Speaking of experiments...Jones continued to do experiments after the 40s, not so much with animation technique - but with concepts.
Duck Amuck questions the whole concept of animated cartoons and consciously dissects the absurdity of the rules and accepted logic (or illogic) of the medium. This makes the film loved by some and hated by others.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I loved the cartoon as a kid, not just because it was a neat concept (Heckle and Jeckle also did the same concept, but less artistically) but because of Daffy's extreme frustration and the expert animation of it.
Of course he isn't really "Daffy" Duck anymore; he's Arsehole Duck - a completely different character than the earlier likeable wacky version, and I think that too irritates purists. I just look at this guy as a new character and accept his personality as being really funny for its own sake.
Some of the ideas in the cartoon are really funny and abstract like this one where the frame melts and collapses all around him.
This could only happen in animation. I would love to have seen who or how the gag was conceived. Maltese or Jones? It sure wouldn't make sense written.



What really makes the gag work is Daffy's extreme indignant frustration and the beautiful design and animation.
There's those crazy Chuck Jones eyes.



This frenzied scramble is great, isn't it?
Mel Blanc deserves a lot of credit for the cartoon's effect. His Daffy performance is brilliantly funny.

I also love this pose and the way his chest heaves.
Of course the structure of the cartoon is perfect and it's that fact that the story is actually about. ...That the director inevitably destroys Daffy bit by bit, building the absurdity up an ascending slope of dramatic construction.
As much as I like and admire the cartoon, I can't help but feel sorry for Daffy, because he doesn't have a chance. He's at the mercy of his creator.
This is the complete opposite of Clampett's treatment of characters, where they themselves cause their own fates.


The pacing of the cartoon is also as close to perfection as I can imagine.
This is an interesting calm after the storm, a stark contrast to Daffy's previous frenzy.







Well I could probably dissect every scene of the cartoon and I'm sure I'll get around to it soon. It's definitely an important event in animation history and its development - for good and bad, depending on who you talk to. But everyone remembers it.

I would almost suggest that it purposely tries to end the period of classic animation by saying it's all been done and it's just an illusion manufactured by the director, but then you'd yell at me. I'm probably overthinking the whole damn thing - but then, so has everyone else who's ever written about it, so I figure I should get a crack at it.

http://www.cartoonthrills.org/blog/Jones/53/DuckAmuck/DaffyFreaksOutDuckAmuck.mov

It starts out with a pretty normal pan of a farm, but layed out with odd angles that make it move in a slightly creepy way.

Then it just cuts to Daffy walking. I always assumed he was part of the pan, but no, it's a jump cut that I never noticed till now.
This walk is rife with tension, animated by Izzy Ellis. It's a double bounce - which is usually used to make a character seem happy. Something about this walk though is anything but bubbly or happy.
When I saw this for the first time, an anticipation of dread gripped me, like Daffy was expecting the world to come to an end. I never had weird feelings like this watching cartoons before.
And Daffy looked so different than what I was used to. He was more angular, scrawny and his poses were dynamic and really communicated what he was feeling - new more specific feelings. He's waiting for something that must be more important than life itself. What was it?






More great poses!
I was astounded at how clear and stark his poses were. Like a caricature of the cartoon principles of silhouettes, line of action, anticipations etc. No timidity like the poses in a Friz cartoon.
He says "sufferin' succotash!" which I had only heard Sylvester say before. I wonder who said it first. Clampett said that when they recorded Mel Blanc's voice for Daffy, he liked the way it sounded better than after they sped it up, so when he created his first Sylvester cartoon he suggested using the same voice and not speeding it up.
I love this action that really accentuates the dialogue.
Mel and Carl Stalling are in top form in the cartoon. It's amazing how Clampett coordinated all his talents to contribute to the unique intense feelings you only feel in his cartoons.


"Why don't he get here?" Listen to how the voice and music work together perfectly here.




This head shake is great too.





My eyes were bugging out of my head watching these unapologetic poses.
Nice ass anticipation there...
I think this was the first time I noticed smears too and they work perfectly here.
Here's a nice jump cut to the mailbox in a different position. Clampett's camera angles add a lot of dynamic tension to his cartoons.

I think this is a different animator.




Man was I creeped out by these realistic 3 fingered man hands - which Mike Fontanelli told me are outlawed in Japan.
Yikes! It's hilarious but really sick. Like a mutant from Hell has come to violate Daffy's sacred mailbox.
Another bold jump cut
...to reveal Daffy's eyes sliding around the post like living breasts whose aching needs beg to be sated.
All this is just the beginning of the cartoon and it made me feel like I was seeing - not "seeing" but feeling something different in a cartoon. I was used to laughing at my favorite Chuck Jones or Tex Avery cartoons and admiring the artwork and animation, but this was my introduction to a kind of comedy that had the extra element of intense feeling and empathy for the character. I was sucked into Daffy's emotions and felt everything he felt, instead of just laughing at him from the outside world. Clampett has this way of sucking you into the screen by making the story come out of the characters' emotions, rather than just stuffing them into a neat and tidy preconceived plot.

The Great Piggy Bank Robbery was a great revelation to me. It completely changed how I thought about cartoons and entertainment.

I've made a bunch of clips from it and will share all my revelations about it. I just had another last week as I was studying it again for the millionth time.


This cartoon stars only 1 character! It's just Daffy. No foil in the cartoon, except himself against his own urges and imagination! It's not Bugs VS Elmer, or Peter Pan VS Captain Hook; it's just a single extremely emotional duck. Doesn't this break every rule of (or cliche) of storytelling? Somebody quote me some rules out a film school book about character.

Today you can't have a cartoon without 80 characters, each with no charisma or personality, but who have to all take their turns eating up screen time by saying their cringe-inducing catch phrases or making arbitrary references to other films and TV shows.

Under Clampett's supremely controlled direction, Daffy is so charismatic that he can carry a whole cartoon by himself on the strength of his personality.