Reviewing - Disney's Silver Age (1950-1967)
"Cinderella" brought Disney back to the level of excellence that it had first become famous for. With a string of iconic films like Peter Pan or Sleeping Beauty, Disney's animation studio rejuvenated the company and gave all of us stories worth remembering.
Cinderella (*****)
In which a woman enlists the aid of household rodents to thwart a relative’s plot to save the family from financial despair
I can’t believe Disney waited over a decade from “Snow White” to give us another flawless fairy tale movie.
Well, I guess I can. A lot went on in that decade, not the least significant part being World War II. Disney was really thrown off-balance, losing a lot of his team members and his market. The whole company got thrown out of whack, which resulted (in my opinion) in a heap of mediocre films. But 1950 rolled around, and along came Cinderella, re-affirming Disney’s place as a company of master storytellers. Walt had wanted to make a film about Cinderella for years, and his company was finally becoming financially stable enough for him to push for another full-length feature. It’s a shame that it took so many half-baked movies to get us this masterpiece, but it was a very tumultuous time.
Enough history - let’s get into it. There’s a lot to say about this movie, but the first thing I’ll say is that it is a BEAUTIFUL film. The artwork and style of so many of the shots are stunning, particularly the dance of the Prince and Cinderella. Each shot could be a painting. The animators made a two-dimensional world so classy that you wish you’d gotten your own invite to the ball. Cinderella herself is really well done. The way she moves and reacts is incredibly human, as are her facial expressions from time to time. It’s hard not to like her immediately because she doesn’t behave like a caricature. She behaves like a person does, and as a result you really feel for her when bad stuff happens.
There’s a lot of side-plot in this film that you may not remember. A good chunk of the movie has to do with Cinderella’s mouse friends Jaq and Gus doing battle with the evil cat “Lucifer” - and while we’re here, let’s take a moment and acknowledge what an awesome name that is for a cat. You’d think that these extended sequences would detract from the main plot, but you hardly even notice that you’ve taken a detour. Part of this is because the comedy and timing of these segments is so darn good, but it’s also because each segment remains rooted in the central plot in one way or another. When Jaq and Gus are finally thwarted by Lucifer in their attempt to get the key to Cinderella towards the end of the film, the dramatic tension hits with full potency because of their constant rivalry throughout the story. You just want to cry out, “Aw, it’s that stupid cat!!”
Incidentally I usually want to say that about any cat I see but that’s another thing.
The story is elegant and unhurried, but it gives you crucial information in blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moments. For example, do you remember that Cinderella had no idea she was dancing with the Prince? When the clock strikes midnight, Cinderella remarks that she never even got to meet the Prince. What this does for us is strengthen our belief (or suspended disbelief at least) that Cinderella’s really found true love. She doesn’t love this guy just because he’s royalty. The movie actually shows her walking in kind of lost, and the Prince goes and finds her. They get to talking, dance a bit, and spend a romantic evening together. Their love is pure because it’s wholly innocent. She’s not a gold digger, she’s just falling in love with a sweet guy she met at a party. It’s a small detail, but it’s crucial.
The music is terrific, the fairy godmother scene is pure magic, the laughs are plentiful, and the story is beautiful. I’ll leave this review with my now-favourite line from the movie.
Grand Duke: But your Highness, this slipper may fit any number of girls! King: That’s HIS problem.
Alice In Wonderland (***)
In which a girl falls asleep and wakes up
It was a fun trip, but like the book it’s based on, there’s not much substance to it.
I’ve said before that Disney tends to do their best when they’re adapting a well-known story, so Alice In Wonderland was definitely the right call after knocking it out of the park with Cinderella the year before. It’s a wildly famous story, with colourful characters and terrifically written dialogue. Disney’s animators perfectly captured the world of Wonderland, giving us a fantastical place where rabbits talk, flowers sing, and cats disappear. When I read the book for the first time years ago, I remember thinking that the various scenes Lewis Carroll had dreamed up were incredibly fun. I also remember thinking that the story was more about enjoying each scene as it came, rather than enjoying it as one coherent narrative. Even now, a week or so after watching the film, I’d have a hard time re-telling you the order in which Alice met each of the characters. I know the movie starts with the doorway and ends with the Queen of Hearts, but it’s hard to say at which point she got to the Rabbit’s house or where exactly the Cheshire Cat showed up for the first time.
To that end, what’s interesting about this film is how it is not equal to the sum of its parts. Each scene is a blast, for sure. But when you put them all together, you find yourself – like Alice – getting a little lost in Wonderland. Alice grows as a character over the course of the film, but only literally. There’s not much development that she experiences – no major revelation or sudden epiphany, and when she finally gets out, she’s essentially the same girl that fell down the rabbit hole. For some, this may not be an issue, but for me I found it a little disappointing the finish the movie in the same place I’d started.
The whole movie - much like the book on which it’s based - feels like a dream right to the very end. You flit from weird scene to weird scene, with a simmering idea of where you’re going but not much clue how you’re going to get there. The film even ends much the same way a dream does. Alice finds the dream turning into a bit of a nightmare, she struggles for a bit, and then all of a sudden she’s awake. It’s as though none of it ever happened.
Disney did as good of an adaptation as anyone could have hoped for here, but it’s the nature of the story that keeps me from giving the film more than three stars. That said, if you’re a fan of Wonderland in any incarnation, you’re probably going to love this.
Peter Pan (****1/2)
In which an ant-sized fairy shrugs off taking a bomb to the face
This near-flawless masterpiece shows Disney at its best.
For a place called ‘Neverland’, Peter Pan’s home is one that is firmly rooted in a time-specific culture. The children of 1911 were enchanted with pirates, mermaids, and ‘Cowboys-and-Indians’ games. Today, pirates and mermaids might still ignite the imagination, but I would imagine that a modern Neverland might have superheroes and video-game characteristics instead of traditional fantasy elements. Regardless, I think we can all agree that kids don’t play “Cowboys and Indians” anymore – but we’ll get to that in a minute.
What keeps Neverland immortal isn’t Captain Hook or Mermaid Lagoon – it’s pixie dust. Watching the Darling children soar over moonlit London is just as breathtaking today as it was when this film was released in the 50s. The idea of flying is one that will never get old, and that’s what I think keeps Peter Pan exciting for kids. At what point will lifting up off of your bedroom floor and sailing out your window into the cool evening streets NOT be something that gets you dreaming? The whole sequence of Wendy, Michael, and John flying with Pan and Tinkerbell to Neverland is pure magic. There’s nothing not to like about it.
They say a hero is only as good as his villain, and Captain Hook is one of the best. In many ways he’s the quintessential pirate – sharply dressed, cunning, and completely two-faced. I thought it was neat that Hook and the Darling children’s father were both voiced by the same guy, which is apparently how they did it in the original plays as well. I wonder what the significance of that would be. Is Hook supposed to represent the sort of adulthood that the Darling children fear? Or is it simply to highlight the similarities between the two antagonists? There’s an essay in there somewhere – I can tell. Either way, the scenes where Hook scrambles away from the crocodile are still hilarious to this day. Disney was no newcomer to physical comedy, and they pulled out all the stops to make each encounter with the ‘gator fresh and exciting. Smee is a terrific bumbling sidekick/henchman, and for some reason or other, my wife’s term of endearment for me comes from him. Not sure what to make of that.
We can’t ignore the portrayal of Native Americans in this film. In some ways it’s a far cry from the “Pecos Bill” segment from Disney’s Wartime Era, and in other ways it’s all too similar. What I admire about the portrayal is that the Natives and Peter’s Lost Boys seem to treat each other as equals. Whereas Hook and his pirates are wicked antagonists, the Natives are more like frenemies – friends who you fight with for fun. They’re rivals, but they’re not foes, if that makes sense. That part I thought was pretty fun. On the other hand, the whole “Why Is The Red Man Red” segment is a nightmare of racism. The whole bit makes fun of Native American culture by reducing the group to a series of jokes. It’s a black mark on an otherwise delightful film.
This is a terrific film and a highlight of Disney Animation. Don’t miss it!
Lady and the Tramp (***1/2)
In which a female dog is frustrated to find out about her friend's former flings
Disney’s streak of great stories told through beautiful animation continues – this time with puppies.
I had a much greater appreciation for this film as an adult than as a child, probably because as a child I was deathly afraid of dogs and cats. I was terrified that they were going to eat me – it took a sleepover at a friend’s place where the dog ended up sleeping on top of me for me to conquer my fear. Even then, I didn’t know much about pets until I got to know my wife’s family, who had two tiny white fluffball dogs named Rosy and Ivy. Through these feisty little pups, I got to personally experience how dogs behave in their day-to-day lives.
When I was a kid, I watched Lady follow her daily routine with a certain level of disinterest. Seeing her do ‘dog stuff’ wasn’t boring, but it also wasn’t anything that caught my excitement. As someone who is now much more familiar with dogs, the first few minutes were a lot of fun. In Lady, I saw not just Rosy and Ivy, but all the dogs that have played a role in my life. This film is a loving ode to dogs, as is evident by the film’s opening dedication: “It is to all dogs – be they ladies or tramps – that this picture is respectfully dedicated”. If you’ve ever owned a dog, this movie will be packed with moments that fondly remind you of the dogs in your own life.
The animation and design of this film is simply stunning. Many shots could stand on their own as paintings – the shot of Lady’s owner singing to her baby in the nursery is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Lady’s neighbourhood is lavish and pristine, beautifully illustrated and brimming with touches of elegance. In many ways it was reminiscent of Disneyland’s Main Street U.S.A, which like the film was modelled after the turn-of-the-20th-century neighbourhood Walt grew up in – Marceline, Missouri. On that note, it’s cool seeing how Walt’s presence played into this movie. Apparently he bought his wife a dog in much the same way that the film’s husband did, only the circumstances were a bit different. Whereas the husband in this movie bought his wife a dog for Christmas, Walt wrapped one up in a box as an apology present for forgetting a dinner date. I’m sure my wife would have little complaint with an apology like that.
What’s exciting about the story is the ways in which the dogs try to communicate with the humans. When Tramp is essentially framed for attacking a baby, the tension is palpable because our characters (the dogs) know what really happened, and the humans are missing out on some very important information. It’s also cool seeing the dogs try to solve major problems without having the advantages of being human themselves.
The one thing I wasn’t crazy about (apart from the not-so-subtle racist overtones in the Siamese cat sequence) was the song “He’s A Tramp”. Tramp’s meant to really care about Lady, but this song paints him out to be somewhat of a scoundrel. There’s plenty of lovable scoundrels in film and television (we’re looking at you, Harrison Ford), so the fact that he’s a scoundrel isn’t necessarily an issue. The issue is that this song hits the nail so squarely on the head that it’s hard to not call out its problematic nature. Why are we glorifying Tramp’s tendency to “break a new heart every day” as if it’s something good? Even if this revelation does create tension in Lady and Tramp’s relationship, the film still takes time to sing this song and focus on how Tramp makes people fall in love with them just so he can leave them behind. Kids repeat what they see – why are we giving them a song to sing where they wish that someone would take advantage of them? It just didn’t sit right with me.
That aside, this was a heartwarming and visually glorious film. It deserves a place in the pantheon of Disney classics.
Sleeping Beauty (***)
In which a girl falls asleep and wakes up
The name says it all - it’s pretty, but there’s not much energy.
Sleeping Beauty is Walt Disney’s third princess film. She had big glass slippers to fill after Cinderella, and given that Snow White had bitten off more than most could chew, it seemed that a third home run might be a bit on the unlikely side. Development began almost immediately after Cinderella, but it was nearly a decade before this next princess film would be released. Walt wanted this next tale to be his greatest yet, but numerous setbacks combined with his perfectionist attitude significantly slowed production.
The resulting picture was received with mixed reviews. The consensus seems to have been that it was a visually striking movie, but it lacked the narrative strength of Disney’s previous princesses. That is, at the very least, what I would conclude after watching. The visual design was right up there with Disney’s best work. The set pieces were richly detailed, and the characters each stood out in their own way - Maleficent especially. We’ll get to her in a second, because where I think this movie’s narrative failed was in its protagonist. Aurora / Briar Rose / Sleeping Beauty is just not a great main character. There’s nothing about her personality that ends up being memorable or distinctive. The three fairies are terrific and carry most of the film, but it’s their role that I think hurts Aurora. The fairies are tasked with saving Aurora, but as a result the focus of the film shifts away from her and on to them. Aurora becomes more of an object to be protected than an actual influencer of change. I mean, she’s asleep for the most important part of the movie. There’s not a whole lot you can do while you’re asleep.
Her father the King isn’t very interesting either, which is odd considering they give him and her fiancé’s father far more screen time than they deserve. There’s a really extended scene where the two of them are talking over drinks, and I couldn’t help but wonder why the filmmakers decided to give so much attention to this unimportant scene instead of giving us a glimpse of Aurora doing something significant. It’s the people doing stuff that matter - and both Aurora and the kings don’t do a whole lot.
The characters who DO stand out are the ones who make stuff happen: the fairies and Maleficent. Maleficent is the standout character of this film. She’s got a commanding presence, a terrific design, and all through the film she is DOING something. The final act where she battles the Prince is truly spectacular - particularly the dragon sequence. It’s no wonder they decided to shift the focus entirely onto her when they made a live-action adaptation.
This isn’t a bad movie. The fairies are funny, Maleficent is a terrific villain, and the climax is an absolute blast. I just wish Aurora had been awake for more of the film.
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (***)
In which a villainess briefly mistakes one hundred and one Dalmatians for one hundred and one Daschunds
The animation just isn’t the same, but Cruella makes this movie worth the watch.
Right off the bat, the opening credits for this movie are the most interesting credits I’ve seen yet for a Disney film. It’s a highly creative and artistic sequence - very vibrant and fun all the way through. You’re probably not a connoisseur of credit sequences, and neither am I - but if you know someone who is, they’d probably appreciate this.
As fun as the opening credits were, I was disapponted in the new style of animation. Sleeping Beauty was a work of art, but it was so expensive that Disney almost went out of business. A newer, cheaper animation technique was introduced for 101 Dalmatians, one that cut costs in half but meant that the animation looked a bit more pencil-y and scratchy. It just didn’t have the elegance that previous Disney films had had, which was disheartening.
That said, the movie wasn’t bad by any stretch of the imagination. The characters were fun, and although not every single Dalmatian got their moment in the spotlight, there were a few standouts who managed to win my appreciation. I can’t remember any of their names, but the one glued to the television was great.
What really makes this movie worth it, though, is Cruella De Vil. I never watched this movie as a kid, but even then I knew her song and what she was all about. She’s another iconic Disney villainess, right up there with the Evil Queen and Maleficent in terms of how recognizable she’s become in pop culture. Cruella is overflowing with charisma and melodrama. She hogs every second of screen time, and her maniacal obsession with the puppies interestingly makes her both a hilarious and terrifying foe. She’s so crazy you can’t help but laugh - but she’s so wicked that you’re unsettled at the same time. She’s great.
The story was fine, but there’s nothing really in this film that makes it a must-see for me. There’s no stunning animation or gripping narrative, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a fun romp.
The Sword in the Stone (**1/2)
In which a boy becomes a fish, a squirrel, and a bird - which of course means he's fit to become king
For a film drawing on source material as rich and wide-spanning as the legend of King Arthur, this is one of Disney’s least ambitious adaptations yet.
On my journey to watch through the entire Disney Animated Library (counting only theatrical feature-length releases and direct-to-video sequels), this was one Disney classic that I had never seen before. Like pretty much everyone, I knew the general idea of the story of King Arthur. I knew about the sword in the stone and the knights of the Round Table, and I knew about the Holy Grail and that one knight Lancelot who stole Arthur’s girl. There’s a lot of material there for great stories, and I was really excited to see where Walt Disney (the guy who made Fantasia just two movies after Snow White) was going to take this newest addition to his cinematic library.
If you haven’t seen this movie, I’ll save you from experiencing the mild disappointment that I did. This movie is not about King Arthur, and it’s barely about knights. It’s about a young boy and a wizard. The wizard turns the boy into a few different animals in order to prepare the boy for a bright future, and that’s about it.
That in and of itself might not be a recipe for a bad movie. But considering I was expecting some gallant sword fighting, knights on a quest, or at least a circular desk of some sort, I have to say that I was really hoping for more than what we got. It was like someone took a story like the battle of Troy and turned it into a movie where two guys dress up as a horse to get into a city. Sure, there’s an important element that you’ve kept, but the scale and heart of the story has kind of disappeared. I think that’s what happened here. This could’ve been a story of a young man suddenly receiving an enormous privilege/burden and having to deal with that. Instead, it’s like the whole movie is a prologue for what would have been a much more exciting story.
My gripes aside, this movie doesn’t stink. Merlin is fun and his 20th century references actually worked a lot better for me than I thought they would. ‘Wart’ is pretty likeable as a protagonist, even if we never really see him in any sort of meaningful danger or tight place. The magic sequences are very whimsical, and the squirrel scene in particular made me laugh more than once.
I just feel like Disney could’ve done so much more with the character of King Arthur, and they instead decided to make a film predominantly occupied with familiar animal-chase antics. If you’re looking for a classic Disney film, you could do much better than this.
The Jungle Book (***1/2)
In which a series of diverse wild carnivorous animals one-by-one refuse to eat a young defenseless omnivore, and then proceed to demonize the one carnivore who's up for it
This was Walt Disney’s final animated feature, and it bears all the marks of classic Disney storytelling.
Though Walt had a hand in this film, he died just under a year before its release. But even before his death, he had already begun to move on from his animation studio in other ways. “We keep moving forward,” Walt famously said. “Opening new doors, and doing new things, because we’re curious – and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths”. Remember, this is the same man who started (STARTED!) his feature length film library with the masterpiece Snow White. It only took a few years for Walt to try and redefine the very nature of cinema itself with the hysterically ambitious film Fantasia. That was THIRTY YEARS before The Jungle Book. By the time The Jungle Book came along, I get the feeling that animation had become rather boring for Walt. By the time Jungle Book came out, Disneyland was twelve years old. Mary Poppins - a movie Walt spent decades trying to produce – had been phenomenally received, and would go on to be regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. Just a year after Mary Poppins, Walt announced his plans for what would eventually become Walt Disney World, though it would only receive that name at the request of his brother who wanted to honour Walt’s legacy.
Walt had moved on to bigger and better things. Animation and storytelling have been at the heart of the Disney Company since before even Snow White, but Walt was not content to just be one of the world’s greatest pioneers of animation. For Pete’s sake – Epcot was originally Walt’s plan to make a living, breathing community of the future that people would live in. The guy was building a literal empire right up until his dying day. I have a feeling that if Walt was around today, he would be far more interested in Disney World’s “Galaxy’s Edge” than Frozen II. That’s not to knock Frozen II, by the way. My point is that Walt did not die as just a storyteller. He was a game-changer in every sense of the word. So even though The Jungle Book may not be Walt’s best animated feature yet, I really can’t blame him for it. He had bigger fish to fry.
Alright, enough about Walt. Let’s talk about this movie. The Jungle Book is a lot of fun, filling its runtime with comical characters and a largely laid-back narrative. Everyone knows “The Bare Necessities”, which is basically “Hakuna Matata” before Hakuna Matata was a thing. That song sums up the spirit of the film – for Mowgli, the jungle is a paradise where he really never needs to worry about anything. Sure, there’s a man-eating tiger lurking about, but no place is perfect. On that note, it seemed to me that the jungle represented childhood and ‘the man village’ represented growing up. Mowgli just wanted to stay in the jungle and have fun with Baloo, but Bagheera knows that Mowgli belongs somewhere else – and the longer he stays here, the more dangerous it is to stay. The idea of the man village being adolescence or growing-up is emphasized right at the end of the film when Mowgli is led into the village by a young girl his age. He doesn’t just follow her because she’s a human. She gives him “the eyes”, harkening back to Bambi’s “twitterpated” phase. Mowgli is entranced by this girl, showing us how he’s entered a new phase of his life in more ways than one. I thought it was a great ending to the story, just as Wendy, Michael and John had to say farewell to Neverland.
It’s hard not to recognize Kaa’s voice as virtually identical to that of Winnie The Pooh. These days, Winnie is voiced by the legendary Jim Cummings, but in 1967, Winnie The Pooh wasn’t even under Disney’s umbrella yet. Kaa is voiced by Sterling Holloway, who had already voiced Wonderland’s Cheshire Cat, Bambi’s skunk friend Flower, and the stork from Dumbo. He would go on to one day provide the voice for our favourite silly old bear, and in retrospect it’s impossible to separate the voice from the character. When you hear Kaa speak today, you can’t help but think “That’s Winnie The Pooh”.
What I really appreciated about this film was the heart behind it. This could’ve been a movie that only focused on laughs – and yes, this film is packed with them. But they kept a firm moral at the movie’s center: the idea that all boys must one day leave the wilderness behind to grow up. It adds a sense of poignance to an otherwise delightful romp, and all together it gives us a “distinctly Disney” story. Fun characters, terrific music, and a lesson for all ages.
Thank you, Walt.
コメント