68. I've Got to Sing a Torch Song (1933)

Warner cartoon no. 67.

Release date: September 30, 1933.

Series: Merrie Melodies.

Supervision: Tom Palmer.

Producer: Leon Schlesinger.

Cast unknown.

Animation: Jack King.

Musical Score: Bernard Brown, Norman Spencer.

Sound: Bernard Brown.

Synopsis: A parody of radio listeners are depicted all over the world - along with some celebrity caricatures to go along with it.

[REVISED VERSION: 19/05/2017].

While Buddy's Day Out remains a failure in achieving humour and coherency, Torch Song suffers from a wide range of problems in the same vein of Tom Palmer's previous cartoon. The first Merrie Melody cartoon after Hugh Harman and Rudy Ising's departure; the newly-formed Schlesinger staff attempt to parody radio, to fit alongside their mandatory policy of promoting popular songs. 

Although this might seem predictable and easier to approach amongst fresh artists - successful results are likely depending on its execution. Tom Palmer, once again fails to achieve this. Torch Song's overall construction remains very inconsistent in its premise. The cartoon is very indecisive by focusing on caricatured celebrity performing on radio - or gags involving radio listeners. The finished short is a mashup of the two, and it's evident how insecure Palmer was as a director. 

Not only is the short inconsistent in its content; but also in animation style. Judging by his two directed cartoons for Warners - Palmer appeared to be attracted to cartoon spark line effects, a trait Ub Iwerks took pride with in his cartoons. Although Ub used them effectively, Palmer wasn't creative with them. In a scene featuring an elderly woman caressing her radio set is another duplicate of the bun-headed woman who appeared several times in Flip the Frog cartoons.

Understandably, the new Schlesinger studio consisted of green artists who hadn't quite settled in their new environment. None of them had blossomed and they were still milestones away from creating cartoon masterpieces.

The opening scenes indicate some potential, as far as creative styles go. Palmer applies a brief montage of several hands switching on their radio set. Many cartoons produced in that era were fairly pretty and unambitious in composition - to see a montage effect at the opening shows some promise. In comparison to Buddy's lacklustre debut, it's a step forward.

Unfortunately, Palmer's brief stride of creativity slides into an abyss. The following sequence lead to a series of gags featuring radio listeners exercising in time to a fitness radio program. Much of the gags remain largely uninspired, and are further hampered by weak animation.

The animation of the scene featuring a millionaire reading his stocks from a ticker tape machine, whilst exercising, is poor. The weight of the millionaire pulling his stocks is poorly handled, and the clarity of the gag isn't matched. It's a prime example of how poor animation can ruin a conceived gag.

One gag that might have gained laughs from audiences is a scene of a caricatured George Bernard Shaw boxing. Instead of exercising with a punching bag, he's punching the globe. The globe swings back by striking his face and knocking him out. Shaw garnered major controversy in the U.S. for his admiration of the Soviet Union government in the 1920s. The globe itself is represented as a visual metaphor of Shaw's battling against the world.

For a large portion of the cartoon, Tom Palmer is too reliant on pan/truck shots for gag delivery and payoff. Admittedly, some of it work when it's called for - like the scene of a man exercising by pulling the strings of a large woman's corset, as revealed in the pan. The gag itself adds more content to the fitness instruction: "One, two, breathe deeply."

Some gags are more unpredictable and absurd; like a closeup of a duet dancing, but the camera trucks out to reveal Joan Blondell and Jimmie Cagney using their hands as shoes. Both stars often paired together during this era - most notably in the Warner Bros. musical Footlight Parade. I'm curious whether or not Cagney punching Blondell is a reference to Cagney's infamous grapefruit scene in The Public Enemy?

In other sections of the short; it's used somewhat lazily. In a scene featuring a sloppily caricatured Ben Bernie - he announces a broadcast orchestration, with his dialect and mannerisms ("Yowza") captured. This soon follows with a pan shot of Bernie "conducting" the music from a record player.

The gag standalone isn't bad, especially it's purpose is to parody Ben Bernie's radio orchestration. However, Palmer's poor use of staging in the scene marred the gag.

Palmer's reliance of camera pans make gags very predictable in delivery. At an African locale; a cannibal switches on a cooking program. He follows the ingredients as instructed - but a pan shot reveals the caricatures of the popular double act, Wheeler & Woolsey. Scenarios of humans trapped in a boiling pot have been illustrated numerous times beforehand in cartoon form - that the delivery goes without saying.

The majority of the worldwide sequence suffers from weak gag development - and for the most part, poor animation skills. A sequence featuring an unimpressed sultan watching a harem dancer is indeed unimpressive. The dancer's limbs are ludicrously rubbery in design, indicating an animator's lack of understanding of anatomy; and intimidation of breaking the joints.

The sultan shouts "Bah!" - and switches on his radio to listen to  Amos 'n Andy instead. Wouldn't anybody do the same whilst sitting through this cartoon?

At times, it appears Palmer is trying too hard in conceiving visual gags. In one scenario, an eskimo is ice-fishing at an Arctic locale. An incoming whale advances towards the eskimo, and eats an entire ice block - including his radio set. The whale reappears above the surface, and the audience discovers the radio sitting on top of the whale's blowhole, as the whale swims away dancing to the music as he swims.

One of the largest faults of the cartoon is the animation itself. For the most part, the caricatured celebrities are animated shockingly below the standards of that era. Admittedly, caricatures weren't as sophisticated in the early 30s, as a lot of them would be drawn by animators instead of stylised caricaturists like T. Hee or Ben Shenkman later that decade.

One of the more painfully ludicrous sequences features a trio of iconic stars like Greta Garbo, ZaSu Pitts and Mae West, singing the cartoon's titular song. Garbo's appeal and glamour isn't taken advantage of through drawing and movement; and the timing of ZaSu Pitt's arms spastically moving is amateurish.

Overall continuity is also very inconsistent. Why is Pitts staged behind a different background compared to Garbo and Mae West? I'm not sure whose impersonating the voices of these iconic stars - but the overall results are very jarring and awkward in execution and delivery.

Much of the mannerisms of these stars are still in place, like Mae West's sex appeal or Garbo's melodramatic motions. Animating caricatures is a challenge itself; but none of the animators at the newly hired Schlesinger studio were solid enough draftsmen to tackle such a feat. They were still years away from mastering it.

Tom Palmer applies a running gag throughout the cartoon; but the overall result doesn't amount to much of a gag at all. Throughout the cartoon, Ed Wynn consistently announces it's "eight o'clock" throughout the cartoon - firing a pistol, and later a cannon.

I imagine it was an attempt in capturing Wynn's wacky mannerisms on radio. Such a gag could work fine; depending on how it's handled from every department. It's biggest flaw is the voice impersonation. I'd nominate it as perhaps the worst Wynn impersonation to ever appear in animated cartoons.

Towards the end of the short; Wynn fires his cannon at the strike of "eight o'clock". The impact of the explosion backfires, causing Wynn to fly past multiple buildings - away from the studio. He soon crashes into a bedroom - and discovers that the occupants of the be are all Ed Wynn lookalikes, who all shout "Ohhhh" in unison. The overall payoff lacks coherency, despite the fact the running gag itself wasn't funny to begin with.

Torch Song is at least a step above Buddy's Day Out, but only marginally. The premise shows more promise for gag opportunities, but the way it's handled puts the cartoon down. It's one of the most oddly conceived cartoons turned out by the studio's legacy. Not only does the short fail in entertainment values, but also consistency. Tom Palmer was not a director with a strong point of view. His insecurities and indecisiveness is all too evident in this short. Palmer would leave the studio after his two cartoons - briefly returning to Disney before heading over to Van Beuren with Burt Gillett. In hindsight; Torch Song is an important piece of history that only shows how far off the Schlesinger studio was, but also how green the artists were to the industry. As remembered by Bob Clampett, it was "like a gold rush town".

"Dat's ALL, folks!"

Rating: 1/5.

67. Buddy's Day Out (1933)

[REVISED VERSION: May 2nd, 2017].

Warner cartoon no. 66.

Release date: September 9, 1933.
Series: Looney Tunes.
Supervision: Tom Palmer.
Producer: Leon Schlesinger.
Cast unknown.
Animation: Bill Mason.
Musical Score: Norman Spencer, Bernard Brown.
Sound: Bernard Brown (uncredited).
Synopsis: Our new hero, Buddy takes his girlfriend Cookie for an outing; along with his younger brother Elmer and pet dog, Happy. Little does he realise trouble is ahead.

Courtesy of Tralfaz.

Throughout the first part of 1933; Leon Schlesinger was in turmoil. His creative team of artists under the leadership of Hugh Harman and Rudy Ising walked out on Leon's contract in the hopes of producing more ambitious cartoons. They hoped to work with budgets larger than what Warner Bros. were willing to provide - attributed by the studio's shaky financial grounds in the early thirties.

Rubber-hosed Bobby Bumps?

Harman-Ising took Bosko with them, leaving Leon Schlesinger with only the titles. Determined to fulfil his contract, Schlesinger set up his own studio on the Warners lot at Sunset Boulevard. Searching for artists to produce new cartoons; Leon raided talent from other studios - namely Disney, and some of Harman-Ising's people.

By June 10, 1933, it was announced on Film Daily that Schlesinger had completed his staff, and had conceived a new character: Buddy - a blander replacement of Bosko, who bears a Boy Scout persona. Although his staff might've far from perfect - Schlesinger's own formation of a cartoon studio was probably his greatest achievement in hindsight. Although it got off to a slow start, its immortal legacy was unthinkable in the eyes of Leon.

Here is the Film Daily advertisement as announced on that date:

Hollywood—Leon Schlesinger has completed his staff and started production of the "Looney Tunes" and "Merrie Melodies" cartoons for Vitaphone's 1933-34 program. Thomas A. Palmer is production managers; J. Patton King, head animator; Norman Spencer, head of music department; Bernard Brown, sound department; Earl Hurd, chief of layouts. Forty animators are at work. Schlesinger has obtained copyright on the characters "Buddy," "Cookie," "Elmer," and "Happy," the dog, for "Looney Tunes." Mythical characters will be used in "Merrie Melodies." 

Caricature of Tom Palmer at Disney
by Jack King, c.1931.

Both Tom Palmer and Jack King were undoubtedly the most experienced animators Schlesinger raided from Disney. Other Disney artists Schlesinger hired like Bill Mason or Paul Fennell were only junior animators at the studio, working under Ben Sharpsteen's supervision. Despite the experience, both animators weren't as highly reputable in comparison to Norm Ferguson or Les Clark.

Today, Palmer is remembered and universally criticised for his lack of creativity and humour on his only two directed cartoons at Schlesinger. The quality of both shorts were in severe condition that extensive changes were called for in order for Warner Bros. to finally accept it. No doubt, the extra reworks cost the cartoons extra dollars - a bad deal in the eyes of Leon Schlesinger; and a possible attribution to Palmer's firing.

Buddy, introduced by Tom Palmer, was already established in the same vein of a Mickey Mouse persona. Like Mickey, Buddy had a recognisably human girlfriend, Cookie - whom, in her earlier appearances bore a resemblance to a flapper girl. However, according to Bob Clampett, it was Earl Duvall who created the character.

Again, like Mickey, Buddy was to have a pet companion, a dog named Happy, whom appears to have been replaced with another dog in later Buddy shorts. But unlike Mickey, Buddy had a baby brother, named Elmer - in his one time appearance only.

All the characters are introduced individually in the opening scenes with their names and identities printed on them. These scenes pay homage to movie trailers (and occasionally opening credits) of that time era, that featured individual shots of stars featured. While the effect worked to establish the scenario of the picture - here, the opening is riddled with awkward character animation, like Buddy looking at his audience weirdly.

For the most part; Buddy's Day Out suffers from extremely thin gags spread across the cartoon. Most of the gags were poorly conceived due to incoherency and amateurishness. The opening scenes of Cookie bathing Elmer, but spanking him back to the tub to stop him from leaning over to grab a sponge is an example of weak imagination. Perhaps Tex Avery didn't arrive soon enough.

One of the more illogical, preposterous gags occurs later in the cartoon's climax. Elmer and Happy had carjacked Buddy's vehicle as they ride through rail tracks - unaware of a locomotive heading straight towards their path.

What should be a satisfying resolution; it's implausibly resolved by Buddy and Cookie, who use a ladder to route the train off its tracks and through a shack. And in the following shot, the train is somehow routed back to the rail tracks.

Preposterous gags suitable for animated cartoons? Without question, as long as it's reasonably executed - which the short fails to do. Not only is the train gag sluggishly pulled off - but it's a lazy, unsatisfying closure to a locomotive climax.

A lot of the cartoon's gags remain unfunny and inconsistent in tone. The only gag featured in the short that feels justified, is featured in a scene of Buddy's vehicle animatedly shaking off water in the mannerisms of a dog. Gags like those are in the spirit of surreal animated gags, popularised by many animation studios in the early thirties. It's a pity the cartoon didn't wind down that path.

Although incoherency played a huge part in weak gag development, some of them is also hampered by weak characterisation - which is showcased with Buddy. The introduction scenes of "our hero", Buddy already establishes the character with such blandness and mediocrity.

He is portrayed with a "boy scout" persona, which greatly limits audience appeal for Buddy. Gag-wise, he is very constraint. In one sequence, Buddy calls out to his girlfriend across the neighbourhood and shouts, "I'll be right over, Cookie."

He starts the engine of his vehicle, but begins to malfunction. Buddy's car drives backwards; crashing into his neighbours' yards. His car is accompanied with a quarrelling cat and dog, but once the vehicle crashes through a greenhouse - it's garnished with flowers as it stops by Cookie's front porch.

Elaborate gags like this could potentially have entertainment value, but it depends largely on how strong characterisation is. Since Buddy has little personality; the gag comes across as generic and forced, in a desperate attempt to make Buddy seem charming with the accidental decorum of flowers.

It appears Tom Palmer wasn't confident on building a personality for "our hero" Buddy. For his cartoon debut, he is in the foreground a lot of the time - especially in the picnic sequence. In that scene, the audience experience an awkward romantic moment between Buddy and Cookie on the hammock.

Buddy asks, "Woojie, woojie, woojie?" to Cookie - in which she declines, by responding: "No, woojie woojie woojie" nonsensically. Judging by the context of the Pre-Code era - I'm curious whether it's an implied innuendo.

Character designs are reminiscent
to some of Disney's early
Silly Symphonies - namely
BUGS IN LOVE (1932).

The scene cuts to a series of individual shots of courting bugs and bullfrogs, repeating Buddy's cringeworthy "woojie" dialogue. None of the individual shots are taken advantage of by gags - which is virtually absent. The shot of the bullfrog couple comes close to one (the scene itself feels premature Clampett-esque), but it has no payoff or coherency. The female frog denies his request for "woojies" by simply slapping him off a log, and beating him with a cattail.

The shot of the critters feel too sidetracked compared to the rest of the cartoon and there's no reason to include it - as it's just a pointless piece of filler. It indicates Palmer's lack of creativity and imagination for sequences centred around his cast of characters. Was Buddy's "woojie" dialogue so funny, that an encore of critters repeating it was called for? Bernard Brown recalled Palmer at story meetings in Michael Barrier's interview, where Palmer said, "And now we do a funny piece of business", without explaining what the gag was. The sequence is a prime example of that.

Although a lack of screen time for Buddy might be beneficial; it must be supported with stronger entertainment values - especially amongst side characters. Even in blander Mickey Mouse cartoons featuring Donald or Pluto, their sequences work standalone.

One sequence in this cartoon is devoted to Happy and Elmer. The concept of a dog and a baby playing off each other could show some merits - but here, the action is very generic and underwhelming.

Although the behaviour of both characters craving for food is believable enough - it's another showcase of not featuring any cartoonish gags. Elmer, at one point tosses a cake that completely covers Happy's head. Happy runs around, barking wildly across a field.

The action is dull, predictable, and the 'gag' doesn't escalate to make the animation more compelling. It only pays off when Elmer's bumps into a small stump, causing the cake to fly and land on Elmer's head - setting him up for mischievous, messy behaviour.

One of the most jarring elements of Buddy's Day Out; are the cartoon sound effects by Bernard Brown. The most misplaced use of it are featured in anticipation gags. In one scene, Cookie is drying Elmer with a bath towel. She lightly tosses him in the air, as Elmer lands safely on the towel - with a bell ring sound applied to it.


The sound is used several times in this short, but for that scene it ruins not only a forced bit of delivery - but also the illusion of cartoon fantasy. Another poor sound effect applied is heard in a scene of Elmer pestering Buddy on their way to the picnic. Elmer strikes Buddy's head with his bottle - with a sound similar to rocks being smashed.

As mentioned, the cartoon sound effects are very weak. Brown isn't creative with sound ideas to enhance the atmosphere of an animated world. I express no disrespect to Bernard Brown by all means, considering the fact he's contributed sound to numerous live-action films, as well as Oscar nominations to his name - (Brown would win an Academy Award for Best Sound in 1939 for When Tomorrow Comes).

Whether poor direction or working under a very tight schedule was a factor in this short; I'm not sure. Brown specialised in many different areas of sound, so cartoon shorts were only a small portion to his schedule. As Bob Clampett recalled in Barrier's interview, he could "just ooze in any hole that needed filling." He might not have been innovative with cartoon sounds, like Treg Brown; but for the most part, his sound work was competent and in style throughout the later Buddy cartoons.

After Cookie criticises' Elmer's mischievous behaviour at the picnic, he dejectedly walks to Buddy's vehicle - but knowingly starts the car's engine by stomping on the pedal. Soon, this follows into a climatic sequence of Elmer carelessly riding the vehicle - with Buddy and Cookie pursuing him.

The sequence is pretty unremarkable, as far as direction and staging is concerned. None of the action is embellished with any fast cutting or creative dynamics to create the illusion of danger - which remains absent.

A scene featuring a layout of the vehicle driving along a curved road is kept very straightforward and basic - without making the action more daring and spontaneous for a supposedly frantic scenario.

Gags are supported throughout the action sequence; but they're very standard and somewhat predictable (like Elmer and Happy crashing through a haystack, but come out sporting a beard made of straw).

Seeing animation pioneer Earl Hurd's name on the Film Daily ad is something of a surprise. I'm not sure how long he stayed at Schlesinger's, or if he stayed long enough to work on this cartoon. Either way, the layout work remains generic and unambitious as far as dynamics go. Very occasionally are the layouts creative in visual style - like the three-quarter down shot of Buddy and Cookie looking down at the rail tracks (whilst riding a pram, complete with a rotary washing line spinning like a helicopter - !!). The ending goes quite simply: Buddy and Cookie implausibly change the route of the train - resulting a happy reunion with the characters.

After revisiting the cartoon, I'd almost forgotten how difficult reviewing poor animated shorts are - especially to avoid saying "that's not funny" repeatedly. It's clear that some of the artists at the newly formed Schlesinger studio were starting to get their feet wet - and how much there was to learn and discover. Today, Buddy's Day Out remains a mess that's below the standards of most animated cartoons produced during that era. At Disney, Tom Palmer was a competent animator - but as a director he doesn't have a strong point of view. Gags are very vague in their interpretation - a problem attributed by Palmer's indecisiveness. Sometimes, the cartoon shows striking resemblance to an Ub Iwerks cartoon - like the usage of spark lines. Otherwise, Palmer hasn't developed a coherent or interesting style for his shorts. How much of the cartoon was actually reworked remains a mystery, but it's clear it didn't do justice to an overall unfunny short. Apart from the cartoon's significance it holds in Warners' history, there really isn't much to recommend in this cartoon.

[March 28, 2018 update - info on animator Bill Mason]: born as William Henry Mason in Manchester, England in 1910 to parents Herbert Mason and Isabella Ferber. Had two brothers, Arthur and Harold. The latter, known as Hal Mason, was also an animator at Walter Lantz in the early-to-mid 1940s, and later creating characters for commercials, such as Mr Clean. Bill begun his animation career in 1931, working as a junior animator at the Hyperion Disney studios. Soon afterwards, Bill left to work for Ted Esbaugh on independent cartoons like The Snowman and The Wizard of Oz alongside ex-Disneyite, Frank Tipper - another native of England.

Once Leon Schlesinger opened up his own studio after the Harman-Ising fiasco, Mason landed a job there during Leon's major head-hunt. Despite his only WB animation credit on this cartoon, it's unknown how long he remained on the Schlesinger payroll. Once Bill left Schlesinger's, he found employment as an animator for Walter Lantz in 1934/1935. Bill married Miriam Ellen Lewis, daughter of Disney musician Bert Lewis, on November 25, 1936. Mason remained employed at Walter Lantz, until his tragic death on July 21, 1937 of a heart ailment. His younger brother, Hal, would follow his brother's footsteps - by working for Lantz in the early 1940s, and remaining active in the animation industry until his death in 1986.

If anyone reading this has any further information on Bill Mason, please feel free to leave a comment or drop me an e-mail].

Rating: 0/5.