Bob Clampett is my pick for greatest cartoon director that ever lived, the benchmark for all cartoonists to follow. Between him and Tex Avery, they covered all the major ground in cartoons, leaving what little they failed to tread for Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Walt Disney, Max and Dave Fleischer, Walter Lantz, Paul Terry, Hanna-Barberra, the UPA guys, and any golden-era director not on this list. But even when compared to Avery, Clampett boasts a higher ratio of creative ideas to air space.

It’s virtually impossible to write an intro about someone I consider the benchmark for cartoon directors without using shallow superlatives. But it’s unavoidable here. I can’t think of a single flaw for Bob Clampett in general. His accomplishments put him over-the-top.

Clampett used every element which goes into making a cartoon to make you laugh and used them in ways of unprecedented creativity - Whether it’s the awkward timing in A Corny Concerto which gives the action a bumpy feel, yet still unfolds smooth-as-silk thanks to the animation or the sudden, varying cuts and angles as Porky chasing Daffy in Baby Bottleneck. Most directors would use cutting just so one doesn’t get bored looking at the same view. Clampett’s cutting was an element in his gags as much as anything else.

Any element of his cartoons - be it animation, voice acting, gags, pacing, plotting, scenery, etc. – stand on their own and together. If cartoons are a delicate construction of many blocks, he knew where to place every block, and was able to make room for more where there was none. Tex Avery’s individual gags may have been better than Clampett’s, and he may have been more proficient at stringing them together to knock the viewer’s socks off, but his primary goal is was to leave the viewer with a rush. Clampett used his ideas to create a mini-garden of characters and worlds you’d want to think about after visiting.

And that’s because Clampett has been able to develop everything to the right proportion, with no part overshadowing another, yet each one captivating on their own. Freleng’s sole feature was timing, Chuck Jones’ mostly relied on backgrounds and elaborate gimmicks, Walt Disney on animation, and Hanna-Barberra on twisted scene cuts. Clampett could do all those and more.

His gags mainly rely what the characters actually say and do, and although so many cartoon directors after him would fumble by putting the emphasis away from visual gags, Clampett was first to refine the approach of character-based humor, and naturally did it better than anyone. Instead of relying on catch phrases that would overshadow the rest of the cartoon (Think, “Would you like to shoot me now or wait ‘till you get home?”), the gags are based on his characters’ detailed personalities and various actions. He could create some visual gags even Avery would never have thought of, but even these are in service to the character-based humor (the best example is Buckaroo Bugs).

Defining the best Bob Clampett cartoon is about as subjective as it gets, not because his style was consistent, but because his style was ever-changing. I chose my favorites based on their content level (really, Corny Concerto and Tortoise Wins by a Hare feel longer than they actually are, and I enjoy every minute). You’re favorite may well be The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, Hare Ribbin, Book Revue, or The Big Snooze (which I don’t care much for, but I can see how others would fall madly in love with it). In a way, picking the best Clampett cartoon is pointless, as they all have something to offer over one another and he’s never done a completely lackluster cartoon in the Warner Bros. era (or at least I haven’t seen any yet).

Bob Clampett influenced a whole generation of cartoonists, not the least of which is John Kricfalusi, who took Clampett’s style and fit it to his own vision, even working in a little of Avery’s machine-gun mentality (the way some Mighty Mouse and the Yogi Bear cartoons unfold reminds me of how Avery used to endlessly bombard the audience with gags – Although John K’s own attempts at conjuring Avery-esque gags were quite lame). John K. also added more emotional depth, while Clampett’s characters were more shallow, so it might be harder to get into Clampett if you’ve been overexposed to John K. (it was for me). But in no way is John K. a new and improved Bob Clampett. John K. mainly specialized in psychodrama and superhero take-offs, and while there’s plenty of diversity within his general style, Clampett boasts a diversity and atmosphere he could never match. There’s no reason why they can’t both share the first tier.