The Animation Pimp: Frolicking in the Tent

For Steven Dovas

[1]

Illustration by Andreas Hykade. Courtesy of Chris Robinson. [1]

During the 2004 Ottawa Festival we had a panel devised by Steve Dovas about the state of criticism in animation. In my guise as the Animation Pimp I was asked to be a part of the panel with Rita Street, Richard O’Connor, Amid Amidi and Mikhail Gurevich.

I think there was some anticipation that the Pimp would let go, unleash his venom LIVE. Maybe I thought that too. Instead I sat there with nothing to say. Now okay, part of this was because I was exhausted from being right smack in the fact of the festival itself. I couldn’t process much to get saucy about on two weeks’ worth of a few hours sleep. But in truth, I was silent because I really didn’t have much to say. As I heard the others talking about this and that technique and industry, and their critical strategies etc.… I realized that I really didn’t give a hoot, that I wasn’t an animation critic or a historian nor did I ever want to be one. I knew this before and in fact I never sold myself as either. I’ve always been an outsider in animation (yes… okay… I realize that I do have a bit of power as the… as Plympton — the fact that I can say refer to willie billie so casually is PROOF that I’ve got a stake in this campground — once deemed me “the tastemaker” of the Ottawa festival) and what you’ve read over the years have just been observations about many different things made by someone who stumbled into this animation tent. I never saw myself as a permanent resident, just someone passing through. I mean... isn’t that life in itself? I just picked things that I thought were interesting and in particular how these people, ideas or whatever they might have been, affected me as a person. And that was the key. You never really lose sight of the observer. And in that sense, you not only see this world of animation through the Pimp’s eyes, but you are also seeing the essence of the person behind the Pimp.

The tales say as much about me as they do about the tent. And it wasn’t just about what animation brought to me directly… it was never direct… animation came to me filtered by the world I’d experienced before and around the tent. So it was never about criticism or history, just a philosophical jaunt.

Nick and Dick
Even that approach is nothing even close to being unique. My own introduction to that personal gonzo style came through the 1970s and ‘80s writings of Nick Tosches and Richard Meltzer. So much of the free form style that has dominated Pimp columns comes from Meltzer’s influence. When he was a full on rock writer in the 1970s. He reviewed records he never listened too, concerts he wasn’t at. His work was dense, playful, self-centered and almost always funny. For whatever reason, one review (Real Time, Real Demons: Bouncing with Bud ‘64) always stayed with me. Inside a Bud Powell CD review was a story Meltzer’s “first completely sexual relationship.” For Meltzer the critic wasn’t some objective, impartial deadbeat who just stood atop a mountain telling the readers what he saw. He was down in the muck with them.

Here’s a link to an Opera review called Fuck My Childhood http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/ungodlyvision/AtN/fmchildhood.htm [2]

Now Tosches… holy fuck… what can I fucking say about my first fucking encounter with grandmaster Saint Nick. He’d written a book about Dean Martin called Dino. I didn’t really know or care much about Dean Martin at the time but some prof at school had suggested it. It just blew me away… it was profound and profane. I’d never seen the word ‘fuck’ used so poetically. I mean… one minute Tosches would be calling Jerry Lewis a cocksucker… and then he’d be referencing Dante and pre-Greek philosophers… and it all made sense somehow:

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 [3] and, get this, Alexander Petrov’s Old Man and The Sea [4]… 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 [5] 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 [6] 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 [7]. 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.