Foreword copyright©1987, 2013 The Maurice Noble Estate. Preface copyright©1987 by The Chuck Jones Center for Creativity. Textcopyright©2013 by Tod Polson. Page 174 constitutes a continuation of the copyright page. “LOONEY TUNES” including “BUGS BUNNY,” “DAFFYDUCK,” “ROADRUNNER,” “WILE E. COYOTE,” “PEPE LE PEW,” “ELMER FUDD,” “SAM SHEEPDOG,” “MARVIN THE MARTIAN,” and “RALPHPHILLIPS” used courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All rightsreserved. No part of this bookmay be reproduced in anyformwithout written permission fromthe publisher. ISBN 978-1-45212738-5 The Library of Congress hascataloged the print edition asfollows: Polson, Tod,1971— The Noble Approach: Maurice Noble and the Zen of animation design / by Tod Polson. pagescm Includesindex. ISBN: 978-1-4521-0294-8 1. Noble, Maurice. 2. Animated films--United States. 3. Animation (Cinematography)--United States. I. Title. NC1766.U52N637 2013 791.43’34092--dc23 2012031595 Designed by Cat Grishaver Chronicle Books LLC 680 Second Street San Francisco, California 94107 www.chroniclebooks.com
Contents 9 PREFACE BY Chuck Jones 10 FOREWORD BY Maurice Noble 13 PROLOGUE 14 INTRODUCTION 16 SCHOOL DAZE 18 SLUMMING IT AT DISNEY’S 21 THE DISNEY STRIKE 23 THE WAR YEARS 25 DEVELOPMENT OF THE WARNER BROS. STYLE
27 DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOBLE STYLE 27 COMPARISONS TO UPA 28 3-D AND JOHN SUTHERLAND PRODUCTIONS 30 THERE AND BACK AGAIN 33 THE END OF AN ERA 34 THE MGM YEARS 38 RETIREMENT 44 A NEW BEGINNING 46 LEGACY 48 STEP 01 Getting Started 48 WORKING WITHIN YOUR LIMITATIONS 50 WORKING AS A TEAM
54 STEP 02 Story 55 VISUAL STORYTELLING 60 STEP 03 Breaking Down the Elements 61 STORY BEATS 61 STORY ELEMENTS 66 STEP 04 Research and Inspiration 67 USING REFERENCE 80 STEP 05 Design 81 THUMBNAILS 83 WORKING IN THE CORRECT ASPECT RATIO
85 SUPPORTING THE CHARACTERS 85 SWEATY FUN 86 THUMBNAILS TO WORKING DRAWINGS 88 VALUE 91 TESTING VALUE 91 STACKING VALUE 93 FRAMING WITH LIGHT 94 CONTRAST 97 SIMPLIFYING ELEMENTS 98 STEP 06 Color 99 THE BASICS 102 COLOR PERSONALITY 103 THE PALETTE
103 SIMPLIFYING THE PALETTE 104 COLOR THEMES 104 COLOR FOR QUICK CUTS 105 COLOR CHORDS 114 COLOR CHORDS AS THEMES 115 CHARACTER COLOR 116 VISUAL HIERARCHY 118 COLOR REFLECTING PERSONALITY 119 ANALOGOUS AND SPLIT-COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTER COLORS 120 COMPLEMENTARY CHARACTER COLORS 124 DESIGNING CHARACTER COLOR IN MODERN TIMES 124 SATURATION 124 DULL COLORS AGAINST BRIGHT 125 PAINTING WITH SPIT
126 COLOR SKETCHES AND COLOR KEYS 146 LIGHTING TESTS 148 STEP 07 Layout 152 GRIDS AND COMPOSITION 153 GRID ELEMENTS 153 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LINES 153 DIAGONALS 155 RHYTHM AND SPACING 155 COUNTER-RHYTHMS 155 COMPOSITIONAL THEORIES 155 THE RULE OF THIRDS AND RABATMENT 156 ABOUT THE RULE OF THIRDS 157 ABOUT RABATMENT
159 PANS 160 PARALLAX 161 FRAMING WITH ELEMENTS 163 DEPTH 163 PERSPECTIVE 163 MULTIPOINT PERSPECTIVE 165 DISTORTED PERSPECTIVE 166 STEP 08 Final Film 168 IN CONCLUSION 170 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 171 INDEX
174 IMAGE & ART CREDITS
Maurice as the timid matador in Bully For Bugs (1953). Layout by Chuck Jones
Note from Chuck Jones to Maurice Noble, date unknown
To the grandson he hoped could come to know him a little better through these pages . . . . . . and for all those still creating with passion, for no other reason than the joy of it.
PREFACE I Have Sent for You, Dodgers! Chuck Jones on Maurice Noble If you describe Maurice as he would appear in the telephone book, you will have an exact idea of my respect and love for him. But I tellyou what he was not.He was not “my good right arm.” “My good right arm.” What a splendid term.How nice itmust be to be called a “good right arm” byyour director ifyou are a writer or a layoutman or a lead animator. There’s only one drawback: a right arm, or a left armfor thatmatter, isstupid. It has no volition of its own. It only does what the prejudice and predilection of the director tellsit to do. As a right arm, Maurice Noble was an absolute failure.He had ideas, which is a pretty stupid thing for a right armto have.Hissense ofcolor and design was, and is,vastly superior tomine, which, in a right arm,should be suicidal.He has a superb sense of humor, which is, in normalcircumstances, almost profane for a right armor a layoutman. But fortunatelyfor Maurice and fortunately, to the point ofsurvival forme, I had discovered years before hemagically appeared inmy unit that there are onlytwo kinds of talent worthy of identification: one thatyou find, ifyou are verylucky, as a small,scrabbly little talent within yourself(thisisthe one you continually doubt and always, ifyoumake any claimto artistry, of which you are constantlysuspicious) and two, the talent to surround yourself with talent. Of the two, the only one I amconfident that I possessin abundance is the second. If a lawyer who defends himself in court has a fool for a client, then a director who tries to acts as his own background or layoutman, lead animator, orsound editor is doomed to be spastically handicapped by his own limitations. It is not only necessarythat he hire people in each department(except direction) of talentsuperior to his own, hemust demand that each of themapproach the same problemwith a different background and viewpoint. Formyself, I do not want a writer who thinks he is a director. I want himto have the confidence, and the knowledge, to know that Iconsider himfar better at hisjob than I
am. Mondrian said that the supreme joy of artistryis working within a discipline. Mike Maltese, KenHarris, Ben Washam, and Maurice Noble, among all thosemany uniquely talented people I worked with, knew because I tried to exhibit it in the onlyformof respect and honor I understand how necessaryto the final filmwastheirconfidence in the contributionstheymade through their individual disciplines and artistries. Maurice seldomtried to provide animation gags perse, but he created a world where animation could flourish. If, for instance, inWhat’s Opera, Doc? he felt there was a lack of the flesh and fripperycommon to classical ballet, he designed the backgroundsin flesh tones and the trees astutus. If, asin one of the Martian–outerspace films, he got tired of all those film-studdedmysterious planets, he simply designed a city of delicately hued transparent platesfloating in space. In Duck Dodgers in the24½ Century, whose production design wasfreely asserted by George Lucas as having been a greatstimulusto his StarWars films, Maurice designed a forty-storyrocket ten years before John Glenn had graduated fromhigh school and vastlysuperior in design to anything seen at Cape Canaveral, plusthe only gantrycrane worth viewing. Maurice’svisual jokes never intruded on the orderly advance of the story—if anystoryI ever directed could be called orderly. He enhanced everystory.He stimulated all who worked with him.He always used the concerto form: once he was on board with the storyintent, everyinspirationalsketch he contributed was a variation on a theme.He nevershowed off, but he showed up everylayout man I have ever known by his honesty, his devotion to hiscraft, and his devotion to the film at hand. Thisis nevermore vividly demonstrated than inWhat’s Opera, Doc? Without Maurice Noble, who excited,moved, and stimulated us all, that filmcould not have been made. Asthe scientistsaid toDaffyin Duck Dodgers, “I have sent foryou,Dodgers, because the world supply of great layoutmen is appallinglylow.” CHUCK JONES LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1987 (From the introduction toMaurice’sWinsorMcCay Lifetime Achievement Award, presented by the International Animated Film Society for creative excellence in the field of animation.)
FOREWORD Designing for Animation While there has been much written about the art and techniques of animation, little has been said about the overall look and backdrop that animated characters play against. To be more specific: the art direction, staging, design, and layout of an animated film. Over the past few years I have had the pleasure of coming out of retirement and sharing my knowledge and experiences with a whole new generation of young people. Many have asked me to write down some notes on design, and the “Noble approach.” I would also like to saythatmysuccess as a designer isin a large part due to themany talented people I have worked with over the years. Chuck Jones, a director who trustedmy vision and gaveme the freedomto explore it. Mike Maltese, a writer with a “pixie” sense of humor. KenHarris, Benny Washam, and Abe Levitow, talented animators all. And of course PhilDeGuard, the background painter who helped bringmyvision to life. For all these opportunitiesthank you, also, to: WaltDisney,Dr. Seuss, Friz Freleng, Frank Capra, John Sutherland, John Rose, Frank Tashlin, Norton Juster, Mrs. Chouinard, Henri Matisse, Braque, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Brueghel,Hieronymus Bosch, Arthur Rackham, and Adamand Eve. The real art of animation isfilled with ideas and beauty and is a never-ending joy. MAURICE NOBLE LA CRESCENTA, CALIFORNIA
Portrait by Yousuf Karsh
Maurice and Tod doing some serious research in Turkey.
Examples of Maurice’s notes on which the Noble Approach is based.
PROLOGUE A Design and Life Philosophy “Originality is a quality over which an artist has as little influence as over the shape and distinction of his features. All he can do is be sincere and try and find out the things that really move him and that he really likes. If he has a strong and original character, he will have no difficulty in this, and his work will be original in the true sense.” —From The Practice and Science of Drawing (1913) by the English artist Harold Speed (1872–1957) If anything could be said about Maurice, it would be about the originality and sincerity of his art, and hissincerity as a person. Fiveminutes with theman would give you a strong sense of why hisfilmslooked the waythey did.Hisjokes(ifyou could call themthat) were so bad thatyou wanted to groan, butyou had to laugh, which only encouraged himmore. Hiscornball humor and pixie sense of fun would informyou of whythe rocksin Road Runnercountry were balanced the waythey were. And why his perspective wasjust a bit off-kilter. But as big of a hamas Maurice pretended to be, he was also a sensitive and thoughtfulvisual poet.He had a passion formaking beautiful imagesthat touched and moved people. More than anyone I’ve evermet, he loved beauty, and he loved life.He conveyed this on the screen, and to everyone whose life he touched. As great of an artist as Maurice was, he was an even greater human being. The text for this book started years ago when Maurice began working with a group of us at Chuck Jones FilmProductions. At eighty-three years old, whenmostmen his age were, in Maurice’s words, “dead, or enjoying their retirement,” Maurice wasconcerned with training a new generation of designers.He would look at our work and, instead ofsimply talking to us, would write long notes about what he felt were the strengths and weaknesses of our designs.He did this with great effort because his eyesight had gotten so poor, and because we all had somuch to learn. The notes he gave us would turn into long discussions.
And long discussionsturned into ideasthat we allstill ponder. For the few of uslucky enough to be called his boys(which also included a few girls) he not onlychanged the way we viewed art, he changed the way we looked at life. Maurice neverclaimed to have any design secrets, and some of the ideas about design that are offered in the following pagescan be found in some of themost basictexts dedicated to the subject. What is unique about Maurice’s work isthe way he put these ideas together. Studying under Maurice, we allsoon learned that how Maurice designed films (i.e., his design technique), wasn’t nearly asimportant as why he designed filmsthe way he did. Noble dreamed ofsharing hisideas on filmdesign with a larger audience in book form. Though he completedmany pages of notes, he unfortunately passed away before his dream could be realized. This book isn’tmeant to be a complete retrospective of Maurice’slife or work. Rather, it is what he wanted, an outline of his design philosophies, illustrated with some of his designs. Although Maurice had intended this book to bemore of a working textbook, with each chapter outlining a step of his process, I thought it wasimportant to also include some stories, and at least give a little background information (pun intended) about theman. I’ve also combined a few of the stepsin his processforclarity, indicating the areas where Maurice’s original plan has been changed. Maurice rarely gave whatyou would call traditional lessonsin design; they weremore like conversations. Many of his pearls of wisdomwere hidden in the stories he would tell. Asyou read this book, imagine, ifyou will, hearing hisstoriesthe way we heardmany of them:seated in Maurice’sstudio, in themidst of art fromhisremarkable career,stacked, stashed, and hung around the roomin an order that only he understood. At the center of thiscontrolled chaos, propped next to the animation discthat had served himso well, was theman himself, once described by Stan Freberg asthe “world’stallest elf,” gray hair mussed, a slightsmirk on hisface, and a devilish twinkle in his eye. Maurice often told manyvariations of the same storiesthroughout the years, depending on hismood and who wasin the audience. We were relativelyyoung,so we usually got the PG-rated versions of things, with a naughty word thrown in every once in a while to get a reaction fromus. The following pages are taken fromnotes he had started, as well asinterviews and lectures he had given, andmemoriesfromthe “Noble Boys” and other “young” people he trained and worked with. To Maurice when I knew him, a “young person” was anyone under the age ofseventy-five.
TOD POLSON, NOBLE BOY CHIANG MAI, THAILAND MARCH 2011
INTRODUCTION Setting the Stage Maurice Noble is best known for the fun, graphic layout design work he created for Warner Bros. and MGM Studios in the 1950s and 1960s. His animation design has been so influential that many refer to the highly stylized animation design from Warner Bros. simply as the “Maurice Noble Style.” But how did Maurice’s stylized approach to design develop? Where did it come from? Maurice’s art education began on May1,1910, when he was born in the small lumber town of Spooner, Minnesota.(Maurice’s birth records actuallyshow that he was born on May1,1911. Butsince thisis Maurice’s book, I’ll leave this andmost other factsjust where he left them.) As he was growing up, hismother, an amateurmusician and painter, passed on whatshe knew about art to him. More important,she passed on a simple philosophythat would extend to every aspect of hislife, and wasrepeated to us, histrainees. Maurice’smother taught, “The greatest asset an artistcan have is a curiousmind, and the courage to explore it.” If there was one concept that Maurice would have wanted readersto take awayfromhis book, this would have been it.He neverclaimed to have anyspecific artisticinfluences, but rather, like a sponge, took in everything around himandmade it his own. Maurice would often seek experiences outside of hiscomfortzone,such asstudying classical Chinese painting in Beijing while in hisseventies. For Maurice, the experience of living in an unheated concrete student dormwas asimportant asthe painting lessonsthemselves. Maurice’smother had introduced herchildren to artistssuch as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci;classic elements would alwaysremain a part of Maurice’s work. As a child Maurice was deeplyimpressed bythe Native American and Mexican art he saw when hisfamilymoved to New Mexico; they would remain a lifelong passion. As he grew older, hisinterests expanded to othercultures, particularlythose of Persia and the rest of Asia. Shards of all these things, both consciously and unconsciously, found their wayinto his work.
In hisyouth, Maurice developed an insatiable appetite for the arts and devoured every textbook he could find on art technique and history.However, Maurice’s dreamof becoming an artist wassidetracked after hisfathersuccumbed to tuberculosis, and he was forced to leave high school in order to support hismother and siblings. In early1929, a frustrated Maurice wrote in his diary: Oh Lord, what shall I do? I want to go back to school; but how can I? Mother will worry herself sick about bills, and Mother is the only reason I stay out of school. . . . I crave education, enlightenment, beauty, love; the worthwhile things. I believe I have a rich endowment which I must develop. . . . Oh God help me to find myself! Help me, help me. . . . Such selfishness! But is it selfishness to want to better myself? . . . My ambitions, hopes, and brains, all are going to pay bills. I feel an inward fire of inspiration and hope. I have confidence in myself and with lots of training and lots of time, I will turn out something worthwhile in oil batik or what have you. All art is so connected that I do not see why one cannot work in more than one line. Would it be selfish for me to go ahead and develop this gift, a divine gift? Sometimes I feel that I should be a welfare worker, a missionary, a teacher, and sometimes nothing. Time will tell. . . . I can’t find anything to stir my soul but art, and art is something I get so little of. Maurice was able to supplement his dayjob as a ditch digger by practicing his art at night and Sunday afternoons. Inspired by a piece of batik received as a gift fromhismissionary uncle in Thailand, Maurice began creating and selling his own batiks. Then, risking what little savings he had been able to accumulate, he purchased a small printing press. Maurice began selling greeting cards of his own design, and soon the little press hadmore than paid for itself. Later, during the Christmasseason, Maurice wasforced to leave school for several weeksin order to keep up with the demand for hiscards. Eventually his design work caught the eye of Capitol Records, and theycontracted Maurice to design several album covers. With the family onmore solid ground financially, Maurice returned to finish his high school education in the fall of1929. Armed with a strong portfolio, he applied to one of the best artschoolsin the country at the time, Chouinard Art Institute of Los Angeles.
A few moments in a Noble journey.
A Noble Christmas at the children’s dept. of Robinson’s department store in the early 1930s. SCHOOL DAZE Maurice became a student at the Chouinard Art Institute in 1930. There he continued his education in drawing and painting undersuch notable teachers as Lawrence Murphy, Millard Sheets, andDon Graham. Maurice excelled at hisstudies and held one of the first one-man watercolorshows at Chouinard.He also received one of the first two full scholarships offered at the school. The second scholarship was awarded to fellow classmate Mary Browne Robinson, better known by hermarried name, Mary Blair. Mary, ofcourse, would become another pillar ofmidcentury animation design. They were often compared to one another throughout theircareers. And though differing in style, there islittle doubt that the two influenced each other’s work. Maurice discussed Mary Blair in an interview with Nancy Beiman in 2000: Mary and I [were] what you call “a thing” at one time, but Lee Blair had a car and he beat me out. It was the Depression, and she and I were the poor church mice of the school. Mary and I had painting and design classes together. After painting class, children who had a lot of money would often throw away leftover tubes of paint. Then Mary and I would pick the stuff out of the trash bin. She also used to take the paper towels out of the washroom and paint on them. Mary and I used to do a lot of sketching together, meeting at different places, drawing each other, and painting with watercolors.
Mary was a unique talent. But I don’t think you could mistake my design for her design. It’s like any other art medium. There will be certain areas where people do unique things. What’s the difference between a Picasso and a van Gogh? I’m not comparing our talents to that, but on the other hand maybe we are the modern artists. I do believe that animation is a fine art. I think Mary Blair contributed to the fine art of animation, as have I. At the beginning of the second year of hisstudies, one of the biggest departmentstores in Los Angeles, Robinson’s, invited Maurice to design its annual Christmas display. The GreatDepression had not been kind to Maurice’smother and siblings, and once again he reluctantlyleft hisstudiesin order to support them. At the time, Robinson’s wasthe departmentstore in the Los Angeles area. The clientele includedmany ofHollywood’s biggeststars. And through entrancesflanked by uniformed, white-gloved doormen, customers weremade to feel asif they had entered another world. The store displays and distinctive decorative themes of each department were an important part of the Robinson’s shopping experience. Maurice approached his designsfor Robinson’s with the same confident graphicsensibilitiesthat would later define his animation work, bold shapes often spiced with a twist of humor.His Christmas display wassuch a glowing successthat what was planned as a semester’sleave of absence fromChouinard became full-time employment at Robinson’s.He would never return to the school to finish hisstudies. For the next few years, his design sensibilities would shape every department of the store, including the exterior of the Robinson’s building itself, for which he submitted design ideas when it wasmodernized in 1934. Though Maurice found his work at Robinson’screativelysatisfying, he stillstruggled to support hismother and extended family. Frustratingly, Maurice’srequestsfor a raise alwaysfell on deaf ears.
Maurice’s student compositions, early 1930s.
Pink elephants on parade from Dumbo (1941). SLUMMING IT AT DISNEY’S At the time, the WaltDisney Studios was expanding and looking for background painters. Recruiters, already aware of Maurice’s painting and design work, gave Maurice a background test, after which they offered him$100 amonth, $10more than he had been making at Robinson’s. Armed with a bit of leverage, Maurice returned to Robinson’s hoping to finally get hisraise. Maurice explained in a 1989 interview with animation historian Michael Barrier how he came to joinDisney: I told my boss at Robinson’s, “I’ve got a chance to work down at the Disney Studio.” He asked, “How much are they going to pay you?” I don’t know what possessed me, but I lied and told him, “They offered me fifty bucks a week.” That’s two hundred dollars per month! He’d been paying me ninety dollars a month at Robinson’s. He said, “I’ll double your salary.” Imagine, in one jump! I said, “You son of a bitch! I’ve tried and tried to get a raise, and you have never even offered me a cent more. You couldn’t pay me enough to stay here!” I put on my hat and walked out the door. At Disney’s the first assignment I got in the background department was an apple with a worm hole which I could render. I thought, Oh my God! What have I gotten myself into? According to Maurice, he hadn’tseriouslyconsidered a career in animation before this.
According to Maurice, he hadn’tseriouslyconsidered a career in animation before this. Cartoons of the day were relativelycrude, and for a serious artist to work in animation was, in his words, “slumming it.” Maurice shared withme: “I had visions ofcreating something as beautiful and powerful asthe Sistine Chapel, works of art that wouldmove and touch people. Little did I know way back then that animation would be the format that I would do it through; I quickly became fascinated bythemedium.” Maurice began his animation career as a background painter on the Silly Symphonies shortsin 1934.He contributed histalentsto such classics asWater Babies(1935), Elmer Elephant(1936), The Country Cousin (1936),Woodland Cafe(1937), and the Oscar-winning The OldMill(1937). Though he never finished his education at Chouinard, in a sense Disney brought Chouinard to Maurice by hiringmany of his oldmentorsfromthe school to teach at the studio. His work grew byleaps and bounds. Over time Mauricemoved to work as a background/layout artist on the studio’sfirst feature, SnowWhite and the Seven Dwarfs.He wassoon givenmore creative freedomand began working as a colorcoordinator, inspirationalsketch artist, and designer on filmssuch as Bambi, Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Dumbo.However,creative freedomcame with certain frustrations. On Bambi, Maurice had proposed severalvery graphic design solutionsforcertain story points, particularlythe forest fire sequence, onlyto have themrejected in favor of amore realistic approach. However, everyso often, amore graphictake wouldmake it to the screen,such as Dumbo’s “Pink Elephant” sequence, which Maurice helped design. It was atDisneythat Maurice said he first began formulating his personal approach to animation design. In 1938, architect Frank Lloyd Wrightvisited theDisney Studios. There Wright screened a copy of The Taleof the Czar Durandai(1934), a Russian short filmdirected by Ivan Ivanov-Vano. The filmwas a stark contrast to the stylized realismofDisney and featured striking graphic design that referenced Russian folk art. There were several screenings of the film, which intrigued a number ofDisney’sstaff. JohnHubley, and several othersthat would start the groundbreaking studio United Productions of America (UPA), have cited the filmas amajor inspiration. It’s unclear howmuch these screenings affected Maurice, but knowing of hislove for design and folk art, it’s easyto guessthat the filmonly added to hisfrustration with the graphics atDisney. While we were training under Maurice in the early1990s, one of the first assignments he gave us was designing folk tales using ethnic art asinspiration. These would formthe basisfor his proposed short film series, Noble Tales.
Maurice’s concept sketches for The Old Mill (1937). Maurice created literally thousands of concept sketches over a two-year period for Bambi (1942).
Backgrounds (top row) and conceptual color work for Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).
Frames from The Tale of the Czar Durandai (1934) by Ivan Ivanov-Vano. Stills from the UPA designed and produced Private Snafu short—A Few Quick Facts About Fear (1945). Directed by Zack Schwartz. THE DISNEY STRIKE Bythe early1940s Maurice had worked his way up theDisneyladder.He had relative creative freedom, was able to support hismother and family, and was driving a Plymouth. Risking everything he had worked so hard for, Maurice joined the strike againstDisneyin 1941.He shared withme what he wasfeeling at the time: “I give allcredit to Walt as an innovator and visionary.He helped develop animation into the great art formit istoday. But somany artists at the studio were working ten, twelve, andmore hours a dayyet were unable to paytheir rent. Icould have probably had a job for life if I would have just keptmy mouth shut. Manycould have said something but didn’t. It wasn’t fair to the guys on the lower rungs,so I walked out againstDisney.” To give you an idea of how bad things got,
Maurice told director Mike Cachuela that he had to cook forsome of the artistsliving in the bushes behind his house. This was on top of the boarders he had taken in fromthe studio. Anysavingsthat Mauricemight have had were wiped out. The strike was a success, but on hisreturn to the studio it wasclear that Maurice was no longer welcome.His office wasmoved to a former broomcloset that wasso small he had to stand up to open and close the door.He received no new assignments and had no visitors other than when he received his paycheck. Maurice described thistome as a traumatic experience, but he refused to leave the studio until receiving hisseverance pay. Not long after, World War II broke out, and Maurice enlisted in the Army Signal Corps. To give a sense of how deep passions about the strike ran, animator Mike Polvani and I once attended a “Pioneers of Animation” reunion dinner with Mauricemore than fifty years after the strike. I wasshocked to find thatsome of Maurice’sformerDisney coworkersstill held a grudge, while others,such as ever-youthful Ward Kimball, greeted Maurice with a smile that only Ward could pull off and the hug of a long-lost friend. The strong reaction frommany of his ex-colleagues bothered Maurice and had obviously troubled himformanyyears.He laterconfessed tome, “For a long time in the industry, if you weren’t working atDisney,you weren’t quite top drawer. It’s not true, ofcourse, but that’sthe perception. ForyearsI’ve taken a lot of guff for the ‘cards’ I designed at Warner’s.” (Maurice wasreferring to insults bysome that his work wassomehow cheap and flat, like a card.)In 1993 Maurice was honored by The WaltDisney Companyfor contributions he’dmade to the studio. It was about thistime thatDisney Features asked Maurice to consult on some of their projectsin development. Thisrecognition bythe studio aftersomanyyearsmeant a great deal to him. TheDisneystrike had left a large number of talented artists unemployed. Manyjoined the war effort; othersformed their own companies and took advantage of government contractsfor training films. Sincemany of the wartime filmstended to target amore sophisticated adult audience, directors and designers were freer to experiment in waysthey had never been able to before. Zack Schwartz, JohnHubley, and others began committing daring, bold, graphicstatementsto filmin companiessuch as UPA and Columbia Pictures. Animation wasfinally able to join themodernistmovement that had been happening in illustration and fine art for the previoustwo decades, amovement thatDisneyitself would finallyjoin in the 1950s.
Various Maurice concept sketches and stills from the Private Snafu series (1942–1945). Many shown here from Operation Snafu directed by Friz Freleng (1945).
The army had trained Maurice as a war photographer. But being the perfectionist he was, he took too long to compose his photos and was transferred out of the unit. As fate would have it, his former photography unit was wiped out early in the war. A few of Maurice’s desert-inspired tile designs. THE WAR YEARS Aftersome training as a war photographer and aircraft illustrator, Maurice eventually
Aftersome training as a war photographer and aircraft illustrator, Maurice eventually found himself under the command of Colonel Frank Capra in a filmunit headed by Major Theodor “Dr. Seuss” Geisel inHollywood. Among other things, Maurice began working on a series of propaganda training filmsstarring a character named “Private Snafu” (SNAFU was an army acronymfor “Situation Normal All Ffff . . . ouled Up”). Maurice and company would create design keysfor the shorts at “Fort Fox,” the nickname of the Foxstudios during the waryears. These keys were then adapted acrosstown bythe staff at Leon Schlesinger Productions, the studio that produced Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodiesfor Warner Bros. The Snafu films would be the first ofmanycollaborations between Maurice and director Chuck Jones. It would also be hisfirstcollaboration with Friz Freleng and John Sutherland Productions. Without the stylized realismofDisneyto contend with, Maurice was also finally able to explore amore personal approach to animation design. After the war, Maurice worked as a freelance designer, and very briefly as a background painter, in the Chuck Jones Unit in 1946. Though when asked, he was unable to remember exactly which films he had worked on or how long he had been there. In fact,many of Maurice’smemoriesjust after the war were confused, blurry, and befuddled.He described this period tome as his “wandering-in-the-desertyears,” which were among the darkest of hislife. Shortly after enlisting, Maurice, with the impulsiveness ofmany going off to war, had gottenmarried. Over the next few years, he and his wife had two daughters. Asthe war drew on, themarriage fell apart, and soon after the war his wife left with theirchildren. Though he continued to support themfinanciallythe best he could, he wouldn’t reconnect with his daughters again until they were adults. Their relationship would always be strained. After leaving the service, Maurice was broke, depressed, and physicallyill. For a time he lived in the California desert and started a businessselling handmade tiles of his own design. The designs were good; unfortunatelyfor Maurice, business was not.Destitute, he stayed with hismother, who slowly nursed himback to health. Eventually Maurice took a job in St. Louissupervising a crewmaking filmstripsfor Church-Craft, an organization indirectlyconnected with the Lutheran church. The filmstripstypicallyconsisted of religious, geographic, educational, orchildren’sstories. In St. Louis Maurice fell in love with andmarried Marjorie Phillips, a feisty,clever ad exec working in the same building he did. Maurice and Marjoriemoved to California in early1951 after he received an invitation to join the Chuck Jones unit aslayout designer. Chuck and Maurice would work together on and off for the rest of theircareers,creating some of the greatestshorts of the golden age of animation.
McGrew took inspiration from modern art and graphics, such as posters from the WPA and applied these ideas to animation. Frames from The Aristo-Cat (1943), designed by John McGrew and painted by Gene Fleury.
The Dover Boys of Pimento University (1942), designed by McGrew and painted by Fleury. Stills from The Unbearable Bear (1943), Designed by McGrew and painted by Fleury. DEVELOPMENT OF THE WARNER BROS. STYLE Many assume that Maurice wasthe first to bring amore graphicstyle of design and layout to Warner Bros. animation. While Maurice probably had themost distinctive individual style of any Warner Bros.’ layout artists, and surpassedmuch of what had been done before he arrived on the scene, the stage had in fact been prepared by Chuck Jones and designer John McGrew years before. One importantchange that Jonesmade in his unit in the early1940s wasthe use of a single layout/design artist and a dedicated background painter. Not only did John McGrew draw the background layouts, but he also painted smallcolorsketchesthat background artists Paul Julian, and later Gene Fleury,could reference. Previously, all directors, including Jones, had used a communal background department, where the designs and backgrounds produced were usuallysubstandard. John McGrew told historian Michael Barrier in a 1995 interview that “Art had two basicideas: watercolorsmust be pale, and to start,you always did a wash ofyellow ochre on the paper, and when it was dry,you would color it—you didn’t paint it,you colored it. The word that Chuck used was notvery elegant;
he said it was‘shit-brindle,’ which is a pretty good description.” The approach Jones and McGrew took worked so well that eventuallythe communal background department was disbanded, and every director in the studio worked with a dedicated layout and background team. Jonescaught a lot of flak at the time because hiscartoonslooked so different from anything else in the studio. In spite of this, he continued to encourage a climate of experimentation and collaboration within his unit. Maurice had been intrigued bymany of Jones’sfilmsfromthe early1940s,mentioning The Dover Boys(1942)in particular. But he also felt thatsome of the films were overdesigned, having backgroundsthat often over-powered the characters, a sentiment that John McGrew himselfshared aboutmuch of his own filmwork. Though now greatly underappreciated,many of McGrew’sfilms are landmarks of animation design and helped inspire the wave of highly designed, graphiccartoonsthat followed. John McGrew left for the war, and Fleury’s wife, designer Bernyce Polifka, replaced him in the Jones unit. Though having had no such affiliation formanyyears, McGrew would be blacklisted after testimony by Gene Fleuryto theHouse of Un-American Activities Committee for histiesto communism,connectionsthat Fleury and Polifka also had.His career essentially over in the United States, McGrew would live in Europe formost of the rest of hislife. But McGrew had left the door for graphic experimentation wide open, and Polifka stepped boldlythrough it.Her experience in graphic and product design gave a distinctive look to some of the filmsshe worked on at Warner Bros.,such asWackikiWabbit (1943). Maurice knew both Bernyce and Fleury personally, and had worked with Gene during the war.He admired the couple’s great designing abilities, but not particularlytheir work for Chuck Jones. Though Maurice feltmany of their ideas were graphically interesting, he also felt thatmanytimesthey had pushed the designsso far that they detracted fromthe characters. Many would agree. It is worthyto note thatDaveHilberman, who would latercofound UPA, designed a number of beautifully graphicfilms at Schlesinger’sfor director Norm McCabe and later Frank Tashlin in the early1940s,such as The Daf y Duckaroo(1942) and Confusionsof a Nutzy Spy(1943). These films aren’t as well known today primarily because of their racial stereotypes and the fact that they weremade in black and white.Hilberman would also be blacklisted after testimony by WaltDisneyto theHouse of Un-American Activities Committee. Though Maurice claimed not to have been influenced bythe filmsthatcame before him, he certainlytook note of what he thought worked—and didn’t work—stylistically.
In 1944, longtime Looney Tunes producer Leon Schlesinger retired and sold hisstake in the animation company he had built to Warner Bros. Eddie Selzer took over the seat in the executive office, and the studio wasrechristened Warner Bros. Cartoons, Inc. Through the years, Schlesinger hadmanaged hisstudio with a fairly hands-off approach. Aslong asthe filmscame in on time and budget and continued to earnedmoney, he was willing to give his directorsfairlyfree rein in design and content.His approach obviously worked: bythe time Schlesinger retired, Bugs,Daffy, and Porky were themost popularcartoon charactersin America. Frames from Wackiki Wabbit (1943), designed by Bernyce Polifka and painted by her husband, Gene Fleury.
Eddie Selzermanaged to take a different approach, working hard to endear his keystaff to himby beingmore involved in the filmmaking process. Not long after he took over, director Bob Clampett, depending on whose storyyou believe, was either fired or quit because ofcreative differences with Selzer.Director Frank Tashlin also left about thistime. Director Friz Freleng turned in his pencil and threatened to quit after a disagreement with his new boss, only agreeing to stay after an apologyfromSelzer. The love Chuck Jones and Eddie Selzer had for one anothercouldn’t bemeasured—because it didn’t exist. In a 1998 interview with animation artist TomSito, Jones described Eddie Selzer as “pure evil.” It was no accident that Jones’s work was often overlooked by Selzer when deciding which shortsto submit for the Oscars each year. Bernyce Polifka and Gene Fleuryleft the studio during the war, replaced by background painter Robert Gribbroek and layout artist Earl Klein. Gribbroek would go on to become Chuck Jones’smain layout designer into the early1950s, before transferring to Robert McKimson’s unit. Jones would continuemaking greatcartoonsin the latter half of the 1940s, his posing,cutting, and timing nearing theirzenith. Stylistically, though,most were nomatch for his earlier experiments. In a 1980sinterview with director John Kricfalusi, Friz Freleng revealed that after the waryears, he and Chuck Jones hadmade a conscious effort to “bring things back down to earth.” It’s easyto guessthat Selzer would have wanted his directorsto conformto amore uniformstudio style. In early1951, Maurice replaced Robert Gribbroek, who according to Maurice was “off raising chinchillasin New Mexico.” Not far fromthe truth: Gribbroek wasin fact a member of the Transcendental Painting Group of abstract artists based near Taos. For being an abstract painter, it’sironicthat Gribbroek’s designs were the leaststylized of Chuck Jones’slayoutcollaborators’. Maurice said of him, “Grib drew well, and hislayouts and camera were solid; let’sjustsay his pictures worked, but they weren’tvery exciting to look at.” Robert Gribbroek would work on and off for Jones and other directors at Warner Bros. formost of the rest of hiscareer. In 1959 Gribbroek went into semiretirement after winning $10,000 and the title of “Cookout Champion of the Year” in a nationalcooking contest. Eventually he wasfired byJones at MGM in the 1960sfor refusing to take artistic direction from Maurice. Gribbroek died in New Mexico in 1971.
A rough layout for the titles of Mouse-Warming (1952). DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOBLE STYLE Maurice’sstyle at Warner Bros. developed over time. Many of his earlyfilms basically maintained Gribbroek’slook, and some even incorporated a few of his old layouts. Though Maurice’sfirstscreen credit at Warner Bros. was on Rabbit Seasoning(1952), he had actuallytaken over a number ofshortsin variousstages of production fromGribbroek, including Feed the Kitty(1952) andMouse-Warming(1952). Maurice described tome what it waslike for himin hisfirst days with the Jones unit: When I first started with Chuck I had never laid out a picture before. Design, sure, but I had never made working layout drawings for an entire film. For the first few days I was really sweating blood. Then I noticed a stack of old layouts sitting in the corner. I studied what Grib had done, and with the help of background painter Phil DeGuard, some of the animators, and the camera man, by the end of the first picture, I had a pretty good handle on what I was supposed to do. But oh! Was it ever painful! As Maurice becamemore comfortable with the technicalside of layout, he began to play more with style. In contrast to Jones, Maurice described Eddie Selzer tome as “a funny littleman.” And other than an incident that included a telephone and Maurice kicking a hole in the wall, Maurice and Selzerseemto have gotten along fine. One thing that would have appealed to both Jones’s and Selzer’ssensibilities was Maurice’slogical approach to
animation design. Maurice explained this basic design philosophytome while working on Noble Talesin the late 1990s: “With Chuck we were trying tomake a complete statement with the backgrounds and characters working in harmony. Ifyou have charactersthat are primarilyline and flatcolor, why not take the same approach with the backgrounds?” Maurice elaborated further in a 1991interview withHarry McCracken: I’d always had in the back of my mind that super-realism in the backgrounds behind flat animation was not the right approach. So when I got the opportunity, I started to place more emphasis on shape. I started to leave off the airbrush and create the spaces by shapes instead of a lot of fussy shadows and so forth. I tried to create each frame to support the action, and not clutter up anything or interfere with a gag or bit of action. The style just evolved little by little. COMPARISONS TO UPA United Productions of America (UPA)made a handful ofsophisticated, avant-garde films throughout themid 1940s and early1950s. The studio developed styles and techniquesin animation that influenced otherstudiosthroughout the U.S. animation industry, including WaltDisney. The flat artstyle Maurice developed in the 1950s wasinevitablycompared to the graphic films of UPA fromthe same period. Though both Maurice and the designers at UPAmay have sometimes arrived at a similar place graphically, their basic design philosophies were quite different. In 1991Harry McCracken asked about the influence of UPA on Maurice’s work at Warner Bros. Maurice answered: I’ll be very frank and say I don’t believe I was influenced by UPA at all. I did my own thing. In fact, I refused to go over to UPA. I preferred working with Chuck at Warner Bros. I think UPA outsmarted itself in overdesigning and being kind of smart-assed. In a sense they were walking in their hallowed artistic halls. I think I can honestly say that I’ve never designed anything that I didn’t think was going to communicate to the audience. After all, you have to have an audience. Maurice toldme a storythatsummed up hisfeelings on UPA’s design approach: “I never took the UPA approach to design,style forstyle’ssake. I went over to UPA one time and looked around. Bernyce Polifka wasthere, doing some interesting things. I asked her how her designsrelated to the character and story. She said, ‘I don’t know, but Isure had fun.’
Tome, that’s no wayto design a film.Design should support the story, not the other way around.” Maurice confessed that he foundmuch of UPA’s work veryinteresting, especially the early work of JohnHubley.He admitted that even his adversary, Jules Engel, had done some veryinnovative things. It wasn’tsimplythe work that turned Maurice off to UPA, it wasthe artsy-fartsy, better-than-thou attitude of the designersthere. Light tests from a Maurice designed DuPont commercial produced at John Sutherland Productions. Mid1950s.