One of the benefits of owning a toddler is their usefulness as guinea pigs in experiments. It is widely known that a toddler has no cinematic taste (controlled experiments prove this) so they are about as blank a slate as you are likely to get. It is interesting to observe their little minds being shaped and warped by whatever you put in front of them.
In this case, it was Warner Bros. and Disney cartoons -- about 100 hours from each studio. I painstakingly gathered data and registered their effects on the little guy. I wanted to find out which cartoons were funnier, which ones were scarier or more disturbing.
We watched only the shorts, and to even things out I disqualified all of Disney’s Silly Symphonies – that vast treasure trove of fables and lullabies that tended to induce in the child a desire to snuggle. We kept the focus on Mouse vs. Bunny, brash verbal sass vs. something more silent and Chaplinesque, Warner’s witty limericks vs. Disney’s humorous ballads, Duck vs. Duck. Equipped with only a clipboard, safety goggles, and a sippy-cup, I got to work.
At first blush, one would think that the hyper-violence in Warner Bros. would be more troubling, and indeed, my son did take to Disney slightly sooner. After all, in a Warner Bros. short, it is not uncommon to see a duck getting his bill blown off with a shotgun at point-blank range.
But over time I found that Disney's universe disturbed them much more. This has to do with their respective environments: the universal laws at play; the powers that be.
In Warner Bros., the environment is backdrop, an inanimate background waiting to be controlled and manipulated at the character’s whim. A Warner Bros. protagonist (often protagonist and antagonist simultaneously) might paint a tunnel road onto the side of a rock, opening up a new dimension to facilitate his escape. It is no problem for Tweety to be in two places at once. Dynamite rigged to blow up Bugs Bunny waits until precisely the right moment to explode in Yosemite Sam’s face. Even the hapless Coyote with his ever-backfiring A.C.M.E. contraptions doesn’t start falling until he realizes that he is no longer on firm ground. If you are Bugs Bunny, you don’t fall at all because it’s the law of gravity, and you never studied law.
But in the world of Disney the background has a will of its own. Things swell and breathe with animated life. Objects almost consciously thwart the characters' intentions. No matter how many times Mickey Mouse empties a pale of water, the water doesn’t want to be thrown out and returns to the bucket. After his umpteenth try, the water flies around and splashes Mickey in the face. Or witness Donald Duck and a deck-chair, or Goofy with damn near anything. Disney's universe is often dark, malevolent, and out to get you.
One could argue that the famous cartoon “Duck Amuck” has a Disney-like maleovelence, but that feeling ends once we discover that it is Bugs who is thwarting Daffy, quite literally manipulating the tortured duck’s backdrop. In this sense then, all Disney cartoons are Ducks Amuck, except that we never discover the source of the characters' suffering, or learn about the demiurge that is driving everything.
Another contrast in qualities is best described in this quote from film historian William K. Everson, via Leonard Maltin’s book The Disney Films:
“Disney used height – skyscrapers, mountains, etc. – far more than other cartoon-makers, and with more concern for perspective and the convincing illusion of dizzy depths. Height gags in Warner Brothers and MGM cartoons were always just that – rapid gags that paid off quickly in a laugh, and without buildup. Disney, on the other hand, used height much as Harold Lloyd did, to counterpoint comedy with a genuine thrill.”
I think this holds more widely as a general rule, with Disney tending to build extended comic sequences and Warner Bros. performing a breakneck succession of stop-gags. Here some exceptions might include “What’s Opera, Doc?” or the series of “How to...” shorts demonstrating various sports, starring “The Goof.”When it comes to their character rosters, Warner Bros. beats Disney hands down, with more funny stars than you have fingers to count. Who wasn’t touched by that poster commemorating the passing of the great Mel Blanc, with all those familiar characters bowing their heads in respect behind a silent microphone? In comparison, few characters in Disney are really funny. You can count them on one hand and still have left over fingers, but I would argue that no single character from either studio is funnier than Donald Duck. To quote Noel Coward, "Thank heaven for Donald Duck! ...for all his dreadful energy and his blind frustrated rages."
The characters' social spheres are vastly different, too. Disney was squarely planted in the mid-American psyche, deeper and more in tune with the stuff of dreams and nightmares. His characters started as vulgar barnyard creatures. Next there was a rough period during the Great Depression (exactly why was Mickey on that chain gang in “The Chain Gang” anyway?). Then they spent most of the 40’s as working proles before finally reaching middle class suburbia in the 50’s. Warner Bros. speaks more to the perennial outsider, always making wisecracks. Their trajectory is that of a comic slumming it on the vaudeville circuit and then suddenly being catapulted to instant Hollywood superstardom.
The moods at each workplace must have been far different as well. I think of the Disney Studios as some sort of top secret Manhattan Project, with the animators testing their multi-plane camera in “The Old Mill,” gearing up for the big one: Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Uncle Walt was a tough, hands-on boss who would give you whatever he thought you needed. He would send you to art school. Just don’t start any unions. We know that Walt Disney smoked, drank, and fornicated, but when it came to the Disney family image he was something of a prude. It may or may not be true, but one story goes that a couple of animators thought it would be funny one night to screen a pornographic Mickey and Minnie cartoon they had drawn at a party. When Walt walked in he wasn’t amused, and promptly fired them both.
It is hard to imagine an equivalent story at Warner Bros. Those guys were hardcore, exploding-cigar-in-the-face funny. There's a great photograph of a bunch of the Boys from Termite Terrace in a long line, each man bending down to give the man in front of him the “hot foot.” When is the last time you saw someone get the “hot foot”? And is there anything in Disney to match Warner’s propensity to do drag? Most of the Disney characters had girlfriends. The closest they come to cross-dressing is a few amazingly life-like girl puppets and maybe that time that Donald and Goofy impersonated a blonde-wigged moose floozy in “The Moose Hunters.”In the realm of music, the contest is almost too close to call. The Disney orchestra could play fast and stop on a dime, whereas Carl Stalling’s gang could play even faster, stop on a dime and probably give you back the dime.
The biggest difference between the two studios’ approaches is the difference between Wit and Humor, with the enjoyment of Wit relating to a general sadism in the viewer, just as the enjoyment of Humor relates to a general masochism.
We take pleasure in watching Bugs Bunny outwitting his opponents and giving them hell, and in those rare instances when Bugs is an outmaneuvered victim it doesn't sit well. Elmer Fudd doesn't deserve all he gets, no hard feelings, but we want to see him get it anyway. "What a maroon!" The Coyote is a rare Warner Bros. example of Humor. We don't identify with the Road Runner, and like the little boys watching the big TV, we'd like to see the Coyote catch him just once. Humor, on the other hand, rules at Disney. Our sympathies are with Donald's impeded will and explosive tantrums - and not that obstinate deck-chair. We look on Goofy's clumsy misteps with an aghast recognition. The pleasure is mixed with pain. The Wit in Disney is mostly confined to wry narration.
What can we conclude from this experiment in science? I am still interpreting the raw data. The little tyke seems to love both Warner Bros. and Disney shorts; like father, like son. I will attribute his willingness to sneak up and pop a cap in his Pop’s ass with his toy pistol to the Warner Bros. influence. When I see the wheels in his imagination make that extra turn I think Disney, and I definitely blame Warner Bros. for that insubordinate gleam he gets while munching an invisible carrot, asking “What’s up, Doc?”As far as life lessons go – things that are downloaded into his operating system – I will let the reader decide which studio's output will stand him in better stead. He still watches the cartoons, but he has also moved on
to things that would have frightened me out of my wits at thrice his age. Any day now I expect to see Freddy vs. Jason on his little shelf of DVDs. The kid is already addicted to Deadwood, and although I can’t make out every word he says, I’d swear that he’s cursing like Al Swearengen. It is easy to overestimate or misjudge his sophistication on these matters. Sometimes it is three steps forward and two steps back.Yesterday, I heard a loud clank coming from the other room. The source of the noise was my toddler banging his head against the television screen. He was trying to get inside the cartoon.
When I ran in to discover the source of his tears, he had already backed up ten feet and was getting ready to run at the TV again.
“You can’t go inside the television, son. It’s just pictures,” I said.
He rubbed the whelp on his head and confusedly looked around the TV set, then asked, “Where’s the door?”
That’s all, folks.
Posts
26 comments:
Very interesting post.
My family and I recently went to Disney World, and stayed in a Disney hotel. One of the tv channels ran nothing but Disney shorts, most of which I'd never seen. My kids (ages 10, 8 and 5) watched them whenever we had a little down time. They said they liked the cartoons, but I didn't hear them laugh out loud even once.
During our thousand-mile drive home, I pulled out our Looney Tunes dvds. Then I heard the laughter, let me tell you.
Louis: They said they liked the cartoons, but I didn't hear them laugh out loud even once.
That makes me think of the Robert Smigel TV Funhouse episode on SNL where the kids get trapped in the Disney Vault. When Mickey says to them "well, remember all the laughs I gave you when you watched me?" the little girl responds "um...you're supposed to be funny?"
I'm in the Looney Tunes camp, as our Five for the Day article proves.
Grabbing onto the silent film analogy in the article, if Disney shorts are Harold Lloyd, Looney Tunes are Buster Keaton. Which is to say, no contest. Looney Tunes all the way, baby.
My boys are teenagers now, but I noted the same reaction when they were small: Walt Disney movies scared them silly (particularly "Fantasia" and "Pinocchio"), Looney Tunes just cracked them up.
Anyone who's raising his kid on a steady diet of DEADWOOD is a force with which to be reckoned. I imagine he'll sprout hair on his chest long before his peers.
I'll take Looney Tunes over Disney any day. Not only were they funnier to me then (and now), but they were ultimately more inspirational. The Disney shorts had characters constantly at the mercy of a hostile world while the Looney Tunes characters taught me that with a little wit, resourcefulness and creativity I could actually change the world, and have fun doing it.
Aside from the masterpiece Pinocchio, which i think is a great example of what wagstaff wrote about " the background has a will of its own. Things swell and breathe with animated life.", the most influencial for me was Warner Bros. cartoons. These guys were an ensemble, a collective of absurdists..and had such a capacity for satire. One of my favorites is (i can't remember the title) when Bugs Bunny has to deal with Hatfields and the McCoys. The Hillbillies are too stupid to NOT follow Bugs' square dance caller "Whomp him high, whomp him low, hit 'im with a 2 by 4 and doh-see-doh." or something to that effect.
I can completely understand the Disney/Warners laughter axiom that's mentioned above, yet, I'll have to be the first to come out and say I prefer Disney. Several reasons have already been covered by Wagstaff. I don't see the Disney world as being hopeless, per se, a lot of the woe inflicted on the characters is a result of their own personality flaws (ie Donald's temper). Also, if I'm in a dark alley, I'd rather come across a toon that has no power over nature instead of one that can produce a cannon out of thin air and take my wallet.
It's a shame that we live in a world where I have to provide this disclaimer, but I truly love Warner Bros., too (there is no third in animation). In fact, 4 times out of 10 I would prefer Warners to Disney, but, ultimately, I think the rivers in Disney's world run a little more subtle and deeper than those at Termite Terrace. The kids watching Disney may not be laughing as much, but they are absorbing.
Hey, I just noticed that you have a screenshot from the cartoon where Bugs Bunny teaches kids how to roll a joint! Tom (from Tom and Jerry) does this too in "Texas Tom."
If I recall correctly, the next shot, after Bugs rolls his cigarette in that cartoon, is him with droopy looking eyes. Now I really know what was up, Doc.
In Disney cartoons, the threat of violence was more real than in the Looney Tunes. No matter what happened to the LT characters, there was never the threat of death or injury. Daffy Duck's wife would smack his face off ("now pick up your face and sit on that egg!") or Elmer would blast all his feathers off, and Daffy would still be OK afterwards. Pissed off, but OK.
If Minnie smacked Mickey's face off, I think it would have stayed off. After all, that's what happened to Donald's pants.
dan jardine: Grabbing onto the silent film analogy in the article, if Disney shorts are Harold Lloyd, Looney Tunes are Buster Keaton. Which is to say, no contest. Looney Tunes all the way, baby.
Dan, I love Harold Lloyd, but I would rearrange that to be Warner's Keaton vs. Disney's Chaplin, thereby making the race a little closer. And then, yeah, I'd give the win to Keaton.
Thank you for a wonderful article, Wagstaff. It's cool to do research with your kids, isn't it?
You said:
"If you are Bugs Bunny, you don’t fall at all because it’s the law of gravity, and you never studied law."
A wonderful example of cartoon logic!
Personally, I don't WANT to choose between Warner Brothers and Disney--I'm just grateful to enjoy the differences. Warner shorts may be funnier (Roadrunner is my favorite, because I'm a sucker for slapstick), but Disney's had a unique poetic quality to them that makes them irresistable in their own right. It's funny... I realize now that I find Disney's early shorts vastly superior to the later ones, while it's the other way round with Warner's.
The silent-comic/cartoon studio parallels are an interesting approach. But to follow one of Wagstaff's original threads, which was that Disney's environment has a will of its own but the Warner environment is controllable by its strong characters, I'd say that makes Disney the Keaton and Warner the Lloyd. To me that's one of the biggest differences between Keaton and Lloyd: Keaton is beleagured by the environment and usually is only able to survive by dumb luck (the falling wall gag is the perfect example). Lloyd, on the other hand, gets his appeal from being an unlikely master of the environments in his films. (Check him out in, say, the Kid Brother) Generally speaking, of course.
Quoth Wagstaff: "And is there anything in Disney to match Warner’s propensity to do drag? "
Maybe there is: When checking out the "Mickey Mouse In Color Vol 1" and "Chronological Donald" DVDs a couple of years ago--my first exposure to a lot of the earliest Disney color shorts--I was amazed by the number of jokes that involve characters getting prodded in the ass. It happens over and over in cartoon after cartoon, so much so that I couldn't help wondering if the motif was something Walt himself was especially fond of (I've read that the gag men tailored a lot of the early 'toons to sync with his sense of humor since he paid out bonuses for jokes that made him laugh especially hard). The 1935-38 Mickey shorts are just astonishingly rife with anal innuendo (there's also a surprising amount of veiled urination humor, too--the climax of "The Worm Turns" comes to mind on that account).
Of course,iIt goes without saying that all such Disney jokes are far less sophisticated than the infinitely superior Looney Tunes oeuvre...
I'd imagine some of you (Wagstaff, Keith & Odie) already know about the Big Cartoon Database. The front page is pretty ugly, but once you dig deeper it can be a helpful reference tool.
Here's a link to the Looney Tunes page.
To me that's one of the biggest differences between Keaton and Lloyd: Keaton is beleagured by the environment and usually is only able to survive by dumb luck (the falling wall gag is the perfect example).
Brian, that appears on the surface to be true, but of course it took tremendous planning on Keaton's part to make it look like dumb luck. Plus, you ignore the great wealth of Keaton films, like The General or The Cameraman, where his ingenuity and stick-to-it-iveness make all the difference.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
Thanks for that link, Ross. Now I know what I'll be doing for the next couple days. What happens when a person overdoses on toons? I'm about to find out. If I don't make it back, send someone after me.
Andrew: -I was amazed by the number of jokes that involve characters getting prodded in the ass. It happens over and over in cartoon after cartoon, so much so that I couldn't help wondering if the motif was something Walt himself was especially fond of
That prodding in the ass stuff always happened to Snaggle Puss too. Heavens to Murgatroid!
"Lady and the Tramp" was on TV not long ago, and one of the most beautifuly observed sights in film is how the Scotty dog is animated beside the Bloodhound. The love and skill with which the quick trot of the little dog compares the loping gate of the big dog is just breathtaking for those who notice such things.
This graceful, dancelike appreciation for things in motion is a quality that defines Disney at its best. I would say this quality is put to far better use in the more poetic features than the shorts, in which to me it usually seems excessive compared to the more efficient Warner's animation.
In any case - I think Disney films from the Disney era are products of its founders' bad points (crassness and a half genuine/half phony provincialism) and good points (obsessive devotion to craft, appreciation of certain kinds of beauty and ambition).
I agree with many that the Warner's bunch were a far wittier group (Jones and Clampett especially) , and their films generally are much more successful as comedies. After Ub Iworks left Disney, the Studio seemed to be making comedy shorts because it was expected of them, and if the shorts were any good at all its because Disney hated to put out a bad product.
Just to put in a word about a particular series of Warner cartoons - I always found the early Jones shorts with the little Black kid (Inky?) hunting the Myna bird to be weirdly engrossing. There was one of these in an amusement park and also featuring two dogs that I remember as being particularly impressivce. Its such a shame that that kid was drawn in an offensive way because it really puts a taint on those otherwise very cool films.
I just want to say that, at the beginning of a long Independence Day weekend, that I have always considered Bugs Bunny to be one of the quintessential American characters in any media, of all time. Mickey, not so much.
Thanks for the interesting article, Wagstaff. Special thanks of course to the sacrifices made by Wagstaff, Jr.
Wagstaff: “I would argue that no single character from either studio is funnier than Donald Duck.”
I kinda sorta agree (my hesitation prompted only by the fact that the funniest lines in the history of American cartoons remain for me “Morning, Sam.” “Good morning, Ralph.”), but admit that part of the reason I find Donald so hilarious is that to me he is utterly incomprehensible. A lifetime love of cartoons and comedies in general has granted me considerable facility in deciphering the thickest accents or most strangled speech impediments, but I have never understood a single word emerging from that duck’s bill. Which makes both his bursts of infantile rage and his calm before the storm all the funnier, for whether he’s prancing around his living room picking out a good book to read by the cozy fire, or thrashing some fishing paraphernalia that has failed to work as advertised, all I can hear is “fwrash-shearsh fwrarr-kererrr-glorph” pitched to a smugly satisfied or hoarsely exasperated tone as the case may be.
Wagstaff: “The source of the noise was my toddler banging his head against the television screen. He was trying to get inside the cartoon.”
I can handle you letting the tyke get his Deadwood fix, but am I to take it you screen Videodrome for the boy as well?
Jeffrey Hill: “(there is no third in animation)”
You know, you say Warner Brothers or Disney and, despite some oddball output from each studio, anyone can pretty well envision the type and style of cartoon you’re talking about. But mention of Fleischer Studios simultaneously brings to mind the bawdy, hepcat surrealism of Bimbo and Betty Boop; the charming mix of formulaic goings-on and idiosyncratic presentation for perpetually mumbling Popeye; and the burnished deco sci-fi fantasias of the Superman shorts. Now, you could argue (I wouldn’t) that no one of these series is on the same plane as Warners or Disney, but the inventiveness and fearless, head-first momentum attested to by such variety leads me to consider all three studios in a tie for first place.
With MGM closing the gap after the acquisition of Tex Avery.
The Bugs cartoon with the square dancing is "Hillbilly Hare" and is hilarious. One of the best ever.
Bruce Reid:
But mention of Fleischer Studios simultaneously brings to mind the bawdy, hepcat surrealism of Bimbo and Betty Boop; the charming mix of formulaic goings-on and idiosyncratic presentation for perpetually mumbling Popeye; and the burnished deco sci-fi fantasias of the Superman shorts. Now, you could argue (I wouldn’t) that no one of these series is on the same plane as Warners or Disney, but the inventiveness and fearless, head-first momentum attested to by such variety leads me to consider all three studios in a tie for first place.
With MGM closing the gap after the acquisition of Tex Avery.
Well said. I also deeply love the Avery-influenced Tom & Jerry cartoons by William Hanna and Joseph Barbara, back when they were animation forces to be reckoned with.
And people always forget the amazing early output of UPA. Gerald McBoing Boing is a masterpiece of short animation in my book. Those designs were never topped. Expect a post about that on my blog later this week.
Wagstaff, you put my feelings about Disney's universe into words. As an animation fan and somebody who appreciates great draftsmanship on its own terms -- I studied to be a visual artist but drifted into writing, and never really pursued the former -- I have to admit that the Disney studio's best output, from the 30s to the present, trumps almost any long-lived animation outfit you can name. It's the depth and power of Disney's vision that raises them above everyone else, even though, as you note, Disney's humor, even in purportedly humorous shorts, is often AWOL. In the features, especially, Disney has a knack for understanding (and sometimes deliberately exploiting) the powerful and simply delineated emotions of small children. Even in the shorts, which are supposed to be light family entertainment, you're still in an enchanted universe, one in which objects and elements have lives of their own, sometimes personalities, too. Disney is more richly musical than Warners -- musical in the sense that nearly every shot and gag is concieved on two levels, literal and metaphoric.
But for laughs, and sheer vaudeville timing, I'll go with Looney Tunes any day of the week. And yes, the characterizations are sharper and more lively. Disney haunts children; Warners makes them laugh.
thanks anonymous
Matt, thanks for verbalizing MY thoughts on Disney. "In the features, especially, Disney has a knack for understanding (and sometimes deliberately exploiting) the powerful and simply delineated emotions of small children."
It's why I've been a bit cynical towards things Disney lately. I mean, the happy hunchback with the funny gargoyles?.c'mon, there is nothing fun about The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Read it when your old enough or see the Charles Laughton version, m'kay?
Come...back...here..you ..rab...bit....
Nighty night....
end of stream of consciousness.
Some have criticized the hyperviolence of Warner, but one thing to keep in mind is the context. Most of what is considered classic Warner Brothers was made in the decade following World War II ("Rabbit Seasoning" "Rabbit of Seville", "Duck Amuck", "Duck Dodgers...", "The Fast and the Furry-ous.") For a generation that had seen their buddies blown up on the European front or on a Pacific island, watching Daffy's bill get shot around to the back side of his head would have been a bit of a morbid relief.
I was pleased to see the the DVD releases left the violence in their. As a kid, I knew that I couldn't drop an anvil on my brother's head, although I would have loved to have tried. In fact, during the period in which the graphic violence was edited out of those cartoons, the effect was a bit more intimidating. One's imagination is always worse than what happens on-screen.
Another strength of Warner Brothers cartoons was the use of language, not only in titles ("Weasel While You Work," 1958), but in the dialogue as well. When my toddler took to aruging "yes" every time I said "no", I started distracting him by changing to "Duck Season." To this day, he cheerfully retorts "Rabbit Season."
Jeffrey Hill:
there is no third in animation
Though the subject focused on short animation, I would say that Pixar would be a solid third (or even second to Warner). Not only did Pixar change the technique of movie animation, but their stories are solid ("Without their screams, we have no power." - Henry J. Waternoose)
Additionally, the attention to detail goes all the way down to the lighting. Notice when Sulley leaves the cave with the lamp in Monster's Inc., the shadows in the cave grow longer until Mike is left in darkness.
Attention to detail is another feature of Pixar films that make them watchable 30 times or more (Tony's Grossery, again from Monster's Inc., featuring Mangle Fruit and Bilge Berries, and from Cars, the "Hostile Takeover Bank" sponsorship).
While celebrity voice-overs are a given in animated movies over the last decade, only Pixar uses the celebrities to great effect. Could anyone but Albert Brooks have played Marlin in "Finding Nemo"? Compare to Shrek 2, where Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz phoned in their performances, or "Robots", in which Ewan MacGregor, Halle Berry and Drew Carey could have been replaced by any other voice talent.
Dude,
I was thinking primarily in terms of short subjects - but concerning features, you're right. Pixar has hit a golden age in computer animation similar to the one Disney and Warners Bros (and as Bruce reminded me, Fleischer) hit in the 30s thru 50s. I must admit that my devotion to Disney makes me sometimes want to close my eyes and pretend that Pixar is an extension of that legacy. Regardless, I'd venture to say Disney and Pixar divide the feature animation world - Americanwise, at least. I remember liking the Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels though I haven't seen it in a dog's age.
Pixar's consistency has been so pristine that I'd imagine it's hard for a critic to rate new releases. It's possible for a Pixar movie to be the worst of the bunch and still be a 4 star movie. How do you criticize that? Some friends and I had a pool sometime back predicting when Pixar would lay their first stinker. We got tired of waiting and sort've abandoned the idea, since it hasn't happened yet.
By the way, good point on the postwar angle. It brings to mind a documentary about Universal Horror I once saw talking about the post WWI effect on an appetite for freak shows and monster villains.
Post a Comment