Not long ago, Cartoon Brew posted some videos of the new Bugs and Daffy TV show. As usual, the producers hired a bunch of witty writers to come up with jokes for Bugs and Daffy. Lots of attitude, but little action.
So why is it the English can turn out great TV animation that uses almost no dialog? What I’m thinking of are these two shows. The Animated Mr. Bean, and Shaun the Sheep from Aardman. Here are samples.
I could easily tip into a rant on this topic. But here is my basic premise:
Super Powers are a shortcut for creativity.
And by super powers I am including extreme martial arts skills, super genius intelligence and freaky mutations. Somehow, these have become all to common in animation.
Charlie Chaplin taught us that comedy is the little guy against the big world. All he has are his wits. Cartoon characters used to have to prove themselves. They start off as underdogs and by effort and cleverness they win.
I’m not saying we should never use super powers, but it can’t define the character. The character has to demonstrate more individuality than suddenly achieving that long sought kung fu move or whipping up a new invention to save himself.
Cartoon characters by nature have at least one super power. They can’t die.
Playing against type is a common method of creating funny characters. It involves a character whose voice or behavior is in extreme opposition to their physical appearance. Here are some examples:
Of course you wouldn’t want to overuse the technique because it would create a world you couldn’t believe in. It’s better to use it sparingly, it’s funnier that way. If you were, for example, to put all those characters in a film together, the results would be a disorienting calamity.
SUCH AS HOODWINKED TWO
Yes, the writers of Hoodwinked 2 try to make nearly every character a contradiction. How can you connect with any of them? The effect is funny at first, but the joke can wear out quickly. The wolf who is just plain stupid isn’t really a contradiction, but he’s… just plain stupid. The troll who is an effeminate homeboy even doubles down on the technique. The only character I find the tiniest bit interesting is the frog, who appears to be the straight man, and it’s because he’s not like the others. It really is best if no more than 1 secondary character plays against his or her type.
It is obvious Rango pays tribute to seemingly every western film ever made, and I just realized one in particular. I don’t think I’m giving away any spoilers, but I reference a couple of early scenes.
Buster Keaton made “Go West” in 1925. He plays a down on his luck easterner who hops a freight train and heads west to find his fortune. On the train he falls into a barrel, which rolls out the door and smashes into pieces on the ground. Which is similar to Rango and his terrarium falling into the desert. Shortly after that, he wanders onto a cattle ranch, and we get this scene here:
When Rango enters the town of Dirt he doesn’t want to attract attention, so he imitates three of the walks he sees there.
Buster doesn’t just see a peculiar walk and instantly replicate it perfectly. Charlie Chaplin would probably do that. With Buster there are lots of little things happening.
It’s more than just a funny walk, Buster emphasizes the unsteadiness of his feet and his imitation, which makes it more endearing.
I wonder if Buster inspired this scene in Rango.