The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics

In order to lure a cute dot away from a swingin' squiggle, a very conservative straight line learns to turn himself into exciting polygons and Spirograph designs.

This cartoon unfortunately is more impressive than it is entertaining. The overwrought narration by Norton Juster is read by Robert Morley. This is the first collaboration between Juster and Jones who later worked together on "The Phantom Tollbooth" in 1969.

In some ways, "The Dot and the Line" resembles a prototype for that later film since they are both less than the sums of their parts and are both better described than seen. In both cases, Jones is let down by Juster.

This 1965 effort however is shorter, better, and less cute than their 1969 feature, and has sufficient charm and originality to be well worth your time.

This short won an Academy Award and justly so. While others have said the scripted narration is not terribly good, I disagree. There are one or two excessively florid points, but Robert Morley's marvellous reading covers those and overall, the scripted narration is good. The animation succeeds in part because of the narration. Chuck Jones and Maurice Noble have every right to be well pleased with this cartoon. Why it isn't in print, I don't understand. Highly Recommended.

I truly have to admire the works of Chuck Jones. He made a name for himself directing Bugs Bunny shorts for Warner Brothers starting in the 1940's (although he directed many other animated shorts during that era,including animated training films for the U.S. government,some of which featured scripts written by Theodore S.Geisel,later to be known & loved by generations as Dr.Suess),moving on to creating The Road Runner in the 1950's,and moving on even further to working on directing animated programs for television in the 1960's,to animated feature fare in the 1970's. Every now & again, he would surprise us with something different & left of centre. 'The Dot And The Line:A Romance In Lower Mathematics',a short he directed for M-G-M in 1965 is a shining example of this. The story (read by veteran British actor,Robert Morley)is simple:a straight line is madly in love with a dot,who only cares for an abstract squiggle line. This causes the line to re-evaluate his position on things. The concept of abstract animation is by no means a new idea, but Jones (with assistance from co-director/co-writer Maurice Noble)manage to pull it off nicely (the idea for animating abstract images actually hearkens back to silent films in the 1920's,and later augmented by classical music in the 1930's & beyond). Well worth seeking out if you're idea of animation is something that is exclusively for children.

Experimental animators usually commit the mistake of thinking that experimentalism must be hermetical, non-objective, and abstract. Chuck Jones proves his point by making an animation film which brings characters and a storyline, but makes it look like a wild piece of experimental animation.

Without sound, the film would look like wild moving pieces. It's the narration and the soundtrack who do the trick. Weird non-objective mathematically abstract images who become human-like characters just with a little voice and music. Brilliant.

I'm personally impressed by this piece, since I saw it on TV as a kid, and instead of learning mathematics out of it, I decided to be an experimental animator. And I am one now :)

I remember watching this as a young child. It was a real treat to be able to see it, since it wasn't like the other programs I'd watch. Although there was only one Dot and the Line, it was better than the Rugrats. The Dot and the Line will remain a part of what defined my childhood. When I told my friends about this great cartoon, they didn't understand what made it so interesting or funny. The art style alone is enough to try and find this film. The last time I saw it was back in 2000. Flash forward a few years. I'm walking through SF when I find myself at a small sidewalk sale. I take particular interest in one book. The title seems familiar. It's a reprint of Norton Juster's book. If you can find it, the book is just as good.