Bugs Bunny, where are you?
One would think that after the theatrical success and response the first Bugs Bunny cartoon, "A Wild Hare," generated that the Termite Terrace boys would follow it up with something even--pardon the pun--"wilder" for their new star.
However, that does not seem to be case with "Elmer's Pet Rabbit." Unlike the first encounter between Bugs and Elmer in which Bugs knows from frame one how it will end, in this one the control between the two characters shift back and forth. In one scene Bugs has one-upped Elmer, in the next Elmer is throwing him out. Bugs seems less confident, which at times makes it hard for the audience to really root for him.
This is most surprising when one considers that it was scripted by Rich Hogan, who wrote the previous "A Wild Hare." Not surprising, however, is that this slow ordeal was directed by Chuck Jones. Sure, he has conceived some of Bugs' grandest films in the 1950's, but at 1941 Jones was still concentrating on micro-directing...slowing down every action to a crawl so that you pick up every detail, every twitch and expression, and every aside. 1941's Jones was not the man to follow wildman Tex Avery.
And of course, Bugs is still growing into his true self at this point. It could be speculated that "Pet Rabbit" was in production before or at the same time of "A Wild Hare," because how else can one explain the slushier pre-Bugs baritone voice Mel Blanc uses for the wabbit?
As a Bugs cartoon, this one is only for completists. As a non-Bugs cartoon, it is simply slow and pointless.
However, that does not seem to be case with "Elmer's Pet Rabbit." Unlike the first encounter between Bugs and Elmer in which Bugs knows from frame one how it will end, in this one the control between the two characters shift back and forth. In one scene Bugs has one-upped Elmer, in the next Elmer is throwing him out. Bugs seems less confident, which at times makes it hard for the audience to really root for him.
This is most surprising when one considers that it was scripted by Rich Hogan, who wrote the previous "A Wild Hare." Not surprising, however, is that this slow ordeal was directed by Chuck Jones. Sure, he has conceived some of Bugs' grandest films in the 1950's, but at 1941 Jones was still concentrating on micro-directing...slowing down every action to a crawl so that you pick up every detail, every twitch and expression, and every aside. 1941's Jones was not the man to follow wildman Tex Avery.
And of course, Bugs is still growing into his true self at this point. It could be speculated that "Pet Rabbit" was in production before or at the same time of "A Wild Hare," because how else can one explain the slushier pre-Bugs baritone voice Mel Blanc uses for the wabbit?
As a Bugs cartoon, this one is only for completists. As a non-Bugs cartoon, it is simply slow and pointless.
- catradhtem
- 24 de mar. de 2001