Really that Good? - Looney Tunes (300 Watchers)

The following piece is a critical response to a series of short films and an analysis based on a viewing of something of which I already have familiarity.

The views expressed in this post are solely my own and do not reflect those of any other entity associated with these films.

Thank you to all my 300+ watchers! Without you, this series would never exist in the first place. For a special treat, I will give you a review of the special shorts in the Looney Tunes canon. 

To cross this milestone was unthinkable when I came here in 2013. To have the already impressive 100 watchers in March 2017 triple by the end of the year was astounding! Thus, I have to break form for this next review. This occasion is special enough to warrant such a change in format. Instead of one movie, I will review a series of them. All of these are among the greatest animations ever made. I am of course talking about the collective Looney Tunes as a brand. If Roger Ebert could include chuck Jones' Big Three in his "Great Movies", I can review some of my favorite shorts the same way. So let's go! 

What's there to say about the Looney Tunes that hasn't been already? They have a rich history dating all the way back to the mid-30s. They helped us during WWII, sold products to us, and even introduced many of us to classical music. For most of the public, these characters ARE animation. They embody the ideas of bending the rules of physics, making clever wordplay and slapstick, and showing how animals and people can interact with each other at their best and worst moments. Many a common viewer and film scholar alike has cited the Looney Tunes as an art form unto themselves, as paragons of comedic timing with great animation and a timeless sense of fun. These shorts came from the brilliant minds at Warner Animation and would run before feature films in the old days of the Saturday matinee. People would show up not just to watch one movie, but also a variety of shorts and a newsreel as a special bonus instead of being bombarded with trailers for twenty minutes. Well over a thousand shorts were produced from Warner Brothers, and while many of the films they played before are long forgotten, the Looney Tunes live on in our hearts and our TV screens.  

The first "Looney Tune" was created in 1930 by two former Disney animators named Hugh Harman and Rudoph Ising under the production of Leon Schlesinger. As the name implied, the shorts were created as a response to Disney's "Silly Symphonies"--while also borrowing some of the visual and comedic influence from Max Fleischer's "Out of the Inkwell" series--and would be commissioned to play in theaters by the theater chain. "Bosko the Talk-Ink Kid" was the first star of the franchise, created by Harman and Ising as a character who would bounce off the page and interact with them like Betty Boop in the Fleischer shorts. The following year came "Merrie Melodies" with the character of Foxy being introduced. These shorts were less about characters and more about the music, arranging animations to the tunes of popular songs like "Lady, Play Your Mandolin" to serve as proto-music videos. 

Eventually, Ising and Harman would leave the studio. In 1934, the Merrie Melodies switched to color, while Looney Tunes remained black-and-white, though the formula was settled here with the Melodies more focused on one-shot characters and the Tunes including regular stars like Buddy, and later more recognizable figures like Porky Pig and Daffy Duck. This is where the major consistent animators were hired to create the cartoons. Friz Freleng was the team leader, who was one of the first trailblazers in the medium and the director who made the characters most people know (Like Harman and Ising, he also worked with Walt Disney during their time at Universal). Also on board were the comedic master Chuck Jones, the character creator Robert McKimson, and the neo-surrealist Bob Clampett. A few other animation auteurs like Tex Avery would also appear, with Tex even creating a finalized version of Bugs Bunny in the Oscar-nominated "A Wild Hare" (1940), but talking about all of them would go on pretty much forever. 

The impact for these cartoons was almost immediate. They were the most popular draw at movie houses for decades and made household names of Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety, and many, many more. The most popular of all was Bugs Bunny himself, with his cartoons sold separate from Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes for a slightly higher price. The characters were even popular enough to be featured in wartime propaganda and were made to sell many war bonds during a time when our country needed them. These characters were making more money and achieved more popularity than any of their creators could have imagined. They were seen as the "vaudeville" to Disney's "melodrama", utilizing heavy amounts of slapstick and dialogue humor--by stretching the limits of animation with their physical comedy and employing clever word-based humor appealing to both kids and adults. Schlesinger's team approached animation in a way nobody had seen before. This new approach prompted Disney and others to step up their game, and the Looney Tunes themselves were able to adapt to new trends and settings with each director bringing his own sense of humor to the table--like Freleng's knowledge of comedic timing, Jones' use of setting and meticulous approach to his story, McKimson's character dynamics, or Clampett's loony, avant-garde trademarks. 

By 1944, Schlesinger sold off the animated assets of his company to Warner Bros., leading to the Golden Age of the Looney Tunes lasting three more decades. Around this time, there was also a merger of the two cartoon titles into one--the Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes now featured the same characters in the same settings, and the Melodies no longer needed songs in their compositions. In effect, they had become one and the same. Avery had already left the studio at this point because of creative differences, and Clampett would follow after awhile, but the old timers like Jones and Freleng remained. Altogether, the shorts from the Golden Age won five Oscars for Best Animated Short our of twenty-one nominations, had four shorts inducted into the National Film Registry (Clampett's "Porky in Wackyland" and Jones' "Duck Amuck", "One Froggy Evening", and "What's Opera Doc?"), and even had the Jones shorts featured on Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" series of reviews. They later helped bring animation prominence on television in 1960, when ABC started airing The Bugs Bunny Show which compiled all the shorts in a televised format all at once, giving a new generation easier access to all the old shorts. 

My introduction to them was the same as yours. I watched all the anthologies like Toon Heads, The Looney Tunes Show, The Chuck Jones Show, et. al. on Cartoon Network. Since I was five when Time-Warner bought exclusive rights, I had to use cable to see them. I had several on VHS as well, including The Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Movie and Pepe le Pew's Best Dates, which were on heavy rotation. I loved all of them and would always try to see how many ways they could vary their gimmick. It was surprising to see how the same group of characters could have such variety in their shorts and range in their portrayals--especially knowing they were voiced by one man for the most part. While my parents can boast how WB was "still making new shorts" in their day, I am unfortunate to say I never saw any of these shorts in theaters. I kind of want to go back to those days when they would play the cartoon before the film as part of the experience. I may not always like the film--but at least the Looney Tunes would always deliver. 

Are the Looney Tunes shorts still as funny as ever after eight decades of merriment and excitement? Or is their bygone sense of humor a relic of a different point in film history? Are the Classic Looney Tunes Really that Good? Keep in mind I won't review every single Looney Tunes short. I will approach this more as a highlight reel to demonstrate what these characters do well and why they have such a strong legacy. 

What the Shorts Do 

Given this is a series of shorts, it is impossible to keep organization through themes or narrative. Thus, for the shorts I chose I broke it down by director. I felt it appropriate to discuss them this way because of the ideas of Auteur Theory, showing how each director was able to make the Looney Tunes great.

Film is not the best medium for auteur theory as film is by its very nature a collaborative effort--and nowhere more so than in animation. There are often several animators for one character, multiple storyboard artists and writers, and often multiple directors for one product. However, these directors all offered something unique and even in this collaborative medium were able to leave a footprint on their work with a distinct, inimitable style. With only seven minutes to tell a story, every second of screentime mattered. The directors had to cram as many gags into a short as possible while also keeping the plot going, and the different ways these fellows managed to accomplish this allows them to stand out as "auteurs" in the medium of animation. To illustrate what made the Looney Tunes so great, I chose four of the major contributors to analyze their trademarks. Each brought something new to their approach and are worlds apart from one another. So it only makes sense to tackle them one by one. 

Friz Freleng was the director who best knew the mechanics and inner workings of the medium of animation. As a musician himself, Freleng knew both the mediums of animation and music were based on timing, so it makes sense how many of his shorts were based on music like "The Three Little Bops" (1957). This made him perhaps the best collaborator with the composer of Warner Bros. Carl Stalling, letting his music shine with Freleng's visuals. As such, each character has a distinctive bounce and a specific theme song. Freleng himself was said to be an energetic and shouty man. This manifested in the character of Yosemite Sam, who many of the animators said was a caricature of Freleng himself. With his appearances in "Hare Trigger" (1945) and "Bugs Bunny Rides Again" (1948), Bugs was tasked with a nemesis who is just as crazy as him. Sam is always moving, either jumping or running about. And Bugs has to time his counters just right. This new mode of slapstick was made as a variation to the Elmer Fudd formula, and Freleng's effective use of movement was able to capture the zany action of the Yosemite Sam shorts. 

It was the energy of Freleng's shorts that added to the simple idea of a cat chasing a bird and made them so lively and spirited. Freleng's most famous creation was Sylvester the Cat. It could have been easy to cast Sylvester as an antagonist to Tweety, but Freleng gave him a personality and many of the episodes were from his point of view. In "Birds Anonymous" (1957), Sylvester is supposed to turn over a new leaf and avoid birds. But we see from him the very real struggle when it comes to facing his nemesis Tweety. And we witness Sylvester's dark descent in a way that is believable and relatable. Some shorts don't involve Tweety--like "A Mouse Divided" (1953), where Sylvester is father to a baby mouse on accident. Sylvester at first goes from trying to eat the mouse to protecting it from others, and the actions he takes on both accounts get wackier by the second. Establishing Sylvester as a straight-man in a wacky world, even when he is the antagonist, makes him one fo the most dynamic Looney Tunes characters ever. And it was Freleng's personal touches and comedic timing that made him this way. 

Friz Freleng also made the groundbreaking short "You Ought to Be in Pictures" (1940). Combining animation with live-action is one of the oldest tricks in the book, dating all the way back to Winsor McCay's work in the 1910's. But in this short, Freleng casts Porky as an actor who just happens to exist in two-dimensional space as opposed to our three-dimensional world. This short originates the idea of the character as a personality on his own, an "animated actor" if you will, and how he may play a "role" onset but has a distinct character out of it. And the effect of Porky interacting with Leon Schlesinger is seamless even by today's standards. Freleng had a knowledge of the craft of animation, and even in the medium's infancy knew the best direction and technology with which to carry the medium into the future. 

If Friz was the man who played fast and loose, Chuck Jones was the one who refined his approach to his cartoons with meticulous staging and pre-planning. Jones had created the character of Sniffles at first to go for more of the melodramatic feel of the Disney shorts. But when he went for comedy was where his star began to shine. "For Scent-imental Reasons" (1949) garnered his first Oscar, and codified the character of Pepe le Pew as the lovable hopeless romantic we all know and love--including solidifying his shtick with the cat Penelope. Though Chuck Jones REALLY grew into himself with the "Hunting Trilogy" of shorts. "Rabbit Fire" (1951), "Rabbit Seasoning" (1952), and "Duck! Rabbit! Duck" (1953) came out within three years of each other and were three variations of the same theme. Though all of them are great in their own right for the use of verbal comedy in the classic "Rabbit Season/Duck Season" argument and in Bugs trying his darndest to make sure Daffy always gets the brunt of the joke. Most times, Daffy has it coming anyway by trying to escape Duck Season and frame that pesky Bugs. Before this, Daffy was just as nutty and as much of a trickster as the bunny himself. Chuck turned him into a straight-man, but also defined his character. Daffy is grouchy, but also the one who is most impulsive. Unlike the more calculated Bugs Bunny, Daffy is still off the wall, but often more impulsive. Through this impulse, he gets himself into trouble. This may be troublesome for Clampett fans, as I will get to later, but with Jones' Daffy, he has a character with a defined personality, and desires and goals of his own. 

Chuck was a man of parameters and restrictions. For "One Froggy Evening" (1955), the frog could only sing to the man who found him and nobody else. Thus, the comedy had to come from the man's failed attempts to expose the frog with his talents, which makes the frog's outbursts of song funnier as a result. For another rule of Jones', in any of the Bugs Bunny shorts, Bugs was never the instigator of conflict. He was allowed to go crazy only after he was provoked. If Freleng's best partnership was with the composer Stalling, Jones' best friend on the staff was head writer Michael Maltese, whose scripts would be evaluated by Chuck and then planned for staging after several rewrites and reexaminations. Maltese would write the gags, Jones would draw them in a way that made them even more hilarious. This attention to writing and execution of techniques allowed for more "subtle" humor to shine among the Looney gags, making for a great mix of comedic techniques as we will see later. 

Two of Jones' shorts demonstrate Jones' discipline and exemplify Jones' artistic manifesto in animated form, testing characters and reinventing formulas. With "Duck Amuck" (1953), it was about testing the perception of Daffy himself. Chuck Jones wondered if anyone would still recognize Daffy if they bent the medium around him, changing the backgrounds and manipulating objects as he is using them to hilarious effect. If Daffy wasn't even drawn as Daffy at all, would he still appeal to you? How could Daffy work if his whole comedic routine was turned upside down? And the short worked because Daffy is the egomaniac and the center of attention. If anyone was to have the funniest reactions to his own medium being twisted, Daffy was the best pick. The short is in essence a celebrity meltdown captured in animation and the methods which can stretch the medium in illustrating their ideas. 

When Elmer Fudd's shtick got old, Chuck elevated it to operatic proportions in "What's Opera, Doc?" (1957). He not only took the premise to its extreme, he elevated it to operatic proportions and staged a seven-minute epic. This was a full spectacle of visuals, comedic timing, and great lines captured in just seven minutes, though the short still manages to give all due respect to the musical canon of Richard Wagner. Fudd's Siegfried and Bugs' Brunhilde make for one of the funniest singular moments in animation history with their ballet. It is Jones' discipline and attention to detail that make this short as great as it was. Not to mention some great singing from Blanc and Bryan to complete the opera homage. 

Chuck was called the "Orson Welles of Animation" when he received his Honorary Oscar. Given both directors' attention to detail and meticulous planning scene-for-scene, this comparison is apt. For example of Chuck's attention to detail, we will look at my favorite Bugs Bunny short "Bully for Bugs" (1953). True to Jones fashion, Bugs does not look for trouble; he just gets lost on his way to Coachella. When the bull looks to pick a fight, Bugs is mad, but his only response is "Stop steaming my tail". He couldn't care less about the bull himself. But when the bull whacks Bugs in the air, hilarity ensues. The rest of the short is a slapstick ballet, with Bugs one step ahead of the bull falling into all his traps. It is engaging slapstick, and for the most part because you are rooting for Bugs. His energy and liveliness--plus the fact the bull hit first--crack me up every time watching this short. While the other directors of these shorts are great for their own reasons, Jones is the best known of these directors because of his approach to the more physical and situation based comedy--making him the funniest of them all. 

Robert McKimson tried to reinvent the formulas of the Looney Tunes, both by adding new characters and playing with the routines of older ones. He was tasked with adding a character into "Walky Talky Hawky" (1946) for star Henry Hawk to face. But the result was so popular, the followup "The Foghorn Leghorn" (1948) had the titular character overtake the Hawk in his own series. The character had a stubbornness and quirk to him that was new, and there was nothing else like him at the time. McKimson's strength was in making these new characters and reinventing the existing formulas in new ways. In "Devil May Hare" (1954), he picked the most obscure creature he could think of to serve as an antagonist to Bugs Bunny. Thus, the crazed and voracious Tasmanian Devil was introduced. Bugs had never seen one of these before, so Taz kept the rabbit on his toes in an attempt to break Bugs' usual routine. For the first time in a long time, Bugs has to think outside the box. The encounter involves literal chewing of scenery and lots of collateral damage, but is funny to watch because none of it is expected. McKimson even gave Sylvester a new rival with "Hippety Hopper" (1949). Hippety is an innocent, mute kangaroo who can still beat up Sylvester easy. Sylvester's insistence he's a mouse--even though we all know kangaroos are nothing like mice--breeds the comedy from ignorance. Sylvester knows what he has coming after a few goes. In addition to new characters, McKimson must have done his research on animal biology to accurately portray a kangaroo and a Tasmanian devil in his most famous shorts. 

Of all the original Looney Tunes directors, Bob Clampett was perhaps the studio's first great innovator. "Porky in Wackyland" (1938) was not the first short in the canon, but it was among the first to have all the trademarks the Warner animators would be known for. Porky Pig tries to catch the wacky Do-Do Bird, who pulls all the stops and tricks to avoid him. The slapstick humor and psychedelic imagery proved Warner Bros. were not just a Disney clone, and the studio was officially known as the place for the wacky humor to contrast Disney's serious storytelling. "A Tale of Two Kitties" (1942) went even further by introducing the character of Tweety Bird. Though Tweety was antagonized by the two cats, he fought back and was no pushover. The techniques used ranged from the simple to the over-the-top, climaxing with a full aerial battle over his very nest. The short makes use of several squash-and-stretch techniques and also has Tweety give an early version of his usual "cute but irritating in a funny way" shtick. Tweety's personality and recognizable speech impediment made him an instant favorite, and Clampett's crazy direction was responsible. 

Throughout the 1940's, Bob was on a roll. "Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid" (1942) redesigns Bugs to his most recognizable form and establishes many of his traits like frequent crossdressing and using trickery and wits to avoid his foe. "A Gruesome Twosome" (1945) is like "A Tale of Two Kitties", but reinvents the story to be about two rival cats coming together over Tweety--but realizing their huge mistake. Many of the faces in both these shorts are priceless, by the way. All of these are based on physical timing and zany humor, but Clampett was also one of the first to incorporate "adult" humor in his shorts. Aside from the infamous "bird" line in "A Tale of Two Kitties", there was also an entire homage to film noir in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery" (1946). In opposition to Jones' curmudgeonly character, Clampett's Daffy was just as wacky as Bugs, and often cast as the hero in his own stories. In "Piggy Bank", Daffy dreams himself as Dick Tracy, and amongst his rogue's gallery are villains like Neon Noodle and Snake Eyes, direct references to villains in the comic and to adult hobbies like nightclubbing. Though what makes these "adult" references work is how they keep the plot going and don't overshadow Daffy in his shining moment. Also, given how the majority of the short was a dream, I feel justified in calling Clampett a "surrealist". With all his movements and character designs, his work is very dream-like in structure and tone. 

With these four and many more besides, Warner Bros. Animation was an elite corps of workers creating the finest comedy available. With complete control over their medium, characters, and staging, anything was possible. And they made sure no stone was unturned and no possibility unexplored when they were in their field. Each of them was different, but the Looney Tunes could still be funny all the same no matter who was directing the short. 

Impact

You know these characters already. They are in everything. The Looney Tunes shorts were a common fixture of television anthologies all the way up into the current decade. It was their constant airing on television that allowed animation to thrive on television as well as the theaters--although Boomerang has disappointingly cut back on them in recent years. They have been used in advertising since the 60's, have their faces on everything you can name, and have most of their characters feature as household names. Unlike Felix the Cat or Betty Boop--who still appear in merchandise also--everyone still recognizes a Looney Tunes character on sight. Because their shorts have such a timeless quality, they still get airplay and sell DVDs to this day. If you can put a price tag on it, there is a Looney Tunes version of it. Even Michigan J. Frog, who was in exactly ONE short from the Golden Age, still gets merchandised as much as Bugs or Daffy. 

Charlie Chaplin even said of the Tunes, "How can we compete? They don't even have to pause for a breath." What he meant was these characters have an inimitable comedic approach only existing within the realm of animation. Their wild and crazy antics pioneered both the physical direction of animation and the sense of timing and positioning with their characters. All over the medium, the bouncy animation and musical timing became the standard for cartoons of the day. Many had tried their hand at the more serious Disney shorts before, but now there were several other animators trying to be Looney Tunes also. The Looney Tunes even found their way into Disney's Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which was a celebration of all Western Animation, including those not made by Disney. Warner Bros. only agreed to have their characters in the film if they shared equal amounts of screentime with Disney's characters. As a result, you never see them moving apart--they are always in the same frame. Look at the Donald and Daffy--or Bugs and Mickey scene--and you will see they are always at level and in the same shot. It is unlikely we will ever see such a groundbreaking moment in film again! 

Bugs Bunny of course is the official mascot of Warner Bros. Animation. Not only does he have a star on the Walk of Fame (which I took a picture standing on, by the way). Not only does his insult of "Nimrod" to Elmer re-appropriate the term from "Hunter" to "Dumb person". Not only did his own "What's Opera, Doc?" become the first animated short film inducted into the NFR in 1992. But he is the most portrayed cartoon character in all of media, and the ninth-most portrayed character of all. He's been an accomplished pitchman for Nike and Kool-Aid, and his image still appears all over the place to this day. When TV Guide called him the greatest ever cartoon character, their reasoning was because even after all these years, he is still popular. His stock has never gone down and he has always been able to adapt. He is funny in new and clever ways, ranging from physical comedy to dialogue humor. And he shows no signs of slowing down. Well deserved, Bugs!   

Of course, after the Warner Animation studio collapsed, there were many attempts to reboot the characters over the years. A run of shorts in the 80's and 90's kept them alive for awhile, with varying degrees of success. On television, shows like Tiny Toons and Animaniacs were the spiritual successors to the original Tunes, capturing the same sense of humor but in a more modern setting with different characters. While both these shows were good, they were good more on their own merits defining their own comedy, using Looney Tunes as a springboard. It was the next evolution of the original Looney Tunes, if you will. 

I consider the "Dork Age" of the characters to be in the early 2000's. I know because I was there. We had Baby Looney Tunes, Loonatics Unleashed, and the horrendous flop of Back in Action. These were such betrayals of the characters and offered no quality in return. At this point, I feel like Warner Bros. and the rightsholders at the studio just didn't care. Thankfully, the age was short and soon they remembered the Looney Tunes were a comedy show first and foremost, and turned them back to comedy. I heard Looney Tunes Show is funny in its own right, but I just haven't seen it. I never got into The New Looney Tunes, but I can at least appreciate there are people there who want these characters to return to television in their original style. I guess the old masters do it the best, but I can at least respect they are trying to honor the old style, even if it came out flawed in the final product. 

Anything Else of Note? 

These characters would be nothing without a great voice behind them. Mel Blanc was America's most versatile actor and taking almost a hundred classic characters while also making them sound distinct is a testament to true range and the mark of a great actor, voice-over or otherwise. With the notable exceptions of Elmer Fudd (who was voiced in most of his classic appearances by Arthur Q. Bryan) and the Road Runner (his "beep beep" was provided by sound editor Paul Julian), Mel Blanc voiced a majority of the classic recurring characters. After taking over for Porky Pig in "Porky's Duck Hunt" (1937), Mel took credit for all the characters even if he didn't voice them. Though you could never tell it was him doing all the voices in most of the shorts. Watching The Hunting Trilogy or even something like "Birds Anonymous", his voices all sound so different. And yet he breathes inflection and life into each and every one of them. While Sylvester is said to be the closest to Mel's actual voice, the way he bends his voice for the rest of them and develops personality like with Bugs' accent, Daffy's lisp, or even Tweety's slurring of consonants, Mel makes sure to add a quirk to all his characters.

Alas, this came with the side effect of having most of the Looney Tunes be male. With only a guy voice (though he did voice a few girl characters), it was hard to accommodate for other ranges. Though there were exceptions, and for the ladies entered June Foray. Foray notably voiced Granny and Witch Hazel, providing a distinct rasp to both roles. Though it was easy to tell them apart--Hazel was more animated, Granny was more serious. Foray was in many ways Blanc's counterpart, also able to provide inflection and personality under the guise of a voice-over. As some of the first to be known strictly by their voices and for the accomplishments they were able to achieve in bringing these classic characters to life, Blanc and Foray were among the first true voice-actors to prove themselves in a viable alternative setting to onscreen acting. Thus, Blanc and Foray are both the most influential voice actors to have ever picked up the mic. To me, the greatest crime the Academy ever committed was not giving Mel or June an Honorary Award.  

Though there was a behind-the-scenes story within these shorts which has become the stuff of legend in the animation world. Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett were longtime collaborators, but also the bitterest of enemies off-set. In the 1970's, long after the studio closed down, Bob Clampett returned to the limelight by featuring heavily in the 1975 documentary Bugs Bunny Superstar. In that film, Bob served as an emcee and hogged the spotlight, taking credit for creating all the major characters in the Looney Tunes. The only evidence we have for his creation of a character was Tweety Bird. Chuck Jones, who was known as the meticulous craftsman and perfectionist, wrote a nasty letter to Tex Avery about how he felt robbed. Avery tried to set the record straight with his own replies, but Jones had none of it. As a result of the film, ties were severed between the two and Jones even cut Clampett out of The Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Movie. During the segment where Bugs talks about his "several fathers", Clampett's absence is notable to the animation connoisseur when names like Freleng, McKimson, and Jones himself are included. 

This story always stuck out to me because it shows how seriously artists will treat their art. Jones and Clampett were good friends before this, with them even collaborating on the failed John Carter of Mars project and Jons even serving as a background animator in "Porky in Wackyland". So to see a friendship torn over their art and all the work they created is just heartbreaking, but also a powerful reminder of what breeds creation and how these people act. Plus, Clampett made Bugs Bunny Superstar during the Dark Age of Animation in the 1970's. So it could have just been possible that he was trying to hold onto his legacy at a time when the art form was close to death. Who was in the right? I don't know. Nonetheless, if the goal was to have their work recognized and focus drawn onto the creator of the shorts--on that front both gentlemen certainly succeeded. 

Why WOULDN'T they be that Good? 

The end of the Golden Age was not a peaceful one. When Jones was fired for his contract breach in writing Gay Purr-ee, it was the beginning of the end. One by one, the old masters left until the department ended up being shut down in the mid-60's. And let's just say the shorts produced during that time...were not very good. At all. 

McKimson held on for awhile, but couldn't support the animation studio on his own. "Tease for Two" (1965) is often considered the very worst short the Looney Tunes ever made. Daffy moves in with the Goofy Gophers, and the Gophers try to sabotage him at every turn. The joke wears itself out after four minutes and many of the gags with dynamite and such repeat themselves. It goes on too long and is just too repetitive to enjoy. Bugs Bunny's swansong "A False Hare" (1964) wasn't much better. It showed Bugs outwitting a wolf and his son, similar to how he always does. But the timing was way off and the wolves themselves had no good lines. Plus, the younger wolf is more of a Scrappy-Doo clone than anything, and his welcome is worn very fast. Also, the animation took a huge hit during this time. The once vibrant, colorful animation had now been reduced to limited still-life cutouts. Gone was the energy of Clampett or the timing of Freleng's shorts--instead they had been downgraded to the level of Hanna-Barbara. The mighty had fallen too far; and it was a tragedy to watch. 

Of course, even the Golden Age shorts had their duds every once in awhile. One of the major turnoffs to these shorts was the amount of gun violence depicted. Some of Clampett's early shorts featured a "Seen-it-all Suicide"; most of these were cut in TV airings to discourage kids from trying this stunt at home. Other questionable materials like Bugs' crossdressing and some of the more violent moments somehow make it through unscathed, but changes in values make them a bit more awkward in this day and age. The best Looney Tunes shorts are timeless; the worst remind you of their time. 

Of course, this section would be remiss if I didn't discuss the "Censored Eleven"; eleven shorts Warner is so ashamed of, they haven't been officially released in any format or aired on TV since 1968. While racial caricatures were commonplace and accepted in the 40's and 50's, these shorts were considered so ingrained in the practices and stereotypes of the day, no amount of editing could clean them up. They range from mediocre to horrible, but the ones I want to spotlight are Clampett's shorts "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" (1943) and "Tin Pan Alley Cats" (1943). These get some defense from scholars as important reflections of jazz age culture and for being fun musicals in their own right. Clampett was really into jazz culture, and even hired many of his friends from the jazz scene to voice in these cartoons. As for me...I don't see it. With either of them. "Coal Black" has a few neat designs, but the musical direction is off and the stereotypes are kind of hard to endure. It can be hard to watch since most of the jokes are so based on dated stereotypes--so it's not funny; just awkward. The latter is a remake of "Porky in Wackyland", but without the charm and just serves as a depiction of more dated stereotypes--thus another short not really worth watching more than once. As such, they are the only entrants on 100 Greatest Looney Tunes I disagree with and do not recommend on their own merits.    

But the good thing about reviewing a series of shorts is you can skip the bad ones and only focus on the best of the best. So enjoying perfection like "What's Opera, Doc?" is much preferred over a lesser 1960's product. The option to pick-and-choose is the best part of all these classic shorts. 

Conclusion

The Looney Tunes are masters of every form of comedy you can name. They've done slapstick, situation comedy, dialogue humor, comedic references to other works, even social satire. These characters are unmistakable and unforgettable. While they may vary in personalities depending on the director or have their acts altered depending on the time period, the Looney Tunes have proven adaptable and durable, with many of their best shorts still proving funny to this day. The knowledge of comedic timing and following of trends from the directors allowed them to stay relevant and tread new ground after all these decades. Staying power is the true mark of the Looney Tunes, for their continued fame and recognition eight decades on proves how much of a mark they left on cinema. 

Having started during the early days of the medium in the 30's, The story of the Looney Tunes is a large part of the story of animation itself. Their slapstick and characterization of nonhuman characters showed the elements of animation that gave it an edge over live-action. None of their physical jokes or appearances could be funny if done with people on a stage. The way these characters bounce to music or initiate physical comedy would be torturous to watch from a human, but funny in a cartoon. If there is an animated trope you can think of, the Looney Tunes have tried it and done it well.   

These shorts mentioned for this review and many more besides show the Looney Tunes' ability to make a funny skit, tell a story, and leave an impact with just seven minutes of runtime. They were a breeding ground for animation directors and the trendsetters for an entire generation of animators, helping an entire medium grow into itself during its golden age. As such, these shorts are treasured as high marks in the world of comedy and continue to be watched by generations of fans to learn how the old masters were able to work their craft in the best possible way. Perhaps not all of them are winners, but the best of the Looney Tunes shorts are...Really that Good! 

***

Special thanks to for serving as a consultant on this review and recommending shorts to use for the analysis. 

Shorts evaluated for this Review: 

Shorts that are "1001 Animations" are marked with an asterisk*. 

Chuck Jones: 

"For Scent-imental Reasons" (1949)* 
"Rabbit Fire" (1951)* 
"Rabbit Seasoning" (1952)* 
"Bully for Bugs" (1953)* 
"Duck Amuck" (1953)* 
"Duck! Rabbit! Duck" (1953)* 
"One Froggy Evening" (1955)*
"What's Opera, Doc?" (1957)* 

Friz Freleng: 

"You Ought To Be in Pictures" (1940)* 
"Little Red Riding Rabbit" (1944)* 
"Hare Trigger" (1945)*
"Tweety Pie" (1947)* 
"Bugs Bunny Rides Again" (1948)* 
"A Mouse Divided" (1953)* 
"Birds Anonymous" (1957)* 
"The Three Little Bops" (1957)* 
"Knighty Knight Bugs" (1958) 

Robert McKimson: 

"Walky Talky Hawky" (1946)*
"The Foghorn Leghorn" (1948)*  
"Gorilla my Dreams" (1948)* 
"Hippety Hopper" (1949)* 
"Devil May Hare" (1954)* 
"False Hare" (1964) 
"Tease for Two" (1965) 

Bob Clampett: 

"Porky in Wackyland" (1938)* 
"Farm Frolics" (1941) 
"A Tale of Two Kitties" (1942)* 
"Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid" (1942)*
"Horton Hatches the Egg" (1942) 
"A Corny Concerto" (1943)* 
"Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" (1943) 
"Tin Pan Alley Cats" (1943) 
"A Gruesome Twosome" (1945)* 
"Book Revue" (1946)* 
"The Great Piggy Bank Robbery" (1946)* 

Tex Avery: 

"A Wild Hare" (1940)* 

That's All, Folks!