The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes

The other day I received a copy of Jerry Beck's new book, The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes Cartoons and was asked by the publisher if I might offer up a review. The book presents a sampling of 100 cartoons that Jerry believes are among the studio's best work, although he himself admits there are so many more that are equally as worthy in various ways. All 100 cartoons are pictured and titled alphabetically in little frame grabs at the beginning of the book for easy reference when searching. As I scanned these 100 titles, I estimated that I'm quite familiar with about 50% of the cartoons, and have seen about another 25% at least once, though am less acquainted with them. But there's certainly a number of cartoons that I don't believe I've ever seen at all. I mention this because I make no claim to know the Looney Tunes library anywhere near as well as Jerry Beck does, therefore I will not attempt to compete with his more informed opinion on the films themselves.

The book is interesting both for what it is and what it is not. Let me address the latter part of that statement first. The book is not an authoritative, in-depth analysis of the cartoons, and those expecting as much may be disappointed. If that is what you seek, then you'd be far better off reading Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic or Mike Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons, both of which go into great detail on select notable cartoons from all of the studios of that Golden Era, Warners included. If you want to limit your reading to just the Looney Tunes cartoons, I'd also recommend Steve Schneider's That's All Folks! and Joe Adamson's Fifty Years and Only One Grey Hare (Bugs' films only). But this new book by Jerry Beck is really not attempting to be such an authoritative tome as any of those titles.

This book is more like a book version of a sampler record album. I used to buy a number of such records (and later, CDs) back when I was trying to gain more knowledge of both the jazz and classical music worlds. These albums offered up a sampling of various jazz musicians or classical composers' works that served as a good primer for the newbie listener. Once introduced to various artists through the popular selections of their work, you could then go forth and explore in greater depth that which appealed to you by purchasing complete albums of their music. For a novice cartoon buff, I believe that this book of Jerry's would serve a similar role as a simple and colourful introduction to these brilliant cartoons.

But that's not to say that its appeal should be limited to the novice, by any means. I believe the ideal use for this book is as a companion guide in conjunction with the six volumes of Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD boxed sets that are currently available to the cartoon buff (which of course, Jerry Beck was also instrumental in bringing to us). As one who has all six sets but admittedly has only watched a few discs and individual titles scattered throughout the whole series, this book makes me want to search out some of these cartoons I've never seen before, most of which are included among the six volumes. Each entry in Jerry's book contains a few stills from the particular cartoon, which is enough to whet one's appetite to seek out individual titles to watch.

As I said, the book is not meant to be an in-depth look at the 100 Looney Tunes cartoons that it profiles. Each title receives just a double page spread consisting of a few stills, a short synopsis, and a brief commentary provided by Jerry or one of his 30 associates within the animation community, including Mike Barrier, Eric Goldberg, John Canemaker, to mention a few. (Even my friend and Sheridan colleague, Mark Mayerson is featured). If I have one criticism, I'd have suggested dispensing with the synopsis, as much of the cartoon plot is repeated in the commentary. It would have been better to have allowed a bit more room for personal thoughts on each title instead.

As I perused all of the titles that Jerry has judged to be among the top 100, I must admit that all of my favourites were included, such as The Rabbit of Seville, One Froggy Evening, High Diving Hare and the rest of the usual suspects. I was also glad to see the inclusion of such unique cartoons as The Three Little Bops and the giddily disturbing Chow Hound. I might question the inclusion of Page Miss Glory, which, aside from the interesting art deco approach, is a cartoon that I suspect is an acquired taste for most viewers. Likewise, I would definitely not consider Hollywood Steps Out to be even a good cartoon, let alone a great one, as all it has going for it is the caricatured movie stars of the time, many of whom would not be recognized today. That novelty aside, the cartoon is poorly scripted and largely unfunny. While the Roadrunner cartoons only rate a couple of entries, and rightfully so, I am perplexed as to why there are no titles featuring Pépe Le Pew and just one with Foghorn Leghorn, as several of the Foghorns in particular are brilliant.

Still, taken as a whole, I'd have to say that Jerry Beck has done an admirable job of distilling the entire library of Warners' shorts into this collection of just 100 titles. The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes Cartoons is available for just $24.95 U.S. and, while a bit more than the four bits to see Fearless Freep, is certainly a bargain at that price. A fun and nostalgic read, if not an overly informative one.

Here's To Jessica Borutski!

This is my caricature of Jessica Borutski, a supremely talented young cartoonist whose work I have admired for several years now. Coincidentally, Jessica resides in Ottawa, Ontario, which also happens to be my old hometown. I first discovered Jessica's work on a cute animated film she created called I Like Pandas. In fact, I have shown samples of Jessica's art in my class on Character Design as examples of great visual appeal, like this one:



Recently however, poor Jessica has found herself caught in the crossfire amid the latest controversy over at Cartoon Brew, this time regarding this image from a new incarnation of the Looney Tunes characters set to debut on TV. Predictably, there were numerous claims that it was "bad design" or "terrible drawing", etc. by all of the usual suspects. Animation fans are a cranky and critical lot to be sure, and I include myself in that description by the way, yet in this case I believe a distinction has to be made. So I'm going to offer up some thoughts from my perspective on the situation.

First of all, even before it came out in the comments, I was pretty certain that I recognized these new designs of Bugs and Daffy as being by Jessica, as the image of Bugs put me in mind of her own cartoons of rabbits and other toothy creatures. Sure enough, it turns out that Jessica was the freelance designer selected by the powers-that-be at Cartoon Network to redesign the classic Looney Tunes characters to meet more contemporary sensibilities. Thus, she has given them a more angular design over all, obviously dictated by her client to be more in keeping with that less rounded, more graphic style that is so prevalent in today's TV cartoons. This approach is also due to the practicality of how these characters are now animated with computer software such as Flash or, in this case I believe, ToonBoom. Instead of full hand drawn animation like that in the classic cartoons, shortcuts are now employed today with characters being created as essentially "cutouts" with replaceable parts to create the animated movement. As I've stated before, I'm personally not an admirer of this approach, yet I'll admit that I have seen some better work created lately through ToonBoom which seems to be a hybrid of both "cutout" (or "symbol") style combined with more traditional inbetweening as is desirable for a somewhat more fluid end result. I'm assuming that this is the approach that is being taken on these new TV cartoons.


Regarding these new designs by Jessica, I'm admittedly of two minds about them. If these designs were of brand new characters with no previous history in cartoons, I believe that these images would be embraced by the majority of animation fans and recognized for how appealing they are in terms of graphic design and feeling of inner life and personality. The problem of course is that these are the Looney Tunes characters, with a long illustrious past in fully animated theatrical shorts that are beloved by all of us who have grown up with them through the many decades since their creation. Most of us would rather that they not be messed with, even though it has to be acknowledged that these characters have all evolved through various permutations before achieving that look from the 1950's that many recognize as the "official" versions. As for this latest artistic makeover to their design, it wouldn't matter who was responsible for it, nor how talented they may be, as longtime Looney Tunes fans are dead set against any changes. And yes, I must include myself in that camp too. Here is a news item that appeared on CBC today that sums up the situation quite well. (Click on the link on the right side of the page to watch the video). Of course, it doesn't help that the reporter starts out by describing the original cartoons as "so 1950's".

So Jessica Borutski just happened to get caught in the critical crossfire, being the one who was commissioned to involve herself and her formidable talent in this no-win situation. Personally, my feeling is this: If it was inevitable that these characters were to be revised to some extent for this new TV show, then I would rather that a terrific cartoonist like Jessica be the one to do it, as the results could have been disastrous in less capable hands, as the ill-fated Loonatics cartoon from several years ago proved. As it is, the new designs are appealing enough on their own merit, and may even succeed in acting as a stepping stone to introduce a new generation of kids to the classic theatrical shorts, many of which are available today on DVD in those great boxed sets that many of us have added to our home video library.

One last point I'd like to make. I wish that the same people who selected Jessica Borutski to redesign Bugs and Friends would now hire her to create original new properties wholly of her own design. For example, here is a very charming series concept that was created and pitched by Jessica and her colleague Chris Dainty called The Constellations. I continue to be amazed by the huge visual appeal of Jessica's work, yet I am frustrated by the entertainment industry's aversion to take a chance on anything new. As an instructor in the Sheridan Animation program, I see so much great talent pass through our doors that will likely never be given the opportunity to reach its full potential. Young, enthusiastic talents like Jessica should be encouraged to create work like this. Enjoy!

Jumping on the Chuck-Wagon

All right, since all the cool kids are posting about Chuck Jones, I'm feeling left out. So here's my take on Chuck's artistic ability and whether or not it waned in his later years. Cut to the chase - NO, of course he was not drawing at his best in his old age, but even his drawings for the limited-edition sericels that he was mass producing to satisfy the animation collectibles market that was springing up, were pretty damn good when taken on their own terms. I think ol' Chuck was no more guilty than other "Animation Legends" that were out making some easy dough in their golden years by exploiting their illustrious filmic past. Friz Freleng was doing it too, but if you take a look at the sericel images in these two runs, I think Chuck's drawings were far better than those of Friz. However, I don't believe that Friz in his prime was ever as notable for his draughtsmanship as he was for his directing skills, so I don't hold it against him.

To be sure, Chuck's drawings on the sericels and also the illustrations he did for his two memoirs, "Chuck Amuck" and "Chuck Reducks" were pretty off-model, as they say, when compared to any of the cartoons he directed back in his heyday at Warner Brothers. But when taken out of context, his drawings are still examples of damn fine cartooning nonetheless! I always suspected that when any of the oldtimers, once having long retired from their respective studios, were basking in the glow of the recognition and popularity that came their way later on, they basically didn't care how accurate their sketches were to the original character models. They were a bunch of old farts just enjoying all of the overdue attention they were now getting from their legions of fans and, free from the constraints of actual cartoon production, were allowing their own personal artistic styles to take over in the same manner as their handwritten signatures. If the characters weren't exactly on-model, so what? Being a beloved oldtimer in this industry buys you a lot of slack, in that, who is going to tell you that you no longer know how to draw the characters that you had a hand in originating? Guys like Ward Kimball and Bill Justice from Disney were taking the same liberties with their characters that Chuck took with Bugs and the gang, but any fan lucky enough to get a quick sketch from these delightful old codgers treated it like gold (as well they should), despite whatever inaccuracies to the design had taken hold with the passage of several decades of their being away from the animation desk.

For the record, by the way, Chuck Jones was also my favourite of the Warners cartoon makers. Even back when I was a young kid catching them on the old "Bugs Bunny / Roadrunner Hour" for the first time, I noted that the cartoons I liked best mostly seemed to be directed by some cat named "Charles M. Jones". They always seemed very sophisticated, though sometimes given to self-indulgence, in retrospect I suppose. It was years later before I delved into the history a bit and learned something about the various animation greats at both Warners and Disney. If memory serves me, I think one of the first times I actually saw Chuck Jones at length on TV was in an interview he gave on "The Dick Cavett Show" sometime back in the 1970's on PBS. I vividly recall what a fun interview it was and that Chuck did seem to come across as a guy who loved to hear himself speak. In fact, it seemed to me at the time that both he and Cavett were two of a kind, engaging in their know-it-all banter, with Chuck likely quoting Mark Twain and Cavett quoting back with Groucho Marx. But, as I am also often guilty of being a bit of an elitist blowhard, I felt a certain kinship with these guys!

In his post Warners animation career, Chuck was pretty hit and miss. I still consider his "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" to be the gold standard in animated TV specials, but his three adaptations of Kipling's stories from "the Jungle Book" later on were good, but not great. Sadly, his very odd version of "Carnival of the Animals" with Bugs and Daffy I consider to be pretty abysmal, which proves that even a once great director like Chuck was not infallible. And I don't think any of us are being disrespectful for pointing out such shortcomings either. Chuck Jones was only human, after all.

To see a retrospective of Chuck Jones art, running the gamut from "Classic Chuck" to "Make a Quick Buck Chuck", please take a look here on John K's site.