The Animation Critic's Art Part IX: Mistakes in Directing

A typical misfire can be observed in the Jones cartoon short Much Ado About Mousing (1964). This cartoon, as mentioned, had a high budget as well as many of Warners' former top talent on board. Jones had longtime story man Mike Maltese aboard, as well as master animators Ken Harris and Ben Washam. Yet, all of Jones' failings and little of his talent came through.
To begin with, there is no gag in the cartoon until a fishing gag pops up at 1:45. To have a gag this late in a cartoon that only runs 6:38 is the first mistake. We see Tom posing and making various canny expressions as he prepares to cast a fishing line, but little else. That's far too much time to set up a gag. At 2:20 Jerry takes refuge in a huge bulldog's mouth. Tom fishes out the bulldog's tongue, making the canine more than a bit unhappy. From 2:36 until 3:03 we get nothing but poses and expressions between the bulldog and Tom that essentially freeze the cartoon dead. Note especially Tom's facial expression at 2:39: this is either Jones at his laziest or more likely, lost. This is the set-up for a fairly good gag in which the bulldog rolls Tom up like a bowling ball and careens him through a ten-pin arrangement of trashcans. Tom rolls off the dock and emerges with a crab on his tail (3:03 to 3:30). That's over a minute to pull off one gag!
From 3:31 to 4:16 we have the bulldog caught by a dogcatcher and freed by Jerry: the dog gives Jerry a whistle to blow whenever Tom threatens. For shame. This is the same set-up from the 1944 Tom and Jerry short The Bodyguard as well as a pale echo of Tex Avery's 1949 short Bad Luck Blackie. It gets worse: the whistle-blowing results in an exact reuse (minus a few frames) of the bowling-ball-and-crab-gag used earlier. The animation, is, in fact, reused. This is the use to which $42,000 was put?
Tom attempts to put a set of blue earmuffs on the bulldog, perhaps the most engaging animation in the cartoon. He then celebrates and goes to confront Jerry. From 5:43 to 5:52, we get nothing but poses reminiscent of Delsarte acting technique. At 5:52 Jerry produces a pair of blue earmuffs; they are not actually the pair on the dog, but Tom does not know this. How did Jerry know there were blue earmuffs on the dog? He was nowhere in sight when Tom did the deed. The result is that bowling-ball-and-crab gag is used, with a minor variation, a third time, with the exception that a terrified Tom rolls himself into the ball and launches himself off the dock. He grabs a nearby crab and puts it on his own tail (5:58 to 6:16). Jerry lies down beside the dog, puts his own set of earmuffs on, and enjoys a snooze with his pal. The end.
So, we have gags that take too long to set up, are repeated too often, there are instances of reused animation, poses and cutesy expressions take the place of action, and the result is six-and-a half minutes of animation that, well, take up six-and-a-half-minutes. Nearly every mistake that a director can make was made in this cartoon, and there is good reason for Jones, in his later years, to view his own Tom and Jerry cartoons with disdain.
An argument can be made that no one ever recaptured the verve, charm, and mayhem of the original Hanna-Barbera cartoons, but it's not a strong one. A good director exploits the material given to its best advantage. When Walter Lantz assigned Tex Avery to make Chilly Willy cartoons, Avery took a character who was thinner than cheap wallpaper and exploited the comic situations in the cartoons until they were funny shorts. Chilly Willy should have been a one-shot character at best; Tom and Jerry had decades of rich history before Jones took them over, and his cartoons failed.
Jones' talent is unquestioned; in the sad case of Tom and Jerry, it seemed to be more the case that the desire to make these cartoons was not there. And thus we come to a crucial point about directing a short cartoon: without sufficient motivation, technical expertise and experience can easily count for nothing.
******************
A comment was made last month by one reader who would appreciate more of the critic's art using examples from world animation. I would gladly do this, but this is really an intermediate course in animation criticism, and I am trying to present well-known and/or easily accessible cartoon shorts and films at this stage. It's probably a good idea to be able to dissect a Mickey Mouse or a Ren and Stimpy cartoon before tackling Waltzing with Bashir. Second, I have a 1,500 to 2,500 word limit per column so I am going with very familiar material and characters at least at this time, because exposition on a film such as Perfect Blue, with its Hitchcockian overtones, would be so much more complicated.
If I eventually expand these essays on animation criticism into a full-length book, I'll be sure to include more instances from world animation.
Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman is a longtime student and fan of animation. He lives in Anderson, Indiana.























Yo, good looikn out! Gonna make it work now.
Thanks for sahirng. Always good to find a real expert.
Zee, good comments. However, I think the repeated gag had nothing to do with economics; as stated, the Jones T&Js had a budget of 42,000 per cartoon, and that's in 1964 money. If the gag had to be repeated, Jones had the money to present the same gag from say, Tom's POV. Jones simply did not work that hard in this particular instance.
I am much more inclined to grant you the point of "cartoon" vs. "reality" logic, and I'm sure that Tex Avery would take your side as well. I may have been nitpicking, but the overall quality of this short is so poor that no amount of logic, cartoon or otherwise, could have made it a well-directed one.
In ther end, Zee, what does it matter what you or I think when the director himself says that his work on this series was dismal? I assume he would know! My task was to point out why Jones may have felt that way, and I think the short itself made his reasons rather evident.
Thanks for your comments!
Dr. Toon
I disagree with your assessment of this cartoon. Regarding the reuse of the bowling gag; It is completely economical to reuse the same animation twice and it is the best decision to illustrate that the exact same thing is happening to TOM over and over again. So at the end of the cartoon, when TOM thinks the dog is going to fold him and bowl him again, TOM does it to himself, folds himself up, throws himself in the water, and puts a crab on his tail. They could've reused the animation more than twice and it would still be a good decision. What better way to illustrate TOM meeting the exact same fate over and over again than to reuse the exact same animation over and over again? Then when TOM does it to himself at the end, the gag is that much stronger.
The other issue I strongly disagree with you on is when JERRY pulls out an identical set of blue muffs. You have a problem with 'how would Jerry even know about the muffs?' That completely misses the point. It's a cartoon. There is something called CARTOON LOGIC. With cartoon logic you can get away without real world logic to get a point across. The point in this case is that JERRY is out smarting TOM. JERRY is in the know. JERRY is wise to him. It doesn't matter HOW he knows, it only matters that he DOES know. You see this in all CARTOONY cartoons. Lets say it was a cartoon where a guy is trying to quit drinking. His AAA sponsor vowed to make sure the guy doesn't fall off the wagon. Every time the guy is about to sneak a drink, the sponsor pops up and rips the bottle from his hand. He tries to hide in the men's room to drink... the sponsor pops up out of the toilet and grabs the bottle. He tries to hide in the garden and sneak a drink... the sponsor pops up from a rabbit hole. You get the idea. How does the sponsor know where the guy is going to be all the time? How did the sponsor know to be in that particular toilet bowl or rabbit hole? It doesn't matter how he knows. Because that is not the point. The only thing that matters is that the sponsor vows to take the guy's drink away from him, the sponsor is determined to stop the guy from drinking, and the the audience and the character get the feeling that there is no safe place to sneak a drink. How the sponsor knows is not and should not be an issue. Why? Cartoon logic and real world logic are not the same.
Are the mistakes that bad if the audience enjoyed the animation?
Post new comment