Reviewing - Disney's Dark Age (1970-1988)
Walt Disney is dead.
With the company's founder behind them, Disney Animation Studios fell into a period of slight disarray. A top animator left and founded a competing studio. Disney's films under-performed compared to the historic heights set by their own predecessors. The Black Cauldron ended up being the most expensive animated film ever made at the time, and they didn't even make their budget back. While the films in this period don't all stink, many had certainly lost the magic that has since become synonymous with the company. But for all that went wrong during this season, one good thing came out of it: Disney's best-selling character ever.
The Aristocats (**1/2)
In which Tigger presents a culturally insensitive caricature of Asian culture
This is basically Lady and the Tramp but with cheaper animation and more racism - and more cats, so strike three.
In 1970, Walt Disney had been dead for four years. He had had some influence on the development of The Aristocats before his death, but a lot can happen in four years. The company had lost their King, and his brother Roy was spending a lot of time working on the grand opening of Walt Disney World. It's not like the company was beginning to crumble from the inside, but it couldn't have been an easy season for the company.
Nine years earlier, 101 Dalmatians was Disney's first film that switched from their more expensive animation techniques to rely more heavily on xerography. That's a big word that means 'Disney found a way to make animation look a bit scratchier and a lot cheaper'. Lady and the Tramp was made before 101 Dalmatians, so it benefited from rich, beautiful backdrops and shots so pretty they could be paintings. In other words, Disney already made a great movie about a spoiled female pet who learned from a male street animal about the 'wild side of life' before domesticating him so that they could raise a family together. We didn't need this movie, but Disney needed something, so this is what we got.
There's nothing really memorable about this film. There's bits of Saturday-morning-slapstick and a mild romance between the two protagonists, but for the most part it feels like a re-tread of either Lady and the Tramp of 101 Dalmatians. Surely there must be more ways to make a pet movie interesting than getting them lost.
Fans of Winnie the Pooh will enjoy hearing Sterling Holloway (Pooh's original voice) as a friendly mouse and Paul Winchell (the original Tigger) as Shun Gon, a Chinese cat. That said, they may not enjoy it so much because Winchell's cat is probably the most racist thing I've seen Disney present since Pecos Bill shot a bunch of Natives who were throwing paint all over the place. Tigger LITERALLY chants "Shanghai, Hong Kong, egg foo young, fortune cookie always wrong" while playing on a piano with CHOPSTICKS. And he smacks a cymbal on his head to make it look like a Chinese rice hat. Like, come on. Fifty years ago or not, I don't see how this didn't raise any red flags for anyone.
So yeah, this is a thoroughly skippable film. Watch Lady and the Tramp instead.
Robin Hood (***)
In which Baloo comes back and no one seems to notice
Although somewhat forgettable, this was good clean fun.
What is Disney's deal with Phil Harris? They got the guy to voice Baloo in The Jungle Book and then Thomas O'Malley in The Aristocats. I just don't see what's so special about his voice acting that would necessitate bringing him back for the third consecutive film - much less as virtually the same character. Someone like Sterling Holloway has such an iconic cadence that it makes sense using him more than once...but Phil Harris? I just don't get it.
I've said before how I'm not crazy about the animation style of this period, but that doesn't mean that it's all garbage. The character design is a lot of fun here. Robin Hood really looks like the kind of hero we can get behind, and the villains are wonderfully wicked in the way they're depicted. There's an old-school charm to the world of the film, as our characters participate in some classic cat-and-mouse escapades. The jokes still land, and though the movie is basically one big cliche, it's done effectively enough that you won't mind.
The movie kind of ends abruptly, but the ride itself was a fun one. If you're into talking animals and medieval antics, this is the movie for you.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (****)
In which you never can tell with bees
This was pure joy. 1977 was a game-changing year for the film industry. That year, one man’s imaginative world was brought to life onscreen, giving us a cast of characters so iconic that they’re recognizable all over the globe. This film spawned a franchise that covers movies, television, books, video games, theme park attractions, and a mind-boggling number of toys. Over forty years later, that franchise is the third-biggest media franchise of all time. And no, I’m not talking about Star Wars. I’m talking about Winnie the Pooh. Surprising as it may seem, Winnie the Pooh is a bigger cash cow than Star Wars, the MCU, or even Mickey Mouse. While MCU’s heroes have earned roughly $35 billion during their career, a few stuffed animals from the Hundred Acre Wood have earned more than twice that amount. Winnie the Pooh is an absolute juggernaut, surpassed only by ‘Hello Kitty’ and ‘Pokemon’ as far as media-based franchises go. Now, it’s true that no Winnie the Pooh movie can compete with the box office numbers of a Star Wars or MCU film. Pooh’s secret is in his merchandising, which makes up roughly 98% of his income. He’s big. He’s not only the greatest accomplishment of Disney’s ‘Dark Age’ era – he’s the most successful Disney character EVER. Winnie the Pooh’s rise to fame began long before his 1977 film that was released two months before Star Wars. A. A. Milne, the creator of Winnie the Pooh, published the first Pooh book in 1926. It was a massive success, prompting a sequel “The House At Pooh Corner” two years later. Some four decades after that, Disney released their first short film, “Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree”. It was an adaptation of the first two chapters of the original book, and its success prompted the development of other Pooh short films that were played before other feature-length films. Three of these short films were mashed together to make this full-length film: The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. There’s a few things that make this film so wonderful. Firstly, the adherence to the original stories is admirable. Many lines of dialogue are taken straight from the pages of Milne’s book, and though Disney weaves several different chapters together, they never stray far from the source material. Secondly, the voice acting is positively iconic. Who could imagine a more lovable voice for Pooh than the one we got from Sterling Holloway? Piglet, Tigger, and Eeyore all have such recognizable voices that it’s impossible to separate the character from the voice. Milne’s clever and charming writing mix brilliantly with the incredible work of these voice actors. Thirdly, the animation is just adorable. In previous reviews of films in Disney’s Dark Age, I’ve lamented the introduction of xerography – a cheaper, scratchier animation technique that explains why 101 Dalmatians looks so much more like sketch work than earlier films like Peter Pan Cinderella. I stand by what I said – I miss Disney’s earlier animation, because it was absolutely jaw dropping. But I think in this rare instance, this cheaper animation style is actually a perfect fit for this movie. Winnie the Pooh is a storybook character, and the movie ensures we never forget this by framing the entire film within a book that is read to us by an unseen narrator. We see pages turn, characters interacting with their own pages, and at one point a gopher remarks that Pooh is inches from “sailing clean out of the book”. Though Pooh’s animation style is no more complex than that of 101 Dalmatians, there’s a simplicity and a childish charm to it that reflect Pooh’s character. Though the animation is obviously much different from the original illustrations of Milne’s works, it just feels like the kind of illustration you’d find in a children’s book. There’s a cozy-ness to the artistic style, and I love it. Getting back to that “sailing clean out of the book” bit, I loved the frame narrative of keeping these characters as characters in a literary story. The bit where the narrator turns the book sideways to help Tigger out of a tree is clever, funny, and outside-the-box. It’s a very unique style of storytelling that you don’t usually get to see. I also liked how the gopher was constantly aware that he wasn’t an original character. When he says, “I’m not in the book, you know,” he’s making a double entendre. On one hand, he’s saying that as a contractor for hire, he can’t be found in the phone book. But to the knowing audience, we know he’s really saying that he doesn’t technically belong in this story. It’s cheeky and brilliant. There’s really not a thing not to love about this movie. It’s simple, heartwarming, fun, and it gave us unforgettable characters that we all plaster our children’s bedrooms with. Even if you don’t have kids, I dare you to avoid smiling for the duration of this film.
The Rescuers (*1/2)
In which a little girl is kidnapped by two people so ugly you can smell it
Of all the Disney Animation Studios films I’ve seen so far, this is the worst yet.
This just doesn’t feel like a Disney movie, first of all. It’s horribly dark, both in tone and in aesthetic design. It’s nearly always nighttime, cloudy, rainy, and foggy. The major locations are an empty orphanage, a grimy shrouded island, and an old shipwrecked boat that’s more trashy than exotic. The villains are despicable, as villains should be, but they’re worse than that. They’re grotesque. Cruella De Vil is a villain you love to hate...but this lady is a villain you just rather wouldn’t think about at all. Both she and her partner are slimy-looking fiendish caricatures. You can practically smell the cheap perfume on her. Yuck.
Like I said, it’s not just the design – it’s the whole story. This story is about a young girl who was kidnapped from an orphanage by two scummy villains trying to get a diamond. The villains have two bloated alligators as their guards, and though the girl’s tried escaping several times, she can’t escape the clutches of her captors. They insult her, threaten her, and at one point the villainess is actually shooting at our girl. Since when did a grown-up shooting a gun at a kid sound like a good time? None of this is the kind of family-friendly entertainment we’ve come to expect.
As is par for the course now, the animation is messy and hurried. The opening sequence in particular isn’t even animation at all – it’s a PowerPoint presentation of static illustrations. Even if the images were pretty, they’re still missing the point. This is a movie, not a picture book. The clue’s in the name: move.
Our two main characters are mice. Disney has a knack for working with mice: Mickey and Minnie aside, Cinderella relied heavily on a cat-and-mouse side plot. These protagonists are charming enough, but there’s no real gravitas to their mission or to their relationship. He’s underqualified, and she’s an expert. That should be grounds for an interesting and blossoming romance. We could’ve seen him wrestle with the fact that he thinks he’s no good for her, or have had her start off pompous and then realize he actually knows a thing or two. Instead, they just kind of wind up getting closer and closer together, without any real tension to make their relationship exciting. And with regards to their mission – yes, there’s a kid who needs to be rescued. But what personal stakes do these mice have? None. And that’s the problem.
I’ve seen worse Disney films on this quest of mine to watch them all, but this is by far the worst original film. On that note, it’s really surprising to me that they chose this one as the basis for their first-ever theatrical animated sequel.
The Fox and the Hound (***1/2)
In which we learn that you kinda have to live with systemic prejudice
This is the kind of Disney we’re supposed to be getting.
I feel like this is a comparatively under-represented Disney classic. Bambi is much more prevalent in the public mind than Copper and Tod, for example. And sure, Bambi’s a better movie than this, but this is definitely a competent, charming, and thought-provoking film. Before I even get started on the emotional poignance of this picture, I’ve gotta say that the child voice actors they grabbed to play the young fox and hound are ADORABLE. When Copper says “I’m a hound dog”, I wanted to just die. They really do a good job of getting you to like the two protagonists right away, and their friendship is one that’s impossible not to enjoy.
What makes this movie deserve a place among Disney’s higher-tier films is the message that it reminds us of. While watching this movie, I thought a lot about the ongoing racial tensions between white and black people – particularly in the States. Here you have two characters, one born into privilege and the other taken from his home to try and make the most of a new life. They start off unprejudiced, just having a good time. But then the political climate of their world starts to sink in, and they realize that being friends won’t be as easy as they thought it might’ve been. For me, that made me think of the deep-seated racism that still plagues America, but this movie doesn’t have to just be about white people and black people. This could be about First Nations people, or really any two groups or cultures that have a rough history.
And that’s what makes this film worth the watch, I think. Because although it ends with everyone living happily ever after, it doesn’t end with a clean resolution. The problem of Tod and Copper not being able to be friends because of their positions hasn’t gone away. Tod’s still a fox and Copper’s still a hound dog. Even if they managed to achieve a momentary cease fire of sorts, the system that forces them apart is still in place. That’s what’s significant. In the West, there have been many significant wins for minorities and the underprivileged. But the system is not yet perfect – far from it, in fact. We have some foxes and hounds that play together, sure. But there are still foxes that are unjustly hunted down. And that’s a problem.
You might not read into this film the same way that I do. That’s cool. But I bet if you and I aren’t getting the same thing, you’re probably still getting something else out of it. This story is filled with interesting, complex relationships between characters. There’s a lot going on here. So yeah, don’t skip this one. Disney still has more to tell us through talking animals.
The Black Cauldron (**)
In which Smeagol redeems himself
Visually ambitious, but wildly unorthodox, this is quite literally the black sheep of the Disney animated library.
If you're a fan of The Lord of the Rings, there are a number of plot elements that will help you feel right at home. A simple young male character lives in a peaceful little place, until it becomes clear that a seemingly innocuous thing he's kept safe for years is actually insanely powerful. Not only is it powerful, but the most wicked villain of all the land is desperately searching for it. If he gets his hands on it, he'll basically be able to take over the world. Sound familiar so far? If not, say hello to a small, cowardly wanderer with a funny voice and no clothes who has decided to be our hero’s guide on his quest. It’s hard to see how this could’ve possibly been inspired by anything other than Tolkien’s work, even though officially this is based off of the kid’s fantasy series “The Chronicles of Prydain”.
Although in many ways this felt like a rip-off of Middle Earth, I didn’t mind so much because I’m quite a fan of Tolkien’s world. And yeah, this movie’s animation style felt really different from traditional Disney works, but I actually really admired the design of this film. The Horned King’s castle was every bit as menacing and classically fantasy-esque as you’d hope for, and the dragons were pretty sweet. The Cauldron-Born skeletons were also cool, and the Horned King’s final on-screen moment was impressive if not a bit over-the-edge for Disney. But speaking of over-the-edge, this movie does not feel like a Disney movie at all. There’s an army of big brutish men trying to kill a kid, a somewhat-demonic villain, and then a horde of truly scary undead warriors. But forget the scary stuff – you’ve got to see this to believe it. There is a scene where a guy gets turned into a frog, falls in between a woman’s bosoms, and tries repeatedly to climb out. Let me tell you - It’s a slippery, bouncy mess of a sequence. Never in my life did I think I’d see something like that in a Disney flick.
Let’s cleave ourselves from that unpleasant segment and focus on what’s really wrong with this movie – it’s trying too hard. I love the general premise of the film; a young boy caught up in a whirlwind adventure as he tries to defeat a ludicrously evil villain. But there’s just too much going on, and as a result, the whole thing falls apart. How did a pig get the power to tell the future? Why is a farmer taking care of it? Who does Princess Eilonwy rule over, and where is the King? Where did her little ball of light come from? And who is this minstrel with a magic harp? If it always breaks when he lies, when does it fix itself?
And what about those witches? When our characters meet the witches, the witches seem bent on turning them into frogs so that they can eat them. But then the witches just seem to forget about it, and the threat of being eaten disappears. AND even though they willingly trade the Black Cauldron for an enchanted sword at one point in the film, they seem totally okay with trading back at the end! Why did you want the sword so much?
There’s just so many unanswered questions. Sure, not all questions need to be answered. There are just too many here to forgive. Maybe if they’d made the film longer, they could’ve pulled this off. Alternatively, they could’ve just simplified the plot. But they didn’t, so this film unfortunately can’t support its own weight. I had a good time watching it, but it’s certainly not anything to marvel at.
One last thing and then I’ll let you go. What I found really interesting about this film was the way it treated its Gollum-esque character. His name was Gurgi or something weird like that. Anyway, his story very closely parallels Gollum’s own – their final moments in particular. Gollum/Smeagol finds a friend in Frodo, but his desperation for the Ring proves to be his undoing. Gurgi (or whatever his name was) is ruined by his own cowardice, but in the end, he overcomes his fear and sacrifices his life for his friends. Both characters die by falling from a great height in a villain’s lair, but the motivations are very different. If anything, you could look at this film as “The Redemption of Smeagol” – almost like an alternate ending. What if instead of stealing the ring in greed, Smeagol had wrenched the ring from Frodo’s finger and leapt off the cliff to save everyone? That’s kind of neat.
The Great Mouse Detective (***)
In which it's literally just Sherlock
This was better than I thought it was going to be!
Being one of the Disney flicks I hadn't seen as a kid, I came into this without any nostalgia goggles or pre-conceived notions of what I was in for. I didn't even know what the movie was about, apart from what the title gives away. Perhaps a more on-the-nose title would be "Sherlock But He's A Mouse", although I get why they didn't go for that one.
Basil is literally Sherlock - so much so that I wonder why they even bothered calling him Basil in the first place. His mannerisms, personality, and strategy are all 100% Sherlockian in nature. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you're not a Sherlock fan, you should probably find this out before you sit down. If Sherlock's your guy, you're probably going to really enjoy this because it's got all the stuff that makes a Sherlock story great. There's insane deductive reasoning, disguises, and a monstrous crime for our hero to solve. The characters are likeable and the plot moves along at a good pace without getting too straightforward or overly complicated.
The final act in particular is a lot of fun. I've really been looking forward to getting into the Disney Renaissance, in part because they married traditional animation with CGI so well during that era. In the final act, Basil and the villain Ratigan have an exhilarating battle inside Big Ben, and it's the first major CGI sequence that I think I've seen in a Disney film so far. Sure, it's not at the level of excellence that Disney reaches later, but it effectively makes the sequence so much more dynamic and exciting. Can't wait to see more stuff like that.
I wouldn't call this a Disney classic or say it's a must-see. But it's a good time for sure, and if you're missing Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman's bromance lately, this could be a nice pick-me-up.
Oliver & Company (***)
In which a guy with six dogs can't figure out why he's still in debt
Cheech Marin is the main reason to watch this movie.
If you don't know his name, you'll recognize his voice the second his chihuahua character opens his mouth. You'll hear him again as the hyena Banzai in The Lion King (still six years away at this point), but he's just terrific here. He's feisty, hilarious, and instantly iconic. Forget the rest of the movie - just watch all the scenes with him in it.
Alright, that was a bit of an exaggeration. The rest of this movie was okay. It ran a bit close to "The Rescuers" for me, in the sense that the colour scheme was primarily dark and the subject matter was very close to not being kid-friendly. This may come across as shallow, but as a kid I always had a hard time rooting for Fagan. I knew the villain was a bad guy because he had a low voice and drove a black car, but Fagan looked to me like the stereotypical cartoon bad guy as well. He's a gambler, a con artist, and he's so unkempt and raggedy. Yes, true goodness cannot be seen on the outside, but as a kid I just always thought "Yeah, this guy isn't really a good guy". And to defend my younger self, Fagan made a number of certifiably bad decisions throughout this film. And at the end of the movie, he's still gambling money. Gambling may not be a big deal for you, but you've gotta agree that a guy who's virtually homeless and trying to support six dogs on his own probably shouldn't be placing bets.
The main song of this movie (sung by Billy Joel) is pretty fun, and it's the first fun song I've heard in a Disney flick since the Winnie-the-Pooh theme eleven years prior. The score was actually competent too - there were a few points in the film where the backing music called back to a song that a character had sung, and that was pretty neat.
Although this film was competent, there's nothing ground-breaking about it. What's more, it's not a very pretty movie. Fans of NYC or 80s fashion might get a kick out of it, but this just doesn't have that fantastical Disney vibe to it. It's not bad...it's just not great.
Comments