What's Cookin' Doc?

'What's Cookin' Doc' is partly cartoon, partly live action. First we get a live action introduction to the Academy Awards. Then we go inside and meet Bugs Bunny who thinks he is up for the Best Actor award. When the winner is revealed it is not Bugs but James Cagney who takes the honors. Then we see Bugs explaining why he should have win the award. To make his point he shows a piece from a cartoon he starred in.

I liked this short film, although there were no real laughs. A lot of smiles and chuckles, especially in how Bugs is mocking the Academy. There is quite some truth in what is said. The cartoon is one of the censored (which basically means banned) cartoons since it depicts Native Americans in an offensive way. I understand why that is, but on the other hand it is quite innocent. Judge for yourself.

Bob Clampett's 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is a brilliant cartoon with one major flaw. The premise here is that Bugs Bunny is attending the Oscars, confident that he will win a statuette for best performance. When the honour is instead bestowed upon James Cagney, Bugs blows his top and attempts to convince the voters to change their mind by showing a clip of one of his previous performances. This is where the problem comes in. Up to this point, 'What's Cookin', Doc?' has been a cartoon bursting with Clampett's trademark energy. The clip Bugs shows to the audience, however, is a poorly chosen extract from Friz Freleng's 'Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt' in which very little happens. While this perverse choice was likely an in-joke of some kind, the segment from Freleng's cartoon severely slows 'What's Cookin', Doc?' down.

This little niggle aside, 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is a marvellous short. After the success of Chuck Jones's one character Daffy Duck cartoon 'Duck Amuck', a few attempts were made to create a solo vehicle for Bugs, resulting in the lacklustre 'Rabbit Rampage' and 'Baton Bunny'. This was entirely unnecessary since Clampett had already made the great one-bunny show with 'What's Cookin', Doc?'. While other characters are seen in silhouette or heard off screen, Bugs carries the bulk of 'What's Cookin', Doc?' entirely by himself with a remarkably energetic, shape-shifting performance. He impersonates Hollywood stars and pantomimes various acting styles, he shifts from smug, laidback nonchalance to disbelieving, ego-driven frenzy. Clampett makes this all characteristically beautiful. Bugs looks amazing here and snaps from one pose to another with breathtaking smoothness. Clampett tosses in a few of his trademark dirty gags too, one of which is the closing joke of the cartoon. 'What's Cookin', Doc?' is, in part, a masterpiece but its partial brilliance makes the unfortunate interruption from Freleng's uneventful excerpt positively infuriating.

"What's Cookin' Doc?" probably looked a lot funnier when they first created it, but the racist portrayal of Indians will probably make most people cringe in the 21st century. Aside from that, there's some pretty funny stuff, as Bugs Bunny hopes to win an Oscar but loses to James Cagney, and tries to make the audience change their mind by showing a short movie starring himself.

Watching this cartoon nowadays, I realize that they mentioned people like Edward G. Robinson. I don't know whether or not any six-year-old children would have recognized that name in 1944, but I can guarantee that as a six-year-old I wouldn't have recognized that name.

Anyway, pretty interesting, but just be sure that you understand the racist portrayal of Indians.

Bugs Bunny thinks he's gonna win the 'best actor' oscar but is snubbed in favor of James Cagney. He tries to convince the audience of his point while doing some impressions and showing a clip from Haiwatha's Rabbit Hunt.

Self-indulgent to the extend and not a funny moment in this 8 minute short. It may try to make some points on Hollywood and the Oscars, as a previous reviewer stated, but what it really tries to say is unclear.

The movie is banned from tv nowadays because of some racist-related links and impressions, but nothing to get too excited about.

Dull. 3/10.

One of the most famous of all Bugs Bunnies, in which our hero believes he's a shoo-in for a Best Actor Oscar. Behind the comedy is a laceratingly cruel satire.

The film opens with a traditional Voice of God introduction to the Oscars, as our narrator shows us the Hollywood sights before showing us the hotel where the event will take place, the crowds awaiting their favourite stars. Already Hollywood, the entity, the myth is reduced to a series of recognisable signs - the Hollywood Bowl, the Troccadero, the Chinese Restaurant etc.; the stars who exist only as their popular image, cemented in a ghostly pair of feet on some footpath.

Bugs is convinced that he will win because he can do impressions of all the stars. This is a stunningly versatile monologue as Bugs mocks everyone from Jimmy Cagney to Bing Crosby, but surely it's an insolence to think that mere mimicry can be as worthy as a great performance? But Bugs' point is precisely this - the Awards pretentiously think that they are rewarding high art, when these great actors are locked in stereotype and received image. They are the sums of their persona. Bugs IS greater than them because he can do an impression of Cagney AND Crosby; they can only do impressions of themselves. A list of Oscar winners from the period proves Bugs unerringly right (MRS. MINIVER, according to Oscar, is a far greater film than CITIZEN KANE.)

As a further treat we are shown a clip from Bugs' LITTLE HAIWATHA, in which a bathing Bugs realises that he is about to become rabbit-meat for a placid Indian/Elmer Fudd. This remarkable clip, stunningly self-reflexive about Hollywood ideology and racism, reveals Bugs' true worth, but for the Academy to reward him would be to admit their own worthlessness and fraudulence. So they stone him. He is awarded, however, the first Raspberry, moulded in his own image, which comes to life and kisses him. This is Hollywood's ultimate insult, but it's eventual proof of Bugs' superiority, his versatility, his embracing of fragmentation and metamorphosis at the expense of rigid, conservative, stereotypical, wholeness.

As animation, the short isn't as fleet-footed, violent or versatile as the great Tex Avery masterpieces, but there's a belligerent gaudiness of colour that suits the subject admirably.