But that isn’t what we get in Mysto Fox (1946). The fox, cast as a magician in this cartoon, needs a rabbit to pull out of a hat. The crow decides to take the job by disguising himself as a rabbit. And who better to emulate to convince the fox he’s a rabbit than Bugs Bunny.
The door opens and the barely-disguised crow is seen munching a carrot and, in his usual voice, says “Uh, whadda know, Doc?”
He takes another bite out of the carrot.
Crows aren’t known for their appetite for carrots, so after chewing, he looks around to see if he’s being watched, and spits out the carrot off-camera (to the sound of a cowbell).
Publicity stories were already circulating at this time that Mel Blanc “was allergic” to carrots and spit them out at recording sessions. That was made-up. Blanc finally confessed he didn’t like the taste of them.
Of course, Blanc isn’t heard in this cartoon. The fox and crow are portrayed by Frank Graham (who also did voice work at Warners).
Screen Gems shorts can have bizarre endings that make no sense. This one has a bizarre ending that makes sense. The fox uses magic to turn the crow into an actual rabbit, the fires at him with a cannon as he hops into the distance to end the cartoon.
The fox deserves to win once in a while and he does in this cartoon.
The story was by Sid Marcus, who left for Warner Bros. when Columbia closed and wrote for the real Bugs Bunny. Chick Otterstrom and Ben Lloyd are the credited animators for director Bob Wickersham, with the score by Eddie Kilfeather.
The short was originally released Aug. 29, 1946.
A black-and-white print is the only one circulating on the internet. Considering how it was originally made in colour and re-released several years later, you’d think someone has a 35mm Technicolor print.
The Columbia cartoons never appeared on TV when I was a child. (Of course the Disney cartoons were above being shown on common local stations. It was considered something of a privilege to be allowed to see a Disney cartoon. Also, Walt didn't sell off his cartoons to TV in the '50s for quick money the way the other studios did.) Now I understand why: they lacked their own personality, even though I've discovered since that many of them were interesting, some good, a few excellent. But as a body of work they lack distinction and a unique style: many of the '30s Columbia cartoons seem like Fleischer cartoons gone wrong, and many of the '40s efforts seem like Warner Bros. cartoons gone wrong.
ReplyDelete