Books &Disney &Illustration 05 Aug 2009 07:18 am
Three Little Kittens book
- I’ve often been curious about the generation that lived through the late 30′s early 40′s. The animated cartoons that were made during this roughly six year period often feature enormously cute characters going through cute storylines. The audiences must have loved it considering the fact that there are so many of these films, including Oscar nominees and winners.
Lend A Paw, The Milky Way, Merbabies, Wynken Blynken and Nod, Two Little Pups, and any of the Sniffles cartoons all featured good animation and high prduction values but terminally cute material.
The Three Orphan Kittens of 1935 was an Oscar winner and as cute as all getout. Not only are these mischievous kittens, but they’re also orphans. The film was directed by David Hand and featured a seuquence by Ken Anderson in which floorboards were animated to try to capture the illusion of 3D.
A number of children’s books were produced from this material, and I offer here the illustrations from one smaller-sized book. It was originally published in 1935 and was obviously such a success that it was reprinted in 1949.
(Click any image to enlarge.)
Innercover front and back.
The title page.
1 
2
3
4 
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12 
13
14 
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The back cover.
Here are a couple of preproduction drawings done for the film.
It’s interesting to compare this material with the excellent shorts by Simon Tofield featuring Simon’s Cat. Both utilize pet cats as the featured star; both are lightyears apart from each other. They’re both representative of their time. Two different kinds of cuteness. One works today.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:46 pm 1.Hammy said …
Funny thing is, I just watched this yesterday and to see you mention it! I love these arts from the children book, thank you so much for sharing them! I am extremely impressed by how they did the floor backgrounds and all, considering it’s in 1935 it’s drawn entirely but moves in convincing ’3D’ environment perspective.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 3:56 pm 2.BILL PECKMANN said …
Michael,
Great stuff, any idea of who the illustrator is?
One more question, have you ever seen the Disney print art from “Good Housekeeping” magazine of the 30′s and 40′s. That art has the same good authority/quality as the “Kittens” book.
-Bill
on 05 Aug 2009 at 4:29 pm 3.Charles Brubaker said …
I actually like the illustrations in the book more than the cartoon it was based on. Thanks for posting!
Good point about this and “Simon’s Cat”.
on 05 Aug 2009 at 4:54 pm 4.Pete Emslie said …
I’m guessing that these book illustrations were from the 1949 printing only, as I don’t believe anybody was drawing like that back in 1935. I suspect the first printing had artwork that was closer to the kitten designs in the animated short, and not so much like Figaro. These illustrations look like they may be by Bill Justice, but that’s just a guess too.
I’ve watched several of the “Simon’s Cat” shorts and I’m not sure I’d describe them as “cute”. Not to take anything away from Simon Tofield, as I think he’s a good cartoonist and the films are entertaining and funny, but I don’t find them “cute”. Fact is, I find practically all entertainment today, including animation, to have a somewhat cynical and jaded quality. I think it’s a tragedy that the fully rounded, appealing forms of animation’s “Golden Age” are no longer in vogue with most animators anymore. I doubt that we’ll ever see anything that is genuinely “cute” any more, as sincerity doesn’t seem to sell these days. Sadly, audiences prefer “edgy”.
on 06 Aug 2009 at 5:47 pm 5.Michael said …
Pete, I’m sure that you are right about the Disney folk re-illustrating this book for the Forties.
I think the Simon’s Cat films are just the best thing out there. I can’t believe he’s not doing more with them. The animation is superb and the films, themselves are excellent.
I called them cute because of the warmth they generate. They are rare in not being cynical, but, to me, in a 21st century kinda way, they ARE cute. I believe they are to this generation what Three Orphan Kittens were to the generation of the late Thirties. Sorry if we disagree on this inconsequential point.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:28 pm 6.Thad said …
The pictures are cute, but hardly remarkable.
Pete, the fact is, nobody older than five years old finds a lot of “cute” stuff to be actual solid entertainment. This stuff was only enjoyed by a generation of people that thought we entered WWII for altruistic reasons and not out of self interest and gain(i.e. morons), and were created and imitated by men who really didn’t mean any of it. And face it, the vast majority of all the best fictional characters have had a “cynical, jaded” quality to them. Not like the “emo” mentality of today’s stuff, because in addition they had other more endearing aspects to their personalities. Take Looney Tunes and Muppets – true, they’ve been castrated at this point in history, but at once they appealed to people of all ages, and part of it was because they represented all parts of the human condition.
If, though, your plea for more “fully rounded” characters is really a plea to “draw normal, and not flat, designy, or in-your-face aggressively”, I agree completely.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 2:29 pm 7.Pete Emslie said …
Thad,
I’ve always enjoyed character art that I find appealing in a “cute” way, including these kittens, Mickey Mouse as drawn by Freddy Moore, Walt Kelly’s “Pogo”, etc. Yet I also enjoy characters like the Looney Tunes gang, who were admittedly born of a more cynical mindset. I’m not sure why one is only supposed to enjoy the latter and not the former nowadays.
What I don’t like today is all of the deliberately anti-cute crap, like “Happy Tree Friends” or “Bratz” for example, characters who are designed in a pseudo-cute manner in order to ridicule the genre. We are living in an age now where one is taking a risk for confessing to liking anything that is not “edgy”. Great singers like Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, etc. could not flourish today in this idiotic rock and rap world we live in. The Hollywood musical is a relic of the past, as today there has to be a pop/rock content to it if a musical is to exist at all. And today’s TV cartoons are pretty much all crap in my opinion, where dialogue is witless and liberally laced with innuendo and pop culture references. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the gist of what I’m saying here.
Do I sound bitter? I am. I find very little to like in contemporary entertainment, either in movies, TV or music. Yeah, I’ll take the genuinely cute and appealing entertainment from the past any day.
on 07 Aug 2009 at 2:44 pm 8.Thad said …
Oh, I get you now. Yes, we’re in agreement that the cute stuff of the past is at least not eye-rape like whatever’s falling out of MacFarlane’s ass. And we agree that much of today’s entertainment is crap. I guess we feel stronger on different points as to why the crap stinks.
BTW, that might be the only time anyone’s used “Pogo” and “cute” in the same sentence, at least in recent times.