Looking at this, you’d think it was Cuba that had the embargo on the US, not the other way around. But what a deft way of drawing Obama: the moment is so winning. We see again Oliphant’s gift for fantasy based on characters from the news. (Previous Oliphant installment here.)
UPDATE: Matthew, my leg man in Oliphanting, points me to the latest: 1) Cheney the torturer and 2) the epicene cowboys of Texas secession. And, yeah, those are two freaky cartoons.
The Cheney cartoon takes a big, simple point (Cheney’s a nasty guy who defends torture), lobs in some clutter to put you off balance (the long legend on Cheney’s apron, the Prussian gentleman standing by in his helmet), then sneaks in for the kill with a final touch that is tiny, unobtrusive, complicated and inexplicable. Who is that little guy on a bicycle? Why is he tearing off for the distance? Why does the bike have training wheels and why do the training wheels look so much like legs and feet? Why does the man’s head look like three knuckles? Why is he so blase about torture and, finally, why are we hearing from him? Traditionally, an editorial cartoon will show someone in the news saying something that the cartoonist has put in the person’s mouth, and then there may be some little figure piping up with the cartoonist’s personal wry commentary on the situation. Here we have a third party, a man with a three-knuckled head and a special bike, and he’s popping up to say what he thinks too. Damn, it’s weird, and yet it takes up so little space. It’s a dab of condensed insanity.
Matthew says maybe the little guy is Obama: thus the training wheels and, I guess, the three-knuckled head (big ears). My guess, if it’s anyone we know, is Bush. Bush was always working out and Oliphant drew him with big ears. Oh, the hell with it.
All right, the epicene cowboys of secession. Here’s how I figure Oliphant’s logic chain: Texas wants its federal money like anyone else, so therefore this secession talk is bullshit; the secession talk takes place at tea party rallies or in front of crowds who might turn up at tea party rallies; the British drink tea and are very courtly about asking each other if they want one lump or two; therefore, to express the posturing hollowness of the secession talk, one portrays the Texans as mincing little Percys with tea cups in their hands.
One gets the horrible feeling that Oliphant actually thought his way toward this conclusion. The deranged vision didn’t come to him in a flash; he put on his thinking cap and worked with lunatic clarity to reach his goal.
UPDATE 2: Now Sam and the sharks, again because Matthew brought it up. Clear point, a bit simple but intelligible, and nothing actively weird in the drawing to throw you off.
Matthew mentions how well O draws the sharks, and it’s true. He also draws a lot of them. This brings up a big point about Oliphant. He is so much better at drawing than most of his colleagues that his facility gets him into visual trouble. In the old days, when he was at the top of his game, he created images with a density of detail and complexity of composition that allowed them to take over the reader’s eye. Now he doesn’t manage his detail, he just lets it roll out from his pen, and composition be damned.
The problem isn’t too bad in this latest. But Uncle Sam does get a bit lost among all those sharks; the overall situation takes a few extra seconds to register because Sam, who is its center, has to be tracked down by the reader’s eye. The Cheney cartoon suffers a lot more; even without the little mystery man on the bicycle, the picture is a mess of one thing after another.
God, I’m finding it near-impossibe to parse what the hell Oliphant is trying to say with these cartoons (I always get a few extra examples because I click the link a day or two later than when it was posted, and have to go back and find the one you were talking about). The next few days are as inexplicable as ever; you’ve got some dandy-ish cowboys talking about seceding, and Cheney doing a “no harm done” shrug about torture. I guess the moments are funny, but I find the “message” inscrutable. Are the Texans supposed to be modern wannabe-cowboys who don’t have the toughness that their attire implies? And while the Cheney cartoon seems to take a negative view of the Bush administration’s actions, is that supposed to be Obama pedaling away on training wheels? I have no idea.
But yeah, that is a nice image of Obama in the Castro cartoon. How could Fidel hate puppies?
Yeah, it’s probably supposed to be Bush on the bicycle, but I thought maybe it was a comment on how Obama is kind of turning a blind eye to the torture by not wanting to prosecute anybody. But probably not; who knows?
And the weird thing that bugged me about the Texas one is that “Texas tea” is a slang term for oil. I know that has nothing to do with the cartoon, but it still nagged at me. I love the imagined logic chain there, as if Oliphant is working hard to come up with a comic angle on these stories, and this insanity is the result. It’s pretty hilarious to watch him work.
And what the hell, why not mention the latest comic, which you can see by clicking the first link up there. Nothing too innovative in the way of a point or anything, but those sharks are pretty cool, with their psychotic expressions and bulging, toothy smiles. And Uncle Sam, he’s got a great expression too. Oliphant does come up with some nice images, even though they rarely make much sense.
Yeah, it’s probably supposed to be Bush on the bicycle, but I thought maybe it was a comment on how Obama is kind of turning a blind eye to the tortureThere’s a case to be made for your interpretation. Obama would be a lot more timely, and there are the training wheels. On the other hand I think Oliphant draws Bush with a much pointier skull than he does Obama, thus giving us the three-knuckled effect found with the bike figure’s head.
My favorite theory is that the little guy represents no public figure and that Oliphant doesn’t even know he drew him in.
And very true about “Texas tea.” I never thought of that, but people know the phrase and it’s represented visually in the cartoon, but entirely by accident. Another looper.
The little guy on the training wheel bicycle is definitely Bush.
-His attitude towards torture.
-A back view of Oliphant’s signature Bush big ears
-The training wheels denoting a juvenile attitude
-Bush’s well-known affectation of bicycling (damn, he’s bringing down the value of the bicycling neighborhood!)
I would also point out that the square-jawed Prussian is reminiscent of Donald Rumsfeld, also referred to on Cheney’s apron.
The uniform on Ol’ Square-Jaw is also a callback to the Nixon White House, in the days when Dick (Nixon) gaudily garbed the White House guard force in Ruritanian style uniforms, right about when a certain ex-member of Congress started working in the White House, one Donald Rumsfeld (of whom Nixon once said “He’s a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that.”) which all leads back to the whole cartoon’s feel and theme.
Oliphant is a master of editorial comment and art.
Nah, the Prussian ain’t Rumsefeld. The nose and chin are all wrong. And you can’t possibly think the uniform is meant to recall those uniforms Nixon wanted on the White House guards some 40 years back. For one thing, the uniforms were bright and had plenty of braid. This fellow is wearing a dark military greatcoat and kaiser-style helmet. That’s pretty different. For another thing, the uniform incident was four decades ago.
Anyway, now we’ve got two people who say the little man on the bike is Bush, one who says he’s Obama. That’s the mark of great editorial cartooning: people get to vote about what the cartoon means.