getting up on Saturday mornings.

And now, on with the story....

I like Richie's expression here when he realizes that his comfortable, secure little home life has been upended... and sees his companion / guardian Cadbury transformed into some bloodsucking entity (Cadbury looks pretty cool this way, IMO). The image of Richard and Regina especially disturbed me as a kid, thinking of what it would be like if MY parents were turned into freakish butterfly-winged ape creatures.

Heh heh- Richie still thinks his wealth and status can overthrow Walla's magic- he attempts to ring the servants to get rid of her. I especially like the "one-hand-my-pocket" Wall Street control freak attitude he's got by this point. I wonder why he thought ringing the staff would be any different, since he just finished remarking how Cadbury was changed? Silly boy.

Gloria is probably directing every effort to maintain her continence by this point, especially in panel 5 above.
Ok, now Walla is really scary-looking as she casts more spells. That image of her is rather frightful, and panic has set in for Richie and Gloria. Better make the same mistake every horror movie victim makes and run, run away! That big bug Walla is riding is certainly would be startling.

I like how Richie can still pull a second away from being frightened by making a smart remark about Walla in panel 7 above... the kid's got balls.

What do you say when you see a 20-foot dragon in your foyer? What does a star translate to anyway? Something painful, no doubt.

Nice scenes here- the story ends up just as quickly as it began. The closeup of Richie's glare in the 7th panel is rather effective. Also the display of his bounding step as he retrieves the note from Cadbury shows that he is suddenly relieved, as if waking up from a bad dream. Cadbury even recalls that something happened to him.

But there's just one thing that's bothering me, and I wondered about this ever since I initially read this comic in the 70s.....

How did Little Audrey's friend Echo become one of Richie's servants? The Rich family must have made a deal with the white slavery child labour black market and pulled him out of school to work for them, making Richie's snazzy white shoes for a living, no doubt.

Oh, those crazy wealthy capitalists!! Tee hee!

I Got-ta Da Frutt Cake

2007-10-14T19:40:00.000-04:00

This marks the end of my first week home from my vacation last week. Believe it or not, I actually talk about cartoons, even when I'm on holidays. This last vacation was no different.

I'm now going to prove that cartoons are educational.

While at our resort, my friend was speaking about foods as we ate dinner. He is of Italian extraction, and at the time, the meal we were enjoying was a sort of seafood mix, the likes of which he said is eaten quite often in the area he originates from in Italy. He also elaborated by telling me the names of many of these foods in Italian, which when he does, I find rather entertaining.

The discussion led to the humorous topic of how English-speaking Italians manipulate the English language because Italian dialect has certain repetitive intonations and syllables. At one point he referred to a popular Italian song, which he proceeded to sing a few bars. Within a few seconds I asked myself, "Hey- I know this melody, and I'm not Italian."

I asked him to sing a bit more of it, which he did. I told him I know this song but I can't recall from where. He said that he wondered how I'd have known it, since it wouldn't have been a song that I'd have learned in school or from the radio, especially since there would have been no Italian influence in my upbringing. It was a mystery until I started thinking about cartoons again.

When I was growing up I was lucky enough to be able to watch local indie stations air classic cartoons at lunchtime and on Saturday mornings. I got to see just about every studio's output imaginable. I'm a big fan of the Famous Studios cartoons and as a kid I loved them even more. I especially liked the sing-a-longs and loved the scenes where the lettering would morph into some animated character or object and dance its way off the screen. It was from these cartoons that I also subliminally learned many folk songs, anthems, and big band pieces that were heard in many other production numbers outside of cartoons.

And it dawned on me- the Italian song my friend was singing was featured in a Famous Studios song cartoon, "No Place Like Rome"... (although he was singing it in Italian...)

So here it is... a special cartoon on my blog dedicated to my Italian friend.

See, cartoons are educational.

Going South

2007-09-26T08:20:00.000-04:00

I am gearing up for a trip South for my second week of holidays this year. As a Canadian, I must remind myself what that big, glowing warm ball up in the sky is since I won't be seeing it again for another 8 months come November (although with global warming, this is changing slightly.... Yikes).

So my post this time around features a cartoon about traveling towards the equator- MGM's "The Goose Goes South".

What can I say? This is a horribly lame cartoon- especially considering what MGM was also capable of in that year. Don't get me wrong... I'm not totally panning it altogether.... the animation is magnificent as always, with remarkable scenes by Pete Burness and Ed Barge... and if you've only ever seen the edited version, you've also missed out on very funny animation by Irven Spence with the two women talking about their kids. You know this guy's got talent- when all the characters do is talk, and it STILL is funny to watch? Yes.

But the subject matter and gag delivery is subpar even with other spot-gag cartoons of the same era.

It also has one of the the most offensive racially-directed slurs at approximately 6:10 into the cartoon. Right- this is the full, uncut version- the one MGM has buried in their vaults, probably due to the insensitive content.... and BEFORE YOU FLAME ME FOR POSTING IT remember, I didn't create it... and I also don't think the stereotypes are funny either. As a matter of fact, there's not a lot of real humour in this cartoon at all... the jokes are quite weak altogether.

But hey- it's about going South- and so am I.

Enjoy it for what it's worth, I may have a change of conscience and end up yanking it off of here... unless greater powers do it first.

It's Fair Today

2007-08-26T21:40:00.000-04:00

Hi readers.... ok first, the excuses. Summer is coming to a close and this traditionally means that I am busy beyond comprehension. So I apologize for the absence of a plethora of regular posts, even though I have lots of cool stuff to share....

With the recent release of the magnificent Universal Studios DVD set featuring Woody Woodpecker and Friends, I'm personally happy that many people can finally see what masterpieces these cartoons are, since they have been yanked from syndication for many years now due to appearing 'dated'. The Lantz Studios were somewhat of a revolving door for many fantastic talents from all different studios, especially the big names like Disney, Warner Brothers, Famous, and Columbia Pictures. Even though this roster of talent might infer that the studio's output looked like a mishmash of ideas, it was surprising how the multitude of energies available came together to produce a once-in-an-eternity collaboration of success after success. I am a devout, unrelentless fan of the "Swing Symphonies".... just one of those cartoons is better than an entire season of much of the crap that's on TV today.

Without further ado I thought I would present one of my favourite Universal cartoons from 1941, the rarely-seen "Fair Today".... Jon, it's for you! This was always one of my favourites even when I was a child watching it on Channel 10's lunchtime cartoon shows. My brother and I used to always repeat lines from cartoons we thought were funny and the "Have you seen my little boy?" bit from this struck us as exceptionally amusing, where we would fill in the word "boy" with something else, and proceed to deliver the punchline with much the same enthusiasm as the old woman at the end of the cartoon (Yeah I know, I was a weird kid. But weird kids make for interesting adults ;) )

Anyway, why do I like this cartoon?

Basically, because it's stupid. The jokes are silly and simple. It's superficial- and that's why I like it. It reflects the light-hearted and dopey mindset of many people in the early 40s... (especially since the threat of war loomed on the horizon). Personally, I don't always feel like watching something and having to assess the sociopolitical ramifications of exposure to segregate populace or the subversive underlying intonations of satirical content.... I just want to appreciate dumb jokes.

There's some half-decent Les Kline animation in here (if you can believe it... maybe it was before he got sloppy in the mid-40s.... see the "J-E-L-L-Y" scene...) some nice Laverne Harding animation (she did all the old Lady stuff and a few of the farm animals, namely the bull and the penguin) and some extremely hilarious Alex Lovy animation to boot too (I believe he did the bit with the "draft horses" and the pickpocket.. very funny....) Does anyone know what Ralph Somerville contributed to this cartoon?

Plus I really appreciate the 'adult' jokes in here....

(and for the last time... cartoons were NOT NECESSARILY MADE FOR KIDS..... hence the 'corn' gag, one of the funniest jokes in the cartoon).

Huge thanks go out to Mark Kausler. Enjoy.

See the Film, Read the Book

2007-07-09T23:13:00.001-04:00

As a follow-up to my previous post, here's another example of a cartoon tying in with a comic book story.... only in this case it is the other way around. I'm going to feature my most favourite Little Audrey cartoon of all time- Audrey The Rainmaker.

Many animation aficionados detest Audrey, probably because she doesn't have the temper of Donald Duck or the moxy of Bugs Bunny... or maybe because she's considered a pale successor to Marge's Little Lulu. However, any of you that have read my posts on the matter will recall that I find the cartoons entertaining in a simple and innocent way. They're made for children- generally- although at first the cartoons required a little adjusting (hey- "Santa's Surprise" has got to contain the most broadly-aimed racism I can think of). However, even though Audrey was largely hallucinogenic for the most part, it's hard not to find some sense of charm in her featured cartoons.

Once the formula of her cartoons was bullseyed, Famous Studios and Harvey Entertainment moved swiftly and hit upon a market niche that put them on the Wall Street map. Merchandising tie-ins with the theatrical releases became abundant.... even though the characters already existed in print and similar marketing venues, the cartoons catapulted the popularity of Famous/Harvey's holdings and entrenched them into North American nostalgia history forever.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand. The cartoon Audrey The Rainmaker was released in 1951. A few years later, the story was recycled into the comic book, which was printed for a December 1952 issue, #27.

The beautiful cover and story artwork were penned by the magnificent Steve Muffatti. He also animated on the cartoon too. (By the way, if you managed to pick up one of Electric Tiki's Mini-Maquettes of the limited edition Little Audrey, the above is the color scheme it was based on.... I got mine ;) )

Take a look at the story. Although it was condensed into the five page format, the general idea is still there. Notice Audrey is so narcoleptic she's falling asleep as her mother yells at her... also, unlike in the cartoon, the flowers she's trying to water at the beginning are quite dead....

It's interesting to note some of the differences that were made in the comic book adaptation from the animated production just a few years before. Her African-American maid, Petunia, is now replaced by her mother; the Rainmaker is now wearing clothes (I think in the cartoon having him semi-naked made him seem a bit more like some Roman deity, which made the story a bit more fantastic); Audrey actually is shown falling asleep in the comic book, whereas in the animated film, it seems to have happened in her everyday life. However the bad puns are still there (Famous gagmen were all given $5 extra for every pun that they contributed to a film).

It is really quite a charming piece of animation history, and as I mentioned before, one of Audrey's best outings. Mae Questel does a wonderful job with Audrey's voice, and the animation and backgrounds are beautiful. There's even that element of seriousness in the cartoon which makes us step outside the romanticism of the storytelling, as we see the entire country in its 107th day of drought- and the depiction of such is somewhat grim, especially the guy who gets his black market drop of water and goes into a heat-induced frenzy.

Also note that the version on the "Harveytoon Collection" DVD set is edited... here is the complete original. I hope you enjoy it.

Mighty Hunters

2007-06-17T08:03:00.000-04:00

Comic art and animation go hand in hand for many reasons. It's no coincidence that many people who appreciate animation also appreciate comic books, and for just cause.

In the early days both were a form of entertainment and artistic expression. They were meant to entertain and provide a humourous viewpoint on the world around us. Many times when a newspaper strip was interpreted into a cartoon, it was to experiment with the possibilities of bringing static drawings alive, and to gather audiences into the wonderful world of animation going one step further as to present the characters as walking, talking, moving creations. There have been some very successful crossovers, to mention a few:

MGM's "Captain and the Kids" cartoon series from the Newspaper strip, "The Katzenjammer Kids"

O. Soglow's "The Little King" strip in the Van Beuren and Max Fleischer properties

Popeye, as interpreted by Max Fleischer and then the later Paramount/Famous Studios

Even though nowadays animation has become not much more than a marketing tool, we still see crossovers from comic books and strips into the movie world.

However, one attempt I would like to focus on today involves the very well done cartoon by Warner Brothers Studios called "MIghty Hunters", based on James Swinnerton's early newspaper / magazine strip panel called "Canyon Kiddies".

Although by today's standards, panel art like this seems magnificently old-fashioned considering we have comic books which are much more dynamic, showing stories that are way more extreme... but imagine the mindset of readers in the 20s and 30s who found simple humour refreshing. This strip does have a certain innocent charm to it, when you look at it.

In 1940 Chuck Jones was experimenting with the already-established and highly successful "Disneyesque" method of creating animated cartoons which usually examined the world through the eyes of either children, or the 'miniature' entity. One of the best examples was his adaptation of this strip into an animated cartoon.

It's hard to deny that he did capture most of the same essence and light humour from the original newspaper strip. Sometimes still-life works translated to moving pictures go horribly astray... but not this time. References to the main characters from the strip are all there- the happy pup, Hiz-Ti the main little boy, Kiang the mule, and the ever-burdening responsibility of watching the baby.

It's interesting to note that all the backgrounds in this cartoon were created in oil paints so as to attempt to recreate the original flavour of the "Canyon Kiddies" soft and subtle artwork- and I must agree it worked. Although there's smatterings of cheesy cartoon humour interjected, like the chipmunk bit near the center of the film, and the bare-butt shot near the end, the production as an entirety still works.

Even if falling anvils, exploding bombs, and gunshots to the head are totally your preference, you've got to admit that aside from the slow-moving pace of this cartoon, there's loads of appeal and a certain simplistic humour that reaches out much in the same manner as the original newspaper strip would have done nearly 70 years ago.

Watch it with an open mind.... and enjoy.

This week you get... a RANT!

2007-06-06T12:00:00.000-04:00

A continual, subconcious, and vehemently futile pursuit of mine is to try to understand what exactly goes on in the minds of certain individuals who make decisions in the interest of a larger group.

This effort of mine is especially wasted whenever I apply it to those responsible for archiving and restoring historic properties so that the legacies can live on.

In an imaginary world someone is put in charge of restoring "La Giaconda" (the Mona Lisa) so that her beauty, originality, and essence will survive for future generations to witness and experience.

Announcements are made. Publicity is distributed. Excitement builds. The public awaits.

Then we are presented with the following.

It updates her prettiness, doesn't it? It's only a slight 'embellishment', isn't it? It adds a bit more life and visual pleasure to the image, right?

THEN WHAT THE HELL MAKES IT SO WRONG???

Am I the only one who would be outraged by it....?

Now let me bring this example into context.

I recently received a DVD boxset containing a 'restored' collection of animated works, which I personally had been looking forward to since learning of it last year. It was the animated series of an obscure, but relatively cool concept of a kids' show made in the 70s which I enjoyed, called "Mission: Magic".

The only available memories I could muster up of this show prior to this DVD release were from prints of old 16mm versions that I purchased from collectors years ago. I have watched them quite a few times while reliving my days of childhood, enjoying them in a purely nostalgic and innocent manner.

I couldn't wait to get into this newly 'restored' boxed set. After taking a look at the first two episodes, I was sorely disappointed.

While watching the opening credits, I sang along to the theme song while briefly revisiting my youth. However, at a point onscreen showing the characters float out of a magic hat and across the scene, some 'tinkling electro-generated' magical sound effect drove out of my speakers and into my ears like crystallized darts.

"WTF was that", I thought. I didn't have long to think about it, because in roughly 4 more seconds, the next display of 'magic' onscreen warranted the VERY SAME sound effect, plugged in like some hi-fidelity patch, piercing the melody of the title song. And it happened again, two more times by the end of the opening credits, louder and more annoying than any other audio stream coming through from the original production.

I felt stunned and betrayed- I suddenly imagined the thoughts of the person responsible for doing this, while running the originals through a restoration suite: "Hmph. This old stuff bores me. It's so dated. Hey, I know what will make it better, I'll make some neat-o stereophonic enhancements. Everyone will agree with me that it's better and I'll bring happiness to all those 40-something nostalgiacs watching it right now on their Dolby-Digital fantasy systems, and in years to come."

I thought maybe this might have been just an impulsive move on the part of the restoration staff member.... but NO! ....Later on in the episode during another scene where a character bounced along the ribcage of a dinosaur skeleton, I heard another 'wowie-zowie' blipping sound effect which literally penetrated my eardrum membrane. Sad to say, this kind of treatment continued throughout the next two episodes I watched.

I'll cut to the chase: what I want to know is this: Where does someone get off on thinking that they're doing the restoration justice by altering it this way? Whatever happened to "PRESERVING ORIGINALS"? Since this particular property is not likely to ever be given any attention in the near future, this is the way it's going to stay for generations to come.

To the person who made the decision to 'improve' or 'upgrade' the product like this:

Is this your subtle way of thumbing your nose at anyone who might appreciate something you personally don't like or care about?

Did you do this just because YOU CAN?

Is it because you've got to make some mark in history by adjusting the past?

Is it some self-empowering move you felt you needed to apply to help your already trampled self-image... or your way of rebelling against the machine?

Thanks a f**king lot, jerkoff... and to you and your posse of 'embellishing', 'DVNR-ing', 'so-called color-correcting', and 'censoring for the sake of others' ilk. F**k the whole lot of youse. You're not doing anybody any favours by trying to rewrite history.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog. :)

Confusions of a Nutzy Spy

2007-05-14T22:51:00.000-04:00

There's this preposterous notion that Norman McCabe was one of the weakest directors at the Warner brothers studio. It has been suggested that he directed unfunny cartoons.

Well, every director had hits and misses- and since directors were given a script and story idea and had to run with it, they were kind of at the mercy of the writers and gagmen. Considering what he had at his disposal, Mr. McCabe did produce some fine-looking cartoons. Too bad his output was so limited that the bad examples stack up directly with his good examples. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have done if he were allowed to make Merrie Melodies in colour.... but alas, he was stuck with the old B&W venues through Looney Tunes. If you're interested, you can read a bit about Corporal McCabe here.

It's important to focus on the positive aspects when studying history, and without a doubt he made some of the best WWII cartoons for Warner's- one of which I'd like to present in this week's blog: Confusions of a Nutzy Spy.

A bit of trivia, the title is a play on words of the first blatantly anti-Nazi film from Warners in 1939 entitled, "Confessions of A Nazi Spy" starring Edward G. Robinson and Francis Lederer (and incidently, also featured Grace Stafford, who you may recognize the name as being the future wife of Walter Lantz and the later voice of Woody Woodpecker).

There's some great sight gags to open this cartoon, and because of the poor film print quality I've listed some of them: clever plays on words and accompanying images which I'll bet had the theatre chuckling as the cartoon opened:

(An opening shot of the Municipal office where Constable Porky Pig is employed with a sign outside:) "Ye Town Cooler - 20% cooler inside.
(Inside the building on the wall:) "We creep while you sleep." (this is incidently hung up beside the famous Minuteman poster).
"This week only- two crimes solved for the price of one."
(on the label of a glass bottle containing a deadman's noose:) "Sure cure for criminal tendencies- apply with a jerk." (we need this product much more nowadays....) ;) What a great joke!

I've taken my best shot at breaking down this cartoon by animator but there's a couple of scenes which I can't figure out, as they don't resemble any other artists' styles that I'm familiar with. The most obvious ones of course include Izzy Ellis, whose style I find rather middle-of-the-road and generic, but well drawn and has nice movement; Arthur Davis, whose rending has a certain smoothness, fluidity and follow-thru, which we know he adapted into a crazy-looking, almost push-pull stretchiness in a few years; Vive Risto, who always was the most adept at handling the cutest and most on-model renditions of each character; Cal Dalton, who in my opinion has the weakest-looking animation, always adding at least twenty pounds to every character he drew; and John Carey, one of Clampett's best animators from the early 40s, with a style that quasi-emulated the same look that Rod Scribner would make so recognizable in the later 40s, but without the wild action.

It's a funny cartoon, really. Not at all for kids, epecially due to the sight gags at the beginning. I apologize for the poor quality of my cheap Super8mm print, but it's the best I can come up with for now....Enjoy!

Back from the dead with "Mother Goose Goes Hollywood"

2007-05-05T15:48:00.000-04:00

HOLY ABSENCE, BATMAN!! What the heck happened to this blog???

Never mind that Robin, the important thing is that IT'S ALIIIIIVVVVEEEE!!!

I apologize everyone, (or anyone who cares to visit), for the absence in postings. The truth is, that since last post I been on one f**k of a ride- jobwise, interpersonally, relocating, you name it. Good thing that I'm like a cat, and have several lives. (wonder how many I have left.... hmmm, better not entertain that right now, I may be on the last one... eeeekkkk). The good news is, I'm back and planning to keep this thing up to date with at least one blog per week.

Now onto business.

With the release of Disney's most magnificent DVD collections in the past few years, the public has been treated to some absolute masterpieces of animation that were in danger of being long forgotten in the slowly disintegrating vaults of history. As a result, it is possible now to see exactly what real entertainment is about and maybe to understand how the industry managed to be appreciated by many people- imagine, cartoons without farting and burping jokes that are still funny? Who'd have thought of it?

I'm pointing in particular to one offering, Disney's fantastic cartoon "Mother Goose Goes Hollywood" which can be found on the Silly Symphony Collection Vol. 2. If you haven't picked this up, I urge you to GO BUY IT... NOW!!! I'll wait. Got it? OK, let's go on....

This is my favourite Disney short hands down, and is an excellent example of how animation was geared towards adults as well as children. Although it has the Mother Goose nursery rhyme spin which no doubt appealed to the kiddies, it is chock full of appearances of popular entertainers presented in an amusing way.

One thing I want to point out is how celebrities were presented then, in opposition to the way they are parodied today. It is clear that as an entertainment venue, our world has become nothing but a sarcastic farce which jab the famous personalities who are in the public eye. However in MGGH, they are displayed in a much more endearing and welcoming manner. They have been celebrated- because they truly were talented individuals who gave their all for what they love to do- entertain, unlike many of the superficial talentless Hollywood fabrications we are subjected to these days. Whether it was through screen appearances, singing, dancing, comedy, the public embraced them and their craft in an appreciative manner as opposed to our times, where nothing is sacred, and are the focus of crude jokes about their marital status or personal foibles and made ridicule of- but hey- ridicule is funny until it's directed at the 'ridiculer'.... but I digress....

Anyway, the main focus of this post is to showcase the artistic talent throughout this cartoon, and to familiarize everyone with the characters in this film. I was certainly inspired by Mark Mayerson's and Thad Komorowski's wonderful posts on the cartoon. So I'd like to take it a bit further, and draw attention to the great talent that went into caricaturizing the celebrities within.

Enjoy my gallery of the Hollywood personalities from "Mother Goose Goes Hollywood" in order of appearance.

Katherine Hepburn

Hugh Herbert

The Marx Brothers:

Groucho

Harpo

Chico

Ned Sparks

Joe Penner

Charles Laughton

Spencer Tracy

Freddie Bartholemew

W.C. Fields

Charlie McCarthy

Stan Laurel

Oliver Hardy

Greta Garbo

Edward G. Robinson

Eddie Cantor

Wallace Beery

Edna Mae Oliver

Joan Blondell

Zazu Pitts

George Arliss

Clark Gable

Thomas "Fats" Waller

Fred Astaire

Lincoln Perry, a.k.a. "Stepin Fetchit"

Cab Calloway

Joe E. Brown

Martha Raye

If you might be interested in learning more about these talented entertainers, I highly urge you to search out some of their best films on Google and seek the DVDs at your local video store.... it's worth the time.

Bob Clampett: Rover's Rival

2006-09-30T17:50:00.000-04:00

I love cartoons, especially those that are funny just for the sake of being funny. Lightheartedness is so hard to find these days, in such a cynical and marketable world.

One such cartoon that classifies as being just plain funny is Warner Brothers' Studios "Rover's Rival" directed by Bob Clampett. Additionally, it's one of my favourite Clampett cartoons period. Yes, I know it's in black and white, and yes, I know it's an early effort of his (and hardly measures up against such masterpieces as "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs" and "Tortoise Wins By A Hare"), but in the scheme of things, it is a great cartoon all around.

It has the silly, yet amusing method of delivering gag after gag, in Clampett's own inimitable style. Puns, sight gags, and topical references ("Yeah, man!") are abundant in this clever romp about Porky trying to teach an old dog new tricks.... Plus, the timing of gag delivery is top-notch and razor-sharp!

In these days at WB Studios, circa 1937, Ub Iwerk's studio had just closed down and Bob inherited some of Iwerk's former staff: Lu Guarnier and Jack Carey. Chuck Jones remained Bob's head animator until he was given a unit of his own a year or so later. But it was also noted by Tim Cohea, that Bob Cannon, Jerry Hathcock, and Bill Hammer were believed to have made the shift over during this grey period as well- but exactly when, it was not known. However, in "Porky's Hero Agency", Bob's very next cartoon, the caricature of animators Chuck Jones, Lu Guarnier, and Bob Cannon can be seen in the picket fence- so it is safe to say that they were indeed on staff for "Rover's Rival".... and the artwork of Jones and Cannon can easily be seen in the cartoon as well.

There are several brief scenes to which I cannot attribute an animator in particular- however, I have observed that the same art style can clearly be seen in Iwerk's two previous cartoons, "Porky's Super Service" and the most excellent "Porky's Badtime Story". It is for this reason that I believe these unknown styles must belong to two of Iwerk's original staff, probably Bill Hammer and Lu Guarnier. I'm probably wrong with this association, but they also disappear or are very minimal in Bob's next cartoon, "Porky's Hero Agency", which signifies that these animators were either moved or left to join Ub back at his new studio making the Columbia cartoons.

Either way, here's my breakdown of the cartoon. And if I possibly get a few of the attributed scenes wrong, well- correct me and we'll both be sure. However, that doesn't stop it from being a most enjoyable cartoon.... Hope you like it.

More animation posts on the horizon.... but first, I've got a move coming up.....

...but what about the character's careers?

2006-09-29T14:32:00.000-04:00

Whew- what a rollercoaster ride of a summer. Sorry for the absence, everyone.... a lot has happened here at home.

Well, back to posting on my blog....

There's nothing I find more entertaining than Hollywood celebrities whoring themselves out to product marketing.... especially if it's something that has nothing to do with their career image. What makes it especially savoury is realizing this exclusivity right off the bat, and watching the famous name stumble through their lines as if they've sold out to a student film.... smiling all the way.

I look at their faces and can almost hear them thinking to themselves, "Good God, I love money. Money, fame, money. Ahhhhh... slurppp.... if I didn't need to pay for my next cosmetic treatment or substance fix, I'd consider actually developing my sense of morals and base a career on them."

Well, cartoon characters are not beyond this kind of behaviour either- at least the suits who hold their rights aren't anyway. It's actually quite amusing to see the weak connection with products and character names.....

Case In Point 1:

Wouldn't all that sugar be harmful to a rabbit?

Case In Point 2:

No.... spinach is actually much, much better for you.

Gee, I was waiting for the part in the commercial after Popeye eats the spinich and socks Sonny right in the beak..... or at least those mooching kids.

Case In Point 3:

Just don't look into the rotisserie insets.... you might get quite a shock, Woody.

Considering Universal's stand on releasing their cartoon properties either to DVD collections or television, how the heck does anybody in the family even know who Woody is? Maybe the father has a vague recollection of those halcyon days when he used to be able to get up on Saturday mornings and watch the cartoons..... ahhhhh, I miss those days too.

Case In Point 4:

Who puts empty jars with knives sticking out of them back into the fridge? Sylvester's owners must be college freshmen.

The best part of this commercial is seeing Tweety get bashed against the side of the cage. Hey, I'm going to watch it again, and again, and again....

But at least the animation quality in these is really quite good.

Making an animated cartoon: Ward Kimball

2006-07-14T10:44:00.000-04:00

Whoops, look at the date. It's been more than a week since I posted anything on my blog- better get moving... it would help if Blogger.com weren't getting so fussy about uploading....

On this posting I will feature an animation 'breakdown' of a different colour.

In the golden age of animation, an animated cartoon went through several steps in order to finally reach the screen. With today's technologies, many of these steps have either been modified or dropped completely. But during animation's 'heyday', these steps outline typically how a cartoon came to life:

a concept was created
a story was written
characters were designed and developed
a storyboard was created using these characters, resembling a comic book with related elements pencilled in (camera moves, audio effects, artwork manipulations, etc)
soundtrack/ music composition/ vocals were recorded
the storyboard and available audio elements were made into a 'leica' (or 'pose') reel to study timing and movement
(after a lengthy scrutinizing procedure) animation scenes were 'doped' and handed out ('dopesheets' were a common name for the animation 'draft' breakdown that was given to each animator, carefully outlining and detailing each scene by each individual drawing requirements)
the animation was produced (many studios allowed reanimating and reshooting to achieve that perfect scene, including Disney and MGM.... the less wealthy studios couldn't afford this kind of time, which affected the output's look ever-so-slightly)
test reels were built and additional music/sound effects were added to the existing audio tracks
several versions/renditions were created, until the directors, producers, unit team, etc were satisfied with the results- then the animation was inked and sent to cel painters
once all elements were ready, the production was put together and a 'director's cut' was made- this is the stage where scenes were often deleted based on the current running of the filmafter all other amendments were made, the final print was struck and people were in the theatres enjoying the great animation.

Now, why did I go through all that, anyway?

Well, because I want to present some interesting animated material based on one of those steps.

What I have here to follow is the layout drawings used by Ward Kimball for the production of "Pinocchio" so that you readers can see a bit of the process in action. In step #6 above, to start with, each folder the animator received had a 'cover sheet', much like that included with a fax, with handwritten notes informing the recipient of anything of interest- here is an example of the one Ward received for the scene he was given:

A brief summary was indicated so that the animator would have a concept of what was expected of him/her. All drawings were recorded on an accompanying dopesheet, even the inbetweens- but all the animator had to do was create the key poses (usually circled on the dopesheet and on themselves). From here an inbetweener would take over and fill in the missing drawings required to complete the animated scene.

Once the animator received the dopesheet, layouts, model sheets, etc, he/she would get to work. The first thing to complete is the animation keys. These are the necessary descriptive rough poses which will spell out the action for the rest of the scene. Here are Ward Kimball's key poses for the scene in Pinocchio when Jiminy Cricket pops out of the billiard table hole to challenge Lampwick::

Those little 'trees' you see at the top rights of some ofthe pages are called "timing charts". They are indications to the inbetweener of how many drawings to put from one key to the next, and where they should be. For example, from the top and bottom lines of this 'chart', if there are many lines near the bottom, that means the inbetweener must add several drawings which are closer in resemblance to the last key drawing that was given, making an effect called "slowing out" of the action. How this would appear is that the character quickly moves into the action, but slows down near the end of it, for example, a character flies into the scene and hits a wall, slowing down after impact.

With the magic of today's technology, we can slap together a pencil test using digital methods, rather than having to film all the key poses to get an idea of what the action is looking like. This is a very powerful tool which saves a lot of time and drawings, since when the animator 'riffles' the drawings manually he can only view so much of the action:

Once the timing of this sequence would be accepted, the inbetweens are added. If all goes well, and the scene is OK'd by the animator and director, then it would be forwarded to the Ink & Paint Department for final rendition.

For interest's sake, here is what the final scene looked like:

I hope you found this quick lesson on making an animated cartoon interesting... I'll be back again with more on the subject in a few days.

WB Cartoon Credit Beauty

2006-06-28T12:47:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago I featured some of the weird results of WB's "Blue Ribbon" treatment on some fo the classic cartoons included in their re-release packages. Today I'm going to present a couple of neat aspects about the original cartoon titles.

Most of us are familiar with the boring old "Merrie Melody" theme tacked onto the cartoon opening with the generic "Blue Ribbon" title card which chops off any production information, contributor credits, and releae dates. In addition, even cartoons which should have been designated as "Looney Tunes" were stripped of their original series identification. In addition, the beautiful musical renditions of Carl Stalling were also genericized and removed from the titles.

Let's relive some of the neat and interesting opening title sequences! (PS: I don't have time to make DVDs or distribution tapes of any of these cartoons..... so please spare us both the trouble by not even asking for trades... thank you).

My first entry displays the original opening titles from the Merrie Melodie cartoon, "Mighty Hunters". Make note of how much nicer this opening is, compared to the yucky, boring old Blue Ribbon version:

"Mighty Hunters (1940)"

Next up- although this cartoon was not a victim of the "Blue Ribbon" treatment, an interesting title quirk was still dropped upon print syndication. The cartoon "Hop And Go" from 1943 was re-released under the Sunset/ Guild Films banner- although they weren't as bad as the "BR" releases, all the opening WB shields of the B&W Looney Tunes were taken off so that references to WB pictures were gone. In the case of this cartoon, it looked as if the cameraman used the same background layout for the opening zoom, making the effect that the WB shield is sitting on top of the target:

"Hop And Go (1943)"

Moving along, the beautiful opening sequences for two mid-1940s cartoons which were hacked off for the blase static title card. Pay particular attention to the wonderful music scores accompanying the full credit rosters, which were removed:

"Doggone Cats (1947)" (print courtesy of the holdings of Thad Komorowski)

"Hop, Look, And Listen (1948)"

Don't you agree that the original versions look much nicer?

After 1948 the Blue Ribbon treatment was adjusted a bit- at least the cartoons retained their animation and contributor credits- but the original cartoon designation as "Looney Tune" or "Merrie Melody" was still dropped, along with original production numbers, in favour of a generic opening title.

Here are some examples of original title sequences that were dropped with the "Blue Ribbon" openings:

"For Scent-mental Reasons (1949)"

"Daffy Duck Hunt (1949)"

"The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950)"

"Cat-Tails For Two (1953)"

"Bell Hoppy (1954)"

And there you have it. WB cartoon credit beauty.

I do have an alterior motive for making this post- if any private film collectors who happen to pass by my humble little blog are aware of a rare and untampered print of theirs, make a small, unselfish gesture- contact WHV or the parties in question and see about offering your prints to be restored and archived so that the whole world can enjoy the cartoons as they were meant to be- because it's people like yourselves who care to preserve such uniquities that these elements may even exist. It won't lessen the value of your holdings at all, rather, it will increase the worth of the original even that much more (if you intended to sell, at any measure anyway).

Thank you- we now return you to your regular blog activity...

WB Cartoon Credit Weirdness

2006-06-27T15:51:00.000-04:00

Most anyone who has watched animated cartoons on television while growing up can remember seeing the widely-distributed "AAP" cartoon package. If you'd have done your reading, you'd recall that when the Warner Brothers cartoons were redistributed to theatre owners in the late 40s, there were changes made so that the theatre owners who were paying for product to run with the feature-length films always had a cartoon to accompany the matinee experience.

Since the release output of the Warner cartoons did not quite size up to that of the motion pictures or newsreels, the Associated Artists Productions (in charge of 16mm distribution at the time) thought up a clever way to recirculate prints that had already had their once-around. They created what we know as the "Blue Ribbon" prints- cartoons re-released to the markets with their original titles removed and replaced with generic, bland, credit-less title cards. The thought behind it was clever: trick the theatres and movie audiences into thinking that every cartoon was a new one by re-issuing a new copyright date on each cartoon.

At the time, it didn't seem like a big problem. Nowadays, many people wish they could see those beautiful, uniquely-animated and scored titles as they once were, complete with production number and screen credits to those who worked on them.

However, the odd thing is that other 'side effects' happened to the Blue Ribbon prints: many had scenes removed; some were shortened significantly, others had 'questionable material' taken out. But the oddest thing includes some strange renditions of prints that made it out into the film buyer's market.

I have included some of these 'oddities' that have been talked about in animation forums and newsgroups, but not too many have witnessed.

Our first exhibit: what was referred to as the "Silent AAP". The cartoon "Super Rabbit", when redistributed, had the ownership AAP tacked on, but without any audio track... see for yourself. (For nostalgic purposes, I left on part of the network opening tags from WUAB Cleveland's "Bugs Bunny And Friends" show from which this cartoon was recorded).

Strange.

Our next exhibit features another weird oddity in the case of Blue Ribbon titles: the famed "Tweetie Pie" segment.

Many have deemed the original opening titles to the classic Academy-Award winner, "Tweetie Pie" to be lost forever, since no surviving prints can be located (personally, I think prints do exist somewhere, probably in private collections, since this was an Academy Award winner- but whether or not those individuals who hold those prints are aware of the situation, or care to share their print is another story). Anyway, when the Blue Ribbon title card was tacked on, some prints retained their original opening titles score, right into the cartoon, creating an odd-looking off-synched effect:

How someone actually passed that by a board a review is beyond me.... well, maybe that was the problem....

Our last exhibit features the unusual closing titles to the cartoon, "The Upstanding Sitter" featuring Daffy Duck. Now this one really goes beyond my understanding of quality control... although the cartoon maintains its original opening credits, it's the ending that gets messed up....

Check it out- both the incorrect visuals and some random audio title, pulled from a pre-1940s Merrie Melodie. Unfortunately, this ending isn't complete, because I suffered from the "VCR-that-backs-up-and-erases-the-last-bit-of-the-preceding-show" syndrome. But you get the idea:

I'd personally like to know what the person was smoking when they watched that rendition and believed it looked passable.

Next time- "WB Cartoon Credit Beauty".

More About 'Signatures'

2006-06-16T11:50:00.000-04:00

In my previous posts, I elaborated on how each individual artist, whether they're conscious of it or not, has an inherent 'signature'. It loosely defines as a personal 'fingerprint' that says to all viewers, "_________ did this particular piece of art."

On this entry, I thought I might use some of my own artwork to point out more info about these 'signatures'.

A brief background on the sequence coming up: Sometime in the mid-80s I was working on a short film for entry into a Canadian Independent Film Festival (kind of like the 'Tournees' we're all aware of... the film never got finished by the way, but that's another story). Anyway, one scene had a very simple walk cycle of the character I designed. I said, very simple. As part of a mentoring program held at the College where I studied animation, first-year students were assigned to teams to assist with the production of these independent films. Now I'll admit, I've come a long way since then, and my artwork is ten times better than what you're about to see.

Two students were brought over to my 'unit', they were considered able to handle this section of work. I already knew I have a distinctive art style, especially in animation, and wanted the finished artwork to exhibit this 'look'. Suddenly I knew what Bill Tytla must have felt like, overseeing the work experience of these students and secretly wanting to redo all the work myself because I felt as if it just wasn't adhering up to my standards (I'm not considering myself near as talented as Mr. Tytla, but I wanted to use the example in my illustration above).

I needed roughly 8 drawings done for this one particular scene... just 8. I had 4 keys, each requiring 2 in-betweens to smooth out the action. The action was even-paced; no 'slow-outs' nor 'slow-ins'. Not complicated at all, I thought- all that was required was to imitate my penmanship closely enough. This is exactly the same mentality as many studios implement to maintain consistency (think MGM studios and Disney)- when this has been accomplished, we can move up to more detailed and tougher scenes.

Anyway, I went over things to think about when drawing this character. I presented them with ROUGH model sheets, a couple of which I have included below (Note: These images are watermarked, so don't even think about it... just in case you were thinking about it).

(Hey, I said I'd come a long way since then, didn't I?)

Anyway, this is the character I was working with. I presented them with the four keys, as shown below:

The character was being followed, so it was a brisk stride. You can see my timing charts in the top corner, inbetweens on /3's (clicking on these images will make them larger).

Now, here's where the 'signature' training I emphasized in the past two posts comes into play. I'm going to re-post my initial walk cycle key, and the next drawing in sequence, as rendered by one of the students. Compare them closely, what do you notice about the two drawings?

Aside from the blue pencil construction, study these two images. First off, can you tell they were done by two different people? What verifies that? Check out the line quality... one artist seems to work the line more to attain a smoother form on the character, the other seems to have traced the lines- they look like simple outlines. Notice how details are handled- the fabric fold on the character's back on the right-hand side has been omitted. The hand on the left-side drawing is beginning to pass over the butt- so it's as if the animator thought that since you can't see it, why think about what it might look like behind the hand? (Think Cal Dalton). As a result, the glutes have been drawn too flatly because focus was put on the hand in front. Actually, there's less attention to angles in the right-hand side overall.

Now, here's images comparing the work of the other assistant. I'll select a different key to keep you working with the comparisons.

This second artist is a bit better at working the line. Attention has been given to angles and rounded forms, which is good. However, there's a problem with proportioning: I already was aware of the odd, but intentional proportioning of the character in my design on the left. But it seems on the right that the guy has suddenly gained twenty pounds, or his limbs were shortened and got thicker. As soon as these images would have been coloured in, if I were to have used them in the final sequence the differences would have been made plain as day.

I want to point out that this is not a matter of calling one artist bad or good- each assistant handled certain aspects of the animation in a talented manner- except none could capture that 'signature' I have in my art style.

Obvious examples of this kind of thing are seen every day, especially in newspaper comic strips- you see aspects of an original artist's style, say Jim Davis or Bill Watterson, ripped off constantly and applied to other people's strips. John Kricfalusi and Stan Lee are particularly plagarized these days because of the popularity of their unique designs... flattering at best. But what happens is that someone takes notice of the artwork in question and says, "Hey, that looks like ______'s work"... but even though many of the techniques of the plagarized artist are depicted nicely, there's always some "Achille's heel" that becomes evident which announces that the work is not of the real McCoy.

However, in animation it's important to adhere to strict design guidelines. Warner Brothers was much more lax on this aspect- which makes their cartoons so fun to study. It's not necessarily a bad thing- it makes the final product more interesting. :) But that's how we recognize that animation 'signature'.

Artwork in Animation, Part 2

2006-06-09T09:20:00.000-04:00

In my previous post, I discussed how important it is to view a specific artist's style in order to help one decide who did what. I emphasized how even down to the individual drawings, it's possible to seek out discerning factors which reveal the penning of artwork. Now we'll look at the actual animation.

Regarding the animation itself makes it easier to determine the artist. This is mostly due to the fact that now we have many other attributes outside of character construction and line quality which tell us more about who drew the section in question. We can look at the timing, the posing, the staging, plus even more 'signature' items which make their way into each scene.

Remembering the previous post, I pointed out four of the main artists who worked on the WB cartoon, "Puss N Booty" and what characteristics they added to their animation which made it possible to pinpoint the scenes they were assigned. Now we will have a chance to actually scrutinize the moving images by watching the cartoon.

In the same excellent manner that Thad K uses to identify artists in his blog, I have employed the same technique, as I feel that it's easier to make those idenitifications when there's current cues visible to study the accompanying action. Here is a brief summary to keep in mind when watching:

Art Davis:

wonderfully twists and distorts the characters around
uses the character's faces, expecially the eye movement, to convey expressionism- he also rounds the eye markings on Rudolph to contour the shape of the eye
sometimes goes off-model to achieve the impact of the action

Cal Dalton:

usually simplifies the character design too much, quite often dropping details
animation is sometimes rather primitive-looking and unusual in appearance
hides portions of animation behind other objects

Don Williams:

gives all characters a somewhat blocky-looking design (he builds characters out of geometric shapes and animates them that way)
uses dry paint wipes to move characters between poses (this is not so obvious in this particular cartoon, however)
characters have unsually heavy eyebrows
animation appears somewhat jerky- Don makes his key poses very significant

James Culhane:

gives specifics to the cat's design outside of the other artists, for example, the ruffled breast and minimal whiskers
accentuates the cat's expression by devoting more room to the face on the head
has a nice fluid motion to the action

Keeping all this in the back of your mind, and the specific scenes I mentioned previously, here's the cartoon to watch.... Enjoy!

Special thanks to Thad K for hosting and posting this cartoon on YouTube :D

Artwork in Animation, Part 1

2006-06-05T16:02:00.000-04:00

As many of you know, I regularly post on Thad's excellent blog, "Animation ID". Thad has most graciously deemed me as one of his prime influences on identifying animators and their art styles. Granted, this is something I have a huge interest in anyway, but being recognized for it just makes it all the more worthwhile.

So really, how does a person decipher who drew and animated what?

Well, we all will have our own methods- but it's important to figure out how to train our 'eye' to do it.

Having been in the animation field for a brief while once I left Animation college, I can take the approach that knowing how animation is created and having done it myself has given me that edge to better pick out certain artists' styles. While in the field I noticed that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, whether or not they attest to it, has got an individual 'look' about what they create. It's a big part of their artistic individualism. This kind of thing I compare to a signature, and use the same analogy because the similar factors are still there.

Most people sign their names, or handwrite a sentence. Once you become familiar with their penmanship, you could see something that was written and identify who wrote it. Many people have unique little flairs in their style, like making bubble dots for their "i"s or dropping letters down far below the margin of the rest of them. Most of you can see a handwritten birthday card or Christmas card envelope, and before looking at the inside can say, "Ah, a card from (whomever)".

Identifying animator's styles works the same way, except that there's more to just spotting the artwork to recognize the creator. However, it all starts with one thing- that artist's 'signature'. ...And when applying the recognition elements to the moving artwork, many more things have to be kept in mind: the movement, posing, staging, character construction, timing, etc.

For this first section of identifying animation, I'm going to focus on that 'signature' of the artist. What I mean here, is not that they physically signed their name to the work- but what they gave to the creation of the artwork that reveals their penning into it. I want to begin using static drawings, so as not to complicate the issue by adding in those other elements of animation just yet.

Let's look outside of animation for a moment for a broader exercise of our technique scrutinization. Most of us can recognize artwork created by famous artists: we instantly know a George Seurat when we see the dot pattern of his paintings; we recognize a Pablo Picasso by the ultra-stylized subject matter; and we point out a Salvatore Dali by the surrealistic impact of his designs. If we were to see three paintings in a row, one from each of these famous artists, without looking at the signature would we know the difference between them? Of course.

Although this may seem fantastically obvious, you've got the basic idea- now to move it up a bit- stripping away all the embellishments of the painted artwork. Next I will use another example- comic art, because it contains the same artistic elemets but the lavish decorations are not there.

Here are three single panels from three different artists who all worked for the same publishing company in the 50s; all these contributions were usually present within the same single magazine at one time, just like contributing artists to a cartoon. Can you look at them, and tell the difference?

Sure, its easy. Why? They're all just drawings of a red-haired woman of some type. But each one is depicted with an individual flair that makes her different from the other two. The three artists, which are easily recognizable, are Jack Davis, Harvey Kurtzman, and Wallace Wood- all of whom have vastly different ‘signatures’- this is the way they express themselves in their artwork.

And now we’ll take away the colour and the background elements and make it a little bit harder. Look at the art style of these next three, especially focusing on the line quality (the thickness, the flowing movement of, the absence or abundance of, etc) of these three drawings of a similar woman- all are dark-haired but each one constructed in a wholly different manner.

What makes them stand apart? What defines them from the other two? They're all drawn in pen-and-ink yet each one has characteristics that differentiate her from the others without using colours. What elements are displayed for each woman that gives her an individual appearance? Especially study the facial features and their individual ‘signatures’- ways they use their lines to depict form, how they show raised and lowered shapes, etc. These three examples come from Johnny Craig, Reed Crandall, and the most excellent George Evans.

Now let's look at the same comparison but all of the same character.
In order not to pick up on any biasing of familiar characters, I selected “Rudolph” from the WB cartoon, “Puss N Booty”. Here are four screenshot stills of the cat from the cartoon (I tried to get poses that weren’t too full of action). Look at them and notice what makes each cat different from the others.

It's getting a little more difficult, isn’t it? Well, let’s elaborate on the differentiating ‘signatures’ of each animator.

The first shot is a scene animated by Don Williams (this is possibly a rogue effort before he went to Universal Studios and worked on his first cartoon there, “Abou Ben Boogie”… he was previously at MGM in the early 40s, then reappeared in McKimson’s unit at WB a few years later). Anyway, Don’s characters in the mid-40’s are usually kind of chunky-looking and angular. He paid good attention to details but got selective when rendering them. His characters quite often had thicker eyebrows and would stand bowlegged and pigeon-toed. He overused the dry paint wipes whenever his characters shot from one pose to the other. Anyway, in this frame, notice some of these elements in action: the heavy eyebrows, the ‘square-ish’ chunky rendition of the character, and the attention to details on the face and paws but not on the cheek tufts.

This next grab is by Art Davis. Art had a wonderful method of twisting his characters around abnormally when they posed. Their facial expressions are always extremely well-done and especially noteworthy are the eyes: he could make any character “cartoony” looking- also notice how Rudolph's eye borders are rounded with the eyes, as opposed to Don Williams' squarish setting that the eyes sit inside. Note how Rudolph is a little off-model in order to accentuate his feelings of question- his shoulders are unusually narrow and his back has a kink in it that would not be possible, even for a cat. Also note how Rudolph’s facial features, particularly the cheeks, take up a lot more of his face.

The next screenshot is by animator Cal Dalton. What is obvious about Cal’s version of the cat? For one, you will notice the simplistic design- rounded little paws and feet without attention paid to toes or claws, lack of real detailing anywhere except in a few places for fur, and the head and face are almost primitive in appearance. Rudolph only has two whiskers- where Don and Art drew all three. In opposition to Art Davis for example, the cat’s eyes seem too small (Cal must have interpreted the cat as too evil) and the face just doesn’t have that same expressive quality as Davis or Williams- also notice the absence of the eye border colouring that Don and Art used for expressions. Cal also quite often hides forms under/behind/out of perspective to other forms so that he wouldn’t have to draw them.

The last screenshot is the brief handiwork of James Culhane (I know what you’re thinking, but remember, this cartoon was RELEASED in 1943- production on it probably had begun in early-to-late 1942, before Culhane transferred and directed his first Universal cartoon, “Pass The Biscuits Mirandy” in 1943. Courtesy of Tim Cohea, here is a Xerox of the cat design model by him, which show that he had some involvement in this cartoon....

There is also speculation he animated in the WB cartoon, “Inki and the Minah Bird” also released in 1943- he stated this himself when I went to hear him speak in Toronto in the 1980s).

Anyway, the most discerning features are in the cat’s facial expression. There is quite a bit of detail in the focal parts- his face, the ribbon, the hands- all things that he learned to pay close attention to while at Disney. Again, the amount of space on the cat’s head devoted to his features is quite large- even with the big toothy grin. Culhane didn't draw any whiskers, yet the cat's face is still expressive. Notice how James is the only one who accentuated the cat's furry breast- you can see it in the screenshot above even though most of it is covered by Rudolph's arm. He was also a good person to change the shape of the cat's face to convey emotions, the same as Art Davis would. Also Culhane gave Rudolph a longer neck than the other animators- this is evident in the posed drawing above and the screenshot from the cartoon.

Hopefully this helps give some of the basic things to watch for when studying an individual’s artwork. Being able to recognize ‘signatures’ from stills will help get it easier when viewing animated sequences by artist.

Next time- more about artist styles in still artwork.

An Essay- what's so hard about getting fit?

2006-05-08T10:30:00.000-04:00

In addition to many other roles, I am also a CanFitPro certified fitness trainer. I like what I do and would not change this for any reason. My goal is to show people that yes, fitness is not an unattainable ideal, everyone can succeed if they allow themselves to do it- it can be made fun and enjoyable. And of course, there will be some effort and sacrifice- but it doesn't need to be excruciating self-abuse like some wingnuts seen on TV or over-evangelic fitness gurus who look like they would snap in half if someone laid on top of them. Remember, you only have one thing which you will keep your entire life- YOUR BODY. Everything else can be lost or expire, and this includes your mind.... But your body, your self, you will keep for a lifetime.... it's worth maintenance to insure a long-lasting return..... because once you actually lose your body.... well, you'll be dead.

There is no acceptable excuse to convincing oneself not to take care of oneself. What are the reasons? It's too hard? There's no time? I just don't like it?

What are the real reasons?
"It's too hard" = I'm just plain lazy and instead of admitting that to someone else, I have to make up a reason to justify it.
"There's no time" = I really can't be bothered, although I make time for plenty of other things, I can't make time to exercise.
"I just don't like it" = I've fooled myself into denial of my appearance in a mirror, therefore everyone else will subscribe to the same practice.

News flash... the only one you're trying to convince is yourself. People aren't stupid, and most of them will see right through this. And if you're in a position to make an impression on someone, guess what the type of impression you're making is....

It becomes very tiring to hear people say, "Oh, that's being judgmental of overweight or unhealthy people." Well, sure it is, because not only is being overweight and unhealthy an eyesore for others, it's twice as bad for the person in question. Society has a cruel and demanding way of making points. Yet in this case, it is actually derived from a concern for the individual.

Now, let's get one thing clear here- this is not a rant, nor am I trying to make myself feel better by belittling others.

I train in several gyms around the city where I live. Many times I see people giving an all-out effort, this makes me proud for them- some are real troopers. On occasion I also see individuals who are grossly obese, but at least they're in there DOING SOMETHING for now. Kudos for them! It will be twice as difficult to make progress for somebody like this however, but it's always possible, if they stick to it and really want it enough.

There are three stages to improving one's health when beginning a fitness program:

1. Undo the damage: How long has it taken someone to get to the condition they're in? Has it been years upon years of inactivity? Years of self-abusive practices or substances?

The bad news is that before there's going to be any visible achievement, the individual must bring themselves back to a state where progress is possible. And it won't happen overnight, unlike these fad diets or revolutionary machines proclaim. Start by identifying what it is that's brought them to that state and remove it- inactivity, overeating, smoking, excessive drinking, whatever- by small minimizations or cold turkey. Yes, I know that may be harsh- but think- the goal is to CHANGE ONE'S BODY. Think about it- THE BODY... it takes years to grow it up and then mature it- can a person possibly change the way their body has developed? SURE, IT'S POSSIBLE! But again, if it's taken 5 years for a person to get physically into the way they are, it's going to take some time to undo that damage.

2. Make the commitment: Now that the decision has been made to cut out the unhealthy contributants to poor health, commit to get fit. Make a true effort. It's always tough at first- any new venture usually is- but it will soon become more of a part of daily routines. Get regular- and show up for workouts. Take the stairs whenever possible. Cut desserts or snacks out on a few days of the week. Start out with an achievable goal, say twice a week for an hour.... and move up from there. Set believable ideals: if you're 100lbs soaking wet and want to bulk up to 250lbs of boss muscle by summer.... or if you're 350 lbs and want to fit into a size small bikini in three months.... come on- it's already a set up to fail. Make realistic goals, then adjust them as time passes. Try to get the weight up to 110 from 100 or go from 350lbs to 320lbs. Once you reach that goal, set a new one and go for that- but make sure you reach that goal before trying another one.

It has been said that no achievements can ever be realized if a goal is never set. I know many people who get into a gym saying to themselves, "I gotta get in shape", and the first thing they do is bust an artery lifting their own body weight. They don't know where they're headed, except for a burnout. Again, get real- set a goal, and one that's right for you. Once you commit to this goal, it's easier to up the ante just a little as time goes on and actually realize the achievements. And believe me when I say it- it does get easier as you progress further.

3. Monitor Progress: Once it has become a regular part of day-to-day activity and you're comfortable with it, it is important to make these efforts become a perpetual reward. Take measurements when you get started, and at points along the way. Show yourself that your efforts are making a difference. If it's losing weight you want, try by fitting into a pair of last year's pants. When that's possible, see the size of them- get a smaller pair and shoot to wear those. Keep track of body measurements- the waist, the chest size, the arms, the legs- get a Body Fat index reading.

And keep the self-rewards consistent. For example, you cut unhealthy things out of your diet all week- eat reasonable portions and remove the fatty, greasy, prepackaged unnecessary stuff- cook at home everyday (remember, THE LEAST PROCESSED, THE BETTER)- and then make Saturdays or Sundays your "eat-out" day where you can have your fill on buffet or whatever you like. The body can handle a simple once-a-week binge like this, and you get the satisfaction of looking forward to your treat. And it won't undo what you've been doing the rest of the week.

Or, reward yourself with a nice new set of clothes for the 'trimmer' you. Make sure they accentuate your changes and show off your work nicely. Guys can get shirts with short sleeves and tapered waists and women can reveal a bit more leg or wear flattering designs. You will be proud of your achievments, and those critical eyes upon you will see that you are making a valiant effort at a positive change.

And most of all..... enjoy it! Make virtue its own reward.

Bloglarry

2006-05-07T07:16:00.000-04:00

Hello everyone.

Decided to start a blog. Don't really know why, I don't have much time to maintain it. But it seems to be the 2006 thing to do these days. However, if a good idea ever occurs to me, and I decide to let someone know before the Earth is lambasted due to an intergalatic super highway, I'll have had the chance (rather than to rely on a telephone call).