100 Animated Feature Films

One of the curious things about this book by Andrew Osmond is the lack of an adjective in the title. It's not the "100 Best," or "100 Ground-breaking," or even "100 Favourite." The lack of an adjective is evident in the films selected. Osmond has decidedly mixed reactions to Happy Feet, yet it is included. The introduction states that, "the selection is shaped by [the author's] taste, as the entries make clear, but I hope it is not wholly capricious." Try as I might, I found it hard to discern a point of view in these entries. I value Osmond's inclusion of films from all parts of the world and look forward to seeing some of the films that I'm not familiar with, but this isn't so much a book as a collection of unrelated essays. The only thing that holds them together is that they add up to 100 and that they are all about animated features.

I don't insist on agreeing with an author's point of view, but I value the presence of one. Reading these essays, I occasionally picked up some new information, but whether I liked or disliked a film, there was little that challenged my opinion or made me reconsider a film.

Perhaps the format is to blame. One hundred is a nice, round number, but not necessarily a good choice for animated features. Twenty years ago, it would have been hard to assemble a book of 100 animated features and now, perhaps, it's hard to assemble a book of 100 good ones. In addition, as each essay is forced into a standard length of a page and a half, some films are shortchanged and others are given more attention than they deserve. I enjoyed Osmond's book on Spirited Away, but the short length of these pieces does not provide him with the same opportunities to discuss a film.

No Thanks

I will not be getting one of these tattoos.

(link via Boing Boing)

The Elements of a Scene: Objective and Motive

This is the third in a series analyzing a scene from The Grapes of Wrath. For this entry, I want to talk about the concepts of objective and motive.

These two things are the motor behind every actor in every scene. An objective is a concrete thing that a character wants to accomplish. The motive is the reason the objective is important. The objective is the what and the motive is the why.

The example I always give my students is that if the classroom is on fire, our objective is to get out the door. Our motive is to stay alive. In the scene above, Pa Joad's objective is to buy bread. His motive is the well-being of his family members. That same motive is what causes him to ask about the candy and then to purchase some for this children.

The waitress's objective is to sit down next to the truck driver and hear a dirty joke. Her motive is pleasure. The cook's objective is to cook whatever is ordered. His motive is to earn a living so that he can survive. The truck drivers' objective is to eat. Their motive is to keep going so that they can also earn a living and survive.

It's important to understand that a single motive can lead to a variety of objectives. If a character is motivated by the desire to get rich, the character could get a gun and rob people, study hard and become a brain surgeon, marry somebody rich, or buy lottery tickets. Each of these objectives might satisfy the character's motive, but we would judge the character differently based on his or her objective. Someone who works hard and benefits others, such as a brain surgeon, is more admirable than someone who robs people or takes no action beyond buying lottery tickets. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "action is character," meaning that what characters do to satisfy their motives determines who they are.

I often refer to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a good tool regarding motive. If you're writing a character or trying to understand a character that you're performing, the hierarchy is a way of determining a motivation. Those items lower on the pyramid have to be in place before a person can worry about things higher on it. In addition, the things lower on the pyramid are common to every person alive, regardless of location or circumstances. It's one of the reasons that Chaplin's tramp character was so popular with audiences; anyone could understand his need for food, shelter, security (from the police), and love.

The Grapes of Wrath is dominated by the lower three rungs of the pyramid. The family has been evicted from their farm and they have to struggle to find food and shelter. They are victimized by police and by big agriculture and all these things are a threat to the survival of the family. Their motive is to stay alive and together. Their objective is to get to California, where they hope they will find work to allow them to do that.

Preview Trailer - The Cobbler and the Thief Documentary

I've written before about Kevin Schreck, a student at Bard College in upstate New York. He's working on a documentary on the making of Richard Williams' The Cobbler and the Thief and he used Kickstarter in order to finance the project. It's now complete for his course and the preview trailer is above.

Kevin will continue to refine the film. As I am an investor ($25), I'll be receiving a DVD when it is finished and will be reviewing it here.

(I recognize Greg Duffell at 1:33 in the trailer, but not the other interview subjects. If you know who they are, please identify them in the comments.)

Animation Art Auction

Pinocchio concept art by Gustav Tenggren

Milt Kahl thumbnails from The Rescuers

Back in the '90s, animation art was all the rage. Sotheby's and Christie's both staged multiple auctions that featured animation art from the 1930s to the present. Animation art is no longer as prominent for a variety of reasons. The current economy doesn't leave people with a lot of extra money to spend but probably more important is the fact that digital films don't generate much art on paper or canvas. The art that is created, being digital, is not one of a kind. It can be copied endlessly with no loss of quality, which destroys the whole concept of owning an original.

Profiles in History will be having an auction featuring much animation art on May 14. Even if you're not in a position to buy, you might be interested in a copy of the catalog, which can be downloaded for free. Hans Perk has been talking about some of this art and publishing better reproductions than are in the catalog. You can see his posts here.

Besides Disney art, the auction also features work from Warner Bros, Fleischer, MGM, Lantz, Mintz, Iwerks, Hanna-Barbera, UPA and Bill Melendez. In addition to drawings, cels and background paintings, there are also posters, maquettes, autographs and correspondence. The back of the catalog contains various memorabilia from live action films but starting at page 325 is material from The Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach and The Corpse Bride.

The animation portion of this is a very nice collection and the equivalent of many animation art books that cost significant amounts of money. Grab your free copy while you can.

The Elements of a Scene: Personality

This is the second in a series analyzing the elements in a scene from The Grapes of Wrath. For this entry, I want to talk about personality and how it affects the scene's action.

The act of buying a loaf of bread is not particularly dramatic; it's not the kind of scene that performers fight to do. Yet, we learn an awful lot about Pa Joad, played by Russell Simpson, through his attempt. First, he is polite. While his conversation is with a waitress, not a profession high on the social scale, he always ends his sentences with "Ma'am." He never raises his voice to her, even when she doesn't cooperate. He is also persistent. While the waitress keeps throwing roadblocks in his way, he doesn't give up. He explains the reasons for his actions and provides as much detail as is necessary to move things forward.

While he is quiet and deferential, he is also proud. When the waitress tries to get 15 cents out of him for the loaf and he can't afford it, he asks her to cut off 10 cents worth. When Bert, the fry cook, tells him to take the whole thing, Pa raises his voice for the only time in the scene. "No sir! We only want 10 cents worth." While he is poor and struggling, he doesn't want charity. He wants to pay his way.

The last thing to say about Pa Joad is that he is altruistic. He is not buying the bread for himself, but for his mother-in-law, who has no teeth. Later in the scene, though we know he's counting every penny, he spends a penny on his children. While he has spent considerable effort in the diner, none of it has been on his own behalf.

The waitress is a very interesting character. She knows the truck drivers by name and sits next to Bill. Her question, "Heard any good etchings lately, Bill?" requires some explanation. In the early 20th century, if a man invited a woman up to see his etchings, it was an invitation for sex. In this scene, screenwriter Nunnally Johnson has used the audience's familiarity with the use of the word "etchings" to have the waitress ask the truck driver if he's heard any dirty jokes lately. The construction is clumsy, though; how can anybody "hear" etchings? Johnson couldn't have her ask about dirty jokes directly as the censors in the Hays office would have cut the line. By using a euphemism, Johnson could count on the adults in the audience picking up the meaning without saying anything explicit that the censors could object to.

The line is important as it marks the waitress as somewhat vulgar and low class.The audience doesn't have high expectations of her and her subsequent actions confirm the audience's opinion. When Pa Joad makes his request, she has multiple reasons why she can't give him what he wants. When Bert says to give Pa the bread, she objects to Bert, too, saying that they'll run out before the bread truck comes. When she gets up to go get the bread around 1:01 in the clip, she is clearly not happy. When she returns with the bread, she's still trying to get full price for it. She is stubborn and clearly doesn't care about Pa Joad's problems.

Only at 1:38 in the clip, after Pa and Bert have tussled, does the waitress give in. Interestingly, she says, "Bert says to take it." She won't take responsibility for what's happening. She only takes ownership of a charitable act when Pa inquires about the candy. When she's called on it by the the truck driver, her response is a surly, "What's it to you?" She doesn't want to appear soft. Only after the truck drivers don't take their change, does she warm to the idea of people helping others.

The truck drivers say nothing while Pa Joad is present. However, director John Ford does keep them in the action. The truck driver near the cash register swallows uncomfortably when he looks at the children's poor attire and their hungry stares at the candy. The drivers exchange knowing looks when the waitress says that the candies are two for a penny. Bill calls the waitress on her charity in an accusing manner, but the drivers are clearly sympathetic to Pa Joad's plight as they endorse the waitress's actions by leaving extra money.

Imagine this scene if these personalities were different. If Pa Joad became frustrated and started yelling, I doubt that the truck drivers would sit passively during the confrontation. If the waitress responded sympathetically to the information about the old lady with no teeth, Pa Joad would have gotten the bread a lot sooner. Given the waitress's attraction to Bill, what would have happened if Pa Joad flattered the waitress and flirted with her? Would she warm up to him or be repulsed by him? How would the scene play out if the fry cook agreed with the waitress that they couldn't spare the bread? How would everyone react if the children were bratty and made demands for the candy, rather than looking at it silently?

If you change the personality of any of these characters, you have a different scene. The actions that occur are the direct result of the characters' personalities. If you're in story or in animation, you've got to know who the characters are if you're going to have a scene that makes sense.

Addendum: For contrast, here's another diner scene with an uncooperative waitress. It's from Five Easy Pieces. Jack Nicholson is as persistent as Pa Joad, but as you'll see, not nearly as polite. These two clips are good examples of the term "character driven." The personalities of the characters determine the outcomes of the scenes.

The Elements of a Scene: Setting

I'm going to do something different for several entries. What's above is a scene from The Grapes of Wrath, based on the novel by John Steinbeck, screenplay by Nunnally Johnson and directed by John Ford. The scene is only 3 minutes long and not central to the plot of the film. However, it is like a one act play that has all the necessary elements for drama.

I became aware as an animator that a good performance depends very much on the script. Good actors with a bad script are fighting an uphill battle. There are many elements that have to be present in order for a performance to work. I eventually composed a list of these elements that can be summarized with the clumsy acronym spomcorbass, and I want to examine this scene in light of these elements. They are:
Setting
Personality
Objective
Motive
Conflict
Obstacles
Resolution
Business
Arc
Suspense
Surprise

In the past, I didn't pay much attention to setting, but I've come to realize how critical it is. Too many animated films use setting as the basis for the background visuals, but ignore its other aspects. Setting is not only time and place, important though they are, it is also a social hierarchy and the expectations of the characters. Setting isn't merely a geographical location, it is a cultural context as well.

The above scene is set in a roadside diner off Route 66 in New Mexico. Based on the waitress's familiarity with the truck drivers, they are regulars. This scene is all about food and money, and practically every shot has a signboard in the background advertising something to eat and its price. In animation terms, the layouts never let us forget where we are or what the scene is about.

Culture is both invisible and arbitrary. It is invisible to those living within a culture as it is simply the way things are done. It's what's considered normal. However, as soon as a person confronts a different culture, the arbitrariness becomes apparent. There is more than one way for people to organize their lives.

While I'll talk about business in a later post, everybody, with the exception of Pa Joad and his children, is behaving in way consistent with the cultural nature of a roadside diner. The waitress is clearing tables, the cook is cooking and the truck drivers are eating. The invisible expectation is that the customers will only order what's on the menu and that they will pay the stated price. Pa Joad can't fit the culture's expectation of how to behave in a restaurant for economic reasons. He needs groceries, not a prepared item, and he can't afford to pay for the whole item. While this is a working class establishment, his request clearly marks him as someone beneath them. His request breaks the accepted pattern of behaviour associated with the setting, which creates the conflict that drives the scene.

While the scene is not central to the plot, it is central to the film's theme. What's more important, the system or the people within it? If people are suffering, shouldn't the system change? In this scene, there are hints that people can support each other in spite of the system, something that's developed later in the film.

Sheridan Alumni Event

The Sheridan Alumni Association is holding a reception and screening on Wednesday, April 6 at the TIFF Bell Lightbox, 350 King Street West in Toronto. There is a reception with food and drink starting at 6 p.m, followed by a screening of The Best of the Ottawa International Animation Festival 2010 and Sheridan student films that have won awards from the Toronto International Film Festival. That screening starts at 7 p.m.

Tickets for the event can be purchased at the Lightbox or online for $20. You have to RSVP in advance for the reception, and details for that can be found on this page.

Read This Letter

"My daughter Laura and I, as well as the Shuster estate, have done nothing more than exercise our rights under the Copyright Act. Yet, your company has chosen to sue us and our long-time attorney for protecting our rights."

Nikki Finke has published a letter from the late Joanne Siegel to Jeffrey Bewkes, Chairman and CEO of Time Warner, Inc.

The Siegel estate has been fighting to recapture their share of the copyright to Superman. Under U.S.copyright law, works sold to companies can be recovered by the creators at specified periods. There is no question that Superman was not a work for hire. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created it independently and tried selling it for years before it was bought by what was to become DC comics, now owned by Time Warner.

I've spent a fair amount of time on this blog warning creators about losing their rights. Anyone who has an idea that they hope to bring to the public needs to read this letter. Paste a copy of it wherever you do your creative work to remind you that it's possible to create a billion dollar property and still have to fight for what's legally yours.

"As for this letter, the purpose is three-fold:

"To protest harassment of us that will gain you nothing but bad blood and a continued fight.

"To protest harassment of our attorney by falsely accusing him of improper conduct in an attempt to deprive us of legal counsel.

"To make you aware that in reality this is a business matter and that continuing with litigation for many more years will only benefit your attorneys.

"This is not just another case. The public and press are interested in Superman and us and are aware of our and your litigations.

"The solution to saving time, trouble, and expense is a change of viewpoint. Laura and I are legally owed our share of Superman profits since 1999. By paying the owed bill in full, as you pay other business bills, it would be handled as a business matter, instead of a lawsuit going into its 5th year."

Walt Kelly Animation Drawing

Click to enlarge.

I haven't bought much original artwork in recent years, but I couldn't resist this drawing that I purchased on eBay recently. It's from the film We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us, made by Walt and Selby Kelly.

Walt Kelly, creator of the Pogo comic strip, was reportedly unhappy with the TV special made of the strip, The Pogo Special Birthday Special, which was directed by Chuck Jones. Following that, Kelly and his wife Selby decided to make an animated film on their own. Both of them had worked at Disney on the pre-war features and Selby had continued to work in animation after Walt left it to work in comic books and strips.

The film was to be a half hour, but it ended up being only 15 minutes or so. It also suffered from poor distribution, never playing TV and rarely screening anywhere. VHS copies were for sale several years ago, though I have no idea if that offer is still good.

The drawing above is of the pig villain in Kelly's film, a polluter who is happy to point out that he is no more guilty than those who think of themselves as innocent. Kelly's environmental view was that we were all responsible, not just the large companies who were known to pollute.

The drawing above is typical of Kelly's work in many ways. It is dimensional and Kelly's line varies its thickness to sculpt the forms of the character. The face is expressive; Kelly was a master of the pose that communicates.

I'm looking forward to having this drawing framed.

Mars Needs Box Office

The New York Times analyzes the failure of Mars Needs Moms:

“Mars Needs Moms” may lead to the end for the Zemeckis style of motion-capture filmmaking, which has proven increasingly unpopular with audiences. Unlike the digital animation used by Pixar, in which movies are created entirely by computer, the Zemeckis technique requires actors to perform on bare sets while wearing uniforms outfitted with sensors to record their movements. Those movements are then transferred into a digital model that computer animators use to create a movie.

Critics and audiences alike, with audiences voicing their opinions on Twitter, blogs and other social media, complained that the Zemeckis technique can result in character facial expressions that look unnatural. Another common criticism is that Mr. Zemeckis focuses so much on technological wizardry that he neglects storytelling.

Tatsumi Trailer

The trailer for the animated feature based on the work of manga artist Yoshihiro Tatsumi can be seen here.

The Benefits of Ownership

Two comics, two creators, two different outcomes.

A couple of things popped up this week which show, by contrast, the benefits of ownership.

Jeff Smith is a former animator who is the creator of Bone and RASL. Bone began in the '90s as a self-published comic book distributed to comics shops. Since then, Smith has collected the comics in a series of graphic novels and a one volume edition. Scholastic Books reprinted the series in colour and later this year, there will be a one volume colour edition.

Smith had a movie deal with Nickelodeon for Bone, but Nickelodeon dragged things out Smith and Nickelodeon parted company. Later, Smith made a deal for Bone with Warner Bros. The experience with Nickelodeon made Smith more demanding, and Warner Bros. agreed to his terms.

Now, Smith's latest comics series RASL has also been sold to Hollywood.

The week, the depositions in the copyright termination case brought by the Jack Kirby estate against Marvel were made public. The case turns on whether Kirby's work was at the direction of the company or if Kirby was a creator who sold his work to Marvel. The waters are muddy as the legal arrangements in the comic book business in the 1960s were shockingly casual.

Regardless of the legal decision and one's own opinion, Kirby is definitely the designer of The Fantastic Four, The Hulk, Thor, Ant Man, Nick Fury, The X-Men, and the many villains and supporting characters who filled the stories that he drew for these characters.

Kirby was way more prolific than Jeff Smith in terms of the number of his creations and the number of pages he drew. Yet Smith is a millionaire and Kirby never received a nickel beyond what he was paid for each individual page.

Because Smith owns Bone, he has been able to repackage it and profit from it each time. He's been able to merchandise it and license it to other media. He will be able to do the same with RASL and will be an executive producer of the film.

Kirby owned nothing of what he created at Marvel, unless the termination of copyright suit determines otherwise. Just using the Hulk as an example, the work has been reprinted countless times, been an animated TV series, a live action TV series, two feature films and countless toys, posters, etc. Kirby was not compensated for any of this.

As much as we love animation, it is a team sport. It takes a lot of people and a lot of money to make a film. That leaves animation creators pitching their ideas to corporations in order to get their ideas funded, and the corporations routinely take ownership. A first-time creator has no leverage to gain a percentage of the profits, merchandising or to reserve certain rights. In this regard, animation creators resemble Jack Kirby more than they resemble Jeff Smith.

However, if you can establish ownership of your property and demonstrate that it has an audience, you can continue to control and to profit from your work. That probably means working in a medium other than animation to start with, but given Hollywood's current mindset about sequels and pre-sold properties, it's probably more likely you'll get an animated film made by creating something outside animation than inside it.

Jeff Smith could take advantage of different economic circumstances in the comic book field in the '90s than Jack Kirby had in the 1960s. And with all due respect to Kirby, Smith has a better head for business than Kirby ever had. That's the point. I'd be hard pressed to name anyone who worked in popular culture in the 20th century who was more fertile or prolific than Jack Kirby. Smith, by comparison, is a lightweight. But because Smith maintained ownership of his work, he maintained more control of it and made more money from it than Jack Kirby. That's the benefit of ownership.

Børge Ring's New Website

As a 90th birthday gift, Børge Ring's children have created a website for him. You can watch his independent films there and leave him a message. Eventually, the site will include links to articles about Børge and information about his musical career.

Toronto's Starz Animation Studio Sold

The Winnipeg Free Press is reporting that Starz Animation has been sold to a group of investors headed by marketing executive J. Thomas Murray and executive producer Steven B. Hecht. Starz LLC, the current owners, will continue to own a minority stake.

Starz latest project is Gnomeo and Juliet, which has grossed more than $74 million and is still showing in theatres.

The studio was founded by Dan Krech and was known for years as DKP. It was sold to American telecom company IDT, which made the cgi feature Everyone's Hero in the facility. IDT abandoned the animation business and sold the studio to Starz LLC. The Toronto studio is also responsible for the feature length version of Shane Acker's 9.

(Thanks to Paul Teolis.)

False Comparisons

Michael Barrier was interviewed in the Huffington Post for an article entitled "Animated Man: Cartoon Expert Michael Barrier Decries Pixar, Computers." This article already has multiple comments about Barrier's views and the article was linked to on Cartoon Brew, where there are yet more comments.

Two quotes caught my eye.

"What I'd call the direct connection between the animator and the character that you have when the animator is drawing the character with a pencil on a sheet of paper, it simply doesn't have an equivalent as far as I'm aware, or if it has an equivalent, it's much harder to establish."

I've already attempted to debunk this based on the techniques of both drawn and computer animation. My opinion hasn't changed. It's not the technique, it's how the production is organized. Should a cgi feature want a strong connection between animator and character, there is no technical reason why it couldn't be accomplished.

There are other reasons, salaries being one, that are incentives to prevent it. The more animators remain anonymous and the less distinctive their work, the harder it will be for an animator to demand a higher wage. As it is unlikely that an animator's name will ever increase the box office gross the same way a star voice does, why create star animators who will only drive up the budget?

The other quote is this one:

"If you look back, we've had computer animated features for 16 years going back to 'Toy Story,' and we've had computer animated characters before that, I have not seen the kind of evolution of those characters anything like the extremely compressed and dramatic evolution of the hand drawn characters in the 30s. When you think about how Disney went from 'Steamboat Willie' in 1928 to 'Snow White' less than ten years later, I think that's an extremely compressed [growth] that I don't think computer animation has nearly approached. What you have instead in computer animation is a continuing elaboration on texture and surfaces and three dimensional space without anything comparable for characters."

I am at a loss to understand why the development of one medium is being measured against the development of another. It assumes that both media exist in a vacuum, not part of larger forces such as the Hollywood industrial model of the time, the availability of media to the public, the prevailing popular culture and the world economy. The conditions that existed when Walt Disney grew from Steamboat Willie to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are wholly different than those that exist today.

Let's examine what Walt Disney actually did. If you look at the Oswald cartoons, made immediately before Steamboat Willie, you see films that are ten or more years behind the times compared to live action films. The films are shorts instead of features and at the level of story, characterization and acting, they are not as accomplished as Chaplin's The Immigrant of 1917. Compare the Oswalds to the best live action of the time (The Big Parade, The General, The Gold Rush, Sunrise, Seventh Heaven, The Crowd, Underworld, etc.) and you see a medium that cannot compete as an equal. Except for its use of sound, Steamboat Willie was no better.

What Disney was able to do in ten years was bring animation up to the level of live action films. Snow White and the films that followed were taken as seriously by film professionals, critics and audiences as the live action films of the time.

While computer animation struggled mightily against its technical limitations in the '80s and '90s (and I know because I was there), the advances made by Disney were taken for granted. The techniques developed at the studio were codified to the point where they could be taught in a classroom to 18 year olds at Cal Arts, including John Lasseter, and put between book covers by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. Computer animation's problem wasn't knowing what was needed, which was often the case in the '30s, it was figuring out how to make characters flexible enough via software. Which is to say that computer animation didn't start as crudely as Disney animation did and had less far to go to get up to the level of live action films.

And the state of live action films is a key point. Disney did not exceed the expectations of what a live action film was supposed to be in his time and computer animation is not exceeding it today. I can make an economic and cultural argument that computer animation is more successful than Walt Disney ever was in that cgi films have been nominated for Best Picture, are more numerous and have been more profitable on a consistent basis than the features Disney made himself.

You can't criticize computer animation without looking at the bigger picture. This article in GQ, entitled "The Day the Movies Died," is subtitled "No, Hollywood films aren't going to get better anytime soon." Computer animated films exist in the same economic structure and cultural zeitgeist as live action films and aren't going to escape the problems that plague the larger industry.

I'm not defending the current state of computer animated features. I just saw a preview of Rango, directed by Gore Verbinski, and while the people at ILM have done a great job on the technical side, the film itself is thoroughly mediocre. It's emotional tone is all over the map; sometimes it's a parody and sometimes it wants to be taken seriously. Its references to other films only reminded me that it's inferior to the films it's quoting. And it is a perfect example of Barrier's observation that "computer animation is a continuing elaboration on texture and surfaces and three dimensional space without anything comparable for characters."

But I insist that it's not the medium. It's the structure of Hollywood and its economic model and it's what the public expects from movies. If computer animation sucks (and it often does), there are many more reasons than technology that are the cause. Furthermore, I don't think comparing it to Disney in the '30s is a valid or useful comparison.

Jones and Freleng Interviewed in 1980

Chuck Jones (top) and Friz Freleng. That's a Blackwing pencil in Jones' hands and he spends the interview playing with it. I don't know where the Jones interview was shot, but Freleng's is in his office at DePatie Freleng. I met Freleng there in 1978.

For years, Elwy Yost hosted a show called Saturday Night at the Movies on TV Ontario. He would run classic films and TVO would send him to Hollywood once a year to film interviews that related to the films he scheduled. In 1980, he interviewed Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng.

Elwy was very much a fan, and not a particularly informed one. His questions were often naive and his reactions were overly enthusiastic. However, he did speak to a great many important Hollywood figures and was genuinely interested in their careers.

I have these interviews on VHS somewhere and remember being disappointed by how superficial they were. If I recall correctly, you could see Freleng's patience getting a little thin at times. However, how many on camera interviews are there with Freleng? Jones certainly received a lot of coverage in those days and had his stories down pat, but it's still nice to see and hear him again.

Michael Barrier has recently printed an interview with Warner Bros. director Robert McKimson from 1971. That's essential reading and frankly way better than Yost's interviews. If you hunger for more Warner directors looking back, though, you can watch Yost's interviews with Jones and Freleng here.

Scott Caple Retrospective

Scott Caple is having a show of his work at the Toronto Cartoonist Workshop, 486 College Street, just west of Bathurst, in Toronto. The opening is Friday, Feb. 25 from 7 to 11 p.m.

Scott is a 30 year veteran of the business, having done effects work on Raiders of the Lost Ark and layout and design for films such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Incredibles. He's worked for Nelvana, Industrial Light and Magic, Don Bluth, Disney and Pixar and has also done designs for videogames and book illustrations. For the last several years, Scott has been teaching layout at Sheridan College, where he also mentors 4th year students in the making of their films.

While the art will be up for awhile, it is in the regular classroom space of the workshop. As such, the retrospective doesn't really have regular hours. Scott tells me that he'll try and set up an additional time when the art can be viewed for those who can't make it on Friday.

Happy 90th Børge Ring!

February 17 is Børge Ring's 90th birthday. I want to wish him the warmest of birthday greetings and thank him once again for the films he has made, Oh My Darling, Anna and Bella and Run of the Mill.

All the best to you, Børge!

Animated Tatsumi

Yoshihiro Tatsumi is a manga artist who is the founder of the gekiga movement, one which took manga into the area of adult content. In some ways his work resembles film noir, dwelling on desperate outcasts who are driven by their emotions to behave in socially unacceptable ways. Tatsumi's work has been published in English by Drawn and Quarterly.

Eric Khoo, a Singaporean director, is adapting several Tatsumi works into an animated feature film. The only information I've found on the film is here.

I've admired Tatsumi's work for years and hope that this film will be worthy of it.

Tatsumi in Toronto in 2009 for the Toronto Comic Arts Festival.