The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics

When I first read the book version of the Dot and the Line, I had to supply the voice and "music" in my imagination, but I thought the book was wonderful. Just a few lines on a page and some words, but it really was romance. The justification for the characters' behavior was so real! I felt for the Line from the very beginning, and hated his rival. My feelings for the Dot were mixed. I just kept wishing she would come to her senses and see the Line for the great guy that he really was! When I was able to view the animated version a few years later, I was happy to see that my own interpretation was pretty much spot-on. I did enjoy the music, and I enjoyed seeing my characters come to "life" as it were. The movie was a faithful rendering of the book, which to me is still a classic! I lent my copy to a friend over ten years ago, and have not gotten it back yet...it is still making the rounds and I hope, making many other people smile.

I remember watching this as a young child. It was a real treat to be able to see it, since it wasn't like the other programs I'd watch. Although there was only one Dot and the Line, it was better than the Rugrats. The Dot and the Line will remain a part of what defined my childhood. When I told my friends about this great cartoon, they didn't understand what made it so interesting or funny. The art style alone is enough to try and find this film. The last time I saw it was back in 2000. Flash forward a few years. I'm walking through SF when I find myself at a small sidewalk sale. I take particular interest in one book. The title seems familiar. It's a reprint of Norton Juster's book. If you can find it, the book is just as good.

This short won an Academy Award and justly so. While others have said the scripted narration is not terribly good, I disagree. There are one or two excessively florid points, but Robert Morley's marvellous reading covers those and overall, the scripted narration is good. The animation succeeds in part because of the narration. Chuck Jones and Maurice Noble have every right to be well pleased with this cartoon. Why it isn't in print, I don't understand. Highly Recommended.

I truly have to admire the works of Chuck Jones. He made a name for himself directing Bugs Bunny shorts for Warner Brothers starting in the 1940's (although he directed many other animated shorts during that era,including animated training films for the U.S. government,some of which featured scripts written by Theodore S.Geisel,later to be known & loved by generations as Dr.Suess),moving on to creating The Road Runner in the 1950's,and moving on even further to working on directing animated programs for television in the 1960's,to animated feature fare in the 1970's. Every now & again, he would surprise us with something different & left of centre. 'The Dot And The Line:A Romance In Lower Mathematics',a short he directed for M-G-M in 1965 is a shining example of this. The story (read by veteran British actor,Robert Morley)is simple:a straight line is madly in love with a dot,who only cares for an abstract squiggle line. This causes the line to re-evaluate his position on things. The concept of abstract animation is by no means a new idea, but Jones (with assistance from co-director/co-writer Maurice Noble)manage to pull it off nicely (the idea for animating abstract images actually hearkens back to silent films in the 1920's,and later augmented by classical music in the 1930's & beyond). Well worth seeking out if you're idea of animation is something that is exclusively for children.

In order to lure a cute dot away from a swingin' squiggle, a very conservative straight line learns to turn himself into exciting polygons and Spirograph designs.

This cartoon unfortunately is more impressive than it is entertaining. The overwrought narration by Norton Juster is read by Robert Morley. This is the first collaboration between Juster and Jones who later worked together on "The Phantom Tollbooth" in 1969.

In some ways, "The Dot and the Line" resembles a prototype for that later film since they are both less than the sums of their parts and are both better described than seen. In both cases, Jones is let down by Juster.

This 1965 effort however is shorter, better, and less cute than their 1969 feature, and has sufficient charm and originality to be well worth your time.