Conejo en picada

Bugs Bunny sure was a mischievous rascal, particularly in his early years. A smug, conceited and pitiless little fiend, Bugs often appeared to take a near-sadistic pleasure in tormenting his enemies. Of course, that he is the "prey" works considerably in his favour, and audiences will always continue to cheer him on, as nobody likes to see a cute little wabbit become a hunter's next meal. But the most interesting aspect of these cartoons is how the writers cunningly invert the usual scenario, with Bugs, in effect, becoming the hunter of the story, though we instinctively continue to celebrate his successes. Willoughby the hunting dog may be an exceedingly dim-witted canine, perhaps even bordering on mental retardation, but the audience considers him fair game for Bugs' farcical style of bullying. Just why is Bugs the hero in this cartoon, and, indeed, in most of his cartoons? A worthwhile counterpoint to this trend is in Tex Avery's 1941 short 'Hare Beats Rabbit,' starring Bugs and Cecil B. Turtle, in which the bigheaded rabbit is decisively beaten in a foot-race by the quietly-deceitful reptile.

These tantalising questions aside, Tex Avery's 'The Heckling Hare (1941)' provides some solid entertainment, which is the real reason why we're watching it. After Willoughby (voiced by Avery) catches Bugs' scent at the entrance of a rabbit-hole, he goes into digging-overdrive, and is so focused on the task at hand that he fails to notice the rabbit (Mel Blanc, as always) idling above him with a carrot between his teeth. Numerous outrageous chase sequences ensue, one ending in the depths of a river and another in a thousands-of-metres plummet from a ridiculously-high cliff. There is some very convincing personality animation in the sequence where Willoughby believes himself to have crushed Bugs to death with his own hands, and he touchingly collapses into tears as he lays a bouquet of flowers at the entrance to the rabbit-hole. Bugs, displaying that uniquely-compassionless streak of his, thinks nothing of this emotion and merely exploits it for some further humiliation.

'The Heckling Hare' moves at a brisk pace for seven minutes, and continues at this pace until the closing seconds, when it forgets to add an ending. In actual fact, the cartoon's conclusion was severely truncated by producer Leon Schlesinger, who allegedly felt that the final punchline ("Hold on to your hats, folks. Here we go again!" as the pair fall off another cliff) would somehow be perceived by audiences as having undesirable connotations. This lack of resolution blemishes the film to an extent; I liked the idea of the unusually-protracted freefall, but I was waiting for another good idea to bookend the gag, and it never came (perhaps the instantaneous brakes were a spoof of traditional cartoon physics, abused so frequently for comedic effect). In any case, Avery was aghast at the changes made to his cartoon, and he stormed out of the studio. He eventually wound up with the fortunate folks at MGM, with whom he worked until 1953.

That stupid dog that appears now and then in Warner Bros. cartoons is here and he is hunting rabbits. Big mistake. Bugs becomes aware of him and literally launches an all out assault on the poor canine. Because of the denseness of the dog, all kinds of mean spirited tricks are played. Still, it is all action and works pretty well. I liked the ending.

I noticed in the trivia that the studio head, Leon Schlessinger, didn't like the final joke in the cartoon and he edited it out...leaving the film with a missing ending. This apparently annoyed Tex Avery so much he soon left and went to work at MGM...which for us is a good thing as his MGM offerings were often amazingly zany and fun...better than his Looney Tunes films. I didn't notice a missing ending in the version I saw on HBO Max.

This is a funny and occasionally dark Bugs Bunny cartoon where he battles wits with a dog who is woefully stupid, Willoughby. Willoughby is trying to catch Bugs (much like Elmer) and again and again, the rabbit outsmarts him...which isn't all that difficult!

The cartoon is very funny and well made...and is well worth seeing.

Tex Avery finally follows up 1940's "A Wild Hare" with a worthy sequel, in which a hunting dog is sniffing for some rabbit and comes upon a certain wabbit hole.

After seeing him in four previous films, the audience has become more familiar with Bugs, so Bugs naturally starts to confide in them with glances and asides ("What can I do t'dis guy next?"). It works better than when Cecil Turtle did the same kind of thing in the previous "Tortoise Beats Hare." We don't know this little green lizard...why should we trust him? Bugs, on the other hand, we know by now is all right...and we can definitely trust him.

Not to say that Bugs isn't sugar and spice, of course. He still has a cocky streak to him, and at the end of the picture even sasses the audience. Could Bugs be the first animated hero that shows contempt for the people rooting for him?

Mike Maltese introduces some great gags in this story, and it's only a shame that he didn't work on any more Bugs cartoons with Avery, as they could have come up with masterpieces.

After watching a bunch of 1950s Bugs Bunny cartoons, it was shock to see him in this early 1941 effort. He looks different, with a more oblong shaped head (glad they changed that) and the artwork looks different (no complaints in that department with the nice watercolors- type look). The next thing I noticed was Bugs' voice. Even though it was the same Mel Blanc doing Bugs, the voice was deeper. Frankly, it didn't right, probably because most of us aren't used to seeing him and hearing him like this.

The story is one that was shown many times afterward except hunter Elmer Fudd was playing the role that a dog did in here, namely going after Bugs and the latter outsmarting him at every turn. The two animals making faces at one another was good, as were a few other comedy bits involving Bugs' ears or the dog's tail.

Bugs' rhetorical question sums it up best: "Let's see; what can I do to this guy now?"

Overall, a fair effort. I think these were better-written in the '50s, and what's with all the kissing? That's overdone.