Rating: 
Summary: This history of American animation is a major achievement!
Review: I read somewhere recently that Michael Barrier worked on this book for almost thirty years, and I believe it. It is an awesomely complete, well documented, reader-friendly history, and Barrier clearly understands what makes animation works for audiences. He even references the writings of acting master theorist Constantin Stanlisvski! If you're interested in animation history, or even American history, this is a must-read.
Rating: 
Summary: golden age...what golden age?
Review: Michael Barrier's "Hollywood Cartoons" is impeccably researched and intellectually sophisticated; a milestone in its way, it also poses a few problems, one being the inescapable conclusion that the golden age of Hollywood scarcely existed at all. Mr. Barrier casts a baleful eye on some of animation's finest: Chuck Jones' "What's Opera, Doc?" is 'an empty triumph'; "Fantasia", hopelessly puerile and retrograde; "The Tell-Tale Heart", recently chosen for preservation by the Library of Congress, 'a total flop'. Even "Pinocchio" inspires more vitriol than praise (too much airbrush, poor planning and characterizations - Disney 'took the guts out of it', etc...) Can't these guys do anything right? Terrytoons are characterized by 'pervasive squalor', and he assures us UPA, once the shining avatar of cutting-edge animation, could be as dull, insipid and uninspired as any other studio. That's good to know. It should come as no surprise that Mr. Barrier feels a special affinity for Disney's Grumpy (Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs) though this he attributes to Bill Tytla's masterful character animation. Hubley's "Rooty Toot Toot" also receives the Barrier seal of approval. But, in general, there are few pearls to be found among the prevailing dross. There's no question Barrier takes his subject seriously...perhaps, too seriously. Lighten up...they're just cartoons!
Rating: 
Summary: Unsatisfying
Review: One reads one book on American animation, and one has read them all. Each of them seems to say the same thing. They all breeze over the 1950s, offering disparaging comments, if any at all, on the influence if the "iconoclastic" UPA and the merits of series of character-driven cartoons with wilfully abstract, impressionistic backgrounds and lavish use of color. Warner Brothers cartoons of the 1950s always receive short shrift, especially non-Chuck Jones work. Barrier dismisses the post-1948 Friz Freleng and Robert McKimson cartoons and therefore many of my favorite animated short films, and I should presume favorites of many others in that the Saturday morning television network Bugs Bunny Show et al. that showcased only post-1948 Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies was reportedly the highest rated Saturday morning television program of all time. In any event, the majority of these cartoons were popular staples of Saturday morning television for 30 years, to the deserved credit of Freleng, McKimson, and Jones. Barrier has nothing positive to say of the teaming of Friz Freleng and writer Warren Foster, the men mostly responsible for the Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam and Tweety/Sylvester series, and the DePatie-Freleng (Pink Panther) era is totally overlooked. Even Chuck Jones' most famous cartoons, i.e. "What's Opera, Doc?" and the Road Runner series, are harshly criticized. Just once, I would like to read a book that gives fair consideration and coverage to the works of all studios and directors.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine survey of the greats, but what about the runners-up?
Review: This book is a marvelous achievement but I'm not sure its title is appropriate. Barrier is concerned with charting the development of excellence, and as such his perspective appears to be "hats off to Disney, kudos to Warner Brothers and Tex Avery, and polite nods to everybody else". The ranking is unexceptionable, and the coverage of Disney and Warners' is rich and incisive. But surely a survey of "Hollywood Cartoons" would ideally have more than a few pages each on Terrytoons, Walter Lantz, Popeye and Betty Boop. Especially the latter three, while obviously not pinnacles of the art, have more than their share of moments worth examination, which a book honing so closely to linear development must leave aside. Obviously a book giving more equal coverage to the well-loved also-rans would be an intimidating doorstop, but one almost wishes Barrier had written one book on Disney and another on the other cartoons. However, Barrier is a sterling scholar and analyst; I repeatedly found myself first shaken by his criticisms of cartoons I have long held sacrosanct, only to usually agree with him in the end.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent on drawing; poor on music, character, aesthetics.
Review: This book is about as good as the other reviews above indicate, including the comment about the prosaic prose. However it is by no means a complete or definitive coverage. The book is mainly about drawing and only covers business aspects, industry politics, and personalities related to drawing. Barrier has little to say about music, specifically the extraordinary work of Carl Stallings, or about characterization, voice, or plotting. Indeed he appears to be more or less uninterested in content. At least 70% of the book is on Disney and an astonishingly small space is given to the great WB years. Both are disproportionate. Although Barrier discusses the technicalities of drawing at great length, he barely scratches the surface of aesthetics. In particular he never once considers the most disfiguring aspect of Disney's work. The basis of the entire Disney project was simulated emotion, i.e. kitsch. Barrier never comes anywhere near discussing this issue properly.
Rating:
Summary: Behind the Hi-Jinx
Review: This was a very good book, with a few caveats. The first chapter, on silent cartoons, is hard going. Not until Walt Disney shows up does that chapter start flowing. BUT from that point on, until the chapter on UPA, I had a hard time putting "Hollywood Cartoons" down. Barrier doesn't take the usual perspective on cartoons. He doesn't care how they appeal to the casual viewer but how they look to the pro. I didn't agree with all his judgments, but I respect his judgments. I have read several histories of cartoons, and Barrier still managed to surprise me or say something new. He had the best discussion of the origins of Bugs Bunny I've ever read. His description of the working of MGM's cartoon studio was fascinating, and his views on Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones showed real insight. Barrier states his opinions strongly. He doesn't like Fleischer or UPA cartoons, and he doesn't think Friz Freleng is worth a lot of discussion. (I would disagree about Friz, but agree on the other stuff.) In all, this was a fine book on this subject, and I am glad I read it.
Rating:
Summary: Behind the Hi-Jinx
Review: This was a very good book, with a few caveats. The first chapter, on silent cartoons, is hard going. Not until Walt Disney shows up does that chapter start flowing. BUT from that point on, until the chapter on UPA, I had a hard time putting "Hollywood Cartoons" down. Barrier doesn't take the usual perspective on cartoons. He doesn't care how they appeal to the casual viewer but how they look to the pro. I didn't agree with all his judgments, but I respect his judgments. I have read several histories of cartoons, and Barrier still managed to surprise me or say something new. He had the best discussion of the origins of Bugs Bunny I've ever read. His description of the working of MGM's cartoon studio was fascinating, and his views on Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones showed real insight. Barrier states his opinions strongly. He doesn't like Fleischer or UPA cartoons, and he doesn't think Friz Freleng is worth a lot of discussion. (I would disagree about Friz, but agree on the other stuff.) In all, this was a fine book on this subject, and I am glad I read it.
|
