What, what, WHAT? The mystery cartoon

This is one of five thousand or so gifs I've made and stashed away over the years. Looking for something else in a file, I found it again. Obviously it was taken from an old cartoon, likely on YouTube. But now I'm curious as to WHICH cartoon, from which studio, or at least the name of the cartoon or the name of the series, or the year, or something. 

More than once I tried to dig up the source of this few seconds of quite compelling animation. You can imagine the search terms I've tried! But it has availed me nothing.

It's just so odd. I wish I remembered anything of the entire cartoon, what it was about, what else happened in it. This is all that survives, this dam-bursting, floodgate-opening moment which is actually quite erotic. I say erotic because of the way the water ruptures the barrier and explodes over the rocks in roaring rapids. I like the animation, it's quite well-done, but who or what are those little "things" pulling on the vine-twisted rope? They look like little kewpie dolls or something, tiny naked doll-like creatures that likely inhabit some enchanted village. 

It's just such a strange thing to animate, and I think it's done very well, but WHO DID IT? I'd say Disney, but he wasn't the only knife in the drawer back then, not with Fleischer and Van Beuren and Ub Iwerks and Paul Terry and many others, turning them out regularly to run with feature films.

I'm mesmerized by this thing. I don't even know if the YouTube video is still up. It's SOOOO frustrating when you go on a wild goose chase to find an old video you loved, only to come to the pitiful realization that it doesn't exist any more.

I have sent an email to one Jerry Beck, an animation historian, with this gif attached, so we'll see if we get anything back. If HE doesn't know, I don't think anyone will.

Next day: MIRACLE OF MIRACLES!!

I opened my email this morning, and here is what I received:

That scene is from the Hugh Harman MGM cartoon THE BLUE DANUBE (1939). 

You can see that scene at the 5:00 (5 minute) mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGL_Dy84Z_M

Best,

Jerry Beck

Not only did Jerry Beck get back to me in about 6 hours, he gave me exactly the information I needed, plus a link to the actual cartoon, above. Thus I was watching it within seconds, including that incredible floodgates sequence.

Who DOES this? Who answers an email right away, when the entire Lloyd family, not to mention Rich Correll, treated me like I didn't exist? Wouldn't even give me a "no" or tell me they despised the very idea of my novel? Gave me worse than the cold shoulder? And this after what looked like initial curiosity and interest. This crushed me more than I can even say, and sometimes makes me think I have thrown away about five years of my writing life.

But never mind. Some people actually care, and readily share their passion and knowledge with others. THIS is the glory of the internet, which occasionally shows itself. I'll post a better copy of this cartoon if and when I find it, but until then, I've made a gif of the entire "water sequence" by stringing three short gifs together (and if you want any more proof this is erotic, just take a look at the waterfall at the end. I won't say what it is, except that it is a waterfall pussy.) 

Postscript to the postscript. This is the sad part. No sooner had I jumped for joy on rediscovering the mystery cartoon than it was pulled off of YouTube on some obscure copyright grounds. All I can think of is that Strauss' Blue Danube Waltz is no longer in the public domain, even though it is heard everywhere, on TV, radio, movies, the internet, YOUTUBE, etc. etc., or at least it is not available to be used with a cartoon. Stupidest thing I ever heard of, BUT, before it was pulled I did manage to make the longer gif out of the floodgates sequence. So you still got to see the waterfall pussy. But the timing seems suspicious, somehow. 

Oh, and. There's more. In trying to track down another version of this lost cartoon, I actually found one:

It seems ironic to me that while the cartoon has been pulled for copyright reasons, THIS version of it, obviously pirated, will likely stay. 

Rare nude footage of Sylvia Plath

Jack and the pile of oatmeal

This is my first 40-second-long gif, and if it posts successfully it will be a miracle. Most people hate gifs because they are just one or two seconds of endlessly-repeating jerks. I say that the gif is an art form, or should be treated as such. I have made thousands of them over the years. This came from a one-minute animated ad for some kind of oat cereal, likely made in the 1950s.

Wiggle Wiggle Woo

 

A long time ago, I don't know how many years ago it was, when I first started making gifs for my blog (which now seems like a very long time ago), there was a fad: 3D gifs (or GIFs, as they are usually called - I just use lower-case letters because "GIFs" is so bleepin' ugly). The 3D gifs were just what you see here - two very slightly different views of a scene which were rapidly wiggled back and forth to make them sort of look 3D. Technically it's a gif, but a very inadequate one because gifs usually express movement, and these look like the participants are either experiencing a mild earthquake, or sitting on jell-o.

The 3D effect is there, kind of eerily, not unlike the stereoscopic images from my Grandma's old viewer (and didn't YOUR Grandma have one of those, too?). These are a little more disquieting because they just won't stop moving. I'm not sure of the age of them, but it's well over 100 years, so that the pictures would likely be hand-tinted. As a matter of fact, it's very likely these gifs WERE made from those old stereopticon cards with the double image on them. I'm not sure what else they would use.

So what does this prove? Anything? I just analyzed one of them using my gif-making/editing program, and they each have exactly two frames. I don't know why the eye is fooled into thinking it's 3D, when it most decidedly isn't. 

Then people started making their own, and this sort of thing was popular for a while, though I guess you had to have the right equipment to take the pictures. This one has not two, but six frames, but is still limited by that incessant (pointless?) back-and-forth movement which makes the subject of the picture seem so utterly frozen.

I had to try slowing this one down. Not very exciting, is it? But it's typical of the kinds of images I was seeing back then. I remember all sorts of excited entries on web sites with a kind of "WOWWWWW!!!" tone to them: NOW YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN GIFS IN 3D! Even ready-made ones were considered the marvel of the age. Look! Oh wow! They're in 3D! Just like in the movies! All I could see was a lot of jellylike shaking.

Speeded up, you can see that everything seems to be moving in the picture except the main figure, who is just hanging there. The effect is more disquieting than ever.

WOW.

Or. . . not.

This turned out to be a fad which fizzled very quickly, mainly because it just looks so DUMB and not really 3D at all, just annoying. All the images I've gathered here are from posts from 2011, so my guess is that 2011 was the height of the fever. 2011 now seems like approximately one billion years ago. Six years is a long time, and on the internet it is an eternity. 

I can't leave this topic alone until I present a couple of truly hideous historical ones I found. I don't know how these were made, but probably with a double-sided stereoscope image. I just wish they hadn't done it at all.

History comes alive.

On wings of strange

The Baby

Birth of the Swan Queen

Oh happy day!