2007 Review: 5 Originality vs. Ripoffs

As the ASIFA-Hollywood Animation Archive completes its second year in operation, it's time to review the accomplishments of the past year. Here's a countdown of the ten most important subjects we've covered in 2007. See if your list matches mine. (View the complete list.) Click on the link to read more on this topic.


NUMBER 5: ORIGINALITY vs RIPOFFS

Ethics may not be the first subject that comes to mind when you think of the challenges facing cartoonists, but it's an important issue. I addressed the students who read this site and gave them some useful advice on thinking for themselves in an article titled...

Originality vs. Ripoffs: Chaplin's Shadow
April 25th, 2007

This may just be the most important single article we've ever posted here.

Go To Number 4 on the list of Top Ten Subjects of 2007

Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive
.

Stumble It!

Theory: Parody- More Whack Comics

This post is just the tip of the iceberg... see reason number 2 on our The Top Ten Reasons To Support The A-HAA for links to more great posts about comics.


Today, we present more parodies from Whack comics... But first take a look at the picture above. It's an an early advertisement for the Joe Kubert School. 3D comics and movies were all the rage then. Television was beginning to cut into ticket sales at theaters, and producers were looking for a technical advantage over TV to give them an edge. But the fad quickly fizzled out. Movie audiences and comic book readers were more interested in the quality of the movies and comics than the number of dimensions. Today, DVDs and digital media downloading are cutting into the traditional media markets. Some producers are beating the drum for 3D again. Let's hope they realize soon that people are more interested in quality entertainment than formats.

The following story by Joe Kubert and Norman Maurer trumpets their publication of the world's first 3D comic book, Three Dimension Comics in 1953. Strangely enough, the comic this was published in, Whack wasn't in 3D!








PARODY

In my last post on Whack comics, I left something unsaid, hoping someone would pick up on it in the comments. J.J. Hunsecker was the one who finally mentioned it...

I find it kind of ironic that you're using Whack as an example of parody, since it can also be said to be a ripoff of MAD.

It's important to understand exactly where the line lies between exploiting an existing concept and plagiarism. Whack doesn't plagiarise Mad magazine... it simply uses the same basic format- a parody comic book. It doesn't ripoff Mad magazine any more than Roy Rogers ripped off Gene Autry or Star Wars ripped off Star Trek. They are simply working in the same genre.

MIGHTY MOOSE
Here's an amusing parody of Paul Terry's Mighty Mouse. The Super Rodent himself even makes an appearance! This is a "second generation parody". Mighty Mouse himself was a parody of Superman.








FLUSH JORDAN
Flash Gordon was also a comic inspired by the success of another similar comic. Alex Raymond created the strip to compete with Dick Calkins' science fiction comic, Buck Rogers. Here, Flash gets "Whacked"... and Bing Crosby is dragged into the mess too!







Thanks to the Estate of Milton Caniff for allowing us to digitize this.

If you enjoyed this post, see... Parody: Whack Comics Part One and Ripoff vs Inspiration: Chaplin's Shadow. Also see... Jim Tyer's Funny Animal Comics, Basil Wolverton's Powerhouse Pepper, Milt Stein's Supermouse Comics No. 4, and Boodie Rogers' Babe Comics Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

Thanks
Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive

4.3.09
.

Stumble It!

Theory: Parody- Whack Comics No. 2 (1953)

This post is just the tip of the iceberg... see reason number 2 on our The Top Ten Reasons To Support The A-HAA for links to more great posts about comics.



A week or two ago, I was taking part in a discussion on the Cold Hard Flash blog about ripping off other artists' work. One of the people discussing the subject brought up the concept of parody, but seemed to have no idea what actually constituted parody. The dictionary defines parody like this...

par-o-dy [par-uh-dee] noun, plural -dies, verb, -died, -dy-ing.
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet's soliloquy.

Parody is self-evident. The Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart said, "I find it difficult to define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." Parody is like that too. But if you're going to be a cartoonist, you have to be able to do more than just recognize it... you need to be able to control it and utilize it as a tool. If you succeed, you can create something that does much more than just make fun of another work- it can illuminate an otherwise unthought-of truth, making your parody a creative work that stands on its own. If you fail, you risk plagiarism.

pla-gia-rism [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] -noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

As a cartoonist, you have to know how to use parody properly. Parody is not an excuse for plagiarism. It's important to add your own caricature and exaggeration to comment on the work you're parodying. And your exaggeration has to make a point. The easiest way to recognize how to do that is to study and analyze other parodies. Here is an example of a comic that parodies other comics... Whack! Today I am presenting two stories from this issue...

WEIRD CREEPY AWFUL SPOOKY GHASTLY COMICS
This story is a parody of the EC Comics horror line, which included Tales From The Crypt, Vault Of Horror and The Haunt Of Fear. If you aren't familiar with these comics, you should check out the reprints produced by Russ Cochran.








STEVE CREVICE
This parody of Milton Caniff's Steve Canyon was created by cartoonist, William Overgard. Overgard was a friend of Caniff's. Once, when Caniff was hospitalized, Overgard ghosted a whole week of Steve Canyon dalies so Caniff had time to recouperate. This particular copy of Whack belonged to Caniff. It was lent to us by his estate to digitize.








Let me know in the comments below if you would like to see more from Whack comics.

If you enjoyed this post, see... Ripoff vs Inspiration: Chaplin's Shadow and Milton Caniff's Steve Canyon Dalies. Also see... Jim Tyer's Funny Animal Comics, Basil Wolverton's Powerhouse Pepper, Milt Stein's Supermouse Comics No. 4, and Boodie Rogers' Babe Comics Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.

Thanks
Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive

3.27.09
.

Stumble It!

Theory: Chaplin's Shadow

This post is just the tip of the iceberg... see reason number 8 on our The Top Ten Reasons To Support The A-HAA for links to more great art instruction posts.


The Legendary Charlie Chaplin
Recently, controversy has erupted in the blogosphere over artists who directly copy other artists' work (See the articles on Cartoonist Todd Goldman, Family Guy and Jerry Mouse and The Great Ripping Friends Rip-Off.) The issue of exactly where the dividing line lies between "homage" and "ripoff" is open for debate among fans, but today I want to speak to the artists out there... and in particular, aspiring animators. For you, this subject is more than just idle chatter.

Every day, an artist makes thousands of decisions. These decisions affect not just the piece he is working on at the time, but his entire creative output. It's important to understand why you're making the decisions you make, and to strive to work your problems out for yourself; not just apply someone else's decisions as a substitute for your own. Truly great artists refuse to even copy themselves... Take Terry-Toons animator Jim Tyer for instance. He never approached the same situation with the same animation twice in his entire career.

There are consequences to the decisions we make as artists. Sometimes in the heat of creativity, right and wrong can become blurred by practicality and commercial demands. It's up to you to balance those competing pressures, but as the old saying goes, "Virtue is its own reward."

It's hard to not react with bias to current examples of imitation, but time can lend clarity. I'm going to tell you about two performers who were popular nearly a century ago. One of them you know. The other you don't. The reason for that is in the decisions those two artists made. -Stephen Worth


Edgar Kennedy and Charlie Chaplin
CHAPLIN'S SHADOW
In 1916, Charlie Chaplin signed a contract with Mutual to produce 12 comedy shorts over a year and half's time. He was paid the unheard of amount of $670,000 for the shorts, and was given unprecidented creative freedom. We now know that the end result of this deal was a package of slapstick shorts that represent the most influential comedy films in the entire history of cinema. But back in 1916, it was just a LOT of money being paid to a relatively untested artist.

Here is an anthology that pulled together articles from Judge magazine during this seminal period in movie history...


In the pages of this anthology is this article on Chaplin's deal with Mutual. Although the form of the prose is quite different from what we read today in entertainment magazines and blogs, the apologies for appealing to the unrefined masses, complaints about big budgets, and stories about movie-star ego trips are the same sorts of sniping we read in reviews today. What this writer didn't know was that Chaplin was on the cusp of breaking through as the single most important filmmaker of his time.


Now that the stage is set, I want to introduce you to "The Shadow"...

Billy Ritchie worked alongside Chaplin on the English Music Hall stage, performing as the drunk in the classic sketch, "Mumming Birds", just as Chaplin did in his vaudeville days. Chaplin's biographer, David Robinson described this sketch like this...

The setting for "Mumming Birds" represents the stage of a small music hall, with two boxes at either side. The sketch opens with fortissimo music as a girl shows an elderly gentleman and his nephew- an objectionable boy, armed with peashooter, tin trumpet, and picnic hamper- into the lower O.P. box.

The Inebriated Swell is settled into the prompt side box, and instantly embarks upon some business of a very Chaplinesque character. He peels the glove from his right hand, tips the waiting attendant, and then, forgetting that he has already removed his glove, absently attempts to peel it off again. He tries to light his cigar from the electric light beside the box. The boy holds out a match for him, and in gracefully inclining to reach it, the Swell falls out of the box.

The show within the show consisted of a series of abysmal acts... The acts changed over the years, but some remained invariable: a ballad singer, a male voice quartet, and the Saucy Soubrette, delighting the Swell with her rendering of "You Naughty, Naughty Man!"

The finale was always "Marconi Ali, the Terrible Turk- the Greatest Wrestler Ever to Appear Before the British Public". The Terrible Turk was a poor, puny little man weighed down by an enormous mustache, who would leap so voraciously upon a bun thrown at him by the Boy that the Stage Manager had to cry out, "Back, Ali! Back!" The Turk's offer to fight any challenger for a purse of £100 provided the excuse for a general scrimmage to climax the act.

Ritchie came from the same basic background as Chaplin, so when Chaplin began to rise to fame, he was a natural choice to put out film comedy shorts to compete. Henry Lehrman, who was previously a director at Mack Sennett, hired Ritchie to star in a series under his "Lehrman Knock-Outs" banner. The comparisons with Chaplin were inevitable. Ritchie used the same costume that Chaplin wore in "Mumming Birds"... the bowler hat, bamboo cane and tattered suit that became famous as the Little Tramp costume.

Here is an interview with Ritchie made around 1916...



The author of this article makes it clear that Ritchie's career has one foot planted in his own shoes, and the other in Chaplin's. But it didn't last... When Chaplin's Mutual Shorts were released, they were a sensation. They blew Ritchie out of the water. Lehrman was forced to change distributors to Universal in 1917, and the quality of the films took a nose dive. Two years later, Ritchie was attacked on the set by an ostrich, and never recovered. He died from the injuries he sustained in 1921, leaving his wife without financial support.


Chaplin imitator, Billy West
Billy Ritchie wasn't the only Chaplin imitator... Billy West and Charles Amador also traded on the image of the Little Tramp; and a cartoon series produced by Gaumont in Europe exploited the character as well. Chaplin sued to protect his creation, but ultimately his own success and brilliant creativity plowed his imitators under better than any legal writ.

Ironically, Chaplin never sued his old comrade, Billy Ritchie. And after Ritchie's death, he took pity on his widow and gave her a job as his costumer. She prepared the Little Tramp costume for Chaplin's performances, just as she had for her late husband.

The history of film is full of stories like this. Here are Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo...


...remember them? No? Well, that's because they didn't last either. Petrillo was quoted as saying, "I hold the record for being the world's youngest has-been."

In time, surface similarities like the hat and cane cease to matter. Audiences didn't love Chaplin for his costume. It was the spark of genius in the creator that made the Little Tramp immortal. You can't steal genius. You may gain a short term benefit from ripping off another artist to further your own career, but you'll pay for it in the end.


The moral of this cautionary tale is to be true to yourself. The business has no shame. The audience won't sue you for ripping off someone else's idea. You need to develop a conscience for yourself. No one is going to do it for you. You owe it to your muse.

Here's an interesting post on a similar subject at John K's blog.

If you found this article interesting, see... The Application Of Inspiration / How To Properly Use Reference / Incorporating Natural Forms / (Visual) Literacy / Why Do We Need An Animation Archive?

If you want an incredible insight into the mind of a brilliant filmmaker, you will want to get the DVD of Unknown Chaplin. Using never before seen outtakes, these three programs reconstruct Chaplin's creative process from the ground up. This is one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Check it out!

Stephen Worth
Director
ASIFA-Hollywood
Animation Archive

3.24.09
.

Stumble It!