Yeah, I watched Bob Clampett's filmography in order and it was ridiculously fun seeing his development (though what was most amazing was how little time he wasted in becoming excellent). Watching all of the toons in order (especially if you are taking month of release into consideration rather than just year) should be incredible.

The thing about the Clampett cartoons is that they require some serious context for the modern viewer, much of the humor would be lost on younger viewers who don't know much about 30s/40s culture, because his shorts absolutely dwell in those kinds of references.

If I have one primary criticism to make of Clampett it's that he repeated many of his gags a LOT. Every other short has a Jimmy Durante reference, a pinball gag, war references like "4F" and "Is this trip really necessary?" and so on. Though Freleng was also pretty guilty of it.

Jones avoided this mostly, though I give Michael Maltese most of the credit for that, he really was the best writer termite terrace had, not to take away from Tedd Pierce and Warren Foster's contributions by any means, as they have much greatness to their credit too.

But Maltese simply had the most ideas, and didn't reuse gags anywhere near as often as his peers.

I think you're overstating it. Yes, Clampett's cartoons were steeped in their culture. So are the plays of Sophocles and Shakespare. But this does not hinder them as artworks because there is still universal appeal through the overall form. This isn't fucking James Joyce, it's Looney Tunes; you can easily enjoy the best Clampett cartoons without picking up on the references. For Clampett, the jokes of the animation itself and the way it looks are funnier than the cultural references even if you get them--the references and repeated gags just serve as a framework for the interplay of the expressiveness of the animation style itself, which is the real star of the show. Yes, the references are there, and a complete understanding of those toons means that you should probably get them, but their ultimate value in no way relies upon referential humor. Of course, there's nothing wrong with learning about an older culture to appreciate older art anyway--this is what any person who's really serious about exploring an art form (and thus expanding their capacity for enjoyment, rather than maintaining their narrow tastes) should be prepared to do. After all, this list is for people who are looking to get into the art of Looney Toons, so rather than punish certain cartoons and directors for not being as immediately accessible as Jones' work, we should provide ways for helping n00bs take each director on their own terms.

im sure some of you have seen this, but if not its a good watch (i'll just post part 1 up here but the whole thing is on youtube):

I'm not saying Clampett should be "punished" for it, just that it makes his work a little less accessible for some people. The thing about pop culture based humor is that it dates and translates worse than humor that's relatable to anybody at any point in time. Not that there's anything wrong with humor directed towards a specific niche.

And I agree that the energy and wackiness of Clampett's (and Avery's) work is enough to entertain even those who don't get all the references.

The fact that those are the only complaints I have about Clampett's work should be taken as a complement.

Yeah I've seen this, highly recommended for anyone just beginning to learn about animation.

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=DC-NxG6SStQ

Reason to hate Youtube #5680954890

i thought the more interesting parts were just hearing him and others talking about the specificity of storytelling.

i've come to the conclusion that, at least potentially, animated shorts could be the single greatest form of storytelling that we have. because the animation aspect gives us the opportunity to break from the laws of physics and forces the world to adhere to the rules created by the story itself. and the length allows us a more realistic opportunity to specify every moment of action in the story (with longer narratives, the clarity tends to diminish... for example, moment-to-moment work in theatre tends to go somewhere between 20 seconds to a minute between clarified moments: that is, to say, the moments that drive the action forward. the in-between work is done by the actors and usually done on instinct rather than specific choices. film shooting seems to be similar, albeit with more clarification done during editing of course. any more specific than that would, of course, drive everyone in the room crazy. imagine saying "alright, hold" every 5 seconds of a rehearsal to clarify storytelling, yikes. with animated shorts, or shorts in general, the action is literally second by second. 5 seconds from the peak of a scene could be the peak of a completely different scene and every moment that drives the action forward is important of course. and everyone involved- animators/writers/directors/voice actors- all understand the importance of being that specific.)

True but it's not that such a thing can't be accomplished with a live action film.



Yeah. And to think a lot of idiots put off watching these old cartoons because they're "racist".

Meanwhile they proceed to watch the most banal of modern animation (like Drawn Togther) so they can lick my fucking asshole.

Thanks for posting that, Pave. It has certainly given me motivation to try and watch more of those classics. I watched a whole bunch a while ago but not in any order.

You don't HAVE to watch Jones' films in order but it would give you a solid understanding of his evolution in style.

1942 was the year he found his voice, he made his first truly funny short The Draft Horse, found his own style with The Dover Boys and finally made a proper Bugs Bunny short with Case of the Missing Hare. Everything before that year is mostly worth viewing simply for historical significance and to see just how drastically different (and inferior) his early work was.

Also, watch the Road Runner shorts that Chuck made, and then try watching the Road Runner shorts that Rudy Larriva made after Jones and Maltese's departure just to see HOW much the series went downhill without any input from it's creators.

I just want to take the time to profess my love for the short Porky Pig's Feat. A true masterpiece. Tashlin was very underrated and it's a shame that he left animation so soon.

I'm planning on watching all (or most) of the shorts in chronological order. So I'm wondering: are the early Bosko shorts worth checking out? And if I were not to start with those, where should I start?

Hell even I haven't seen the Bosko shorts, but I'm sure they would be an interesting watch, since it's where the Looney Tunes got it's start.