Mangled

I came across this poster image earlier today for the upcoming Disney release, Tangled. Now, having seen both this and the recent theatrical trailer for the film, I have to say that I am not too impressed with what it's shaping up to be. As most of you know, Tangled is the new title for the film formerly known as Rapunzel. Why the silly title change? Well, it seems that the Disney brass are nervous about putting out another animated film with a girl's name as the title out of fear that it will turn off the boys in their targeted demographic. Personally, I think their decision is ill-advised.

When the trailer came out about a month or so ago, I was not very happy with what I saw (and heard). Overall, there seems to be a jokiness to the film - particularly a "cool and hip" sarcastic quality to the dialogue and expressions of the hero, Flynn Rider. Also, the trailer includes an inane pop/rock song playing over the action, which really has me worried about the mindset of this film. Interestingly, in the comments I've read on sites like Cartoon Brew and The Animation Guild blog, several commenters who claim to have worked on the film are doing their utmost to assure us all that the pop/rock song is not in the soundtrack, and that all of the music score is provided by Disney stalwart, Alan Menken. They also claim that the scene where Rapunzel traps Flynn limb by limb in her long golden locks is not actually in the film either, just animated for this "teaser" trailer. Fair enough, I suppose, although I wonder why they would spend all that time and effort to animate something exclusively for the trailer when I'm sure all of the artists are working long hours just to get the film completed on schedule. Doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid.

They go on to say that Tangled will be sincere in its storytelling, just as previous Disney fairy tales have been. If what these commenters say is true, then why is Disney's Marketing department so hell-bent on promoting this film as what it is not, instead of what it is? Because judging from both the trailer and this poster, the film seems more cynical than sincere, with all of the hip attitude that many of us have come to loathe in today's "entertainment". I'd like to believe that the film will be more in keeping with its classic hand-drawn predecessors in tone rather than emulating the schlocky Shrek saga. But frankly, I'm not convinced, and I suspect many others aren't either. And that's a real problem that the Studio is going to have to address head on.

I make no claim to know anything about the pecking order at Disney, but I'd assumed that, as head of Disney Animation, John Lasseter was the man in charge, answering only to Disney CEO, Bob Iger. If this is so, then John needs to get tough with Disney's merry Marketeers because, due to their misguided marketing they are undermining the integrity of this film and putting at risk all of the hard work of the animation staff in trying to create something of worth. John should be fighting them tooth and nail, using whatever professional clout he has (and I have to believe that's a formidable amount). And Bob Iger needs to support him on that, and not just go along with Marketing's efforts to promote this like a stupid teen comedy. Honestly, I really wonder about Disney these days.

"They just can't get my 'tude right!"

The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes

The other day I received a copy of Jerry Beck's new book, The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes Cartoons and was asked by the publisher if I might offer up a review. The book presents a sampling of 100 cartoons that Jerry believes are among the studio's best work, although he himself admits there are so many more that are equally as worthy in various ways. All 100 cartoons are pictured and titled alphabetically in little frame grabs at the beginning of the book for easy reference when searching. As I scanned these 100 titles, I estimated that I'm quite familiar with about 50% of the cartoons, and have seen about another 25% at least once, though am less acquainted with them. But there's certainly a number of cartoons that I don't believe I've ever seen at all. I mention this because I make no claim to know the Looney Tunes library anywhere near as well as Jerry Beck does, therefore I will not attempt to compete with his more informed opinion on the films themselves.

The book is interesting both for what it is and what it is not. Let me address the latter part of that statement first. The book is not an authoritative, in-depth analysis of the cartoons, and those expecting as much may be disappointed. If that is what you seek, then you'd be far better off reading Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic or Mike Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons, both of which go into great detail on select notable cartoons from all of the studios of that Golden Era, Warners included. If you want to limit your reading to just the Looney Tunes cartoons, I'd also recommend Steve Schneider's That's All Folks! and Joe Adamson's Fifty Years and Only One Grey Hare (Bugs' films only). But this new book by Jerry Beck is really not attempting to be such an authoritative tome as any of those titles.

This book is more like a book version of a sampler record album. I used to buy a number of such records (and later, CDs) back when I was trying to gain more knowledge of both the jazz and classical music worlds. These albums offered up a sampling of various jazz musicians or classical composers' works that served as a good primer for the newbie listener. Once introduced to various artists through the popular selections of their work, you could then go forth and explore in greater depth that which appealed to you by purchasing complete albums of their music. For a novice cartoon buff, I believe that this book of Jerry's would serve a similar role as a simple and colourful introduction to these brilliant cartoons.

But that's not to say that its appeal should be limited to the novice, by any means. I believe the ideal use for this book is as a companion guide in conjunction with the six volumes of Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD boxed sets that are currently available to the cartoon buff (which of course, Jerry Beck was also instrumental in bringing to us). As one who has all six sets but admittedly has only watched a few discs and individual titles scattered throughout the whole series, this book makes me want to search out some of these cartoons I've never seen before, most of which are included among the six volumes. Each entry in Jerry's book contains a few stills from the particular cartoon, which is enough to whet one's appetite to seek out individual titles to watch.

As I said, the book is not meant to be an in-depth look at the 100 Looney Tunes cartoons that it profiles. Each title receives just a double page spread consisting of a few stills, a short synopsis, and a brief commentary provided by Jerry or one of his 30 associates within the animation community, including Mike Barrier, Eric Goldberg, John Canemaker, to mention a few. (Even my friend and Sheridan colleague, Mark Mayerson is featured). If I have one criticism, I'd have suggested dispensing with the synopsis, as much of the cartoon plot is repeated in the commentary. It would have been better to have allowed a bit more room for personal thoughts on each title instead.

As I perused all of the titles that Jerry has judged to be among the top 100, I must admit that all of my favourites were included, such as The Rabbit of Seville, One Froggy Evening, High Diving Hare and the rest of the usual suspects. I was also glad to see the inclusion of such unique cartoons as The Three Little Bops and the giddily disturbing Chow Hound. I might question the inclusion of Page Miss Glory, which, aside from the interesting art deco approach, is a cartoon that I suspect is an acquired taste for most viewers. Likewise, I would definitely not consider Hollywood Steps Out to be even a good cartoon, let alone a great one, as all it has going for it is the caricatured movie stars of the time, many of whom would not be recognized today. That novelty aside, the cartoon is poorly scripted and largely unfunny. While the Roadrunner cartoons only rate a couple of entries, and rightfully so, I am perplexed as to why there are no titles featuring Pépe Le Pew and just one with Foghorn Leghorn, as several of the Foghorns in particular are brilliant.

Still, taken as a whole, I'd have to say that Jerry Beck has done an admirable job of distilling the entire library of Warners' shorts into this collection of just 100 titles. The 100 Greatest Looney Tunes Cartoons is available for just $24.95 U.S. and, while a bit more than the four bits to see Fearless Freep, is certainly a bargain at that price. A fun and nostalgic read, if not an overly informative one.

Finally, Something I Like!

I saw this over on Cartoon Brew yesterday and was so impressed with it that I felt compelled to comment on it here. It's just a short promo for the Palm Springs International Short Fest, yet somehow it has excited me more than any animated feature has in recent years. It was created by a studio called MAKE in Minneapolis, and the director/lead animator was Andrew Chesworth. Interestingly, all of the comments over at Cartoon Brew have been enthusiastically positive in their praise of the film - which is an unusual situation at The Brew, where there is generally mixed feelings on most animated clips posted. Anyway, watch it first, then I'll discuss it:



Here's why I like it so much. First of all, it's a spoof of that oh so familiar scene in 40's film noir where the damsel in distress shows up at the office of the hardboiled private detective begging him to take the case. Strangely, film noir has never been done in a full animated feature, the closest thing being the animation/live action hybrid, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, so I think it's a genre that would be ripe for an animated feature. And like this short, I'd want to see that feature animated in glorious, traditional, hand-drawn animation, not CG! Take a look at the overall style of this short - it's so unabashedly a cartoon. The characters are all highly caricatured and stylized: the hero in bold angular outlines and blocky shapes, the femme fatale all in sexy curves. The animated movement is equally cartoony in it's timing. Also, look at how distinct all of the character designs are and how they communicate immediately to the viewer what those characters are all about. The hero is reminiscent of tough guy actors with chiseled features like George C. Scott or Richard Conte. He's not one of those pretty boy metrosexuals that have been dominating animated features for the last 20 years. Neither is the girl generic in any way. Her features are exaggerated to show her sexiness and her deceptive personality - look at that imposing jawline that shows her to be a tough cookie. I also love the highly designed curly hair, as it shows what drawn animation can do so much better than CG, which is a slave to literal form. I hope that my Sheridan students are taking note, as this short film is a great example of what I'm always stressing to see in your Character Design assignments.

As far as I'm concerned, this short is a breath of fresh air, so different from the stagnation of semi-realistic character design that we've been seeing in so many hand-drawn features of the last 15 to 20 years. Interestingly, John Kricfalusi has been taking a stab at the generic male leads that are all looking too similar, culminating in the latest attempt in the upcoming Tangled, with the hero, Flynn Rider. I happen to agree with much of what John says in this regard, as I'm getting damn tired of what I've come to call the "Rock Star" look of all male leads in the latter-day films of Disney, Dreamworks, and a few other studios. Disney artists should check out some classic Hollywood films of the past and start studying real men like Gregory Peck, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Gene Kelly, etc. etc, so as to get away from this current trend of designing longhaired metrosexuals. This short film with the film noir detective hopefully will inspire some more satisfying heroes in future animated features. My sincere congratulations to Andrew Chesworth and his talented crew for creating a small gem of animated brilliance!

The Limitations Of Contemporary TV Animation.

There's certainly an interesting discussion going on currently over at John K's blog regarding all of this contemporary trend in (mostly TV) animated characters where the designs are deliberately flat and graphic, with the limitations in movement and personality that are inherent in such design. Needless to say, I agree with John's stance on this and share his criticisms of this unfortunate trend. I believe that there is a real detriment to animation design when one is a slave to the computer software being used today. The examples that John cites from TV shows are all of the Flash cutout (or "symbol" as they call it) variety, where each character is created from an assortment of pre-drawn parts that exist in the computer, with no additional drawing being allowed by the animators working on the show. Instead of actually creating a pose or expression, today's TV animators must contrive it as best they can from the library of character parts they have to work with. Can you imagine - animators being discouraged from actually drawing something!

Additionally, the fact that these characters are all being drawn digitally on the computer to begin with, utilizing a vector-based program like Flash or other likeminded software, means that all of the designs consist of perfect geometric shapes: perfect straight edges and perfect curves. Likewise, the outlines are all vector lines, usually of an unvarying line weight, or occasionally with a contrived thick and thin. All of this unyielding control that the computer has been given is killing all of the potential for fluid animation and, ultimately, personality. It's like trying to draw a character using nothing but a ruler, circle/oval template, and maybe some French curves. Why would any artist want to be given such strict limitations? I'm not saying that the resulting images are totally lacking visual appeal, but they are certainly not designed for animation in the truest sense.

John talks of the functionality of a good character design, and that it must be explored through movement to arrive at a final design that's conducive to animation, rather than just be a series of graphic shapes that only work in static poses. I agree with this assessment, as I also prefer that a character design be "organic" - pliable and capable of fluid movement and full rotations when called for. Even the Hanna-Barbera designs of the early 1960s, though more simple shape based for the TV cartoons of that era than their theatrical predecessors, were still solid in form and designed for pliable movement. Just compare the animation of Yogi Bear or Fred Flintstone to anything of today and you'll hopefully understand what I mean.

One of the most compelling comments following this topic on John's site comes from a commenter by the name Tilcheff, who offers this bluntly honest and heartbreaking assessment of his recent experience in the animation studios:

"It's funny and sad at the same time that every single studio I have worked at makes the same mistakes in the name of efficiency. Business arrogance dominates this industry and people with no love for cartoons produce them. The self-censorship and political correctness strangle every fresh idea before it's even born. Young enthusiastic animators are very quickly disillusioned by a system, which treats them as computer operators and has no mechanism to get feedback, ideas or allow them even the slightest creativity to do visual gags, a system which shows no recognition for their work and appreciation of their skill or talent, a system that kicks them out in the street upon a successful completion of the job. Very quickly they become cynical, trapped in the world of stock actions and expressions, knocking frames day after day, quickly learning how to do things in order to avoid problems. They also very quickly learn to lie that they like the crap shows they work on, that they enjoy the terrible work atmosphere in the studios. There is usually a culture of hypocrisy and backstabbing, generated by the mediocrity, contemporary political correctness and 'post-modern' cool-ness which dominates these studios. The values behind contemporary cartoons have nothing to do with those during the Termite Terrace years. Everything seems to be extremely superficial, hollow and lacking internal logic, reasonable values and weight."

I think Tilcheff sums it up well, and his entire commentary is well worth reading, as this is only an excerpt.

Anyway, that's all I'm saying on this matter, as I've learned from recent experience that stating my opinion on anything animation related is akin to swimming in shark infested waters...

Sheridan Animation at the Bloor!

Please excuse the fact that I haven't updated the blog lately, but I was on vacation for a week back in my hometown of Ottawa. Anyway, I wanted to start back by helping to spread the word on the upcoming screening of a sampling of films from the 4th Year Sheridan grads that will be shown this Tuesday (at 7 pm) and Wednesday (at 9:30 pm) evenings at the Bloor Cinema in Toronto. This screening has been put together quite generously by my friend and Sheridan colleague, Mark Mayerson. You can read more about the show right here on Mark's blog. If you live within a reasonable proximity of the Bloor, please come down for one of the two screenings to show your support for the Sheridan grads. I'm planning on attending the Tuesday 7pm show and hope to see you there.

In the meantime, just to whet your appetite, here is a sample of the cartoon goodness just waiting for you to savour! This is one of my favourites from this year, animated by the highly skilled cartoonist, Kelly Turnbull:

The Chronicles of Turghot and Dragam from Kelly Turnbull on Vimeo.

Happy Birthday Leonard!

Here's a salute to my favourite film reviewer and historian, Leonard Maltin. I was lucky enough to meet Leonard way back in 1982 when he was one of the attendees at The Ottawa International Animation Festival. He'd only recently started appearing on the newly created "Entertainment Tonight" (which was so much better in those days), so not many people were as familiar with him as they are today. However, I knew of Leonard Maltin primarily as a noted authority on animated films, through his two books, "The Disney Films" and "Of Mice and Magic". Anyway, I wasn't going to be shy about saying hi, so I went up and started chatting with him. He was such an affable fellow that, since he was going to be around the festival all week, I took the opportunity to do a caricature of him and presented it to him a few days later. He seemed quite genuinely delighted with it and was happy to sign my copies of his two books in return. He also extended an invitation to come visit him if I ever found myself in NYC, which I ended up taking him up on about a year later.

At that time, Leonard and his wife Alice were still living in Manhattan, even though Leonard was having to fly to LA for all of his Entertainment Tonight film reviews. Some time later they would relocate to LA in order to make that task more practical. When I saw him in New York he was in the middle of obtaining a second apartment in his building to set up as an office, as his film and cartoon collection had gotten too big for the one apartment they lived in. He and Alice were very gracious to me and Leonard took great delight in showing me his extensive collection of cartoon memorabilia. After an enjoyable visit, they strolled with me back to where I needed to catch a bus back to my hotel.

What I love best about Leonard is his obvious enthusiasm for movies and, even when he does offer up some criticism he is never mean spirited with it, always balancing out the bad with some good. Back when he wrote "The Disney Films" in 1973, it was long before it was fashionable to write about Disney and there were very few textbooks available on the subject. I think that the only two books on Disney I personally had at that time were his and "The Art of Walt Disney" by Christopher Finch. I found myself referring to his book often, as those were still the years of "The Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday night TV, and I would read up on any of the live action Disney films that were about to show up on there for extra background on their production. What I didn't know at the time was that Leonard would have been only a young fellow of 23 when that incredible reference book was published!

In recent years, longtime Disney fans have Leonard Maltin to thank for his efforts in launching the "Walt Disney Treasures" series of boxed DVD sets devoted to vintage Disney animation, early television productions and Walt Disney, the man himself. Leonard also hosts these DVDs, providing a lot of historical background and supplemental interviews with legendary artists and performers. I have pretty much all of these sets, and find myself returning to them often to indulge in the warm nostalgia of that wonderful era of real entertainment.

Leonard currently has a website called "Leonard Maltin's Movie Crazy" as well as a quarterly publication that showcases vintage films of the early days of Hollywood, his real passion. And since Leonard has been such a loyal friend to animation and Disney over his many years as a film historian, I thought I'd give this new caricature of him an appropriate Disney cartoon-style, sunburst backdrop. By the way, I see from my list of celebrity birthdays that Leonard shares his birthday with Steven Spielberg, which I'm certain makes him happy. But he also shares his birthday with screen legend, Betty Grable, and I'll wager that makes him even happier! Happy Birthday Leonard!

"The Chestnut Tree"

I just happened upon this film yesterday when I saw it posted on the blog of Alan Cook, a talented recent Sheridan Animation grad and a former student of mine. I've watched this short animated film over again several times now and must say that I just love it. It was created by a young animator from Korea named Hyun-min Lee, who has been accepted into the internship program at Disney and has apparently been working with master animator, Eric Goldberg. An interview with Hyun-min may be found here.

The film is a celebration of childhood imagination and the loving mother who encouraged that imagination to flourish. Now, some of you may be wondering why I am responding so enthusiastically to this film, when I recently gave quite a critical drubbing to "Adventure Time", which also centers around childhood imagination. Especially since the characters in "The Chestnut Tree" are also quite simplistic in design, with minimal facial features and a comparable amount of what we refer to as "pencil mileage" as that found in the designs of "Adventure Time". But that is really where the similarity ends, and for me the success is in the execution of the visuals and resulting animation in this charming film.

Though undeniably minimalist designs, the young girl and her mother are drawn with fully dimensional, simple forms and they are handled with fluidity and graceful movement in their animation. Unlike the awkward character animation and layouts I perceive to be at work in "Adventure Time", the skill of Hyun-min's animation is able to lead the viewer's eye pleasingly and playfully through each scene. Though the facial features are so simple in design, they register clear emotions that the viewer easily can respond to. Admittedly, as one who teaches Character Design, I myself prefer to see characters that have more specific features that can indicate more of their personality type, but when minimalist design is handled well at the animation stage, that's where the personality and emotional content can be put across through clarity of body language, expressions and timing of the motion. (I can also appreciate "Pocoyo" for that reason, by the way.) Still, I do expect to see more distinctness in the designs from my Sheridan students just to stretch their ability to depict personality through visual design alone, as they can all well attest to at this point! :)

I hope that Hyun-min Lee is successful in her goal to become a full-time animator at Disney and I look forward to great things from this young lady in the future!

"A Romance in Graphite"

This past April at Sheridan College saw the screening of the 4th Year films from a very talented group of students who would shortly be graduating from the BAA Animation program. I'd had this bunch just two years prior in my 2nd Year Character Design class, and now that they've graduated and moved on into their careers, I don't mind saying that I'm going to miss seeing all those crazy rascals. One of these students was Melissa Maduro, who always had a great knack for drawing very appealing cartoon designs with a lot of personality, and I always enjoyed seeing her work when I was grading assignments. Even though the gal seemed to have a peculiar fascination with comedic zombies.

After the screening on Sheridan's annual Industry Day, I felt that Mel's film, "A Romance in Graphite" was among the better ones and it got a very good reception from the studio reps in attendance that day. It was also admittedly one of my favourite films for its simple, yet charming story told with humour and elegance. As it happens, "A Romance in Graphite" was one of the films in competition this past week at the Ottawa International Animation Festival in the category of Most Promising Student Film, with a scholarship from Teletoon as the prize. Actually, there were a number of other Sheridan grads in the running, including Vlad Kooperman for his incredible film, "C Block". Regardless of who has won the scholarship (and I haven't yet heard the results) I believe that Sheridan had some very worthy contenders.

Mel had recently posted her film on her own blog and, though I can't embed it here, I'm going to provide this direct link to "A Romance in Graphite" so you can all see how charming it is. So here's to Melissa Maduro - Talented filmmaker, funny cartoonist, and a friend to zombies...

AWESOMENESS!!! Well, not really...

Pen: "WOW!!! Look, there are butterflies playing volleyball in my Cheerios. AWESOME!! C'mon guys, let's hop on my coolio cosmic magnetocycle and head on over to Jake's pad-eroonie!"

Pen: (Moments later) "Hey Jake, my main dog, what's hanging?"

Jake: "Well, I was contemplating the state of wormholes in the seventh dimension, but I guess I'm free to accompany you on your journey to the planet of perpetual platitudes as soon as I can locate my cybermuzzle. Oh look - bunnies!"

Pen: "BAROMETRIC!!!......Let's go, Jake - It's ADVENTURE TIME!!"

So, what do you all think of what I've just written there? Quite the brilliant piece of dialogue, don't you think? What's that you say? You think it's stupid and makes no sense? Hmmmm....

Well, that makes two of us then, as I agree that it IS stupid and it DOESN'T make sense. But I have to tell you, if what I'd just written was a portion of an actual script from "Adventure Time", then I'd apparently be hailed as a genius by many of the current readers of Cartoon Brew. Take a look here to see what I mean. And here is "Adventure Time" itself, courtesy of YouTube:



It seems that the so-called Cartoon Network has picked up this insipid little time waster to produce as a regular series. Yet that's just fine with the Cartoon Brew's Amid Amidi, who lately seems to champion anything he perceives as being fresh and different, even when it's plainly devoid of any real writing or art talent. He's also real gung ho for this nasty, ugly thing, so I'm afraid I just don't share his taste in some new animated TV series. Yes, I know I'm being blunt in my negative assessment of this show, but I think it's time that some of us take a stand against mediocrity or it will continue to take over all areas of the entertainment world, squeezing out anything of any real artistic merit in it's wake. Here are just some of the things that are wrong with "Adventure Time":

- The script, such as it is, sacrifices linear storytelling in favour of stringing together non sequiturs, hoping like hell that the audience doesn't notice the absence of a coherent plot. As I just proved with my example at the top of this post, there is nothing difficult or clever about this sort of writing - it's just stream of conscious randomness masquerading as dialogue, not being driven either by plot or development of character. Some may call it "quirky". I call it the work of a hack.

- The character designs are not really "characters" at all - not in the truest sense anyway. Like so much of the mediocrity in contemporary animation, there seems to be a trend toward child-like minimalism in the drawing: Amorphous head shapes with nothing more than dots and dashes representing the eyes and mouth, formless outlines in lieu of real structure or appealing distinct shapes, and no regard for trying to communicate feeling through body language and facial expression. As such, all of the characters' thoughts and emotions are carried completely by the dialogue, which itself is meaningless to begin with. As a test, try watching the clip with the sound turned off, as you'll see that the visuals completely fail to communicate anything on their own. This is a cardinal sin in animation, as the communicating of an idea should be possible through the visuals alone, with the dialogue remaining secondary.

- Even the layouts are really bad. There is poor composition as evidenced by the tree that seems to grow out of the boy's head in the opening scene. Also in that same scene, the dog's head keeps hitting the horizon line as he bobs up and down. Students of animation are told to avoid drawing tangents like this, and are instead instructed to break past such a border so that it is clear that one thing exists in front of another. Much of the layout composition is sloppy and uninspired throughout the entire clip.

- Then you have the garish colours so typical in today's computer coloured animated shows. No skilled background painter would ever choose to paint the grass in that "Lite Brite" neon green, yet so many show creators today seem to believe that the brighter and gaudier the better. I applaud John Kricfalusi for continuing to decry this trend as he has often pointed out deplorable uses of colour in modern cartoons, while showing examples of inspired and harmonious colour schemes in the TV cartoons of the past. Here is a compilation of his writings regarding background painting that provides numerous examples of both good and bad colour for comparison.

In short, this sample from "Adventure Time" flies in the face of every time honoured artistic principle that exists, both in terms of the visual artwork and the writing. But, judging from the "awesome" accolades found in the Brew post's comments section, many of the Brew readers just refuse to see its severe shortcomings and have hailed it as a masterpiece. Not all readers are so gullible, however, and I applaud freethinkers like Jason, Brooke, and Eric for not drinking the Kool-Aid. We need more discerning viewers like them.

By the way, "Adventure Time" also strikes me as being an inferior derivative of TerryToons' "Tom Terrific". Watch this clip and you'll see how this cartoon, while also very simple in its visual design, is just so much better in terms of real cartooning, with sprightly posed characters and expressions that communicate:

Gouache Meets Photoshop

In my previous post I showed some sample illustrations from a couple of Disney books that were painted completely in the traditional method of paint on illustration board. However, just so you don't get the idea that I am totally against using Photoshop, here are some samples that employ a hybrid method that I like to use.


This illustration is from a book published a few years ago by Random House, entitled "Beauties in Bloom", which featured two spring themed stories, one featuring "Snow White" and the other, "Cinderella". This was the first in a series of seasonal books put out as part of the "Disney Princesses" program. Though I'm admittedly not keen on the packaging of the characters under the "Disney Princesses" banner, I do enjoy illustrating the classic characters in original new tales, rather than just retelling the film stories.


After my final pencil layouts of the pages have been approved by Disney, I then separate the elements of characters and backgrounds. I transfer the background drawing onto a sheet of illustration board using graphite paper and a photocopy of my drawing that I can trace over with a sharp hard pencil. Once the background image is on the board, I start out painting in the large areas such as sky and grass using dilute washes of gouache on the surface which has already been pre-moistened with water brushed on evenly with a large flat brush. Once the larger expanses are in, I can start building up the details of bushes, trees, and surface texture on the ground.

In the case of "Snow White", since the film's backgrounds were rendered in watercolour, I am using the gouache more dilute in order to approximate the look of real transparent watercolour. It's a bit of a cheat, but then I'm pretty sure that even the Disney artists used some opaque gouache in areas that needed lighter highlights over dark areas. Frankly, I've never been good at handling real watercolour, so I prefer to use gouache because I'm more comfortable with it. Once all of the backgrounds have been painted, then comes the rather tedious task of scanning them into Photoshop, usually in two or three sections because of the limited area on the scanner plate. I then have to reassemble them into single Photoshop files, which is often tricky due to some areas having scanned a bit darker or lighter than others, and therefore needing some adjustment.



With the backgrounds out of the way, I can then get to the characters. Working from my clean pencil layouts, I place a sheet of matte finish mylar film on top of each one and, using a very fine #00 watercolour brush, carefully ink each set of characters as delicately as I can in order to approximate the way they used to hand ink the old animation cels using a crowquill pen and ink. When these are all completed, I then scan in each sheet of character art, again sometimes having to reassemble any large character groupings that were too big to scan in one piece. (Fortunately, that doesn't happen often.)

At this point, each page of character line art has to be converted into a transparent layer in Photoshop. This is so that I can then colour the characters by "painting" on a second transparent layer below, thus resulting in an image that really does approximate an animation cel with solid flat colours beneath the clean ink lines. What's nice about this method too, is that I can very easily go over separate areas on the line layer to change the colours of the line to something that relates better to the area of colour they contain. This is also the way they used to ink the cels in the early Disney feature films. Usually I keep this part pretty basic; just brown lines to surround warm colours and dark blue lines for blues and greens. I do a bit of tonal modeling on the areas of colour, but I keep that real basic too, otherwise the characters start looking too much like plastic.

Once both backgrounds and character layers are in the computer, it is then a very easy and fun process of assembling them together for the final picture files. The benefit of working this way as well, is that if either Disney or the publisher require any changes to be made, it is not much problem to slightly shift or adjust the size or colour value of a character, without having to worry about the background. Finally, the real benefit for me is just sending the client a couple of CDs containing all of the page setups, instead of sending a bulky stack of original illustration boards by Fedex, which can be quite costly, as well as nerve racking, hoping they arrive safely.

Because I really enjoy trying to match the background painting style of the original film, here are a couple more examples of my Disney book work which show some variety in approach:


This is a scene from "Happy new Year, Pooh!", that I did as one of a series of "Winnie-The-Pooh" books for Reader's Digest. It was a book of the month type of thing, where each title related to something in each month of the year. I did three books in the series. I quite like working with the Pooh characters, as well as doing the looser pen, ink and watercolour backgrounds that the film employed to adhere more to the original Shepard book illustrations. These backgrounds are more like coloured drawings than true paintings, and therefore are easier for me.


Still, that doesn't mean I shy away from more painterly approaches, as I had fun trying to mimic the style of background artist, Eyvind Earle, in "Sleeping Beauty". Eyvind would paint in large, opaque, flat areas of colour, then build up the surface detail in multiple layers with his gouache. My paintings are a lot more basic than his, though, as he would create incredible textures and ornate design work in his film backgrounds. In June of 2007, I got to see the exhibit of original Disney animation art that was on show in Montreal (having first debuted in Paris). It was a real pleasure to be able to get up so close to some original Eyvind Earle backgrounds and analyze his approach in the brush work and order in which he would paint all of the elements. His gnarled, old tree trunks were incredible to behold. My simplistic "forgeries" pale in comparison, I'm afraid, but it sure is fun trying to paint in his style!

In Praise of Real Paint!

Since I've been extolling the virtues of using real paint on illustration board, I thought this might be a good opportunity to show some samples of the art I've done for various Disney books over the years. These are all painted with gouache, an opaque form of watercolours.



As I've often mentioned in previous posts, "The Jungle Book" remains my alltime favourite of the Disney animated features. Therefore, it was a real treat to illustrate this book for Random House, which was just a simple retelling of the story targeted to beginning readers. It was one of a series of books under the umbrella title of "My First Disney Story". I drew and painted four of these books and did the pencilling for a fifth that was painted by another illustrator. I am quite comfortable using gouache, and endeavor to paint the backgrounds fairly close to what they look like in the original films.

Painting the characters in these illustrations is a bit tricky, and I always start by masking them out with frisket so as to keep the characters untouched as I paint the background behind them. That way, the characters are still just my pencil lines on clean white areas of board when I go to paint them in. As you can see, I keep the tonal rendering on the characters to a minimum, so they don't start looking all shiny like plastic. (I don't like the Disney video box art for that very reason.) I find that just a bit of dry brush shading on one side gives them the clean, crisp look that I prefer.



These samples from the "Bambi" book I illustrated for that same series unfortunately never saw the light of day. This particular book was sadly never published, as Random House execs were keeping a close watch on sales of the other books and weren't sure how well "Bambi" would do. Though I was still paid well for my work, it was a real disappointment not to see this one in print, as I had really enjoyed doing these paintings. In addition to these two titles, I also illustrated two others in the series on "The Lion King" and "Snow White", as well as having pencilled the illustrations for a "Dumbo" book.

This was at a time when Disney Consumer Products was still greenlighting lots of fun projects, utilizing characters from many of their classic films. Sadly, the mindset there is far different now, with book product limited pretty much to just the "Disney Princesses" franchise and "Winnie-the-Pooh". The only other films that still get some book tie-in seem to be the Pixar titles. Frankly, I miss the days when Disney was still celebrating their classics of the past, as these were the characters that I was happiest to work with. I wish that the folks at Consumer Products would realize just how big an audience still exists for those classic animated films. Additionally, it would be nice if Mickey and the gang would start to be used again properly, instead of relegated to just that preschool "Mickey's Clubhouse" with its unfortunate computer generated animation...

Diversity and "Fairyations"

There was an interesting comment from Bill Drastal in regards to my last post. He says:

I worked for a web company designing characters and other images and while I can't say what I designed them for, we were defiantly pushed in a direction where all the main characters came out looking like the same, and when we had to design characters of different racial backgrounds the direction was to make them, quote "Normal looking"

Believe me, Bill, I can sympathize with what you say. Unfortunately we live in politically correct times, and there's far too much sensitivity to portraying people of various ethnic backgrounds (other than caucasian, of course) with any degree of caricature. Sure it's a Black character, but it mustn't look too Black. Inexplicably, there seems to be a mindset that says that only caucasians can be caricatured and that the features of other races must be played down or, ironically, made to look more like those of caucasians. Frankly, I don't get it. In fact, I would think that the tendency to make Blacks, Asians and Hispanics all look like blandly designed White people would be more offensive to them.

Back in the early 1970's we had Bill Cosby's "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids". Though the entertainment merits of the show may be open to debate, the character design was rather commendable. It wasn't brilliant cartooning, but there was at least a very distinct, individual look to each character. Furthermore, this nice variety of shapes and sizes of the characters also helped to visually communicate something of each one's personality. This is something I can't stress enough in my class at Sheridan. Remember, you don't have a lot of time to explain your character to the audience. Ideally, the viewer should have some indication of what your characters are all about from a quick glance. Then you can use your acting and dialogue to further flesh them out as your story unfolds.

Alas, here we are in the politically correct new millennium and Bill Cosby has come back with another animated series, albeit aimed at the preschool set. Still, I really don't think that fact justifies dumbing the art design down to the level found in "Little Bill". As you can see, Little Bill and his whole family are a group of lookalike clones, completely lacking individuality of design as well as being devoid of real expression. I love Bill Cosby as a brilliant anecdotal comedian, but I really do question his taste in regards to the art stylings of "Little Bill".

Little Bill's friends don't fare much better either. They're still pretty much all the same basic design and rather robotic looking in their expressionless poses. I suppose I have to give some credit for varying the body types a bit, but overall they're pretty bland and similar in design. Is this something that today's little tykes really would enjoy? I'm just glad that I grew up on "The Flintstones" and old "Popeye" cartoons in my kindergarten days, before the days of highminded "childrens' programming" came into being.

Not all is bad today, however. Here's a character lineup from "The Proud Family" that shows character designs far more to my liking. I personally think this is one of the finest looking animated shows on TV currently. Yes, the stories are all little morality tales, of course, but it manages to be quite funny and entertaining too, not the least because of the beautifully designed characters. Just looking at this lineup of kids, you get a distinct impression of what each one is like - their personalities are obvious in a glance. Also, the visual designs work well as "silhouettes", that is, if you filled them in as solid black shapes they still would read clearly to the eye as distinct, appealing characters, all different shapes and sizes.

Here's Penny and her family, including her Dad, who's a real opportunistic type. I think he's a great character! Even the backgrounds on this show are pleasing to the eye and unified in design. I really give a lot of credit to all who have created the look of this show. Just compare these funny, colourful characters to their bland and boring counterparts on "Little Bill". I know what I'd be watching if I were still a 5 year old kid...

And now I'm going to look again at the new "Tinker Bell" movie from Disney. Like I said before, I would consider any one of these Fairy designs appealing enough on its own, as there is certainly a visual appeal to the head to body ratio, the flowing, organic shapes, and the colour schemes, as we've come to expect from Disney (though the impact is lessened by the CG animation, in my opinion, compared to the linear characters in classic Disney films.) But the fact that there are five of these tiny girls, all identical in face and form is what I see as a big, big mistake.


In looking at this publicity still from the film, one gets absolutely no impression of who these five fairies are: what their personalities are like, or how they might relate to each other in the story. Cute though they may be, they really communicate absolutely nothing to the viewer in their design. All of their various personalities are going to have to be explained through the dialogue, which is a real waste of the animation medium, I believe.


Not long ago, however, I saw this on Jim Hill's site. These young ladies have been hired by Disney to portray the five Fairies as meet 'n' greet walkaround characters at promotional events and maybe at Disneyland.


Ironically, I find these live young ladies to suggest far more in possible personality than their animated counterparts. We know who Tink is, but how about her friends? If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the one on the lower left suggests an outgoing, "Voted most likely to succeed" type of girl. The Black girl looks pensive and serene, maybe a shy type. The girl with the braid might be a goofy and not particularly bright type, reminiscent of Goldie Hawn in her "Laugh-In" days. Finally, the Asian girl looks rather mischievous to me, perhaps given to pulling pranks on the others. Whether these impressions are accurate to what the film's characters are all about is not important - but the fact that these live actresses convey something to me in terms of a perceived personality is what counts. Why am I not able to read the animated characters as such? In cartooning, personalities should be even more obvious because you have the liberty of pushing them more through caricatured designs, expressions and body language. Which leads me to the following sketch:


Just for fun, I thought I'd try redesigning the Fairy characters as caricatures of these actresses, cartooned in a Disney style. I haven't drawn Tink herself though, for obvious copyright reasons aside from the fact we already know what she looks like. Is this what I think the final designs should be? Not necessarily, as I think they could be explored more in various ways and then simplified and refined more for the final models. But I genuinely believe this makes for a better starting point - to try and create distinct individuals that suggest their specific personality type through the visual designs. This is what Disney has historically always been so brilliant at in their classic animated features. Female attractiveness should not all derive from just one template - variety is the key to engaging the viewer's interest! I know there is the art talent at Disney to pull it off - but why are the artists not calling the shots?

Kung Fu Panda

Admittedly, I'm not that keen on CG animated films compared to traditional drawn animation. For me, animation is still first and foremost about drawn cartoons that seemingly spring to life on the big screen. However, CG films have been steadily improving in their ability to show organic, "Squash and Stretch" character animation, so I must give them credit where it's due.

I just saw Dreamworks' latest film, "Kung Fu Panda", the other day and have to say that for the most part I was very impressed. As one who personally loathes the "Shrek" films, I was glad to see that "Kung Fu Panda" was refreshingly free of all the stupid pop culture humour that I usually associate with the Dreamworks product. In fact, it is a pretty good script with a slight but quite serviceable plot. Particularly impressive is the visual look of the film. The art direction is quite beautiful in its depiction of the Chinese landscape: all lyrical form and colour. As my forte is character design, I also have to state how appealing the characters are in terms of shape, colour and movement.

Martial arts films have never been my thing, so I can't say I was enthralled by all of the kung fu action, especially the battle between the "Furious Five" and the villainous Tai Lung on the bridge. However, I do understand that the filmmakers were hoping to appeal to fans of martial arts films, so I don't begrudge them skewing it to that audience where they could. From an animation point of view, though, I don't think animation has ever been the best medium to show that kind of fast action, as a lot of it fails to read clearly. Which brings me to my real concern with this film, and that is action at the expense of characterization.

In regard to characterization, I feel they did an admirable job at developing the relationship between the clumsy panda, Po, and the kung fu Master, Shifu. These animated performances I thought were top-notch. The animators deserve a lot of praise here, though I think it's only fair to acknowledge the vocals by Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman too, as these two actors gave a lot of personality in their dialogue to give the animators something really fun to animate in terms of body language and facial expression. Hoffman's performance was a real pleasure, considering this was his first role in an animated film, I believe. And the battle over the bowl of dumplings was terrific as well-choreographed visual humour.

But this is also where I have a big problem with the film, as Dreamworks has also hired a bunch of big name actors to voice the "Furious Five" group of kung fu animals. The problem is, having paid all that money to be able to put Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu on the marquee, they haven't given them anything much to do. In fact, if I hadn't already read that they were in the cast, I'd have been none the wiser as to who the voices were, as none of them are given any significant amount of dialogue to perform, nor do any of them have particularly notable vocal qualities to begin with! Clearly, Dreamworks has only hired them for marketing purposes, as these actors really bring nothing to the table, though their relatively small amount of dialogue suggests that they really haven't been given an opportunity to show their potential either. I was hoping that Lucy Liu, in the role of a viper, might have been fun had she been allowed to revisit her "Ling" character from "Ally McBeal", for more comedic venomous dialogue. But, alas, she was denied the opportunity. As it is, these five characters don't amount to real personalities on screen, with only the Tigress showing some slight characterization as a jealous type who expected to be the chosen one.

Likewise, I felt that the Five were wasted in terms of their visual potential too. If one is using animals to portray their namesake kung fu moves, why not also use the animals' physical forms and personalities for more comedic effect in devising appropriate sight gags? When I teach "Anthropomorphism" in my Character Design class at Sheridan, one of the film clips I like to show is the soccer match from Disney's "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". This is a wonderful example of casting animals as human types, yet still allowing much of the animal's own physical traits and perceived personality to dictate the humour. All of the gags in this clip are unique to the individual animals and the way they might relate to each other in the wild. Here is that clip to illustrate what I mean. I really think "Kung Fu Panda" missed an opportunity in not utilizing the animal identities of the "Furious Five" to full effect.

Animals as "Human Types"

Mark Mayerson has been posting scene breakdowns from Disney's "101 Dalmatians" over on his blog, and adding his analysis of story and characterization in addition to detailing who animated what. He's just gotten up to my favourite sequence: The "Twilight Bark", which leads us to the characters of The Captain, Sgt. Tibbs, and The Colonel. My reasons for liking this particular sequence so much is that it's a prime example of what I appreciate so much about Disney in their ability to create rich personalities even when working within a relatively short amount of screen time. In this sequence, we are introduced to The Captain (a horse), Sergeant Tibbs (a cat), and The Colonel (a sheep dog).

Even before we first see the horse poke his head through the stable window, we've already been given a clue as to who lives in this old country house from the address sign above the gate that reads: "H.M. Forces Ret. Maj. General S.F. Smedley, The 9th Queens Royal Lancers". Previously in this film, we've seen how the Disney artists have created a distinct similarity between the various dogs and their humans, especially in the opening sequence that shows the female potential mates that Pongo is sizing up, out for a walk with their look-alike human "pets". Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the animals that live in this country home would share some of the background of their master, a former military man now retired to a quiet life of farming.

Here are the mosaics that Mark has put together with scene credits courtesy of Hans Perk:




When I cover the topic of anthropomorphic cartoon animals in my Character Design class, I try to show through examples like these, how Disney has always created animals as specific human types, as opposed to simply creating cartoon renditions of animals. The horse, cat and sheepdog depicted in this sequence are prime examples of the Disney artists' craft. When we watch this sequence play out, we are viewing them not merely as animals, but as familiar human types that we have seen in many a British wartime drama. In my drawn interpretation posted below, I have sketched out the human characters that these animals seem to suggest to me personally.

The Captain is a big workhorse, though from the blanket he wears sporting a royal emblem, and other props like a sword, bugle and banner shown in the background of the stable, one can imagine that in his younger days he was a sleek, athletic soldier's steed on the field of battle. But now he has matured into a solid workhorse, built for towing a heavy farm plow. In human terms I envision him as a solid, dependable man, perhaps in his late 40s/early 50s, with broad features like what I have drawn below.

Sergeant Tibbs is a small, slim cat, definitely designed for speed and being able to slip through tight spaces, as he will have to do later when he's trying to find the missing puppies in the De Vil place. As such, he suggests a younger man, perhaps about 20-25, who is a recent recruit that is eager to do a good job and please his superiors. I love the way he zips around; all quick staccato movements, always alert and at attention. In the pleasant, wide-eyed young fellow I have envisioned as his human counterpart, I can't help but think of him as a combination of a young Dudley Moore and Radar O'Reilly from M*A*S*H.

Finally, we have The Colonel, a shaggy haired sheepdog, which seems like the perfect breed to depict this character type. The Colonel is most definitely the "Colonel Blimp" cliché of British newspaper cartoons and war films. His bushy muzzle suggests a big walrus mustache, while the shaggy hair above his eyes acts as bushy eyebrows more than as hair per se. In fact, I rather like to envision him as being bald, with just an unkempt fringe of hair around his ears. The Colonel would certainly be an older gent in his 70s perhaps, sadly now long past his prime as a competent military leader in his younger days. Even more tragically, he doesn't seem to realize this fact himself!



Again, I am amazed by how the Disney writers and artists have created such rich character types in such a relatively short amount of screen time. Through their dialogue and actions we learn much about the relationship between these three characters. Though The Colonel is now a somewhat less competent old codger, hard of hearing and with other faltering capacities, neither The Captain nor Sgt. Tibbs have the heart to let on. Their respect for the old man is so great that they are careful to gently correct his mistakes so as not to let him lose face, allowing him to continue acting under the delusion that he is still in the prime of life and completely in charge of the situation at hand. I've always thought this to be a very sweet sequence in the film because of that subtext, cleverly communicated through the acting.

In conclusion, I would hope that all students of animation try to analyze films like "101 Dalmatians" and other classics, both animated and live-action from that era, in the hopes of learning the craft of creating rich characters on screen. Remember, the dialogue is only a small part of the equation. Characterization through strong visual designs, distinct personalities, and accompanying body language and physical quirks is what will result in performances that will entertain and engage your audience.

Sheridan College Animation Industry Day.

Yesterday was the annual Industry Day at Sheridan College in which representatives from various national and international animation studios gather to watch a screening of our grad students' animated films. Mark Mayerson has just written up a great overview of the event itself and, though I left the following comment on his site, I'm going to reprint it here on my blog too:

I'd have to concur that this was a particularly strong year in both the 4th Year personal films and the 3rd Year group films. I may be a bit blunt in my assessment, but I feel that last year's crop of 4th Year films included far too many Flash produced efforts with little more than moving graphics. Many of them were very good in terms of storytelling and filmmaking skills, but were frankly disappointing in terms of character animation.

This year was a pleasant surprise for me, as I feel that the majority of 4th Year students really aspired to more personality based, full character animation. Though there were some very impressive CG films, I'll admit I'm still biased in favour of hand drawn animation and I found much to like this year. The highlights for me were Andrew Ferguson's "The Street Magician" and Matt Kalinauskas' "Two by Two", both of which showed great flair for cartoony design; Melissa Maduro's "A Romance in Graphite" and Marion Coffey's "The Little Colour Thief", both showing simple elegance and charm in their appealing, fluid character animation; and of course, Vlad Kooperman's very impressive "C Block", which I know received a very positive reaction from everyone in the theatre. And these are just a few of the better ones, as there were many other notable films I enjoyed very much.

All in all, a very impressive and entertaining screening yesterday at Sheridan, and I think the graduating students should be very proud of their achievements. I look forward to seeing great work from them onscreen in the years to come and I'll always have fond memories of working with them in my class back in their 2nd Year.

Ollie Johnston

I arrived home this evening to read the very sad news that legendary Disney animator, Ollie Johnston, has passed away at the age of 95. While it is always sad when such major figures from The Golden Age of Animation pass on, Ollie's death is particularly heartbreaking for me, as I had been lucky enough to have known him, as well as his longtime friend and colleague, Frank Thomas. Though both were wonderful fellows, Ollie always will occupy a special place in my heart for several reasons.

Back when I was 7 years old, Disney's "The Jungle Book" premiered in theatres. As I have written in a previous blog entry, it was this film that was the catalyst in starting me down the path to wanting to be a cartoonist and, hopefully, working for Disney someday. In particular, it was the character of Baloo the bear that I was so fond of, and the warmth and charm of the animation that so skillfully brought him to life. It wasn't until some years later when I started reading textbooks on Disney film history that I began to learn the names of the great animators who were responsible for these wonderful Disney characters. I learned that it was Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston who shared credit for Baloo, with my favourite scenes being handled primarily by Ollie. I felt that Ollie was especially adept at giving a certain warm, cuddly feeling to all of the characters he worked with, including Baloo. There was something about the way the eyes of his characters seemed to sparkle with inner life.



In 1980, I was able to visit the Disney Studio for the first time, arranged through my friend Russell Schroeder, who was then a top character artist at Walt Disney World in Florida. Russell was kind enough to put in a good word for me with Disney archivist, Dave Smith, at the Burbank Studio, and Dave agreed to host my visit there. As soon as I cleared security and was directed through the main gate of the studio, the first person I saw crossing the lot in front of me was Frank Thomas. I wasn't shy about going up to say hi to him, and Frank generously invited me to drop by the office that he and Ollie were using to compile artwork that would be photographed for inclusion in their upcoming book, "Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life". Needless to say, after going off to meet with Dave Smith, I later took Frank up on his offer to visit with he and Ollie.

It was a memorable visit with Frank and Ollie, surrounded by lots of original Disney cels and backgrounds that they were considering for images in their book. They were so gracious towards me, answering all my many questions, (especially about "The Jungle Book") and happily providing info on the artwork they had all around them. The following year, they ended up traveling to my hometown of Ottawa for the Ottawa Animation Festival. They remembered me and it was nice to renew acquaintance. I also provided them each with caricatures I had painted up for them and they appreciated my efforts.

In 1983 I was again visiting the Disney Studio, and Dave Smith was nice enough to have contacted Frank and Ollie before I'd arrived to inquire whether they would be at the Studio that week. Though there were no plans to, Ollie said he'd be happy to come in and visit with me while I was in town. This was a wonderful surprise for me, and Dave left his office for Ollie and I to chat for awhile together. It was during this visit especially that I just was knocked out by Ollie's warmth and generosity in making a special trip to the Studio just to say hi to a young fan. In the years that followed, I corresponded with Ollie and got to see both he and Frank when they were on a book signing tour that brought them to Toronto about a year after I had started my own Disney career in 1984. They expressed their happiness for me in having finally gotten into Disney to fulfill my childhood dream.

In 1989, I had the offer to go down to work at Walt Disney World in Florida, provided that they could get me a work permit through U.S. Immigration. Tom Tripodi, who managed the art department, said it would really help their case if I could get several letters of recommendation from anybody notable within the Disney or related animation industry. I wrote to Ollie Johnston, asking if he would be able to put in a good word for me and, the next thing I knew, I received a copy from Ollie of the letter of reference he had provided to Tom. I remember being so overcome with joy and gratitude for Ollie's sweet generosity in his appraisal of my work. Ultimately, I got the job, and I really felt that it was Ollie's letter that had helped bring it about. I've posted that letter below, as well as a previous letter that shows how generous and inspiring Ollie was in his correspondence with me.

While working at Disney, I got to see Frank and Ollie on several occasions, the last time was about 1993, when they were visiting in Florida and Ollie phoned to see if I could meet he and Frank for dinner at Disney's Beach Resort. They mentioned how they both had hit 80 that year, yet they were still in very good health. Though I never did meet with them in person again after that, both Frank and Ollie had been keeping in touch with me for over 15 years through personally designed Christmas cards that we all were producing each year. I may scan in some of those in the days to come to share with you, as both of these wonderful gentlemen were still drawing delightful cartoon likenesses of themselves with their wives on most of their cards. Though a bit shakier with age, their drawings still sparkled with as much life as ever. These cards will continue to bring me great joy in the years to come as I think back fondly on my favourite two of Disney's "Nine Old Men".

Adieu dear Ollie...

"My Friend Rabbit"

I was checking out some of my bookmarked blogs that I hadn't been to in awhile and decided to take a look at Jason Groh's Blammo site. I was quite taken with the publicity image that greeted me in one of his most recent posts, pictured at left, from a new show called "My Friend Rabbit", airing on NBC and also Treehouse here in Canada. Jason, a first-rate cartoonist by the way, is apparently directing this show at Nelvana, so I thought that I should make a point to catch it and see how it looks. 

I caught it on Treehouse today at 1:00 and was quite delighted with it. To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of today's digitally animated TV shows, but this one manages to do the best job I've ever seen with the software it utilizes. (ToonBoom, from what I gather). Yes, there is still some of the computer cutout look that I don't care for, but there is also a lot of real drawing integrated into the animation as well. For instance, when characters walk, their legs and arms are fully animated in the classic style. When they speak, their head shapes may remain static but the mouths are fully articulating the dialogue in a very pleasing manner. There are many original poses created for each scene rather than an over-reliance on "symbols".  But the thing that strikes one initially are the very appealing character and background designs - all rounded, flowing shapes in the more classic studio cartoon approach.

I noticed in the credits that it said that the series was based on the books by Eric Rohmann, so I wanted to see what the original look was that they'd adapted. Interestingly, the animated series put me in mind of Disney's "Winnie-the-Pooh", and seeing the source material from which it is derived makes the comparison seem that much more apt, as the original book illustrations share some similarities to the E.H. Shepard drawings in the Pooh books. Both the Pooh and My Friend Rabbit book illustrations feature designs that are quite charming but perhaps a bit too simplistic to make the transition to animated characters which, in my opinion, need fleshing out in the design to allow for more personality and animated expression. As such, I think that the design team on "My Friend Rabbit" has done a marvelous job at embellishing the designs to make them more appealing and more conducive to the medium of animation.

Though I may not be in the target audience for this show, I know that I would have enjoyed it and been attracted to the design style back when I was of pre-school age. Congratulations to all who are involved in this show - I wish you much success with it!