Friday, 9 December 2011

67. Buddy's Day Out (1933)

A new era begins with Leon Schlesinger, now producing the cartoons himself. A new character, new start, but bad one. Here is a very entertaining trailer that Devon Baxter made for me of Buddy's Day Out that we both contributed.

Warner cartoon no. 66.
Release date: September 9, 1933.
Series: Looney Tunes.
Supervision: Tom Palmer.
Producer: Leon Schlesinger.
Cast: Jack Carr (Buddy) (?).
Animation: Bill Mason. (Uncredited) Chuck Jones, Paul Fennell, Jack King.
Musical Score: Norman Spencer and Bernard Brown.

As you will see, the new "Buddy" is in fact - WORSE. Yes, no joke - the character is even worse than Bosko, who was the singing-and-dancing bore. After completing the era, and you watching the cartoons, you'd probably thought that "Oh, Bosko was bad, let's hope the next character, Buddy, will be better." You've assumed wrong friend. From the next cartoons made in 1933-1935, you're going to find some incredibly dull stuff, and no - please don't give up and leave! This will give me the opportunity to rant at them.

Our cartoon begins, with Buddy who turns to the audience. The caption at the bottom of the screen reads "Buddy" - Our Hero. Hero? Me thinks not. Buddy looks very weird when he's looking at the audience, in fact it looks as though he has something Parkinson's disease or something. The next show we see is Buddy's girlfriend - Cookie, who is being introduced. She is putting on some makeup, trying to look very attractive. She looks very unattractive in these drawings, and looks very bony. The next character to be introduced is Elmer - who is Cookie's baby brother (this isn't meant to look like a baby Elmer Fudd). The baby sucking his bottle just is off-putting to me, and rather slobbery, but I guess that's what babies do. The last character to be introduced is Buddy's dog, or "Buddy's pal" - Happy. Happy is running around, and then looks at us audience. He looks as though that he's completely off his head, and senile. Well, the introduction was already pants, since the animation ruined it, and there was no gags to support it.

The cartoon officially begins, with Cookie who is at her home and is babysitting Elmer. She is giving Elmer a bath, and is washing his head with soap suds sticking on his head. The soap suds animation isn't that great, neither is the water stuff. Every time Elmer tries to reach for the sponge, Cookie smacks him in the bottom to stop him from doing so - is that meant to be a gag? Elmer then grabs hold of the sponge, and he squeezes it with soap water being squirted onto his face. Elmer then mucks around in the bath until he lets go of the sponge that goes off flying, and lands on Cookie's face.

Elmer then hides underwater, but Cookie still rubs him with a bath brush, but the soap suds are off, and what he reveal is Elmer's anus, and Elmer laughs. Cookie then says, "Well, smarty", and she dries up Elmer with a towel, that tickles him. She lifts Elmer up with the towel, and then Elmer lands on top of the towel, and the sound effect (anchor sound) for that is so wrong!

We then see Buddy in his lawn, and is washing his car with a hose, and the car reads "Asthma". Wait a minute? Asthma - can this be serious??? Is it a type of car, or company that makes cars? Not from what I've researched (and my Dad was stumped when I asked him if Asthma was a type of car?) Oh my god, Tom Palmer and his crew named it after an affection in your lungs, what was he a psycho or something?

Anyway, Happy then walks to the hosepipe (after Buddy had finished washing his car) and Happy chews on the hose, but then instead the hose pipe goes off flying (as Buddy turns on the tap to increase more water) and causes Happy to go flying, as he is attached to the hose. Buddy then turns off the water pipe, and Happy is no longer flying, and so is the hose pipe. Happy then shakes himself after being soaked in water, and so does the car - that shakes like a dog, with screws and bits coming out, for some odd reason. I would imagine that Friz Freleng did some reworking in this part, to add gags there.

Cookie then puts on her hat, and she puts on some make up, as well. She places a kiss on a photo she has of Buddy, and the kiss mark lands directly on the photo of Buddy. Okay, that piece of timing was very odd, and maybe Palmer wanted to be different. The animation of Cookie here is very stiff and ugly looking. She shouts out the window (as they live a few houses away) "Yoo hoo, Buddy I'm ready!" Buddy looks at her in amazement, and shouts back, "I'll be right over, Cookie!" He then turns to his car, and tries to get that ready, but instead his car goes reverse, and ends up crashing into people's back yard, there are cats & dogs that are barking/meowing at each other, but as the car crashes into a greenhouse, the car looks all pretty with flowers over it. Well, I admit - I don't mind this sequence, but I still think that Friz Freleng reworked on that part, since there were finer gags included (but still sloppy animation).

Cookie steps out at her front yard, and sees Buddy's car decorated all with flowers (surprisingly and fortunately) it would make their date a great one. She steps out saying, "Oh Buddy, it's beautiful!" Buddy acts like a gentleman as he leads Cookie first into the cat - ladies first. Buddy grabs out the picnic basket and the pram for Elmer. Look at the scene where Buddy hold the pram, those are horribly drawn wheels, in fact they don't even look like wheels! As Buddy turns on the car, it starts to rattle a little bit, and it finally gets moving. As the car leaves, Happy runs to the car thinking that he is forgotten, and then jumps onto the car.

Elmer then "gurgles" at Buddy for attention, and Buddy looks back to see what Elmer wants, and what Buddy gets is a quirt of milk coming out of Elmer's bottle. Buddy then turns around rather annoyed, but is interrupted again with another coo from Elmer. Buddy warns him by shouting "Buddy spank", but instead Elmer whacks him on the head with a bottle. The sound of the bottle being whacked on the head, also is very unsuitable for the sound effects, and it sounds like some bricks being piled on together. While ascending up a hill, the car starts to slow down, with very little gas, but then the exhaust pipe pumps up, and they are able to go up the hill faster. They go through a very curvy road, and then they arrive at the spot for their day out and date.

Buddy, Cookie, Elmer, Happy and the car finally arrive at their spot, with Buddy stepping out of his car holding out a picnic basket, and Elmer's "pram" - and it obviously looks nothing like a pram, as it looks like he's holding stereo. The wheels are so BADLY animated, or drawn! Buddy places those items by a tree, and picking out food of the picnic basket. Cookie sits on a hammock with her ukulele and hums, while Buddy scats along, and swings the hammock softly. The animation of Cookie looks like some character out from the Iwerks Studios, or some type of crude human animation.

As Buddy is pushing the hammock, he coos Cookie, "Woojie, woojie, woojie?", with Cookie's reply, "No woojie, woojie, woojie." Whilst they are on the hammock, Elmer is stealing food out of the picnic basket and eating them. We then see these very pointless and weird scenes of these animals asking for "woojie woojies", including two coupled caterpillars hanging on an apple. If you look very closely at the facial expressions, of the male caterpillar reacting to the female's response "No woojie, etc.", he seems rather disgruntled, he sounds as though they're asking for sex (and Buddy too).

Of course, Thad K. mentioned this on his blog, and thought that it meant sex, and I believe it probably does - since you can tell from the male, and their attitude towards it. More coupled creatures ask for "woojie woojies", such as these bees ("buzzy, buzzy buzzy?"), with the female's reply "No buzzy buzzy buzzy"), it still looks like though they want to make love. There are these two frogs with the male doing the same actions, and the female doing the rejection part. The voice for the frog sounds like what a frog could sound like - but does it have to be annoying? The sadistic part shows up with the female frog slapping the frog off the log, and laughs. The frog (with some Brooklyn accent) replies, "What? No woojie, woojie, woojie?", with the female frog grabbing a cattail and whacking him on the head with a sound of some anchor dropping - it's a sound effects that used to be popular in Disney cartoons from the 1930's - you can hear it on the Three Little Pigs (just for an example).

This is just crazy, who would've thought that the staff would try and add some sexual innuendos into a cartoon - with the "woojie woojie woojie" stuff. Sure, it most likely means nothing like asking for sex, but you can still tell from the male inhabitant's reactions? It's still sounds similar enough, but it probably isn't true either - but I still think it is, and I won't go against other views. Bernard Brown said in an interview about Tom Palmer working in sessions on this short and said, "and now we do a bit of a funny business", and Brown recalled that Palmer never mentioned what the 'funny business' was. Read Mike Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons to find out more.

Meanwhile, Elmer and Happy are sitting at the prepared picnic spot, with Elmer holding onto a whole salami. Happy is sniffing, and even barks as in begging for some food to eat. Elmer then places the entire sausage into Happy's mouth to keep him quiet, with the result of Happy eating the entire salami and swallows it. However, the dog continues barking, which results Elmer dumping an entire bit of cake on top of Happy's head, in which he starts running in panic. You can still hear the anchor sound effect, that was used from the frog scene. Happy continues to run, until he trips onto a root of a tree, with the cake flying and landing on Elmer's head. The timing of the cake flying, was very poor to say at least.

Cookie then walks immediately to the scene, and tells off Elmer, "Why Elmer you bad, bad boy - aren't you ashamed of yourself?" Elmer walks off crying, and walks to the car (Happy follows). Elmer then blows a raspberry with his tongue - and if you look at the animation, it doesn't even look like as if he's sticking his tongue out - it's so stiff! Elmer then steps on the brakes as frustration, and is amazed when he sees it. I've seemed to notice that Tom Palmer had a trademark in animation which is those reaction lines coming from outside of the character's body.

All of a sudden, the car jumps up, and then it starts moving - which turns out to be a disaster. Buddy and Cookie call for Elmer to come back (but how can they come back - if they are on the car, not knowing how to control it). Buddy has an idea, and he uses the pram to push Cookie into it, while she is still calling for Elmer to return. "Stop! Elmer, Stop!" cries Cookie - and she really thinks that Elmer knows so much, since he's a baby - and yet she's told Elmer enough already, with nothing happening. So, the car and the pram (with Buddy and Cookie) go back down the curvy road, and it amazes me on how the car can just move through the road by a curve without the baby or the dog driving it.

Elmer is still inside the car and is mucking around by hooting the horn, while Happy seems to be acting rather scared (but the animation makes him look spastic). The car then crashes into a farm and into hay (with chickens flying out), and the hay makes it look like Happy and Elmer have beards - I guess the gag works, but it looks like they're glued together, and I hate that animation with the lines just coming out.

The car then crashes through an advertising board, and the board lands on top of Buddy and Cookie in the pram, and the car crashes onto a rotary washing line, that crashes onto the pram (with Buddy and Cookie), and it forms a helicopter, in which they both fly. Of course, how does that work - I don't care how this is a cartoon, and how bizarre that gag is, but it doesn't work well.

We then see a small bridge in which a fat lady is walking through, and she notices the car with Elmer and Happy going past, is driving right at her. The fat lady then screams loudly, and instead the wheels of the car drive up the banister of the bridge which saves the fat lady. Buddy and Cookie continue to follow Elmer and Happy by using their "helicopter".

Elmer and Happy then reach onto the train tracks, and the car stays right on the tracks. What is coming straight towards them is a steam locomotive that means they will be crushed and killed. Oh goodie, violence. Cookie and Buddy (from high in the sky) spot Elmer and Happy at the train tracks, and notice that the train is coming straight at them. Buddy and Cookie land on top of a hut, in which they drop down a ladder, and run out - with the train going through the ladder assuming it was another track (and crashing at the shack).

Okay, at least no-one died, but c'mon - how can that even WORK? I mean, that is just a stupid idea, of some train assuming that a ladder was another track, and just goes through. It's not as if the train will go off in a safe direction. What really confuses me is that after the train goes through the ladder, they end up back onto the tracks again! COME ON, how does it work? It doesn't even work - no it doesn't, because the train would've tripped onto the rails and crashes if it did so - it's not as if there was another track.
(Sighs) Anyway, Buddy and Cookie reunite with Elmer and Happy, and Cookie was so delighted and glad that Elmer is safe and "not hurt". The cartoon ends with Buddy tickling Elmer's chin going "cootchy, cootchy, etc." with Elmer squirting milk on Buddy again - and that's all folks! Thank god.

Overall, this cartoon was awful, I spent my time watching a shite start to the new Looney Tunes. Buddy is bland, and the new crew haven't even found a style for their animated scene, when Harman-Ising definitely had a style, and it was quite an appealing style of theirs. However, there is no idea to this - whatsoever. The cartoon is also desperately unfunny, with such horrible gags - even parts of it that makes me think what was Tom Palmer thinking, such as the "asthma" in the car or the "woojie woojie" part. The animation was also very bad - to say the most part. The characters were too rubbery, and they didn't move very well at all - Cookie looked very unattractive at times, (well, not even at all throughout the cartoon), and the choice of the sound effects for gags were just wrong and plain bad. Buddy doesn't even look very appealing with his designs, and has no style at all whatsoever!

Well, I've already gone through this bit of torture, and I'm expected to go through it again - at the next review.


  1. Sadly, Leon's studio had a bad start.Even next cartoon had bad reviews too from WB film studio!

    Characters is awful, i guess that a lot of newbies animated this one(because a lot of old-timers joined new Harman-Ising studio, but some of them back later).

  2. Well, Leon raided a bunch of guys from other studios to work on his cartoons, and it turned out that some of them created crap like Buddy's Day Out and he ended up firing a bunch of people.

    Personally, I think that "I've Got to Sing a Torch Song" is WORSE.

  3. Umm...yes, Leon hire an animators from various sides - guys like Tom Palmer, Earl Duval, Paul Fenell and Jack King from high-budgeted West Coast Disney studio and Frank Tashlin with Frank Tipper from low-budgeted East Coast Van Bueren studio, plus a bunch of guys from Ub Iwerks studio, like Ben Hardaway and Jack Miller...

  4. I heard that Bill Mason used to work at Disney at that time (according to Hollywood Cartoons), but also hired Don Williams from Universal Studios.

  5. You have my sympathies trying to watch this thing. It's truly pointless. Why didn't the train run over all of them and put us out of our misery?
    That's not Bernice Hansen as Cookie. She voiced Cookie later in the series.
    The most interesting thing was a Tom Palmer inside joke by the background guy.
    Did Jones say he worked on this cartoon?
    By the way, you misspelled "asthma" in the start of the post.

  6. Did someone like Elvia Allman do the voice as Cookie - this may be really wrong and random, but the voice sounds similar enough to be by her, right? :/

    I completely support your side that the train should have ran over all of them, therefore I wouldn't have to go bat-shit insane any longer.

    I didn't spot the Tom Palmer name in the background, and very interesting that you've spot that - since Friz Freleng used that a lot in the late 1940's and 50's.

    I've corrected the spelling error for "asthma".

  7. "Buzzy, Buzzy, Buzzy", sounds like a Billy De Wolfe impression, only he wouldn't become prominent until the late 30s-40s .

    THe fonts and the fact that BOTH Norm Spencer and Bernard Brown were composers [maybe one started out but was as sickened as were many others by this shbort and handed the baton to someone else.]

  8. ANd this was released on Mickey Mouse's 5th anniversary :rolleyes:

    Steve C.

  9. Steve C. (aka Pokey) I don't know if that theory was correct, but Tom Palmer's cartoons had both musicians credited, with only one animator in the credit. I guess that back then, only four people had to be credited, such as "Director", "Animators" and "Music Directors", and later "Story guy". It seemed that Palmer's cartoons would only credit one guy, but when he left it was just two animators, and one musician. In 1937, it was later done by one person from each department (director, story, animation, music).

  10. I can't argue with the bad animation, the blandness of the characters or the weirdness of the story. Still, this short fascinates me because the drawing style of that brief period at the end of 1933 is different from the Bosko shorts of 1930-33 and even the 1934-35 Warners shorts. It reminds me that I'm similarly fascinated with the 1967 Beatles' songs in between Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour (e.g. Baby You're a Rich Man, All Together Now) which are also supposed to be inferior. Maybe I'm fascinated with them because their style doesn't resemble the other songs The Beatles released that year.

  11. So was Tom Palmer simply too far ahead of his time, or just a talentless hack? As he didn't really have much of a career by which to judge, being canned as a supervisor after two lousy pictures, it's hard to say. After all, Fred Avery did his fair share of gags about naked butts and celebrity caricatures. Did Palmer just not possess Tex's magic? Perhaps tighter timing on his gags or a better crew of artists would have helped?

    Palmer's career in cartoons ends quite abruptly-- a writer on a couple dozen pictures, uncredited as artist on a good three dozen, and directing twenty or so shorts no one's ever even heard of for a fourth-rate studio that folded after less than a decade. Did he croak young or something? Palmer's last credit is art director for the sumptuously-animated GULLIVER'S TRAVELS film in 1939.