Pro and Con
animated short film directed by Joanna Priestley
Pro and Con is a 1993 9-minute 16mm short animated film produced, directed and animated by Joanna Priestley and Joan C. Gratz using drawings on paper, pixillated hands and object animation. The "Pro" section of the film was written by Barbara Carnegie and Joanna Priestley and narrated by Lt. Janice Inman. The "Con" section was written by Jeff Green and narrated by Allen Nause. The sound was designed and produced by Lance Limbocker and Chel White with music by Chel White. Pro and Con was commissioned through the Metropolitan Arts Commission's Percent for Art Program in Multnomah County, Oregon.
Synopsis
Pro and Con investigates life in prison through two monologues: one by a corrections officer (Lt. Janice Inman), and the other by Oregon State Penitentiary inmate, written by Jeff Green. The guard is concerned both with the inability of our current prison system to deal with the increasingly violent nature of crime and the cyclical nature of crime within families. The inmate reflects on the isolation he feels- how much he misses not only his wife and family, but also such mundane activities as riding in a car.
“Pro and Con” enters the record as animated short film directed by Joanna Priestley. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what animated, short and film can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Pro and Con” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, animated, short and film provides the most credible route into that argument.
Attribution, date and provenance are strongest when supported by the original work, a catalogue record and documented transmission. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 30, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7246790. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993.
Titles can refer to several editions, objects or performances, making precise identification essential before interpretation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Separate the work, its editions or performances, and its later reception. Catalogue records, publication histories and object files often preserve different parts of that story.
- Identifying works and editions
- Tracing reception history
- Finding collection records
The original object or edition, catalogue raisonné, performance record, rights file and holding institution.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Pro and Con”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Pro and Con primary sources, Pro and Con archive and animated research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pro and Con”?
- How did later circulation or interpretation alter the work’s reception?
- Where is authorship, date or provenance documented?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Pro and Con” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.