Design 2- Style - Chuck Jones' Scaredy Cat

Chuck Jones is one of my favorite cartoonists and a huge influence on me.
I sometimes think of him as two people:
1) The entertainer that made really funny regular folk type cartoons from roughly 1945-1950
2) The stylist/designer who made beautiful soft cartoons from 1938-1945, and then again from 1950 to the rest of his life.

As an artist, I like his experimental and artsy cartoons.
As a regular type guy with normal man needs, I like the 1945-1950 period when he made hilarious cartoons like Pest In The House, Long Haired-Hare, Rabbit Punch, My Bunny Lies Over The Sea and one of my all time favorite cartoons, Scaredy Cat.

Jones is in his finest form in this cartoon. You can tell he really thought about it and worked hard. The drawings and poses are all really strong and solid, the acting is great and he uses a lot of imagination in one particular area of the cartoon-Sylvester's takes.

Jones did his best cartoons-at least in my opinion- when he had a good structure figured out and he could spend his time concentrating on one main creative aspect of the cartoon.

Mike Maltese wrote Scaredy Cat. It's a very funny idea and a funny story, so that part is well taken care of. Now Jones can concentrate on what I believe he thought was the most important part of the cartoon-Sylvester's reactions-his "takes".


Here's a take (above) that's only on screen for a very few frames. Jones' direction in this cartoon is so masterful and confident that he can draw and time his takes with such clarity and power that he barely leaves them onscreen for you to register them - but you do and it's perfect! Some of the takes-like the one above are arrows that lead your eye to the following scene of the mice doing some ghostly gag. He uses the device throughout the cartoon. Very clever indeed.

Jones was a master at drawing poses that really tell you how the character is feeling, in ways that are hard to describe in words. Look at the funny attitude Sylvester has above and below. These poses aren't arbitrary, they tell you more than one thing at once.


If you remember from my post "Design 1" I said Jones was mainly a stylist but sometimes used his design ability. (Design and Style are 2 different things)

He didn't often use it to create new types of characters (he did sometimes and I'll post about that later) but he would use it for funny reactions. For most of this cartoon, Porky and Sylvester are pretty much "on-model". Jones always felt he needed a strong reason or excuse to break from model-or create something new.

Sylvester's extreme fear is a really good reason to create some funny new faces. These use Chuck's design ability.


Go see all the great poses from Scaredy Cat that Duck Dodgers made for us at:
http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/04/sylvesters-takes-from-scaredy-cat.html


Chuck had an odd habit. Whenever he made an outstanding and original cartoon, he would make it again. Sometimes a million times, like The Road Runner Series. Usually the other versions of the same story don't turn out as good as the breakthroughs. I'm not sure why. Maybe, once he made something that really worked, he figured he could turn it into a "stock" idea and every time he made it again, it would be easier and faster and cheaper.

That way he could spend more time on his next firsts. I have no way of knowing, but his firsts tend to have more life and more elaborate animation and lots more custom poses drawn by Chuck himself.

Here are some frames from Claws For Alarm-a remake of Scaredy Cat. Note how the characters are drawn by comparison with Scaredy Cat. It seems like the main creative part of the cartoon is now in the backgrounds instead of the characters. It is still well drawn and funny, but Chuck (rightly) doesn't seem as inspired to make a cartoon that he's already done.





http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/04/sylvesters-takes-from-claws-for-alarm.html

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that every other director's Sylvester is generally funnier and drawn better than Friz'? That's very odd, considering that Sylvester is associated mostly with Freleng.

Friz

Clampett- This is the first Sylvester model drawn by Tom McKimson for Bob Clampett. Below is my favorite Sylvester cartoon ever: Kitty Kornered

http://classiccartoons.blogspot.com/2006/01/100-greatest-cartoons-of-all-times.html

Robert Mckimson.

Ben Washam's Style

I'm not that good at naming which animators did what scenes in Chuck Jones cartoons, partly because Chuck did most of the key poses himself. There are certain styles I know I like a lot but am never sure who drew them.
There is at least one animator in the early Jones cartoons that really stands out.
His drawings are really tight and carefully balanced designs.
Greg Duffel told me this scene was by Ben Washam.
Whoever it is has a really appealing style. Crisp, angular, clearly posed and staged, and fluid confident movement.

This is a very modern look for Bugs Bunny considering it was only 1945.

The very next scene below seems to be a different animator. Bugs is more rounded and closer to the McKimson/Clampett model sheet.Just for contrast, some of the other Jones animators' drawings are not as tight:

These drawings are not as confident. The facial features are not anchored on a solid head shape. They float and shift around. It's possible that could be because of the cleanup or inking, I don't know.




Mike Kazaleh thinks Washam animated that scene I posted about awhile ago...

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/jones-acting-continued-head-motions-in.html

To me, it doesn't look anything like the Bugs animation above, but maybe Washam changed his style periodically.


Mike gives us some hints for how to recognize Ben Washam's style:


Washam's animation always had an unusual quality.

It looks as if the head, shoulders and hips are weights that are loosely connected by sticks, with the hip being the part initiating the action.

The shoulders then rock in a counter motion, followed by the head.

As the shoulders try to move the head, the head has a little more than the usual cartoon inertia that must be overcome.

When the head finally moves, there is a lot of drag on the end of Daffy's bill, it then smoothly arcs out before popping into the next pose, but it is still a step behind the body.

These are not neccesarily unique ideas in themselves, but the particular way that he times it makes it distinctive.


Warner Bros. cartoons in general seldom have action on 2's during a pan (even when they could get away with it.) In the first scene where Daffy walks towards the camera, it starts moving on 1's when the pan begins, which has the effect of softening the action.

Washam also animated the scenes of Elmer trying to "shush" Daffy.

Later in his carreer, Washam's animation became even more angular, and the motion almost abstract. This tended to work better on stylized characters (like in his work for the Bell Science films) than traditional designs, although he still did good stuff at WB.

Things would slow out in an arc, and then suddenly pop into the next pose with a little follow through. Sometimes the character would slow out, and pop to the next pose, with the body stopping dead, and the arms (or ears, in the case of Bugs Bunny) providing the follow through.

Best,

Mk-

Hair Raising Hare:

Greg Duffel told me that Washam did the animation of Bugs in Hare Raising Hare

where Bugs tip toes down the hall and taps a hammer on it.

I always loved that scene because of the crisp way it moved, and the stylish angular drawings of the poses.

But that looks totally different to me than what you are describing.

Is it someone else?

John

Yeah, I just looked at that cartoon, and Washam did do the scene of Bugs tip toeing withe hammer, it's a funny scene alright, although in some ways it's not typical of his work (the scenes before and after that were Harris'.) Maybe Chuck worked a lot of that out before hand? A little more typical Washam scene is near the beginning, when Bugs tries to kiss the robot, and where Bugs is in the scientist's arms.

As for imitating Benny's style, a funny thing... by the late 70's, his animation had become somewhat formulaic. Washam began to have classes at his home about time for anyone interested. I knew a few people who took his classes, and the short term effect of it was their animation looked a bit like Benny's, largely because they were using his timing formulas.

Mike Kazaleh

Jones BGs - Gribbroek - Multiplane Pan Simulation

FOREGROUND MOVES FASTER THANN BACKGROUND

I always liked the BG pans in the early Roadrunner cartoons. They achieved a sense of depth by painting the BG on separate planes or layers.
The road and cacti are painted on a separate layer from the mountains and the sky. Then they pan the foreground road faster than the background sky/mountain layer.
This creates the illusion of perspective and 3 dimensions.
I think it helps to keep the paintings and design somewhat stylized and cartoony because it is merely a flat illusion and not real depth. If it was really 3d, there would be an infinite amount of planes all moving at different speeds and that is of course impossible.
I think this effect works much better than many Disney multiplane effects. In the Disney fake depth camera moves, they paint the BGs too detailed and "realistic". The more detailed the layers are painted, the more obvious that the layers are flat-that they are paintings. When you truck in on Snow White's cottage and the foreground trees pan apart and go out of focus, it looks like you are watching paintings of trees separate.
Simple cartoony shapes allow you to suspend your disbelief.
I love Robert Gribbroek's BG layouts because they are well designed, but not overly stylized like Maurice Nobel's. Noble's BGs are so extremely designed that they jump forward ahead of the characters and distract from the "reality" of the story. For me anyway.
These are simplified and cartoony, yet inspired by the organic nature of the objects being caricatured.
It gives the cartoons a feeling of open spaces and nature. That makes the cartoon more unique and really makes me feel the coyote's plight better. In the more stylized Roadrunner's I feel like I'm just watching a generic template of Chuck Jones cartoon tricks, rather than a special treatment designed for the characters and situation.

Some fun Chuck Jones Art

I have been saving up Jones art that I have scoured from the internet, knowing that it would come in handy for some article about his long and curious career.

Here are a few to complement Will Finn's article on one of the greatest animation directors of all time and a big influence on many of us.


http://willfinn.blogspot.com/2008/01/using-it-losing-it-and-getting-it-back.html

Jones Acting Continued - head motions in acting

Here's a really funny Chuck Jones cartoon. It's not totally typical of his style. It's a lot wilder and makes me think he was trying to do his version of Clampett.
Has anyone noticed that the copyright dates on the Looney Tunes DVDs don't match the dates in the filmographies?

This title card says 46, but I always thought it was later.http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005062/

Who's the animator that gives Daffy a pointy lower beak?

When I was watching "You Were Never Duckier" it reminded me of some animation in "Pest in The House". The way Daffy swayed his head back and forth and paused his head in profiles before hitting an accent in the dialogue.

The animator here employs some of the same general punctuation techniques that I posted in "You Were Never Duckier".

http://cartoonthrills.org/blog/Jones/47Pest/daffyact1.mov

When Daffy starts walking, the animator works up a rhythm, making Daffy sway left and right.

The walk doesn't seem to be hitting a consistent beat though, which strikes me as odd.
By the time Daffy's feet are out of frame, the walk gets really erratic. It looks like the animator is just animating totally to the dialogue and putting steps wherever they fit in the rhythm of Mel's acting.
Daffy antics during a pause in the dialogue by turning his head to the side and then...
"Blow!" Hits the accent
A bunch of quick little steps at the end.

Straight Ahead Acting To The Voice Track

http://cartoonthrills.org/blog/Jones/47Pest/Daffyact2.mov
This scene had to be influenced by Scribner's animation in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery".

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/03/specific-acting-in-looney-tunes-duck.html
The animator here goes into a more straight-ahead approach (although there are some inbetweens) and just draws wacky poses and expressions to match the voice track.
He still uses the antic with a profile and swaying back and forth.
When I watch the scene closely I start to think maybe the two approaches are fighting each other. It would be hard to control and continual rhythm of swaying back and forth, while at the same time being inspired to draw something custom for each inflection in Mel's great acting.
I think it works great though.
He hits some of the accents by moving the head down in between the swaying left and right.


It's a loose swaying pattern, but made organic by not following a perfect mechanical timing and posing.

Same Idea, More Pose to Pose

This animation from "You were never Duckier uses the same general idea, but is more tightly controlled and aimed at Jones key layout poses. Did Jones purposely tone down his animators and tell them to do less straight ahead animation?

If you follow his cartoons chronologically, it seems that way.His early to mid forties have the loosest animation of his career. Some of his animators drew a lot of their own poses and fitted them between Chuck's layout keys. By 1948, when Jones hit his entertainment stride and was doing his funniest cartoons, the animation was still good but much more tightly controlled to hit Jones' poses.

PHIL MONROE

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/12/acting-head-motion-to-punctuate.html

By the way, Greg Duffel solved the mystery for me of who animated the scenes I posted in "Duckier".


Hi John: Sorry I'm so late in getting back to you. I haven't checked this email address in a long time. The animator of that scene (and I'm sure someone has already told you) was Phil Monroe.

I believe that Monroe was first with Tashlin, then Freleng and then with Jones until the early '50's when he took a job with Leo Burnett ad agency and developed the more cartoony Kellogg's animated characters like Tony the Tiger and Snap, Crackle, Pop etc. etc for tv commercials.

He hired lots of Warner Brothers animators and studios to make the commercials.

He came back to Warners in the latter days to direct some of the last Warner cartoons in the 1964 period after they fired Chuck. He did the final Sheepdog and Wolf cartoon as well as a Bugs and Daffy opus set in the far north.


Chuck brought Phil in to direct the Chipmunks TV special in the late '70's after Chuck had redesigned the Chipmunks for Bagdasarian.

Phil served as an animator for Chuck on the "Return of the 24th and a half century" debacle as well as some new Roadrunner material released with it.

I've even seen some footage of Phil talking about animation in a Chuck Jones documentary filmed in the 1979 or so.

Chuck Jones Transylvania 6-5000, 1963 Clever

I love this cartoon. It 's very clever.
It's one of Jones' last WB cartoons.
I wonder how Maurice Noble co-directed this? Did he do rough BG designs and turn them over to Givens to do finals?
This is a cartoon that really uses what cartoons can do that other mediums can't compete with.

GREAT LAYOUTS BY BOB GIVENS

I love the BGs in this. Not merely because they are stylized, but because they are also really well drawn, composed and moody.

Bob Givens used to say "You would think Chuck was a Goddamned *#% from the way that he draws, but I've seen him with girls, so I guess he's not."

This cartoon is very stylish, but it's not so much so that it becomes too cloying as some other Jones' cartoons do. Instead, it's very handsomely designed and drawn.

DRACULA IS THE STAR, NOT BUGS

This design of Dracula is really good. It's a combination of animated cartoon forms, human anatomy, Ronald Searle and Chuck Jones all in perfect balance.

This would be really hard to animate, because of all the complex organic forms and stylized angles and curves. But since it is made up of real cartoon principles and the animators have been animating for 20 years or so and learned the classic techniques, they are able to pull it off.
Today, when many cartoonists try to be stylish, they don't have the solid drawing and animation background that Jones did, so it just comes off looking like bad drawings or collections of drawing mistakes.
To do this takes extreme control. And lots of careful decisions.

EXPERIMENTING WITH DESIGN AS YOU GO - Designing by organizing a group of concepts

Here's something that you don't see much of anymore: Chuck designed the character but didn't stick exactly to his first conception of him. Instead of being a model sheet design with every exact incremental shape and size carved in stone, it's a collection of design concepts and ideas, left open to constant tinkering throughout the cartoon.
His proportions and details keep changing, not only from scene to scene, but from pose to pose. Does the audience notice this? Of course not, but today's executives and show runners would seem to think that they do and will get mad if you play with the character designs as you go.
This method of creation opens up the creators' pallete and allows for a much wider assortment of entertainment possibilities.
It isn't uncontrolled ignorance like much of today's stylized stuff. It's highly controlled sophisticated visual concepts. Each character is designed as a combination of general concepts, rather than specific mathematical proportions and shapes.

DRACULA'S HANDS

Aren't these hands great? Inspired by real hands, but just stylized enough to give him a gothic evil flavor.

THE SKIN TOOTH

I know some cartoonists who hate the Chuck Jones patented skin tooth, but I think it works perfectly here.

The animation in 1963 has lost a lot of the 40s punch and dynamics, but what Jones' animators did here is still very skilled and clever and has subtle contrasts in the timing.

The Bill Lava music kind of slows the pace down, but it's so visually stunning that I almost don't notice.

http://www.cartoonthrills.org/blog/Jones/63Transylvania65000/Dracintro.mov


Dracula's Floating Cape
Chuck Jones being clever again.

BUGS' DESIGN

Bugs changes all through the cartoon too. I loved the way Jones drew Bugs when he was using his "handsome style" rather than his fruity style. I used to always notice the bumpers he did in the original "Bug Bunny Show" from 1960. The Friz and McKimson bumpers looked bland and lifeless by comparison.

Here's a strange design, almost looks like Friz.
Some of the animators are drawing Bugs too tall.
One weird thing about the later Bugs. He has tiny hands.

Here, he has the gift of human arms.

Just to compare with classic 40s Bugs...







There are lots more good things about Transylvania 6-5000 - like the gags, and I'll get to 'em soon.

BTW, this is also one of the rare remastered cartoons that hasn't been significantly altered by engineering wizards. The colors are mostly still subtle and the lines haven't been thinned to where they are all pixellated like in so many other Looney Tunes DVDs.