33. Pocahontas (1995)

When Disney was making The Lion King, they thought that was going to be their little side project, something to fill the time so that there wouldn’t be too big a gap between Aladdin and their next film; Pocahontas was to be their next big project, attracting all the top animators and being propped up as their new masterpiece – The Lion King was just there to hold people over. Really think about how ridiculous that sounds. It’s not even the fact that The Lion King is such a good movie which makes this hard so hard to believe, it’s that Pocahontas is such a BAD one. Though still relatively financially successful and not too critically panned (or at least, not as much as it should have been), Pocahontas still stands out from its contemporaries, but not in the way Disney intended it, being the one big dud of the Renaissance films.

To get one of the only good things out of the way first, I will say that the colours in this movie are beautiful; there is a different, sort of pastel colour kind of look employed with Pocahontas that helps it stand out among the rest of the Disney movies and this use of colour is among Disney’s best, calling back to the wonderful colouring of Mary Blair’s concept art for some of the earlier films. This extends to the backgrounds, which both employ this colouring as well as a more simplistic style, using a lot of block colours and basic shapes to create a more stylised, but peaceful atmosphere, capturing the feel of the untainted Virginia lands perfectly, being reminiscent of the beautiful forest scenes from Sleeping Beauty. Unfortunately, this is where the positives with the film’s visual style end, as it is otherwise not very nice to look at. The animation is lazy and lifeless; it is usually quite smooth at least, but can sometimes be jerky and stiff and is never very interesting to watch either way. There is just no creativity or imagination to this animation, it’s all so slow and lacking in energy; this is partly due to the equally boring character designs, which just do not lend themselves to the kind of exaggerated animation Disney is known for. The characters are all blocky, lacking in detail or uniqueness; they almost all look exactly the same, as this more simplistic art style robs them of any sense of personality. This isn’t Disney at all and while I have no problem with them trying out new styles, this one just didn’t work it out; Disney had finally perfected the way it animated human beings with Aladdin and, to a lesser extent, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, making them more stylised and cartoonish, but Pocahontas takes a big step backwards by trying to make its humans look more realistic, falling back into the familiar problem of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, where the human characters look like awkward puppets. There are some more traditionally “cartoony” character designs here, but most of them are dialled back too far to really match Disney’s approach to characterisation, they almost all have these bland, expressionless faces that make it very difficult to convey emotion through the animation. John Smith for example has this huge brow and these tiny little eyes that are too far apart, leaving him with a constantly empty and gormless expression; this, combined with Mel Gibson’s bored delivery, often make it impossible to really tell how he’s supposed to be feeling at all. Though the colours and backgrounds are strong, everything else about Pocahontas’ visual style just does not work.

Even worse is the story, which is told poorly to be sure, but fails on an even more basic level by being intrinsically linked to a fundamentally flawed moral: “Prejudice is wrong and we must respect each other’s differences.” Now of course, that’s a fine message, even though it has been done better already in Fox and the Hound and Beauty and the Beast, but Pocahontas fails not only because it is childishly simplistic in its approach, but also because it somehow manages to constantly defy the very points it’s trying to make. For example, we are supposed to side with Pocahontas in her claims that John Smith shouldn’t push his own ideas of being “civilised” onto her people; again, true enough, we shouldn’t push our beliefs onto others or look down on them because they are different, that’s fair. But, despite asking for John Smith to respect her culture, Pocahontas never does the same; she never acknowledges any of the good points of John Smith’s culture and looks down upon it with just as much snobbishness as he looked down upon hers.

‘Duhhhh...?’

This is where the movie’s moral completely falls apart, as rather than respect that both sides have good and bad points, the film consistently portrays the Native Americans as right and the Pilgrims as wrong – the Native Americans are almost entirely nice and friendly and seem to live an idyllic, perfect life co-existing with nature, completely ignoring the fact that they hunted and killed animals as well, which kind of defies the point of “Colours of the Wind” which is all about how great it is that they live alongside the animals peacefully, but whatever. The Pilgrims on the other hand are callously and cartooinshly racist and insensitive, excitedly singing that they’re going to go shoot a Indian ‘or maybe two or three!’ They fire with little to no provocation and seem motivated solely by gold and bloodlust; not only is it frustrating that they are portrayed as such one-note characters, but what’s even more frustrating is that the film doesn’t even have the balls to go all the way with this, as at the end it just wimps out and says “Oh no, don't worry, it was just Ratcliffe the whole time, he was the only bad guy and now that he’s gone the Pilgrims aren’t racist anymore and everyone can just get along, yay!” The way in which the film refuses to tackle any of the harsh truths of racism or prejudice and just uses a single, blatantly villainous and hateful character as a figurehead for prejudice is incredibly childish and quite frankly, insulting. Compare this to the seemingly charming and heroic Gaston, who is secretly a jealous, prejudiced monster, or the townsfolk that follow him, who mostly seem like decent people, but are driven to violence by fear, due to a very reasonable and understandable assumption that the Beast is dangerous; the difference in maturity when it comes to characterisation between these two films is stunningly blatant.

Pocahontas refuses to ever take its very serious subject matter seriously, portraying everything as either right or wrong with no shades of grey. John Smith is wrong, Pocahontas is right; nature is good, buildings and technology are bad blah blah blah. This is very familiar “pro-environmental message in a kid’s film” garbage that we’ve seen a million times before, but usually in bad TV shows like Captain Planet or Saved by the Bell, not a Disney movie. Pocahontas doesn’t even scratch the surface of the real argument against colonisation and imperialism; we are expected to go along with Pocahontas because the Pilgrims have guns and guns are bad, but what about other scientific advances, like medicine? Are we supposed to believe that we shouldn’t try to save lives through science? That John Smith shouldn’t try to educate Pocahontas on how to deal with diseases and injuries, just because that’s not what nature intended? Since when has the argument “things are fine the way they are, we don’t need them to get any better” ever been true for the human race? There is a scene where Pocahontas encourages John Smith not to point his gun at a bear, but instead to play with its cubs; in real life, this would more than likely get you mauled to death, so maybe John Smith isn’t so wrong to y’know DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST A GRIZZLY BEAR? The film never acknowledges that Pocahontas might be wrong sometimes and John Smith might be right sometimes, it is a very simple story of a “civilised” man who meets an “uncivilised” girl and realises everything he thought was right was wrong; it’s something that’s been done a million times from Ferngully to Avatar and it is an incredibly tired cliché that is almost never approached with any maturity or honesty, certainly not here. To make matters worse, the film’s dialogue is just incredibly dull, it has no wit or thought or personality it’s just the most basic, bland stuff; at times it’s easy to forget you’re watching a Disney movie, it feels like a bad rip-off of a Disney movie you might see on Cartoon Network when they needed something to fill a two hour timeslot and didn’t really have anything better to put on. The pacing is just as bad, it manages to both feel like barely anything happens in the entire movie, yet also it feels like it lasts a lifetime; almost every scene is completely lacking in anything even resembling entertainment value, it’s just moment after moment of bad dialogue and tired old clichés.

‘So what is the wind like, magic or something?’

‘White man no ask questions.’

The characters are an almost comically generic collection of Disney stereotypes that seem to have almost deliberately had any likeability or originality completely sucked out of them, compounded by the fact that most of the voice acting is completely lacking in any energy. Everyone sounds tired and bored, save a couple of exceptions, Pocahontas’ father, Chief something-or-other (of course he’s the chief) in particular sounds like he literally phoned it in; there is a scene where he discovers that Kocoum, who he views like a surrogate son, has been murdered and asks ‘Who did this?’ But the most emotion that voice actor Russell Means can muster is mild annoyance at best, it just sucks what little tension and emotion there was right out of the scene; like so much else in Pocahontas, they just didn’t care. Pocahontas herself is an unfortunate return – or perhaps, more of a modern recreation – of the boring, generic, Disney princess format; while Disney tries to replicate the “bright and adventurous young woman who wants something more from life” character that did so well for them in their last few movies, they succeed only in turning this once revolutionary (for them anyway) character type into just another cliché for them, with Pocahontas being such a second-rate carbon copy that she seems almost like a parody of Belle, Jasmine or Ariel from a bad SNL sketch. While she follows the same basic template as the aforementioned heroines, Pocahontas has absolutely no personality; she “wants more” from life, but we never really find out what it is that she wants, just that she had a dream about a spinning arrow. She is clearly supposed to be fun and quirky, in that she rejects Kocoum for being too serious and yet she has no more personality or charm than he does, she’s just as boring and uninteresting as he is; how are they not suited for one another again? She has no real character, doesn’t really drive the story in any way and hardly even does anything at all, really. She is one of the dullest and most ineffectual of all of Disney’s protagonists and considering some of the early ones, that’s saying something.

John Smith is an equally tedious rehash of Disney prince tropes, being most similar to Eric; they clearly try to present him as rather charming and cocky and, while he is compared to most of the incredibly boring characters that populate this film, compared to actually well written versions of this character such as Aladdin, he really isn’t very charming at all. Pocahontas and John Smith’s relationship is impressively badly written – they barely spend any time together, don’t seem to really have anything in common and come from completely different worlds with nothing to agree or connect over and yet they are, as usual, presented as this perfect star crossed couple, on par with Romeo and Juliet. Their “romance” if you can even call it that, isn’t even written as well as some of Disney’s earlier attempts, such as Aurora and Philip, that’s how bad it is. These two just have no chemistry whatsoever, every scene they share is completely flat and a bore to watch. The side characters are just as boring: Pocahontas’ father is a total stereotype, the overbearing father in a position of authority who wants to choose her life for her etc. etc. he isn’t a character at all, he’s just a prop that doesn’t even do its job very well. The animal characters are insanely annoying, Meelo in particularly is “The Hooter” of the movie for sure, quite an impressive feat considering how none of these characters are likeable to begin with. They are similar to the animals from Cinderella in that they  engage in frequent, unfunny slapstick that doesn’t relate to anything going on in the “story”, taking up far too large a portion of the movie with their goofy and pointless antics. Again, like in Cinderella, there is just nothing to enjoy about these characters, they are simply there to put on posters and lunchboxes to draw the kids in, it’s pathetically ineffectual in its obvious manipulation. The Native Americans and Pilgrims as a whole do so little that they’re almost not even worth talking about; as said earlier, they are just ridiculously basic and reductive stereotypes, the closest any of them get to characterisation is “he’s the young one” or “he’s the Scottish one” or “he’s the one played by Christian Bale”. There is nothing to them whatsoever.

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Ratcliffe is a terrible villain, being yet another foppish, camp, pitiful dandy, this having become a pattern in the Renaissance movies at this point, after Jafar and Scar. He also borrows hugely from Captain Hook and to a lesser extent, Rattigan; to make a long story short, he is a messy mix of previous Disney villains, all sewn up together in an ugly patchwork quilt of a character. While Jafar and Scar were pathetic at times, they could also be threatening and capable and were always charming and funny, but Ratcliffe is always so pathetic that it’s impossible to take him seriously; he is also so slimy, snobbish and one-dimensional that it’s very difficult to enjoy watching him at all. Even when they do try to make him threatening or scary, he is so ludicrously evil for such a petty and boring reason (greed, yawn) and so awkwardly tied to the terribly unsubtle prejudice moral that it’s just laughable. When he’s supposed to be funny, he’s contemptible, when he’s supposed to be contemptible, he’s funny; he’s just a failure in every way. To be fair to David Ogden Stiers, he is one of the only cast members to actually put any effort into his performance and objectively, he does a good job, but there is just no way to make this character legitimately interesting, fun or threatening, he’s got to be one of the worst Disney villains of all time. Wiggins is a similarly generic villainous sidekick; though he is more chirpy and positive than most, which is at least a little different, it’s not different enough to breathe life into this tired old cliché and quite frankly, his chirpiness is just annoying and he really got on my nerves, even though he never really did that much. To be fair though, he does get the only funny line in the movie, when Ratcliffe asks why the Native Americans attacked them and Wiggins quickly responds ‘because we invaded their lands and cut down their trees and dug up their earth?’ If only the rest of the movie was filled with even a tenth of that brief moment of wit. The characters in this movie are some of the most forgettable in Disney history and the few that are memorable are memorable for all the wrong reasons.

The songs are one of the better parts of the movie, which of course doesn’t really count for much and they are still mostly quite bland, with lyrics that lack any imagination. Songs like “The Virginia Company” and “Just Around the Riverbend” are upbeat enough to be fun to listen to, but the lyrics just have no thought put into them, there are no clever lines or interesting word choices, it’s just very by the book stuff. The best song of the bunch is “Mine, Mine, Mine”, which is very catchy and honestly rather funny, being the only good use of Ratcliffe’s overly foppish and greedy character in the movie; the choreography with the animation is great and some of the rhymes are rather playful, particularly ‘Oh with all you’ve got in ya boys, dig up Virginia boys.’ It’s undeniably the best part of the movie and one of its only good sequences. “Colours of the Wind” is the “Whole New World Number” and a very typical one at that; as is often the case with the “Whole New World Numbers” it is the most remembered song of the bunch, despite being one of the weakest, of course. I have the same opinion of it as I usually do with these types of musical numbers – it’s not a bad song and the music is good, but the lyrics are sappy, boring and in this case, overly preachy; I don’t care about Pocahontas and John Smith, I don’t care about Pocahontas’ confused relationship with nature and bizarre belief that rocks have souls, I just don’t care about the song. The animation is good and the tune is nice, but really, what’s the point. “Savages” has quite a catchy rhythmic chant to it, but is completely ruined by its hilariously bad lyrics, which encapsulate all the problems with the clunky and poorly tackled anti-prejudice themes of the movie. With such ridiculously on-the-nose lines as ‘Here’s what you get when races are diverse’ and ‘They’re not like you and me, which means they must be evil’ completely destroy the serious and frightening tone the song is trying to get across; it feels like watching a song from Reefer Madness or some other satirical musical, it’s amazing that they wrote those lines with absolute sincerity. “Savages” is effectively “The Mob Song” from Beauty and the Beast, which was already a little goofy at times, but lacking even the small amount of subtlety that song had, producing a laughably goofy and ham-fisted song with lyrics that felt like they were written by a ten year old who thinks he’s so smart because he just learned what irony is; actually, that pretty much sums up the whole movie.

‘Cool, this’ll be a great shot for the trailer!’

‘But won’t it be like, really melodramatic and over-the-top in conte-’

‘You’re fired.’

Pocahontas is a stupid, stupid movie. It is lazy, derivative, childish and tackles a very serious issue with all the maturity of someone who still thinks Biker Mice From Mars was a really good idea. The overly simplistic attitude towards racial relations and imperialism is almost offensively bad and the incredibly boring and unlikeable cast of characters don’t do anything to help matters. Though the songs are mostly not too bad, the lyrics are lazy at best and at worst, are clumsy to the point that they come off as parodies of bad musical lyrics. Though the art is nice and colourful and the backgrounds are mostly very good, this doesn’t stop Pocahontas from being sloppy, shallow and, perhaps worst of all, simply boring.



3.5/10

Next Week: The Hunchback of Notre Dame!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

32. The Lion King (1994)

In 1994, Disney released a movie that was just intended to fill time before their next big hit; they never really had much faith in it. That film was The Lion King, which would go on to become Disney’s most successful movie of all time and hold that spot for almost twenty years. It’s easy to see why The Lion King was such a sensational hit, it’s fun, it’s clever, it looks great and it has a very memorable cast of characters; but for all its good points, is The Lion King really a perfect movie? No, it probably isn’t, as, for all its good points and although it might be blasphemy to say it, the film does have some minor flaws.

The animation is once again top-notch stuff, as always Disney prove just how skilled they are when it comes to animating animals, capable of both capturing what actual animal movement is like, while still injecting a sense of humanity and personality. The animation here is a lot more calm and restrained than that of Aladdin and though there are action-packed and energetic scenes, many of them are a lot slower and quieter. This makes sense because The Lion King is a much more emotional and atmospheric film, so the animation is more careful and controlled, to give way to the more serious conversations and shape the similarly more adult themes and attitudes of the film. This is captured effectively by the incredible backgrounds, which are all wonderfully detailed and unique in their own way, they look like traditional landscapes painted by classical artists, they really are a wonder to behold. Despite the slower, humbler style of the film, there are still a couple of big, showy animated sequences, particularly the stampede, which is excellent – there is lots of movement, loads going on at once, a lot of interesting uses of angles and different kinds of shots, it’s a really well crafted sequence that matches the impact that scene has on the rest of the story. The colours in this movie are especially great, those of Simba and his friends are so warm and inviting, Simba’s golden coat and rich brown mane are almost soothing and make you feel like you can reach out into the screen and touch them; conversely, the colours of Scar and the Hyenas are dark, menacing and uninviting. Similarly, the lighting in this film is probably the best we’ve seen yet from a Disney movie, moments like the sun rising on the African plains in the opening honestly make it look as if the movie has been filmed on a real set; it really is impressive just how much emotion and atmosphere this film conveys through such little touches in the animation and art style.

‘To eat or not to eat... that is the question.’

Aside from the animation, The Lion King’s greatest strength is probably its story, which is much more serious and grounded than we’re used to from Disney; few of their traditional concepts – fairy tales, true love, wishes, dreams, magic – are present here, as the film tells a more adult story about personal identity, responsibility and our toxic relationship with the past. The first half of the movie is more of a traditional Disney movie, it is much brighter with its visuals, much more loud and extreme with its characterisation, with more energised songs and humour; the second half, however, is much darker both in tone and appearance and at times can play out as quite a serious adult drama with some of its dialogue and very powerful imagery, most notably Simba talking to Mufasa in the clouds. In these respects, the core of the narrative takes a lot of inspiration from Bambi – an animal is born into a kingdom as its prince, we see him grow up and have to deal with losing his parent, then we jump to adulthood when he has to take responsibility and finally become the King he was always meant to be and the film ends with the birth of his new child, just as it started with his birth. The film is of course different in many ways, but it’s clear that the writers had Bambi in mind at some points and of course, there’s nothing wrong with that, because Bambi is one of Disney’s most mature and grounded films, something reflected in The Lion King. Though The Lion King does still have a lot wacky, Aladdin-style humour with characters like Timon and Pumbaa and the hyenas and addresses its themes of maturity much more directly, lacking some of the subtlety of Bambi, it does have its own strengths in respect to how fun and memorable some of these characters are and how well it is able to engage directly with the message it’s trying to get across.

Again, unlike most Disney movies, the message of The Lion King is not a blatant, simplistic or obvious one; we are used to morals such as “don’t judge a book by its cover”, “always be honest” and “be yourself” and while these are all good lessons, they’re also relatively obvious and basic in the way they are conveyed. The Lion King pushes a much more complex message – “Don’t dwell on the past, but don’t run from it either. Accept it and learn from it or you will never be able to move on.” This is a very real problem that people struggle with every day and though obviously not many people watched their father die and blame themselves, most people suffer guilt or regret over mistakes they have made in the past and yearn to go back and change them, unable to accept that what’s done is done and move on with their lives. The movie also deals with the idea of who we are, versus who people expect us to be, which is aptly communicated through great moments such as when young Simba steps forward to join Mufasa, only to find that he has stepped in his father’s footprint, which is literally much too big for him to fill. Simba’s character struggles with a lot of problems that people have to face every day in the real world and the way in which the movie addresses these problems is not patronising or simplistic – The Lion King delivers an honest message about personal identity, overcoming regret and finding peace in a strong and effective manner, without being ham-fisted or overly sentimental.

Nod ya head (the lion’s coming)

The cast is rather large, but mostly well utilised; Simba himself is a relatively interesting protagonist, in that we get to see him as a child and adult – though we do not quite watch him grow and change to the same extent as we do with Bambi, the shift in personality feels very believable and natural. While obviously everyone knows this now, it may have been shocking for audiences at the time to experience the fact that young Simba is kind of a brat: he’s irresponsible, he’s disobedient, he’s arrogant and gets himself and his friends into a lot of trouble, simply because of his pride and need to prove himself. However, rather than being frustrating, this is extremely refreshing, as Disney kids tend to be overly cutesy and innocent and not much else or, if they are annoying, they are clearly not intended to be, so it is even more annoying that we are encouraged to root for them when we so clearly don’t want to; it’s nice to see a kid that is actually... well, a kid. We are SUPPOSED to be annoyed at Simba’s childish behaviour, his actions aren’t excused or celebrated and are actually explicitly addressed by Mufasa and Zazu. Not only that, but Simba must pay the ultimate price for his inability to learn from this, as he spends the second half of the movie dealing with guilt over the fact that his reckless behaviour may have gotten his father killed; the movie does not excuse Simba and allows him to learn from his mistakes and grow into a more responsible and caring person. Adult Simba is a lot more calm and likeable, but has also clearly suffered from confidence issues as a result of his trauma; he is not arrogant anymore, but has gone too far in the other direction and is now unable to have any faith or confidence in himself, afraid that if he does, he will just repeat the biggest mistake of his life. This is really powerful and realistic character development and some of the best Disney has ever displayed, The Lion King doesn’t chart the course of a young boy’s life as thoroughly as Bambi does, but it does capably show the transition from boy to man and the way in which our childhoods can shape us.

The other characters are a bit more stereotypical, but not in a bad way, for the most part anyway. Timon and Pumbaa are a fun, traditional double-act, you can almost see them in an old Road to... movie or something, the way they play off one another is familiar, but it works. The comedy may not be laugh out loud funny and more just cute, but these two are definitely a lot of fun and never really become too obnoxious, even if their role in the climax is a little goofy; these two are alright. Zazu is, of course, a character we’ve seen many times already, the stuffy, pompous killjoy; this is starting to become a rather tiresome concept by this point, but Zazu at least is still pretty good and Rowan Atkinson’s voice, with his famously odd and overly expressive style of pronunciation, is perfectly suited to animation and Zazu doesn’t appear enough to ever get on your nerves. Nala is just boring, there’s really not much to say about her, she basically only exists to be Simba’s love interest and to bring him back to Pride Rock, that’s it; she has no real personality, she’s just dull and really feels there just because Disney felt like Simba NEEDED a girlfriend, which to be honest, I don’t really think he did. Rafiki is a fairly different and unique Disney character; he’s obviously a fairly standard “old and wise but also a little eccentric” mentor character such as Yoda or Mr. Miyagi, but we haven’t really seen this archetype in a Disney movie before so he feels fresh and different here. He only really has one big scene, but he definitely takes charge of that scene as he pretty much encapsulates the entire message of the movie, so despite having limited screen time, his presence is very important and felt throughout the film.

Mufasa is charming and likeable, if a bit too perfect at times, but of course he doesn’t stick around for the whole movie, so this never becomes a problem. He’s similar to the Great Prince of the Forest in his role and the way he commands authority and respect, but he is much gentler and has a lot more time and dialogue; though this means he is not as effective or powerful as the more enigmatic and distant Great Prince of the Forest, it does mean that he is given more of an actual character, so it balances out. The hyenas are pretty standard comic relief villainous sidekicks, but I dunno, I just don’t really find them funny; in fact, they’re kind of annoying to me, I don’t think I really like them. Scar is a very enjoyable villain, even if he is basically just Jafar as a lion – he’s calm, collected, refined, sarcastic, camp, foppish and very devious; like Jafar, he can at times be pathetic and laughable, but at others can be legitimately threatening and frightening, when he displays just how cold and selfish he really is. Scar also takes a lot of inspiration from Shere Khan, his first scene being very similar to one of Shere Khan’s introductory scenes, where he toys with a mouse while waxing poetic, just as Shere Khan does with Kaa. Both characters are very smug and charismatic, they think very highly of themselves and speak as if they’re playing Richard III or Iago (the guy from Othello, not the bird); this makes both characters very fun to watch as they always dominate every scene they’re in and Scar is an interesting twist on this type of character in that he is not nearly as powerful, threatening or respected as he seems to think he is. Though perhaps a bit simplistic, Scar is a charming and memorable villain with a solid motivation and a great sense of style and flair, his animation in particular is probably the best of any character.

‘There is another lion...’
‘Really, Master Rafiki? What’s his name?’
‘His name is... Kimb-’
‘HAHA OK MASTER RAFIKI THAT’S ENOUGH OUT OF YOU’

The songs are... a little hit and miss, some of them are very fun, but Tim Rice struggles to fill Howard Ashman’s shoes as the lyrics suffer and the two “serious” songs really pull down the set as a whole. “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” is upbeat and catchy, the music is really great and the visuals are awesome, the way the colours splash across the screen looks really cool and takes advantage of animation and how it can be used to better transition into musical sequences in a way that few Disney films have really done before, or since. Unfortunately, that playful, intelligent lyricism just isn’t there – the lyrics aren’t bad, some of them are really quite good, but there’s nothing on the same level as the last few musicals. “Hakuna Matata” suffers a similar fate, being just as upbeat and catchy, but just as lacking in clever lyrics; there are still some good moments, such as when adult Simba appears for the first time, jumping in to belt out the last part of the song, which always gives me chills, but there’s just something missing here. “Be Prepared” is the only song of the bunch to really capture that style we’ve seen the last few Disney musicals, with delightfully rhythmic and clever lines such as ‘a shiny new era is tiptoeing nearer’; unfortunately, the rest of the songs are just a little lacking in this department.

But while “I Just Can’t Wait to be King” and “Hakuna Matata” are at least fun, the other two songs don’t even have that going for them – “Circle of Life” is by no means a bad song, it’s very slow and everything, but because it serves as the intro, it works just fine, though this does mean that you can’t really count it as a musical number, it’s more like another part of Hans Zimmer’s score (which incidentally, is fantastic) that happens to have a bit of chanting in it. “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is the “Whole New World Number” and I’m sorry, but I think it sucks; I know people like this song, but I just don’t get it, I think it’s so maudlin it’s embarrassing. The lyrics are so lazy, the melody so overly sentimental and emotionally manipulative, the subject so completely pointless – why should I care about Simba and Nala? I have seen so little of their interactions, especially since they’ve become adults, where they have only shared one scene and yet I’m not only supposed to believe they’re in love but that it’s some beautiful, great love? Come on. Of all the Disney love songs that seemed to exist just so a pop star could do a cover for the credits, this has got to be one of the worst, not surprising considering it was written by a pop star in the first place! This song is just lame, it’s almost laughably corny and yet it takes itself completely seriously, I just don’t get it. The songs for The Lion King are mostly decent and at least a little fun, but to me, they just fall kind of flat and don’t really fit the tone the movie is trying to create, certainly not in the second half, anyway. I’m not so sure the movie really needed songs, to be honest, but whatever, they’re hardly the worst ever, they’re just okay.

Someone’s gonna feel the love tonight

(Seriously though there’s something really unsettling about how seductive they tried to make a lion look)

At the end of the day, for all its hype and success and nostalgic worship, The Lion King still is what it always was – a very good movie. It successfully juggles playful, light hearted fun with serious personal themes and philosophical discussion in order to craft one of Disney’s more mature and well thought out narratives; this is assisted by really strong character development for the protagonist, who is surrounded by a memorable supporting cast. The animation and, in particular, the little touches to the animation – the colouring, the lighting, the angles – is spectacular and the songs that are fun are very fun, even if they do feel a little irrelevant. It’s a touching, thoughtful and emotionally powerful movie with a lot to love, even if “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” does totally suck.


Other Thoughts:

• Apparently Scar wants to set up the Third Reich.

Nazi Hyenas are our superiors

8/10

Next Week: Pocahontas!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

31. Aladdin (1992)

After Beauty and the Beast, Disney decided to release a more light hearted, comedic feature; unlike some of their previous attempts at this though, such as Robin Hood or The Aristocats, which aimed to be cute and goofy, but not much else, Aladdin doesn’t rest on its laurels as Disney threw everything they had into making the best comedy they could. Aladdin revolutionised Disney’s approach to comedy and characters, being much more modern in its style and sensibilities and setting the path for what most animated children’s films would come to be in the future – every modern kid’s comedy, particularly ones NOT made by Disney, such as Shrek, takes inspiration from Aladdin. Though some might argue the pop-cultural references and very 90’s attitude make Aladdin a little dated and prevent it from having the timeless feel of films such as Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Pinocchio, I think Aladdin is deft enough with its comedy and has enough focus on other things to still be just as good after all these years.

 

The fantastic animation of the Renaissance era continues and this is probably the best we’ve seen yet – Aladdin is an absolutely gorgeous looking film, the character designs, the backgrounds, the colours, the shading, the lighting, the animation, it’s all masterful. The character animation here is one of the first times Disney really mastered how to animate human beings, as well as cute animals; by all means, they’ve had well designed human characters before, but as early as Snow White Disney has had trouble with animating human beings without making them look like stiff, uncanny marionettes and even in a modern masterpiece like Beauty and the Beast, some of the townspeople do look a bit awkward or dull and just don’t fit in with the better animated humans like Belle and her father. Aladdin abandons any attempt at realism and embraces wacky and exuberant stylisation for all its human characters, even the barely noticeable background ones; though Aladdin and Jasmine are still recognisable as attractive young people, they are definitely cartoons, not attempts at shoving realistically proportioned people into animated worlds they don’t fit into. This is to say nothing of the marvellous animation of Genie, who I’ll talk more about later, but suffice it to say, he is one of the best animated characters of all time; understanding that they were making a less serious, more fun and comic film, Disney focused more on stylised, cartoonish designs here and it worked perfectly.

The backgrounds are new and exciting, this is an environment Disney has never tackled before, so we get a lot of cool new types of setting that are very different from what we’ve seen previously – the desert, the palace, the Cave of Wonders, they’re all great. The detail of the interior of the Sultan’s palace in particular is honestly quite unbelievable, even for 1992; these scenes are truly leaps and bounds ahead of even some of Disney’s best backgrounds. On top of that, the creativity and splendour in the Cave of Wonders is a joy to look at, so much bright colour, so much great use of space and lighting; look no further than the scene where Aladdin finally finds the lamp and slowly approaches it to see just how talented the Disney artists and animators are at framing scenes and using all the tools at their disposal to create tension and emotional involvement, they really do nail it. Aladdin is a real visual tour de force and one of the best looking movies I’ve ever seen, its animation and artistry, though not abstract or experimental, is euphoric in its sheer quality and enthusiasm.

‘Now where’s that bag of sand...?’

The story is a rather formulaic tale of a down-on-his-luck guy who gets a lucky break and uses it to rise from rags to riches and get the girl of his dreams; there are a few twists and turns along the way, though they are all rather simplistic and predictable. However, the story never feels like an excuse just to show thrilling action scenes or over-the-top comedy, as though it is rather simple, it is still well written and interesting enough to hold the audience’s attention to the end. Like I said, Aladdin is more light hearted in tone than the first few Renaissance movies (even The Rescuers Down Under, which is itself a rather light hearted adventure flick) and has a lot more comedy, but this comedy is thankfully tied a lot to characterisation, even Genie’s seemingly throwaway pop-culture references fit with his character and don’t come off as lazy. Another bonus is the fact that the jokes are actually really funny; some of Genie’s gags can seem a bit easy or simply excuses for Robin Williams to show off, but they are mostly very funny and a lot of the interactions between the various characters are great too. Aladdin is introduced being chased by armed guards who are out for blood because he stole some bread, causing him to take a pause and mutter in disbelief “All this for a loaf of bread?” As if acknowledging to the audience how ridiculous the situation is; the film is able to poke fun at itself and its clichés without being snotty about it and also incorporates a lot of visual humour to accompany the well delivered dialogue. Disney comedies tend to just be cute and warm and might bring a smile to your face, but Aladdin is actually a legitimately good animated comedy in the vein of something like Looney Tunes, if slightly watered down; it’s genuinely funny and had me laughing out loud more than once.

Beyond all the gags and fun animation however, Aladdin does address some issues in a surprising mature and subtle way – a theme of freedom runs throughout the film, acting as a backdrop to the characters’ motivations and as a result, the driving force of the movie. All of the major characters (even Jafar, the villain!) yearn for freedom and the movie is shaped by their struggles to obtain it: Aladdin wants to be free to live in peace, without having to steal or constantly be on the run from the law, he feels trapped by his social class and the label of “street rat” which prevents him from fulfilling his true potential. Jasmine wants to be free to make her own choices and live her life without being controlled by her father or a man she doesn’t know, she feels literally trapped by the palace walls, which act as a prison, preventing her from ever journeying outside. Genie wants to be free to be his own master and not be a slave to someone who doesn’t appreciate him, something he acknowledges would be ‘greater than all the magic and all the treasures in all the world.’ He too is literally trapped by the confines of the lamp, to which he is bound. Jafar wants to be free to control Agrabah and do what he pleases with it, without having to report to the Sultan; in fact, the reason we are urged to view Jafar as so evil is because he is not content to just be free, but to be more free than anyone else – he needs to be able to impose his will on them and control their own freedom, which we see by the way he hypnotises the Sultan, tries to force Jasmine to marry him, treats Genie like his slave and dictates the worth and possibilities of Aladdin’s life, constantly trying to keep him down. To Jafar, controlling other people’s ability to be free is the ultimate power trip.

Fittingly, the way in which Aladdin is finally able to defeat Jafar is by exploiting this desire for freedom, goading him into becoming a Genie by suggesting that his will can never be as strong as Genie’s, who will always hold more power and thus, more influence than him, forcing Jafar to become a Genie himself so that no-one’s will or ability to be free can ever exceed his own. Of course, this backfires and causes Jafar to suffer the most horrible punishment he could endure: he loses his freedom and is trapped inside the lamp for eternity. Conversely, Aladdin does Genie the greatest kindness he ever could by finally granting him his freedom, even at the cost of his own desires; he and Jasmine are rewarded for this selflessness when the Sultan changes the law, leaving them free to choose to marry one another and live the life they choose for themselves. More than magic, riches, street smarts or birthright, freedom is the most powerful force in Aladdin, as it dictates the possibilities of all the character’s lives and paths, a poignant truth that the film addresses in a subtle and thoughtful way. This idea is never brought right out or shoved down your throat, but carefully and delicately demonstrated and left for the audience to interpret; beyond the great comedy and visuals, the film actually gives you something to think about after it’s over.

Jafar and Iago, played here by Abbott and Costello

Key to the effectiveness of both the story and the comedy are the characters and they’re a pretty good bunch: Aladdin is a great protagonist, as the Disney Renaissance continued, Disney seemed to finally understand the idea that just having nice, but boring heroes with good moral fibre but not much personality wasn’t very interesting and started mixing up the way they addressed their protagonists. Subsequently, Aladdin is a new kind of Disney hero, though we’ve seen similar character types in Tramp, Peter Pan, Dodger and so on, this kind of laid back, streetwise trickster has never been the hero of the movie before and it’s interesting to see how differently Aladdin tackles the traditional problems a Disney protagonist faces.  He is brimming with charm, he’s cheeky, he’s roguish, he’s clever, he can be manipulative, but has a good heart; again, he’s similar to Tramp and Peter Pan and such, but Aladdin has a sensitivity and depth to him that sets him apart – he is legitimately frustrated with his life, as although he’s obviously intelligent, versatile and capable, he is looked down upon and not given a fair chance just because of how he was born. This is legitimately sympathetic, but Aladdin is never whiny or mopey about it, he’s always optimistic and always keeps trying to better his situation, never letting life keep him down and of course, though he does try to run away from his problems by pretending to be someone else, he eventually accepts who he is and faces his problems head on and emerges victorious; Aladdin is a very admirable and likeable character and a great hero who is active, driven and charming. He can also be very funny, thanks not only to his coy and witty dialogue but also his great animation – his smug looks, cheeky grins and the way he easily turns others around and nonchalantly slips out of dangerous situations is reminiscent of Bugs Bunny and Groucho Marx and though he’s obviously not quite as funny as them, Aladdin is still a very successful attempt at the classic smug trickster comedy character, you always root for him and always enjoy seeing him getting one over on his enemies.

Jasmine is a rather good female lead, but doesn’t get as much to do as Aladdin and seems a bit generic at times. While the idea of an independent, active princess in a Disney movie who refuses to have her life chosen for her and wants more out of life than the small world she knows was revolutionary once, the novelty is wearing off a little now that we’ve had it attempted with Ariel and perfected with Belle, who is just a better and more original form of this character than Jasmine. Nonetheless, it’s nicer to see this character type continue than to revert to the dull template of Snow White, Cinderella or Aurora and while Jasmine does borrow a lot from Ariel and Belle, she has more attitude and bite than those two and is a lot more willing to break politeness to call people out on their behaviour; she’s kind, but stubborn, as well as witty and intelligent, making her a fitting partner and foil for Aladdin. She’s also not as perfect as Belle and has her flaws, in that despite her dreams of living outside, she is a little naive and impatient and is shocked to discover how brutal life outside the palace really is; this is especially nice to see, because after a whole film of Ariel yearning to live on the surface world, despite her knowing nothing about it, only to get up there and be completely vindicated by having everything be perfect, it’s like Disney realised they goofed and did it right with Jasmine, who quickly discovers that the seaweed isn’t always greener in somebody else’s lake and things aren’t always what they seem – another of the film’s central themes. Sadly, Jasmine’s character is then kind of sidelined and we don’t see any further development of this idea, but it’s fun while it lasts; she may not be especially original, but Jasmine is probably the most realistic Disney princess yet, at the very least.

Aladdin and Jasmine’s relationship isn’t bad, they complement each other well and have a nice dynamic, but they do fall for each other a little too quickly, both in terms of the movie’s run time and the actual time that passes in the story, ready to marry after not even two days of knowing one another; sadly, though they do have much more time together than many of their predecessors, they still don’t have enough to really develop a genuine and believable relationship. Unlike Belle and Beast, who had a whole movie to get to know one another and whose romance was the focus of said movie, Aladdin just has too much other stuff going on – from the comedy, to the action, to the stuff with Jafar – to really give Aladdin and Jasmine’s romance the focus it needs. It’s still better than probably any other previous Disney romance besides Belle and Beast and it’s nice that Jasmine doesn’t like Aladdin when he’s pretending to be someone he’s not and he has to kind of win her over again, but they still don’t really work well enough for you to really care all that much about whether or not they end up together.

‘Wish I could be part of your world... Oh wow, hold on you guys are like, really poor, forget this.’

The side characters are also fun, the Sultan is similar to previous characters such as Maurice and Hubert in his role as the goofy, bumbling father, but his blissful naiveté is very endearing and stops him from ever being too derivative or annoying; the fact that he lives so extravagantly compared to the rest of his citizens can also be reconciled without making him seem unlikeable, as it is implied that Jafar uses his hypnotic staff to take advantage of the Sultan and make decisions for him, meaning the kindly Sultan is literally blind to the city’s problems, allowing him to be childish and aloof without coming off as selfish and callous. Abu is quite an interesting sidekick, it’s surprising just how selfish and bad-tempered he is for a Disney good guy and he has a lot of good physical comedy, he’s a great partner for Aladdin, though he does kind of fall out of focus in the second half. There is perhaps no greater testament to this film’s animation than the fact that it manages to give a personality to the Magic Carpet, who not only doesn’t speak, but doesn’t even have a face and yet manages to be brimming with character, being very funny, energetic, playful and mischevious, for a guy with no facial expressions he’s very fun to watch. Iago is great fun and though Gilbert Gottfried’s rather... uh, distinctive voice can get a little grating at times, he’s mostly really enjoyable to listen to, he’s well animated, he’s humorously callous and bad-tempered and a really good foil to Jafar. Iago and Jafar also kind of have this weird sort of ambiguously gay relationship, not literally of course, but they bicker and snark about other people like an old married couple and then there are things like Iago seeming jealous of Jasmine and, when rushing to pack only the essentials when they prepare to go on the run, he takes the time to consider whether or not to pack a picture of him and Jafar. Iago just seems... a little TOO into how great Jafar is and really wants to be praised by him, it’s really weird and funny, without ever being too blatant or over-the-top, he is definitely one of the best villainous sidekicks, on a similar level to Lefou. Jafar himself is a great villain, taking inspiration from a number of classic Disney villains, perhaps most noticeably Shere Khan; charming, refined, sarcastic, sadistic, often foppish and pathetic but very threatening when he needs to be, he’s everything a good animated villain should be – intelligent, powerful, funny, with awesome animation and voice acting, Jafar is the whole evil package and is just a riot to watch.

The most memorable of the side characters is of course, Genie, who comes in about half way through the movie and proceeds to totally steal the show. Though as I said he can at times be a little too much and there is definitely a very 90’s attitude to him, Robin Williams puts so much energy and spontaneity into his performance that none of the pop-cultural references or visual gags feel forced and though they don’t all hit the mark, he throws so many out that enough do hit the mark to make it work. Genie is so incredibly well animated with his extreme and creative movements, so often he could simply just point at something and make what he wants appear, but the animators find so many different and interesting ways for him to do things, so that he’s never boring to watch. He is just so fun, so over-the-top, so crazy and imaginative, he is a perfect example of what a comedic cartoon character should be, taking advantage of the unique possibilities that only animation can offer. Like Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck, he really is a classic cartoon and in terms of pure technical quality and imagination, may very well be the best animated of all of Disney’s characters; Genie represents the very power of animation itself – he has no limits and anything he can imagine is possible.

‘I didn’t think he’d do “Moon River” but then bam, second encore!’

Menken and Ashman return for one final musical score, as Howard Ashman sadly passed away during production, meaning Time Rice has to cover some of the lyrical duties; though unfortunate, at least Ashman went out on a high note, with some of the most enjoyable of all of Disney’s songs. Matching the more stylised and wild animation and wacky, comedic tone of the film, the songs in Aladdin are mostly very energised and spirited, they are big and brassy Broadway show tunes that are all about being as loud, bombastic and crazy as possible. There are two exceptions to this, the first being “Arabian Nights”, which is a slower, more atmospheric introduction to the mysterious world of Agrabah; it’s a memorable and catchy tune and similar in style and purpose to the wonderful opening theme to The Jungle Book, but it doesn’t quite match the energy of the later numbers, though this works just fine considering it comes first. The only time the musical style stumbles is when another slower, more atmospheric comes up half way through the film in the form of “A Whole New World”. This is, obviously, the “Whole New World Number” of the film, a term I chose to name after this particular song because, not only is this the generic, slower, sappy love song about dreams and wishes etc. etc. with a goofy cover by a pop singer during the credits that every Disney movie seemed to have during the Renaissance in particular, but because this is one of the times where it fits the least and really does feel forced. “Beauty and the Beast” is definitely a “Whole New World Number”, but it is at least a sweet song about a couple we have grown genuinely attached to and is part of a more serious and dramatic film; Aladdin is a much more easygoing movie, with much lighter and more energetic songs – “A Whole New World” just does not fit alongside the other songs and is neither a good enough love song, nor is it about a couple we care enough about to excuse its awkward placement alongside much different and much better songs. It’s not a bad song, I just don’t think it belongs here and definitely felt like it was written just to fill a quota – ‘Quick guys we’ve been writing too many upbeat, fun songs, we need to sneak a slow, boring love song in there cos that’s what we have to do in every film now.’ It’s hardly the worst time Disney ever did this, but I’ll never for the life of me understand why “A Whole New World” is such a big song, or why it’s one of the most remembered parts of the movie, I just don’t get it.

The other three songs however are all clever, playful and amazingly fun – “One Jump Ahead”  is a fun introduction to Aladdin’s character and to the style and pace that the movie’s going to follow, with all that great Disney lyricism, how can you argue with a song that rhymes something with “nom de plume”?  The energy is ramped up even further with the fantastic “Friend Like Me”, which manages to both be a strong character based introduction for Genie as well as a heart pounding, showstopping number in the vein of “Under the Sea” or “Be Our Guest”. In my opinion, “Friend Like Me” bests both these songs comfortably – a real accomplishment considering how great those songs are – it’s one of Disney’s absolute best. The music is great, the lyrics and rhymes are crazy, the animation is wild and incredibly imaginative, there is just so much joy and passion to it, so much thought put into how best to visualise each one of Genie’s outlandish wish suggestions, there is so much to look at and so much to listen to that you have to watch it more than once to even appreciate everything that’s going on in this jam packed number. The big, jazzy, swing music sound, the neon-like lighting and colours, the energised movements, it’s like watching a crazy Vegas show, but put on in a way that only Disney could, I absolutely love it. “Prince Ali” is another great showstopper, with the same type of energy, though obviously not quite as crazy with its visuals; the tune is so catchy, I get it stuck in my head every time I hear it and the lyrics are delightful, some of the words they manage to work in are incredible – “genuflect”, “coterie”, “fakirs”, the amount of thought and effort put into making the lyrics as clever and interesting as possible is really admirable. It’s not often that a musical can boast two big numbers of such quality, but Aladdin isn’t just any musical, it captures a very specific style and attitude perfectly, one that would often be imitated, but never quite matched.

Hello my rag time gal

Aladdin is bursting with fun, energy, creativity and imagination; it’s a whole new style for Disney which introduces a more wacky, modernistic approach to humour and characterisation, without betraying what made Disney great in the first place – the power of dreams, love and most of all, hope. The focus on comedy and more light hearted tone do mean that Aladdin can feel a little lacking in depth or purpose, but it still manages to tackle some very serious themes without being showy or obvious. While something like The Fox and the Hound might have a lot of heart, but not much bite and something like Oliver and Company has a lot of attitude but no real soul, Aladdin has a great balance of both and while it doesn’t have quite as much heart as say, Beauty and the Beast or Bambi, it more than makes up for it with everything else it has going for it, which is quite a lot, indeed.


Other Thoughts:

• Some nice symbolism for that theme of freedom when Jasmine opens up a birdcage to let a bird go free, before the Sultan takes the bird into his hands and puts it back into the cage. Really very smart actually, if a little transparent.

‘Hmm should I pick up on my daughter’s very obvious hints at showing she’s ready to leave the nest and I should let her go? Nah I’m just gonna put the bird back in the cage, I’m sure that won’t send any bad messages.’

• I love how dumb Aladdin looks here, it cracks me up.

‘Durrr is dis da lamp????’

9/10

Next Week: The Lion King!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

30. Beauty and the Beast (1991)

If The Little Mermaid kicked off the Disney Renaissance, then Beauty and the Beast is what truly solidified this new style, which combined the old Disney format with new ideas and a modern perspective; Disney had attempted this already with The Little Mermaid and done a fine job, but this time they really got it spot on. Beauty and the Beast capably marries what was great about classic Disney – fairy tales, love, magic, hopes and dreams, beautiful castles and natural landscapes – with modern sensibilities about relationships, personal identity and gender in a surprisingly intelligent and mature way, alongside great animation, music and characters.

The animation is wonderful and again, like The Little Mermaid it harkens back to the look of early Disney movies, while still maintaining its own identity; there are some slight issues with some of the background characters, who are a bit lacking in detail and animated a little awkwardly, but the major characters, particularly the enchanted objects in the castle, are all lovingly and wonderfully animated with great precision and care. The backgrounds are also great, the town is so detailed and colourful, again reminiscent of early Disney films, particularly Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in how it captures a sense of serene, pastoral life. Even more spectacular is Beast’s castle – all the backgrounds here just look absolutely breathtaking, it is so dark and gothic, with so much space, so many interesting angles, so much fascinating and surreal imagery. There’s a scene where Belle and Beast walk through a corridor adorned with these wonderfully grotesque stone gargoyles that all seem to deliberately lean towards Belle; backgrounds like this, which serve a stylistic purpose of reflecting the characters’ inner fears and feelings about their surroundings, completing ignoring any practicality that this corridor design would actually have within the real world of the film, show a hint of inspiration from German Expressionism. Though hardly as extreme as say, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, perhaps a little closer to Tim Burton – this is a Disney movie after all – these surreal backgrounds are enchanting and help lend Beast’s castle a sense of identity completely unlike the setting of any other Disney film, even in similarly dark and mysterious castles such as Maleficent’s or the Horned King’s, which truly immerses you in Belle’s plight and Beast’s feelings of loneliness and isolation. 

The story is classic and in many ways, Disney tackles it pretty much how you’d expect it to, a touching love story about a woman who learns that true beauty is on the inside, when she falls for a monstrous beast; however, the film also plays with these expectations in some very interesting ways. They never really shove the moral of ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ down your throat, even though a couple moments do make it a bit obvious and while you are expecting this message to be pushed for Beast, it’s easy to forget that it actually applies to the Beauty in the title, as well. Just as the townspeople expect Beast to be cruel and monstrous because of his inhuman appearance, they expect Belle to be an airhead and a submissive wife interested only in snagging a husband, because of her beautiful appearance; Belle struggles with the fact that no-one seems to understand the fact that she is a human being with thoughts, feelings and dreams, just as much as Beast does. Ultimately, the message is not so much to do with valuing inner beauty over physical looks as it is with not dehumanising people or trying to define them by superficial attributes, be it looks, gender, social class or anything else. This is just one of the ways in which Beauty and the Beast turns our perceptions and old-fashioned interpretations of morals on their head to create a compelling narrative. On top of that, the pacing is near flawless – the central premise is outlined very quickly in an incredibly powerful opening sequence which informs the audience without being distracting or tedious; Belle’s character and life in the town is set up just as quickly and effectively through the use of the opening song, as is Gaston’s lust for her, the town’s derisive opinions towards her and her father and the reason for Belle’s entrapment in Beast’s castle. All this happens within the first twenty minutes of the movie and the film never stops moving, every scene is necessary and entertaining; it knows to slow down and take its time with its more tender scenes, but it never wastes a minute and manages to make it feel like a lot has happened in a very small period of time.

‘Once upon a time, there was  a girl called Cinderella...’

‘NO, NOT THAT ONE ANYTHING BUT THAT ONE’

The cast is one of the most memorable and beloved in Disney history: the heroes, the villains and the side characters are all really well thought out, interesting and fun to watch. Interestingly, the film actually has two protagonists – the titular “Beauty” and “the Beast” both get a lot of time and attention and the story is definitely both of theirs, unlike say, Oliver and Company which is far more based around the “Company” than it is “Oliver”. Disney has a tendency to kind of sideline its main characters in favour of its side characters, which tend to be more colourful and exaggerated and therefore, theoretically, more fun for kids to watch and easier to market. However, while the side characters are definitely a big part of this movie, Belle and Beast do actually take centre stage and rightly so, because these are two of the best, if not THE best protagonists in a Disney movie. Belle and Beast are not only very likeable, but also quite progressive and almost revolutionary for Disney characters, subverting traditional gender roles and playing with the tropes we’ve come to expect from Disney, particularly from their earliest and most influential films.

Belle clearly takes inspiration from classic female protagonists such as Snow White and Cinderella, in an attempt at modernising this character archetype, as Disney had previously attempted with Ariel. However, unlike Ariel, who simply transposes this character template  to the modern day in its entirety, Belle’s character successfully repurposes the positive attributes of these characters while eradicating some of the more dated and sexist ones and infusing a modern, feminist sensibility. Belle is kind, sweet and patient, but not angelically so like say, Cinderella and will stand up for herself if she is being mistreated or taken advantage of. She doesn’t passively wait to be rescued like Snow White or Aurora, attempting to take her life into her own hands, going after her father when he needs help and resisting Beast’s attempts to control her and break her will. She wants to explore the world, but unlike Ariel, isn’t naive or ditzy about it, she is intelligent and witty, often poking fun at the other characters and using their egos against them. Belle challenges the traditional gender roles we’ve come to expect from female Disney protagonists, resulting in a very likeable and driven character. Is she a little too perfect? Perhaps, her only real flaw seems to be that she can be a little too driven, at times letting her curiosity get the better of her; maybe she’s more of an ideal than a person, but I don’t think she’s as unrealistic as some seem to think and she’s still a much more realistic and interesting protagonist than her predecessors, so I don’t think it’s a problem.

Beast is arguably even more interesting, as he actually gets significant character development, going from a bad tempered, rude and animalistic brute to a more kind, civilised and fully rounded person; this is communicated expertly through his movements and animation, which slowly changes from prowling around like an animal to being more careful, restrained and human in his movements. Though Belle is different from previous Disney female characters, Beast is even more different from his male counterparts, who are typically kind, bland and have little to say or do with no development whatsoever, unlike Beast, who has a lot of personality and goes through some big changes. Just as the idea of traditional femininity is challenged with Belle, so is traditional masculinity with Beast, who challenges the typical ideas of what it means to be stereotypically “manly” and whether or not that is the same thing as being a good man. It is not Beast’s looks (obviously), his strength or his refusal to share his feelings that endears Belle to him, but rather, it is not until he grows out of these typical macho conceits and shows his vulnerability, his kindness and his willingness to learn and grow that she falls for him. Belle’s line ‘he’s no Prince Charming’ perfectly sums him up – he is not the typical Disney prince, nor is he the man she read about in her books at the beginning of the movie, a romanticised collection of masculine stereotypes; he is a real man, a man with feelings and insecurities and this is more fascinating and attractive to her than an idealised fantasy of a man will ever be. Even when Beast finally becomes a human, Belle does not immediately fall for his looks, at first unsure that he is still the same person, it is only when she looks into his eyes that she truly knows this is the kind, gentle man she fell in love with.

A kind and gentle soul

These subversive and progressive characterisations are what make Belle and Beast’s romance the most heartfelt and grounded in Disney history; unlike their predecessors, they don’t fall in love at first sight, in fact, when they first meet, they hate each other! Reasonably so, considering how Belle is mistreated by Beast and how Beast has grown bitter and hateful towards people after years of solitude. It is only when Beast stops being a jerk and they get to know each other that they come to care about each other and realise they have more in common than they thought. Sure, the development of their relationship is still rather fast and mostly takes place over a single song montage, but their interactions before and after the song are so well written that it still seems completely real and natural, never fake or rushed – the seeds of the relationship have already been sown, so we completely believe that they grew and blossomed over time, with the montage showing us carefully and effectively chosen snippets of how it did so. It seems too obvious to even be worth mentioning, but the reason that their relationship works is because they actually get to know each other; so few romances in Disney movies are given space to breathe and develop and characters are either barely given personalities at all or hardly given the time they need to actually discover each other’s personalities and quirks and realistically fall in love, they just like each other immediately. 

Belle and Beast are both outcasts, they are both used to being misjudged, they are both headstrong, but gentle, they are both searching for someone that will understand them and find that in one another – it makes perfect sense that they would fall for one another and are able to bring out the best in each other. The scene where the two eat soup is a wonderful example of this, as the more refined Belle uses a spoon while Beast gobbles his down like an animal; embarrassed, Beast attempts to use a spoon properly, but finds it difficult, so Belle picks up her bowl and drinks from it, something she knows Beast can do, sparing him embarrassment. This is such a brilliant scene, because it demonstrates one of the most important aspects of a real relationship that Disney movies so often gloss over – compromise. Typically, Disney heroes and heroines are just perfect for one another, they fall for each other and the only obstacles to their love are villains who want to keep them apart, they never have to deal with conflict or obstacles within their own relationship. This scene acknowledges that no relationship is perfect and that if you truly care for someone, you will compromise and find a middle ground which brings out the best in both of you; this is all done very briefly and without any dialogue, showing just how strong the characterisation of our two leads is and how much natural chemistry they have between them.

Kawaii Beast-chan

This examination of gender and Disney stereotypes is further explored through the villain, Gaston; he starts off delightfully hammy and over-the-top, which makes him very fun to watch, but ultimately transforms into one of Disney’s darkest and most frightening villains, because while definitely a little cartoony, he is also scarily realistic. Like Beast, Gaston is a deconstruction of traditional masculine tropes – he is tall, handsome, muscular, a great hunter, the hero of the town, in other words, a classical male hero. However, though physically attractive, he lacks depth or likeability and is more interested in being manly than friendly; again, the message that looks can be deceiving is addressed in a different way, as we are not just warned not to assume to worst about people who aren’t typically beautiful, we are also warned not to assume the best of people who are. Gaston is not hideous like the Evil Queen’s witch form, he does not appear inhuman or demonic like Maleficent or Ursula, rather, he looks like the traditional Disney prince, which makes his true character all the more disturbing, as we are used to cheering for characters who look like him. Gaston’s motivation is similarly reminiscent of traditional Disney princes: he falls for Belle the first time he sees her and becomes determined to marry her, the same as Prince Charming, or Philip or Eric; however, the uncomfortable implications of this idea arise when Gaston refuses to ever consider the idea that Belle might not want to marry him – to him, women are prizes or trophies, just another animal to be hunted, neither he nor anyone else in town can understand why Belle wouldn’t want to be his wife. While Belle and Beast both learn to ignore what society says they should be and embrace their true selves, Gaston continues to cling to what society says a man should be, completely unwilling to change his cruel and oppressive ways. 

Perhaps it is a little on the nose when Belle says ‘[The Beast is] no monster Gaston, you are!’ But he is such a well written villain that the line does not come off as corny but chillingly true; Gaston represents the monster inside all of us and what can happen when we force ourselves to fill the roles society has picked out for us and try to force others to do the same. Unlike the other townspeople, it is not fear of Beast that encourages Gaston to kill him, but jealousy, he is so humiliated by the idea that Belle could love a hideous monster over him that he won’t rest until it’s dead; there’s a reason the magic mirror constantly glows green while he has it, it represents his innermost urges. The fact that Gaston is so beloved and celebrated by the town is even more frightening, Belle and Beast live in a time and a society that can’t understand and won’t accept who they are or how they feel about each other and Gaston combines all that hatred, prejudice and ugliness into a disturbingly charismatic and handsome package; it really is like watching an early Disney film from a chilling new perspective and exposes the ugliness in group mentality and the adherence to archaic social constructs which suffocate individuality and personal growth.

Positively primeval

The side characters are very good too, if a little more traditionally cartoony and less developed, but that’s fine, they’re the comic relief. Lumiere is charming and fun, Cogsworth is a familiar character type, the stuffy old killjoy similar to Sebastian or Bagheera, but he is played very well. Mrs. Potts is a bit much for me, her somewhat screechy accent and attitude remind me of Nanny from One Hundred and One Dalmatians, but she’s warm and likeable enough that it never becomes too much of a problem. Similarly, Chip is a little overly cutesy and seems to be there simply because the film was lacking that character type – the Penny, the Flounder, the Michael etc. etc. – which has to be in every Disney movie, but again he’s not too bad. Maurice is pretty fun, he’s delightfully eccentric and energised, but also kind and caring and a genuinely good father, something you see surprisingly little of in Disney movies when you really think about it. Lefou is great, he fulfils a very standard role as the villain’s goofy sidekick, but he’s actually legitimately really funny and has a great dynamic with Gaston. This great supporting cast does exactly what it should do – it actually SUPPORTS the major characters with honestly really good comic relief and fun little detours, while the main characters remain at the centre of the action, something many of the Disney films we’ve seen so far seem to forget to do.

Alan Menken and Howard Ashman return to pen another great musical and if The Little Mermaid ‘brought Broadway into cartoons’ then Beauty and the Beast was the first Disney movie to understand how to use different types of Broadway styles and numbers depending on the tone of the movie. “Belle” for example, is a classic Rodgers and Hammerstein style opening number, reminiscent of “Oh What a Beautiful Morning” from Oklahoma! or “The Sound of Music” from the film of the same name. Arguably, however, “Belle” incorporates characterisation and narrative better than these songs, by not only making it a great opening number which brings you into the world of the film, but also introduces you to Belle’s character, her hopes and dreams and how the rest of the town reacts to her; it’s a fantastic song and one of Disney’s best opening numbers, with a very fun and jaunty tune and some great lyrics. “Be Our Guest” is the big showstopper, clearly emulating “Under the Sea” and though I wouldn’t say it’s quite as good as that, it’s still a very fun song with some good rhymes and a lot of fantastic animation, being one of the best animated sequences in the film. “Beauty and the Beast” is the “Whole New World Number” the love song, the one that gets a cover by a pop singer that gets put in the credits you know the drill; however, it’s a legitimately beautiful song, partly because of the genuinely touching and well thought out lyrics and partly because Belle and Beast’s relationship is so strong that you really want to like the song, it wouldn’t work as well if it were about Ariel and Eric, for example. The animation is also great, with the computer animation matching seamlessly with the 2D animated characters and there are some very interesting little touches like the painting of the cherubs on the ceiling moving as they follow Belle and Beast’s dance. Just a lovely sequence and one of Disney’s best love songs, even though it is a bit odd that it’s sung by the anthropomorphic teapot with a goofy British accent. “Something There” is another love song, with some nice lyrics, but nothing that special; it serves more of a narrative purpose than musically, but it’s still a good sequence. “The Mob Song” is a good song with a dark, rhythmic, chant and some nice, if not especially clever rhymes, though there are some rather clumsy lyrics, in particular the line ‘we don’t like what we understand, in fact it scares us’ but you can forgive it for a couple of slip-ups and it leads into the climax well.

Cogsworth the Terrible

But the definitive classic is “Gaston”, Disney’s best villain song, partially because it doesn’t immediately seem to be a villain song and one of the most perfect musical numbers they ever produced. It’s well animated, it’s funny, it’s clever, it’s a perfect summation of Gaston as a character, it’s a wonderfully witty deconstruction of what it means to be “manly” and the frivolity of popularity and crowd mentality, it’s just good in every way a character based song should be. The tune is incredibly catchy and the lyrics and rhymes are Disney and their most playful and joyous – how can you not laugh at ‘I use antlers in all of my decorating’ or ‘no-one plots like Gaston, takes cheap shots like Gaston, plans to persecutes harmless crackpots like Gaston’? That’s just fantastic. So much fun is had showing us just how slimy Gaston is and yet he is celebrated for such stupid and underhanded things, it’s impossible not to laugh at being told that no-one ‘matches wits like Gaston’ as he stares pensively at a chess board, only to slap it aside when he realises he can’t make a good move. “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was the first great Disney villain song and a good start to the unforgettable bad guys of the Disney Renaissance, but no-one does villain songs like Gaston.

Beauty and the Beast is an intelligent and heartfelt movie that delivers a timeless message in a fresh and different manner, playing with gender constructs, narrative traditions, audience expectations and even Disney’s own stereotypes in a very original way. It has wonderful animation and an art style which joins the best parts of early and later Disney’s visual styles. The major characters are really well developed with a touching and believable romance which forms the centrepiece of an engaging and emotionally engrossing story with flawless pacing and a villain who is both fun and legitimately threatening. The musical score is hauntingly beautiful and while some of the songs are just good, the few that stand out really are superb. Beauty and the Beast brought everything that Disney is about together in perfect harmony, polishing everything to a mirror shine and putting a refreshingly new spin on things, creating a true modern classic; it doesn’t get much better than this.


Other Thoughts:

• The drama of the scene where Maurice is taken away by the mob is kind of dampened by the fact that the insane asylum has a funny name.

French humour at its best

• Okay one last shot of Belle.

Get out of this film and into my life

9.5/10

Next Week: Aladdin!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds