I really liked it; currently reading the book now. Obviously there are some big differences but I think it was a good film.
Thoughts?
I really liked it; currently reading the book now. Obviously there are some big differences but I think it was a good film.
Thoughts?
We bought it when my daughter was old enough because my wife and I were both nursed on Disney cartoons. I will give it credit for having some GREAT music--the opening "Bells of Notre Dame", Frolo's "Hellfire"--, a very powerful villain character, a complicated and wholly untidy love triangle and some very unDisney criticality of human nature.
However, I am so very, very disappointed in it's simultaneous GLARING weaknesses in the part of the gargoyles. I think that things were so serious and adult with Frollo's complex/sexual villain and with the unresolvable fact that a good person if ugly enough is not considered a person, even by his closest friends, frightened the movie-makers into adding silliness that really detracted. I am all for silliness in it's place, but in this particular film it is so grating, forced and just lame, that the movie doesn't hold up as well as others.
'Little Mermaid' is actually a film of incredible solidarity, beauty and complexity--obviously as far as children's movies go--and 'Hercules', though flawed in a similar way to Hunchback, is underrated with an INCREDIBLE soundtrack and probably the strongest trio of love-interests and villain of any of the Disney films.
Haha, my mom bought that movie for me when I was in third grade and I LOVED it! She wouldn't let me watch it before bed because it was too late when she brought it home and I had school the next morning, so I got up at four am and watched it twice in a row before I had to get to class. I've probably seen it about eighty times. I sang that "Hellfire" song in front of class, and I bought these two colorful scarves so that I could dance around like Esmeralda. *sigh* Childhood. Good times.
ooooo it's so long ago. I think it was one of the last that I went to see in the cinema with my mother.
I cried all the way through the second half I think. And I had already read the cartoon version in the Dutch magazine Donald Duck. So I knew what was coming (can't remember anything though :lol:).
Apparently nothing like the oiginal... But, I guess I should watch it some time, just to feel young again. :)
You make me want to read the book now. And I have just started Die Verwandlung of Kafka :mad:. But I think it is time to get out of historical mode. Ater Eliot, Dumas and Defoe, it's now time for someting more modern before I turn into a fossile myself :p.
*sigh* Where are those innocent days *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
great about getting up at four :lol:
I thought that it had some themes that were a little bit too mature for the audience it attracted. Young children shouldn't be exposed to such lustful themes. You've never seen such things done so explicitly in another Disney animated feature.
I only saw it once because my mom didn't like it (probably because she felt it was "too serious" as others have said). However, I do think the theme is an excellent one, and I can't remember it being so violent or having such sexual overtones that a young child would be damaged by it.
As for the gargoyles, one must remember that it is a Disney film, and comic relief is essential in keeping the attention of young children!
Another much overlooked Disney film is Mulan... not necessarily a rendition of a classic book, but a very strong story with likable characters and a deeper-than-usual story.
I really like Mulan. It was the last of Disney's great films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
Hunchback really creeped me out when I was younger. Saying that, most of the Disney films creeped me out.
It was pretty gutsy of Disney to do Hunchback- after all, it doesn't exactly spring to mind as making a good Disney film.
Gotta love the gargoyles- good comic relief. It's probably the least comic Disney film (like when that old guy says 'I'm free' and then he falls in the stocks or when the gargoyles are playing with a newton's cradle of hanging figures.
As for the lust, I'm pretty sure that it would go over most children's heads. The whole damnation and seemingly happy ending (because they have a prety downbeat song for the credits) might be more of a worry if you're showing it to children but good on Disney for showing darker sides to life and genuine problems.
Kids are funny critters. I remember being terrified of Ursula in the little mermaid and the ugly stepsisters in Snow White, but being perfectly fine with Pinocchio being eaten by a whale, Mowgli being stalked by a Shera Khan, and the mean witch in Sleeping Beauty. I also remember being more fascinated than frightened by the demons in the last Fantasia sequence.
Prompted by this thread, I just watched it today for the first time in about nine years. No wonder I'm the way that I am with childhood heros like Esmerelda, she's a fantastic character.
I personally think Disney hasn't done anything groundbreaking since Bambi, after that it has been the same standard stuff coming out. Some are good, some are bad, but Disney hasn't really made anything genius since their first four features: Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi. They lost that spark of innovation after WWII.
I've heard this, but honestly I think it is not true. I think that those early works have the quality of nostalgia around them, and even a modicum of reverence, but they are not near the quality of the early 90's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King are all very funny, moving, musically astounding and engaging to wide audiences. The only difference that I can gather is that people consider the older films more "classic" while they admit the newer ones are more engaging story-wise, more funny, more morally complex and faceted and mostly--and this is coming from PhD's in musical performance--more musically impressive. I love some of the older films, but the characters are often flat and faced with no real choices, they are also--as far as moral delving goes--completely unprobing.
It's not merely a matter of nostalgia, although I'm sure it plays a part. Snow White is the first full length animated film ever to be made. Everything in that film is an innovation for the medium of animation. I haven't seen anything in a recent Disney movie that approaches the brilliance of the silhouette fight between Bambi and the buck, or the forest fire from the same film. The use of shadows and colouring in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" scene of Fantasia is still beautiful over 60 years later. I admit being more interested in the visuals and less in the plots and music. It seems that in recent years Disney just hasn't been as experimental as it used to be when Walt was at its head. I've never really liked the musical aspect of Disney, except for maybe in Fantasia. Disney's early films are practically fully responsible for the "naturalistic" animation style that has dominated animated features since Snow White was in theaters (Disney owes a lot to the animation of Winsor McCay though). Everything that followed has just felt like a rehashing and modernization of the same things done before.
1912 animated film by Winsor McCay - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvzAJ...eature=related
I think you are absolutely correct OrphanPip about Snow White being innovative as the FIRST feature length cartoon. And of course, the films of the first few decades will all be more 'innovative' than later ones, but I think this is what I was getting at.
The earlier films where groundbreaking because they were prototypes, but not archetypes. I think people confuse the terms often in art. Things that are the first are rightly praised for innovation but I think they get too much credit in the larger scheme of things. The later films, in my opinion, are superior examples of the fine art of filmmaking. Maybe not revolutionary--because they came 60 years after the first ones--but more refined, more well voiced, more well written.
The complaint I have is that Disney prettied up the hunchback. The look that Disney gave the hunchback is ludricrous. I mean, read the book, good god. Come on.
I don't think The Little Mermaid or The Lion King are bad animated films, but I feel there was a real lack of energy in the more recent films. They certainly have better voice acting, and the animation has become smoother over the years, but I feel they play it safe. You don't get anything really memorable out of them. I appreciate when animation makes full uses of the tools of its medium. It seems almost pointless to use animation to tell a story if you're not going to make full use of it as a visual medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Modest Proposal
For the 90s I'd rather opt for the films of Miyazaki instead of the Disney stuff. I have mixed feelings about computer animation though.
There is some great post-Walt (Bambi was the last film he was heavily involved in) Disney Studio animation though. I particularly like the pink elephant scene from Dumbo :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJv2Mugm2RI
Edit: I will say that the musical segments of the later films are far better integrated, and used to much better effect than the early stuff.
I certainly see your points and agree to a large degree, but I think we will probably not see eye to eye on this. Miyazaki has some nice films, though I haven't seen the latest Ponyo, and he works through Disney in some capacity if I am not mistaken.
I guess the one thing I wanted to voice--and did--is my questioning of revering that-which-came-first. But your opinions seem firmly rooted in the works themselves, their qualities and flaws, and that is good enough for me.
I haven't read the novel but I have seen the movie. I liked the character of Phoebus and Esmeralda. On the whole it was an average movie.
I think Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book and the Lion King are best Disney ever created. Beauty and the Beast was even nominated for the Oscar in the category of best motion picture.
I remember some great graphic scenes in that, like in Dumbo (the pink elephants) and The Lion King.
Disney used to do such wonderful scenes with things flying around and stuf like that. Haven't seen that since...
Disney was great in the 90's. In film history, Snow White is important but when I watched a bit of the film, it was too twee. Disney's 90's films appeal to adults and not just for nostalgic reasons. The Lion King's based on Hamlet and it isn't as dull and moralising as early Disney.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Yes, the hunchback is cutesied up but if his appearance was so horrible that it scared children, it would negate the message of the film; that Frollo looks like a man but is a monster and Quasimodo looks like a monster but is very human. Plus they already did Beauty and The Beast.
People complain about the lust and hell in Hunchback- in Pinocchio, you've got gambling, smoking, drinking, and an old man who makes himself a boy doll. Now that's dark.
Bambi was cute. So were the others. I think it depends on the storyline.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
To this day, I still don't know what Snow White was supposed to be about.
Wait, didn't Pinocchio come first? Pinocchio was awesome and, for its time, absolutely classic. I know the themes were a little odd, but it makes a point, 'boys, do those things and you'll become a donkey'. At least it wasn't full of all of that politcally correct, nice, fairies and bunny-rabbit stuff. It was made in the day when smoking was good for you, you were allowed to hit children and you didn't seriously have to study to get a job. I suppose that was what the world was into.
I didn't like Hunchback of Notre Dame, the little talking gargoyles just ruined it for me. Same goes for Beauty and the Beast, great story, but the inanimate objects being made able to talk took the truth out of it.
Yes, but children aren't really aware of those themes at the time. I saw this film in theatres when it was first released and bought it as soon as it came out and this was when I was six years old. It wasn't until years later that I became aware that Frollo really just wanted Esmerelda to be his sex slave. Children just don't conceptualize these things the way adults do. Their understanding of relationships and manipulation in regards to sexual relationships is not that developed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Perhaps that subject is not done so explicitly in other Disney films, but other topics are. Beauty and the Beast is studied extensively with respect to feminism and many of them deal with death in a very explicit way, starting with Bambi from the perspective of watching an animal die, to The Lion King which deals with it in a somewhat more intimate perspective (meaning, in Bambi, you're not familiar with the character that dies, but you see the effects of living without a parent vs. TLK, where you follow the child and sympathize with it as the parents dies and consider the theme of the child blaming him/herself).
The feminists would tell you that it's purely a story about a woman waiting for the day a man comes to make her life worthwhile. I think that's a little pretentious though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathcliff
Nope, Snow White was the first full-length feature animated film, which was completely revolutionary, so much so that it was given an honourary aware at the Oscars in 1938 for it's contribution to film innovation. Walt got one large Oscar and seven mini ones. :DIt came out in 1937 and it took years longer and wayy more money than was ever anticipated.Quote:
Wait, didn't Pinocchio come first?
Pinocchio isn't really saying that doing those things was acceptable. It's making a clear statement about a buy growing up to be become a man. The donkey is a metaphor for ignorance and complacency. You're right- it's saying that if children lie and cheat and steal, they end up uneducated and wasteful and dumb. It's really a film about taking the right path in life to become a good person. Do good, and it will make you a good person. And always let your conscience be your guide! ;)Quote:
Pinocchio was awesome and, for its time, absolutely classic. I know the themes were a little odd, but it makes a point, 'boys, do those things and you'll become a donkey'. At least it wasn't full of all of that politcally correct, nice, fairies and bunny-rabbit stuff. It was made in the day when smoking was good for you, you were allowed to hit children and you didn't seriously have to study to get a job. I suppose that was what the world was into.
On the side of fairies and happy bunnies, there are actually A LOT of very politically incorrect things in these films. As I said, a number of the early princess-type films are regarded as being very un-feminist, as they tend to be, superficially, about women who are helpless until they find a man. There is a lot of prejudice against step-parents, and a lot of situations of abandonment by parent-figures. There are also a number of racist comments and innuendo. Some was considered acceptable at the time, most of it not, but it's all there for a reason. [/QUOTE]
You have a good point. I guess there are some very suggestive concepts (just not developed) in Peter Pan. Youthful lusts...jealousy. Although I think (as a parent) I will still be cautious, but I won't completely discourage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Ahh, all that stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
I liked it better anyway.Quote:
Nope, Snow White was the first full-length feature animated film, which was completely revolutionary, so much so that it was given an honourary aware at the Oscars in 1938 for it's contribution to film innovation. Walt got one large Oscar and seven mini ones. :DIt came out in 1937 and it took years longer and wayy more money than was ever anticipated.
I suppose women didn't have much control when thesse things were made. They at least were the main characters, that's a prize enough.Quote:
Pinocchio isn't really saying that doing those things was acceptable. It's making a clear statement about a buy growing up to be become a man. The donkey is a metaphor for ignorance and complacency. You're right- it's saying that if children lie and cheat and steal, they end up uneducated and wasteful and dumb. It's really a film about taking the right path in life to become a good person. Do good, and it will make you a good person. And always let your conscience be your guide! ;)
On the side of fairies and happy bunnies, there are actually A LOT of very politically incorrect things in these films. As I said, a number of the early princess-type films are regarded as being very un-feminist, as they tend to be, superficially, about women who are helpless until they find a man. There is a lot of prejudice against step-parents, and a lot of situations of abandonment by parent-figures. There are also a number of racist comments and innuendo. Some was considered acceptable at the time, most of it not, but it's all there for a reason.
I know that stuff wasn't good, and becoming a donkey definitely says that, but I suppose it was life as they said it.
Yes, I'll do good. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Seriously, the suggestiveness goes over the children's heads; it's there so the adults enjoy the film as well.
I agree with CC's assessment of the films. The un-feminist attitudes of Snow White are a problem that continues well into the later Disney films, like The Little Mermaid and Aladin.
What makes the films remarkable for me is their artistry at a visual level. Snow White is a pretty empty and superficial character, but I forgive this when I see the brilliance of her flight from the Huntsman. Disney gives us a glimpse into her mind as the trees gradually transform into monsters, and the forest gets gradually darker. The film is just brilliant when you compare it to other animation of the era, like the Fleischer's Betty Boop cartoons (completely insane! I actually like those films too). It's no surprise that this film was the top grossing film of all time until Gone With the Wind came out. Also, if you want to talk about racism in early cartoons, it is much more apparent in the other major studios, Disney is tame by comparison. You can make a good case for early Disney's idealization of European culture though. I still scratch my head at the decision to have the only Hispanic and African American voice actors in the Lion King voice the Hyenas. You'd think after so much criticism about their racial representation they would be more sensitive to this.
All the visual tropes of Disney animation are pretty much fully established by the time Bambi comes out.
Mufasa's voiced by James Earl Jones so...Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
And the new princess is African-American, as if it was particularly radical. Disney have had loads of non-white characters- it was only a matter of time...
Absolutely. And the animation was taken to a completely new level once again in Sleeping Beauty. The intricacies of all the background detail are simply stunning. The precision and colour are amazing, beyond anything Disney had done up to that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
http://images.quickblogcast.com/8045...ing_beauty.jpg
http://i577.photobucket.com/albums/s...eautyLARGE.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BJ4HxBGz2I...%2BBeauty%2B24
That's true, and the Baboon has a South African accent. I don't actually think that the voicing of the Hyenas is particularly racially codified, Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin just happen to have recognizable and comedic voices. Although, I can understand the concern people have. The criticism of characters like Jim Crow the crow in Dumbo is certainly justified. As is the black centaur servant girl from Fantasia (edited out in contemporary releases of the film). However, in the most part racism in Disney is mild and really comes out in the fact that for most of their history these films contained almost entirely white casts. Then when other races start to be represented in the films the first we see are of the likes of Sebastien in The Little Mermaid, a servant who happens to have a Jamaican accent.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Racial comedy is something you just have to get used to if you're going to look at films from the first half of the 20th century. The old surviving animated film from the USA is basically a film based off of an old Vaudeville lightning sketch performance and it contains a seen where the words Coon and Cohen are used as the base of drawing racial stereotypes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGh6maN4l2I (Yuck I just found out the infamous scene has been censored out on the Library of Congress channel, oh well shame)
It's obviously wrong, but it is an unavoidable fact of popular culture from that period.
Edit: I'd like to add that a good deal of Fleischer's, McCay's and several other early animated films have entered the public domain and are well worth the time to look up on the internet and watch.
Yea, like many of the things in Pinocchio.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
He wasn't a victim of neglect, mistreatment, not as they saw it. The fairy came and told him off. Ahh, good old-fashioned principles. These days I don't think you can have that many people smoking in one movie, government would lose it. :rolleyes:
Pinocchio is so un PC :) Still scares me though.
As for the hidden meanings of Disney, this Volkswagan parody has to be my favourite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F30PYWYdkZ4