The Great Cartoon Controversy of '46

[chuckamuck43]

Which cartoon do YOU prefer?

[Tintin]

My pick are The Cat Concerto. Rhapsody Rabbit was already in a Toonheads episode.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Martin Juneau
My pick are The Cat Concerto. Rhapsody Rabbit was already in a Toonheads episode.
He means what cartoon do you like better, not what cartoon would make it into a new Toonheads episode.

I pick Rhapsody Rabbit. The cartoon is great, and one of the most beautiful cartoons ever made (look at the gorgious color and slick animation). One would think a cartoon with a rabbit and mouse as rivals wouldn't work, but Freleng pulls it off. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Not that I don't think The Cat Concerto is a bad cartoon, I love it as well.



Jack:D

[Tintin]

Believe it or else. on the golden years of Looney Tunes, 1946 was the only year was not a pick. See my Warner Bros. cartoon filmography on french version where click here (http://24.226.222.37/martin/titres.htm)

[Sogturtle]

I love both cartoons, buuuuuut "Rhapsody Rabbit" for sheer wit, personality and comedy easily outpaces "Cat Concerto".

And unfortunately you left out the equally wonderful (and nearly identical) Woody Woodpecker toon "Convict Concerto"... :(

[billyjoelfan]

whats the deal with both cartoons


i havent seen them

could somebody shed some lite on the toons (summerys)

thanks

billy joel to release a new DVD/VHS on the 20 of nov 2001 FAN!!!

[PorkyandDaffy]

I think I like them both just the same, although the premise fit better for Tom and Jerry since there's no dialogue in it and Tom chasing a mouse like usual. RHAPSODY RABBIT seems a little forced having Bugs not say anything (except for, I think, one line). He's usually at his best with his witty dialogue. Bugs chasing a mouse seemed kinda forced, too and fit better with T&J. But I've seen RHAPSODY RABBIT so many times, I guess I've grown into it. So I like both cartoons the same.

[Thad Komorowski]

I love "The Cat Concerto"! Bugs doesn't seem to fit in right with the mouse situation.


-Thad

[chuckamuck43]

Sogturtle - Thanx for the Woody title! I couldn't remember it - It's a real gem! The cop and the chase on the train are hilarious! (ain't it a shame we can't SEE those cartoons anywhere?)

BillyJoelFan - In a nutshell, both Tom and Bugs are tux-wearing piano pounders trying to play Liszt's second Hungarian Rhapsody on a concert hall stage. In both cases, a mouse (Jerry and Friz's generic late 40's style mouse) causes them trouble, and ends up stealing the spotlight and taking the bows.

PorkyandDaffy - Like you, I think the MGM entry makes more sense, but Rhapsody Rabbit's the one I grew up on, and I do like it better!

"What's up Doc? Who? Franz Liszt? Never hoid of him. Wrong number..."

[Tintin]

billy joel to release a new DVD/VHS of the 20 of nov 2001 FAN!!!

Ah yeah! Who's that these new DVD/VHS? :D

[J Lee]

And unfortunately you left out the equally wonderful (and nearly identical) Woody Woodpecker toon "Convict Concerto"...

And of course, the really amazing thing about "Convict Concerto" is who wrote it, considering his leaden attempts at slapstick comedy throughout the 1930s and early 1940s...

[Sogturtle]

Originally posted by J Lee


And of course, the really amazing thing about "Convict Concerto" is who wrote it, considering his leaden attempts at slapstick comedy throughout the 1930s and early 1940s...

Yeah John, "Convict Concerto" is an absolute eye-opener for all those who believe that the great Hugh Harman was without comedy talent. Buuuuuut for those of us who are fans of his very funny Bosko Looney Tunes, this cartoon is not-at-all a surprise. What IS A SURPRISE is his coming back (ever so briefly) to the theatrical-cartoon field which he had left 12 years previously to go seek his fortune as an independent maker of commisioned and educational films. Annnnnd tis a double surprise that he would do a cartoon for (of all studios) Lantz...

Nowwwww, anybody care to hypothesize whether good ol' Hugh assisted or supervised Don Patterson in the directing of "Convict Concerto...???

[J Lee]

Tim --

Hugh's aggressive nature over the years would make it unlikely that he would want to take a No. 2 role to anyone (see Disney, Schlesinger, Jack Chertok, Disney again, Quimby...) which might be the reason why his return to the theatricals was so brief. On the other hand, Don Patterson also departed from Lantz' shortly after the cartoon was made, and Avery had just departed, so it could just be that, like Tex, things just didn't work out on the finanical side for Hugh, given Lantz' budget restrictions.

One thing about Harman -- while he pushed his staff on quality of their artwork, his stories were always derivative of what someone else was doing at the time. That's why his early 30s Boskos imitated the basic comedy Walt was putting into his early Mickeys, while the late 30s-early-40s Harman cartoons tried to mirror the realism and semi-serious tones of the Disney Silly Symphonies and of Snow White. Hugh's problem at the time was that he couldn't (or wouldn't) believe that the comedy style of his former studio (led by the hated Leon) was actually the wave of the future -- something even Fred Quimby could figure out.

Fast-forward 12 years down the line, when the Warners' style was dominant in short subjects, and even Hugh could see that gagging it up for "Convict Concerto" meant good busniess. Of course, if he had stayed around a few more years, given the praise heaped on UPA's shorts at the time, we might have gotten a glimpse of Hugh Harman's version of Gerald McBoing Boing, or some other hyper-stylized character.

[Sogturtle]

Wellllll John~

It's kind of unusual to see the words "aggresive nature" affixed to Hugh Harman, as his EMPLOYEES spoke of how easy he (and Rudy) were to work under. And this is the very same man who was quite content to work not even as a No. 2 man, but as a No. 3 man under Walt D*sn*y for much of the 1920's (Ub was higher on the food chain ;)). It is BELIEVED that Walt felt authentically threatened by the talents of his early staff (Iwerks, Harman, Freleng), as they were afterall D*sn*y's very own peers he brought from Kansas City. And that crew readily perceived this, and consequently felt no loyalty to Walt. I BELIEVE that Harman formed a view that PRODUCERS were not to be trusted any further than he could throw them when Universal fired virtually the whole cartoon studio uncerimoniously any favor of Walter Lantz. Hugh's acrimonious break with Leon was over money as was the break three years later with MGM (Jack Chertok and Fred Quimby). The sub-contracted D*sn*y Silly Symphony "Merbabies" was a lifeline to Hugh and Rudy from Walt. Buuuuut a lifeline can be seen as a VERY long string, and that appears to be what Hugh perceived it to be, and he bowed out. D*sn*y storymen George Stallings and others are to blame wholly for the story, as it was totally written and conceptual art made before it ever arrived at Harman-Ising. (It's thus amusing that a recent poll here about D*sn*y shorts found "Merbabies" to be seen as one of the worst from D*sn*y ever!!). And it should be noted that his and Rudy's return to Metro was marked by their compliance with Quimby and the peace and resuscitation that they brought to the dying studio. Harman had two exceptions to this, namely that they (he and Rudy) would not finish others cartoons, and that he would not would work with people who had "betrayed" him, namely Bill Hanna and Bob Allen. This last may be well understandable as Hugh and Rudy had just had to file for bankruptcy of their own studio, brought about by MGM's own cartoon studio (with Hanna and Allen as directors)...

In that mid 1950's period Walter Lantz had a rare chance to create a new "Golden Age" for himself and his studio... And he managed to blow it... over and over and over. He not only lost Mr. Cartoon, Tex Avery, but Michael Maltese, Don Patterson, indie-director-writers Grant Simmons and Ray Patterson, AND Hugh Harman. These were all tremedous talents who were willing to work for him, but... If money was what it was all about then Lantz blew his own feet off over and over. As such I have a very hard time singling out Harman here. (I should also take the opportunity to point out that Lantz made possibly the greatest single mistake of animation history in 1957 when he did not seize the opportunity and hire Hanna and Barbera as directors in place of the mediocre Alex Lovy and profoundly untalented Paul J. Smith... Imagine a theatrical Woody directed by Hanna-Barbera...).

And yes John you're right. Hugh (and Rudy) did push their staff to improve their animation and artwork (just as D*sn*y was doing). And (comically) they did NOT have to push their longtime staff (Freleng, Hamilton, Maxwell etc.) as much to improve as did Walt (who was dealing with a bunch of old-line New York animators and raw recruits)!!!. Though to single out Harman's gags and stories as being derivative is really just repeating what has been said by others before. In truth his stories and gags are partly due to clear imitation of Walt. Buuuuut what nobody EVER points out is that Harman (and Ising) had the very same background as Walt, and having worked under him for most of the 1920's it is surprising that the early Bosko toons are not out and out identical to Walt's early Mickeys. But yet they are NOT. Bosko (as someone wrote) is almost totally guileless, while Walt's rodent is early on anything but guileless... Walt was content to latch onto a safe-refugee from Paul Terry's rodent infestation. Harman and Ising took a HUGE CHANCE with starting a cartoon series starring a NON-STEREOTYPED Black (African-American) character!!! D*sn*y would NEVER EVER take such a risk. With the jump to MGM, Harman (unfortunately) started studying "the art/craft of film-making". I believe that this was his real undoing as far as comedy. Not only do his cartoons slow down drastically (while running time explodes) but he seems to be in a sheer adultory mode towards Walter Elias. This is all the more shocking from one of the two guys who only a few months before had started INDEPENDENT production of a two-reeler. Surviving animation art shows it to have been stylistically identical to their Warner toons. But at that time, with the staff starving he was able to forgive Freleng, Clampett, Hamilton and others going over to new-found-FIEND Leon Schlesinger. We also MAY THEORIZE that his loss of comedic push was due in large part to the loss of Friz Freleng as co-writer (and occasional co-director). If this theory proves to be true then that would well explain the BIG DIFFERENCE between the Warner Harman-Ising toons, and the MGM Harman-Ising toons... ***(It would also explain the return of comedy in a number of those "Harman" MGM toons of 1939-40, as we've discussed before:););)).***

Why Harman quit MGM is anybody's guess... My own sneaking hunch was that it was largly precipitated by seeing his old friend Ub Iwerks had thrown in the towel (and washcloth:)). Hugh had to have been able to see by the early-Forties that the Warners slapstick/smart guy school of comedy was going to take over. Warners started getting Oscar nominations...!!! If WWII hadn't happened when it did, then Harman just might have realized his dream of making animated features... I think it would have a one-shot though, and he would have retreated to the for-hire work that sustained him.

For me I can't even visulize Hugh Harman contemplating going for a flat-two-dimensional stylized UPA-ish character... ever. I tend to think he was much more dedicated to creating cartoons with the "illusion of life" than any of those flat things can muster.

[Brandon Pierce]

Rhapsody Rabbit is funnier. So what if Bugs is after a mouse? The mouse is trying to ruin Bugs's act! Is Bugs just going to sit there and let a mouse humiliate him?

[Gossamer]

First, my choice of the two is easily Cat Concerto. Much more effectively done.

Second, Convict Concerto is on Woody Woodpecker and his Friends Vol 2 from MCA in the 1980s and copies can be found here and there.

Lastly, in an exceptionally lengthy post, one point that I cannot let slide without comment: Walter Lantz and Tex Avery. The second time Avery worked for Lantz, in the 1950s, Avery was looking for a job and Lantz hired him, offering him a profits participation deal that would have made Avery rich. Avery dd four cartoons and then quit because he was basically afraid to not have the security of a defined, steady income. The four cartoons he did-I'm Cold, Legend of Rockabye Point, Crazy Mixed Up Pup and Sh-h-h-are among the best shorts done by Lantz's studio period and Legend is a masterpiece! But Lantz treated Avery fairly and the separation was Avery's choice, not Lantz's.

[J Lee]

Tim --

I think one of the more frustrating things to Harman around 1940-41 was the fact that not only was his ex-boss slipping further and further away from him in term of the scope of his endeavors, but the studio he had left after his fight over money with Schlesinger, and populated may many of his former employees, was grabbing the mantle of defining what a short thatrical cartoon should be in the marketplace. Harman didn't have the greatest timing in the world, especailly after Freleng left for Warners, but I think in his heart he wanted to try and expand the visual bounds of animation by keeping it (in the Disney vein) as close to real life as possible, and not expand it in the Avery style, where the animation only had to be good enough to get the gag across as well as possible (Disney cartoons, and even some of the early Tom and Jerrys, suffer at times from too much animation, where the extensive detail and lifelike motion detract from the comendic pacing instead of adding to it).

So what Hugh ended up with in his final years at MGM was better animated versions of what Chuck Jones was doing over at Warners in 1940, except that Chuck had a better sense of comedy timing and better writers to work with. I remember watching "Abdul the Bubl Amir" way, way back when it was part of the Tommy Seven show weekday mornings on WABC in New York, and the main thing I took from it was to a little tyke the cartoon was more scary than funny (since the age of six my opinion has changed slightly; now I think it's well animated, but about as funny as a 1936 Jack King Beans cartoon).

Wanting to do serious and artistic cartoons in itself might not have been fatal -- even Famous Studios tried ever once in a while to do "serious" or "semi-serious" cartoons, right up to 1956's "Pedro and Lorenzo" -- but doing it when your boss is asking for more slapstick stuff and going over budget while your doing it is just asking not to have your contract renewed.

And as far as Hugh's personality, Ising always comes across in recollections as the more laid back and easy-to-get-along-with of the two -- how many people are releaxed enough to fall asleep while leaning on the control knob of Walt Disney's animation camera? -- while Hugh was the driving force behing going out and getting the contracts with Leon and later MGM. Some animators also seem to have had some extreme loyalty to him, following Harman from WB to the Van Buren freelance work to MGM back to the freelance work and then back to MGM again, but there must have been something there to send Friz Freleng running off from MGM twice in a six year period to work for Leon Schlesinger over his Kansas City acquaintance.

Freleng, Hanna and Allen may have just been wanting to go where the grass was greener and jumped ship for higher paychecks, but in the case of Friz' second return to Warners we know he could have made as much or more if he had stayed at MGM. His bad experience may have had as much or more to do with working under Quimby, Harry Hirshfeld and Milt Gross as it did with being placed back under the supervision of Harman, but I think by 1939 Friz wanted to make his cartoons his way, and the Schlesinger studio was far more freindly to doing that than MGM, where Hugh wanted to make short cartoons as good as Disney at a time when Walt's short cartoons were becomming less and less interesting.

And you're right about Walter Lantz' loss of talent in the 1950s -- Avery left because the profit plan didn't pay him enough money (in his eyes) up front, and Maltese hightailed it back to the Jones unit at Warners. But allowing the Pattersons, Harman and even Alex Lovy to leave while keeping Paul J. Smith would have been like Schlesinger deciding to dump every unit but Hardaway and Dalton in 1939. For whatever reason, it was a horrible mistake, and one reason why the Universal package doesn't fare well on TV anymore -- the great 1940s cartoons are either censored or edited to bits, and there are just too damn many Paul J. Smith `toons in the rest of the rotation to draw any decent ratings.

[Sogturtle]

Originally posted by Gossamer


Lastly, in an exceptionally lengthy post, one point that I cannot let slide without comment: Walter Lantz and Tex Avery. The second time Avery worked for Lantz, in the 1950s, Avery was looking for a job and Lantz hired him, offering him a profits participation deal that would have made Avery rich. Avery dd four cartoons and then quit because he was basically afraid to not have the security of a defined, steady income. The four cartoons he did-I'm Cold, Legend of Rockabye Point, Crazy Mixed Up Pup and Sh-h-h-are among the best shorts done by Lantz's studio period and Legend is a masterpiece! But Lantz treated Avery fairly and the separation was Avery's choice, not Lantz's.

Gossamer~

I wrote my previous post off-line and did not mean to let it get that long (SORRY all!!!). Annnnd in addition the margins here make everything even longer (alibi, alibi, alibi :):):))...

Annnnnnd I tend to agree with you with what you wrote about Tex. Surprise!!! Avery's Lantz work was exceptionally funny and very fine. But money was the overriding issue at Lantz from when he reopened the studio till he shuttered it once and for all. His rationale for offering Tex a profit-sharing plan was very nice, but also drastically cut down on Lantz's costs, and Walter Lantz was responsible for all expenses. From what Tex recalled of that interlude, it would APPEAR that either Tex did not understand the time factor in cartoon profit-sharing (months to years) or Lantz did not make it clear to him. We don't honesly know which was the case. Years later Lantz would brag about being able to stroll through the studio and figure new ways of saving a few cents here and a few cents there, this while he was waiting for profits from cartoons made much, much earlier...

[Sogturtle]

Brief note to J. Lee~

John, I really liked your last entry in the Hugh Harman saga!
It was a very well written post/letter. WE ALMOST agree ;) ;) (Now if anybody thought any of my stuff was EVER any good :):)). Though I still tend to give Hugh more credit for a number of things, while simultaneously crediting a fair number of "his" later MGM cartoons to Friz. Two of which ("The Mad Maestro" and "Tom Turkey And His Harmonica Humdingers") helped set the stage for Friz's superb Warner musicals, leading up and including his sublime "Rhapsody Rabbit" and the whole Great Controversy of 1946...

P.S. This is just a thought... But have we ever given any thought to the PUN aspects of the title "Tom Turkey And His Harmonica Humdingers"???. Iffffff this was a Friz toon, was he placing a jab at his old friend and boss, Hugh Harman??? Since Harman was trying to compete with D*sn*y, was Friz calling those cartoons "Harman(-ica) Humdingers"??? A thought for us to muse on...