Chuck Jones VS Bob Clampett - REVISTED
Alabaster
Jones "smearing campaign" against Bob Clampett.
Finally, someone who KNOWS the situation comes to his defense. This is an
important read for all of you that think you've heard the whole story and
side with Jones.
I'm a big fan of Chuck Jones' work... but remember, the guilty party is
usually the one who talks trash the most.
Bob Clampett never said a bad thing about any of his peers... especially to
the public.
URL: http://www.bobclampett.com/mgray_bc.htm
Steve
Joe K. Bevilacqua
promoting him and the new DVD, it is not exactly unbiased.
I've read the original articles in question (complete with drawings actually
done by Tex and Bob McKimson and others with Clampett's signature slapped on
them -forged- years later), seen, as a teenager in the 70s , Bob Clampett
blatantly lying in TV interviews (claiming, for example, that his wife sewed
the first Cecil puppet when it was, in fact, Daws Butler's wife, Myrtis, who
did that), read the infamous Chuck Jones letter and the Tex Avery notes,
heard stories from Daws Butler, Stan Freberg and others... and it is very
obvious that all of Jones's claims are true. To say that the only reason
Avery sides with Jones is because he was under mental distress from family
problems is a bunch of crap. And Jones is not the only one to makes these
claims. Many others have complained of the same things about Clampett. They
can't all be wrong. The only difference is people like Daws and Stan and
others never went public with their complaints like Jones did. Bob Clampett
may have never said a bad word about his peers but he certainly did a great
disservice to them by taking credit for their work.
Now, the Clampett family has a DVD to sell so they are attempting to rewrite
history. I've said this before... This is the most unfortunate part of the
Clampett legacy: One has to wonder why a man of so much talent who created
wonderful characters in his own right and directed many of the greatest WB
shorts felt the compulsion, year after year, to lie, embellish and steal
credit from his peers.
"Alabaster" <rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote in message
news:jQJw4.863$yV1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
>
> URL: http://www.bobclampett.com/mgray_bc.htm
>
> Steve
>
>
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"1925
Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" starring Wallace Beery. Clampett at
age 12 came home and created puppets of the character later known as Cecil
the Sea Sick Sea Serpent and Captain Horatio K. Huffenpuff who was partially
inspired by the Professor Challenger character."
So now Clampett created Cecil when he was 12? Right. This is interesting
considering Clampett has no characters in mind yet at all when he approached
Stan and Daws and it was them who suggested the character of Cecil to him.
And it was Charlie Shows who came up with Cecil's name.
L & G
Alabaster wrote:
Thanks for the ref. As I once mentioned before, as a student I and my peers
had an opportunity to meet CJ.( I hope it doesn't seem like name dropping again
but it was the closest I'd ever come to a famous director and my favorite to
boot.)
The same student who kept bugging Jones to explain why he changed Bugs' design
also asked why Clampett was noticibly absent from the caricature gallery of
directors in the Bugs Bunny Road Runner movie. Chuck's response was (and I
ain't no stenographer,so don't qoute me.) that Clampett only worked their until
'46 (doesn't explain Avery and Tash) which kinda supports the Gray article. As
for the former design question mentioned, the student said he liked the
Mckimson design used by Clampett better than Jones' rabbit. This seemed to
bristle Jones.
I think the controversy is simple. Clampett claims to have created Bugs Bunny.
He (claims) suggested a cartoon with a rabbit,was the first to use," Of course
you know this means war" . His Mckimson design of bugs is definitive
physically of bugs much the same way Moore's design of Mickey is. I don't think
he was ever lying, I beleive he sincerely believed this. And if those are the
standards of what makes Bugs Bugs then he's right.
Using a different yardstick ; the other directors mainly Friz and CJ argue
about bugs' crystalisation of personality through years of cross-pollenation
of ideas and evolution . Their "real" bugs is post-'47 except citng Avery's a
wild hare.
I'm no Clampett chauvinist but his cartoons were wildly funnier earlier on
than contemparary Friz's or CJs. He found his groove not only stylistically but
historically while Jones was trying to recreate Disney.
You know CJ and BC were probably rivals since animating together under Avery.
Jones is still my fave, though.
Gerard
Earl Kress
And the original Beany puppet was bought. It was commercially
available. This was another fact I learned from Daws Butler. I have
one that I found at a toy show. I don't have it handy now, but on the
back of the neck it says something about a "Pixie". Clampett just
added the copter-cap.
Earl
Catra-Dohtem Inc
>wonderful characters in his own right and directed many of the greatest WB
>shorts felt the compulsion, year after year, to lie, embellish and steal
>credit from his peers.
The way I see it, Bob may very well have believed what he was claiming, but
there was just too many jaw-dropping exaggerations in the Funnyworld article.
Porky (named after a child friend of Friz's)? Yosemite Sam? Sniffles??
Bob said that the last two were based on his original designs, so does that
mean that if any cowboy or mouse character was created at Warner's, Clampett
could easily "trace" them back to him?
I'm not saying he didn't deserve his due credit, but one can go overboard!
(someone already mentioned the faded McKimson model sheet with "Directed by Bob
Clampett" added in bold black ink)
"Can't breathe like that, can you??" - Jimmie the Clown
http://members.aol.com/catradohtm
All Things Yankovic - http://members.aol.com/allthngynk
Remove Amico to e-mail me
"You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total-loser!"
Joe K. Bevilacqua
generic plastic or rubber heads they use to sew on dolls. It was like part
of a kit for housewives to sew the thing together. And it was, indeed,
called "Pixie," as Earl Kress mentions. Myrtis also bought a pattern and
hands that day to make the rest of Beany's body and she sewed it all
together. Clampett wasn't involved in the look of Beany in any way.
As to Cecil, Myrtis made him from her son David's pajama leg (or maybe it
was a sweater arm). She used what ever she had around the house, thus the
suction cups for nostrils. Clampett's claims that his wife Sody did all this
and not Myrtis Butler is as ridiculous as so many other of his claims. He
had not even met Sody in 1949.
"Earl Kress" <earl...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
Stephen W. Worth
Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> To say that the only reason
> Avery sides with Jones is because he was under mental distress from family
> problems is a bunch of crap.
Avery later recanted his notes on Jones's letter. If you see the
letter in question, it's clear Tex didn't spend long reviewing it
or the Funnyworld article. He and Friz even appeared in Clampett's
compilation feature, "Bugs Bunny Superstar". (Jones didn't appear
although he was invited to...) Clampett used a Jones cartoon as
the finale to the show as a gesture of respect to his old friend.
Jones responded by eliminating Clampett from the list of Bugs's
"faddahs" in his own compilation feature.
It isn't difficult to see how important Bob Clampett is to animation
history. Just look at the films he made. Chuck Jones is also
important. It's not an either/or thing.
See ya
Steve
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
Michael Rianda
sketches kind of left a bad taste in your mouth and I'm sure Bob Clampett
wasn't the most humble person in the world, which he was entitled to
considering he was so talented. Anyway, about Chuck Jones, I really think he
should let the whole thing go, it does make him look really bad, for
instance in an interview with Mania Magazine's animated shorts he went out
of his way to insult Clampett,(it's no longer on there) but i went to the
tune of he listed "the people who made the warner brothers cartoons so good"
and he "the only person who didn't matter was Bob Clampett" and then he went
off on how Clampett's cartoons were too frenetic, I mean this is over ten
years after Clampett died. Also if you look at the compilations Jones
supervises you'll never see a cartoon that will threaten any of Jones, he
never shows Clampett, Avery, Tashlin, or early McKimson. I also think
Clampett is treated so unfairly is he is dead, so he can't really defend
himself. Anyway, that is my little rant on Clampett/Jones.
Mike
catra...@aol.comAmico (Catra-Dohtem Inc) wrote:
> The way I see it, Bob may very well have believed what he was
claiming, but
> there was just too many jaw-dropping exaggerations in the Funnyworld
article.
> Porky (named after a child friend of Friz's)? Yosemite Sam?
Sniffles??
I've never seen this infamous FunnyWorld article. Does anyone have it
archived anyplace?
Mike
--
"Ana Ng and I are getting old and we still haven't walked
in the glow of each other's majestic presence"--They Might Be Giants
Check out my site:
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/fullmonty/22/mywebpage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
actually
> done by Tex and Bob McKimson and others with Clampett's signature
slapped on
> them -forged- years later), seen, as a teenager in the 70s , Bob
Clampett
> blatantly lying in TV interviews (claiming, for example, that his wife
sewed
> the first Cecil puppet when it was, in fact, Daws Butler's wife,
Myrtis, who
> did that), read the infamous Chuck Jones letter and the Tex Avery
notes,
I know I mentioned this earlier, but is there a place on the web--or
even in a book or a magazine--where the original Funnyworld articles,
the Jones letter and Avery notes are available? I would be very
interested in seeing them.
To say that the only
reason
> Avery sides with Jones is because he was under mental distress from
family
> problems is a bunch of crap.
Yeah, I did have some issues with that bit of info myself. It doesn't
make much sense that Avery would sign his name to a piece of false
information trashing Clampett, no matter how "mentally distressed" he
was.
Other bits in Gray's article that I have trouble with include Mel Blanc
trying to pass himself off as the creator of the WB characters (I find
that very difficult to believe; from everything I've read--though it
should be noted that I have not read Blanc's autobio--that is totally
not like Mel Blanc) and Jones' "enemies list". Carl Stalling, Rob
Scribner, and even Mike Maltese are included on the list. Jones waxes
nostalgic about all three of those people--especially Maltese, who
seemed to be a very close friend of Jones--in "Chuck Amuck." I also find
it very difficult to believe that Jones would want all WB cartoons made
before 1948 destroyed. Jones almost definitely meant his own cartoons,
not all WB cartoons. Yes, Clampett's works would be gone, but so would
all of Avery's as well as many early Freleng classics.
What I have the most trouble with is the way Jones is portrayed as an
insecure self-promoting ogre. On many ocassions Jones displayed massive
admiration for Freleng (who, it should be noted, is barely mentioned in
Gray's column) and many other Warner directors/animators. It's no secret
that Clampett and Jones were not exactly best friends. Just look at
"Bugs Bunny Superstar." Clampett is featured prominently, while Jones is
nowhere to be seen. Conversely, in TNT's "What's Up Doc?" special, Jones
is featured while Clampett is not.
I found this interesting bit of information in E.O. Costello's write-up
on Clampett
(http://www.spumco.com/magazine/eowbcc/eowbcc-c.html#robert_clampett):
Clampett left the studio in 1945, and was replaced as director by
Arthur Davis. There are a number of theories as to why Clampett left
the studio. Probably the most credible is that he was simply ambitious.
Another theory, unflattering to Clampett but also a bit far-fetched, is
that Clampett had enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Leon
Schlesinger, especially compared to Chuck Jones, who was often
denigrated by Schlesinger; and that when Schlesinger sold the studio
to Warner Brothers in the spring of 1944, Clampett saw this
relationship over, and decided to leave. I have even heard the
supporting theory that the Chuck Jones cartoon Fresh Airedale
(1945) is an allegory of this relationship, with the tricky and
ultimately triumphant dog representing Clampett, the master as
Schlesinger, and the unlucky cat who ends the cartoon wailing and
pounding a statue of Justice as Jones. An interesting reading of the
cartoon to be sure; but a second-hand interpretation of a cartoon can
not be considered solid evidence in support of such a theory. I include
it here because, rightly or wrongly, it is a topic of intense discussion
among Warner Brothers cartoon fans.
> Now, the Clampett family has a DVD to sell so they are attempting to
rewrite
> history.
Well, all this being said, I would be interested in viewing the DVD.
Does anyone know when it comes out?
Joe K. Bevilacqua
I have read them. No one is denying Clampett was a great talent and deserves
to be recognized for his work. And it is true that Jones has carried his
personal feeling for Clampett too far. He should let it go after all these
years. Daws and Stan did, and apparently Avery did too, according to you.
Holding grudges always reflects badly back on the person. I just wish
Clampett's family would stop trying to rewrite history and leave it alone
too.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0603...@pm03-34.ktb.net...
> In article <%ZOw4.4408$OV.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "Joe K.
> Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
>
> > To say that the only reason
> > Avery sides with Jones is because he was under mental distress from
family
> > problems is a bunch of crap.
>
Paul Penna
<k4...@maristb.marist.edu> wrote:
> Other bits in Gray's article that I have trouble with include Mel Blanc
> trying to pass himself off as the creator of the WB characters (I find
> that very difficult to believe; from everything I've read--though it
> should be noted that I have not read Blanc's autobio--that is totally
> not like Mel Blanc)...
Well, in that book (which I have read) Blanc does indeed indulge in
quite a bit of otherwise insubstantiated "I invented that."
> Just look at
> "Bugs Bunny Superstar." Clampett is featured prominently, while Jones is
> nowhere to be seen
More to the point, however, two of Jones's cartoon are to be seen in it.
> Well, all this being said, I would be interested in viewing the DVD.
> Does anyone know when it comes out?
The Beany & Cecil DVD has been out a couple months.
--
Paul Penna
Alabaster
And
I'm reading and responding just for the info. I have not sided with any
point-of-view, but alot of things intrigue me about this on-going debate.
First, you cannot say that every accusation against Clampett is true. Chuck
Jones, although one of my all time favorites, is not the be all end all
historian of animation past. Tex apologized and later disassociated himself
from the infamous "letter". This is truth.
Chuck Jones has claimed MANY a project and character as being his
brainchild... and on many of those occassions has been proven guilty of
tagging his name onto things that didn't belong to him.
I'm not saying that Clampett was a total angel in this respect, although you
SHOULD find a way to listen to that interview... it does clear alot up...
but all WB TT Directors (and some key aminators) embellished, this was the
only way that they establish themselves outside of the studio. Frieling,
Jones and yes, Clampett were all guilty of this at one time or another since
there were many artists involved in the creation of the Warner characters.
This just reflects their personal opinions of time put in and ideas
contributed. It's the rock/paper/scissors syndrome that many creative
groups (be it animation, music or whatever) inevitably face.
> I have read them. No one is denying Clampett was a great talent and
deserves
> to be recognized for his work. And it is true that Jones has carried his
> personal feeling for Clampett too far. He should let it go after all these
> years.
But he can't because he knows some of the information that he gave was
false. He went out of his way to tarnish a peers reputation. This
esculated after Bob Clampett's death and was embellished upon even more...
seems to me like a very convienient opportunity to say "Here's my chance to
win. To make my side iron-clad since I no longer have opposition to defend
against my attacks".
> Daws and Stan did, and apparently Avery did too, according to you.
Avery mentioned that he was decieved. He also stayed away from Jones after
his disassociation from the letter. This says alot to me.
> Holding grudges always reflects badly back on the person. I just wish
> Clampett's family would stop trying to rewrite history and leave it alone
> too.
...and not defend slanderous remarks? Ridiculous. If I put words into
*your* mouth, or claimed that you did something you didn't, would you not
like the opportunity to defend yourself?
Robert Jr. has put together a beautiful compilation of art, interview and
animation. No where, anywhere, in the DVD is any type of negative remark
made. It was a tribute to the man's talent... and it was executed extremely
well. As for the web site, I'm personally glad to see a forum where we can
finally hear another side of the story.
I can understand this. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to
attempt the continuation of Jones' "smear campaign", especially those who
*think* they know what it was like in the shack. We are not Ross, Avery,
Jones, Frieling or Clampett... thus we can only assume what went on
creatively. If you watch Bugs Bunny Superstar, it look slike they had tons
of fun to me. They all created some of the best animated footage to ever be
released, and they did it against a *superpower* (Disney had a stranglehold
on animation by the mid 30's) at a time when the world needed laughter.
The politics (or lack thereof) that followed do not make Bob Clampett's
legacy tragic, his legacy stands strong in his work. The work he was
credited for on-screen. What was tragic is that elements of that fantastic
Termite Terrace "machine" felt compelled to downplay others accomplishments
to make their own credits shine brighter. That's the real tragedy.
WOTPPAPER
an accurate history of Hollywood animation studios. That's why you get so many
different claims for creation of characters over the years, and not just at
Warner's -- look at Walter Lantz' claim on how he came up with Woody Woodpecker
while on his honeymoon in 1941, a year after the first short came out (one
assumes Walter and Grace must haveat least taken Ben Hardaway along on the
honeymoon to help with Woody's birth)
Even in the 1980s, you could still see a bio like Blanc's come out with some
obvious inaccuracies because in the time he spent at Warner's nobody was really
paying any attention, so if you made an outlandish claim, only the others at
the studio were likely to either know or care about it.
Clampett seems to have done more of this than some of the others, but that
still doesn't excuse Jones' ongoing attempt to downplay his accomplishments.
At the same time, if Chuck was so mad at Maltese for leaving Warner's, as
Gray's article claims, what was his name doing on all those 1964-65 Tom and
Jerry shorts Jones did at MGM? If Grey's story is true, it was a pretty short
grudge, at least compared to the one he's holding against Clampett.
Alabaster
and distributed* by Warner Bros. with Clampett's signature on the seal. I
think when it comes to who made what, WB would be impartial and fair in it's
claims.
This would definitely justify that Bob Clampett (as well as Robert McKimson)
were the two major evolutionists of Bugs Bunny. Clampett definitely gave
him his "bunny of many faces" rep as remembered by all as the definitive
Bugs Bunny.
Alabaster <rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote in message
news:jQJw4.863$yV1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"Alabaster" <rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote in message news:SZ%w4.3132>
> First, you cannot say that every accusation against Clampett is true.
> > I have read them. No one is denying Clampett was a great talent and
> deserves
> > to be recognized for his work. And it is true that Jones has carried his
> > personal feeling for Clampett too far. He should let it go after all
these
> > years.
>
> But he can't because he knows some of the information that he gave was
> false. He went out of his way to tarnish a peers reputation.
I believe Jone's was perfectly justified. Clampett certianly did Jones
andamny others a great diservice by taking credit for their work.
> > Daws and Stan did, and apparently Avery did too, according to you.
>
> Avery mentioned that he was decieved. He also stayed away from Jones
after
> his disassociation from the letter. This says alot to me.
And what of Clampett falsely taking credit for the work of Stan Freberg,
Daws Butler and Charlie Shows. Were they all lying andtrying to discredit a
peer too? I guess so since Clampett claims he created Cecil when he was 12
years old. And what of Daws's widow, Myrtis> Is she tryingto take credit for
something Sodi actually did? Everyone's against poor Bob Clampett.
> > Clampett's family would stop trying to rewrite history and leave it
alone
> > too.
>
> ...and not defend slanderous remarks? Ridiculous. If I put words into
> *your* mouth, or claimed that you did something you didn't, would you not
> like the opportunity to defend yourself?
Yes. Which is exactly what Chuck Jones was doing. Trying to defend himself
against Clampett taking credit for things he never did.
>
> Robert Jr. has put together a beautiful compilation of art, interview and
> animation. No where, anywhere, in the DVD is any type of negative remark
> made. It was a tribute to the man's talent... and it was executed
extremely
> well. As for the web site, I'm personally glad to see a forum where we
can
> finally hear another side of the story.
>
Very true. Except the website is riddled with all the myths, half-truths and
lies about Clampett. They are perpetuating a numbers of the untrue boastings
that may not directly attack his peers but do in a passive-aggressve way by
taking credit for their work and not giving proper credit to them.
> I can understand this. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want
to
> attempt the continuation of Jones' "smear campaign", especially those who
> *think* they know what it was like in the shack.
Many of these facts you call a smear campaign are obvious and can be
substantiated--the forged drawings, the dates not being correct, the
claiming credit for things that happened long after he left the studio,
claiming his wife sewed the first B&C puppets six years before he met her.
If yuo step back and forget about Jones's personal feelings for the man, it
is all very clear that Clampett was a boastful liar.
Alabaster
> And what of Clampett falsely taking credit for the work of Stan Freberg,
> Daws Butler and Charlie Shows. Were they all lying andtrying to discredit
a
> peer too? I guess so since Clampett claims he created Cecil when he was 12
> years old. And what of Daws's widow, Myrtis> Is she tryingto take credit
for
> something Sodi actually did? Everyone's against poor Bob Clampett.
>
> against Clampett taking credit for things he never did.
Are you a talent or an observer? This is a serious question... not an
attack.
As someone who's had substantial comic book, publishing, sculpting and
animation experience, I've learned over my comparitively short life that
projects take lots of time to come to fruition. There are those special
moments when you stumble upon an idea. These are rare. I thouroughly
believe, now after reading ALOT of material about htis subject from *all*
sides... not just the Clampett family's... that there is a horrible
mis-definition of the phrase "created by". Also a miscommunication among
talents... which is, sadly, very common among intelligent creators of any
medium.
There are MANY shades of gray to the art of creating a character or
property... it's not all just black or white / vanilla or chocolate.
Bob Clampett originally concieved Cecil when he was a pre to early teen.
How many of us have made sock puppets? Face it... all you need to make a
"Cecil" is an old sock, some felt and some plastic. He grew up in a
financial depression... so it would make sense that this type of thing would
be created as a form of amusement. I'm sure it was nothing more than
that... at the time. Seeing that he was a very creative entity since his
early, early days (film footage proves this) it's not impossible to
acknowledge that, even though it may not have had a name or THE definitve
look yet, that he could have easily concieved Cecil very early on. Families
also take on projects together. I know mine does. Is it not possible that
Sody sewed the first Cecil, futher refining the final look and then Mrs.
Butler finalized this design, creating the official "Cecil" for Matty's
Sunday Funnies?
This applies to the Warner Characters too. Bob Clampett redesigned Porky
and Elmer to be slimmer, cuter characters (his whole career... all that was
WB's Bob Clampett... was based on making the cutest the most decievingly
<sp?> lethal). Artwork created under his direction were later used as the
definitive models for the cartoons that would be created many years later.
This is a huge fact that you must, in all honesty, accept and respect. I
doubt very much that he ever said to anyone, "I created Porky, Elmer Fudd,
Bugs Bunny along with Tweety... those were mine." No way, I refuse to
believe this after reading articles from peers and students of his. It's
just not one of his personality traits. In turn, his students and peers,
including Milton Gray, were not stupid people... far from it to have
survived the harshest of times for any professional animators to
experience... don't you think that after so many years of being around the
man, that he would have let his negative traits show and that they would
have defected and left him in the cold? I'm sure they would have if they'd
seen cause to, but they didn't... they stuck with him, and to this day,
defend him loyally without hesitation fondly reciting names, dates and
occassions. They would not do this if he was the person that he was painted
out to be. A thief is a thief is a thief... just as a liar is always a liar
to cover their past lies. He would have stolen from the greatest of
creative sources to steal from if he held this trait that he's accused
of.... the unknowns that later worked along side of him. Anyone that knows
and inkling about this business knows that unknown, wide-eyed artists create
an endless pool of talent to steal from and discard. I doubt that these
people are loyal to him because they've been decieved, lied to and
discarded.
This cannot be said about many other professional animation leaders (many
who've
seemed to use and discard people for their own purposes) ... not even in
today's talent pool is this trait of extreme loyalty and love often found.
I'm also interested in seeing visual proof of these forged drawings. Have
they suddenly "dissappeared" after all of these years like many of the early
WB art has?
I almost forged a drawing when I was starting out... just to get a foot in
the
door. I didn't. It pained me many years afterwards to think that I would
have even
considered that. I doubt that such an ambitious person with a WORLD of
creativity within the confines of his mind would think twice about such an
act when he had so many ideas already stored away, ready for the day that he
had the materials, knowledge and experience to put them to work. What
would his motivation have been to steal storyboard ideas? Seriously. He
was discovered when he brought an original, story-based home movie to shop
to get the audio track added. He was hired because they saw a raw talent
(even though he was still a "kid"). He slowly got his hands in as many
projects as he could and proved his worth by adding substantially to those
projects. There is no motive here for fraud... especially in a workplace
that he genuinely loved... not only as a
creator who was among people he shared a common bond with, but as a comic,
cartoon and movie fan himself. One of the first, true fan-boys turned pro.
I appreciate this conversation very much. It's good to pay detailed
attention to other opinions and information that you may not otherwise know.
Your turn. :)
Steve
Jim Bennie
<rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote:
> How many of us have made sock puppets? Face it... all you need to make a
> "Cecil" is an old sock, some felt and some plastic.
Well, gee, then my great-grandfather created Cecil. Start sending
me the residual cheques NOW!
Jim
Alabaster
Jim Bennie <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message news:8a2hk8$7...@vcn.bc.ca...
a
> > "Cecil" is an old sock, some felt and some plastic.
>
> me the residual cheques NOW!
>
> Jim
Laugh. Well the fact of the matter is that many people come up with the
same idea every day, very few follow through and execute, though.
A good example is:
A boy named Bob Clampett creates a sock puppet.
A girl named Shari Lewis creates a sock puppet.
Joe Schmoe creates a sock puppet.
There is no difference at this point. They have all created the same exact
thing.
Bob, though the years, adds things to the sock puppet.
Shari, though the years, adds a few other things to hers.
Joe, though the years, throws the puppet in a box because he no longer plays
with it.
Bob has, by this time, created, refined and established Cecil as a major
character for Matty's Sunday Funnies with feedback and input from friends
and peers.
Shari has, by this time, created refined and established Lambchop as a major
character for a different variety show with feedback and input from friends
and peers.
Joe, by this time, has handed down the puppet he created as a child to his
own children.
Bob and Shari have made names for themselves by molding a usable character,
of course with help and inspiration from others, and they rise the
merchandising wagon.
Joe kicks himself in the ass and later sues for royalties. :)
Every character in the history of all animation and comic books was based on
a single, non-dimensional idea. It's what their creators add with time that
makes them SUCCESSFUL characters. Superman was done many times before.
Strong man who flies and bends steel. Don't tell me that a thousand kids
didn't come up with this idea before he was established. It did, however, t
ake the enthusiasm of Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster to mold him into a
successfully marketable comic book property when everyone else got
sidetracked and let their Men of Steel fade into the past with their
childhoods.
Catra-Dohtem Inc
>and Elmer to be slimmer, cuter characters
I'm sure this is just an innocent oversight on your part, but Clampett
redesigned Elmer as the "fat Elmer." It was Friz who changed him back to the
slim, recognizable Elmer. But Friz is never credited with recreating that
look, is he? (Clampett's Elmer is even shown and credited in an "Elmer
historical timeline" in a book called...gasp!...."Chuck Reducks," guess by
who!)
And even in the case of Egghead, Tex redesigned him as Elmer. Bob was already
off working on his own unit when Egghead was evolving, yet he attributes to
himself a model sheet that Tex used to modify Egghead to Elmer (again, from the
Funnyworld interview). According to Bob, he more or less co-directed all of
Tex's cartoons (not to mention Hardaway's "Porky's Hare Hunt"). Uh...didn't he
have his OWN cartoons to work on at this point??
> I doubt very much that he ever said to anyone, "I created Porky, Elmer Fudd,
>Bugs Bunny along with Tweety... those were mine."
Then you never read the Funnyworld interview.
Here's one passage from it:
"Leon got numerous requests from various groups asking for an appearance of
Bugs Bunny, or the cartoonist who had conceived and first drawn the character.
So, Leon sent me on all sorts of P.A.'s (personal appearances)..."
And of course his name is apparant on Friz's model sheet for the gang in "I
Haven't Got a Hat."
More interesting in the interview is a drawing Bob made in 1931 of Rudy Ising
hunting a rabbit. Apparently the original caption read "Lil' Rudy Rabbit," but
Bob says he changed it to "Lil' Wudy Wabbit." The sketch is even marked and
dated as to when Bob changed the lettering. I don't know about anyone else
here, but I rarely note when I make changes on doodles. Could it mean that Bob
changed the drawing and added the date after Elmer's speech became known (which
itself might be more attributed to Arthur Q. Bryan than any WB director, since
that was one of his stock radio voices)?
I'm not saying Bob is the devil or anything, but you can't argue and blame
Chuck for things Bob has actually said and did.
Alabaster
Catra-Dohtem Inc <catra...@aol.comAmico> wrote in message
news:20000307125948...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >This applies to the Warner Characters too. Bob Clampett redesigned Porky
> >and Elmer to be slimmer, cuter characters
>
> redesigned Elmer as the "fat Elmer." It was Friz who changed him back to
the
> slim, recognizable Elmer. But Friz is never credited with recreating that
> look, is he? (Clampett's Elmer is even shown and credited in an "Elmer
> historical timeline" in a book called...gasp!...."Chuck Reducks," guess by
> who!)
I didn't know that. Thanks.
> And even in the case of Egghead, Tex redesigned him as Elmer. Bob was
already
> off working on his own unit when Egghead was evolving, yet he attributes
to
> himself a model sheet that Tex used to modify Egghead to Elmer (again,
from the
> Funnyworld interview). According to Bob, he more or less co-directed all
of
> Tex's cartoons (not to mention Hardaway's "Porky's Hare Hunt").
Uh...didn't he
> have his OWN cartoons to work on at this point??
He did have a hand in alot of the concepts used in Avery shorts, just as
Avery and Ross had a hand in alot of the concepts used in Clampett's shorts.
Termite Terrace was very much of a brain pool. Very rarely did one person
ignore what everyones else was doing. In fact, in Bugs Bunny Superstar, you
can see just a BIT of how everyone would go out into t he yard and mess
around while Bob taped them. Those tapes would constantly be used as
reference material for spinning falls, trips and other wacky antics. One of
my favorite pieces of this type of footage is Tex tipping his hat towards
the camera, then walking forward throwing his feet in the air and taking a
prop fall as if he slipped on a bannana peel.
It must have been a blast working there before all these politics and egos
arose.
> > I doubt very much that he ever said to anyone, "I created Porky, Elmer
Fudd,
> >Bugs Bunny along with Tweety... those were mine."
> Then you never read the Funnyworld interview.
Where can I get this interview? Can someone PLEASE send me a url or an
address where I can send a S.A.S.E.?
> Here's one passage from it:
> "Leon got numerous requests from various groups asking for an appearance
of
> Bugs Bunny, or the cartoonist who had conceived and first drawn the
character.
> So, Leon sent me on all sorts of P.A.'s (personal appearances)..."
Wow.
Alabaster
Jones/Clampett occurences:
1) A Duck Dodgers (Jones) and Tweety (Clampett) doll sitting next to each
other on top of a display
and the kicker...
2) I guess their system was broke, but there's a audio visual history of WB
directors system set up on a big screen... when I hit Jones button,
Clampett's bio came on... and vice versa... laugh. This was SO weird I
mentioned it (and this newgroup) to one of the workers and asked if they
knew why this happened in the presentation. They said that they never
noticed it before, but it did it again when he tried it out.
Isn't THAT a kicker?
The Spie <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:r4iacss8t77ks4hc6...@4ax.com...
> I think it highly ironic that as I'm reading the Gray article and
> seeing the section where Ben Washam claimed that Chuck wanted all
> pre-'48 Warners work destroyed (whether he meant all of it or only his
> own), what should pop up on CN but "The Dover Boys", a masterpiece
> that under either interpretation of Jones' statement would have been
> one of his desired cartoons for destruction.
>
> The Spie
Joe K. Bevilacqua
can't blame Jones for being angry about this stuff, although Jones has
carried the grudge way too far and held on to it too many years. I still
can't imagine why Tex would retract his complaints about Camplett given most
of these lies are taking credit away from Tex. Maybe he was just fed up with
it all and wanted no more part of it and also though Jones was becoming
obsessed by it so he gave up.
"Catra-Dohtem Inc" <catra...@aol.comAmico> wrote in message
>
Stephen W. Worth
Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> And what of Clampett falsely taking credit for the work of Stan Freberg,
> Daws Butler and Charlie Shows.
Have you seen the DVD? Pictures and info of Daws, Freberg and
all of the others involved in the show are all over the
supplemental section. It didn't seem to me that they were being
slighted at all. On the contrary, it indicated that the voice
actors were responsible for a great deal of the success of
the puppet show.
Earl Kress
>Many of these facts you call a smear campaign are obvious and can be
>substantiated--the forged drawings, the dates not being correct, the
>claiming credit for things that happened long after he left the studio,
>claiming his wife sewed the first B&C puppets six years before he met her.
>If yuo step back and forget about Jones's personal feelings for the man, it
>is all very clear that Clampett was a boastful liar.
>
It should be noted that on the DVD commentary track, Stan Freberg
tells the stroy of Myrtis Butler sewing the first Cecil. At least
Robert, Jr. allowed that myth to be corrected.
Earl
Stephen W. Worth
<rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote:
> I'm also interested in seeing visual proof of these forged drawings.
The drawings weren't forged. Clampett just added a written comment
on them telling what they were. Lots of animators did that years
after the fact. I have a drawing of a little girl from Iwerks's
"Funny Face" that looks very much like Betty Boop. On the back of
it, years later, Grim Natwick wrote "Betty Boop 1929" on it. That
wasn't a forgery, he was just mistaken about what it was. Clampett
may be right or he might be wrong on details of who sewed what
sock or what date a specific drawing came from, but the essence of
what he says is correct from his perspective.
Clampett clearly was a part of all of the things he claimed to
have created. I think the early days of Warners involved more
input from the crew on story and characters than later when
the duties became more defined. All you have to do is to look
at the films created when he was involved to see the distinct
stamp of his personality and sense of humor. He was the greatest
cartoon Director who ever lived.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
himself said it himself over and over.
But it goes deeper than that. The fact is it was Stan and Daws and Charlie
Shows who came up with Cecil in the first place. Clampett's original idea
was called "The Cap'n Huffinpuff Show" and didn't even include Cecil or any
character like him. Cecil came out of a writing session between Stan, Daws
and Shows, originally as an incidental character. So Clampett's claim he
created Cecil when he was 12 is very much not true.
Stan has in private said as much, although he's decided never to speak
publicly about it. He even wrote about it in detail in the unedited version
of his autobiography but then decided or was persuaded to cut out anything
that might lead to a lawsuit. This fear goes back to the 50s when Stan was
sued by Clampett over a puppet and voice Stan did on Steve Allen and other
TV shows that sounded somewhat like Cecil. I think Stan felt (rightfully)
that he had been co-creator of Cecil and Clampett gave him no credit for it.
The only credit Clampett has given to Daws and Stan is as actors and
puppeteers.
The whole thing gets very complicated.
"Earl Kress" <earl...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
Stephen W. Worth
> Yeah, I did have some issues with that bit of info myself. It doesn't
> make much sense that Avery would sign his name to a piece of false
> information trashing Clampett, no matter how "mentally distressed" he
> was.
They are just marginal notes on Jones's letter. Avery didn't carefully
draft a letter and sign his name to it. Avery mentions in one note that
Jones's "The White Seal" is the greatest cartoon ever made. Do you
believe he really thought that too?
> Other bits in Gray's article that I have trouble with include Mel Blanc
> trying to pass himself off as the creator of the WB characters
That was probably just publicity exaggeration done at public
appearances. No harm done.
> and Jones' "enemies list". Carl Stalling, Rob
> Scribner, and even Mike Maltese are included on the list. Jones waxes
> nostalgic about all three of those people--especially Maltese, who
> seemed to be a very close friend of Jones--in "Chuck Amuck."
Mike Maltese had a very bitter falling out with Jones. He told
a friend of mine that Chuck never once in all the years he worked
with him thanked him, invited him out to lunch or socialized with
him. They were definitely *not* friends.
> It's no secret
> that Clampett and Jones were not exactly best friends. Just look at
> "Bugs Bunny Superstar." Clampett is featured prominently, while Jones is
> nowhere to be seen.
Bob Clampett asked Jones to be involved, and Jones didn't return
his call. Clampett included a Jones cartoon as the finale to
Bugs Bunny Superstar out of respect for someone he considered an
old friend. Jones was the one who was feuding. Clampett was
genuinely confused and upset that Jones was reacting the way
he was.
> Another theory, unflattering to Clampett but also a bit far-fetched, is
> that Clampett had enjoyed a particularly close relationship with Leon
> Schlesinger, especially compared to Chuck Jones, who was often
> denigrated by Schlesinger
That is true. Clampett's early cartoons were MUCH more popular
with audiences than Jones's Disney attempts. I have been told
that at one point Schlesinger called Jones on the carpet and
told him point blank that he would either "make funny cartoons
like Clampett's" or he would be back to animating. You can see
the change in his late forties cartoons. They're a lot more like
Clampett cartoons. They're also among his best work.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
puppeteers, but still not as co-creators of the series and creators of both
Beany and Cecil which they most certainly were. The least Clampett could
have done was acknowledge this, especially when everyone was still alive.
But then that was not Clampett's M.O. He always had to portray himself as
the one with all the ideas and everyone else as needing his help. Clampett's
true genius was in putting the project together, getting the right talent,
getting the most of them and setting the overall style and tone, the "Bob
Clampett" style. He was an expert at getting great ideas out of his staff.
But once the ideas were on the table, suddenly they became his ideas and
only his. Talk about "creator's rights". I realize that was the way things
were always done (and still are today) and even Clampett didn't own his
Warner creations. The difference, however, is that Leon Slesinger never
claimed he created Tweety Pie and that Bob Clampett was just the director.
But Clampett did claim he created Beany and Cecil and that Stan and Daws was
just the actors. And then, of course, there is Charlie Shows (who I know you
think is a "hack") and the fact that he was responsible for many of the
characters and gags that Clampett took credit for thinking up. Shows
deserves a lot of the credit and he has gotten none.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0703...@pm03-43.ktb.net...
> In article <8D0x4.4881$OV.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "Joe K.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
> on them telling what they were.
Man, Steve. Are you the Clampett family spin doctor? Bill Clinton could have
used you during the Lewinsky scandal. They were forged, Steve. We've all
seen the correct, undoctored versions of those drawings. There's one in
particular where the original reads "Avery's Model Sheet" and Clampett's
doctored version has Avery's name erased or wiped off in some way and the
name Campout in its place.
> Clampett
> may be right or he might be wrong on details of who sewed what
> sock or what date a specific drawing came from, but the essence of
> what he says is correct from his perspective.
He was embellishing these "details" all the way back to when they first
occured. These are not the blurry memories of an old man looking back on his
career. Daws and Stan, for example, were battling with him over his
misrepresentations all through the 1950s.
>
> Clampett clearly was a part of all of the things he claimed to
> have created.
I do not believe that. I think he was part of MANYof them but gave himself
credit for just as many hewas not part of.
> I think the early days of Warners involved more
> input from the crew on story and characters than later when
> the duties became more defined.
Very true.
>All you have to do is to look
> at the films created when he was involved to see the distinct
> stamp of his personality and sense of humor.
Exactly. But of the films HE created, not the films of others.
>He was the greatest
> cartoon Director who ever lived.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's why it is so sad he felt it necesarry to lie
about so much of what he did not create to build himself up further. He
didn't have to. His own work stands high above the rest, on its own.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:Gufx4.5075$w81.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Stephen W. Worth
Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> "Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message news:bigshot-
> > The drawings weren't forged. Clampett just added a written comment
> > on them telling what they were.
>
> They were forged, Steve. We've all
> seen the correct, undoctored versions of those drawings. There's one in
> particular where the original reads "Avery's Model Sheet" and Clampett's
> doctored version has Avery's name erased or wiped off in some way and the
> name Campout in its place.
I don't know about that one. I was referring to the ones in Bugs
Bunny Superstar, like the drawings of Daffy labelled "first Daffy
Duck".
> He was embellishing these "details" all the way back to when they first
> occured. These are not the blurry memories of an old man looking back on his
> career. Daws and Stan, for example, were battling with him over his
> misrepresentations all through the 1950s.
They received pretty big credits in the "Time for Beany"
episodes on the DVD. Butler, Freberg and Shows all receive
large credits in the title sequence. Have you seen it yet?
It includes great pictures of Clampett, Butler and Freberg
mugging with movie stars and at public appearances.
Michael Rianda
Scribner by Clampett (it's in Hollywood Cartoons by Barrier) in which he
told a story about how the Clampett unit was upstairs from the Jones unit
and Rod would drop a manhole cover on the floor to "make a tremendous
noise." The reason for this is probably because Jones had a lot more
disciplined approach to directing, and he looked at the Jones unit like boy
scouts.
Michael Rianda
> Other bits in Gray's article that I have trouble with include Mel Blanc
> trying to pass himself off as the creator of the WB characters (I find
> that very difficult to believe; from everything I've read--though it
> should be noted that I have not read Blanc's autobio--that is totally
> not like Mel Blanc) and Jones' "enemies list". Carl Stalling, Rob
> Scribner, and even Mike Maltese are included on the list. Jones waxes
> nostalgic about all three of those people--especially Maltese, who
Joe K. Bevilacqua
Jack Benny, the Martin & Lewis and some others.
I'm glad they got credit. But it is definitely too little, too late.
Just my opinion.
I am a big fan of Clampett's work, believe it or not.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message news:bigshot-
>
Stephen W. Worth
Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
> Shows deserves a lot of the credit and he has gotten none.
There's an interesting photo of Daws and Stan behind the puppet
stage in the early days with the script pinned up in front of
them. It looks like a two paragraph outline. From the "Time For
Beany" eps on the DVD, it appears that the voice guys ad libbed
most of the dialogue. But those are very early episodes. I wonder
why they didn't include later ones. From what I hear the later
shows had higher production values and more tied down scripts.
Hopefully they will release more of them.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
least) until Bob Jr. threatened me with lawsuit and I took it down.
Maybe they are holding the later ones for a second DVD. I hope so.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0703...@pm03-05.ktb.net...
> In article <djfx4.4970$OV.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "Joe K.
> Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
>
> > Shows deserves a lot of the credit and he has gotten none.
>
> There's an interesting photo of Daws and Stan behind the puppet
> stage in the early days with the script pinned up in front of
> them. It looks like a two paragraph outline. From the "Time For
> Beany" eps on the DVD, it appears that the voice guys ad libbed
> most of the dialogue. But those are very early episodes. I wonder
> why they didn't include later ones. From what I hear the later
> shows had higher production values and more tied down scripts.
> Hopefully they will release more of them.
>
Stephen W. Worth
<mich...@redshift.com> wrote:
> The reason for this is probably because Jones had a lot more
> disciplined approach to directing, and he looked at the Clampett
> unit like boy scouts.
There is a funny story about Jones getting on the loudspeaker at
Warners and announcing "Would the a-unit please assemble at
editorial?"
Clampett heard this and knowing there was no A or B Units...
(Jones was just trying to sound important...) he grabbed his
crew and ran down to editorial as fast as they could. They were
sitting there peeking out the window and waving at Jones and
his crew when they arrived. "Oh! We thought you meant the
*A* UNIT!"
gregory duffell
: At the same time, if Chuck was so mad at Maltese for leaving Warner's, as
: Gray's article claims, what was his name doing on all those 1964-65 Tom and
: Jerry shorts Jones did at MGM? If Grey's story is true, it was a pretty short
: grudge, at least compared to the one he's holding against Clampett.
When I met Mike in 1975, he didn't give me the impression that he was
any buddy of Chuck's by any stretch. That he went back to work on the
last "Duck Dodgers" was out of mutual need than personal love. I
suspect the same was true on the Tom and Jerry cartoons.
Chuck learned to be quite pragmatic in his associations and he always
made sure he had the upper hand. For Chuck, there's no sense denying
that Mike Maltese was a great story guy. It's obvious...and became more
obvious when he went over to Hanna Barbera. It was even obvious when he
was working with Paul Smith!!!
I'm not altogether sure Chuck really likes anyone....besides Ray
Harryhausen and Mark Twain. That's his prerogative, if true, and my
opinion.
Greg Duffell
r's, as
: Gray's article claims, what was his name doing on all those 1964-65 Tom and
: Jerry shorts Jones did at MGM? If Grey's story is true, it was a pretty short
: grudge, at least compared to the one he's holding against Clampett.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Stop by for a drink at the Internet TeleCafe -- telecafe.com 9000 :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Toonhead
>From: ligh...@idirect.com (gregory duffell)
>Date: 3/7/00 8:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <i5lx4.176772$B6.12...@quark.idirect.com>
>
>WOTPPAPER (wotp...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: At the same time, if Chuck was so mad at Maltese for leaving Warner's, as
>: Gray's article claims, what was his name doing on all those 1964-65 Tom and
>: Jerry shorts Jones did at MGM? If Grey's story is true, it was a pretty
>short
>: grudge, at least compared to the one he's holding against Clampett.
>
>When I met Mike in 1975, he didn't give me the impression that he was
>any buddy of Chuck's by any stretch. That he went back to work on the
>last "Duck Dodgers" was out of mutual need than personal love. I
>suspect the same was true on the Tom and Jerry cartoons.
>
>Chuck learned to be quite pragmatic in his associations and he always
>made sure he had the upper hand. For Chuck, there's no sense denying
>that Mike Maltese was a great story guy. It's obvious...and became more
>obvious when he went over to Hanna Barbera. It was even obvious when he
>was working with Paul Smith!!!
>
Of course, as we both know (and as you pointed out), given his tough upbringing
in New York Citry, Michael Maltese didn't exactly have that "Jone"
cuteness...but they made quite the team!
--Steve--or----S.J. Carras
gca...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/JCSt34204/index.html
poporc...@onelist.com
20s-to-50...@onelist.com/
buffy...@eskimo.com
For more visit www.onelist.com.
Jim Bennie
duffell) wrote:
> Chuck learned to be quite pragmatic in his associations and he always
> made sure he had the upper hand.
Greg, I guess this was even true of Maurice Noble, though you would
know about this more than I. In Barrier's book, it's mentioned Noble made
a couple of, frankly, odd career moves away from Warners, and I wonder if
this would have been sparked, even partly, by creative differences with
Chas. M.
> For Chuck, there's no sense denying
> that Mike Maltese was a great story guy.
Let someone try :)
> It's obvious...and became more
> obvious when he went over to Hanna Barbera. It was even obvious when he
> was working with Paul Smith!!!
I'm still trying to figure out how Smith worked with Avery and none
of it seems to have rubbed off.
I love Maltese's dialogue on Quick Draw, and Snooper and Blabber.
> I'm not altogether sure Chuck really likes anyone....besides Ray
> Harryhausen and Mark Twain. That's his prerogative, if true, and my
> opinion.
Don't forget his Uncle Lynn. Oh, and you, too. You made Chuck Amuck 2,
after all :)
Jim
Earl Kress
>That's good news. I would not call it a "myth" however since Clampett
>himself said it himself over and over.
The "myth" I was referring to was the one that Clampett kept repeating
over and over (not that it was a "myth" that he said it.)
>
>But it goes deeper than that. The fact is it was Stan and Daws and Charlie
>Shows who came up with Cecil in the first place. Clampett's original idea
>was called "The Cap'n Huffinpuff Show" and didn't even include Cecil or any
>character like him. Cecil came out of a writing session between Stan, Daws
>and Shows, originally as an incidental character. So Clampett's claim he
>created Cecil when he was 12 is very much not true.
>
Here's a story Daws told me many times that shows the lengths Clampett
would go to take credit. When Beany and Cecil appeared on the Ed
Sullivan Show, Clampett stood behind the puppet stage with his sleeves
rolled up while Daws and Stan performed. At the end, Clampett came
out from behind the stage to meet Ed, pulling his sleeves down to make
it look like he was the puppeteer. Daws and Stan didn't even get to
take a bow.
Earl
Joe K. Bevilacqua
> "Joe K. Bevilacqua" <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote:
>
> >That's good news. I would not call it a "myth" however since Clampett
> >himself said it himself over and over.
>
> The "myth" I was referring to was the one that Clampett kept repeating
> over and over (not that it was a "myth" that he said it.)
I got that, Earl. I meant that I'd call it a "lie" rather than a myth.
> Here's a story Daws told me many times that shows the lengths Clampett
> would go to take credit. When Beany and Cecil appeared on the Ed
> Sullivan Show, Clampett stood behind the puppet stage with his sleeves
> rolled up while Daws and Stan performed. At the end, Clampett came
> out from behind the stage to meet Ed, pulling his sleeves down to make
> it look like he was the puppeteer. Daws and Stan didn't even get to
> take a bow.
Daws told me this story as well. I'd love to see a kinescope of that.
Of course, Stan wasn't above doing such things himself. When Daws, Stan and
June Foray performed "Saint George and the Dragonet" on Sullivan, only Stan
was on camera. Poor June and Daws had to perform their parts off camera.
Even though I believe it was Sullivan who insisted at the last minute that
only Stan be on camera, Stan didn't put up much of a fight about it,
according to Daws.
Daws was always getting the short end of the stick.
Stephen W. Worth
ligh...@idirect.com (gregory duffell) wrote:
> I'm not altogether sure Chuck really likes anyone....besides Ray
> Harryhausen and Mark Twain.
That's Ray Bradbury.
Alabaster
Joe K. Bevilacqua <joe...@nospamcomedyorama.com> wrote in message
news:j%xx4.5166$OV.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Ed Sullivan used to have weird conditions that performers had to go along
with in order for them even to appear on the show. This was because he had
a fear of being overspoken and overplayed in an interview. Unless the group
of performers were as famous as the Beatles, he *insisted* that there be a
representative of the group(s)... that representative would be the single
person he would the conduct the interview with. He never wanted to be
showed up by any guest or guests. The Doors and many other groups and
personalities were never asked back because they refused to go along with
these terms and broke them in the middle of the act, a few times getting
interrupted by commercials. Sullivan was famous for this.
Clampett was acting as the representative... and the sleeve rolling was a
big part of conforming to this ruse that Sullivan pre-planned. There always
had to be a lead man or woman, and in this case Clampett was that person.
This was obviously a common practice too since Buffalo Bob (Smith?) was
forced to do this by slipping on a hand puppet featured in a skit
(controlled by someone else) over his hand before walking on to the stage.
Steve
---
"Yep, I'm da last'a da dodos!"
Earl Kress
>> "Earl Kress" <earl...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>> news:38c6a2d0...@news.pipeline.com...
>> >
>> > Here's a story Daws told me many times that shows the lengths Clampett
>> > would go to take credit. When Beany and Cecil appeared on the Ed
>> > Sullivan Show, Clampett stood behind the puppet stage with his sleeves
>> > rolled up while Daws and Stan performed. At the end, Clampett came
>> > out from behind the stage to meet Ed, pulling his sleeves down to make
>> > it look like he was the puppeteer. Daws and Stan didn't even get to
>> > take a bow.
>>
>Ed Sullivan used to have weird conditions that performers had to go along
>with in order for them even to appear on the show. This was because he had
>a fear of being overspoken and overplayed in an interview. Unless the group
>of performers were as famous as the Beatles, he *insisted* that there be a
>representative of the group(s)... that representative would be the single
>person he would the conduct the interview with. He never wanted to be
>showed up by any guest or guests.
>
>Clampett was acting as the representative... and the sleeve rolling was a
>big part of conforming to this ruse that Sullivan pre-planned. There always
>had to be a lead man or woman, and in this case Clampett was that person.
>
But even if this were the case and it was Sullivan that insisted on
only one person, why Clampett? He wasn't any better known than Daws
or Stan. As Steve Worth pointed out, their billing was just as
prominent on the puppet show as Clampett's was. It should have been
one of them.
Earl
Mike
"Michael Rianda" <mich...@redshift.com> wrote:
> years after Clampett died. Also if you look at the compilations Jones
> supervises you'll never see a cartoon that will threaten any of Jones,
he
> never shows Clampett, Avery, Tashlin, or early McKimson. I also think
> Clampett is treated so unfairly is he is dead, so he can't really
defend
> himself. Anyway, that is my little rant on Clampett/Jones.
Well, this part isn't really fair. Up until the Turner-Warner deal,
there was no way Chuck legally could have included Clampett, Avery,
Tashlin, or pre-48 McKimson. (Well, yeah, he could have included B&W
cartoons by these guys, and he didn't; but I don't see much of a story
in that, because no one includes many B&W cartoons on compilations,
unfortunately.) If he oversaw a compilation now and didn't include any
of those directors, well, that would be different story.
Mike
--
"Ana Ng and I are getting old and we still haven't walked
in the glow of each other's majestic presence"--They Might Be Giants
Check out my site:
http://lavender.fortunecity.com/fullmonty/22/mywebpage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike
big...@spumco.com (Stephen W. Worth) wrote:
> Mike Maltese had a very bitter falling out with Jones. He told
> a friend of mine that Chuck never once in all the years he worked
> with him thanked him, invited him out to lunch or socialized with
> him. They were definitely *not* friends.
Really? I did not know that. I had heard that there were some hurt
feelings when Maltese left for Hanna-Barbera, but I assumed it was all
worked out, since Chuck waxes so nostalgically about Mike in "Chuck
Amuck" (including the famous story about how long it should take to have
a bowel movement).
> Bob Clampett asked Jones to be involved, and Jones didn't return
> his call. Clampett included a Jones cartoon as the finale to
> Bugs Bunny Superstar out of respect for someone he considered an
> old friend. Jones was the one who was feuding. Clampett was
> genuinely confused and upset that Jones was reacting the way
> he was.
Again, I did not know that. And I didn't think about how last cartoon on
BBS was a Jones cartoon. That's interesting. Now, Clampett wasn't
included in "What's Up Doc?," whereas Jones was. The interviews looked
like they were from the '70s. I've wondered why Clampett footage wasn't
dug up. Perhaps Jones didn't want Clampett to be featured? Any help on
this would be nice.
> That is true. Clampett's early cartoons were MUCH more popular
> with audiences than Jones's Disney attempts. I have been told
> that at one point Schlesinger called Jones on the carpet and
> told him point blank that he would either "make funny cartoons
> like Clampett's" or he would be back to animating. You can see
> the change in his late forties cartoons. They're a lot more like
> Clampett cartoons. They're also among his best work.
This is true. While Jones is celebrated for his '50s cartoons (and
rightfully so), I feel that some of the cartoons he directed from
1945-1949 ("Hare Tonic," "A Pest in the House," "Daffy Dilly," "My Bunny
Lies Over the Sea") are superb.
Catra-Dohtem Inc
>BBS was a Jones cartoon. That's interesting. Now, Clampett wasn't
>included in "What's Up Doc?," whereas Jones was. The interviews looked
>like they were from the '70s. I've wondered why Clampett footage wasn't
>dug up. Perhaps Jones didn't want Clampett to be featured? Any help on
>this would be nice.
Actually, there are bits of a Clampett interview in "What's Up Doc?" (one whole
segment of the special talks exclusively about Bob and Tex), because at one
point he talks about making the "bee-roop" (iris out) sound effect.
"Can't breathe like that, can you??" - Jimmie the Clown
http://members.aol.com/catradohtm
All Things Yankovic - http://members.aol.com/allthngynk
Remove Amico to e-mail me
"You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total-loser!"
Joe K. Bevilacqua
"Catra-Dohtem Inc" <catra...@aol.comAmico> wrote in message
news:20000308221130...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
gregory duffell
: In article <i5lx4.176772$B6.12...@quark.idirect.com>,
: ligh...@idirect.com (gregory duffell) wrote:
: > I'm not altogether sure Chuck really likes anyone....besides Ray
: > Harryhausen and Mark Twain.
: That's Ray Bradbury.
: See ya
: Steve
Ouch...what a gaffe on my part. And It worked so well in rehearsal.
Thanks for the correction Steve. Yes..I did mean Bradbury.
Greg D.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
: Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
: Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Stop on by the Internet TeleCafe! telnet://telecafe.com:9000 :
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catra-Dohtem Inc
>
It may very well have originated there (don't know since I haven't seen it),
but it was definitely in "What's Up Doc?"
In fact, the only "big" director that went unmentioned was Robert McKimson!
Didn't help of course that TNT only had access to three McKimson Bugs shorts at
the time. :)
Alabaster
> only one person, why Clampett? He wasn't any better known than Daws
> or Stan. As Steve Worth pointed out, their billing was just as
> prominent on the puppet show as Clampett's was. It should have been
> one of them.
Well, because he was the most prominent of the three, and not to put down
the other talents in the least (the show could not have happened without
their work so I in no way mean to downlplay their roles in it), but he had
already established his name in the entertainment world. If all else failed,
and the interview started to lose content... they always had Warner stories
to talk about.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't fair. However, if you have to "take one for
the team" like Daws and Stan did... then by all means I don't have a problem
letting my partner or peer "lead" a presentation. I have many times before,
even got upstaged when he corrected and continued for me pitching a comic
book concept to a major editor in the industry. I sat down and realize that
it was for the better of the project and that two presenters might clutter
the "stage" and distract from what we were ultimately trying to do that
day... which was to sell/plug an entertainment property.
This, I feel, was the story in this case... except that someone might not
have agreed, or failed to express their opinion at the time.
Steve
---
"Can't we all just... get a loon?"
Jim Bennie
>> But even if this were the case and it was Sullivan that insisted on
>> only one person, why Clampett? He wasn't any better known than Daws
>> or Stan. As Steve Worth pointed out, their billing was just as
>> prominent on the puppet show as Clampett's was. It should have been
>> one of them.
> Well, because he was the most prominent of the three, and not to put down
> the other talents in the least (the show could not have happened without
> their work so I in no way mean to downlplay their roles in it), but he had
> already established his name in the entertainment world.
More so than Stan Freberg? When was this appearance?
Jim
Stephen W. Worth
<rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote:
> Ed Sullivan used to have weird conditions that performers had to go along
> with in order for them even to appear on the show. This was because he had
> a fear of being overspoken and overplayed in an interview. Unless the group
> of performers were as famous as the Beatles, he *insisted* that there be a
> representative of the group(s)... that representative would be the single
> person he would the conduct the interview with.
That was true of David Seville's appearance with puppet versions
of Alvin and the Chipmunks on the Sullivan show too. Except that
time it was Clampett who was behind the puppet stage unseen.
See ya
Steve
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stephen W. Worth
> But even if this were the case and it was Sullivan that insisted on
> only one person, why Clampett?
You could make a much stronger argument of that sort for Walt
Disney not being on the Disneyland TV Show...
Stephen W. Worth
<rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote:
> Well, because he was the most prominent of the three
I don't know if he was the most prominent, but it was his show.
He was the Producer, and I imagine he served as Director as
well, even though there is no credit for Director on the
puppet shows I saw.
Joe K. Bevilacqua
shows was... Charlie Shows.
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0903...@pm03-21.ktb.net...
Alabaster
down
> > the other talents in the least (the show could not have happened without
> > their work so I in no way mean to downlplay their roles in it), but he
had
> > already established his name in the entertainment world.
>
> More so than Stan Freberg? When was this appearance?
I don't have a date. I'd like to actually SEE the episode, too.
Can anyone help?
Randy Watts
see a cartoon that will threaten any of Jones, he never shows Clampett,
Avery, Tashlin, or early McKimson. >>
Jones had a good reason for not including material you mention on his
compilations. At the time, he had only the post-48 shorts available to
him. Prior to Time-Warner's acquisition of it's pre-48 catalog, the
company does not seem to have been terribly interested in contracting
with the owners of the earlier material so it could be used for films
like "The Bugs Bunny--Road Runner Movie"
--Randy
L & G
Alabaster wrote:
> .
> > More so than Stan Freberg? When was this appearance?
>
> I don't have a date. I'd like to actually SEE the episode, too.
>
> Can anyone help?
I don't know but Stan was involved ir radio, voice acting etc and I believe Stan
really didn't become a huge name in the business until his successes in
advertising.
Gerard
Joe K. Bevilacqua
records, "John and Marsha" and "Trying" especially. He performed them on
Sullivan, Steve Allen and others. Id's he was much more recognizable to TV
audiences than Bob Clampett.
"L & G" <hous...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:38C864F0...@telus.net...
Toonhead
Joe, I have Shows's 1980 autobiography.M it is called WALT. It is published by
Windsong books.
Shows talks, amongst others, about Beany, but most importantly the more than 10
years he'
d spent at Disney.
Shows is very funny. A gentlemanly (from his warm and witty writing) Texan
fellow, he was born in 1912, taking all kinds of extra-entertainment jobs. (BTW
I;m sure you knwo this if AStan and/or Daws told ya)
Joe K. Bevilacqua
autographed. A fun book and very insightful.
It's at:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280419560
"Toonhead" <gca...@aol.commerce> wrote in message
Earl Kress
>In article <OOAx4.7438$yV1.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Alabaster"
><rstu...@scheduleearth.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed Sullivan used to have weird conditions that performers had to go along
>> with in order for them even to appear on the show. This was because he had
>> a fear of being overspoken and overplayed in an interview. Unless the group
>> of performers were as famous as the Beatles, he *insisted* that there be a
>> representative of the group(s)... that representative would be the single
>> person he would the conduct the interview with.
>
>That was true of David Seville's appearance with puppet versions
>of Alvin and the Chipmunks on the Sullivan show too. Except that
>time it was Clampett who was behind the puppet stage unseen.
>
Yes, but in that case, it makes sense since Bagdasarian was already
out front singing AND the puppeteers were just moving to a pre-record
that was not even their own voices.
And even in later years, Clampett would go to personal appearances,
put on the Cecil puppet and do his version of the voice as if it had
always been him doing Cecil. He didn't mention Stan or even Erv
Shoemaker (sp?). Why do you think Daws and Stan didn't do the cartoon
show? They were asked, but they didn't want to work for Clampett
again.
Earl
Joe K. Bevilacqua
I remember seeing Clampett on Wonderama, the loacl New York Sunday morning
kids show in the late 1960s and he did exactly what you described. He took
all the credit, put the puppet on and did the Cecil voice and told the lie
about Sodi sewing the first puppets. Not word one about Daws or Stan... or
Erv or Myrtis or Charlie Shows. This was eight years or so before I met Daws
and learned the truth. But as a kid I actually thought Bob Clampett was the
voice of Cecil!
Not only didn;t Daws and Stan want to work with Clampett by the time he
started work on the aniamted version, they quit the puppet show the last
season it aired. I never did get the full story out of Daws; only a vague
"we were fed-up" with Clampett's treatment of them, the lies and not giving
proper creative credit. In his last years, Daws kind of softened a little
in his bad feelings about Clampett but only in a "awe, they hell with it; it
was so long ago" sort of way. So anytime I'd ask Daws about it, he'd usually
admit vaguely they were treated badly but then add something to the effect,
"well, Stan was becoming a big star on his own around that time". But I
sincerely believe the main reason they left was something Clampett did or
the accumulation of things.
"Earl Kress" <earl...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>