Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Here’s looking at you Doc : spectatorship and gender in the animation of Chuck Jones Peraya, Deborah Rebecca 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_peraya_deborah.pdf [ 3.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087400.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087400-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087400-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087400-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087400-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087400-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087400-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087400-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087400.ris

Full Text

HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU DOC:SPECTATORSHIP AND GENDER IN THE ANIMATION OF CHUCK JONESbyDeborah Rebecca PerayaB.A. McGill University, 1990A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(DEPARTMENT OF THEATRE AND FILM)We accept this thesis as conformingTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1992© Deborah Rebecca Peraya 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(signattiro Department of ^(NT^ , 1 ,1 The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)Abstract This thesis seeks to demonstrate that the theoreticalconcerns of spectatorship and gender, which are usuallyreserved for analysis of live-action cinema, equallyapply to the animation of Chuck Jones. Chapter oneprovides a brief history of animation. It describes themajor technological advances in animation and the majorstyles that flourished in America between 1940 and 1960.The influence of Walt Disney and Tex Avery are examinedin relation to Jones' work and biography. Chapter twodiscusses the cartoons featuring Bugs Bunny as the maincharacter, while chapter three concentrates on thecartoons featuring Daffy Duck and other characters. Inboth chapters under the rubric of spectatorship, I centreon the gaze between the viewer and the screen. I employpopular theories of the gaze, including definitions ofvoyeurism as postulated by Freud and Laura Mulvey. Inboth chapters under the rubric of gender, I examine thefunction of the female within Jones' cartoons and analyzethe elements of camp and homosexuality which areprevalent. The concluding chapter analyzes the cartoonswhich feature Bugs and Daffy together. In this chapter inaddition to a discussion of the gaze between the viewerand the screen, I consider the gaze between the twocharacters. This analysis reveals that the animation ofpage iiChuck Jones can enable film theoreticians to gain adeeper insight into the nature of the cinematicapparatus.page iiiTable Of Contents Abstract^ iiAcknowledgements^ ,vIntroduction: The Animation of Chuck Jones:^1Not Just For KidsChapter 1: Chuck Jones In Context^ 9A) A Brief History of Animation 9B) Disney^ 17C) Disney and the Other Studios^ 22D) The Warner Studios and Tex Avery 25E) Chuck Jones^ 30Chapter 2: Bugs Bunny 39A) Spectatorship^ 39B) Gender^ 53Chapter 3: Daffy Duck^ 66A) Spectatorship 67B) Gender^ 74Conclusion: Bugs and Daffy; Together At Last^94Filmography^ 107Bibliography 109page ivAcknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for theirsupport: the UBC Film Department, my family and friends andespecially Dr. Brian Mcllroy for all his aid.IntroductionThe Animation of Chuck Jones: Not Just For Kids The main argument of this thesis is that the animationof Chuck Jones concerns itself primarily with issues ofgender and spectatorship. By focusing on his studio workfrom 1940 to 1960 at Warner Brothers, I will add to theargument that animation is not only a valid area forfilm theory but is, also, an excellent example of thecinematic apparatus. By this I mean both the technologyimplicit in creating a film, as well as the variouselements of plot, characterization, mise-en-scene,montage and psychological and social aspects, whichcombine to create an entire viewing experience. In thedrive to simulate reality, which live-action undertakes,animation has been regarded, at best, as an entertainingsub-category of cinema. This is apparent in the lack ofserious theory which has centered around animation. Veryfew theorists have seen fit to attribute the sameseriousness of intent to animation as to live-action. Itis looked upon as catering to children, and hence notworth studying seriously. While live-action has beenconsidered the more cinematic of the two, both in termsof technical progress and of narrative, this was not thecase in the early stages of cinema. Animation onlydeclined when it became tied to live-action. For example,animation had used color long before it was introducedinto live-action cinema. As live-action became the morePage - 1dominant area, animation reverted back to a moresimplistic form. This will be discussed in chapter one.During the studio era, there was a resemblance betweenboth types of cinema. Like live-action, animation had itsshare of hack artists and auteurs. Chuck Jones is clearlyan auteur, with a strong, distinctive style differingfrom that of his peers. Not only are his cartoonstechnically sophisticated, withstanding the passage oftime, and considered outstanding examples of animation,but he relies on culture in much the same way as anydirector. His stories are drawn from clever satires ofliterary classics, opera, and theatre as well as fromwitty, original, and very adult dialogues and situations.A close analysis of his work will prove that importanttheoretical concerns such as the gaze and genderrelations cross all categories within the cinematicapparatus. The theories that I am primarily concernedwith are tied to the look and sexuality, as I considerthem essential to the concept of cinema.In order to better understand the nature and scope ofChuck Jones' work, it is necessary to provide a briefhistory of animation. This first chapter will examinethe major breakthroughs in the field of animation fromtechnique to technology. It will also examine howanimation was influenced by live-action as both becameintertwined in the early days of cinema.Page - 2I will look at the growth of cartoons from newspapersand comic strips to the vaudeville circuit and various"Magic Lantern" shows. The contributions of John Bray,Windsor McKay, and the Fleischer brothers will beconsidered. Emphasis will be placed on the Disneytradition, since it was this studio which exercised thegreatest influence at the time of which I write. Not onlydid the animators at Warners attempt to free themselvesof the Disney shadow, and in so doing created their ownbrilliant style, but Mr. Jones, above all, was influencedby the "cute" style of Disney animation. So, Disney willbe considered primarily in relation to Chuck Jones' workas a factor from which he tried to free himself. Finally,I will consider the establishment and aims of the Warnersstudio itself. This will include a brief biographicalsketch of Tex Avery and his influence on Jones, as wellas Jones' own personal biography.The thesis will be grouped into three sections afterthis chapter. The first will consider only the Bugs Bunnycartoons, the second will examine the Daffy Duckcartoons, and the last will examine the cartoonsfeaturing both, primarily the "Hunter Trilogy". Thechapters will begin by examining the most basic levelinvolved in any study of cinema, live-action or animation- the viewing. The notions of spectatorship, voyeurism,and how one looks, will be related to the cartoonsdiscussed here; in addition other viewpoints, rangingPage - 3from Freud ( 1905,1961) to Laura Mulvey (1975,1986), willbe introduced.The basic issue is this: since animation does nothave the restrictions which live-action must obey becauseof its human element, voyeurism is taken to a whole newlevel. There is also none of the same guilt involved inwatching cartoons, since these are fictitious characterswho can sustain no real damage. The best example of thisis the Coyote/Roadrunner series which Chuck Jones createdas a satire of hunt and chase films. While watching thecoyote, the viewer experiences a sadistic rush. There is,however, a de-emotionalization of this sadism, since itis only animals, and imaginary ones, rather than peoplewho are being blown up. Characters other than Daffy orBugs will be considered in conjunction with the sectionon Daffy.Also involved in the voyeuristic thrill is the notionof distance. One is accustomed to the privileged positionof viewing without being viewed, yet Chuck Jones, as adirector, continually breaks the fourth wall. Usually,the character is unaware of the viewer's presence, as helives in a self-contained world. At the most unexpectedmoments, his characters will turn and speak to theaudience, drawing us directly into their private lives.Taking this one step further, the entire notion of selfreflexivity in animation must be addressed. In thisregard, I will refer to his cinematic masterpiecePage - 4entitled Duck Amuck (1953). The last chapter will take aslightly different focus. While this thesis willprimarily concentrate on the gaze between the viewer andthe characters, the final chapter will also include thelook between the characters. This is because Bugs andDaffy are presented as two equals rather than as thesidekick of the other.From the issue of viewing, I turn to what is beingviewed. It is necessary at this point to examine genderroles. Much feminist cinematic critique such as that ofSybil Delgaudio (1980) can be applied to animation. Whatbecomes immediately obvious is that animators in general,and Chuck Jones' cartoons in particular, find it mucheasier to stick to male characters than to create wellrounded and believable female characters. Females areeither incidental, or pale imitations of the malecharacter. For example, For Scent-imental Reasons (1949)features Pepe le Pew, a skunk, chasing a poor cat. Shehas no real characteristics, and is denied even the powerof speech. When she does become the aggressive one, he isturned off, and, indeed, she becomes a caricature. Pepemay also be a caricature, but he is at least charming.Situations such as these may, in part, have arisen fromthe male "stronghold" existing in the animation studios,especially Warner Brothers. All the importantrelationships are male/male, whether they be between manand animal, animal and animal, or even alien and animal,Page - 5as seen in the Marvin the Martian series (1948 -1963).Even an otherwise rational female, for example Mama Bear,becomes giddy and stereotypically female in the face of afew tossed off compliments by Bugs. This male/femaleinteraction will be explored.Within the gender issue, we can concentrate onsexuality. Specifically, I will deal with the issues ofcamp and homosexuality. Animation lends itself to camp.Briefly, I will introduce a definition of camp based ontheories by Mark Booth (1983). As camp is very muchrooted in self-publicity, theatricality, and roleplaying, cartoons are a natural forum. One of the mostcommented upon aspects of Chuck Jones' work is hisdressing of characters in drag. Not only does this followfrom the previous discussion of gender roles, but ties tothe issue of homosexuality. There are many examples ofweddings between the male characters, for example TheRabbit of Seville (1950) and What's Opera Doc? (1957).Here, it must be noted that although these characters maybe in female garb, it is still understood that they aremale. The transition from male to female is in costumeonly and is merely for the purpose of a gag. It must alsobe remembered that although these are male characters,rarely does their sexual preference manifest itself,other than for these drag comedy gags. For example, Bugsrarely pursues a female rabbit, in which case his ownmasculinity would become important. When dealing withElmer, it does not matter that Bugs is male. It onlybecomes important when Bugs resorts to drag, whereuponhumour arises out of seeing a male pose as a female inorder to trick another male.None of these characters exists outside of the roleplayed. However, Chuck Jones has cleverly created a starsystem not unlike the one which came out of the Hollywoodstudio era. This is not so unusual when we consider thathe worked within that same studio system and consciouslymeant to satirize it. This idea will be examined in thechapter on Daffy, since the cartoons viewed involve himplaying characters with their own personae, for example,The Scarlet Pimpernel. As a fictitious character takes onanother fictitious role (as opposed to Bugs just playingBugs), the issues of camp and high versus low art arises.Warhol's use of camp and the star system in his filmswill be cited as the definitive example.In keeping with accepted traditions of cinematicsexuality, I will use specific examples from the films toillustrate that his creation of roles, personae andcharacteristics is exactly like that of live-cinema. Theaudience expects certain traits fulfilled when watching aBugs cartoon or Daffy and Porky short, in the same waythat any filmgoer has expectations of their favoritestar. Jones takes this one step further. Many of hiscartoons are drawn from literary, theatrical, operatic orcinematic pieces. Hence, in a cartoon such as The Scarlet Page - 7Pumpernickel (1950), not only does he satirize theoriginal literary source, but also, Douglas Fairbanksand the days of movie swashbucklers. This works on manylevels. Not only does the audience have certainexpectations of the treatment of the story itself, butthey also expect Daffy as the hero to fulfill his ownwell known character traits and the mannerisms of aFairbanks or Errol Flynn.In the chapter on both Bugs and Daffy, it will also beimportant to examine the nature of their partnership.Using the theoretical frameworks which will have beenestablished, their relationship will be analyzed todiscover whether it succeeds according to Jones' ownguidelines and character traits.As can be seen, many theoretical cinematic concernswill be addressed. Rather than studying only live-action,or examining it separately from animation, the two shouldbe taken as complementing halves. By recognizing theirsimilarities, theoreticans could gain a deeper insightinto the nature of the cinematic apparatus. These twoareas need not exist independently of each other. ChuckJones uses the elements of cinema (sound, image,character and plot) to their fullest potential. Byexamining his work, it is my hope to contribute to anunderstanding both of what is being watched and ofthose doing the viewing.Page - 8Chuck Jones In Context A) A Brief History Of AnimationBefore undertaking an analysis of Chuck Jones' work, it isnecessary to place him in context by examining the developmentof animation, as well as the formation of the variousanimation studios and their contributions to both the fieldand his work. This survey will show that Chuck Jones helped todevelop a cartoon genre based on American values and culturalreferences.The end of the nineteenth century saw a growth innewspapers and a rise in the use of cartoons. The comic strip,the predecessor of the animated cartoon, had its origin in thecirculation wars of the 1890's. Both the Hearst and Pulitzerchains used them as a means of attracting readers to theirdaily and weekly papers during this time of fiercecompetition. The comic strip would soon provide both plotlinesand characters for the animated film.Animation has its roots in the graphic arts, as it is basedon hand-drawn pictures. Originally, animation was practicedby those interested in dabbling in science rather than in art.Filmmakers disregarded animation because they felt theability to show the real world was central to film art.Shooting a live-action scene can be very simple, such as aconversation between two people at a table or an elaboratemusical number. The actual process of filming is not affectedby how much detail lies within a film. Animation requires farmore work as each detail must be drawn in by hand. Both live-Page - 9action and animation, however, are tied to the principles ofpersistence of vision and the phi-phenomenon. The former iswhere the brain holds an image a fraction of a second longerthan the eye retains it, while the latter depends on ourmental process of interpretating the still images. Cinema isdependent upon this optical illusion too because movements onthe filmstrip are made fluid when the mind fills in thesegaps. The concept of persistence of vision was researchedwidely in Europe during the 1800's by intellectuals and thoseinterested in science, such as the creators of the inventionsto be mentioned below. The term "phi-phenomenon" was notcoined until the mid 1900's.In 1832, Dr. John Ayrton Paris developed the Thaumatrope,one of the first toys based on this principle. 1 It utilizedthe idea that when spinning a coin, the two sides of the imagewould blur into one. On one side of the Thaumatrope was apicture of a parrot and on the other was an empty cage. Whenthe board was spun by its straps, it appeared as if the birdwas in the cage. Joseph Plateau published his findings on thepersistence of vision in 1832 and patented his own toy tosupport his findings. It was called the phenakistiscope.Along with W. G. Horner's zoetrope, it used hand drawn andcolored paper strips. They were set into wheel-like machinesusing slits to separate the frames. When spun, the imagesmoved, resulting in mini two second cartoons. Thephenakistiscope, however, used mirrors. The viewer would lookinto the mirror through the slits on the board and see acontinuous movement when the board was spun. Both were treatedas a toy or novelty item, rather than as an art form. Thatsame year, Simon Ritter Von Stampfer created the stroboscope,which was basically the same as the phenakistiscope. Two yearslater, Baron Franz Von Uchatius combined the stroboscopicdevice with the magic lantern. Each lantern (or slideprojector) had a slide showing a different part of a movement.He would run with a candle between the projectors and createsequences on the screen. This was the forerunner of theanimated film. In 1853, he created the projectingphenakistiscope which used a phenakistiscope disc but only onelantern. When the disc was spun, movement would appear on thescreen. Many variations on these devices had been invented bythe end of the nineteenth century. All had Latin or Greeknames to lend to their credibility. These discoveries wereoccurring simultaneously in many countries. As live-action isthe bringing to life of an image, or animation, the two weretied from the early stages of film development. Both used thesame principles to create their illusions of life. As we willsee, it is only because people became fascinated with thesimulation of reality that live-action became the dominantgenre of cinema.In the latter 1800's, Emile Reynaud invented thepraxinoscope. Drawn on strips in frames approximately the samesize as 35 mm film, it used mirrors set at angles to separatethe frames. He went on to develop a mini theater and, in 1888,a public show. In 1892, Reynaud opened the Theatre Optique atPage - 11,,,the Musee Grevin, a wax Museum in Paris. Using backprojection, music and sound effects, he showed color cartoons10 and 15 minutes long. Reynaud was the first to turnanimation into a spectacle. Unfortunately, he was unable todevelop this art any further or compete with the films ofLumiere or Melies. As all interest lay in the photographedimage, he was not successful in his endeavors.Photography is not at the heart of animation, the way thatit is in live-action. It is merely a means to simplify thecopying and presentation of what has been drawn by hand. Eventhe plot devices in animation are achieved by conventionsfound within the graphic arts. For example, a character'sclothes may change style, faces may age, or locations mayswitch without the character moving. Or the character maychange color to depict varying emotional states. These changesare not achieved through photography as in live-action. Eventhe definition of an animated film is one created frame-by-frame. It is not based on a shot or series of shots as islive-action. The two are related, however, as previouslynoted. Not only do the same scientific principles govern both,but both are concerned with creating the illusion of life.Live-action employs animation. For example, people andthings can be animated using a technique called pixillation.The subject is photographed frame-by-frame and his positionaltered slightly between each frame. Hence, animation is notjust restricted to cartoons. Live-action emerged as thedominant or more popular form because in the early days ofPage - 12cinema, viewers were amazed by the simplest images. It was notnecessary to continue to create elaborate cartoons which tookfar more effort when all people wanted to see were the simplerecordings of daily life. Of course people began to demandmore, but by the turn of the century no one thought of turningto animation to satisfy the public's demands. The money was inlive-action. Serious filmmakers were too busy exploring thisnew medium and establishing it as an art to waste their timeon animation, an area which had formerly been used to merelytell stories and did not appear to have any "artistic" merit.Animation was seen as "entertaining" but not much else. So allthe technical advances which had been made in the field ofanimation were either forgotten or just ignored as it became asub genre of live-action. Animation was influenced by live-action but in a negative way. Despite Reynaud's progress,animation lost color until its general introduction inmainstream cinema in the 1930's, although some cartoons suchas McKay's Little Nemo (1911) were hand tinted. Also, likelive-action, it lost sound until 1927. Hence, as animationbecame tied to photography, it suffered a set-back.Windsor McKay and John Bray, two of the fathers ofanimation, both drew. They started out on the vaudevillecircuit giving "chalk talks", which were akin to slow motionanimation. These chalk talks animated drawings using singleframing techniques. Generally the artist's hand would be seensketching out a figure. When he removed his hand, the figurewould appear to move slightly; for example, the figure mightPage - 13turn his head. J. Stuart Blackton's Humorous Phases of FunnyFaces in 1906 was the first film record of a chalk talk. In1907 he made The Haunted Hotel for Vitagraph. By this time,animation was known as the "mouvement americain" in France.McKay's Little Nemo in 1911 is generally considered thefirst full example of animation in the US. It was drawn onrice paper and mounted on cardboard. Each cardboard backeddrawing was given a number and a mark in order to keep all thedrawings registered. The finished drawings were mounted on awooden frame in front of a horizontal camera. The action wasthen checked on a Mutascope-like device for smoothness beforeshooting. 2 Raoul Barr‘ developed registration pegs and punchedholes in the drawings to keep them in place. Little Nemo sawthe use of the first cycle. This meant that the same sevencels were used six times to show three successive up/downmovements of the character Flip's cigar. McKay also did thefirst color animation in the States by hand coloring eachframe.John Bray mass produced backgrounds through printingprocedures. In 1914, he patented animation techniques used byMcKay two years earlier. Another Bray patent described cutoutanimation. But it was Earl Hurd, in June 1915, who obtainedthe patent for cel animation. Early cartoons had jerkymovements because there were no cels for the inbetweenmovements. There were also no varying speeds of movements. Itwas common to have holds in the action for several seconds inorder to read the title cards.Page - 14In 1915, Dave and Max Fleischer developed rotoscoping,which was a way of tracing the movements of live-action intoanimation. It was also a way of standardizing movement as itwas reproduced mechanically. They patented this in October1917. Both ended up working for Bray, like many otheranimators. They remained there until a move to Paramount inthe 1920's./By 1916, both Bray and Barre were producing one cartoon perweek. These were badly done, often showing reflections fromthe cels and containing mistakes. In 1917, Bray and Hurdcombined their patents and formed the Bray Hurd Company. Allthe major animators now had to pay royalties. This was notunlike the trusts formed in cinema over such aspects asexhibition, which bled the smaller companies. Their patentsconsisted of animation techniques mostly stolen from McKay,which made the animation process easier. Examples included thepatent for cels, as well as painting the reverse side of thesheet black in order to achieve a shaded effect whenphotographed. Bray also patented techniques to simplifytracing, flipping and mutascoping. He only combined with Hurdbecause he recognized the financial potential of cels anddidn't want a long legal battle.There are many claims as to who actually inventedanimation. The French claim Emile Cohl. 3 In the US, McKayexplored visual possibilities while Barre and Bray broughtabout mass production. McKay, however, took great care withhis cartoons. They employed many cinematic devices in the wayPage - 15they were shot. He never set out to mass produce and did noteven patent or copyright his own films. He was very open withhis techniques which, unfortunately, led to others stealinghis inventions.Bray, on the other hand, was first and foremost abusinessman. He patented basic animation processes andreceived royalties from everyone. He joined with Hurd becauseHurd had the cel patent. They then hired people like MaxFleischer and Paul Terry. Many have said that the Saturdaymorning cartoons of today are reminiscent of the studioefforts of 1915. The characters had three positions formouthing the whole English language. The backdrops wererepetitious and the plots were crude.The first American cartoon units were established between1909 and 1920. Only in the US was regular cartoon productionorganized. Many animators during this period came to the US towork. There was still a close relation between the world ofthe newspaper funnies and the cinematic cartoon. Popularcharacters made the transition between each medium. Popeye andFelix the Cat were actually more popular on film than inprint. Koko the Clown was only on film, while Betty Boopstarted out in cinema and then moved to print. The earliestcartoonist to transfer a character had been Windsor McKay, whotook Little Nemo from the NY Herald to film. His first exampleof animation had been Nemo. Gertie the Dinosaur (1914) wasnot a movie, but created to fit in with his vaudeville act.Page - 16His The Sinking Of The Lusitania in 1918 was the firstfeature-length cartoon ever made.Sources for animation included not only comic strips butMack Sennett comedies. This was part of the continuedinfluence of live-cinema on animation. The tradition ofintroducing film stars into cartoons was also started.Audiences loved to see stars that might be playing in thefeature to follow. This also emphasized the contrast with thereal world. Max Fleischer's Koko may have come out of an inkbottle, but he did tricks in the "real" world. Right from thestart, animal characters proved almost more popular then humanones in cartoons.There was a fierce rivalry among cartoon characters, justas with human stars. Pat Sullivan's Felix the Cat was brieflymore popular than Mickey Mouse which was no easy feat. EmileCohl had been the first to develop a consistent character withhis series in 1908 of Fantoche. Fantoche was the prototype ofthe little man in the cartoon world. He was the "everyman"that Chaplin was soon to make his trademark. These cartoonshad no dialogue or captions and only simple, self-explanatoryplots.B) Disney Despite the various contributions of these men in the earlystages of animation, it was Walt Disney who came to dominatethe cartoon as no art had ever been dominated. 4 Disney firstdrew cartoons for the Kansas City Film Ad Company. They werePage - 17one minute black and white commercials using cutout paperpuppets. He went on to produce Laugh-O-Grams which weresatirical newsreels that he convinced local theatre owners toshow. Disney then started his own company, which was alsocalled Laugh-O-Grams. He made seven animated fairy tales,including Alice In Cartoonland, which combined live-action andanimation. Seen today, these cartoons appear mechanical andstilted with little plot. In 1927 he began the "Oswald theRabbit" series. Unfortunately, the rights of Oswald belongedto distributor Charles Mintz and so Disney was forced tocreate a new character. He also learned the valuable lesson ofkeeping the rights to everything he created. After muchdeliberation, Mickey Mouse was born.The first two Mickey Mouse pictures, released in 1927,Plane Crazy and Gallopin Gaucho were silent. In 1928 hereleased Steamboat Willie, complete with dialogue and musicfitted to the action. It still had a very simple plotinvolving Mickey playing "Turkey In The Straw" on variousobjects, including animals. Disney, although a brilliant storyeditor, was no animator. He depended on others, especially UbIwerks to draw for him. He even had to be taught how to drawMickey, so he could use him in autographs and publicityevents.Disney was technically progressive. He was the first tobring back color and, in fact, arranged for Technicolor toprocess his films. His first color film was released in 1932and entitled Flowers and Trees. Disney was also the first toPage - 18use a storyboard to plan his cartoons. He even sponsored thedevelopment of the multiplane camera. This camera separatedthe various cels so that each one was on a different level orplane. Each level was arranged according to size. For example,foreground objects were on the plane closest to the camera.From there, the images went back from the camera in terms ofdepth of field. This facilitated the creation of a threedimensional world and allowed the camera to roam through spacein this world as it would in reality. All his advances werewell publicized and only added to the brilliance of the Disneylegend.Disney's plots were carefully structured. They were simpleand included no violent gags such as those later to be foundin the work of Tex Avery. He presented the world of theaverage American, emphasizing morals, success and optimism.This strongly reflected his own midwest upbringing with itsemphasis on hard work. While his films were frightening tochildren, the terror was psychological, for example, the fearof losing one's mother in Bambi (1942). Avery's films tendedto have an insane edge to their violent gags.The resemblances between the animal and human world thatwere found in his cartoons were reassuring rather thanthreatening. Every picture had a happy ending and basicallygood characters. The truly evil ones were always punished ordestroyed. Disney leaned towards a nursery vulgarity with hispenchant for bathroom humour and bottoms. This may be whythere are so many shots of animals wriggling their bottomsPage - 19into the camera. There was no real sex or sexuality among hischaracters. Disney preferred animal to human characters, butthey contained very human characteristics. They all had anelement of innocence about them.Mickey was the eternal optimist. He quickly mellowed fromhis more mischievous and violent beginnings. He was teamed upwith his girlfriend Minnie, Pluto, a zestful, playful dog,Donald, the dignified, serious but easily enraged duck andGoofy, another dog. All of Disney's cartoons underlinedtraditional American values.Disney's later cartoon style, for which he became popular,was based upon an animated reproduction of storybookillustrations which kept closer to reality than an "anythinggoes" mentality which would become popular in Americananimation. All his characters had very round and simplefigures to ease the process of animation. This did not allowfor individual creativity. While his world was not an exactcopy of reality, it was still a limited world of make believe.The "Silly Symphonies" series, which Warners' "MerrieMelodies" was later to parody, introduced new characters. Eventhese cartoons reaffirmed the notion of hard work beingrewarding as seen, for example, in the enormously popularThree Little Pigs (1933). The first cartoon in the "SillySymphonies" series was entitled The Skeleton Dance (1929). Itwas also the first in the musical cartoon genre, which hepioneered. Disney was not faced with the restrictions offilming with sound that faced live-action. He combined soundPage - 20and image in ways which became important to live-action. Theperfect frame-by-frame synchronization was called "MickeyMousing." Animators still use this term to refer to theprecise coordination and synthesis of sound and image.His first feature, Snow White, was not made until 1937. Itdepended heavily on rotoscoping for the figures of Snow Whiteand her prince, convincing many that Disney was morecomfortable in the world of his animal creations than withhumans. The stilted nature of human characters versus thenatural flow of his animals' movements was a problem to befound throughout his films.After 1950, Disney turned to producing live action films.They were predominantly nature films, yet still carried thatcute anthropomorphism of his cartoons. While the photographywas excellent, the narrative was condescending in its attemptto humanize nature. He also produced adventure films and lightcomedies which combined live-action and animation, such asMary Poppins (1964).His films provided a diet of bland and steady optimism.There was nothing in Disney's films to shake you up or makeyou pause and think, as in other animation. He used animationas a forum for maintaining the status quo of reality ratherthan testing its limits or making a social or politicalstatement.Page - 21C) Disney and the Other Studios During the 1930's, the Disney studio grew in both manpowerand output. He controlled the largest, most efficientanimation studio in the world. It was, however, veryrestrictive for the individual graphic artists, for while heprovided an excellent training base and state of the artequipment, Disney was becoming more business oriented and lesscreatively inclined. So, while the receipts remained good, thework was less varied and there was little individual creativework. Again, animation mirrored live-action in its factory-like production.In 1940, Disney moved his studio to a newer and largerbuilding. It was top quality, but the working conditions weremore impersonal and controlled. The various production unitswere isolated and inbetweeners and inkers were stuck ondifferent floors. Each floor was stationed by a secretary whomonitored comings and goings. It was also rumoured that Disneywas going to install a time clock. Many of the animators hadworked free overtime during the production of Snow White. Nowthey were being faced with a string of layoffs and wage cuts.Workers grumbled about the sweat-shop-like atmosphere.Studio conditions were tense. Finally the Screen CartoonistGuild was established. Disney took the creation of this unionas a personal insult. The problem was that although conditionsat Disney's studio were better than at other studios, he wasviewed as the "king" of animation. Workers felt that it was upto him to set the standards which others would then follow.Page - 22Disney's lawyer, Gunther Lessing, encouraged him to fightrather than recognize the existence of this union. Disputesduring the summer of 1941 shut the studio for nine weeks.Unable to deal with what he saw as hostility directed at him,Disney went on holiday to recuperate, and the strike wassettled in his absence. Many of the animators felt let down bythis gesture. The lack of direct communication between Disneyand his workers led to a general feeling of dissatisfaction. Anumber of talented artists, such as John Hubley, wantinggreater freedom of expression, left the Disney studio to helpform United Productions of America.UPA was a very loose group. Many styles were expressed butthis lack of tight control led to the loss of some strongfounding members by 1955. UPA ended up producing cartoons in afew familiar styles, but its diversification led to more avant-garde animation. UPA also moved away from realism to a morepractical use of the cartoon medium. Whereas all of Disney'sanimation was based on reality and utilized techniques such asrotoscoping, UPA established the trend towards a tougher, morecynical animation. They steered away from the romantic,innocent use of bright natural colors. There was nothingnatural about this new style of animation. The UPA animatorswere also working with smaller budgets than those at Disney'sstudio. This resulted in certain cartoons looking quite cheap,a visual indication of cartoons to appear on television in the1950's. The new characters such as Mr. Magoo or Gerald McBoingBoing, were witty and surrealistic not round, soft, coy andPage - 23cute. UPA's founder was Stephen Bosustow, who made his namewith Hell Bent For Election, a 1944 cartoon for Roosevelt'scampaign, directed by Chuck Jones.There were a variety of prewar American animation studios. 5Charles Mintz was already releasing the "Oswald the Rabbit"cartoons through Universal as early as 1927. Eventually WalterLantz replaced Mintz as head of the Oswald studio inHollywood. Universal had also produced many of Windsor McKay'sand Pat Sullivan's cartoons. Oswald lasted another ten yearsbut was eventually replaced by Woody Woodpecker. Lantz alsocreated Andy Panda. Twentieth Century Fox produced PaulTerry's "Terrytoons." Terry's main series of cartoons were his"Aesop's Fables". Like Lantz, he had not only worked at theBray studios, but had been one of their proteges. MightyMouse and Heckel and Jeckel were also featured by this studio.Other studios were RKO with their Rainbow Parade, andParamount who had Max Fleischer and his Popeye creation.Paramount had been releasing Bray's cartoons as part of theirParamount Screen Magazine. The Fleischer brothers had beenhired at this time. Koko actually got his own series entitled"Inkwell Imps" in the late 1920's. They featured Koko and hisdog Fitz who later became Bimbo, the friend of Betty Boop.MGM, which was producing "Happy Harmonies" under Fred C.Quimby employed William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, Tex Avery,Hugh Harman and Rudolph Ising who were to found the animationat Warner Brothers.Page - 24D) The Warner Studio and Tex Avery Hugh Harman and Rudolph Ising became a team after acontinuation of Disney's "Oswald" series was given to WalterLantz. They put together a demo reel for a possible series.Harman then invented Bosko, a little black boy who inFleischer inkwell tradition, interacted with a live actionRudy Ising. They created Bosko The Talk - Ink Kid in 1929. Itwas while looking for a buyer that they met Leon Schlesinger,head of Pacific Art and Title, who sold Warners on the idea ofa talking cartoon series. This was the beginning of Warners'"Looney Tunes", with Bosko as the featured character. Not onlywas it an instant success but in 1930/31, it had more bookingsthan Mickey Mouse. The 1931/32 season saw the start of the"Merrie Melodies" series. Each cartoon had a differentcharacter and used a popular tune of the day. This was so thatWarners could publicize its vast holdings of songs but alsoserved to emphasize the bond between music and animation.Bosko's first few cartoons such as Bosko the Doughboy(1931) and Bosko the Lumberjack (1932) did not play uponpopular black stereotypes. Aside from an exaggerated drawl andvocal stereotype, the fact that he was black was irrelevant.It did not use the popular caricature that all blacks werelazy, preferring to gamble and eat fried chicken andwatermelon. Nor did it show blacks as leaning towards singingsoul songs rather than working.The first "Looney Tune" was called Sinkin In The Bathtub.It premiered^on May 6, 1930. Music was crucial in thisPage - 25cartoon and was used to set the pace. While this series mademusical advances, there was little visual innovation. The gagsincluded nudity, underwear, toilets, cow's udders andspitting, in fact, much of the bathroom humour that Disneytended towards. Only occasionally were the gags sexual. By1931 Harman and Ising were looking for solid laughs. The Boskoseries used slapstick gags and recalled the 1920's comedyshorts. The scenes were typified by high quality black andwhite animation, using elements such as exploding bombs andcharging armies. In 1932, Bosko's girlfriend, Honey, was givena bigger role but the cartoons began to resemble a Disney by-product. For example, Bosko's Party (1932) used cute animalsand had a boring, routine plot.The "Merrie Melodies" series which made use of the hot"whoopee" tunes of the day and had plots about periodsubjects--for example, speakeasies, vaudeville, the collegefootball craze and Rasputin--were much more innovative. Theyreferred to popular culture and trends. Each "Merrie Melody"had its own main protagonist. The ones that were notsuccessful had a lack of character development. Goopy Gearsoon became the star of this series. Goopy was a comedian,musician, and dancer whose trademark was an eccentric dance.He appeared in Bosko In Dutch (1932) where he did this danceon ice skates.Harman and Ising also started the "come to life" idea. Forexample, in I Like Mountain Music (1933) the photos in themagazines came alive. These cartoons also paid tribute toPage - 26other cultures. Pagan Moon (1931) used South Seas music andOne Step Ahead Of My Shadow, (1932) had a Chinese motif. In1932/33 Harman and Ising had a fight with Schlesinger, who wasproducing the Warners' cartoons and both departed for MGM. MGMwas releasing cartoons which looked increasingly likeDisney's. Harman and Ising took their creation of Bosko withthem to MGM and here his transformation into "the little negroboy" stereotype became complete. It was easy to createmultiple plotlines based on this caricature, and this popularstereotype could be used to obtain cheap laughs.Many of the other animators at the Warners studio at thistime were comprised of ex-Disney people, so it was notsurprising that they began initially to imitate the style hehad developed. No one could equal his financial or artisticsuccess, however. By the mid 1930's most of these animatorshad left, and the new breed established a distinct style.Warners became the master of the short animated film. AsStephen Schneider has observed:At Warner's, cartoons once again became aware thatthey were cartoons, and the directors began to make themost of the boundless freedoms available to the medium.Rather then creating the "illusion of life," the Warneranimators began asking audiences to recognize thattheirs was an art of pure illusion - but even so, gowith it, folks, jump on for the rip-roaring ride. (44)One of the most influential new animators at Warners wasTex Avery. 6^He firmly established the notion of "anythingPage - 27goes" in cartoons. Avery had worked for Walter Lantz beforeapplying as a director to Schlesinger Productions. He washired and given Chuck Jones, Bob Clampett, and Bob Cannon asthe animators in his unit. Upon arriving, he looked over therecent cartoons to find a usable character. He settled onPorky Pig from I Haven't Got A Hat. His first film wasentitled the Golddiggers of 49 (1935). Porky was transformedinto an adult and bore no resemblance to his earlier self.Rather than the bevy of chorus girls which were expected fromthe Berkeley musicals, Avery used the literal sense of thetitle. This cartoon was the bridge between the old and newstyle at Warner Brothers. While the cartoon was quite crudelydrawn and slow, it bore traces of the "Avery timing" whichwould manifest itself in the later cartoons. After Avery'sarrival, the animal stars of "Merrie Melodies" and "LooneyTunes" lost their innocence. The pace quickened and the gagsincreased. He became known for his extreme extremes, which arethe drawings of poses or attitudes. The irreverence ofcharacters and genres, changes in pace, and a destruction oflogic all became part of Avery's style. Not only did he speedup the pace, but he stressed the importance ofcharacterization. Avery himself said that, "I've always feltthat what you did with a character was more important than thecharacter itself. Bugs Bunny could have been a bird." 7 Averygave the trademark "What's up Doc?' to Bugs as well asdeveloping Porky and inventing Daffy.Page - 28Avery played with and exploited various genre formats. Hewould begin with either a known film or genre and thenundermine all the fundamental assumptions about it through hisgags. Each successive gag increased in momentum. For example,a character could have an object dropped on his head and thenturn around and fall off a cliff. Much of Avery's style stemsfrom his horror of conformity. He would not satisfy theaudience's need for identification. He questioned basicconcepts of storytelling, such as "the hero." In The Village Smithy (1936), the narrator interrupts an out-of-syncrendition of Longfellow to introduce "our hero Porky Pig."Avery especially enjoyed exploiting the fairy tale genre,perhaps in direct opposition to Disney. His characterscontinually broke the fourth wall, and he never let theaudience forget they were watching a cartoon. He usedcartoon/reality jokes where the audience would be in the film.The shadowed figures of the audience played roles, resultingin a cartoon within a cartoon. Avery also blurred frame/linedistinctions. His gags accelerated until he perfected a newcontrol of extremes. Both Avery and Jones emphasized theextremes over the in-betweens, which are intermediary drawingsof movements between extremes. The speed of his gags and thewide variety of representational styles used, such as liveaction, stock footage, magazine ad drawings and drawingstyles, allowed him to create new narrative structures. Averyloved satire, especially if used to deal blows to thepretentions of high culture. His cartoons were very physicalPage - 29and dealt with the shattering of the illusion of control,whether of ourselves, others or nature.Chuck Jones' cartoon characters control all levels ofaction and meaning. Avery's cartoons were more manic anddepicted a fragmented and disjointed world. This became moreevident when he moved to MGM in 1942 where his cartoonsreflected the post WWII world. Disney and Avery were the twomain influences on Chuck Jones' style. At this point, I willturn to Jones himself, beginning with a brief biographicalsketch.E) Chuck Jones Chuck Jones graduated from the Chouinard Art Institute andwent to work in a commercial art studio. In 1931 he quit tobecome a cel washer, where he was discovered by Ub Iwerks whohad left Disney to start his own studio. He worked his waythrough cel painter, cel inker and up to in-betweener. ChuckJones left for Universal where he worked with Walter Lantz andalso did a brief stint with Charles Mintz. He then returned toIwerks where he was fired, and so became a puppeteer andportrait artist. Jones took classes with Don Graham at Disney,who was the animator responsible for creating wholecharacters. Eventually he got a job with Leon Schlesinger, whohad split with Harman -Ising to form his own studio. Jones wasassigned to the Tex Avery unit, and in the late 1930's becamedirector of his own unit when Frank Tashlin left to directlive action.Page - 30Initially, Jones' cartoons followed the Disney tradition.He produced cute subjects for Warners. His first effort as adirector was The Night Watchman (1938). It featured a kittenwho took his father's place as watchman in a kitchen. Over thenext few years, he explored the theme of small animals andtheir relation to a forbidding environment. For example, DogGone Modern (1939) told of two puppies caught in a model ofthe house of the future. He created Sniffles the Mouse, alargely forgettable character. Jones directed the studio'sfirst serious cartoon that same year. Old Glory featured UncleSam lecturing Porky on the true meaning of the Pledge ofAllegiance. This cartoon had wartime references.Warners took an early antifascist stand in its films,predating US involvement in WWII. It was the first studio todepict the first outright Hollywood attack on Nazis, inConfessions Of A Nazi Spy (May 1939). Both cartoon and liveaction heros went to war. Bugs gained his popularity duringthe war years. The gags took on new dimensions as charactersgave a comeuppance to real villains. In 1944 Jones directedWeakly Reporter, which spoofed rationing. These war cartoonsutilized the relaxation of sexual censorship and an increasein permissiveness on screen in their material. They provided"cheesecake" for the boys at the front.Jones was experimenting with his own style during theseyears. Of all the animators, Jones kept trying to emulateDisney. He tried to make very beautiful cartoons. But in theearly 1940's Jones set a new style in cartoon layouts. He usedPage - 31a huge number of cuts in his cartoons and never used the samebackground over and over. Jones' characters expressed emotionthrough physical detail, just like the great silent comedians.His earlier cartoons were more realistic as he learned thebasics of motions and how to draw. His pre-1941 cartoons werealso more gentle.He created the Inki and the Minah Bird series. The Minahwould appear like some supernatural being and thwart Inki'smovements and heroic endeavors by merely showing up atunlikely times. He would walk through the scene with a deadpanexpression to the strains of Mendelssohn's "Fingal Cave" andhop on the odd beats. From 1942 onwards, he broke withrealism. He began working with writer Mike Maltese, who was abrilliant gagsman. Believability is more important thanrealism in animation.Cartoons in Jones' unit always began with a "Yes" session,in which no idea was ever dismissed. A storyboard was thencreated and given to the director. No scripts were ever used.The director drew approximately 300 key poses/ characterlayouts per six minute cartoon. These drawings were a guide.The characters were staged in individual scenes, andbackgrounds were decided upon. The director and backgrounddesigner would go over the story together until about 300sketches were laid out on animation paper. Dialogue waswritten under the story sketches as the storyboard grew. Atthis stage the actors were called into the dialogue room orsound stage, and the director would go over the sketches. ThePage - 32dialogue would be rehearsed, then processed and put onto aMoviola. The director would then bring the dialogue,background layouts and drawings together. The six minutelength was always kept in mind, and much of the editing wasdone in the director's head. There were 12-24 individualdrawings per second. The pen drawings were transferred ontocels by hand inking or a form of phototransfering, whichinvolved camera work. One cartoon took roughly five weeks tocreate. Jones simulated live action editing more so than otherdirectors. Characters were drawn naturally, but they werebased upon their own system of anatomy. For example, MarcAntony gives the impression of being a dog but his movementsare not like those of a real dog. His front is too big and hehas a tiny rear. It is believable because he moves naturallyaccording to his own shape. That is what is important.Jones was influenced more by Keaton than by Chaplin. Heuses the Keaton trait of flicking the eyes towards the camera.The coyote does it whenever he realizes that something isgoing to fall on him. Unlike Avery, Jones confines hisexaggerated movements to strong reactions. He does not usethem as frequently as Avery. For example, the coyote's jawdrops in amazement at the roadrunner's speed, or the worker'slook of disbelief is exaggerated when seeing the singing frog.His movements seem to suspend time. It is time markinganimation, in that it has a noticable rhythm and beat.Jones breaks all the laws of physics. Yet the charactersare always made aware what is happening before any laws arePage - 33violated. It is as if nothing can be transgressed until thetransgressor realizes the full extent of the trouble he isabout to have. This is most notable in his idea of falling.These are usually shot as straight on shots. Jones explainedit as the same law that governs cars at a traffic light. Whena light turns green, the first car moves, and then the second,etc. Not all the cars move at once. This is how his charactersfall. First the trunk falls, then the neck and, finally, thehead. By applying this principle to a body, the humour isincreased and the agony prolonged. The actual landing neverseems to hurt. It is the idea of it that carries the emotionalimpact. Jones is sensitive to his characters. There is alwaysthe feeling that if one should get hurt he'll still survive.Jones had come out of a household where drawing anddoodling had been encouraged. His training in art had providedthe basics, but the emotion came from Jones himself. He wasinfluenced by both Disney and Avery, two radically differentschools of thought. From Disney, he learned the cuteness,which he outgrew and the love of a beautiful cartoon. FromAvery he learned the art of timing, without which the Americancartoon is nothing. Avery taught Jones the importance ofcharacter, timing, of loving what you create, and ofrespecting impulsive thought. Jones' cartoons are not themass produced crude examples found on television today. Heworked for cinema not television and his stories followedaccordingly. Jones created visual and narrative masterpieceswhich drew heavily from live-action cinema. Although inPage - 34animation, he was still part of a studio era and his workoften reflects this.The American tradition of animation that Warners was tobecome famous for was based upon a verbal and visual madness:hyperbole, comic abstraction, and mythic frenzy. It drew upona cinematic and literary tradition while making no effort toremain true to any ideals. It took issues very seriously andtreated all its subject matter with respect but was not afraidto have fun. Jones' cartoons especially reflect a light-heartedness that audiences in the war and post-war years cameto love. Jones placed his cartoons in a social context andnever failed to understand the changing needs of his audience.It was no different than what live action attempted to do,namely, satisfy the public. His issues are relevant and hispresentation no less cinematic than anything found in live-action.It is my concern to show that his work is connected to thestudy of film theory and cannot merely be dismissed as child'splay. The following chapters will examine specific cartoonsin terms of gender and spectatorship. I will begin with theBugs Bunny cartoons and analyze them in relation totheoretical concerns, in hopes of justifying the claim thatChuck Jones' work possesses a distinct and strong cinematicidentity and is not tied to live-action for its motivation.Page - 35Notes 1 This information is derived from Gerald Mast, A Short History of the Movies (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc,1986): 19-22. More information on the development andstandard theories of animation can be found in David Cook, AHistory of Narrative Film (New York: W.W. Norton and Company,1981): 260-261, passim; Danny and Gerald Peary, eds.^TheAmerican Animated Cartoon^(New York: E.P. Dutton, 1980): 1-46; and Ralph Stephenson, The Animated Film (London: TantivyPress, 1973): 7-34.2 According to the definition of Lynn Smith and Robert DelTradici, the Mutascope was "A viewing machine, manufactured in1895 by the American Mutoscope Company, which used the "flipbook" principle to create the illusion of movement. Itcontained a series of continuous photographs arranged on ahorizontal axis. A coin was dropped into the machine tooperate the hand-crank that moved the pictures rapidly andcreated the illusion of movement." History of Animated Filmeds. Lynn Smith and Robert Del Tradici (Montreal : McGill UP,1988) 3:16.Page - 363 In order to concentrate on animation developments in theUS, the contributions of animators in other countries will beignored. Cohl did have many contributions to the field.Further information can be found in Ralph Stephenson, TheAnimated Film (London: Tantivy Press, 1973): 24-34.4 For more detail on Disney, as a man and the creator of ananimation empire, the following books provide a completepicture: Leonard Maltin,  Of Mice and Magic (New York:McGraw-Hill Books, 1980): 29-82; Richard Schickel, The DisneyVersion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968); RalphStephenson, The Animated Film (London: Tantivy Press, 1973):35-46.5 I have chosen not to dwell on the other studios in as muchdepth for two reasons. The first is that unlike Disney theydid not exert a tremendous influence on either the work ofChuck Jones or the animation field in general. Second, thereis not much written about these other studios. The quality oftheir cartoons was not particularly impressive. Hence, onlyDisney and the Warner Brothers' studio will be dealt with ashaving relevance to this topic.6 For further information on Tex Avery see, for example,Danny and Gerald Peary, eds. The American Animated Cartoon(New York: E.P.Dutton, 1980): 110-127; and Steve Schneider,Page - 37That's All Folks^(New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988):44-67, passim.7 Danny and Gerald Peary, eds.^The American AnimatedCartoon (New York: E.P.Dutton, 1980): 110.Page - 38Chapter Two Bugs BunnyIf the work of Chuck Jones is to be analyzed as an exampleof the notions of gender and spectatorship, it is necessary tobegin by examining the most basic aspect of the cinematicapparatus. Cinema does not exist without the gaze of theviewer. This process of looking (between both thespectator/screen and the characters themselves) is an issue ofconcern for film theorists. Animation in general, and Jones'work in particular, is not limited by the same boundaries aslive action film. Because they are fictionalized creatures,the antics of Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck are not limited bytheir very "humanity." They can perform feats which are notonly impossible for human beings but also walk away from themunscathed. The viewing pleasure is only limited by theimagination of the director. Therefore, watching animation isthe quintessential voyeuristic experience.A) Spectatorship (The Gaze) When discussing spectatorship, the role of the spectatormust first be explained. The notion of the spectator stemsfrom psychoanalytic film theory and has been used extensivelyin feminist critiques. It refers to the subject of the imagesbeing projected and emphasizes the idea of consumption. Thespectator receives and consumes the film. This reception(which is generally applied to mainstream films only) isgoverned by various elements in the text as well as cinematicPage - 39codes such as how images are framed. The two most popularconcepts of the gaze place them as either sadistic ormasochistic.The arguments which place the viewing of live action undereither a sadistic or a masochistic gaze, can be applied justas strongly to Jones' work. Since it is not my intention toargue, here, for either type of gaze, but merely point out howsome of these theoretical concerns are manifest in ChuckJones' cartoons, only the "sadistic" form of the gaze will beexamined. The best understanding of the sadistic gaze comesfrom Laura Mulvey's 1975 article entitled "Visual Pleasure andNarrative Cinema." Mulvey probes the relationship betweengender and spectatorship to formulate the notion that thespectator is masculine. She uses examples of voyeurism andfetishism in mainstream films to show how women are treated.Mainstream film is also referred to as dominant cinema and isbased on a commercial and economic ideal.Cinema is a representation in which women are simplifiedand reduced to a sexual stereotype since they are portrayed asirrational, emotional beings (as in screwball comedies), or asvictims. Perhaps this portrayal is a conscious act created bythe partriarchal idelogy manifest in North American culture.This dominant cinema becomes economic because people will notgo to movies which do not give them what they want.The dominant spectator is male. Women are in the film buttheir presence in the audience is ignored. Within dominantcinema, the hero or main protagonist tends to be male. ThisPage - 40creates a bond between hero and spectator as the vieweridentifies with the character. The female love interest isdesired by both the hero and spectator, and because of thisbond, the viewer is able to possess or save the female throughthe actions of the hero. The camera looks at the world the waythat a male would, and females become the eroticdisplay/spectacle. The female viewer has been conditioned towatch in the same way as the male. Her desires are ignored andirrelevant. The onscreen female becomes an object, themasochistic recipient of the male sadistic gaze.Mulvey suggests that cinema offers the pleasure ofscopophilia, which Freud saw as one of the component instinctsof sexuality that exists independently of other erotogeniczones. Scopophilia is the pleasure of looking and of takingother people as objects and subjecting them to an assertivegaze. Cinema offers an excessive form of voyeurism as itpresents the opportunity to view without any interaction orpossible retributions for this action. The conditions ofviewing a film do not allow for the look to be returned inmainstream cinema. The darkness of the theatre and theunfolding of events without regard to the viewer, combine tocreate this voyeuristic experience. In cinema, the gaze canrest between the spectator/screen, the characters to eachother or the characters to the spectator. The concept of self-reflexivity is tied into this.Voyeurism is tied to the idea of sexual arousal. This stemsfrom the fact that, in cinema, the images are created for aPage - 41male gaze. Women are either fetishized, saved, or ignored (asin the case of a buddy movie). The entire concept of desire isforbidden to the female due to her lack of a phallus. Womenbecome a nonsubject in the discourse of the gaze. She can onlyexist as spectacle, for she has been conditioned to viewherself in the same way as men view women. She is on displayfor the camera, audience and other characters. By presentingthis way of looking as reality, the cinematic apparatusattempts to deny that this is just a representation.Mainstream film combines spectacle and narrative as itcreates the conditions for the power of the male gaze. Thisgaze is projected onto the male protagonist with whom anidentification is forged. Through this identification, theviewer can indirectly control events onscreen. Mulvey contendsthat this entire voyeuristic experience is tied to sadismbecause the pleasure arises from "ascertaining guilt(immediately associated with castration), asserting controland subjecting the guilty person through punishment orforgiveness."(311) This sadism finds an ideal outlet in thenarrative as it needs change to occur. It needs some type ofbattle of will/strength. It depends upon a story. This theoryhas not been applied to animation. It is important to realizethat not all animation can be examined in light of thistheory. Animation is a general term; it is not synonymous withcartoon. The style of animation which Chuck Jones helped tocreate and define is rooted within the same Hollywoodtradition as these films which are continually a subject ofPage - 42study. They draw upon the same cultural references and values,as well as portraying similiar images of characters.The first similarity between the two is the narrativestructure. Chuck Jones' cartoons can be regarded as miniaturefilms. They contain a protagonist, antagonist, and a clearlydefined beginning, middle and end. Because many people grew upwatching them on television, it is easy to forget that hiswork was created for the cinema. It was never originallyintended for television, which has its own format. In the sameway that live action cinema is considered higher in qualitythan its television counterpart, the cinematic cartoon is amuch superior work to that found on television. Althoughbudgets were not high at the Warner's animation studio, theamounts still allowed for a better quality cartoon. Also,however much animation may have been dismissed as not worthyof attention by those within the industry, all shared adisdain of television.This brings us to Mulvey's point about distancing. Sincethey were being watched in a movie theatre, the same viewingconditions applied to both the cartoon and the feature.Darkness would envelop the viewer no matter what was onscreenand events in Jones' cartoons still unfolded according to theHollywood narrative structure and without regard to theaudience. One of the reasons that this theory can be appliedto his work and not just animation (or even just all cartoons)in general is his characterization. One of the "problems" withMulvey and cartoons is the absence of female characters. MuchPage - 43of the identification process involved in voyeurism stems fromthe depiction of the human form. Cartoons tended to useanimals as characters, rather than as human beings. This wouldplace a barrier in terms of identification. While Disneyattempted to anthropomorphize his characters, they were stilltoo cute to be believably human. Chuck Jones, however,developed his characters so strongly that their actual formwas irrelevant. These characters were developed out of Jones'own personal biography. Viewers either saw aspects ofthemselves or character traits they wished to possess, just aswith any movie hero. As Richard Schickel points out:[Bugs] was a con man in the classic American mold,adept in the techniques and ethics of survival,equally at home in the jungle of the city and in ElmerFudd's carrot patch. In the war years, when heflourished most gloriously, Bugs Bunny embodied thecocky humour of a nation that had survived itseconomic crisis with fewer psychological scars thananyone had thought possible and was facing a terriblewar with grace, gallantry, humour, and solidarity thatwas equally surprising. (202)All the characters that Jones worked with, but perhaps BugsBunny most of all, were examples of the American values whichinfused that nation's personality. Bugs Bunny was as much of ahero (or perhaps anti-hero) as Bogart. There was nothingreally rabbit-like about him. He was a streetwise survivor,who used verbal humour and brains to win any situation. BothPage - 44adults and children could easily identify with him. Given thetumultuousness of the postwar years, as America attempted todeal with both its status as a super-power and its return to"normal" life, it is no surprise that he became so popular.Bugs was a product of American culture. Because he was acartoon character, it was even more enjoyable to identify withhim, as he could do things which would not work with a humancharacter. Whenever a human actor is hurt, there is a slightdiscomfort, as the viewers are also human and can relate tothat pain. In a cartoon, however, a character can sustain theworst injuries and just walk away. Unlike human actors,cartoon "actors" (for each character acts, and takes on manyroles) have no reason for existing outside of the film. Theviewer can watch them, secure in the knowledge that thesecharacters are only on screen to give viewing pleasure. Also,the viewer can enjoy a character being run over by a train andthen blown up without feeling any guilt. The characters cansustain no damage. The viewing experience is de-emotionalized,so that only the pleasure of watching remains. Hence,watching, for example, a Bugs Bunny cartoon is far morepleasurable than any adventure film, since Bugs has all thedesirable qualities of a hero without any physicallimitations. Even the very process of identification becomesintensified, since the character with whom one is identifyingis not limited by human inabilities, for example the abilityto survive after repeatedly falling off a cliff. It is theideal cinematic situation.Page - 45To illustrate these points, Jones' cartoons entitled Bugs'Bonnets (1956) and Bully For Bugs (1953) can be examined.Both help to show that not only is the personality, ratherthan the look the most important aspect of these characters,but also that they are rooted in American cultural values. Theformer centers on the premise that the clothes make the man.In a typical Bugs/Elmer scenario, a chase occurs. In the midstof this, several hats which have fallen off a truck stray intotheir path. The various hats, which wind up on their heads,result in psychological changes. What is interesting is thatno matter what hat they are wearing, they still retainelements of their own personality. For example, Bugs ends upwearing a gangster hat and a sergeant's hat while Elmer has apilgrim hat and an old lady's bonnet. In each scenario, Bugsultimately retains the higher status. Bugs' characters aremore aggressive than Elmer's. Each of the characters theytemporarily become is rooted in American culture: a pilgrim, aChicago gangster, an Irish cop, or a boy scout. They are veryfamiliar images, which are enhanced by the addition of Bugs'or Elmer's own personality quirks. Each change of hatscomprises its own mini narrative and somehow connects to thenext chain of events. The narrative structure is notdestroyed.Bully For Bugs not only demonstrates a strongcharacterization but is an example of a guilt-free viewingexperience. Bugs has accidently ended up in a bullring. Intypical Bugs fashion, he just wants to go about his business,Page - 46but is attacked by the bull, who has already scared off thebullfighter. Initially Bugs appears as the typical Americantourist, complete with map, as he tries to figure out wherethe Big Carrot Fest is located. Once he has been provoked intowar, however, Bugs snaps into the self-assured and confidenthero role which is eagerly expected by the viewer. Both hispose and facial expression show his control of the situationas he plays with the bull on the bull's own turf. Bugs appearsin matador garb (another example of the roles these characterstake on) and plays with his victim. He smashes the bull withan anvil, or slaps him around as they both dance to theMexican Hat Dance and La Cucaracha. There is humour in his useof violence. This humour is mirrored by Bugs' speech. Herelies on verbal humour, often puns, uttering such phrases as,"What a gullibull." Both speech and stance are human inmanner. Jones follows a live-action tradition, visually andnarratively. He employs long shots, close ups, and over-the-shoulder shots of the bull chasing Bugs. Even the bull in hisconniving is far more human than animal. So the identificationprocess has been established.Whereas these elements may contribute to a more positiveviewing experience, the feminist critiques of the image ofwomen in narrative films, unfortunately, also holds true inJones' work. It can be argued that among mainstream narrativefilms, the female is never endowed with the same strength andsense of purpose as the male. The protagonist tends to bemale, or when female, her character merely reaffirms thePage - 47status quo of society, which is dictated by men. Cinema,perhaps because of the relatively small number of womendirectors, is filled with the portrayal of strong malecharacters. Bearing in mind the 1940-60 time period which hasbeen established in this study, it is not surprising that mostof the positions of control in the cinema were filled by men.None of the directors at the Warner's animation studio wasfemale. This is, perhaps, why no dominant female characterswere created by Chuck Jones. Not only was there no realcinematic precedent, there was certainly no role model inanimation. Disney had created some female characters, such asMinnie Mouse, but they were merely pale imitations of theirmale partners. While Chuck Jones may have created characterswho felt animosity towards each other, there were still deepbonds between them. All the strong relationships aremale/male. Before examining the relationship of Bugs Bunny tovarious other characters, it is necessary to provide acharacter sketch. The relationship between Bugs and Daffy, asthe major pairing to come out of this studio shall be examinedin detail in a later chapter.It has never been established who was directly responsiblefor creating Bugs Bunny. While all the directors had a hand inhis development, it was Jones' version of the rabbit thatbecame the dominant one. Originally, Bugs was a lot crazier.He stood with bent legs, as if ready to run away. From thisposition, he evolved to standing straight with his weight onone leg. His other leg was out to one side while he wasPage - 48munching on a carrot. What came to be the quintessentialaspect of his personality, as Jones defined it, was that Bugsonly wanted to be left alone. He was a metaphor for Americanisolationism. While Bugs was more human than animal, he nevercompletely lost the reason for being a rabbit, the way thatMickey had no reason for being a mouse. While Disney's Mickeydidn't love cheese and lived in a trailer, Jones maintainedcontrol of his character. Bugs lived in a natural environment,and one of the main reasons for his doing anything was to geta carrot, so there was a focus beneath his role playing. Bugsevolved in personality as the directors became more familiarwith him. As he physically straightened up, he became moreconfident and insouciant. Much of his personality can betraced to Groucho Marx from whom he took the line, "Of courseyou realize, this means war!" The intellect of Groucho iscombined with the weirdness and zaniness of Harpo. Both Bugs'mental and physical feats were demanding. In the cartoons thatJones directed, Bugs always started out in an environmentwhich was natural to a rabbit. His line "I musta taken a wrongturn at Albuquerque," is an excuse for Bugs to be wherever theanimators wanted him. Bugs would end up in unknown territoryand wreak chaos, often unintentionally. When he was in anatural environment, however, he was a more believablecharacter.Jones was the only director to continually enforce thisrule. In Grey Hounded Hare (1949), directed by RobertMcKimson, Bugs starts out at a dogtrack The premise of thePage - 49cartoon is that Bugs falls for the fake rabbit which the dogschase around the track. McKimson's Bugs is far more obnoxious,looney and antagonistic than Jones'. It is not clear why Bugswould be there or why he is stupid enough to fall for a fakerabbit. This stupidity, combined with an unprovoked andmalicious aggressiveness, as he beats up the dogs for noimmediately apparent reason, runs counter to the popularportrayal of Bugs as more intelligent and humorous. It is noteasy to identify with this version of Bugs, as opposed to Bugsas the streetsmart wise guy. Jones' Bugs only acts to save hisown skin. He is not a bully. Also, he is not as concerned withfemales as McKimson has made him. In this cartoon, he is notonly attracted to this fake rabbit but obsessed by it.While Jones created a Bugs who thinks out his problems andsolves them intellectually, the Bugs created by Fritz Frelengis far more physical. He gets clever at the last moment,rather than demonstrating "smarts" throughout the cartoon.Also Bugs is not necessarily the main focus. For example, inRoman Legion Hare (1955), he is teamed with Yosemite Sam. Samis looking for victims for Nero to throw to the lions, andBugs approaches him to find out what is going on. In a cartoondirected by Jones, Bugs would have minded his own business,until his routine was disrupted, at which point he wouldretaliate. As Chuck Jones stated in Cinema Journal: "Iconceive Bugs to be a sort of counterrevolutionary rather thana revolutionary. He is for peace in his home; he refuses to beput upon; he insists in effect, upon being treated as aPage - 50citizen rather than a rabbit."(11) Bugs needs a reason forcombat, but if he is pushed into a war, then he will win. Thiscartoon of Freleng's revolves more around Yosemite'sstupidities rather than Bugs' cleverness. There is no verbalhumour or sense that Bugs has been pushed to his breakingpoint. He survives the situation but not due to any greatstrategy on his part. There is no true satisfaction that hehas bested his opponent.The same holds true in another Freleng cartoon entitledHare Do (1949). Bugs is chased by Elmer, and they end up in amovie theatre. Freleng does not take that opportunity to playwith structure by creating a narrative within the narrative.Instead, one gag, that of climbing in and out of a crowded rowof people, is repeated to achieve some sort of humour. Theyfinally do end up on stage. Bugs pretends to be Elmer'smanager as Elmer unicycles down a tightrope and into a lion'smouth. However, Elmer is wearing dark glasses and has no ideathat Bugs is abusing him. Again, it is far more enjoyable forthe viewer when Bugs not only plays with his opponents, butwhen they are fully aware of the fact that they are beingduped, as in Jones' cartoons.Of course Jones' Bugs underwent a transformation in hispersonality. In the Case Of The Missing Hare (1942), Bugs ismore manic and similar to the early incarnations of DaffyDuck. Jones hadn't yet begun to enforce his rule about Bugs'habitat. Bugs is living in a tree. The opening keeps beingplastered by a magician who advertises his show with posters.Page - 51This brings about the "war" between the two. Bugs shows up atthe magician's show and proceeds to disrupt it. He isextremely hyper and more easily provoked. Bugs also possessesa hysterical and slightly evil sounding laugh which disappearsin later cartoons. The humour in this cartoon stems not onlyfrom the fact that Bugs makes a fool of the magician but thatgood old American values win out. If Bugs is the American"everyman", then the magician is the foreigner with the funnyaccent who has no business being there. Through the humour ofthe gags, American values are reaffirmed.In Wackiki Wabbit (1943), another of Jones' earlier BugsBunny cartoons, Bugs is less self-assured and controlled thanhis later incarnations. He is also more hyper. Two shipwreckedsailors, who are ready to eat each other, end up on an islandwhere Bugs lives. He greets them with "What's the good wordstrangers?', rather than "What's up Doc?" which became hisstandard line. Bugs does manage to outsmart them but thehumour in this cartoon comes with Jones' manipulation ofcinematic devices. Bugs speaks in some type of South seastongue, while subtitles appear for both the viewer and thecharacters. They respond in English, which is subtitled forBugs' use. One of the characters even points to the subtitleand says, "Gee, did you say that?" This cartoon is dependentupon a knowledge of American comedies. It is funnier when thetwo shipwrecked men can be recognized as a parody of Americancomedy duos such as Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy.All of Jones' cartoons work on a variety of levels. They arePage - 52humorous on a purely visual level, yet when combined with anunderstanding of American culture and values, they take on anew depth.B) Gender While it is important to establish spectatorship as thefirst level in understanding the cinematic apparatus, in thatone must understand how one is looking, one must alsoestablish the next level of consideration: gender. Asmentioned in relation to Mulvey, gaze and gender are notseparate entities. Once aware of the process of viewing, whatis being seen becomes important. Cinema in general, and Jones'work in particular, work around codes of gender. Male/femalerelationships form the greater part of cinematic narrative.The other trend is male/male relationships which imply thelack of a female. Her presence is either ignored completely orbelittled, as we will see in Jones' work through the use ofdrag. As female/female films are a rarity, women are nevergiven the same opportunity to be individuals without beingdefined in relation to the opposite sex. Thus gender becomesthe next item of importance as theory goes from the general tothe specific. As Jane Gaines observes:Cartoon situations and iconography are based on themost universally known, highly conventionalized andoverworked material and as such function as whatRoland Barthes calls mythic speech. Caricature as muchPage - 53as symbol has a special susceptibility to mythicsignificance.(54)She states that according to Barthes, myth uses incompleteimages whose meaning is ready for signification. This ties into gender in terms of its cultural references. The entirenotion of gender which cinema employs is based on a socialconditioning of recognizing the differences between male andfemale. Jones' cartoons are largely male/male. The female isintroduced by way of parody and caricature. Without thenecessary signification (or cultural reference) these imagesremain incomplete. Jones also uses myth in terms of story. Forexample, Bugs Bunny and the Three Bears (1944) needs anunderstanding of the mythic tale to fill it out. Myth is, inturn, dependent on cultural references to give it meaning. Inthis case, American cultural references are at work.In the days when cartoons were shown in the theatres, thecartoon was the preview for the action to come in the feature.The female in the cartoon served the same purpose as thefemale in the feature, namely, to be a spectacle of visualattraction for men. Now, when there was no female, it waseasy to put a male character into drag and let him fulfillthat role through a parody of the female form. Culturalreferences are important in order to fully understand thecharacter differences between males and females. Mediatypecasting of the two sexes gives the opposite charactertraits. Whereas males are cunning and aggressive, females areshrewd and passive. The concept of "male" is virtuallyPage - 54unlimited, yet that of "female" is, as Molly Haskell observes,identified by a "set of external, playable mannerisms."(Peary211) Female characters have no more importance in the world ofanimation than they do in that of live action. Females incartoons parody the female form in one of two ways. Eitherthey are the quintessential female and, thus, more akin to adrag queen, in that both rely on exaggerated characteristicsrather than a complete personality; or they are the dumpyhouse wife. Mama Bear fits the latter category.By replacing the character of Goldilocks with that of Bugs,Jones invokes an entirely new cultural reference. WhereasGoldilocks had been food for all three bears, Bugs is not onlyfood, but a con artist who can get out of any situation. Inthis case, he appeals to Mama Bear's vanity. The three bearshave deliberately acted out the roles of the mythic threebears in hopes of drawing a Goldilocks to their home as theyare starving. Each one is a caricature of the original. Papabear is a short, violent male; Mama Bear is a dumpy and quiethousewife with a deadpan expression; and Baby or Junior Bearis a huge, stupid child. Bugs shows up and tosses a couple ofcompliments her way. Immediately, according to the tennets ofthe susceptible female, she falls for both his charm and him.Now, objectified, Mama Bear changes to fit what she thinksBugs wants her to be, namely, a blonde/hooker/bombshell. Bugs,however, runs from her emotion. It is alright for him to useher as a means of survival, but when she becomes aggressive,she is also, by extension, unattractive. The power must remainwith the male figure. With a couple of insincere compliments,he has created a female monster. She turns her objectificationback onto her creator through her pursuit. Unfortunately, likethe majority of popular female characters, she is stuck withinthis web of physical, emotional and cultural stereotypes.The issue of the female as "bombshell", "frump" or"nonexistent presence" also relates to the notion of camp andthe use of drag. The best definition of camp comes from MarkBooth, who states that: "to be camp is to present oneself asbeing committed to the marginal with a commitment greater thanthe marginal merits." (146) These marginal groups parody theirown subordinate social status without any yen for power. Aswill be seen later, the American cartoon tradition which Joneshelped to define fits this definition when placed within thecontext of the movie industry. Camp is a self parody whichdepends upon the artificial nature of self-presentation and atheatricality of one's daily life. Camp people want to beseen; their personality becomes a work of art. Camp ismarginal to the traditional male traits of industry, marriage,respectability, etc. The most common marginal group in societyis the female. These camp males see themselves as facing thesame oppressors as females. The human personality isinterpreted in mainly sexual terms. The reason that campbecomes associated with homosexuality is that many feel thatgay males act like fake women rather than like men. Sincewomen concern themselves with trivial thoughts, camp men whoemulate femininity do so as well. These men are notPage - 56transvestites. They have no desire to be taken for women inreal life; their aims are essentially theatrical. These menimitate women through a portrayal of the various stereotypespropagated by the media. Feminist concerns over the image ofwomen in cinema are valid: these images extend themselves intoanimation as well. While these stereotypes are definitelyharmful, the frequent use of drag in the work of Chuck Jonesis more campy than a deliberate ignoring of a femalecharacter. His characters are comedians, albeit fictionalones. When placed within a historical context, it can be seenthat most of the popular comedians were male. This does notjustify the fact that it was easier to dress an existing malecharacter in drag, rather than create a worthwhile femalecharacter in order to receive the same laughs. However, by notcreating strong female characters, and using femalestereotypes for humour, Jones is defining his characters insexual terms. As Sybil Delgaudio remarks:Anthropomorphic characters are a step removed fromhuman characters and require a certain degree ofimitation of impersonation of human traits in order tosucceed. Thus, Bugs and Daffy are, in a sense,impersonating male humans with respect to their valuesand behaviors, just as Petunia (Pig), Minnie (Mouse)and Daisy (Rabbit) are impersonating female humanswith respect to theirs. (211)It becomes a vicious cycle when one realizes that thefemale characters mentioned are merely feminized versions ofPage - 57their male counterparts. So, when Bugs goes into drag, he isparodying a stereotype which was based on his owncharacteristics to begin with. Jones' male characters can playany role: spaceman, cowboy or woman, while women arerestricted to playing a stereotype. The female character, asdemonstrated by Mama Bear, is limited to playing the idea of awoman, complete with breasts, make-up and a susceptibility toseduction. In this way, she is no different from a drag queen.When Bugs impersonates a female in order to fool Porky orElmer, as will be seen in the Rabbit Of Seville (1950), heacts like a "real" female, in that he has all the physicalcharacteristics and mannerisms down pat, and yet he gets toretain the best of his "male" personality. Bugs is stronger,more aggressive and smarter than any true female would beportrayed. Bugs' own sexuality, or that of any of the othercharacters, is never an issue until it becomes a gag or ameans of getting out of a situation. None of these charactershas an inherent sexuality, except for parody purposes. If thestrong relationships between the characters in the bulk ofJones' cartoons contributes to them being labelled "buddy"films, then the female is doubly unnecessary. If thetraditional live-action formula for a buddy film is followed,then females are merely incidental characters, who ultimatelyhave no relevance to the narrative. A man in drag can fulfillmany of the same functions and provide a level of humour whicha real female could not. The male impersonations of these"abstract" women look no different from the real thing; bothPage - 58have false eyelashes, red lips, a hair ribbon, clingy skirtand breasts. Since the actual personality of these females isweak to nonexistent, all that is necessary for a believableperformance are the physical attributes. Delgaudio goes on toobserve that: "Bugs sees being a female in much the samegrotesque way that the animators do - that is, in theexaggerated, garish garb of the transvestite..."(215) Bugs,however, gets to use physical violence when he is in drag, toget out of his situations; this is an escape which is notpermitted for "real" females and is best exemplified by theRabbit of Seville. The cartoon is a spoof on the opera entitled The Barber of Seville. It begins with the familiar scenario of Elmer chasingBugs through the forest. Bugs runs into an outdoor theatre andElmer follows. However, Bugs has Elmer onstage and opens thecurtains. Jones has now created a narrative within thenarrative. Not only does the audience expect a Bugs/Elmerinterplay, but the opera narrative must be accounted for.Also, whichever roles that they take on within the operaticnarrative will be colored by their own character traits. Allthe humour stems from Bugs' literal interpretation of"Barber." Once Bugs gets Elmer into his shop, he does not havea chance. Bugs creates his own opera, using a visit to thebarbershop as his base. This visit is also a means of gettingback at Elmer. First, he hacks at Elmer's face with a razor.When Elmer tries to leap up and chase him, Bugs retorts to hisdrag outfit, in this case a harem girl, while singing, "WhatPage - 59would you want with a rabbit?/Can't you see that I'm muchsweeter/I'm your little senorita." Elmer, being the sap thathe is, falls for Bugs' seduction. There is not much more tothis impersonation than the physical outfit and an ability towriggle enticingly. Since this is cinema, there is norecollection of what has gone before, and so Elmer will alwaysfall for this trick. Bugs ends the seduction by snippingElmer's pants open with a pair of shears and wriggling off.Elmer discovers the deception and the chase is again on. Bugsonce more gets Elmer in the chair and continues to torment himwith such things as making a fruit salad on his head andgiving him a full head of hair, complete with flowers. It canbe speculated that all of Elmer's personality problems derivefrom the fact that he has no hair, since this is the onlyinstance in any cartoon where he wears a look of absolutebliss. The two chase each other with various weapons untilsuddenly Bugs courts Elmer, now in wedding dress, and the twoget married just in time to resolve the operatic and hence thenarrative plot.Elmer also appears as a bride in Bugs Bonnets. This timehe asks Bugs to marry him, for no apparent reason. Bugs turnsto the camera and says, "You know, I always think it helps apicture to have a romantic ending." Jones has deliberatelytacked on a conventional ending, yet failed to introduce afemale character to do so. Bugs and Elmer are shown as malebecause all characters have a gender but not necessarily asexuality. Because camp is often associated with gay men, andPage - 60because of the frequent marriages occurring between thevarious male characters, an element of homosexuality makesitself felt. The gay community, like females, suffer frommedia images based only on stereotypes. The most common imagesare either the camp man or the "neurotic faggot". Bugs makesuse of both stereotypes. In Hair Raising Hare (1946), Bugsescapes from a monster by playing a gay hairdresser. He usesthe stereotypical lisp and mannerisms. These stereotypes showthe dramatic, ridiculous and horrific qualities, in that theytake an inconsequential aspect of an individual, and make itrepresent the whole person. They are tied to culturalreferences as well, for as Richard Dyer points out, "films usea certain set of visual and aural signs which immediatelybespeak homosexuality and connote the qualities associated,stereotypically with it. " (31) Campiness, as one of theseimages, concentrates on life as a role. In Bugs Bonnets, thecharacters change roles as quickly as changing a hat. Thisagain emphasizes that these cartoon characters only live fortheir roles.Another element of Jones' opera-based cartoons is hisunderstanding of opera itself. Jones remains true to thevarious operatic devices, including plotline, and use of spaceand rhythm. Narrative is tied to the music. These cartoonsremain rooted within an operatic setting. The characters'roles within the opera correspond to their roles in the "real"world. In Rabbit of Seville, Bugs is in the position of higherstatus, as he dupes Elmer. In What's Opera Doc (1957), therePage - 61is no "real" world context to frame the operatic one, as inSeville. Bugs and Elmer carry their normal positions of hunterand rabbit right into the opera. Again, Jones ties anunderstanding of rhythm and music to narrative as he condensesWagner's 16 hour Ring of the Nibelungen into 6 minutes withoutlosing the feel for the plot. The cartoon seems almostserious, which is why it is so funny. Elmer is chasing Bugswith his "spear and magic helmet." Rather than occurring in aforest, Jones has created a self-contained, extremely stylizedworld filled with shadows, bold colors and jagged peaks, whichwould not be out of place in a grand opera house. It isstylization taken to an extreme. He also remains true toWagner's characters by placing Bugs in drag to play the roleof BrUnnhilde. This Brlinnhilde has none of the strength orcharacter of the original. It is another case of Bugs usingfeminine wiles to outsmart Elmer. When Elmer first sees Bugshe cries, "Oh, BrUnnhilde you're so lovely." Bugs respondswith, "Yes I know it. I can't help it." He is given anassurance and confidence in his physical charms which realfemales are denied. Bugs is still a male and, as such,possesses a confidence no matter what outfit he wears. He isallowed to be comfortable with his physical attributes becausethey do not represent his entire being. His outfit consists ofa blonde wig and brass bikini. He is riding astride a veryeffeminate horse. Since the operatic roles are being fulfilledby Bugs and Elmer, the horse is the visual stereotype of thelarge and effeminate tenor. Of course Elmer falls in love withPage - 62Bugs and their courtship is only disrupted by Bugs' helmetfalling off his head. Once it is revealed that he is a rabbit,Elmer tries to kill him once again. Because this is occurringwithin an operatic world, he can succeed. The only time thatthis self-contained world makes any reference to its medium isat the end. Having killed Bugs, Elmer is filled with remorseand carries him off into the sunset in his arms. At thispoint, Bugs lifts his head and says, "Well what did you expectin an opera, a happy ending?" With this extreme formalism,Jones is making a comment on the pretensions of high art, inthis case opera. Nowhere is this comment stronger than in Long Haired Hare (1949).Even though Jones works within the medium of animation,which is not granted the same seriousness of intent as operaor literature, his characters are so strongly developed thathe can borrow from these other media and use his own "actors"to create an often more powerful and memorable version. InLong Haired Hare Jones actually pits the pretensions of anopera singer against the perhaps more simple but popular folksinger. Even when he borrows from other media, he always keepshis characters focused. Here, Bugs is singing a variety offolk tunes which keeps interrupting the practice of an operasinger. Bugs' catchy tune is looked down upon by thishighbrow artiste in the same way that animation was dismissedby serious filmmakers. Bugs' choice of song is in line withhis personality. He is one of the people. When the tenoraccidently begins to mix it in with his opera scores, it isPage - 63funny but inappropriate to his character. The humour stemsfrom this inappropriateness and the fact that even an artistsuch as he is not immune to the charms of a folk song. Bugssings his songs in the outdoors and is free, while the tenoris restricted to singing in a room. He does not have the samespace. The tenor is a pompous character. That he holds anobvious disdain for low art is evident when he breaks Bugs'guitar. Bugs, ironically enough, calls him a music hater. In asense, he is because he does not love music for its own sake,as does Bugs. Bugs finally reaches his breaking point anddeclares war. He invades the tenor's music hall. Once again heproves that he can battle on anyone's turf and win. At firsthe impersonates a variety of fans, including a starstruckfemale, who hands the tenor an exploding pen. Bugs then posesas Leopold Stokowski (who always plays the conductor in theWarner cartoons, and was the conductor in Fantasia (1940),another spoof on Disney) and destroys the tenor by making himhold a ridiculously long note. It is a completely ludicroussituation but effectively makes a point. Eventually, the operahouse collapses, as does the tenor. Bugs finishes off the lastfew notes of the score by strumming them on his banjo. Thus"low" art cannot be suppressed.It is important when studying any type of cinema to beginwith spectatorship, so that one understands on what basis thegaze is established, before examining the text/subject. TheBugs Bunny cartoons provide a good base for examining Jones'work. These theoretical concerns of gender and spectatorshipPage - 64are also manifest among Chuck Jones' other cartoons. The nextchapter will focus primarily on the cartoons of Daffy Duck,with reference to Jones' other major characters whenapplicable. It will reveal that the aforementioned themes ofgender and spectatorship in relation to understanding thecinematic apparatus continue throughout his work and, thus,place his entire oeuvre firmly within the concerns of filmtheory.Page - 65Chapter Three Daffy Duck This chapter will continue to draw upon the theoriesdiscussed in the previous chapter. While the focus willbe upon the Daffy Duck cartoons, it will also examineones which feature other characters. I will begin withspectatorship and the idea of the gaze. At this point Iintend to approach. it from the basis of the cinematicapparatus itself. By this, I plan to discuss the use ofself-reflexivity in the cartoon entitled Duck Amuck.After this, I will return to the analysis of gender inJones' work by looking at the characters of Pepe le Pewand Marc Antony. A brief sketch of Daffy's developmentwill be provided, before turning to how camp is used inthese cartoons. Whereas in the Bugs cartoons the use ofcamp was restricted to the use of drag, here it isconnected to the idea of the star system and self-publicity, much more recently exemplified by the work ofAndy Warhol. The next item of consideration is Jones' useof literary sources. As will be explained, this is alsotied into the gaze. Other characters will be referred toin this section as well. Thus gender will includecharacter traits and how these qualities work when Jonesplays with form and genre.Page - 66A) SpectatorshipAt this point I will return to the notion of the gaze.Rather than focusing on how the spectator views thesubject matter, I plan to examine the cinematic apparatusitself. Unlike other artforms, such as painting where thebrushstrokes are admired and studied as a part of thework, the actual workings of film are concealed. In fact,film is based upon a manufactured object which needsdevices to give it motion and fluidity. The viewer reliesupon the phi phenomenon to make it seem as if motion isoccuring, and persistence of vision to retain the imageon the retina and give fluidity. The actual film stock isnever seen and only rarely is the medium itself referredto, as in Woody Allen's Annie Hall (1979). The process ofreferring to the medium is known as self-reflexivity.Jones utilizes this principle in his cartoon called Duck Amuck.As noted earlier, film theorists tend to disregardanimation in favor of "physical reality." Norman McLarenpointed out that animation was "the art of movements thatare drawn; not the art of drawings that move" (Small 67).Since an animated film is created frame by frame, theproblem lies in how to differ single frame activity fromthe "conventional" filming, using a continuously runningcamera. Small and Levinson observe in their article,"Towards A Theory Of Animation" that by single frame ismeant the frame-by-frame control over individual images.Page - 67Single frame cinematography can be used to simulate live-action filming. Yet animation goes a step beyond live-action since animated movements violate physical law.They go on to discuss how animation can substitute formontage, since montage is the cinematic editing orputting together of individual shots into longer filmicunits and animators often build works which use groups offrames over single frames. There are two ways of puttingtwo pieces of film together: end to end or by overlappingthem through the techniques of dissolve, double exposure,etc. To do this, optical printers are required. Animationand montage share the same technical optical printersused for animated effects and conventional cuts. Not onlyis there animation as montage but also montage asanimation. In montage, cuts occur at the points where thefilmmaker exercises control over his images. The pointsof contact between the shots are single frame changes.Montage is a version of animation in which the sites ofsingle frame control separate throughout the film bycontinously filmed frames. Montage can show perceivedmovement and metamorphosis, as does animation. Oneexample is the roaring lions in Potemkin. It is alsofound in Leger's Ballet Mechanique, where the rapidcutting between "hat" and "shoe" create a metamorphosis.Animation can be taken as montage because its processingis basically editing in camera.Page - 68While animation can show anything, American cartoonstended to use uncomplicated plots. They were usually onegag films, with the action revolving around that one gag.Even Duck Amuck utilises a simple linear structure whilemanipulating cinematic limits. It begins with Daffyplaying a musketeer, when suddenly his scenery isremoved. This cartoon plays with the conventions ofscenery, either removing it completely or changing it tosomething inappropriate in the middle of a scene. Daffy,as an actor, is equipped for anything and attempts tokeep up with the change of roles required by each scenechange. The irony of this situation is that Daffy, aproduct of someone's imagination, has to explain to hiscreator what constitutes an animated film. This"animator" also toys with the conventions of sound.Having drawn a guitar for Daffy, he fails to provide anysound. Daffy must hold up a sign requesting it. Whatfollows is a succession of noises, ranging from a horn togunfire to barnyard animals. Daffy cannot even get angrybecause his voice has been replaced by the crowing of arooster. Finally, Daffy's own form is changed, withouthis knowledge, into a fantastical creature. Theunderstanding of cinematic technique is also manipulated.When Daffy requests a close up, the camera zooms in to atiny square in one corner of the screen, upon which Daffyasks, "This is a close up?" The camera then pulls intosuch a tight close up that only the whites of his eyesPage - 69fill the frame. He must walk backwards in order to reacha medium close up. At this point, Daffy goes crazy anddemands that the picture get started. Instead, the words"The End" come onscreen. Ever the trooper, he continuesto try to entertain the audience. When the film stockitself appears, as the frame splits into two, Daffy is soenraged that he attempts to beat up his other image. Thevarious ways in which Jones manipulates the cinematicapparatus, usually hidden from the viewer, is a form oftorture to Daffy. He is a cartoon character, and hisexistence depends on our belief in the reality of hisworld. This is not possible if all the different filmictechniques are being played with. At last Daffy demandsto know who his tormentor is, and the camera pulls backto reveal Bugs. This is yet another manipulation byJones. Bugs is Daffy's unseen animator and yet he too isfictitious.While this film is humorous, it is also an essay onthe nature of both animated film and the mechanics of allfilm. The displaying of the frame boundaries is the mostbasic aspect in film. The audience laughs at Daffy beingplaced in frustrating and humiliating scenarios whichsubject his very being. And yet, "the comic payoff is thereflection of these themes in Daffy's character, hisresponses, and within the world of the cartoon - hisliterally cosmic humiliation." (Peary 231) This film,along with the character of Daffy, is conscious of itselfPage - 70as cinema. He is a victim of the power of the media, nothimself. His demand to know who is responsible is anattempt to save face.Daffy is a perfect paranoiac. This cartoon is his "badtrip." For a cartoon character as neurotic as Daffy, itis filled with self-destruction fantasies and delusions.Leonard Maltin observed that:Louis Black has written, 'The cartoon stands asan almost clinical study of deconstruction of atext, in the way it presents a whole at^thebeginning and then dismembers every facet ofthe cartoon, only to put them togather at theend.' (239)Daffy is forced to live and struggle on an emptyscreen without the props which normally make up hisworld. He ends up having to be himself, without thebenefit of any role and, thus, is at his most vulnerableand honest. In order to gain insight into the personalityof Daffy Duck, a character sketch will be provided in thesection on gender.While Jones toys with conventions and expectations.the one sure factor in his cartoons is that in a similarsituation, his characters will respond in a unique, andtypical way to their personality. For example, thecoyote/ roadrunner series, while initially spoofing chasefilms, features the two acting in a similar mannerthroughout the cartoons in which they appear. For thePage - 71coyote, the danger of losing his dignity forces him tocontinue. Like Daffy, the coyote is his own worst enemy.The more frustrated he becomes, the more wild the schemehe will try to capture the roadrunner. He wants somethingto eat but is addicted to one particular food-- theroadrunner. As his pursuit of the roadrunner becomes moremanic, the roadrunner itself becomes unimportant. Whatbegins to matter to him is his next contraption and howit will work. Jones has created the Acme company whichprovides anyone with anything, even a coyote with gadgetsto kill a roadrunner. There is no financial exchange. Itis just a factory that supplies coyotes.The American cartoon depicts death and human defeatfollowed by resurrection and transfiguration. Itglorifies rebirth rather than death. Jones approaches hisfilms in terms of his characters' personalities. Heviolates the reality in the frame only as an exercise inlogic, as in Duck Amuck. His work approaches minimalism.The best example is the roadrunner series. There is noneed for dialogue or titles, merely Acme product labels.Acme is a symbol of American consumerism gone wild. Timeis also unimportant. Only logical sequence occurs. Theviewer has no idea how long each coyote cartoon lasts,nor does it matter. It is a continual, lifelong processof trying to catch the roadrunner. It is akin to theoriesput forth by the New Wave critics where situations andcharacters fill plot vacuums. However, there are rules.Page - 72For example, the roadrunner must always stay on the roadand can never take an active role in the hostilities.The coyote suffers from a self-defeating obsession toput his will over the actions of a force of nature. Hismania has outgrown the natural causes for his pursuit.All the sympathy lies with the coyote. Jones utilizesmise-en-scene to show all screen time with the coyote andfrom his point of view. The roadrunner has no realcharacteristics. The coyote represents an obsessedpersonality who is doomed by his own intellectuality ashe uses more and more complex technology. In Zoom andBored (1957) he builds a trough up the side of a cliff.It is obvious that he worked on it for a long time but bythe time the camera has panned to the top to see it work,the coyote can't let the fuse burn. He lights thedynamite and it immediately blows up. By contrast, theroadrunner is just a carefree and intuitive bird.Two ideas manifest themselves. The first is that ofhubris. As he tries to extend his abilities and controlthrough technology, he only exaggerates his inabilitiesand lack of control. As Richard Thompson in his article"Meep-Meep!" noted:Of all road films, Jones' most clearly show theAmerican neurosis of euphoric vehicularambition. The coyote's failure results not fromfaulty thinking-- his ideas are ingenious andvalid-- but rather from not quite thinking on alarge enough scale to forsee chance reversals ofphysical principles. (222)The second idea is the myth of Sisyphus. The coyote isdoomed to be his own continual victim. It is the curse ofknowledge. The roadrunner can run through a painted brickwall but the coyote cannot because he knows it's a fake.In cartoons the image is the idea, as Thompson remarks:And cartoon images, like film noir, and goodSurrealism, occupy our attention for their flashyvirtuosity, while on another level they slowlycorrode away the legs of rational conceptions ofthe world. (225)Resurrection occurs so that the cartoon victim canproceed to the next mishap. The coyote, like Elmer andDaffy, is an inept contender with life's problems. He isalso mistake-prone and hopelessly hopeful. Jones'characters are unusual individuals trying to survive in acomplex world. These cartoons recall the films of Keaton,Chaplin and Langdon. The golden age of comedy was aprimary source of inspiration for animators.B) Gender Whereas Bugs parodies the notion of the female throughhis use of drag, Daffy actually possesses some of thosesame qualities. The concern with gender, in this case, isthat Daffy's emotionalism is an actual suggestion offeminine stereotypical traits. He does not need to put onPage - 74a costume to enact a female caricature, since thequalities are innately within him. This is ironic, sinceBugs only appears in costume to portray a female, whileDaffy wears outfits for every role except that.By the time that Daffy appeared in Duck Amuck, he hadcompleted his transformation from a mere lunatic figureto a complex character, full of human emotions andimperfections. The early Daffy cartoons portrayed him asa looney duck. He could still fly, and was often seenliving on a lake. Many times he was an object of prey fora human hunter. In Tex Avery's Porky's Duck Hunt (1937),Daffy is the crazy duck whom Porky is attempting to kill.He quacks and flies as he torments Porky at the lake.Daffy is quite malicious, toying with Porky and his dog.This is opposed to his later actions of merely lookingout for himself. There does not seem to be the samedegree of explicit self-preservation in these earlycartoons. He also admits to being crazy. At one point,Porky has sent his dog to retrieve Daffy from the water,as he believes he has shot him. Instead, Daffy gets thedog. When Porky protests that that is not in the script,Daffy replies, "Don't let it worry you skipper. I'm justa crazy, darn fool duck." While Avery's style was morecrazy and chaotic than Jones', Jones' early Daffycartoons were also less controlled. In Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur (1939), Jones places him in the stone age "forno reason". A caveman, who resembles Jack Benny, and hisPage - 75dinosaur called Fido, go out to hunt duck. Again Daffy isseen swimming on a lake, and laughing his maniacal laugh.At one point the caveman comments that, "That Duck actslike he's crazy." Daffy not only agrees but slaps thecaveman across the face before running off. Daffyeventually gives the caveman a beer and sends him offwith the promise of getting a duck breakfast. The cavemanis made to follow signs of varying shapes and sizes,promising duck up ahead, until he reaches hisdestination. As will be seen, this became a trademarkstunt of Daffy's. Finally, the caveman is confronted by agiant inflatable duck. Daffy hands him a carving knifeand motions for him to stab the duck. This results in thedeaths of the caveman, Fido and Daffy, who comments whilefloating on a cloud, "You know, maybe that wasn't such ahot idea after all." The caveman then replies,"Goodnight Folks."In his early stages, all the animators treated Daffyas a lunatic. In Robert Clampett's The Daffy Doc (1938),Daffy plays an assistant to Dr. Quack. His actions areoff-the-wall and unpredictable. For example, when thedoctor asks for silence, Daffy holds up a sign whichchanges to read "Hush Yor Mof", a Hebrew letterequivalent and "Silence is Foo". While handing over theinstruments, he continues to increase the tempo until hethrows them all in the air and does a dance on the tablewhile laughing. Having gone insane, he is thrown out ofPage - 76the operating room. Daffy lands in an artificial lung.When he pulls himself free, various parts of his bodyexpand and contract from the excess air. Determined toprove himself as a doctor, he goes out and hits Porkyover the head to use as a patient. In order to call aconsultation, Daffy hits himself over the head so as tosee triple. He also chases Porky with a saw, in anattempt to operate. Eventually they both land in theartificial lung.Chuck Jones took Daffy from his earlier, lesscontrolled form, to his more popular self. He made himless ducklike. In this way he was like Bugs. Daffy'spersonality was so strong that his form as a duck becamesecondary. Jones took him through roles in variousgenres, making him an individual characterized by hiswords. He based Daffy on his own weaknesses, onlymultiplied. As noted by Chuck Jones in the American Animated Cartoon, "The preservation of Daffy's dignitydepends onpersonalityWhereasthe avoidance of humiliation." (131)^Hisis rooted in a cowardly self-preservation.Bugs is a conman and self-assured, Daffy isanxiety-ridden. Not having this confidence means that hehas had to work at his personality, until he has turnedit into a work of art. Bugs plays himself in the majorityof his cartoons, but Daffy plays other people. Regardlessof this fact, his character is so strong that hisPage - 77personality fills each role. This lends a camp element tohis character.Mark Booth has divided camp personalities into anumber of types. The two types which are applicable toDaffy are the Bourgeois Gentilhomme and the Manic Poseur.The first is the butt of camp scorn. This type aspires towit and style but has neither. In the second case, theindividual attempts to glamourize his neurosis. Daffy iswell aware of his neurosis and actually uses it asexcuses for his behavior. He has to be the focus of allattention. Role playing and theatricality are importantto his personality.The roles which Jones places him into spoof theoriginal and familiar genre expectations. Jones hascreated his own star system, which mocks the traditionalHollywood establishment. This was not defined as campuntil Warhol, working in the 1960's and 1970's, took massmedia production and heroes as his subject matter. Joneswas doing the same thing in the 1940's and 1950's. Inlooking at a mass produced culture and the consumption ofthe individual, Warhol set up an alternative studiosystem, complete with a star system, using transvestitesand members of a "fringe" society to make his point.Jones worked within animation but his star system was noless alternative.Jones, working thirty years earlier, put into practiceWarhol's notion that anyone could be a star or make aPage - 78star out of others. Jones also used the celebrity valueof Hollywood to cultivate stars. Warhol encouraged peopleto perform without the benefit of direction or scripts inorder to attain a competition to outdo each other. Jones'cartoons were heavily scripted but none of his characterscould exist without a script. They did not go off andhave their own life once the camera stopped rolling.Nevertheless, the same desire to outdo resulted, as willbe seen in the cartoons of Bugs and Daffy together. Takenthis way, all their gestures were natural, or as naturalas possible for an imaginary character.Warhol made ordinary people into stars and Jones didthe same for ordinary animals. These were not fantasticalcreatures; they were rooted in reality. Warhol alsoreexposed the everyday. He recycled works and people,resulting in camp's recreation of surplus value fromleftovers. According to camp ideology, art is made fromleftovers of popular taste.This bears a direct relationship to the cartoons ofDaffy Duck. Jones took popular characters and genres suchas Robin Hood or the detective genre and, using humour,"recycled" them into new works. Rather than putting Daffyinto a plotline designed especially for him, many of hiscartoons involved a retelling of a well-known narrative.This resulted in a double set of expectations. Theviewer expected certain Daffy characteristics, such as aninability to deal with any situation on an emotionalPage - 79level, which would lead in turn, to a tantrum. There werealso certain conventions within the narrative which hadto be fulfilled. For example, in Robin Hood Daffy (1958)Jones retold the Robin Hood fable. Hence the viewer wouldexpect certain plot elements, such as Robin's taking fromthe rich and giving to the poor, a talent for archery,and the appearance of a Merry Man. The plot of this storyis that Daffy, as Robin, meets up with Porky, who playsFriar Tuck. Porky refuses to believe that Daffy is reallyRobin Hood. The harder that Daffy tries to prove it, themore flustered and incompetent he becomes. When he triesto swing off a tree to rob a rich gentleman riding along,he proceeds to hit other trees all along his descent. Notonly does Jones mock the original heroics, he alsospoofs the popular portrayals by Fairbanks and Flynn,which would have been familiar to audiences at that time.Porky Pig was always cast as an observer to Daffy'santics. Here, as a supporting player, he can only laughat all of Daffy's attempts to prove that he is reallyRobin Hood. This only enrages Daffy more. Daffy is aself-preservationist who is continually cast in roleswhich he is incapable of handling. This role-playing isimportant to his personality. Jones has created comiccharacters which are "unusual for the chopping up ofmotion and the surrealist imposition: a Robin Hood duck,whose flattened beak springs out with each repeated fauxpas as a reminder of the importance of his primaryPage - 80ineptness..." (Farber 52). Jones' characters are totallyinvulnerable. They can't be stopped and, as such, becomevictims of their own invulnerability. This will also beshown to be the case with the coyote. Since the aim ofJones' cartoons is laughter, there is a certain lightnessabout them. He uses all of man's emotions and behavior asthe butt for his humour.Daffy always plays the hero because his personalityand pride won't allow him to be anything less. InDripalong Daffy (1951), he plays a "Western Type Hero"ready to assume any role at a moment's notice. Porkyplays the "comic relief." Riding upon his beautiful steedTin Foil, (again the spoofing of a popular character,Silver) Daffy approaches a "Lawless Western Town". Hedecides to assume the role of sheriff and "clean up thisone horse town." He has not been selected to fulfill thisrole. When he first strolls into the saloon, he demandsthat someone take him on. He unholsters his gun and pullshis pants off with it. No one pays him any attention. Heis a joke. Finally, Nasty Canasta challenges him. Daffypulls out his gun expecting to frighten him and Nastyeats it. Jones is parodying all the conventions andexpectations inherent in a Western.Daffy is also known for his quips and asides to theaudience. He is continually breaking the fourth wall. Inresponse to a question from Canasta asking Daffy ifthat's what he would like (taking on Canasta), he quips,Page - 81"I would like? I would like? I would like a trip toEurope." Jones continually undermines the audience'sexpectations of what should happen next, and because ofthis, the viewer cannot relax and watch, knowing whataction will follow.True to the genre, there is a shoot-out. Again, Jonesdoes not allow it to be a normal duel. Before Daffy cando anything, Porky winds up a toy soldier and sends itover to Nasty. Thinking it a cute toy, he picks it up andis immediately shot. The townspeople go crazy withdelight and appoint Porky as their sheriff. Daffy isextremely vexed at his lack of attention. He runs aboutscreaming, "Put down that comedy relief! I'm the hero ofthis picture! Carry Me!" He is completely ignored. In afinal role reversal, Porky appoints Daffy as hisunderling. Daffy has to literally clean up the one horsetown, to which Porky quips, "Lucky for him, it is a onehorse town."Jones uses many high angle shots found in High Noon type showdowns. There is also a continual distant spurjangling and yet none of the characters wears spurs.Daffy carries around a selection of badges which enablehim to assume any role at any given moment. This is acomment on the viewer's acceptance of a character in arole as long as he has the proper accoutrements.Porky also gets the job done for Daffy in Deduce You Say (1956). He is cast as the observing and learningPage - 82Watson to Daffy's supposedly wiser Dorlock Holmes. Porkynarrates the tale. At first we see Holmes engaged in whatWatson calls his favorite pasttime-- deducting, exceptHolmes is deducting expenses for some kind of tax return.When a telegram arrives from the Shropshire Slasher,Watson remains calm, while Daffy seeing the messengertrip, spews a whole theory about murder. Anything can sethim off. They set out for the Slasher's favorite barwhere Daffy goes around collecting clues. He does this byputting ashes and beer into an envelope while accusingeveryone of murder. They all think he is a lunatic.Watson calmly continues to comment on Holmes' brilliance.Slasher shows up, making his presence known by hurling aknife. Holmes decides that this is a clue. He attempts toarrest the Slasher. Approaching him he says, "Beastlyweather we're having, what?" At this point Holmes goesmad and screams, "Deny it if you can, and deny too thatyou're the Shropshire Slasher!" All of his attempts touse force on this character, who is huge, fail. Watsonapproaches him and simply asks him to return to prison.The Slasher agrees. The are both very English and politein their actions. All that Daffy succeeds inaccomplishing is getting himself pummelled. Finally,Watson asks him where he went to school to be adetective. Daffy replies "Elementary, my dear Watson.Elementary." Again the viewer knows that as part of theHolmes tale, Jones must include that trademark line ofPage - 83dialogue. Jones fulfills all the convention expectationsbut on his own terms. His reworking of the material givesit its humour.In Duck Dodgers In The 24 1/2 Century (1953) Jonescasts Daffy as a Buck Rogers hero. For all the heroicqualities he appears to possess, he is a bumblingcharacter. Daffy's downfall is that he is totallyconvinced of his infallibility. Porky is cast as theeager young space cadet as they set out to Planet X toget the shaving cream molecule. Daffy's opponent isMarvin the Martian, who is trying to claim the planet inthe name of Mars, at the same time as Daffy. Throughoutmost of the film. Porky is the one who saves Daffy andretaliates against Marvin. Daffy not only does notappreciate the help but feels that Porky is trying to doDaffy's job. Daffy flies off the handle. His failure toremain calm and rational in a situation is why he alwaysundermines his own intentions. Daffy actually doessucceed in claiming the planet for the earth and kickingoff the martian, but by this point it is nothing morethan a clump of dirt. After he enthusiastically claims itin the name of "Duck Dodgers In The 24 1/2 Century!!!",Porky responds, "Big Deal." As the observer character, hehas put everything into perspective.Perhaps Daffy's greatest success and failure is in TheScarlett Punpernickel (1950). Tired of always playing thecomic relief, Daffy attempts to sell a script to Warner.Page - 84It is a mock epic and a cartoon within a cartoon. Thiscartoon also reiterates the star system idea. Jones hascast his other characters in various roles: Porky is theLord High Chamberlin, Sylvester is the Grand Duke, MamaBear is a Lady in Waiting and Henry the Chicken Hawk is amessenger. All the characters retain their own familairqualities. For example, Mama Bear plays the harp whilewearing a deadpan expression throughout all her scenes,no matter how exciting the drama around her. Porkystutters and blusters, and Sylvester is his conceitedself, determined to have his way.In telling the tale, Jones exaggerates the MichaelCurtiz look of grandiose sets and use of shadows. He alsoparodies the daring heroics of Errol Flynn. When Daffy asthe Scarlett Pumpernickel jumps out of a window andmisses his horse, he comments, "Funny, that never happensto Errol Flynn." The next time that he does this, heuses a parachute, commenting, "Here's a wrinkle Errolnever thought of." Daffy wants to be triumphant andsurvive without having to do the necessary work or benice.Daffy Duck is not a good writer. Because he is thewriter of this scenario, Daffy seems to be succeeding athis task of saving the Lady Melissa. However, he has tofail because his personality is based on a lack ofsuccess. Therefore, he narrates the story to someoneelse. Within the story he narrates, he succeeds, but as aPage - 85writer he fails. Warner keeps demanding to know whathappens next, and Daffy resorts to a series of cliches inthe end. He has the storm break, the dam break, a volcanoerupt, and the price of foodstuffs skyrockets. WhenWarner wants to know what happens then, Daffy has thehero blow his brains out, quipping that "It's getting soyou have to kill yourself to get a role around here."The spectator admires Daffy's courage. Chuck Jonesnoted that, "Daffy gallantly and publicly represents allthe character traits that the rest of us try to keepsubdued." (240) He is a loser and a misfit but he doesthings which we cannot. Daffy is recognized more by hismistakes than by his triumphs. All of Jones' charactersare recognized by their personal characteristics and howthey express them in relation to conflict, love, and thedesire to succeed.Jones is so concerned with how a character reacts to agiven situation that he created a parable about theaverage man and greed. Entitled One Froggy Evening (1955), it dealt with the story of a construction workerwho finds a singing frog and immediately realizes thefinancial potential. As with the tenor who only sangopera and despised folk songs and singing for pleasure,the worker only sees the money he can make. The frog willnot be a party to this. He sings, presumably because heenjoys it.Page - 86The only sound in this tale is the singing. The restis told through pantomime, although it is explained. Whenthe man initially attempts to sell the idea of the frogto an agent, the action is filmed from outside the windowof the office. The audience can see the explanation buthear nothing. A series of accidents always preventsothers from hearing the frog. Either they arrive afraction of a second late, or when the man rents a hall,the curtain breaks. He manages to raise it just as thefrog has finished singing and is sitting looking dopeyand croaking. Due to the pantomime nature of the story,there occurs a break between the anthropomorphizedmovement and natural animal movement. In an interviewJones stated that, "It's like an excessive punishment forone man's greed for his desire to exploit the discoveryof the singing frog and make millions" (Ford 36). Whilethe worker wants to join the establishment and enjoy itsrewards, he loses everything. Not only does he lose hismoney, he is locked in a Psychopathic Hospital for tryingto convince a policeman of the frog's abilities.Ironically, the frog continues to sing in the hospital.When released, the worker is a bum. He, in turn, plantsthe frog in a building being constructed. The scene cutsto a futuristic city about a hundred years later. Anotherworker finds the frog and the whole thing starts again.Jones called it an "exemplification of frustration" (Ford36). As with his other characters, this one is believablePage - 87precisely because of his limitations. The notion of aparable also ties this tale into Jones' use of literarysources, which have a moral point.While the problems of (non) female depiction do notnecessarily manifest themselves in the cartoons whichstar Daffy, they certainly do come up with his othercharacters. As explained in the chapter on Bugs Bunny,the problem of gender lies in both the depiction of themale and the "non-depiction" of the female. The Pepe lePew cartoon entitled For Scent-Imental Reasons  furthersthis problematic portrayal. The story revolves aroundPepe, who is a very suave and charming French skunk. Heinvades a perfume shop, and a female cat is sent to getrid of him. All the Pepe cartoons involve the cat gettinga white stripe down her back, in order to attract theattentions of Pepe. In this case, the gag comes aboutwhen she hits a table and a bottle of white hair dye runsdown her back. Pepe not only appears to adore theopposite sex, but he is absolutely convinced of hisinfallible charms. He does not understand that she wantsnothing to do with him. Despite her protests, hecontinues to try to kiss her. It is not charming; it isharrassment. However, the cat cannot even make a verbalprotestation. She is denied the power of speech, andhence, the power to say "no". Pepe is a fully developedcharacter who articulates his desires. He has an ego anda sense of humour. Based upon the character of Pepe lePage - 88Moko played by Charles Boyer in the movie Algiers (1938),he is the American stereotype of the debonair Frenchman.When he chases her around the shop, Pepe remains calm. Hejauntily jumps around, while the cat races frantically toescape him. Finally, she resorts to locking herself in aglass case. When he cannot persuade her or threaten herto come out, he fakes a suicide. It is a ruse to get herto come out, which is totally dependant upon herpossessing the stereotypical qualities of compassion andsoft-heartedness. He knows that as a female, she willcome running out to save and forgive him. After she hasdone just that, Pepe quips, "I missed. Fortunately foryou." He has no remorse for the means used. When sheagain runs off, he sighs and exclaims, "C'est la guerre."She is something to be won. Eventually she jumps out of awindow, and mistaking it for a noble gesture of suicide,he jumps also. She lands in a barrel of water, while heends up in a vat of blue paint. He looks just ashandsome, except he is blue. The cat, however, is wet andsnivelling. The stripe is gone but she is veryunattractive. Now she becomes attracted to him. Since sheis no longer a beautiful skunk (or even a beautiful cat),he no longer wants her. She pursues him, with herattention unwanted. It is akin to the situation with MamaBear; once the female becomes the pursuer, she becomesunattractive.Page - 89While cartoons tend to revolve around natural foilsand battling duos, many of the pursuits in Jones' workhave taken on a sexual bent. The pursuit is now aseduction, not predatory, and the end is sexual. Thehumour is supposed to come out of seeing a male chase afemale who wants to be left alone. It is analogous to a"humorous rape." The female is always breathless, whichPepe finds sexy, and on the run. Pepe never tires. Thecat is also never given the retaliatory actions permittedBugs. For example, it would be humorous if having beenpursued, she could then turn around and humiliate Pepe,the way that Bugs does Elmer. Unfortunately, this isimpossible. First of all, she is female, not a male indrag, and therefore does not innately possess anyqualities of strength and self-confidence. Second, Pepeis the equivalent of Bugs. He is a master at remaining incontrol. Her desire for Pepe can be taken as a giving into his attention. She does submit to him in othercartoons, such as in Two Scents Worth  (1956). Hence, itreinforces the myth that an unrelenting pursuit leads toa surrender and a capture of the heart. As Chuck Jonespointed out: "...Pepe always represented... what I wantedto be, and what I think every man would like to be:irresistible, at least in one's own eyes. You don't haveto be irresistible in women's eyes if you think youare..." (Peary 213). This totally negates any wishes thefemale may have and relegates her to an object to bePage - 90possessed. The truth of the man's actions in this caseappears to be irrelevant, as long as he thinks that he isbeing charming. Pepe fails to understand the female'sposition, even when the roles are reversed. While hepossesses an overt but honest love of women and trulybelieves that she is a skunk, from the female's point ofview, it is misogyny.Jones not only deals with sexuality but the notion ofromantic love. He spoofs the Hollywood tradition of theyoung couple overcoming all obstacles to be together inhis cartoon entitled Feed the Kitty (1952). In it, ayoung kitten shows up in Marc Antony's backyard. Marc isa giant and ferocious dog. The kitten, however, isundaunted by him and makes itself comfortable on Marc'sback. This kitten is extraordinarily cute. It is tiny andblack with big, round eyes. As soon as it purrs, Marc isa lost cause. He is determined to protect the kitten fromeverything. The kitten appears to be female, due to itscuteness and Marc's adoration of it and yet later in thecartoon, Marc's owner refers to it as a "he". The plotrevolves around Marc trying to keep his owner, a femaleonly ever seen from the skirt down, from discovering theexistence of the kitten. Since he has so much stuffalready, the owner has forbidden him from bringinganything else into the house. He disguises the kitten asa toy and a powder puff in an effort to keep it hidden.Eventually the cat gets into the baking. Marc tries toPage - 91get it out and is thrown out of the house for being sucha nuisance. Fearing that his love is being turned intocookies, he begins to howl. His face runs the gamut ofevery emotion as he believes the kitten to be dead. Atlast he is let back in and given a cookie which resemblesthe kitten. Sobbing, he places it on his back and carriesit around, as he did the kitten. The kitten shows upsafe, however, and they are reunited. Marc is allowed tokeep the kitten provided he cares for and protects it.The love between the helpless kitten who can wind thisdog around its finger is both touching and absurd. Marccontinually showers it with kisses. He is such a "macho"dog, being so large and muscle ridden that only lovecould turn him into such a besotted fool. It is anamusing and oft repeated cliche. Marc also protects thekitten from a hungry cat, while watchdog in aconstruction site, in Cat Feud (1958). He feels noremorse at pummelling this starving cat in the name ofprotecting his kitten. Even though the owner calls thekitten a "he", it is never really confirmed either way.It has the characteristics of a female, as it is small,cute and oblivious to danger. It needs a strong manlytype like Marc Antony to protect it.These issues of gender and spectatorship occurconsistently throughout Jones' work. The concerns gobeyond notions of sexuality and voyeurism to includeproblems of genre and characterization. Jones thwarts thePage - 92spectator's desires and expectations at all levels. It isnot a "safe" viewing experience. Even the most basic filmconcept, such as a close up can be undermined. Beginningwith the structure of the cartoons, Jones then shapes newconventions of character and genre. In the next chapter,I will deal with the pairing of Bugs and Daffy and theresulting effects. Up to now, the cartoons have featuredone main character with a supporting character. I willnow deal with what happens when two very strongcharacters are placed together.Page - 93Conclusion Bugs and Daffy: Together At Last There is no established suitable theoreticalframework which easily encompasses the cartoons featuringBugs and Daffy. Instead, they must be viewed within thesame notions of gender and spectatorship that I havediscussed in the previous two chapters. I will attempt toformulate a theory for these cartoons which willemcompass the guidelines by which Jones works.Three specific areas will be focussed upon. The firstis the nature of Bugs' and Daffy's look towards eachother. Previous chapters dealt with the gaze existingbetween viewer and character. This was because the othercharacters they were teamed with were not of equal statusand, thus, the gaze between the viewer and screen wasmore important. With the pairing of the two, theirequality results in a demonstrative and self-reflexivegaze which adds a significance, missing in the othercartoons. I now intend to concentrate on the charactersthemselves with respect to a sadistic or masochisticgaze. I will also explain why a third character isgenerally introduced against whom the other two work.Second, I will raise the expectation of whether or notthese cartoons work in accordance with the previoustheories set out, or could either Bugs or Daffy bereplaced with any other character?Page - 94The last area is a consideration of the male/femaledivision. According to Mulvey, the male viewer has ascopophilic gaze, whereby he sadistically places thefemale as object. Male is equated with sadism and femalewith masochism. What is not often asked is whether thefemale watching the same scene finds masochism enjoyableor whether she also takes on a more sadistic position. Itis my contention that while watching the Bugs and Daffycartoons the female does receive the same enjoyment asthe male without being viewed herself as either an objector a fake male. The social conditioning of genderdifferences, which color any viewing experience, istranscended in these cartoons since the sex of Bugs orDaffy is irrelevant. Gender conflict is ignored in favorof a battle waged in terms of animal against human. Assuch, the sex of the viewer does not matter since theexperience is influenced by one's humanity rather than byone's gender.The first set of cartoons to be examined will be theones known as the "Hunter Trilogy". They include Rabbit Fire (1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952), and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! (1953). These cartoons are the heart of all the"Bugs and Daffy" cartoons, as they pit the two bothalongside and against each other.While Bugs is the wise-cracking con man in charge ofany situation, Daffy is the neurotic bumbler, desperateto survive but always losing out because of his own lackPage - 95of emotional control. Although many of the cartoonsstudied in previous chapters were created after these, itis my contention that the cartoons featuring the twotogether are the quintessential cartoons for bothcharacters. Their relationship is both sadistic andmasochistic, and no one else is as perfect a foil or asadmirable an adversary as the other.The confrontation with Bugs in the "Hunter Trilogy"centres around the basic gag of trying to convince Elmerthat it is a different hunting season. Elmer is dangerousas he has the gun but is also the dupe. As he says inresponse to Bugs and Daffy trying to tempt his tastebudswith ways to cook the other, "Sorry guys, I'm avegetarian. I just hunt for the sport of it." Unlike thecoyote, there is no sense of a kill for survival.This gag takes the form of three phases. Initially,Bugs and Daffy are under Elmer's gun. They try to get theother shot and Bugs usually wins by outsmarting Daffy at"pronoun" games. In the next stage, they play con games.In Rabbit Fire the two read cookbooks on how to cook theother, while in Duck! Rabbit! Duck! they confuse Elmer byscrewing up the hunting seasons. For example, in ordernot to be shot during duck season, Daffy keeps saying"I'm a..", ranging from goat to crab, at which point Bugsholds up a sign proclaiming it to be that very season andElmer shoots. Daffy finally flips and begs Elmer to keepshooting him. Elmer then asks Bugs, as the game warden,Page - 96what season it is. Bugs replies, "It's baseball season,"and Elmer goes crazy. The final stage consists of avariation in role. Using imitation and disguise, theyconfuse Elmer by dressing as the other. If that failsthen Bugs will resort to drag, which always works. Daffygenerally won't stand for this behavior and tries to getElmer to see behind the obvious disguise. Only in Rabbit Fire does he willingly assist Bugs by playing the dog tohis lady hunter. This is probably because he is allowedto indulge his sadistic side and bite Elmer. At the endof that cartoon they pronounce it to be "Elmer season,"and dress up as Elmer, mimicking his trademark line, "Bevery very quiet. I'm hunting Elmers," as they both hunttheir prey.So while Bugs and Daffy need the other to fully showup the character traits which Jones has created, it isimportant that there is a third character for them towork against. They cannot merely be enemies because ifBugs is an anti-hero, in the tradition of Bogart, thenDaffy is also a hero. The only character that Daffy isnot superior to is Bugs. However, they complement eachother. Bugs is very cool and suave; he is always incontrol, and yet, Daffy is far more human. He is flawed,but possesses a determination of which Bugs cannotconceive. If they were directly pitted against the other,Bugs would probably always win, but it would not besatisfying to the viewer.Page - 97This is tied into the gaze which exists between thetwo. Bugs and Daffy are aware of their status. Not onlyare they fulfilling their roles, they are also beingthemselves, for without the labels of "Bugs" or "Daffy",they have no existence. The nature of their sparringtakes the form of verbal abuse and glances directed atthe audience in order to elicit emotion. Unlike in theirother cartoons, neither character is leading the other.They are equals. Bugs' looks are generally a self-satisfied smirk, while Daffy's tend to try to drawsympathy for a plight into which he has landed himself.They possess a demonstrative and self-reflexive gazebetween themselves. Both are aware of the strengths andweaknesses of the other, which is why their war isengaged on a level ground. This is also the reason whythey need a third party against which to work. If theyjust waged war on each other, a perpetual stalemate wouldexist.Unlike Bugs' other foes, Daffy is not intellectuallyinferior. He merely undermines his own plans. They maytry to con each other, but ultimately, there must be athird element which they are allied (no matter howtentatively) against. That is why these cartoons are thequintessential expression of both Bugs and Daffy.In the cartoons which only featured one of them,examples were given of how female characters were eitherignored or stereotyped and objectified. It is arguablePage - 98that women have been conditioned to view in the same wayas men. Viewing pleasure is not necessarliy predicated onmale terms. This also holds true in films where women arenot represented at all. For example, in Duck Dodgers nowomen were portrayed and, thus, could not be parodied. Itwas a male buddy film. Women are not supposed to beoffended that no females exist in this all male world,but to take pleasure from the antics which evolve fromthe lack of an equal female character. This cartoonemployed the convention of two males on a road trip toachieve some goal. Even if Daffy is superior to Porky,the stereotype of the hero/sidekick bond is utilized. Inthe cartoons featuring both Bugs and Daffy, the problemof how women view is nonexistent. Men and women take thesame pleasure in watching these cartoons.It is only in the cartoons which feature bothcharacters that Bugs' Groucho Marx wit and tough urbanitycan fully express itself. The two are well-roundedcharacters but with the other, they are truly complete.For example, Daffy can only partner Porky so often. Daffyis both sadistic and masochistic. He lives for the dramaof his own histrionics, and Porky, while capable ofachieving the goals Daffy sets (capturing the Slasher orclaiming a planet), is a very understated character. Ittakes Bugs' control of any situation and his intelligenceto play straight man to Daffy's melodrama while stillremaining his equal.Page - 99In Rabbit Fire, Daffy is seen setting out signs whichread "Rabbit Season". He cheerfully admits to the camera,"Survival of the fittest, and besides, it's fun!" In thepreviously examined Daffy cartoons, he possesses thissame attitude of "do to others before they do to you" butbecause of the fact that he has sidekicks and notpartners, he usually takes everyone down with him. Bugsmay be an unwilling accomplice to Daffy's schemes, but hecan at least save himself, if not Daffy as well.One of the most famous examples of Daffy's attempt toharm Bugs is in Rabbit Seasoning. Most often Daffy triesto get Bugs killed through verbal argument rather thanthrough physical action, as with the coyote cartoons.This is his downfall because Bugs is a great manipulator.Daffy tries to convince Elmer to shoot Bugs by saying"Shoot him now," which Bugs repeats right back. Daffygets so riled up that he does not notice that Bugs haschanged the phrase to "He doesn't have to shoot you now."This is Daffy's undoing, for Elmer complies with hisfervent demand to "Shoot me now!" and, once more, thebeak is shot askew as a reminder of his own ineptitude.Daffy decides to try that fight again. Calmly, theyrecite their previous lines until Bugs again exclaimsthat same line. Daffy responds, "Aha! Pronoun Trouble.It's not he doesn't have to shoot you now, it's hedoesn't have to shoot me now. Well I say he does have toshoot me now! So shoot me now!" And off goes the beak.Page - 100It is also important that both are fighting againstthe common "evil" of Elmer the hunter. Again, in trueBugs fashion, he does not get involved until Daffy dragshim into the situation. Bugs just wants to be left alone.Richard Thompson (1975) examined this issue, asking:How do Bugs and Daffy differ? Bugs is a winnerand Daffy is a loser. In these films we have theclearest definition of general roles: Elmer neverknows what's going on; Bugs always knows what'sgoing on and is in control of events; Daffy isbright enough to understand how to be in control,but he never quite makes it. Both Bugs and Daffyare talkers, but Daffy talks too much - Daffy'svanity is disastrous. Bugs stands back from asituation, analyzes it, and makes his move;Daffy becomes emotionally involved, loses hisdistance and blows it. He's stuck with a onetrack mind which fixes on only one facet of theproblem and loses sight of the larger pattern.Bugs is a strong, more traditional American hero- Daffy is much more complicated. He's a coward,he claims, but a live coward - he feels apreemptive necessity to set someone else (Bugs)up for the destruction he knows is stalking him.(40)Hence if Daffy enters into sadistic relations with othercharacters, such as Porky, and is masochistic towardsPage - 101himself, for example through his greed, then Bugs feedsoff this masochism, achieving his own success at Daffy'sexpense.In terms of American cultural references, it could beargued that Daffy possesses the post WW2 mentality ofangst while Bugs is the strong American hero who reactsto threats upon his person or property. Bugs may not lookfor any reward from his actions, but Daffy's yen forheroism is tied to a lack of scruples and an overwhelmingsense of self-pity, self-rightousness and self-aggrandizement.Bugs' sense of control also manifests itself in theway that the cartoons are shot. In any given cartoon,Bugs plays himself among the various period people,whereas Daffy gets into the period costumes and tries tospeak and act the part. He longs to be a movie hero.Daffy recognizes impending doom and mentally records thedamage which tends to follow him. Within the frame, Bugstends to be either in the centre or rising from his hole,which is in the centre. Daffy, on the other hand, walksinto a static shot or there is a cut from a static shotof Bugs and Elmer to a shot tracking Daffy as he moves tojoin his co-stars. Within the mise-en-scene, he's anoutsider and less privileged. If Bugs is the centre ofevents, then Daffy is trying to find this same calm.While Bugs and Daffy may tentatively be friends, theyare not buddies. There is no bond between them. They mayPage - 102join together to fight against a common foe, but in theprocess, they are quite willing to sacrifice the other.That is why these cartoons lie outside of Mulvey's notionof the sadistic gaze. Even the one time where Bugsdresses up in drag and Daffy does go along with it, Elmeris quicker to see through the disguises. Reduced to abasic level, these cartoons feature two characters(animals) who want to outsmart the stupid hunter. Mankindis the objectified and parodied object in this case. Thuswomen can view and enjoy these cartoons as fully and,more importantly, in the same way as men. It is animalagainst human, and gender becomes irrelevant. Elmer isnot the conventional image of a man. He is bald and soft,almost eunuch-like in his appearance. He has a speechimpediment which is used as a basis for humour. He is anabsurd and unrealistic character. As such, both men andwomen have the same ease or difficulty relating to him.There is no male sexual prowess or manly strength to bondhim more firmly with the male viewers.Elmer is parodied further in Beanstalk Bunny (1955).Jones continues his play on genres by casting Daffy asJack, in the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk, and castingElmer as the giant. The humor comes when Daffy runs intoBugs. Both know that there is no place for a rabbit inthis story but, once again, Daffy is willing to ally withhim if it will save his skin. Daffy is very consciousthat he is playing a role, as he exclaims, "I'd betterPage - 103get to climbing that thing or we won't have any picture."Daffy plays both himself ( a duck ) and Jack. Because heis Jack, he wants the gold which, according to the story,should come to him. But he becomes just a duck in dealingwith Bugs and tries to weasel his way out of thepunishment Jack must take. Bugs' calm in this picturestems from the fact that everyone knows that there is norabbit in the story, and so no harm will come his way.At one point, Bugs and Daffy end up running around inElmer's ears, nose and mouth, creating a Swiftian image.Jones is working on the premise that if miniaturizationis going to be used, then it has to be as realistic aspossible. The audience has to believe in it. Bugseventually escapes, but Daffy in his thirst for greedends up as the hands on Elmer's watch.Both this cartoon and Ali Baba Bunny (1957) continueto demonstrate the perfect unity of this match. In thelatter cartoon, they come upon Ali Baba's cave oftreasure, having taken a wrong turn on the way to PismoBeach. Daffy sees the wealth first and punches Bugs intothe ground, crying, "I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'mcomfortably well off !" Meanwhile Ali Baba's servant isoutside, desperately trying to remember the correct "s"word which will open the cave.In addition to playing with the conventions of thegenre, Bugs uses disguise. He dresses like a genie tooutsmart the servant Hassan. When Bugs saves himself andPage - 104Daffy and tries to persuade him to leave, Daffy refuses.Daffy tries to get all the treasure for himself, but thegenie turns him into a midget. In the end, Bugs finds apearl, but a tiny Daffy runs out to grab it, screaming,"It's mine! I'm a happy miser." Daffy has brought abouthis own ruin but he is philosophical about it.Because Daffy and Bugs are trying to escape from agiant and genie in these two cartoons, the sameprinciples of viewing hold true. It is as easy or asdifficult for a male or female spectator to identify witheither of these fantasy, stereotyped characters. Thedifferences in gender and social conditioning which anyaudience member brings to a viewing experience becomesirrelevant. The conflict is not male/female or evenanimal/human. It is animal/ fantasy creature.In studying the work of Chuck Jones, I have attemptedto show that the issues of gender and spectatorship areevident throughout his animation. He does not offersolutions to any of the thoeretical concerns which aremanifest and, in fact, most of the time he is rootedwithin the patriarchal-minded Hollywood studio system.However, his work, represents a purity of the cinematicapparatus which many live-action films did not achieve,due to the large number of movies churned out under thestudio system.Not only is he a master of characterization, but hehas a clear understanding of cinematic techniques, suchPage - 105as framing, mise-en-scene and montage. He is also capableof redefining the notion of genre and to a lesser degreequestioning the value of the star system upon whichHollywood is based.Although there is much about the field of animationwhich is easily dismissible, it has been my contentionthat the great contributions in cinema were not just madeby the live-action giants such as Griffith, Renoir orEisenstein. Jones made many significant contributions tocinema in terms of how the cinematic apparatus can beviewed. It is even more impressive that thesecontributions were made at that time in animation, afield whose possibilities have only recently begun to befully explored. I have tried to prove that just becausesomething has always only been judged according to itsentertainment value, is no reason to dismiss itspotential validity and importance in other culturalareas. Animation, especially that of Chuck Jones, is nolonger just for kids.Page - 106Filmography Ali Baba Bunny.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1957.Beanstalk Bunny.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1955.Bugs Bunny and the Three Bears.  Dir. Chuck Jones. WarnerBrothers, 1944.Bugs Bonnets.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1956.Bully For Bugs. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1953.Case of the Missing Hare. Dir. Chuck Jones. WarnerBrothers, 1942.Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur.  Dir. Chuck Jones. WarnerBrothers, 1939.Deduce You Say.  Dir, Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1956.Dripalong Daffy.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1951.Duck Amuck.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1953.Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2 Century. Dir. Chuck Jones.Warner Brothers, 1953.Duck! Rabbit! Duck!. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers,1953.Feed The Kitty.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1952.For Scent-Imental Reasons. Dir. Chuck Jones. WarnerBrothers, 1949.Grey Hounded Hare. Dir. Robert McKimson. Warner Brothers,1949.Hair Raising Hare. Dir, Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers,1946.Hare Do.  Dir. Fritz Freleng. Warner Brothers, 1949.Long Haired Hare.  Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1949.Page - 107One Froggy Evening. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers,1955.Porky's Duck Hunt. Dir. Tex Avery. Warner Brothers,^1937.Jones. Warner Brothers,^1951.Rabbit Fire.^Dir. ChuckRabbit Of Seville. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1950.Rabbit Seasoning. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1952.Robin Hood Daffy. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1958.Roman Legion Hare. Dir. Fritz Freleng. Warner Brothers,1955.The Daffy Doc. Dir. Robert Clampett. Warner Brothers,1938.The Scarlett Pumpernickel. Dir. Chuck Jones. WarnerBrothers, 1950.Wackiki Wabbit. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1943.What's Opera Doc? Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1957.Zoom and Bored. Dir. Chuck Jones. Warner Brothers, 1957.Page - 108Bibliography Adamson, Joe. "Michael Maltese and Maurice Noble." FilmComment 14.1 (1975): 18-20.^ . "Chuck Jones Interviewed. " The American Animated Cartoon. Ed, Danny & Gerald Peary. New York :E.P. Dutton, 1980: 128-141.Booth, Mark. Camp. London : Quartet Books, 1983.Cook, David. A History of Narrative Film. New York : W.W.Norton & Co., 1981.Crafton, Donald. Before Mickey. London : MIT Press, 1982.De Lauretis, Teresa. Alice Doesn't. Bloomington : IndianaUP, 1982.^ . Technologies Of Gender. Bloomington :^IndianaUP, 1987.Delgaudio, Sybil. "Seduced and Reduced: Female AnimalCharacters In Some Warners' Cartoons." The American Animated Cartoon. Ed. Danny & Gerald Peary. New York :E.P. Dutton, 1980: 211-216.Dyer, Richard, ed. Gays And Film. New York : New YorkZoetrope, 1984.Farber, Manny. Negative Space. New York : Praeger Pub.,1971.Ford, Greg. "Chuck Jones." Film Comment 14.1 (1975):21-38.^ . "Warner Brothers." Film Comment 14.1 (1975): 10-17.Freud, Sigmund. Three Essays On Sexuality. London :Hogarth Press, 1961. Vol 7 of The Standard Edition ofthe Complete Psychological Works of Freud. Gaines, Jane. "The Showgirl And The Wolf." Cinema Journal 19.1 (1980) : 50-66.Haskel, Molly. From Reverence To Rape. Chicago : ChicagoUP, 1987.Jones, Chuck. "The Roadrunner And Other Characters."Cinema Journal 19.1 (1980): 10-16.Page - 109Jones, Chuck. Chuck Amuck. New York : Avon Books, 1989.Leskosky, Richard. "The Reforming Fantasy." Velvet LightTrap 23.1 (1989): 33-66.Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice And Magic. New York : McGraw-Hill Books, 1980.Mast, Gerald. A Short History Of The Movies. New York :Pegasus, 1971.Mulvey, Laura. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema"Movies and Methods Vol. 2 Ed. Bill Nichols Berkeley :University of California Press, 1985: 303-314.Peary, Danny, and Gerald Peary, eds.  The American AnimatedCartoon. New York : E.P.Dutton, 1980.Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version. New York : Simon &Schuster, 1968.Schneider, Steve.  That's All Folks. New York : Henry Holtand Company, 1988.Small, Edward S, and Eugene Levinson, eds. "Toward ATheory of Animation." Velvet Light Trap 23.1 (1989):67-74.Smith, Lynn, and Robert Del Tradici, eds.  History Of Animated Film. Montreal : McGill University, 1988.Stephenson, Ralph. The Animated Film. London : TantivyPress, 1973.Studlar, Gaylyn. "Masochism and the Perverse Pleasures ofthe Cinema."^Movies and Methods Vol 2^Ed. BillNichols. Berkeley : University of California Press,1985:^602-624.Thompson, Richard. "Duck Amuck."  Film Comment^14.1(1975): 39-43.^ . "Meep-Meep!" The American Animated^Cartoon. Ed. Danny & Gerald Peary. New York : E.P.^Dutton,1980: 217-225Young, Chales M. "Oryctolagus Cuniculus - a.k.a. BugsBunny."  Village Voice 29 Dec 1975 : 33.Page - 110

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087400/manifest

Comment

Related Items