Death, rebirth and beauty in Disney's Firebird Suite

This has been a year fraught with fear, uncertainty and violence. Far, far too much violence. While there has of course always been conflict and unavoidable tragedy in life, to many it feels like we have crossed a line somewhere. That now, the violence and tragedy within which we so often find ourselves seems to all have been entirely avoidable and yet, despite the same signs and the same warnings, these tragedies are allowed to occur again and again, with alarmingly increasing regularity. And every time one strikes, it feels like the world becomes a little more ugly, cold and lonely.

These thoughts crossed my mind while watching the closing segment from Disney’s mostly-forgotten Fantasia 2000. Set to Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite, the animation charts the story of a playful nymph that brings a forest out of winter and into spring, only to cause its decimation by inadvertently awakening the destructive firebird through her celebrating.  Though from the turn of the millennium, it has a timeless feel, harking back to ancient Greek myths, as well as Disney’s own The Sorcerer’s Apprentice segment from the previous Fantasia, with its themes of discovery, hubris and the dire consequences of playing God. Like Pandora’s Box or the fables of Aesop, it functions as a parable, ‘Be careful what you mess with, because once the box is opened, you can never close it back up again.’

It is a beautiful piece of animation. Visually and musically, an absolute marvel, on par with anything from the original Fantasia or beyond. There is a sense of real life to it that very little animation truly manages to capture; very little art in general, for that matter.  Each frame bursts to life as if first appearing in the artist’s imagination. Perhaps that’s what’s so wonderful about it, that it has a power to touch us as if we are all experiencing it for the first time. Or maybe it’s just cos of how nice it’s painted. Either way, it is a wondrously untainted moment, and a gift, I think, that the animators give to us. It’s one that I cherish, in bad times and good.

Over 15 years later, this piece is still as touched with the joy of creativity as any great piece of art since the dawn of man. Its themes are eternal – death and rebirth, joy and fear, arrogance and shame. It shows us that no matter how high we fly, we have just as far to fall. But in turn, no matter how far we fall, we can always pick ourselves up from the ashes and fly again. The nymph sits in the ashes of what she has helped destroy, no longer able to see the beauty that she once helped create. With the help of her friend, the deer, she casts off her shame and looks to the future – to new life. There is beauty left in this world, after all, if we’re willing to see it and maybe, give it that little help it needs to flourish. I hope, in the face of everything, we can remember this.

What Happened To Eurovision?

When Belgium opened this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, I was pleasantly surprised. Having felt that the last couple years had been growing increasingly more dull and less energetic, this fun, silly, if slightly subdued disco-inspired number had me optimistic for the rest of this year’s offerings. That goodwill soon faded, however, after what followed was wave after wave of tedious, sappy, lifeless ballads, culminating in a win from yet another utterly uninspired and ball-achingly dull performance. This is a trend that’s been slowly emerging over the last few years, and now, finally, seems here to stay. Perhaps without many of us realising it, the campy joy of Eurovision has been displaced by a mawkish over-sentimentality and a laughably misplaced sense of self-importance. What happened to the camp? What happened to the fun? What happened to this? What happened to Eurovision?

Eurovision has always been famous for its colourful costumes, exaggerated staging, energetic choreography and corny, Europop music – best represented by acts like the charming and incestuous ABBA and the UK’s own Bucks Fizz, who appeared to be an attempt at creating a genetic hybrid between ABBA and the cast of Tiswas that went horribly right. Though these performances might seem a little tame in comparison to the levels of camp that Eurovision would reach in the 2000s, the same elements are there – the costumes, the colours, the choreography, the crap singing (okay, ABBA are pretty good but I wanted another word that started with c). The only difference is, this sort of fashion and style was commonplace in the late-70s and early-80s. What made Eurovision in the 90s-onward so unique, was that, even in the year 2007, it still looked like it was taking place in the late-70s and early-80s.

And so, Eurovision found its purpose and its place. Long-lasting accusations of the contest’s voting system being highly politicised and not really about the music has meant that Eurovision is rarely taken seriously as an actual music competition (at least, not in most of the major European countries). Therefore, instead of putting forward “real musicians” to represent them, many countries opt to put forward “joke acts” that are designed to catch the audience’s attention through bright, extravagant costumes and exciting choreography, rather than impress them with their musical stylings. Though this might sound like most acts in Eurovision are a bit of a write-off, on the contrary, this is exactly what makes them special. These acts take their performance seriously, but do not take themselves seriously. They are willing to go out and do things that most “real musicians” would refuse to do, out of a fear that it would make them look silly. As a result, Eurovision provides us with joyful musical performances just intended to entertain, rather than establish a brand, sell a product or make a statement, allowing us Brits to experience types of music we don’t hear very often and for the world at large to see types of entertainers that would not normally be deemed aesthetically appropriate. In no other musical event would a group of old Russian women dressed like Strega Nona be allowed to go on stage, but suddenly, in Eurovision, it becomes a possibility. They may not be the best singers, but they are fully committed to their performance, they have no sense of ego or pretention and their honest enthusiasm is infectious.

This is the charm of Eurovision – a weird, wonderful and unique experience you can’t get anywhere else that isn’t afraid to poke fun at itself and doesn’t feel the need to try to make a statement and change the world. At least, that’s what it used to be. But times have changed. Dramatic power ballads have been a staple of Eurovision for a while now, but they have remained buffered by a large collection of corny Europop music, allowing them to still maintain a sense of goofy likeability and not bleed into the style of the contest as a whole. In the last few years however, these ballads have come to dominate the contest. This culminated in the victory of Conchita Wurst in 2014, whose win not only sounded the death knell for the campy Eurovision of the past, but also began the rise of a whole new type of power ballad. Yes, no longer could Eurovision just be about fun songs and stage presence, now it had to make a statement.

The success of Conchita Wurst in the face of the great amount of homophobia that still lingers in Europe and, in particular, in the face of the violent homophobia in Russia that had been heavily publicised during that year’s Winter Olympics, lent the song a sense of political power. The overwhelming success of the song and the emotional chord it seemed to strike with people immediately affected the way in which Eurovision was approached, and the last two years have been replete with copycats attempting to replicate this success. Gone were the sweet old Russian women, now everyone had to look like a supermodel or member of a boy band. Gone were the goofy costumes, now the men must wear expensive suits and the women, luxurious dresses which we can hopefully project some kind of graphic onto. Gone was the elaborate staging and fun choreography, now everyone must stand perfectly still in the centre of the stage while we show some shitty effects on the screen in the background. Gone was the playful self-awareness and willingness to embrace the absurd, now we must all respect the force for political change that Eurovision can be and the sheer musical talent of all these performers, even though the vast majority of them still couldn’t carry a note in a bucket the size of Engelbert Humperdinck’s head.

While, of course, there are still a few holdovers from Eurovision’s former style, these are few and far between and it’s difficult to maintain enthusiasm for them and get excited when (or if) they finally do arrive when you have to sit through 20 identical, sleep-inducing ballads to get there. This year’s winning song, from Ukraine, displayed all these now tried-and-tested elements for success – an emotional power ballad with a politicised theme, a beautiful performer in a long, flowing dress, standing in the centre of the stage as rubbish effects that wouldn’t impress someone who enjoyed Batman v Superman swirl around the stage in typically lifeless fashion. Its strong win (at over 500 points) has solidified the way Eurovision has been headed for the last few years and says, perhaps a little sadly, with a mournful sigh as they take off their silly hats and put away their turkey puppets, ‘I guess this is the way things are now.’ This was even reflected in the show’s interval, which featured Justin Timberlake being...  Justin Timberlake, as if to say as loudly as possible that this is what Eurovision wants to be now – cool, hip, musically-respected, to be taken seriously and thought of as trendy and in-fashion, not corny, not unconcerned with its image and, perhaps most of all, not just good old-fashioned fun.

Is it over-dramatic to be so disappointed by the death of a song contest which featured talking turkeys, a person of indeterminable gender dressed as an aluminium Christmas tree and Jedward? Twice? Probably. But I don’t know, I think that’s kind of the point of Eurovision isn’t it? Jedward, an act so utterly reviled they weren’t even considered good enough for The X-Factor (the show which, bear in mind, gave us this swaggering prick) found a home here. Their tuneless singing, ridiculous over-acting and humourless shtick which would probably be rejected by Butlins, not only seemed suited to Eurovision, but was actually a lot of fun. This was the heart and soul of Eurovision. They didn’t need to clutch onto this purpose as a vehicle for political change in Europe, they already had a purpose – to give a home to acts that had nowhere else to go. The result was a colourful collection of refreshingly individual misfits and a night of honest and unpredictable entertainment that simply wanted to do that – entertain. And I think that, in this increasingly cynical, depressing and homogenised world, to lose that is a very sad thing, and representative of a much greater loss than many of us might realise.

R.I.P Eurovision. At least we’ll always have the memories.

53. Frozen (2013)

With the success of Tangled, Disney decided to finally finish another fairy tale movie that had been in development for a long time, The Snow Queen, later renamed to Frozen. The result would be Disney’s most successful movie of all time; I don’t need to tell anyone how big Frozen was, everyone heard about this monster hit which is still going strong a full year after its initial release. People love the songs, the characters, the dialogue, everyone seems to love it and they all seem to love everything about it. Inevitably, the final product can’t possibly live up to this hype, which is fine, but what bothers me about it is this bizarre school of thought which has cropped up that Frozen reinvented, subverted and revolutionised Disney tropes in a way no Disney film has before. Despite what some people might have you believe, this is simply not true and the film is not without its flaws, either; in fact, on a purely structural level, it’s a bit of a mess. The interesting questions then, are how, despite these issues, is Frozen so likeable? Why has it gone on to become one of the biggest movies of all time? And why are people crediting it for achievements and milestones it didn’t accomplish?

The film’s visual style (as well as a few other things but we’ll get to that in a bit) owes a lot to Tangled, incorporating the same blend of traditional and computer animation which that film so wonderfully perfected. The character designs are remarkably similar, Anna in particular is basically just Rapunzel with some freckles and a different haircut and the general design of the movie just screams Tangled. While a bit lazy and unimaginative, one can hardly blame Frozen for copying Tangled’s style, it is such a visually appealing one, after all; where it cannot be forgiven is in the corners it cuts. The big picture of Frozen’s visuals and animation is solid, but it is the finer details where we can see a lack of attention; the quality of the lighting and textures are nowhere near up to the same level as Tangled, things look much more simplistic in comparison and thus, not nearly as alive. The character animations are also weaker – with the exception of Anna, who is animated very well – by the standards of most Disney movies, they’re still pretty good, but compared to the incredibly expressive characters of Tangled, it’s not up to snuff. The backgrounds are good, but too samey, every scene is set in only a couple of locations and almost always in the snow; while the winter colours are beautiful, there’s only so much white and blue you can look at before you get bored, unlike Tangled’s wider range of environments and varied colour palette. It might seem unfair to constantly compare Frozen to Tangled, but the former obviously owes so much of its visual style to the latter that it not only justifies but necessitates the comparison; by all means, Frozen is still a very good looking movie, but it’s a little disappointing that it doesn’t look nearly as good as its predecessor from three years prior.

Our gallant heroes

Frozen also owes a great deal of its narrative and tone to Tangled, right down to the very fact that it was renamed from a traditional fairy tale title to a single, punchy adjective for marketing purposes. The story follows – and stop me if you’ve heard this one – a naive and optimistic young girl who spends her childhood locked away, with very little human contact. As she approaches adulthood, she finally leaves the confines of her home and goes on an adventure, teaming up with a surly, self-involved man who is begrudgingly forced to help her on her journey. Along the way they get into a bunch of wacky situations and slowly fall for one another SOUND FAMILIAR YET? Yes, in both style and substance, Frozen is, effectively, Tangled in the snow; the story does eventually take some different turns, of course, but it’s obvious that the writers took inspiration from Tangled while crafting the core of this narrative, as well as the film’s tone, characters and sense of humour.  Frozen does try to be a little ambitious with some aspects, but finds itself out of its depth; for example, the writers seems to think that Anna and Hans’ “relationship” serves as a clever deconstruction of the weak and rushed romances of early Disney movies, such as those between Cinderella and Prince Charming, by repeatedly noting how ridiculous it is for Anna to get engaged to Hans after only knowing him for a day and in the end, having her discover that he’s not the man she thought he was after all. 

There are a number of reasons why this doesn’t really work: firstly, this simply isn’t something which actually needs to be addressed or deconstructed anymore, the old cliché of princesses and princes falling in love at first sight and getting engaged the day they meet is something that only really existed in very early Disney films, before dying out completely in The Little Mermaid, a film released almost thirty years before Frozen; consequently, Frozen’s subversion of the idea seems utterly irrelevant, considering this isn’t a problem that’s around anymore. Secondly, other Disney films, particularly those of the Renaissance such as Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, had already acknowledged the problems of this cliché and rectified them in their own, much more subtle and effective way; other than that, plenty of other films and TV shows have mocked, subverted and deconstructed it, so Frozen’s efforts just feel wasted, being neither timely nor strong enough to excuse this fact. Thirdly and perhaps the biggest fumble of them all is the fact that, by the end of the film, Anna and Kristoff get together, also after only knowing each other for a day; no they’re not engaged, but it’s made clear that they share “true love” despite barely knowing each other, so the movie completely nullifies its own point that you can’t be in love with someone you just met. What’s even stranger is that this whole idea barely ties into the central story or themes of the film, making it baffling as to why it was even included at all, considering its lack of timeliness, relevance, effectiveness, or consistency with the rest of the film’s themes and plot points. 

The film also stumbles in its attempts to subvert the classic scenario of a hero saving a princess with an act of true love (again, something that isn’t really relevant in Disney movies anymore) by having it be the love between two sisters which saves the day, not lovers; a perfectly fine idea, but not only have we already seen the strength of love between family and friends and not just lovers many times in Disney movies, but the issues with the film’s pacing – which I’ll get to momentarily – mean that it doesn’t ring true. Anna and Kristoff spend about as much of the film together as Anna and Elsa and they are the ones who go through conflict together, who help each other, get to know one another and learn things about one another; to the characters in the world of the film, maybe Anna and Elsa know each other a little better having shared years in the castle together, but to the audience, the relationship that WE see develop is the one between Anna and Kristoff, not Anna and Elsa, so to us this makes no sense. This makes this last minute switch not a satisfying resolution to Anna and Elsa’s relationship, so much as an arbitrary attempt for the film to have its cake and eat it too, keeping a traditional Disney romance, but also making a point about feminism and sisterly love or something and how that’s more important than romance. These things just seem to be there to try and make it look like Frozen is doing something smart and innovative, but instead it just makes it look amateurish.

Cold as ice

Pacing is another big problem for the movie, as while the central concept and the parts which focus on Anna’s adventure (that is to say, the parts taken from Tangled) are fun, the film struggles to find an identity outside of that and throws out far too many ideas, none of which are given the time they need. The story jumps around so much that it almost feels like three or four different movies in one and each one feels far too rushed; one minute it’s about two very different sisters and their deteriorating relationship, the next it’s about a young girl’s adventure and how she finds love along the way, the next it’s about an outcast trying to come to terms with her place in a society, then it’s about political rivals scheming to take control of another land, there is simply way too much going on here. Ostensibly, the movie is about Anna and her journey to find Elsa, but when you look closely this doesn’t comprise much of the story at all, no more than any of the other numerous plots, anyway. Characters and stories drop in and out of being important constantly – Elsa is effectively the deuteragonist  in the first act, before disappearing almost completely in the second act and being replaced by Kristoff; then, in the third act, Kristoff falls completely out of focus while Elsa practically becomes the movie’s protagonist out of nowhere, at Anna’s expense. 

This means that, with the exception of Anna, who only really falls out of focus a little towards the end, we never really get to know these characters very well and, more importantly, they don’t get to know each other very well, which becomes a problem when the film acts as if they do. After spending barely fifteen minutes together, Kristoff is already so determined to save Anna’s life that he’ll risk his own for her and after another ten minutes, he’s fallen deeply in love with her; though we’ve seen Disney characters fall in love in short spaces of time, when the film is paced properly, it can still make us believe in these relationships. Rapunzel and Flynn, for example, fall in love after only a couple of days, but it’s because these characters are so well defined and because we spend so much time with them together that we believe in their relationship, because we truly see it unfold before our eyes; Anna and Kristoff simply aren’t given the time or focus, due to the film’s inability to decide what it wants its main story to be. I don’t believe that Anna and Kristoff are in love when I’ve barely seen them share any time together, nor do I feel especially close to Elsa or Olaf; the characters are just thrown together and expected to work, but it simply doesn’t – you can’t fake these kinds of bonds, they need to be earned.

Frozen should’ve just followed one plot, namely, Anna’s quest to find Elsa, where we watch her grow into a more confident and mature young woman and develop a legitimate relationship with Kristoff, while occasionally cutting away to Elsa, who should have served as the villain (more about that later) before being redeemed in the end. Instead, we have to deal with a whole subplot about Hans secretly being a villain as well as another tedious subplot about political subterfuge with the Duke of Weselton, whose character is COMPLETELY POINTLESS. This has a two-fold effect: firstly, it renders Elsa’s story arc meaningless, as despite the first act building her up as the villain, with her finally accepting her role as the monster and the outcast in “Let it Go”, this never goes anywhere because there isn’t enough time to have both her and Hans develop as villains, leaving her without a role to play for the majority of the film. Secondly, it means we have to keep cutting back to Arendelle to see Hans, the Duke and the townspeople, characters we don’t care about at all in a situation that isn’t interesting; this entire subplot is boring and harms the movie in more ways than one. Again, the film should’ve just stuck with the central idea of Anna’s journey to find and redeem Elsa, it wouldn’t have been anything all that original but at least it might have worked; instead, the film’s attempts to be clever backfire and it loses the opportunity to have a sympathetic and morally ambiguous villain, additionally rendering Elsa’s character and Anna’s brief journey to find her utterly inconsequential.

The best shot in the movie

The film’s characters are likeable, if, as said before, not well developed. The main couple is once again, taken from Tangled, Anna is like Rapunzel in almost every way, sweet, optimistic, isolated and a little socially inept but somehow she manages to charm everyone she meets. Anna is clearly an attempt to recapture Rapunzel’s endearing awkwardness, but at times it comes off as a little too forced; you can definitely tell that this was an outside decision rather than something inherent to the character and her awkwardness is initially played up to the point where, instead of being sweet, it becomes excessive and distracting. This is only really the case in the first act, however, after which things fall into a nice groove and the writers seem to get a better grip on Anna’s character; she still shares a lot with Rapunzel, but does manage to forge somewhat of an identity, her ditzy clumsiness being her most unique and endearing trait. Despite a few hiccups early on, Anna is sweet, charming (you can’t take this much from Rapunzel and not be) and is allowed to engage in a style of comedy that few other Disney princesses are; she’s definitely the best thing about the film. Appropriately enough, Kristoff is basically just Flynn, the only noticeable difference being his character design, and that he’s a little more negative and less fun-loving. Like Flynn he is a selfish, sarcastic loner who finds other people troublesome and is annoyed by the perky, naive protagonist but ultimately his heart is warmed by them; the foundation of Kristoff’s character is perfectly solid, but sadly he’s not given enough time to develop anything on top of that to distinguish him from Flynn in any way, a shame, because I think the idea of him being an isolated loner unused to human interaction could’ve made for some strong characterisation, as seen when he first meets Anna in the store. Unfortunately, this aspect of his character is quickly skipped over to make him friendly to Anna as soon as possible; if the film had focused more squarely on Anna and Kristoff’s adventures, this development could’ve been slower and more natural, allowing us to see more of Kristoff’s “Mountain Man” personality as well as a more believable growth of their romance, but as it is, he’s just okay.

Elsa is BORING, all she does is frown and whine, she’s barely any fun at all. What’s most disappointing about her is that the way things are set up, it looks like she’s going to be the film’s villain and an interesting one at that – an emotionally stunted outcast who, after being rejected for something she has no control over, turns against the world who shunned her. However, none of this build-up ever goes anywhere and Elsa spends most of the film out of focus or, in the few moments she’s actually onscreen, pacing around and moaning about how she can’t control her powers over and over again. This is especially weird considering how much focus is placed on this build-up, culminating in the very big and showy “Let it Go”, which kind of acts as her villain song, establishing that she’s going to use her powers however she wants and doesn’t care who gets in the way anymore, instilling her with a new sense of confidence; she even gets a costume change to highlight this! But when we next see her, she’s suddenly meek and unsure of herself again; this reflects the original intent to have Elsa be the film’s antagonist and doesn’t work for what she eventually became. Ultimately, I think Elsa is disappointing, she could’ve been an interesting and relatable antagonist with a strong connection to the protagonist, but instead she’s just a dull plot device to get the story moving; honestly, she doesn’t need to be there at all, the eternal winter could’ve easily been spawned by some kind of monster or natural magic and if you take that away from her, she doesn’t really have anything else to her. Elsa’s character is actually pretty pointless when you think about it. Olaf is appropriately cute and cuddly, despite his rather... unappealing design; he could have very easily been “The Hooter” of this movie and I certainly expected him to be, another goofy, magical creature sidekick who acts as the comic relief, he ticks pretty much all the boxes. Yet I was surprised by how little he got on my nerves, perhaps because of the fact that, instead of being loud and obnoxious, as so many of these types of characters are, Olaf is actually rather quiet and subdued, which lends itself better to some of his strange and scatterbrained behaviour; he’s hardly a laugh riot, but he’s fun enough and certainly could’ve been a lot worse. 

Hans is a bit of a mixed case, on the one hand the reveal of him as the villain is actually genuinely surprising and effective and he proves himself to be appropriately devious and cold, but on the other hand he spends most of the film faking a generic heroic role which is very boring to watch; the twist just comes a little too late in the game to really take full advantage of it, as the scene where Hans reveals his intentions to Anna and cruelly taunts her is a strong one, but after that he doesn’t really get much to do. Ultimately, I think Elsa should’ve been the film’s villain or, if they had to go with Hans, they should have tied him into the rest of the story better and had him be more directly behind the bad things that had been happening to the heroes, rather than having him be a selfish opportunist who just happened to get lucky and ran with it. The Trolls are insanely annoying, in the same way as the Gargoyles in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, only far, far worse; they feel like they’re out of a completely different movie, their designs don’t match the rest of the film’s, nor does their sense of humour or even the song they sing, I really don’t know what Disney were thinking when they put these guys in here. Even though they’re only in one scene, they’re so incredibly irritating that it really does a lot more damage than it should; an entire legion of little “Hooters”, one can only be grateful that these cretins aren’t around for long.

Elsa in a typically good mood

Frozen is another traditional musical, with a large selection of songs, mostly good, some not so good. The film opens with “Frozen Heart”, a rather dull number which feels a little out of place; it puzzles me that such a mediocre song was included at any point in the film, let alone the beginning, as it doesn’t do anything a good opening number should, quite the opposite, dulling enthusiasm from the very start and not setting a good tone for the rest of the film. “Do You Want to Build a Snowman” is a nice song with a good rhythm; it’s nothing special, but certainly acts as a much better opening number that helps get you into the world of the film and its characters. Soon afterward we have “For the First Time in Forever”, which is so similar to “When Will My Life Begin” from Tangled that it’s almost laughable, but it’s not a bad song, though it does feel like yet another opening number, which makes the film’s first fifteen minutes seem overstuffed. “Love is an Open Door” is a fun, if simple song; it’s nothing spectacular, but it’s got a good rhythm and some clever rhymes, I like it a lot. 

“Let it Go” is of course ridiculously overplayed, but it is still a genuinely a good song; I do think it feels a bit out of place with the rest of the soundtrack, being more of a big Broadway number that would be more at home in something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame – you can definitely tell it was written with Idina Menzel in mind, as it very much resembles the kind of songs she is famous for singing, particularly “Defying Gravity” from Wicked, with which it shares lyrical themes, as well as a similar sound. Ultimately, however, this proves to be a strength more than a weakness; “Let it Go” is the film’s showstopper and a great one at that. “Summer” is one of the more clever songs, with some delightfully playful lyrics and genuinely funny imagery, it’s short, but sweet. “Fixer Upper”, on the other hand, is painfully bad; it’s completely unnecessary, adding nothing to the film’s story or characterisation and is then totally brushed off literally the second it ends so I don’t even know why it’s here in the first place. The tune is admittedly a little catchy, but the lyrics are so repulsively bad it makes the song hard to enjoy; the songwriters obviously thought they were being very witty and clever with these line choices, but they reek of smug self-satisfaction and just aren’t funny at all. Add to that the fact that it’s sung by the awful Troll characters and you have a pretty bad song. Frozen has a few too many songs for its own good, shoehorning them in where they aren’t necessary, seemingly just for the sake of it and they’re very badly spread out, almost all clustered in the first act, rather than spaced evenly throughout the film. Even so, the songs that are good are very good and it’s clear that the songwriters put a lot of effort and love into writing these songs, even if they aren’t all winners.

DIE

Frozen is a movie I have mixed feelings about; on the one hand, I did enjoy it a lot and had a good time watching it, but on the other I couldn’t help but see the film’s many flaws and missed opportunities and at times it took me out of the movie. I’m pleased that this has been such a success for Disney and that’s it’s bringing in critical respect and a wider audience that had lost interest in Disney films, but it frustrates and disappoints me that this film’s huge surge in popularity hasn’t led to people looking back to older or more obscure Disney films they might have missed, which they’re now willing to give a shot because of how much they enjoyed this one, but instead, there has emerged this strange and false attitude that this is the only Disney film that’s been any good in a long time. I have seen phrases like ‘best Disney movie in twenty years’ or ‘first good Disney movie since The Lion King’ bandied about in reviews and around the internet and it puzzles me, Frozen isn’t even the best Disney movie in three years; of course this is subjective, but to make such sweeping, ill-informed statements means that a lot of good Disney movies that were released after a certain point are going to fade even further into obscurity and considered no good – the world at large seems to have decided that between The Lion King and Frozen, there’s nothing worth watching. This encourages people not to look into Disney films they might’ve missed, or misjudged on the first viewing, films like the majestic and grandiose The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the unique and exciting Atlantis: The Lost Empire, the refreshingly stereotype-free Lilo & Stitch and, perhaps most of all, the wonderful Tangled. Tangled is still a relatively new Disney movie, only a few years old and while people seemed to like it when it came out, it has been all but forgotten; Frozen has stolen its thunder, by being so similar in so many ways and being seen by such a wider audience, Frozen has displaced Tangled in people’s minds, compounded with claims that if it came out three years before Frozen, it probably wasn’t very good. I worry that Tangled will be forgotten, or remembered only as “worse Frozen”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Frozen IS a good movie, the animation is nice, the songs are mostly good and the characters are decent, but it owes so much to Tanged and succeeds in spite of its messy and poorly plotted story because of this. I’m happy to say Frozen’s a good film, I’m happy to sing “Let it Go” with everyone else, I’m glad people enjoy it so much and I even I must admit that, despite finding most of the film good, but not great, I did find myself charmed by the immensely likeable character of Anna, who really is the heart of the film, but let’s not pretend it’s anything that it isn’t and let’s not make sweeping statements like ‘it’s the first good Disney movie for 20 years’. It’s reductive and it’s hurtful. Disney has a wide and wonderful history of films, don’t let hyperbole and misinformation stop you from discovering them; for every Chicken Little, there’s a The Princess and the Frog, for every Home on the Range, a The Emperor’s New Groove, don’t let the few bad seeds ruin years of film. When all is said and done, Frozen is hardly the best Disney movie and not even the best in a few years, but it’s hardly a bad one either; I might not be happy about the culture that’s sprung up around it, but I can’t deny that I really do like it. 

7/10


Next time: Big Hero 6!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

52. Wreck-it Ralph (2012)

Wreck-it Ralph was a return to computer animation and big narrative storytelling, after the comparatively smaller and simpler Winnie the Pooh and seems to be another attempt at Disney trying something a little different out. The main concept of the film and the advertising that surrounded it is the idea that all your favourite video game characters live in the same world – Sonic, Pac-Man, Bowser and so on are all real people who treat their video game personas as a job and at the end of the day they go off and have their own lives; it’s kind of like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, except with video games instead of cartoons. Audiences were taken in by this enticing idea and stuck around for the film’s visuals and story, which went beyond simply shoehorning in a bunch of video game cameos, though Wreck-it Ralph is certainly not without its problems.

Disney clearly establish that at this point, they have managed to use computer animation while still retaining the creativity, imagination and personality of their traditionally animated films; though not as impressive as Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph is nonetheless a very well animated film which takes advantage of a number of different styles and techniques, from cutting edge CGI to retro, 8-bit graphics and even what is made to look like stop motion. The film has a varied visual style – all the characters have unique and interesting designs, reflecting the fact that they are from different games, which all have unique art styles of their own; I do think the film’s human characters look a bit more like Pixar than Disney, which can come off as a bit lazy, but they are hardly the focus of the film. The characters’ movements are perhaps the most impressive aspect; the film perfectly captures the awkward and limited animation of early video games with the stiff, choppy movements of characters such as the Nicelanders and, occasionally, Ralph and Felix, which helps legitimise this idea that these are video game characters that have come to life and not just pre-rendered models. The backgrounds are also all very distinct and colourful, helping to set the tone for each individual game and, again, distinguishing them from one another; I especially like the fact that it is always night time in Fix-it Felix Jr., because old arcade games always have solid black backgrounds.

What you all came to see

The basic concept of the film is not an entirely original one, as well as the aforementioned connection to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the film perhaps more explicitly resembles Toy Story, except with video games instead of toys – a group of characters play certain roles for the amusement of children, which they treat like a job and have their own lives that resume when playtime is over. In this respect Wreck-it Ralph can at times feel as if it wants to be more like a Pixar movie than a Disney one, but it unfortunately lacks the depth of Toy Story and is a little too straightforward. Though this initial idea is very interesting, it isn’t always utilised well; the world of the arcade and all the different rules that the characters have to follow are engaging and make for an exciting journey, but the film never really plumbs the depths of its own ideas; while the Toy Story series used its concept and setting to explore the issues of mortality, abandonment, maturity, selfishness versus selflessness and the difference between merely surviving and truly living, Wreck-it Ralph only really uses its concept as a backdrop for a standard underdog story about an outcast who gains acceptance. 

These problems are also reflected in the film’s somewhat poor pacing – though the initial conflict is set up quickly, Ralph spends much longer in Hero’s Duty than he needs to, as it really only serves to set up Calhoun and the Cy-Bugs, which could’ve been done much faster; additionally, the world of Hero’s Duty is pretty dull and unimaginative compared to the film’s other environments, so it’s frustrating to not see Ralph get out of there as soon as possible. He spends even longer in Sugar Rush and though it’s much more interesting an environment, it’s a shame that Ralph couldn’t go to any other games; the bulk of the film isn’t bad by any means, but this all just feels like a waste of potential. Meanwhile, Felix and Calhoun’s subplot, which also takes place mostly in Sugar Rush, feels pretty pointless; they’re basically just chasing after Ralph, but their stories don’t intersect until the very end and as a result they feel very disconnected from the action and serve more as a distraction or, arguably, filler, rather than a companion to the rest of the film. The only purpose their scenes serve is to deliver exposition, which makes them tedious to watch and slows down the action; again, it feels like a missed opportunity, considering that Felix and Calhoun could have travelled to other video game worlds, met a wider assortment of characters and been given more development to their relationship, rather than simply using their time to spout expository dialogue.

The credits for this movie are pretty great

Speaking of the dialogue, it is sadly one of the film’s biggest problems; though the central story is still good, if a little unfulfilled, the dialogue is often clumsy and flat, with too much exposition and strange and awkward attempts at comedy which had me scratching my head more often than laughing. The film’s sense of humour is very broad and juvenile, with a lot of lazy pop-cultural references, silly puns and childish “funny” insults used in place of any humour that naturally develops from the interactions between the characters and the situations they find themselves in. This, combined with the fact that practically every character is voiced by a relatively major celebrity reveals that the film is perhaps not so much a Disney movie that wants to be a Pixar movie, but more like a DreamWorks movie that’s trying to be a Pixar movie, despite actually being a Disney movie; a messy simile I know, but I think that’s the best way to describe it. That said, the video game jokes are surprisingly clever and subtle, for the most part; I was expecting a lot of very goofy references to only the most well known and base level of video game culture, with a lot of talk about points and levels and high scores and very little specifics, but it’s clear that the writers actually cared about the subject matter enough to do their research. Sugar Rush, for example, is a perfect parody of a dime-a-dozen late 90’s Mario Kart clone, while Fix it Felix Jr. itself of course is a love letter to the original Donkey Kong, right up to the arcade cabinet art. There are a few groan-worthy moments – Ralph referencing Lara Croft for absolutely no reason other than to make the reference comes to mind – but most of the video game jokes are quite clever and usually focus around humorously deconstructing the tropes, clichés and bizarre internal logic of video games as a whole, rather than simply yelling out “Mario” or “Sonic” every two minutes.

The characters are also one of the movie’s weaker points, as even though they have a lot of cool things to do, the weak dialogue puts a damper on their wit and personality. Ralph is a bit dull, he doesn’t seem to have much of a personality beyond being grumpy and short-tempered, not so bad for a supporting character perhaps, but not the protagonist; he’s not especially unlikeable and his character arc is interesting, in theory, but in practice it’s not really all that involving. His dialogue is especially bad, usually just being far too simplistic and lacking any sense of emotion or individuality; if it wasn’t for the effort that John C. Reilly puts into his performance, Ralph would be so boring as to be borderline unwatchable. Vanellope is pretty likeable, she’s fun, cute and her animation is very energised and creative; she can be a little annoying and excessively bratty at times, but like John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman puts a lot of energy into her performance that makes it difficult not to find her at least a little endearing. Felix seems to be a parody of typical early video game protagonists, who, by necessity, had no real characteristics beyond their design, as well as a lot of early Disney ones; he’s a nice, decent guy, but not much else and is often overly naive, as well as polite and friendly to a fault. This is a clever idea which could work really well when paired up against Ralph, but unfortunately the two don’t spend much time together, so like a lot of other things in the movie, this potential seems sadly wasted.

Turbo-tastic

Calhoun is very obviously just supposed to be an animated version of her voice actress, Jane Lynch, or rather, her comic persona and in particular her most famous character, Sue Sylvester from Glee. Not only does she look and (obviously) sound just like her, she’s just as tough, no-nonsense and so on; she’s not unlikeable, but isn’t really very interesting either, as the entire purpose of her character seems to be to deliver exposition, it’s honestly almost all she ever does and it’s distracting, particularly for a Disney movie, as they usually don’t have much exposition at all. She’s not especially bad, but things usually become a little boring when she’s on screen and her dynamic with Felix isn’t nearly as interesting as the dynamic between Ralph and Felix could have been. King Candy is an enjoyably goofy villain and though his dialogue is not particularly funny, his voice and mannerisms – which is quite clearly Alan Tudyk trying to do an impression of the Mad Hatter – are fun to watch. The reveal that he is actually Turbo, an egomaniac who left his own game to take over Sugar Rush and destroyed two games in the process, is genuinely a rather good twist and while his back story is a little clumsily delivered, the way it ties him in to the history of the arcade and its inhabitants helps strengthen his role as a villain and the threat he poses.

There are a lot of reasons why Wreck-it Ralph shouldn’t work: it only capitalises on a tiny percentage of its interesting initial concept, the dialogue is weak, the jokes aren’t very funny, its characters aren’t especially interesting and its attempts to be more like an edgy mix between a Pixar and a DreamWorks movie feel a little out of place. Despite all this, for some reason, I find Wreck-it Ralph really enjoyable and I cannot for the life of me articulate exactly why that is. The best example I can give of this is the scene when Vanellope is learning how to drive, which takes the form of a montage set to “Shut Up and Drive” by Rihanna. For so many reasons, this should not work at all; contemporary pop songs, particularly those of an artist like Rihanna feel completely out of place in a Disney movie, this seems so much more like a scene from a DreamWorks film and not a very good one at that. Yet, somehow, it works; instead of this this awkward song choice taking me out of the movie, it dragged me further in, instead of scoffing and rolling my eyes like I usually would, I felt invigorated and excited, without any sense of irony or insincerity. This sums up the whole film to me, there are so many problems and missed opportunities here, so many things that do not feel like they should be part of a Disney movie, but despite, or perhaps, because of this, Wreck-it Ralph works. Maybe it’s because it’s so unlike most other Disney movies, or maybe it’s because this reflects the very message of the film – everyone is special in their own unique way and even if something isn’t perfect and seems a little messy or broken, that doesn’t mean it can’t be great. Wreck-it Ralph certainly isn’t perfect and is definitely a little rough around the edges, but deep down, it’s a sweet and charming film.


6.5/10

Next Week: Frozen!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

51. Winnie the Pooh (2011)

After the positive reactions to The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, it looked like audiences were finally warming up to Disney again. I can only assume that Disney didn’t want to risk their recently reclaimed popularity after years of critical and financial disappointment and so decided to play it safe by going back to old territory with Winnie the Pooh, a small and simple film featuring familiar ideas and characters that was sure to draw audiences in. I still find it a rather strange choice that this film was made, as there doesn’t really seem to be sufficient reason for it to be, but it’s nice to see this world again after so long.

The film is Disney’s last traditionally animated feature (as of the time I’m writing this) and while it’s hardly a big, showy send-off to traditional animation, it certainly looks very nice. The animation is very smooth and lively, with clear and crisp colours and beautifully painted backgrounds; it really does just look like an updated version of the original The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, with only a few slight tweaks to art style and character design (namely, Christopher Robin). It’s nothing revolutionary or unique to shout about, but the animation is certainly strong and some sequences, such as Pooh’s honey fantasy and Owl’s description of the Backson do stand out as being especially imaginative. 

I’m pretty sure this is how Orson Welles died 

The story resembles the original The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh in that it’s less of a singular narrative and more like a few different stories collected together, although they are more interconnected and weaved together, here, as this is not a combination of pre-established shorts, like the original. The film focuses on three stories – Pooh’s quest for Hunny, Eeyore’s search for a new tail, and the group’s attempts to rescue Christopher Robin from the dreaded “Backson” (he’s actually just at school and will be “back soon”). The stories all flow well enough and intersect together at the end to make a satisfying and appropriate conclusion, although after that the film does kind of awkwardly end, without the same kind of emotional satisfaction as the original. There really isn’t any more to it, than that; like the original, this movie is definitely made for children and thus keeps things as basic as possible, but of course, there’s nothing really wrong with that.

The characters are the same, we know all these guys already – Pooh, Tigger, Piglet, Rabbit, Eeyore, Owl, Kanga, Roo, Christopher Robin, they’re all here, except Gopher, but somehow I doubt anyone misses him. The characters are mostly all the same, though they tend to be a little more exaggerated than they were in the original film and some are a bit more prominent than others – Owl in particular gets a strangely large amount of time dedicated to him, almost as much as Pooh himself. The different voices can also be a little distracting, but most of the impressions are pretty much spot on and the only noticeably different ones – that is to say, Rabbit and Owl – still fit the characters well. The only one I don’t care for is Christopher Robin, who I don’t think really sounds right; I get that he’s supposed to sound more like a modern British kid would, but I don’t know it just sounds strange and a little too young, I don’t think it really matches with his older looking character design or general personality, but that’s just me. Besides that the group is... perhaps a little too stupid; the characters of the Hundred Acre Wood have always been a little airheaded, but it’s usually more a case of charming innocence and naiveté, whereas here they just seem really, legitimately dumb. It allows for a few good jokes, but I do think it goes a bit far at times; it works for some characters, like Owl, or Pooh, to a degree, but seeing Piglet and Rabbit act so stupid doesn’t really seem right. Other than that, John Cleese is a perfect choice for the narrator, who serves the same role as the one in the original film and honestly, is just as friendly and engaging.

The heffalump uh I mean the woozle uh I mean the pink elephant uh I mean the Backson

The songs are mostly like those of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, as well as explicitly featuring the original “Winnie the Pooh” theme and a couple of songs that are quite obviously inspired by similar ones from the original film. The songs are fun and cute, but simplistic; the lyricism isn’t exactly inventive or masterful, but there is at least an attempt at matching Disney’s lyrical style which works well at times. “The Tummy Song” and “It’s Gonna be Great” demonstrate this style, as well as resembling “Rumbly in my Tumbly” and “The Wonderful Thing about Tiggers”, respectively; “Everything is Honey” also follows this style but feels a little more original. Similarly, “The Backson Song” obviously takes inspiration from “Heffalumps and Woozles” with its dark, jaunty rhythm, kooky rhymes, surreal visuals and bizarre animation; just like the song it takes its inspiration from, this a very fun number and the best sequence of the film. Other than that there a couple songs from, of all people, Zooey Deschanel, who on paper seems like a strange choice but in practice I think her soothing, melodic voice suits the tone and feel of the film very well.

Winnie the Pooh is a decent movie, but there’s not much to it, so honestly, I don’t have much to say. It’s very much a movie for young children, even more so than the original, being even more simplistic and short, clocking in at barely an hour. The characters are timeless, of course, but I do think the film’s somewhat more modern sense of humour means that they are forced into positions that don’t entirely suit them; the nucleus for all these classic characters is still there, but some of their traits are exaggerated to the point where they don’t quite act like themselves. Overall, though, Winnie the Pooh is pretty much exactly what you’d expect – a cute, visually appealing movie with some nice music and a good heart; I’m still not entirely sure why it was made at all and it’s on a much smaller scale than anything Disney had made for a long time, but I suppose at this point perhaps it was appropriate for them to dial things down a bit for a year and take a bit of a break. 

6/10

Next Week: Wreck-it Ralph!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds 

50. Tangled (2010)

After the golden age of the Renaissance, Disney just couldn’t seem to get back to the top, no matter what they tried; despite a couple of successes, namely Lilo and Stitch, the next ten years of films just failed to live up to audience expectations. Though The Princess and the Frog did manage to recapture the feeling of the Renaissance to a degree and was a moderate financial success, it still seemed to be missing something; then came Tangled, the film which finally brought back that feeling 100% and became Disney’s biggest hit in years. After ten long years of struggling with how to update the Disney formula, how to move on from the Renaissance while still keeping what was best about it and how to make computer animation work for them, Disney succeeded at last, as well as proving that it was more than worth the time and effort.

The film returns to computer animation, but for once I don’t say that with disappointment, as with Tangled Disney finally found a way to translate the style and personality of their 2D animation into 3D, combining new and old techniques to create something entirely original; it might not be like watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Fantasia for the first time, but Tangled does push the boundaries of animation more than anything we’ve seen from Disney in a long time. The film takes advantage of the unique attributes afforded by computer animation, allowing for highly realistic and detailed textures and lighting, the animation of the hair – particularly Rapunzel’s, obviously – is especially impressive; this makes Tangled so much more than just a regular Disney movie in 3D, it’s an entirely different animal with its own, unique strengths. The characters are perhaps the biggest improvement in terms of computer animation, they have great facial expressions, so much movement and energy, a lot of subtle touches to them that help strengthen their personalities; this is the kind of stuff that always sets apart a good Disney movie from a great one and sadly, it seemed to have been lost in their move to computer animation, so it’s truly satisfying to see it back. Tangled is the first computer animated movie from Disney that actually looks and feels like a real Disney movie and, as is the case with all the best Disney movies, you can really sense the effort and love put into every frame.

They just can’t get his nose right 

The story takes a lot of things we’ve come to expect from Disney, but utilises them at the highest level and combines them to create a story that still seems refreshing and new, a trend we will see in most facets of the film. Things are very well paced, opening up with a classic Disney introduction which sets up the story very quickly and then jumping into the action almost immediately and never really slowing down, except when it’s appropriate. Obviously it’s a matter of opinion, but I think the film goes by so quickly, especially considering this is one of Disney’s longer movies, not a single moment feels wasted, unnecessary, or even remotely boring, it’s non-stop fun from beginning to end. The movie combines action, adventure, comedy and romance in a perfect balance, debatably even better than Aladdin, which set the benchmark for this style of Disney film; the film isn’t lacking in any of these areas and is at the top of its game in absolutely all of them, never neglecting one aspect of the story or spending too much time on another, everything is just right. The action scenes are excellent and genuinely exciting, with some surprisingly good fight choreography for a Disney movie, the more emotional scenes are touching and the comedy is really strong – the physical humour is funny, the character interactions are funny, the dialogue is funny it’s just funny and without being cynical or sarcastic; much like Rapunzel herself, the film derives joy and humour simply from a pure and genuine desire to have fun.

If The Princess and the Frog was a return to the style of the Renaissance films, Tangled is for the Renaissance films what they themselves were for the early Disney classics – it takes what was good and, most importantly, timeless, about them and repurposes those aspects for a new time, while adding a few of its own new ideas for good measure; the result is a film that recaptures many of Disney’s most charming traditions and tropes, but still feels completely original. Tangled oozes with creativity and imagination and is never lazy or derivative with its ideas, in what other movie would you see a man sword fighting with a horse, using a frying pan? The film is able to acknowledge these quirks and eccentricities, but without being overly self-indulgent, which means that even in the most ridiculous of scenarios, the world of the film and the behaviour of its characters still feels totally real – it sucks you in right from the start and never lets you go.

The most dangerous game

Rapunzel is Disney’s best female protagonist since Belle and, even I have to admit, she may very well be an even better one. Rapunzel is brimming with personality, she’s sweet, optimistic, curious, adventurous, anxious and immensely likeable; practically every character in the movie warms to her after just a few minutes and it’s impossible to not do the same yourself. Though drawing on the “sheltered young girl who dreams of something more” character type common in the Renaissance, Rapunzel is not only given a better reason for these ambitions than most of her predecessors, but this is also only a single aspect to her personality; her dreams of exploration outside her tower serve only as the initial spark to her adventure and, despite her joy at finally realising her dream of seeing the lanterns, it quickly becomes clear that the journey is much more important than the destination. She also undergoes genuine character development, going from an overly cautious and jumpy young girl who has been browbeaten by her abusive mother into thinking that she’s worthless, to a strong and confident young woman who realises the necessity of taking charge of one’s own life. Though the circumstances of Rapunzel’s life are of course, fantastical, her having to grown up under the rule of a selfish and belittling parent is a very real problem for young people and, while the repercussions of this kind of parental abuse are not explored as fully as they could be – it is ultimately, a light-hearted film – it’s still exhilarating to see Rapunzel finally triumph over her controlling mother, in the same way that it is to see Quasimodo stand up to Frollo, a relationship that very much resembles this one. Determined, energetic and adorable, Rapunzel is one of Disney’s best protagonists.

Similarly, Flynn is one of Disney’s best love interests, so much so in fact, that it’s reductive to refer to him as such, as he exists as a great hero in his own right, with a personality and character arc entirely independent of his relationship with Rapunzel. Like Rapunzel, Flynn draws inspiration from a classic Disney character type, in this case, the “cheeky, loveable rogue”, such as Aladdin, Tramp, Baloo and even Naveen from the previous year’s The Princess and the Frog. However, like everything else in the movie, he transcends simply being a newer model of an old idea, by just how well his character is realised and how fun he is to watch. He’s daring, shallow, witty, loves to brag (though he’s always swiftly punished for doing so), but secretly has a sensitive side and suffers from insecurity issues and low self-esteem. We’ve seen this all before in some way or another, but everything about Flynn (or, Eugene Fitzherbert, which we learn to be his real name) from his animation, to his voice acting, to his exceptionally well written and funny dialogue is presented at such a high level that it hardly matters. Rapunzel and Flynn’s relationship is very possibly the best of any Disney movie, except for Belle and Beast; like those two, they start off at odds with one another, forced into a partnership that neither of them really feels comfortable with and somewhat unwilling to work together. As they get to know each other, however, they realise they have more in common than they thought and learn to bring out the best in one another, eventually falling in love. Again, this is classic stuff, but done so well that there’s nothing to complain about; I can’t even really put my finger on why it works so well, perhaps it’s simply because these two are so likeable on their own and for such similar reasons that they naturally go perfectly together, perhaps it’s because the moments the two are given together are so well written and paced and feel so down-to-earth and real, perhaps it’s some entirely independent and unidentifiable quality, I don’t know. What I do know is that, for whatever reason, it works and it works splendidly.

The happy couple

Maximus is a very strange and interesting idea for a character, a serious, determined horse that chases down Flynn with all the unstoppable tenacity of Tommy Lee Jones’ character in The Fugitive. Disney have proven time and again their natural skill at physical humour with silent characters and Maximus is no exception, his sharp and sudden movements and great facial expressions allow for a lot of great jokes and his interactions with Flynn in particular are very funny. Pascal works in the same kind of way, but is more calm and easygoing than the hot-blooded Maximus, though no less ruthless when it comes to defending Rapunzel. These two characters are fun and enjoyably cartoony in nature, but never upstage Rapunzel and Flynn, who rightfully remain the centre of attention. Mother Gothel is a fantastic villain that resembles aspects of many others, such as Frollo, the Evil Queen, Lady Tremaine and so on, but again, manages to also be a completely unique character. A narcissist who constantly throws passive aggressive swipes at her adopted (or rather, kidnapped) daughter to lower her self-esteem, obsessed with her own youth and beauty, incredibly over-dramatic, incapable of accepting responsibility or viewing herself in the wrong, she’s a great and actually realistically psychologically troubled villain, with a well constructed relationship with the hero. She has a strong and clear motivation, she’s always involved in the action, she’s fantastically animated, by the end of the movie Mother Gothel already feels like one of Disney’s classic villains. The side characters aren’t as prominent so that the film can focus on developing its core cast, but the ones that do appear, namely the thugs from the Snuggly Duckling, are at least relatively interesting and memorable.

The Princess and the Frog brought back the traditional musical format, but despite some very fun songs, they were a bit samey and the lyrics were not especially creative; Tangled brings back that delightful lyricism and while it doesn’t have as many songs, they are all very well written, distinct and memorable. “When Will my Life Begin” is a fun, poppy, song and a classic “I want” song for the protagonist in the vein of “Belle”, “Part of Your World” or “Out There”; it’s a good intro to Rapunzel’s character and the life she has led until now and quickly gets you into the upbeat mood and spirit of the film.  “Mother Knows Best” is by far the film’s best number, a classic Disney villain song and arguably one of the very best, with a catchy tune, really funny and clever lyrics and rhymes, great visuals, it’s a delight.  “I’ve Got a Dream” is a fun, upbeat and somewhat sudden and unexpected song which showcase’s the films kooky sense of humour. Again, it’s catchy, with good rhymes and serves as an appropriate introduction to the thugs of the Snuggly Duckling; effectively, this is the film’s big showstopper and while it doesn’t quite have the energy to match up to something like “Under the Sea” or “Be Our Guest”, it’s still enjoyable. “I See the Light” is the “Whole New World Number” and, without trying to sound like a broken record, it is one of Disney’s very best; unlike most “Whole New World Numbers”, it doesn’t feel out of place or inappropriate, it doesn’t kill the film’s energy or grind it to a halt and it isn’t goofy or overly sentimental. The song is touching and sweet, partially because, like “Beauty and the Beast”, we have grown to care so much for these characters and their relationship, so a song like this feels not only earned, but satisfying. While many of Disney’s love songs feel like they’re there just to fill a quota, even some of the better ones, this is one of the rare ones that is just as strong as the rest of the soundtrack; though the lyrics aren’t anything all that special, it’s a very nice song all the same.

Mother Gothel is very easygoing and down-to-earth

Fun, original, exciting and effortlessly endearing, Tangled is one of those rare treats, a Disney movie that just gets it. It gets exactly why the world fell in love with Disney in the first place and, rather than trying to soullessly replicate that success or move away from it in search of another demographic, it makes us feel like we’re experiencing that joy for the very first time; it’s a movie that manages to somehow feel both comfortably familiar and refreshingly new. The story is one of Disney’s best, the main characters and their relationship are some of Disney’s best, the villain is one of Disney’s best; add to that some great songs and a triumphant and long-awaited realisation of exactly how to represent their classic animation style with computer animation and you have a movie that is simply one of Disney’s best.


9.5/10

Next Week: Winnie the Pooh!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

49. The Princess and the Frog (2009)

After years of struggling to reconnect with audiences in a way that they did during the Renaissance, Disney decided to go back to basics with a traditionally animated musical based on a fairytale, The Princess and the Frog. The result is a film which feels so at home with the other Renaissance classics that it’s like no time has passed at all, as The Princess and the Frog avoids trying to be needlessly hip and instead plays to Disney’s strengths, doing all the things that they know how to do best.

Disney returns to 2D animation here and after the last few features, it’s certainly a sight for sore eyes; even Bolt and to a lesser extent Meet the Robinsons, which were decently animated, are light years behind the quality of Disney’s traditional animation, a fact that audiences were pleasantly reminded of with this feature. Because there had been a reasonably large gap between this and Disney’s last traditionally animated film, the increase in quality between the two looks huge; the film looks incredibly crisp and clear, with a gorgeous and varied colour palette which practically leaps off the screen. The animation is back to Disney’s best, lively and expressive with lots of little touches and examples of the animators going the extra mile to add as much life to the film and its characters as they can. Some of the characters’ movements are so fast and frantic that all you can really do is marvel in awe of how expertly they are animated and how things never get out of the animators’ control, a feeling that has been missing from Disney pictures for some time, at this point; evidently, The Princess and the Frog not only revitalised the Disney formula, but also the passion and interest of its animators, a passion which definitely comes across in this wonderfully animated film.

Prince Naveen, fabulous he

Just as the stories and characters of the Renaissance harked back to those of the early Disney films, (although with a modern twist) The Princess and the Frog harks back to those of the Renaissance itself, attempting to recapture the way those movies told classic myths and fairytales in a timeless, but still modern and relevant way; on top of this rather broad point of reference, the film takes more direct inspiration from The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Hercules, but never feels like it’s copying or cheating, it just takes different elements from these films and combines them together to make a strong narrative and setting of its own. The film is very well structured and paced and with the exception of a single scene where the heroes encounter some hunters, there are really no wasted scenes or pointless moments, everything serves to develop the story and the characters, but is paced well enough that scenes are still given time to breathe and play out without being rushed. This is a relief considering that the majority of the movie is kind of a road movie, with the heroes trying to get through the bayou and then back to New Orleans and Disney road movies have a tradition of being boring and not really going anywhere COUGH The Aristocats COUGH, so it’s a welcome surprise to have one so full of fun, but relevant moments. The film also borrows another of the Renaissance’s typical aims, to approach an aspect of the early Disney movies with a modern perspective, in this instance, the idea of wishing on a star and believing in magic and the power of hope to make your dreams come true. The Princess and the Frog pushes the idea that, although hope is important and you should never give up on it, you can’t just sit around and wait for the world to give you what you want either, you have to go out there and work for your dreams, a good moral which tackles some of the issues people have with Disney films, which they suggest encourage children to wish upon a star and then expect everything to turn out alright; here, Disney reminds us that while we should never lose our optimism, there is no substitute for hard work. 

The characters are a lively and colourful bunch, with the slight of exception of the more low-key Tiana, who can be a bit shaky as a protagonist; on the one hand, she is hard-working and determined, with a lot of agency and attitude for a Disney princess, which is a refreshing change from their typical, overly sweet, pushover personas. On the other hand, this can at times lead to her being, as Naveen himself says, a bit of a killjoy; the point of her character IS that she learns to not always be so serious and that it’s okay to loosen up and have a little fun, but her attitude towards Naveen and Louis can come off as a little holier-than-thou. A little over half-way through she becomes a lot more easygoing and likeable however, so I’d still say she’s one of Disney’s better female protagonists. Naveen is a rarity, a Disney prince with an actual personality and a very likeable one at that! He’s a lazy, free-spirited kind of guy who just wants to have fun and avoids hard work and responsibility whenever he can. This means that he is a bit of a spoiled brat, but it is played in an oblivious and extreme way so that Naveen always comes off as humorously unaware of his own selfishness, rather than deliberately spiteful; he is funny and charming. Though his and Tiana’s relationship is a little rushed, they do have a natural chemistry between them which is bolstered by their individual character development and the fact that they help one another to overcome their flaws and become better people – Tiana teaches Naveen the value of hard work and personal accomplishment, while Naveen teaches Tiana the importance of fun and companionship, as well as professional success. Louis is the comic relief, a big, goofy, cowardly alligator who dreams of being human so he can become a famous jazz musician. While very silly and a little useless, he never moves into “The Hooter” territory, his anxiousness, incompetence and loud personality being used just enough to be funny without going too far and causing him to overstay his welcome. Ray plays a similar role, though he’s more of a fast-talking, easily distracted airhead than a big, loud goofball; he too is funny and likeable, but never takes too much attention away from the main characters.

The Prince and the Cougar

Charlotte is one of the best animated characters in the movie, her movements are so sudden and energetic and her facial expressions so extreme and full of personality that there’s never a dull moment when she’s on screen. She’s a spoiled, materialistic Daddy’s girl, but like Naveen, isn’t malicious, she’s just oblivious to how less privileged people live; she’s very sweet and very funny. Her father, “Big Daddy” La Bouff is just as sweet, a kindly Southern gentleman who lives in his own little world; he doesn’t appear as much as his daughter, but they work well together when they’re both onscreen. Dr. Facilier takes a lot of inspiration from previous Disney villains, particularly those of the Renaissance, but manages to combine a bunch of their different attributes to become a great one in his own right. Like most of those from the Renaissance, Facilier is a weak and somewhat cowardly villain, who relies on cunning and manipulation to defeat his opponents, rather than brute strength; he is also devious, witty and all around charming. Facilier most resembles a kind of fusion of Jafar, Scar and Hades, though with his own individual quirks and personality traits; I think he can stand quite comfortably alongside some of Disney’s best villains. Lawrence is also a fairy traditional villainous sidekick – bumbling, ineffectual and utterly terrified of his boss; he doesn’t have as strong a relationship with the villain as his predecessors, but he works well all the same.

As with everything else, The Princess and the Frog’s music resembles the Renaissance, as it returns to a traditional musical format which we haven’t seen Mulan. To fit the New Orleans setting, the film is full of big, jazzy numbers, starting off with the appropriately titled “Down in New Orleans”, which introduces the audience to the setting and tone of the film adequately. Next is “Almost There”, a fun chirpy number with a very catchy rhythm; this segment is well animated, with a really cool look and design. “Friends on the Other Side” is a classic Disney villain song and a fantastic number in its own right; it takes inspiration from a number of others, particularly “Poor Unfortunate Souls”, but ramps the rhythm and animation up to an even more frantic pace than that. This song is a lot of fun, a great introduction to Dr. Facilier and overall, the best sequence in the film. “When We’re Human” is another fun, jazzy song; not much else to say, it’s just a good time. “Gonna Take You There” is also fun, though a bit brief; of all the songs it feels the least necessary and honestly doesn’t really need to be there, but it’s certainly not anything bad. “Dig a Little Deeper” is a big, show stopping, gospel number; again, it’s full of fun and energy. Clearly, the film is full of a lot of upbeat numbers; in fact, the only slow song it really has is “Ma Belle Evangeline”, which is effectively the film’s “Whole New World Number”, but I don’t mean that disparagingly, as it’s a nice song and takes the necessary time to slow things down for a moment in such a fast-paced, high energy movie. Though most of the songs are a little simplistic, with basic lyricism and a single musical style running through them, they are still very enjoyable and honestly, after so many years of not having a real Disney musical, it’s just nice to have them at all.

Shadow Man is freaky deeky

The Princess and the Frog is a great return to the style of the Renaissance, resulting in Disney’s best movie in years. It has no cynicism, no marketing ploys, no attempts to be “cool” or “edgy” and no efforts to disguise what it is – a Disney movie and this sincerity and openness is really what helps it shine so brightly. Beautiful animation, fun songs, likeable characters, an enjoyable story and most of all, a genuine desire to make its audience smile makes The Princess and the Frog a return to form for Disney and one hell of a good time for its audience.


8/10

Next Week: Tangled!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds