Bugs Bunny Part One: History and Scribner

Prototypes

The earliest prototype of Bugs Bunny was created by Ben “Bugs” Hardaway and Cal Dalton. The cartoon was a recreation of Porky's Duck Hunt and it featured a fairly unremarkable screwball character, later christened “Bugs' Bunny”, who was modeled after Daffy Duck and contained the voice and laugh that would later be given to Woody Woodpecker.

The creation of the Bugs Bunny we know and love was a group effort amongst the WB directors/animators that includes some thievery on the part of Tex Avery. When he released the first definitive Bugs Bunny cartoon, A Wild Hare, he took some elements of the earlier rabbit designs and combined them with the design of Max Hare, a Disney character.

Max Hare is the turtle

From there the character continued to evolve until Bob McKimson drew the definitive 1943 model sheet.

The 1943 Model Sheet

The character continued to undergo design changes within various units but this model sheet remains the definitive version of Bugs. This model sheet was commissioned after the Clampett unit began producing cartoons featuring more appealing and better drawn versions of Bugs Bunny than the other units did.

                                                                       Pre 1943

Post 1943

After this introduction of this model sheet some of the other directors allegedly claimed to follow it at all times. This wasn't really true in practice though as every other unit simply continued to develop their own style without paying the model sheet much heed. 

Chuck Jones

Friz Freleng

Bob McKimson

As you can see above, even when Bob McKimson took over the Clampett unit his cartoons featured a different Bugs than the one he helped design (and arguably animated better than anyone).

Despite having a universal model sheet instituted the directors were allowed to continue to present Bugs Bunny however they liked. As a result the character is really a mix of characters, with a variety of interpretations on the idea being penned by a different director. In this series we're going to go through each of the major directors at WB to study how they presented Bugs Bunny and how they influenced each other but for right now we're actually going to focus on a single animator: Rod Scribner.

Rod Scribner

Rod Scribner was one of the greatest animators of all time. During the time period in which he worked with Bob Clampett the two of them, along with McKimson, became largely responsible for creating the Warner Brothers' style (something I'll write about in more detail when I get to the post on Clampett's unit). Rod Scribner's animation style was far more exaggerated than anything else out there, aside from Jim Tyer. 

Because of how exaggerated his poses and drawings were Scribner is the perfect animator to study when one is starting to learn how a drawing can work to portray a character's personality and emotions. We'll focus on his later years for now because during that time he was often surrounded by more lifeless animators than he was when he was working for Clampett. This will make the particulars of his style more overt and it'll give us something to contrast it to.

Rod Scribner animated the first 36 seconds of this commercial and Ben Washam finished it off. Even the casual viewer should be able to notice a difference in style. Tex Avery divided the cartoon up between the two animators: Scribner worked on the first part where Bugs is desperately trying to get his hands on some pre-sweetened Kool-Aid, and Washam worked on the second part where Bugs emerges as the calm cool and collected victor. He used their distinct styles (manic vs subdued) to naturally tell a story.

We can plainly see that Scribner's deviations from the model sheet weren't due to an inability to draw or a misinterpretation. Everything he did utilized the rules of cartooning in order to arrive at a destination that is more alive and vibrant. He would change the proportions and features of his characters but nonetheless he continued to keep them solid and well drawn. This is important because not many animators were able to draw Bugs Bunny and that's not because they didn't follow the model sheet perfectly. If anything following the model sheet removes an animators ability to act. 

The above drawings all have dynamic poses that are drafted through the use of fairly intense lines of action. The limbs and ears of the character branch away from these lines of action in order to cultivate negative space, or empty space, that makes the poses feel more vibrant and alive. The various parts of his body are uniquely caricatured for each drawing in order to complement the pose Bugs is in and the emotions that he's feeling. There are no straight lines here and all the details are subordinate to the larger forms (for example the eyes wrap around the shape of the head and the detail added to their shape further adds to the presence of perspective and form). 

Now for something different. 

Washam is using something more akin to the Chuck Jones' Bugs. It's mostly very well drawn but he isn't quite as solid as Scribner's rabbit. Washam's rabbit has a less defined form and is more reliant on mechanical posing and movement than Scribner is. Instead of looking like he's confident of his control over the situation and victory Bugs comes across more as an automaton or a robot trying to sell corporate goods to children. 

WB became strongly associate with character-driven animation and Washam doesn't seem nearly as capable of communicating that as Scribner is. This isn't just because Scribner's scenes are more manic: that's just a surface detail. A lot of thought and detail was put into making every one of his poses feel dynamic, alive and expressive. Washam's Bugs Bunny by comparison is just kind of standing there, going through the motions but not feeling or expressing them. 

I have one final point to make. Let's take a look at Bob McKimson's Hillbilly Hare.

This cartoon wouldn't be remotely noteworthy if it wasn't for the square dancing scene split up between Rod Scribner and Emery Hawkins. Despite sharing duties with another well liked animator, Scribner's work is what carries the scene. Even though he was now working for an extremely conservative director who liked using an unappealing model for Bugs Bunny Scribner was still able to animate an appealing character. 

Take a look at these drawings by other animators who aren't Scribner...

... and then compare them to Scribner's work.

I would go as far as to argue that Scribner is drawing a different character than the other animators are. Scribner is the only one who drew Bugs' with this sense of mischievousness, as though he was truly enjoying what he was doing and perhaps trying to suppress his laughter. Everyone else produced sloppy work that didn't really convey much in the way of form or personality.

If you want a good understanding of what makes a formless drawing compare Scribner's three dimensional eyes to the nearly flat and confused eyes drawn by the first two animators. The facial features and the shape of the head don't seem to fit together very well on either one of them and they both lack a sense of perspective and personality. The second Bugs is no where near as bad as the first one but he's not great. 

There isn't one single definitive way to draw Bugs Bunny. The model sheet exists as a general guideline but every animator and director is allowed to have a personal take on it. Problems only arise when that personal take is either technically flawed or inexpressive. So when we study these various units and directors think about what their style does or doesn't convey about the character. And keep in mind how a strong drawing isn't just a drawing that's technically well done but is one that imbues a character with life. This isn't just because we're going to be forming qualitative assessments of all the directors but we need to have some understanding of animation in order to understand who has what strong points (and weak points), and what each director actually did with the character.

Next up is Friz Freleng.