by Brandie Ashe
The Acme Building and Wrecking Co., Inc. is in the process of demolishing the J.C. Wilber Building when a crowbar-wielding employee (who inexplicably wears a fedora and casual clothes) pries open the cornerstone and finds a small metal box. Inside the dusty box are the dedication papers for the building, dated 1892, and a small green frog. As the confounded construction worker watches, the frog leaps onto the lid of the box, flashes a sudden smile, reaches back into the box for a tiny top hat and cane … and bursts into a perfectly-pitched, thoroughly choreographed, high-stepping rendition of “Hello Ma Baby.”
So begins One Froggy Evening, the 1955 Technicolor masterpiece directed by prolific Warner Bros. animator/director Charles “Chuck” M. Jones. The cartoon is a fable of Aesop-ian proportions, juxtaposing the human’s greedy desire for fame and fortune at the frog’s expense with the amphibian’s inability/unwillingness to perform for anything other than his master’s sole pleasure. But forget all of that heavy stuff for a moment—what’s really important is that One Froggy Evening is seven minutes of inspired, efficient humor.
Jones was a great lover of the written word—in the documentary Chuck Jones: Memories of Childhood (2009), he fondly recalls once moving into a house filled with books, upon which he and his family of voracious readers immediately descended “like a locust fury.” It’s easy to see Jones translate that love of reading into the cartoons which he directed—by virtue of short running times and the need to tell a full story in as little time as possible, the best entries in Jones’ impressive filmography almost read like brilliantly-composed poems. What’s even more remarkable is that in an animated short like One Froggy Evening, Jones goes so far as to throw all dialogue out the window; with the exception of the songs, the entire cartoon is told through its visuals in a glorious pantomime of manic, expressive moment.
It’s the little touches in this cartoon that mark the biggest laugh-out-loud moments: the skeptical side-eyed glances that the characters shoot at the camera (as if to say, “Can you believe this?”); the frog’s normal, realistic “froggy” movements during his downtimes—so starkly contrasted with his precise, miraculous dancing prowess; that full-bodied baritone, courtesy of Bill Robinson (a nightclub singer who remained uncredited for years), belting out an incongruous mixture of ragtime, standards, and even a Rossini aria. In an increasingly maddening series of events, the man does everything in his power to prove that the frog really sings—he takes it to a talent agent, only to find himself out on the street when things don’t go to plan; he bankrupts himself renting out a theater to showcase the frog’s talents, and can only entice an audience by offering free beer. But every single time, he is stymied in his efforts to profit from the frog’s abilities: he either takes too long in trying to fetch someone’s attention, or something inadvertent happens, like a curtain rope breaking.
This speaks to a much deeper philosophy that is at work in One Froggy Evening—something more profound than the mere attempt to solicit laughter from the viewer—for the most hilarious element to the story is also the most disheartening and pathetic one, when you stop to think about it. On the surface, the cartoon appears to be a simple cautionary tale. Its lesson: greed is bad; greed will get you nowhere. At heart, however, the story is little more than a treatise on futility. The man continually tries to convince people that he is not crazy; he really does possess a singing, dancing frog, and other people—like the policeman who eventually carts the man off to a “Psychopathic Hospital”—obviously hear it singing, but no one actually sees it do so. So what can a man do when that performing frog simply refuses to perform in public … other than wonder if he just might be as crazy as they say?
Adding to the cartoon’s overwhelming sense of exasperation is that we, the members of the audience, realize that the frog is an unparalleled talent; when the increasingly desperate protagonist periodically stares at the uncooperative frog in disbelieving horror, we can practically hear him begging us to validate his story. But, like the frog, we are rendered mute, and in that sense, we share the man’s helplessness. It’s an endless, fruitless cycle of frustration, doomed to forever repeat itself—and from the scenes framing the cartoon, in which the frog is discovered by the newest in what is likely a long series of owners, we get the sense that is has been repeating for millennia. It is, sadly, a somewhat easy notion to relate to, at least from an adult perspective, because isn’t that cyclicality just the nature of life sometimes? And isn’t that thought just the slightest bit depressing? (Deep stuff for a mere “kids’ cartoon” …)
One Froggy Evening remains one of the most beloved products of the Golden Age of Hollywood animation, and one of the most memorable. Film director Steven Spielberg once even christened this cartoon the Citizen Kane of the genre. When the list of the fifty best cartoons ever produced was compiled in 1994, One Froggy Evening sat at number five, behind fellow Chuck Jones-helmed classics What’s Opera, Doc?, Duck Amuck, and Duck Dodgers in the 24 1/2th Century, and Disney’s Mickey Mouse ‘toon The Band Concert. In fact, Jones’ work comprises a full twenty percent of that list, something unmatched by any other artist or studio. Less than a decade later, in 2003, One Froggy Evening was added to the National Film Registry as a “culturally significant” film (along with What’s Opera, Doc? and Duck Amuck).
And that frog? Even though he wouldn’t make another cartoon appearance for forty years—when Jones directed a 1995 “prequel” called Another Froggy Evening—the character became an icon, parodied in films and on television, even gaining a name (Michigan J. Frog) and eventually becoming the mascot of a (now-defunct) television network.
Such is the power of animation and its enduring appeal, to young and old alike.
How One Froggy Evening made the Top 100:
Bill Riley No. 3
Sam Juliano No. 16
Frank Aida No. 20
Bobby J. No. 40
It’s an endless, fruitless cycle of frustration, doomed to forever repeat itself—and from the scenes framing the cartoon, in which the frog is discovered by the newest in what is likely a long series of owners, we get the sense that is has been repeating for millennia. It is, sadly, a somewhat easy notion to relate to, at least from an adult perspective, because isn’t that cyclicality just the nature of life sometimes?
Brilliant observation here Brandie! Yes the entire theme of futility does at least equal the focus on greed, and this has always been the most exasperating of films to watch, since we know what everybody else in the cartoon does not, save for the protagonist. It’s truly an ingenious piece and one of the greatest masterpieces of Jones’ career. This well deserved the fifth placement placment in Beck’s seminal volume, and I know it’s been revered by filmmakers and hugely influential. This is one of the most irresistible and timeless of shorts, with perfect timing and excellent use of songs. It well deserves the great review that has been written of it here.
Only after watching the YouTube clip did I recall seeing this on TV as a kid, but is it great? Does it really rank as an exemplar of the animated short form? I quickly wearied of the conceit. Is it about greed or simply frustration? As animation goes it is bare bones and rather threadbare, and as philosophy it is pretty inconsequential. Does no-one else see the stereotyping? The construction worker is clearly Italian or Greek, and the cop modelled on an SS thug. The worst kind of caricature. Sorry Brandie, you have done a sterling job in justifying your affection, but just call me a humbug.
Tony my real question as far as including animated shorts is are they on the same playing field as say a 20 minute live action short? We’ve included shorts on this list and I myself put a few shorts from the stooges and Laurel and Hardy. I’m just not convinced that animated shorts less than 10 minutes in length really qualify. I mean yes they are comedies….but should we be comparing them to the other films on this list? If this is a cartoon countdown that would be different. I just think we’re comparing apple and oranges here. I mean there are tons and tons of hilarious animated shorts but I would have no way of figuring out how to compare them to live action films. For one, it seems to cheapen the validity and stature of other feature films that came lower on this list. Second it probably doesn’t do these shorts any justice when we’ve been discussing feature films. They just seem small in comparison.
I agree Jon. They should be on an animation countdown. I’m sort of perplexed by all these 7 minute cartoon’s popping up lately.
Saying all that, Brandie has written a wonderful piece and One Froggy Evening is certainly a great work of art. Her mention of the cyclicality of life and the frustration it entails is crystal clear in the short. I remember seeing this as a child and loving the dancing frog. Now as an adult I can see the deeper themes Chuck Jones was trying to convey.
I must strongly disagree Maurizio (and Jon) Art is art no matter what the length. This would be like disqualifying Willa Cather’s “Paul Case” or Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart” in a literature countdown, opting instead for novels, simply because they are longer. Luckily, the voters of this countdown saw fit to include shorts and cartoons, and there will be another masterpiece in that form later this week. Your opinions are fair and valid, but I just am completely on a different page here. Qualifying art based on duration is inherently wrong. Tony’s fair objections notwithstanding, this is as perfect a comedic piece as any on the countdown. I have always argued that economic expression is the most difficult of all to achieve. Having this cartoon, DUCK AMUCK, the Rascals and the Stooges (and a few Laurel and Hardy shorts) is a real boon to this countdown. That’s not to say that I would be opposed to an animation countdown as arrived at by voters, but that’s no reason to deny what I see as an appropriate overlap. Shorts are absolutely without any shadow of a doubt on the same playing field as features.
When this countdown was planned it was made perfectly clear that the definition of screen comedy was not to be formed by any length constriction. In no art form is quality or greatness determined by duration. Mozart’s immortal ‘Clarinet Concerto’ for one stands with any one of the greatest symphonies ever written.
Maurizio, just want to tell you that your report on Paul Thomas Anderson’s THE MASTER is brilliance incarnate. I will be responding later today, but wow!
Well Sam, I agree with you form doesn’t constitute greatness unto itself (though obviously sometimes it can), and therefor neither does length (thus length shouldn’t be an arbitrary restriction on worth). It’s what’s within the work, and that is the question Tony is raising (and I think he’s correctly saying it’s somewhat trivial at best, to caricature at worst). There have been a dozen or so films that have already been covered that are easily vastly superior to this one in many, many ways, just as if you wanted to make a wankish list of ‘The Greatest Literature ever’ you’d be past six or seven hundred before it’d be necessary to even consider ‘The Tell Tale Heart’.
Hey Rick, the statement that there are a dozen or so others that are superior to this is YOUR OPINION only. I strongly disagree. Andno need to take my literature comparison literally as I used it to make a point. The point remains that art is not constricted by length. You agree? Fine. My full response here was to Maurizio and Jon, not to Tony, who was questioning quality. This is his fair enough OPINION.
I was addressing only the notion of limitations.
Still, ONE FROGGY EVENING is a masterpiece, thank you very much.
As far as your laughable comment about “The Tell Tale Heart” I won’t even go there. That’s really being a wanker!
Well for me it’s only partially about length. Animation is another reason as well. As Jon mentions.. entirely different playing fields (apples and oranges).
After recently visiting Poe’s gravesite, I am close to tackling his complete works (which I have on hardcover as a gift) after I finish another book I started recently. Is The Tell Tale Heart considered his absolute best?? Must admit I have not read Poe since I was like 14 or something. Back then I considered The Mask Of The Red Death as his best short story.
Maurizio, as one who has taught several units in Poe over the years (including to high schoolers) I have come to regard THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO and THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER as his two most perfect stories. I have used both in theme-tied units.
I only used THE TELL TALE HEART as an example to make a point, though it’s still a short story masterwork.
When the comedy countdown was planned we called on each individual voters to sort out the “apples and oranges.” I feel they belong together, but if others feel they don’t well, fair enough.
Yeah Sam I remember thinking highly of both of those short stories as well. William Wilson, Hop-Frog, and The Black Cat are a few others I liked back then. Forgetting everything else about Poe’s work, he did basically invent the detective story/procedural which in itself is a tremendous achievement that has influenced art in many spheres evermore…
Maurizio I completely agree with all you say here. A graduate course I took titled POE, HAWTHORNE AND MELVILLE was one of my supreme academic joys. He’s really a major player!
I do like Dante, Shakespeare, Joyce, Hugo and Dostoyevsky too! Ha!
A thick hardcover in black with red illustration. I think it was actually put out by Barnes And Nobles in 2008 or so. The edges of the paper have a gold color and a built in gold bookmark.
Well my personal favorite writers are Kafka, Dostoevsky, Camus, and Joyce.
Sounds like a great keeper there!
And I love all four of those absolutely.
Watched Losey’s Mr Klein last week for the third time. Talking about Kafka made me realize what a great job the filmmaker did in creating a Kafka-esque vibe with that film. His masterpiece IMO.
Emerson is not a troll.
Rick Burning is.
Sam I’m fine with the disagreement I just think we need to have this discussion. Yes art is art no matter what the length. I don’t disagree there. I also understand that everyone was free to interpret on his/her own what the definition of comedy is and whether they were going to include certain things. I even included shorts on my countdown. But they were live action. I can somewhat evaluate a Three Stooges short in relation to other films…laughs per minute, comparisons of gags to other films, placement of subversion and social criticism compared with other films of the time. I ask how do we evaluate a 7 minute cartoon on a list that has just included Monsieur Verdoux and Ed Wood in the last week? How did someone evaluate placing this short above, say I don’t know, take Unfaithfully Yours for instance? I’m saying I can’t figure out how to do that. I can’t compare the medium….I can’t compare the boundaries of cinema defined by those artforms….I can’t compare acting delivery……I can’t even compare gags due to the limitations of cartoon versus live action. So again how does one compare the placing of this short above other films? I’m not sure what the criteria would be and I’m trying to see if we can define that. I think I’m talking more numbers and how one ranks this next to something else?
Rick- How it’s created is not irrelevant. Someone somewhere made a comparison and determined that this film was worthy of the list….ahead of other films or in some cases instead of other films. Also, there are delineations that matter (cartoon versus live action) and ones that don’t (I’m sorry I’ve never thought “wow this movie isn’t funny cause it’s not in color”). I’m asking HOW they determined these things? Sure yes it’s based on laughs etc. but this list has already been about much more than laughs.
For instance as for evaluation….I placed City Lights at I think #30 on my list. How am I going to even place a cartoon short within a stones throw of that film? I think I have Sherlock Jr. somewhere in the #40’s. I can’t even begin to put those films in a discussion with a cartoon short as far as ranking ahead or below etc.
No I don’t think there’s any way to completely separate the content from the execution. There is too much overlap when evaluating the whole thing.
I need to watch MR. KLEIN again ASAP Maurizio!
Rick, you were good there until that fatalistic final sentence which sours so much of it.
The key is always to get over it, and move forward. Insults were shared? So what? Move on.
Rick, today marks your first appearance at the site, and I must say you have handled yourself exceptionally well overall, whatever the disagreements might be.
Sure Rick I get it. I mean the definition of comedy is open to wide interpretation as we’re all well aware of, whereas a Western is far more rigid under these considerations we’re discussing. If we are going to talk content then, though, it’s not just about THIS film. It’s THIS film in relation to the OTHER films that are on this list. This is a countdown after all. What I am having trouble with is how to compare a 7 minute short cartoon….including it’s content and execution if you will to a 90 minute film and how to fairly evaluate which one is more deserving or which one is better? I’m not totally innocent here of my own argument. I included 4 short films on my list. Three of them were 3 Stooges shorts. Why did I include them? Brilliant examples of slap stick comedy that contained as many laughs in 20 minutes as some other films do in 90 minutes. How did I place them next to other longer films? Because I felt like the talent and impact of the Three Stooges persona is as fine as anything else in the history of comedy, particularly with regards to slapstick in particular.
I share your position Sam. And ‘One Froggy Evening’ is sheer perfection. Brandie has written a beautiful observational essay.
Right on Bill. Hurray for Brandie, One Froggy Evening and Edgar Allan Poe!
Rick Burning is a troll. That’s clear enough.
Completely agreed Sam. Great review Brandie!
No he’s not Frank. I happen to know “Rick” very well, and had ANIMATION been part of this equation, I believe he would have rallied to my side. He sidestepped the main point to take a shot at an animation classic**, one that the esteemed Allan Fish has given his HIGHEST rating to.
Rick is a “pen name.”
** statement by Sam Juliano
Nah, Rick, it’s just your snide atitude and position that what you opine is some kind of established fact. Nothing more.
I think Poe’s reputation will survive without you.
There are several opinions being thrown around like facts here, no need to single me out Frank.
ok that’s fair. As long as we understand each other.
Brandie, my questioning of the cartoon shorts is in no way a knock on this film nor your writing here which is fabulous. Fine fine essay.
Boy, Brandie, you weren’t kidding when you said the discussion was animated! It’s fascinating that a short cartoon can engender such interest — but it’s no surprise to me. I think this is a work of genius, and along with “What’s Opera, Doc?”, belongs in the classic annals as great works of film. Excellent write-up, and insightful thoughts as well.
Becky, I am certainly with you here.
Welcome to Wonders in the Dark!!!!! Ha!
I have a few moments here between classes and I feel I need to reiterate what I stated earlier in view of the mild row that has developed. Brandie has written a great review, and I am loathe to shift focus, but it all does return to square one.
Tony voiced an issue with the choice, not the concept of a short qualifying for the countdown. His past support of Our Gang and Three Stooges shorts would seem to support this perception. My argument here was never with anyone who didn’t like ONE FROGGY EVENING, only with invalidation. On this point Jon Warner and I are very close now. While I remain flabberghasted that Rick feels Edgar Allan Poe is not an upper-tier writer, the fact is that the point I tried to make had to do with comparative analysis. Poe is one of America’s greatest writers according to literary scholars, but the bottom line isn’t that they feel that way, it’s rather that I agree with them. How great? Great enough to stand on roughly equal ground with Emerson, Melville, James, Fitzgerald, Hawthorne, Williams, O’Neill, Cather, Twain, Hemingway, Dreiser, Whitman, Longfellow, Thoreau, Steinbeck, Miller and some others, though for me Poe would be in the top three. For such a high regard, one would only expect that several of his works would be considered masterpieces.
Should this sentiment be offensive to anyone for whatever reason, let’s leave it all within the parameters of ‘favorites.’
Rick, you have embraced the “ranking” card as some kind of an artistic invalidation, but again you miss the point completely. Did I offer rankings here? No! I stated who my favorites are! Am I allowed to do this, or do I first need to ask for permission from you as you look down your nose at everyone else?
Poe is great. Duh.
With you it’s impossible to use the greater than or less than signs. Sad. Allan is staying away from this conversation but I bet he is shaking his head as well he should. Ranking is a way of enthusiastically annointing things we love. But a negative mind set sprikled with a hefty dose of pompous snobbery will never understand this.
“The beauty of their works.” Don’t make me throw up. Your game here is easy enough to figure out. Poe’s “beauty” dosen’t resonate with you though, right?
God, Rick, not even our site’s own Jamie Uhler, who shares some of your views is not THIS extreme!!!
Rick I am a very good friend of Jamie’s. But you must own your own keep here! It must be earned! Ha! What I have always admired about Jamie is that no matter how heated some of our talks have gotten, he always comes back. Meeting him in Chicago was a summer thrill for me. The ranking thing has always been a stickler, admittedly, and the the whole snobbery tactic against him sometimes is overplayed, and a result of the heated discussion.
Haha I keep waiting for Jamie to swoop in here and jump down my throat on this one. Still waiting….
Jon, Jamie has been laying low as of late, but he’s got some great Halloween plans for the site, that are most exciting.
Uh oh. Hopefully laying low doesn’t mean not feeling well. I miss Jamie!!
And yeah to me those white males within the golden age of literature period do stand tallest for me. That’s correct. But by all means don’t let me keep you from making a strong case for Phillip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Emily Dickinson or Carson McCullers. Even Harper Lee, who belongs high even for just the one novel.
This entire thread was commissioned by Brandie Ashe to build up the numbers!
We just might get to 100 today.
We might.
You caught me. I’ve been baiting commenters. Cheese sometimes works, but most of y’all seem to prefer cash …
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brandie – Your essay is wonderful, and I’m chagrined to realize i omitted this one on my ballot ( one of a handful I realized, too late, I had overlooked.)
How does one little frog cause so much controversy???? 😉
Thanks for the compliments, everyone–I really enjoyed revisiting this cartoon for the countdown. I share Pat’s chagrin at omitting this one from my ballot–I’ll admit I didn’t put any animated shorts on my list (though I did include some feature-length animation and a few live-action shorts), because it honestly slipped my mind to consider any.
So, the rest of this comment is all my own opinion–I feel the need to clarify that in light of some of the more heated posts above.
As for whether or not this short belongs on the list, I (obviously) believe it does. Are there films that are vastly funnier than this one that have already been covered on the list? Sure. It’s all subjective. To denigrate “One Froggy Evening” simply for being a mere cartoon, however, is rather short-sighted, for the sheer fact that it is brilliantly funny (at least to me), and manages to do more in a mere seven minutes than some so-called comedies can manage in ninety. In the end, this countdown is all about the humor, and no one can tell me this is not a roaringly funny piece of film.
I think the idea that it’s difficult or impossible to compare animated cartoons with live-action shorts or feature-length films is part of the reason why animation STILL, after more than 100 years as a popular entertainment form, is still devalued as an ART form in some critical circles. And yes, if film can be considered an art form, so can animation. It IS art, perhaps in an even stricter sense than any live-action film. I firmly believe that. I also believe that something like “One Froggy Evening” is far superior to many of the sometimes-repetitive live-action shorts that were cranked out over the years by the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, and any number of Mack Sennett productions. You can’t tell me that this cartoon is not bursting with originality and wit on par with some of the most memorable silent routines of comedy greats like Keaton, Chaplin, and Lloyd (I compare it to silent comedy based on the sheer fact that, save for the music, “One Froggy Evening” is essentially an animated silent film). I wouldn’t say it’s BETTER than the work of these scions of the silents (and I think that’s reflected in its middle-of-the-pack ranking on this list), but it shares that sense of fresh, inspired humor that marked those silent greats.
To address Tony’s concern about the stereotyping in the cartoon–I guess I don’t view it like that, because I look at the human characters as merely allegorical, not given names or unique identities so as to heighten the sense of universality (in that this futile cycle with the damnable frog has continued ad nauseum throughout eternity), and the “caricature” that you picked up on merely functions as a shorthand means of allowing the audience to immediately identify them. The entire cartoon revolves around economy of motion and imagery–and perhaps caricature was the easy way out, but it’s nonetheless effective. And what are cartoons but grand exercises in caricature anyway, honestly?
Also, personally, graduate school made me appreciate Melville and Hawthorne, loathe William Faulkner with a passion, and wish that Thoreau had found better use of his time because WALDEN is a bit of self-indulgent crap. 😀
Done now! All that being said, I welcomed the chance to write about this cartoon, and I thoroughly enjoyed doing so. Thanks again for the seriously engaging discussion …
now now Rick…………….
Yes, they make humans like this. It’s called the “holy-crap-how-many-MORE-Faulkner-novels-can-they-cram-into-a-single-graduate-seminar-and-why-oh-why-did-I-decide-to-get-my-Master’s-at-a-Southern-university-I-should-have-known-better-because-they-all-think-the-sun-shines-out-of-Faulkner’s-pedantic-orifices-somebody-get-me-some-Eudora-Welty-STAT” philosophy of life. Copyright 2012, Brandie Ashe.
Don’t ask my opinion of James Joyce; it might just send you over the edge into complete catatonia.
If anyone wants to accuse me of being a “literature troll,” so be it. I yam what I yam, I likes what I likes, and all that jazz. No apologies from me. 🙂
Now Brandie I am not denigrating One Froggy Evening for being a cartoon. It’s a fine cartoon and I have certainly watched my fair share of them. I’m asking the question for how we compare this to other films on this list….and I haven’t heard a definitive argument yet. If someone can explain to me how we do that, then I’m all in. That’s what I’m waiting for. Honestly I love Warner Brothers cartoons. But there’s also a repetitive element to many of them just like you’re mentioning of the Three Stooges. I mean can I really pick out which Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon I like the best???? I probably couldn’t tell one apart from the others if I really asked myself.
Jon, I assure you, my comment certainly wasn’t directed just at you, and if you took offense in any way to the tone of my reply, I humbly apologize. I’ll admit that I do tend to get on my high horse a bit in defense of animation–I blog about the genre quite a bit, and I find many people don’t really grasp the artistic value of “cartoons” as much as I wish they would–thus my little rant above. I understand what you’re asking, but I’m honestly not really sure how to answer your question in a satisfactory way. I wish I could be of more help here.
Also: you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why I have never enjoyed the Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons: I couldn’t tell them apart, either. Also, I hate that smug bird and even as a young child wished the coyote would just catch him and eat him already. Don’t really know what that says about ME, but there you go.
No worries Brandie no offense taken whatsoever and I’m glad you were challenging the points being made by some of us….helps us all get to a place of better understanding.
Pynchon gets a pass. I like his short fiction.
Jammie…
My little Jammie.
The sun shines east– the sun shines west–
I know where– the sun shines best!
It’s on my Jammie I’m talkin’ about, nobody else’s!
(SUNG) My little Jammie,
My heartstrings are tangled around The Jammy
(SPOKEN) Jammie– Jammie, I’m comin’–
I’m so sorry that I made you wait!
Jammie– Jammie, I’m comin’!
Oh God, I hope I’m not late!
Look at me, Jammie! Don’t you know me?
I’m your little baby!
(SUNG) I’d walk a million miles
For one of your smiles,
My Jammie!
That is one nutty hospital.
Yes it is. But it’s the reason why i love stopping in. I’m sure this oft-contentious conversation will keep some with an aversion for this kind of heat away. But it does serve to clarify what some are thinking. And why some have voted as they have. I’ve loved this cartoon since childhood. And I think it’s rather ingenius. I think it does belong on this countdown too. Ms. Ashe has written an extraordinary review.
I agree with your philosophical take on this cartoon – the desperate feeling of frustration is palpable. It’s brilliant on many levels.
Interesting debate.
The essay for this cartoon short is absolutely marvellous; concise, elegant and very incisive, Brandie – you hit every on every reason why I love this little comic classic. I love the subtle variations played upon the song.
Yep, Warner’s did much that was formulaic and not just with Wile E. Coyote but with Bugs and Daffy. Many of those merge into one long and extended joke repeated endlessly. That’s the price they paid for working in a film factory. But all along they scheme and dream and get the clout to do something along these lines and ‘Duck Amuck’ and ‘King Size Canary’. I do wish there had been more dangerous and deliciously exciting excursions into such UPA venture as their version of ‘The Tell Tale Heart’. The titanic effect of the Disney’s success in the early ’30s is astonishing.
The discussion on literature is interesting but Rick’s comment “Poe is what he is, in writing terms he’s closer to pulp than he is a serious artist” left me bemused – mainly because it’s so full of pretension and artificial demarcations lines set up by the snobs of “high culture”. It’s akin to saying that ‘b’ movies or genre films aren’t serious. Many of the greatest English language writers of the last couple of hundred years wrote in slicks and pulps – long before the advent of the paperback. To judged a writer’s worth because he wrote in genres seems utterly strange. Oh well, all to their own. Anyway, thank for a great piece Brandie.
I thought I had seen most of the best classic WB cartoons from the golden age, and then this one comes along. I knew the premise from parodies and other people talking about it, but this was the first time actually seeing it, and I loved it! Not in the same breath as other cartoons that are dear to my heart, but this one is a great one because of the underground issues that can be found there and that are superbly put into the light by this incredible article. Thanks to the video posted here I could watch it and rate it highly at ****1/2.
Great look about the meaning behind the cartoon, Brandie!
I also remebered it after watching o YouTube. The man was for sure familiar, and I have seen the frog in other occasions. And, may I say, it’s a lovely frog.
Kisses!
Another thing that’s great about the cartoon, that I have not seen written anywhere, is that is a time capsule of music from the turn of the last century. It, like many WB cartoons from the 50s, was re-run for decades for multiple generations of kids, like myself. Many people who saw it are familiar with these songs, and even the genres of music, only because of the cartoon. But if you look back in history most of these songs were huge hits when they were contemporary. The cartoon gave the songs, and the periods they were made in, a new life that continues today.