Winsor McCay is a real pioneer when it comes to animation. His LITTLE NEMO and GERTIE THE DINOSAUR are among the very earliest animated films are still hold up pretty well today--and are also great treasures due to their historical value. However, about a decade later, he produced some "Rarebit" cartoons that aren't quite as innovative and seem to imply that you should NOT eat cheese before napping lest you have some weird dreams. I enjoyed the one involving the pet that grew to enormous proportions, though I gotta admit that this one about "Bug Vaudeville" was a big disappointment. Not only was the animation less stellar, but the cartoon just isn't all that interesting. While not BAD, the cartoon isn't all that watchable today and is one that all but serious fans of animation can probably skip.
8 Reviews
Bug Vaudeville is a slightly fascinating Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend animated short
tavm5 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Bug Vaudeville is just that: a series of insects performing various acts (boxing, dancing, acrobats, etc.) while a man watches. Give Mr. Winsor McCay credit for detail in the insect drawings and, unlike his mosquito short, there's nothing frightening here. Well, except maybe near the end when a spider appears and seems to tear the man apart before our eyes but then he wakes up...Pretty fascinating of a bit more conventional for a McCay animation. Loved some of the humorous touches like the potato bugs "boxing" or the somersaults of a couple of other insects. Anyone who has major interest in all animation history especially that of McCay's should check this rare short film at least once.
Creative, Detailed, & Enjoyable
Snow Leopard7 June 2005
This is a creative and detailed Winsor McCay animated feature that is very enjoyable to watch, and it is fortunate that it is one of the surviving movies from his 'Rarebit Fiend' series. The idea itself is clever, and while it is a simple concept, the amusing details and expert technique make it work quite well.
The dream about the "Bug Vaudeville" show opens up a lot of possibilities, and McCay does not let them go to waste. There is a series of interesting insects and arachnids who perform various feats of skill. They are cleverly drawn, and the backgrounds also contain some good detail. Most of their 'acts' are interesting and amusing to watch, and they show a resourceful sense of humor on McCay's part.
Like most of the pioneers of the movie industry, McCay usually seemed to have a good feel for how much material there really was in one of his subjects. He gets lots of good mileage here out of the "Bug Vaudeville" idea, yet he also stops while the material is still fresh, instead of dragging out some extra footage from it. It's an enjoyable short feature, and a fine example of McCay's skill.
The dream about the "Bug Vaudeville" show opens up a lot of possibilities, and McCay does not let them go to waste. There is a series of interesting insects and arachnids who perform various feats of skill. They are cleverly drawn, and the backgrounds also contain some good detail. Most of their 'acts' are interesting and amusing to watch, and they show a resourceful sense of humor on McCay's part.
Like most of the pioneers of the movie industry, McCay usually seemed to have a good feel for how much material there really was in one of his subjects. He gets lots of good mileage here out of the "Bug Vaudeville" idea, yet he also stops while the material is still fresh, instead of dragging out some extra footage from it. It's an enjoyable short feature, and a fine example of McCay's skill.
Insects put on a show
Horst_In_Translation30 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is "Bug Vaudeville", an 11.5-minute movie and part of the "Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend" series by American animation film pioneer Winsor McCay. It is from 1921, so has its 95th anniversary this year and not too long anymore until the century is full. In my opinion, it was an okay watch. Of course, you should not see it from the perspective of today's animation, but you need to keep in mind that this is from almost a century ago and it paved the way for many successful animators and inspired them to take a job in the profession and come up with quality films during the Golde Age of Animation. Admittedly, also in terms of the story, this film here is not the most creative achievement. A guy falls asleep and dreams that he is watching a stage on which all kinds of bugs perform, dance and sing and show boxing fights even. this is what vaudeville is. But it is all very absurd in this little movie. I just cannot recommend the watch to anybody other than film historians.
Did Karel Capek see this cartoon?
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre4 July 2006
Winsor McCay's 1921 cartoon 'Bug Vaudeville' has almost precisely the same plot and premise as Karel Capek's stage satire 'The Insect Play', which was first produced in Czechoslovakia in 1922. I wonder if Capek saw McCay's cartoon.
We have here a series of variety turns by various species of insects and arachnids. In several cases, McCay amusingly matches a particular vaudeville act to an appropriate species: a daddy-long-legs does an eccentric dance, while two tumble-bugs perform as acrobats. Some of the other pairings of species and performance seem more arbitrary: the potato bugs stage a boxing match, while a cockroach is a bicyclist.
McCay uses a framing device to include 'Bug Vaudeville' in his sporadic series of 'Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend' cartoons: a tramp has cadged some cheese from a housewife, and the bugs' antics are apparently his cheese-induced nightmare. In Capek's play, the tramp's slumber is induced by alcohol, and the antics of the various insects are parodic reflections of various forms of human behaviour.
'Bug Vaudeville' is amusing, and skilfully animated, but insects just don't seem to work well as cartoon characters, unless most of their distinctive appearance (and behaviour) is removed. The Fleischer Studio's 'Mr Bug Goes to Town' was a flop, even when re-released with a non-insect title, and Walt Disney famously had almost every insect trait shorn from Jiminy Cricket until the character was essentially a miniature human.
McCay, a major newspaper cartoonist in his day, made very few animations because his toons were so labour-intensive: McCay executed all the drawings himself, without the use of 'in-betweeners'. In his early toons, he drew on paper rather than acetate cels, forcing McCay to re-draw background art even when the background didn't change.
Sadly, almost none of McCay's original artwork survives. In 1982, I interviewed American comic-book artist Leonard B Cole, who worked alongside artist Robert McCay (Winsor's son) in the 1940s. Cole told me that McCay once brought a large quantity of his father's artwork to the studio where they worked, and offered to give it away to any artist who would take it. There were no takers, so McCay simply threw out the lot! (Cole spent a long time regretting his decision to decline the offer.) Today, those illustration boards would be priceless. I'll rate 'Bug Vaudeville' 8 out of 10. It's not very funny, but it's impressively made.
We have here a series of variety turns by various species of insects and arachnids. In several cases, McCay amusingly matches a particular vaudeville act to an appropriate species: a daddy-long-legs does an eccentric dance, while two tumble-bugs perform as acrobats. Some of the other pairings of species and performance seem more arbitrary: the potato bugs stage a boxing match, while a cockroach is a bicyclist.
McCay uses a framing device to include 'Bug Vaudeville' in his sporadic series of 'Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend' cartoons: a tramp has cadged some cheese from a housewife, and the bugs' antics are apparently his cheese-induced nightmare. In Capek's play, the tramp's slumber is induced by alcohol, and the antics of the various insects are parodic reflections of various forms of human behaviour.
'Bug Vaudeville' is amusing, and skilfully animated, but insects just don't seem to work well as cartoon characters, unless most of their distinctive appearance (and behaviour) is removed. The Fleischer Studio's 'Mr Bug Goes to Town' was a flop, even when re-released with a non-insect title, and Walt Disney famously had almost every insect trait shorn from Jiminy Cricket until the character was essentially a miniature human.
McCay, a major newspaper cartoonist in his day, made very few animations because his toons were so labour-intensive: McCay executed all the drawings himself, without the use of 'in-betweeners'. In his early toons, he drew on paper rather than acetate cels, forcing McCay to re-draw background art even when the background didn't change.
Sadly, almost none of McCay's original artwork survives. In 1982, I interviewed American comic-book artist Leonard B Cole, who worked alongside artist Robert McCay (Winsor's son) in the 1940s. Cole told me that McCay once brought a large quantity of his father's artwork to the studio where they worked, and offered to give it away to any artist who would take it. There were no takers, so McCay simply threw out the lot! (Cole spent a long time regretting his decision to decline the offer.) Today, those illustration boards would be priceless. I'll rate 'Bug Vaudeville' 8 out of 10. It's not very funny, but it's impressively made.
Greatly entertaining.
Boba_Fett113824 November 2010
Since I, as part of a modern audience, already felt entertained by this movie, I can only imaging how people must have looked at this movie back in 1921. Animated movies and short were of course still something new back then and it was also far from perfected but this movie simply serves its purpose, to entertain, quite well.
It's the second hand-drawn movie done by Winsor McCay, which he based on his own comic-strip 'Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend'. It shows that McCay definitely had a bigger talent for drawing animals than for humans, when it comes down to his work for animated movies. All of the movements by the animals seem far more smooth and they also look quite good.
Watching this movie really is like watching a vaudeville act, featuring bugs. This is what makes the movie real entertaining to watch and also keeps sure that there is always something going on. It's a fast going movie, that doesn't have to waste any time on a story or characters.
A movie that's still quite entertaining to watch, even by todays standards.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
It's the second hand-drawn movie done by Winsor McCay, which he based on his own comic-strip 'Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend'. It shows that McCay definitely had a bigger talent for drawing animals than for humans, when it comes down to his work for animated movies. All of the movements by the animals seem far more smooth and they also look quite good.
Watching this movie really is like watching a vaudeville act, featuring bugs. This is what makes the movie real entertaining to watch and also keeps sure that there is always something going on. It's a fast going movie, that doesn't have to waste any time on a story or characters.
A movie that's still quite entertaining to watch, even by todays standards.
8/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
virtuoso performance by an animation pioneer
bbenzon12 September 2004
So, for those who haven't seen it, let me tell you about "Bug
Vaudeville." It is framed as a dream. This indigent character goes
to sleep under a tree and dreams a series of vaudeville acts
played by bugs -- roaches, a daddy long-legs, butterflies, and
others. During these acts we see the head and shoulders of the
dreamer at the bottom of the screen, rather small, so you don't
notice them much. The last act is presented as involving a spider
and a fly. The scene is lush vegetation. A spider drops down from
the top and hangs from a single thread of silk. The spider does
various things and goes on and on until you begin to wonder:
Where's the fly? And then the spider reaches down to the bottom
of the screen and grabs the small black silhouette, pulls it up -- it
is not a fly, of course, it's a man, struggling against the spider -- and quickly devours it.
End of dream.
Vaudeville." It is framed as a dream. This indigent character goes
to sleep under a tree and dreams a series of vaudeville acts
played by bugs -- roaches, a daddy long-legs, butterflies, and
others. During these acts we see the head and shoulders of the
dreamer at the bottom of the screen, rather small, so you don't
notice them much. The last act is presented as involving a spider
and a fly. The scene is lush vegetation. A spider drops down from
the top and hangs from a single thread of silk. The spider does
various things and goes on and on until you begin to wonder:
Where's the fly? And then the spider reaches down to the bottom
of the screen and grabs the small black silhouette, pulls it up -- it
is not a fly, of course, it's a man, struggling against the spider -- and quickly devours it.
End of dream.
Bug Dance
Michael_Elliott2 May 2012
Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend: Bug Vaudeville (1921)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
This Winsor McCay short has a hobo taking a nap after eating some cheese cake, which causes him to have strange dreams. This dream here just happens to take him to a circus where various bugs do tricks on the stage. I'd be lying if I said this here was among McCay's best works because it's certainly no where near that. It certainly falls well short of his earliest films but overall this here isn't too bad and fans of his should still want to check it out. The one thing lacking was an overall passion from the film. I didn't think the material was nearly as lively as it should have been and this includes scenes that are just rather flat and don't contain any laughs or charm. I think this might be due to the fact that everything we're seeing is pretty much just repeating itself. We see a bug doing a trick and then we get to the next bug who just does another trick. The animation itself is quite good and it's clear that it came a long way since McCay's first film ten years earlier.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
This Winsor McCay short has a hobo taking a nap after eating some cheese cake, which causes him to have strange dreams. This dream here just happens to take him to a circus where various bugs do tricks on the stage. I'd be lying if I said this here was among McCay's best works because it's certainly no where near that. It certainly falls well short of his earliest films but overall this here isn't too bad and fans of his should still want to check it out. The one thing lacking was an overall passion from the film. I didn't think the material was nearly as lively as it should have been and this includes scenes that are just rather flat and don't contain any laughs or charm. I think this might be due to the fact that everything we're seeing is pretty much just repeating itself. We see a bug doing a trick and then we get to the next bug who just does another trick. The animation itself is quite good and it's clear that it came a long way since McCay's first film ten years earlier.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
