Beyond that there were passages of pure fiction where Tosches clearly made up dialogue and internal thoughts attributed to Dean Martin. It was the MOMENT for me… the moment when my writing and views took the stick out of their ass (or at least partially out of my ass). In the end, Tosches’ hyperbole and references ultimately told us more about the essence, the core of who Dean Martin was (not to mention, Nick Tosches) then any straightforward authorized biography ever could.

And in both cases, these guys were interested as much in ideas as people. Tosches’ always placed his subjects in the larger context of the world they lived in. They weren’t treating like people who lived above or around us, uncontaminated by society. In Tosches’ cases, he was interested in dark, unsung figures (Jerry Lee Lewis, Dean Martin, Emmitt Miller, Sonny Liston). Meltzer’s work was more self-centered (and I don’t mean that in a bad sense). When he writes about music or writers or whatever, it’s first and foremost about how they fit or interact with his own life.

Tent Pegs
When I started writing about animation I wrote formally, from a distance. Check out anything I wrote before say… spring 2000… and its real, straight-laced routine stuff. It reads okay, but you can see the stick moving around in my ass… trying to get loose.

And I remember that it was while writing about Priit Pärn and, get this, Alexander Petrov’s Old Man and The Sea… that I could see the words and attitude becoming a little looser, a little more personal, a little less following what others told me to say or what I thought they wanted me to say.

But it was frustrating to be alone in a way. I’m not saying that I was Mr. Groundbreaker by ANY means… but from what I could see… no one in animation wrote with that subjective unapologetic transcendent gonzo passion that Tosches and Meltzer had done with music. Yes, there are many who are CLEARLY passionate about their subject… but they speak as if their subject is the centre of the world rather than a part of it. Look at mainstream film critics. They judge a film solely based on what came before it. They don’t consider its time and place of creation.

Then there are the techno fetish folks who judge animation first on HOW it says something. WHAT it says is always secondary. Take Chris Landreth’s Ryan for example. I keep reading all sorts of stuff about the innovative technology, but nothing about WHAT the film is about — other than the standard claptrap about Larkin’s life.

This has been a problem in general. There is never any critical dialogue about a film. If it’s bad, no one talks about it. If it’s great, we all say, “Hey, that was great…” If we don’t understand it, we resort to “It looked real beautiful… nice brush strokes and textures… “ and all that assorted horseshit that’s more in the realm of the wine connoisseur. Bottom line, I just never felt moved or motivated by anything I read about animation.

It was either fan-clubby historical approach (Barrier and Beck — and I am NOT dissing those guys for a minute. I may not dig their style, but they are passionate about what they’re doing.) polished, technique driven (Canemaker — again… I may not click with Canemaker’s writing style, but I admire the beans out of the man for continually seeking to give a voice to all those unacknowledged, unsung studio artists. Canemaker’s like a cartoon homicide cop) or dense, academic and coded (sort of an inversion of the fan-clubby approach); speaking to only those already resting atop the ivory tower.

In the end, when I couldn’t find any likeminded writers… I said fuggit, and contacted Meltzer directly and just invited him to write. I figured that even though he had no animation experience, he had enough life and writing experience to easily be able to write about animation. I was right. (I’m still surprised that Richard even answered my email and agreed to write for the Ottawa festival).

The situation is starting to change a little (thanks to the Internet and the availability of more work). I admire the heck out of Amid Amidi for singing with such commitment, intensity and passion. Now if he’d only stop drooling over all things designiest so much! Dr. Toon has always been a fave of mine — even though he talks about mainstream U.S. animation too much — because he looks at tendencies, trends … all in a historical light. And I am REALLY excited to read Chris Panzner’s work. As his recent pieces on AWN show, he brings a gonzo sensibility to otherwise dull (for me) industry issues. Panzer shows that he’s not afraid to speak frankly about anyone or anything. And I think animation has always needed that.

What frustrates me the most though is the unwillingness of many of these people (above and beyond) to talk about NON-Hollywood films. We just keep seeing the same stuff being written about the same people and studios. Anyone who stepped into this ‘tent’ would think that animation is ONLY Pixar, Disney, DreamWorks, AMERICAN. It’s like listening to some generic FM station that plays the same 50 fucking songs from the same 20 fucking bands. We need more writers to actively engage and champion those unsung films and animators.

That said… I don’t feel the anger I once did toward writers like Barrier and company. They write about what interests them just as I do. How can I piss on them for that? I might think… “shit… Beck… can’t you take a gander out the window and see what’s going on down the block…” but the same can be said of my own views. I even sometimes envy these guys for their passion and wish I could get all stoked about a Woody Woodpecker or Felix the Cat cartoon.

As for me… I’m just trying my best to articulate what I see around me. I’ve written about animators I felt a connection with… whose work… whose life might help me unlock some mystery inside me.

My words are just a reflection of a life (faults and all) in process. That’s it and yet that’s all.

Chris Robinson is little more than a man. In his spare time he cares for the elderly. www.animationpimp.com.