The Lovy Trail

As I’ve written in the past, I love Walter Lantz cartoons, from the best ones to every ugly, badly animated frame of film the studio ever put out. It led to me getting involved in creating The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia. Not to toot my own horn, but it’s a site more useful than anything in print media about the studio. (Though for some reason the site’s current maintainer has removed almost any trace of my involvement, at one point even expunging me from the list of the site’s creators.)

The site was born out of a frustration over how useless all of the books were on Lantz. Joe Adamson wrote The Walter Lantz Story with Lantz leaning over his shoulder, so unfortunately the best has yet to be told about the inner-workings of the place. Michael Barrier spends hardly any time at all in Hollywood Cartoons talking about Lantz cartoons, but one passage where he did baffled me, when he talks about Knock Knock, the first cartoon with Woody Woodpecker. From page 376:

The Lantz studio’s records listed Lantz as the director of Knock Knock, but the actual director was almost certainly Alex Lovy (who has screen credit as one of two artists; no one is credited as director).

Like others, I had always assumed Lantz did indeed direct many cartoons himself for budgetary reasons, bearing in mind that he had to close down the studio and reopen. (This also seems to have happened again when Lantz reopened in 1950, with him directing that awkward clump of silent Woody Woodpeckers.) It would also be unusual for Lovy to be denied director’s credit, because he and others were given screen credit in the past. Lovy did a lot of animation during this period (in the cartoon in question, the scenes with the decoy), which led me to believe he wasn’t directing if he was animating a lot of footage.

So naturally, being a Lantz nut, I had to write to Mike and ask what he was basing his conclusion about Knock Knock on. An interview with Lovy himself perhaps? That was indeed it. Here’s what Lovy told Milt Gray back on Jan. 24, 1978:

Lovy: Walt did come up with the idea—“How about a woodpecker?”—and he told us the story about just what you’re saying there [the woodpecker pecking holes in Walter’s mountain cabin’s roof]. I designed Woody Woodpecker, and I made the first cartoon, Knock Knock, I directed the first one.

Gray: Mike talked with Lantz back in 1971, and Lantz seemed to say that he was also directing during this period.

Lovy: I can’t recall Walter actually directing and timing any pictures, but if he says he did, he probably did. I just don’t remember. I know I constantly was directing, all the time. He may have directed several of them, or one or two of them, but I don’t remember it.

Gray: But you did direct Knock Knock.

Lovy: Yes, I remember that one very well. I directed almost all of the Woodys from that point on, for several years.

There is an endnote in that paragraph that Mike said was intended to refer back to all the preceding references to Lovy, but it’s still unclear where the information is coming from. This was probably a case where it would have been prudent just to flat out say in the main text that Lovy had said himself who really directed the woodpecker’s debut.

I have no problem believing Lovy, given that the accuracy of Lantz’s own recollections were unreliable at best. The trouble is, it raises even more questions. Why did Lovy not receive screen credit for directing during this period? Was Lantz even really directing himself? And if he was, which pictures were really his and not Lovy’s? And what about that period in 1951-52 – was Lantz really directing then, or was it another animator, perhaps Don Patterson? The Lantz-o-Pedia is one of the best databases of its kind, but we really need a good, proper oral history of the studio.

6 Comments

Filed under classic animation

Wet


If RHI wasn’t putting out a box set of the Hal Roach Laurel & Hardy sound films, I would say that the collection of Famous Studios Noveltoons Steve Stanchfield is releasing this October would be the DVD I’m looking forward to most this year. Remastered from the best accessible 35mm material, this collection will finally make some of the most unique examples of 1940s animated cartooning available in the best quality possible.

The DVD will feature twenty cartoons from 1943-50, stopping around the time things started to go south for awhile at Famous. What happened there, with its once well-polished and funny product quickly becoming a repetitive mess, is a sobering reminder of how easily the Warner studio could have suffered the same fate had the management structure been different, and how thankful we should be that those shorts were as great for as long as they were.

Steve told me he’s gotten requests to do a Famous release more than any other, so I urge you: if you’ve only read about or seen the work of artists like John Gentilella, Marty Taras, Dave Tendlar, Steve Muffati, and even Jim Tyer through this blog or others, buy this DVD to see their cartoons in the best way possible. It’s just another in the long line of immaculate collections Steve has put out and will continue to put out in the future.

14 Comments

Filed under classic animation

TCM, Blow Me Down

The stupidest thing done on TCM last night should have been accidentally playing a Dogville Comedy (a series “as funny as AIDs and nuclear war”) rather than a Popeye cartoon. But in actuality, it was the piece they played, above, that was supposed to introduce it. Jack Shaheen has obviously never seen Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves or is legally blind.

For some reason, Fleischer opted to use “Ali Baba” for the title, even though Bluto is called “Abu Hassan” repeatedly throughout the film, possibly because the former had more name recognition. (Sort of the opposite reason for why Bob Clampett had to call his short Coal Black rather than the more appropriate So White.) So in spite of the title, it’s clearly only using the story as a basis for an adventure story, not bastardizing it as Shaheen suggests.

There are many cartoons that exemplify poor Arab images in film, but this isn’t the one. One beautiful thing about the Fleischer cartoons is how they succeeded where the other Hollywood and New York studios always failed: not adhering to formulaic portrayals of specific races or genders. Everyone and everything should look as exaggerated and different as possible. And how could it do “more to denigrate Arabs than any cartoon ever” if Popeye is going out of his way to save a community of Arabs?

Popeye Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves is one of the most atmospheric, thrilling, and funniest animated films ever made. Shaheen seems to be another dime a dozen ‘film scholar’ who obviously hasn’t done the least of his obligations by seeking out as many films as possible to draw such a conclusion. At least he’s in good company.

(Via Cartoon Brew)

Addendum: I read that Sahara Hare (which starts out brilliantly and sort of fizzles out by the four minute mark) was another cartoon that was supposed to be presented with an introduction but was dropped. Good thing too, because it would’ve been an embarrassment trying to explain the negative social values therein and convincing anyone that this isn’t just Freleng doing a normal Bugs/Sam picture with a costume and scenery change. I’m all for encouraging better enlightenment and tolerance in fan communities when it comes to racial imagery, but there’s a right way and an asinine way to do it, and it’s just weird to see TCM doing so much in the latter. But hey, right, they’re just cartoons.

7 Comments

Filed under classic animation, crap, people

Kimballing

I hope this doesn’t become a monthly-post blog of links to other sites, but it just may well become that.

While he hasn’t announced it on his own site, Amid Amidi will have an illustrated biography on Ward Kimball published next year. He says, “I hope the book will offer a portrait of Ward that goes beyond his stereotypical image as animation’s goofy madman,” and I certainly hope so too. Contrary to the marginalization of Kimball in most texts that are part of what Mike Barrier calls “The Approved Narrative” (really “Accepted”, but he told me he could care less about a differentiation), Kimball is probably the only Disney artist where a full-scale biography is truly needed. Whenever you read something like John Canemaker’s Nine Old Men (an “Approved Narrative” if there ever was one) and see these animators lined up as if they were all equals, all it reveals is that (for the most part) these artists were more or less facsimiles of each other in their work, with Kimball as the only individual.

The access to Kimball’s private library is enticing, but it worries me that it might compromise some of Amidi’s critical writing style, the problem his beautiful Cartoon Modern suffered. (In exchange for lavish illustrations, he doesn’t tell you that most of the films the book is about, as films, really are hollow, wallpaper.) “Thorough celebration” tends to be a red flag for “everything this man touched is worth something”, but fortunately Kimball’s life and career was so eclectic that it’d be quite easy to avoid the pratfall of giving the lesser film works the same importance as the best ones and just give them the brushoff they deserve.

To supplement the post, here’s an example: Kimball’s 1968 anti-Vietnam short Escalation, the sort of underwhelming satirical filmmaking that dominated his later period, highlighting political bromides presented in a faux-arty manner. The “Johnson” joke is lame too.

2 Comments

Filed under classic animation, people