I’m not an artist, but… I can certainly appreciate how a skilled artist can use something like the EARS of Mighty Mouse to great storytelling advantage!
This sequence, from TERRY-TOONS # 2 (St. John, Cover Date: August, 1952), is by Terrytoons animator Connie Rasinski, and just look at all the additional "visual mileage" he gets with his manipulation of Mighty Mouse's ears!
"Raised / Heroically / Defiantly": More or less as you would EXPECT to see them!
"Backward Trailing": To indicate takeoff acceleration and speed!
"Raised High and Twitching": To convey great and sudden surprise! Nicely compliments the EYES and MOUTH!
And all of this emotion (...or would that be EAR-motion?) so nicely expressed in a three-panel sequence!
Well done, Mr. Rasinski!
10 comments:
As paradoxical as it may seem, there's no way to convey human emotions quite as effectively as with funny animals. As Chuck Jones once said, in one my favorite quotes: “To give the Coyote a look of anticipatory delight, I draw everything up – the eyes are up, the ears are up, and even the nose is up. When he is defeated, on the other hand, everything turns down. You can’t do that as dramatically with human beings, although the emotions expressed are fully human.”
As usual, Sergio, Chuck Jones says it best!
…And these illustrations, by fellow animator Connie Rasinski, bear him out!
Gee! Well, all these animal raggamuffins we have to deal with — they don't seem too receptive to human emotion. That being said, I gotta say, we understand them a great deal better than our human victims… ahem, targets. The Gorillas want to make believe that gorillas are always green, the Maroon Magpies want to steal things, the Retconning Crocodiles want to… uh, be evil, I guess… the Chartreuse Tortoises want to convince us that they're a real organization, too, not that we're fooled. It's all nice and straightforward. They work towards something, they're upset when they don't get it. We get that. We can relate.
Real humans from Earth are a lot more complicated. But maybe they'd like not to be. From what we've seen of them, we feel like all those cartoon characters you people enjoy so much… like that Wile E. Coyote fellow… they strike you because they take one or two simple element of the human condition, and build a fully-formed character out of those, so that you can, then, watch these emotions play out to their full extent, unhindered by social concerns (they're animals!) or moral qualms (none of the violence matters!).
Golly-bee, look at me, going into all kinds of proper psychological stuff. I dunno if my Department Head'll okay this. I'm only supposed to leave token comments every now and then, to lull you into a false sense of secu… I mean to build up a friendship. But I really got into this one. You're a good blogger, you know that?
Maybe we should create a Department of Blogging.
I like the animated look to this comic. You would sometimes see this to a lesser degree with Floyd Gottfredson's 1940s and 50s Mickey Mouse strips, but not as expressively as it is drawn here. (A Terrytoons comic doing something better than a Disney comic? The world must be coming to an end!)
Deb:
You write: “(A Terrytoons comic doing something better than a Disney comic? The world must be coming to an end!)”
Perhaps the world ALREADY ended while we were napping, and this is a totally new beginning! “Earth 2.0”, if you will!
Seriously, that’s what happens when you had actual animators doing comics, which was much more the case in the 1940s and ‘50s than it would ever be again.
As an artist yourself, I was hoping you’d chime in on this one, and am both pleased at, and in agreement with, your reaction. But, as I was saying, this was much more of a norm at the time, considering that its “contemporaries” back then were Harvey Eisenberg on Tom and Jerry, Tony Strobl on Bugs Bunny (which I consider his BEST work)… and the VERY BEST of Carl Barks’ output, about the time Uncle Scrooge achieved his own title!
There was also excellent “cartooning” being done by Jim Davis (NOT “The Garfield Guy”) on The Fox and the Crow, and Dick Hall on Woody Woodpecker – as well as (and you *do* know this) Bud Sagendorf on Popeye! Let alone the amazingly weird stuff by Jim Tyer on Mighty Mouse and Heckle and Jeckle! Some of that stuff must be seen to be believed!
Connie Rasinski, fellow Terry animator Art Bartsch, and Mighty Mouse were in some very good company! …And they contributed to an extraordinary era of “funny comics” that looks better-and-better EVERY DAY! Often by leaps-and-bounds! …Maybe even light-years!
Cupids:
We always welcome and enjoy your comments ‘round here, whether we are “victims” or “targets”! …And, along the road of life, I’ve been both “target” AND “victim” of beings commonly regarded as “Cupids”! It’s just part of the game, I suppose.
“…the Retconning Crocodiles want to… uh, be evil, I guess…”
I wouldn’t knock ‘em too hard! Think of some of the great things they’ve undone…
…50 additional needless Star Wars sequels (they tried for everything that followed “The Empire Strikes Back”, but even they have their limitations), the cancellation of The Simpsons after Season One, Carl Barks never going into comics and starting that “chicken ranch” he was considering, David Gerstein becoming a college history professor, Esther and I never meeting, and the Trump presidency!
…Oh, wait… they’re still working on that last one! As I said, “even they have their limitations”! …But, they keep trying, bless their retconning croc-hearts!
“ Real humans from Earth are a lot more complicated. But maybe they'd like not to be. From what we've seen of them, we feel like all those cartoon characters you people enjoy so much… like that Wile E. Coyote fellow… they strike you because they take one or two simple element of the human condition, and build a fully-formed character out of those, so that you can, then, watch these emotions play out to their full extent, unhindered by social concerns (they're animals!) or moral qualms (none of the violence matters!).”
That IS really deep for you guys! But, don’t over-estimate us humans either, when it comes to taking “one or two simple elements of the human condition, and build a fully-formed character out of those”!
For instance, all (the editorial) “we”, at this Blog, really want are some good comics (…as opposed to what IDW and DC, much less Marvel are giving us today), and to be able to go out and get pizza! …YOU THINK IT’S A PICNIC TRYING TO EAT PIZZA THROUGH A MASK AND GLOVES?!
“I'm only supposed to leave token comments every now and then, to lull you into a false sense of secu… I mean to build up a friendship”.
Ha! Think I’m an easy mark, do you? I can see right through your clumsy attempts at…
But I really got into this one. You're a good blogger, you know that?”
Then again, flattery will get you EVERYWHERE, my new best pals!
Interesting detail on Connie's part. I've never really been a fan of Terrytoons, but this comic DOES intrigue me. These tiny details just go to show how great comics can be!
I find it quite ironic that animators, when drawing comics, pay much more attention to detail than the house artists. Animators are used to their individual drawings being on screen for a fraction of a second, so you would think that they wouldn't care to pay attention to much detail. With house artists, since they know that an illustration made for a comic can be cherished forever (as one McKimson brother once said. Guess which one?), you would think that they pay more attention to detail, but they really don't. Praise all the animators that also drew for comics!
Speaking of animators drawing for comics, I'm thinking about buying some issues of Happy Comics that have stories drawn by some of my favorite animators (Rod Scribner, Manny Perez, Phil Monroe). Should I buy some of these or should I continue to buy loads of cheap Dell goodies from Lone Star? Lemme know your thoughts!
Austin:
In more recent years, I’ve come to regard Terrytoons much higher than I once did but, to me, the “Big Three” will always be Warner Bros., MGM, and Hanna-Barbera TV (Pre-1965).
But, regardless of where you might place Terrytoons on your own personal scale, the Terrytoons comics published by St. John were a TRUE revelation for me!
Until recent years, I’d only known the Terry comics from Dell and Gold Key (which were okay) but the St. John Terry comics were truly in a class by themselves. But, then again, most of the then-contemporary Dell comics were also at the top of their game, with Carl Barks, Harvey Eisenberg, Tony Strobl (doing his best work on Bugs Bunny), Paul Murry’s earliest Mickey Mouse, etc.
But, I’ve found that I enjoy the St. John Terry comics tremendously and 10-years ago I hardly knew they existed. Terry animators Connie Rasinski, Art Bartsch, and the sublime wackiness of Jim Tyer make these comics greater than you’d ever expect them to be!
Alas, I know nothing about “Happy Comics” and so cannot offer a recommendation. They may be great, and if so, I hope you’ll let me know about it! But you can’t go wrong with most Dells, and I’d say the same thing about St. John’s Terry comics.
With the St. John’s Terrys, though, beware of reprints! They were reprinting issues long before Gold Key began reprinting Dell! Check Grand Comics Database (GCD) for issue details. …You may even find some that were added by me, particularly when it comes to Jim Tyer!
Joe:
No, I wouldn’t expect anyone to know anything about “Happy Comics”. They’re just cheap comics that were made in the 1940s and 1950s that try to be funny, but aren’t. Devon Baxter’s wonderful articles for Cartoon Research show some stories that were drawn/written by some animation greats (mostly writers and artists from the Warner studio, like Maltese, the aforementioned Perez, Scribner and others) so I’ve considered buying some just because I’d have comic work by those artists! Oddly enough, most Happy Comics go for 4 times the prices of Looney Tunes comics.....weird, considering how Happy Comics feature random animals whereas Looney Tunes comics feature Bugs Bunny and others...
Terrytoons Comics sound neat. Maybe I’ll pick some up with my next Saturday purchase! As for Tony Strobl, I think his art got soooooo much worse later in his career. His early 1950s stuff is pure gold (when he was doing most of his Warner work for Western under the Four Color series), but his early 1960s stuff is just crap. I blame part of that on his inker at the time, Steve Steere. John Liggera inked his work much better!
As for your Big Three, mine might be the same, although depending on my mood, I might switch the Hanna Barbera out with Fleishcer/Famous....gotta love Popeye!
P.S: Jim Tyer’s animation is wackier than Scribner on steroids, so I’d love to see his comic work! I’ll have to get some of those Terrytoons comics now......
P.P.S: If you had to choose one artist who drew for Dell’s Looney Tunes series, which would be your favorite? Just a random question. Pick any artist from any era! Tony, Phil DeLara, Tom McKimson, Fred Abranz, Al Hubbard, John Carey, etc.
Austin:
That *is* weird about the pricing of “Happy Comics”!
As best I understand pricing – and, even after all these years, I’m still baffled by lots of it – the primary influences are scarcity, condition, “number-within-the-series” (low numbers go for more), and popularity-of-character(s). If, when the first three criteria are equal, I cannot see how “Happy Comics” can outpace Looney Tunes, pricewise. But, of course, scarcity, condition, and issue number need to be equal or, at least, close to it. “Introduction of a popular character” and creator(s) also factor-in.
For instance, if there were equally-factored Golden Age issues of Superman and Doll-Man, it’s pretty easy to guess which one would go for more – the vagaries of individual dealers or sellers notwithstanding, of course. Batman or Captain America would give Supes a greater run for his money. Or a later Uncle Scrooge by Carl Barks, would go for more than an earlier Daffy Duck by Phil DeLara.
The St. John Terrytoons comics are an unexpected pleasure I discovered later in my collecting-life. They aren’t TERRIBLY expensive, and they are worth it. Again, just beware of reprints with new covers. Check GCD before you buy!
Tony Strobl was at his absolute best when he inked (and even lettered) himself. John Liggera made his work look better then Steve Steere did… but ALL of it was so much better than the post-Strobl art that followed, starting with Kay Wright in 1969.
Oh, don’t get me wrong… I love Popeye. His cartoons just “lose points” when they became so repetitive in the later 1940s thru the 1950s.
I have added many credits for Michael Maltese and Jim Tyer at GCD. You can do a query on their names (and maybe mine as an indexer) to find specific issues that their work was in.
That last question is a hard one. In the ‘40s thru early ‘50s, I’d say Tom McKimson, Roger Armstrong, and Tony Strobl. In the later ‘50s, through his death in the early-mid ‘70s, I would say Phil DeLara.
Al Hubbard is in a class by himself that worked perfectly for “Mary Jane and Sniffles”, but would not have worked for Bugs and Daffy. Witness his work on Donald Duck (with Fethry and especially the abominable character known as "Hard-Haid Moe") as a squandering of his unique talents, vs. something like the few issues of Jiminy Cricket. ...I guess he hadda "go where the work was", and there was much more Donald than Jiminy.
Post a Comment