Matt: So glad you noted the vital fact that Looney Tunes must not be confused with the generally inferior Disney cartoons. Animation scholars/historians usually rate Charles M (CHUCK) JONES as a greater genius than the bland-cute Walt! Chuck’s three masterpieces “Duck Amuck,” “What’s Opera, Doc?” and “One Froggy Evening” are regularly voted among the top ten animations of all time. See http://www.chuckjones.com/
Froggy lacks Duck Amuck’s “self-referential” interventions (such as the cartoonist’s eraser pencil!) but the 7-minute story-line divinely examines the notion of commodifying art: Froggy resists commercial exploitation by performing only in the absence of an audience. Stop what you’re doing NOW and visit YouTube at
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE8wVTvHF0
To forestall misunderstanding, one recognizes that cartoons are very much collaborative art forms. Both Disney and Jones had talented teams that must share the kudos &/or criticism. Nevertheless, Jones is acknowledged as the chief begetter in creating the odd-ball Looney Tunes characters for Warner Bros.
Wiki notes the one occasion when Jones’ and Disney’s characters converged:
In 1988, several Looney Tunes characters appeared in cameo roles in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The more notable cameos featured Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, Sylvester, and Tweety. It is the only time in which Looney Tunes characters have shared screen time with their rivals at Disney—particularly in the scenes where Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are skydiving, and when Daffy Duck and Donald Duck are performing their "Duelling Pianos" sequence.
It’s a shame that in spite of Chuck’s 3 Oscars, his distinct corpus is still confused with Disney’s. I equate that to praising Dostoevsky’s Madame Bovary.
I suspect that Nabokov preferred the bizarre, surreal, often CRUEL [!] Looney Tunes cast of characters (esp. Road Runner) in spite of occasionally politically-incorrect ethnic stereotypes.
SES: Has our in-house Anagrammist suggested that your real target should be [Sir Philip] SIDNEY? Oops, too late!
Nabokov's Ada and Sidney's Arcadia: the regeneration of a Phoenix.
From: The Modern Language Review | Date: January 1, 2004| Author: McCarthy, Penny |
This article argues that an important feature of Nabokov's Ada or Ardor is its evocation of Sidney's romance Arcadia and sonnet sequence Astrophel and Stella. Particular echoes and general thematic resonance are investigated, and found to be too pervasive to be coincidental. Reasons are offered why Nabokov might have been secretive about such an ancestry. They concern his political, erotic, and literary self-construction, and underlie his whole oeuvre, adding a layer of meaning to his chosen nom de plume, 'Sirin'.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-132906752.html
Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 16/12/2008 18:46, "NABOKV-L" <NABOKV-L@HOLYCROSS.EDU> wrote:
> Eric Butterbaugh said:
> During a recent symposium entitled Lolita in America (The New School,
> NYC, 27-Sept-08), Alfred Appel briefly discussed *Lolita's *self-reflexive
> structure (i.e. narrative involution, self-conscious fiction, etc.). He
> said something to the effect of "[Disney's] Duck Amuck is the best
> example of self-reflexivity in art." It's posted on YouTube and appears
> on *Looney Toons Golden Collection: Volume 1.* Hope this helps.
>
> MR: I was really happy to see this comparison from Appel, since I have, for
> several years now, used "Duck Amuck" (1953) in my course on VN as an example
> of VN's view of art. I should mention, however, that it is a Warner Bros.
> cartoon, not a Disney cartoon.
>
> Matt
>