Parallels

Disney animation is currently about to enter a new Renaissance, or in many ways, has already entered it. When? Why have they entered a new Renaissance, though? Why isn’t there much hubbub over this?

The last few Disney films, despite any box office performance, are critically successful. In fact, Disney’s slow rebirth is no different from their rise to glory in the late 1980s...

Before The Renaissance

Years before the Disney Renaissance began, Disney’s animated output was problematic to say the least. As I had explained in my three-part series “The Dark Ages?”, it wasn’t necessarily absolutely terrible times for the studio, but tough nonetheless. There was only one flop, The Black Cauldron, which wasn’t as a big as a bomb as Disney and others made it out to be. The Rescuers and The Great Mouse Detective were certainly good, while not great by any means due to other problems. Oliver & Company is dated, relying on what was big in the 80s that made it the box office success it was. The Fox and the Hound has a great central theme, but it’s plagued with sloppy storytelling and a lack of a consistent tone. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is merely a compilation feature more than anything, though the individual short subjects are great. The only true post-Walt/pre-Renaissance clunkers are The Aristocats and Robin Hood, films with lazy storytelling and equally unimpressive animation, yet those two films were highly successful.

Likewise, before this new era of Disney (the Lasseter era), the Disney output was flawed. After the Renaissance, there were three real gems: Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch. The rest of the films were all messy or lacking in something some way or another, and this is all thanks to the executives, who stuck their spoons into the broth and found a way to ruin each big budget project. Treasure Planet was screwed by its attempts to be teen-friendly, despite already having a good heartfelt story and a lot of ambition. Atlantis: The Lost Empire suffers from a story that immediately loses direction after its first act, being more of a visual showcase than a story-driven experience. Brother Bear has excellent animation, but the film is too talky and riddled with 2003 talk and "hip" dialogue. Dinosaur was planned as a silent film, but again, the executives had the characters talk, and in awful modern dialect. Home on the Range was bland and badly written, and on top of that, offered nothing new. Chicken Little? That was a product of Michael Eisner’s rush to compete with DreamWorks’ pop culture joke-laden schlockfests.

Then we look at the few films that came before the Disney Renaissance, namely The Great Mouse Detective, and we see a small path to improvement. Oliver & Company on the other hand was a step backwards in terms of storytelling, but was a big hit nonetheless since it was hip and cool with the 80s audience. It was nothing more than a test, to see if Disney could re-enter the animated feature business and compete with Don Bluth.

However, the two films released between Chicken Little and The Princess and the Frog show a striking amount of improvement. Meet the Robinsons was half late Eisner-era caffeinated flick, half Lasseter Pixar-esque story that was heartwarming and touching. While not a big success, it wasn’t a flop by any means. Critics were generally positive in their reviews as well. At least it didn’t get the mixed to negative reviews that Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little received. This was followed by Bolt, which boasted very good storytelling though it was a bit too familiar. Despite some safer elements, it was a deserved critical success and was a slow burner at the box office, but not a big blockbuster.

The New Renaissance

This is where your mileage may vary. When do you think the new Renaissance started? Did it start with Tangled? The Princess and the Frog? Bolt? Or do you think it hasn’t started yet? Be sure to tell me what you think, by voting in the poll.

Remember not to confuse this with a Golden Age, I separate the two. For me, a Golden Age equals the amount of films being produced and the fact that they’re all successful and high quality. Renaissance, to me, means an era films that are advancements of the art form regardless of how they do at the box office. The Little Mermaid and The Rescuers Down Under certainly live up to that title, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are good works of storytelling though they have their shortcomings.

Personally, I believe the second Disney Renaissance has already started. It started with a fairy tale adaptation, The Princess and the Frog. There’s a pattern with Disney. Disney’s feature animation legacy started with a fairy tale adaptation. After World War II cut off profits from the following films (with the exception of Dumbo), Walt Disney turned to cheaper endeavors in the package “anthology” features. While they were successful for the most part, what got the Disney studios out of that temporary slump? A fairy tale adaptation. None other than Cinderella. No more cost-cutting anthology films came after that, all original single-story films like Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp.

Then it gets tricky when you say The Little Mermaid saved Disney from a slump. It didn’t, The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company already did, plus Who Framed Roger Rabbit really did a lot too. But... The Little Mermaid was the first “great” Disney animated film in a long while. The Princess and the Frog is also the first “great” Disney animated film in nearly a decade, and one that arguably gets right what many of the butchered post-Lion King films got wrong.

Why is this? During the start of the Renaissance, Disney was run by Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg, plus a barrage of executives who felt that animation was only a way to make more money and create more franchises. The films would be altered, and many times, watered down for the sake of entertaining everyone in the audience. Something Walt Disney would’ve NEVER done...

With that, the Second Golden Age and Renaissance quickly deflated after the runaway success of The Lion King when films like Pocahontas displayed Disney’s biggest weaknesses. The whole idea of when this Renaissance ended can be a bit contradictory. Pocahontas was a bump in the road, but The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan were above average. People usually say the Renaissance ended with Tarzan, box office wise. But what about Fantasia 2000? Like The Rescuers Down Under, that was a good, above average film. After Fantasia 2000, we had Dinosaur, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Brother Bear, Home on the Range and Chicken Little going against The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet. When did the Renaissance end? That's up in the air, for me, I'd say it fell apart starting with Pocahontas and ended with Fantasia 2000. Disney entered the "inconsistent era", where it wasn't a string of critical successes.

We all know what ended it. Executives had their way with each of the films, even with something very risky like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, with its unneeded comic relief. Audiences got tired of the same old routine too, as every Disney seemed to repeating itself over and over: Big musicals, big bad villains, annoying sidekicks and sassy dialogue. It frustrated audiences, who began turning to alternatives. This is why Pixar took off early on, because their films avoided this. Toy Story, A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2 were all fantastic films that weren’t products of executive meddling. No reliances on what focus groups said, or what marketing research firms showed. Pixar’s crew wisely ignored that and just gave audiences what they needed, not what they exactly “wanted”. Good films...

The Princess and the Frog is free from all that executive meddling and focus group nonsense, and on top of that, it was a great film. It returned to an art form that ignorant executives singlehandedly pushed to the wayside, while also trying new things with the art form. Critics praised it, word of mouth got it ahead of that awful opening weekend performance, and it did very well on home video. Bolt was free of these problems, too, but I felt it was a stepping stone to the Renaissance since it wasn’t a spectacular film by any means. It was more like The Rescuers, a film made between Walt’s death and The Little Mermaid that happened to be significantly better than the rest of the Disney output at the time. Bolt is far superior to several of the post-Renaissance films, but did it kick off the Renaissance? You could say it did, given the quality of the film.

I am also tempted to say it did, but The Princess and the Frog really set things in motion like The Little Mermaid did compared to the last couple of films. I could care less how much money The Princess and the Frog made compared to Tangled (though it would've been great to see it perform like gangbusters), to me, this little film was what kicked off this new Renaissance that we are currently going through. Tangled tried new things with computer animation, as we all know, it attempted to look like a traditionally animated film. Oddly enough, I consider Bolt superior to this film, but I still believe it didn't kick off the Renaissance. Despite the fact that is a very good film that also made use of the new painterly look that Disney is currently experimenting with, I still see it as more of a modest effort. One to bring audiences back to "good Disney" after years of hit-or-miss films, just like The Great Mouse Detective did back in 1986. The Princess and the Frog is much more ambitious, and visually, Tangled is too. It's a bit contradictory from here, I'll admit, but I still see Bolt as a sort of Mouse Detective project while Frog and Tangled are more in line with Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Kind of like fuel to the start of the Renaissance, that and Meet the Robinsons.

After Tangled came Winnie the Pooh, which was gap filler, but very good gap filler! Next comes Wreck-It Ralph. I've raved about it many times, but how does this look innovative? Story-wise, it’s unique. It’s no fairy tale or musical, it’s not a talking animals comedy or anything. It’s an action-comedy about video games. Many will complain about this, but Disney NEEDS to leave the comfort zone. They can’t just make fairy tale after fairy tale. Not every movie they make has to be something familiar. If that were the case, then they'd just be on indefinite loop. People complain that Disney repeats themselves, but then they try something new, people still complain.

Walt Disney made all kinds of films: Fairy tales, adventure stories, mystery stories, experimental epics like Fantasia, films that had contemporary settings, dialogue-driven comedies without much action. He never repeated himself, though he would do more than one fairy tale or fantasy story. But he would also do something like Lady and the Tramp or Fantasia. Post-Renaissance Disney did so as well, with films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet, but those two aren’t given enough attention. Lilo & Stitch luckily did well, and remains one of the most unique post-Walt films. Which is why Wreck-It Ralph will continue this Renaissance. It’s not a repeat of something Disney already did many times before, it’s something completely different!

Then there’s Frozen, which is yet again another fairy tale. That said, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled aren’t the same movie. Tangled is not a rehash of what we saw in Frog. Beauty and the Beast, on the other hand, had no trouble taking cues from The Little Mermaid. Aladdin and The Lion King did so too, then it got to the point where it became stale. Frozen will most likely be something different, and not a rehash of Frog, Tangled or any of the other fairy tales. Well at least I hope it won’t be, but knowing Lasseter and the crew, it should not be.

Big Hero 6 is obviously way out of Disney’s “comfort zone”, which makes it all the more exciting. I’m really anticipating this for several reasons, since it will be a stab at the action film genre and get an even wider audience for Disney animation and rival Pixar and DreamWorks.

After that, we get the untitled Ron Clements and John Musker project, which is confirmed to be a hand-drawn film that might be done in the same style as John Kahrs' short film, Paperman. I’ve raved about that before, and from the stills we’ve gotten over the months, it’s already the signal to the next frontier in animation. There are also rumors floating around about a third Fantasia film, and there are numerous possibilities there. Tons of scrapped projects are laying around too, from King of the Elves to My Peoples to Fraidy Cat to Don Quixote to Antonius.

All of this happening right now is why I believe we are already going through the next Renaissance. Frog and Tangled already tried new things in some way or another while being good films, Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6 and the untitled Ron & John film should do the same... As long as they are very good films. Then you have the short films, which are also quietly fueling the Renaissance. How To Hook Up Your Home Theater was a return to the short film format for Disney, and hand-drawn animation. Safer shorts were training vehicles for younger animators, like the successful Prep & Landing shorts and Tangled Ever After. Two shorts remain out of reach, Glago's Guest and Tick Tock Tale, but at least we are getting Paperman before Wreck-It Ralph this autumn.

After that, one can only imagine what we’re going to get. If Disney’s upcoming slate is already loaded, there are so many possibilities on the horizon. Films that can keep the Renaissance going, longer than the first one and perhaps an extremely long time. Walt Disney Animation Studios is bursting like fireworks now since they are free from the clutches that held them back, with Bolt, The Princess and the Frog and Tangled behind them. Fulfilling Uncle Walt’s dreams? It’s going to happen...

Moving Forward (Part 2)

In the first part of "Moving Forward", I took a look at two Disney animated features that marked the beginnings of the comeback of one of the greatest American animation studios of all time after years of disappointing audiences and critics alike. Those two films were Meet The Robinsons and Bolt, which I reviewed while also taking a look at how they performed and what the outcome was for both of them.

Here, I take a look at Disney's The Princess and the Frog, the successor to these two films and the studio's return to hand-drawn animation, a medium they ditched six years prior to its release.

~

The Princess and the Frog

Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker

Written by Ron Clements, John Musker and Rob Edwards

Produced by Peter Del Vecho

Released on December 11, 2009

With the changes made at Disney in 2006, hand-drawn animation was going to make an immediate comeback amidst the glut of computer animated films. Fox’s The Simpsons Movie and Disney’s own Enchanted were the first stabs, along with the Goofy short film How to Hook Up Your Home Theater. The Princess and the Frog marked Disney’s full return to hand-drawn animation, and the animated musical format, which they hadn’t done since Home on the Range.

At first glance, The Princess and the Frog (terrible title, should've stayed as The Frog Prince) seems like an attempt to recreate the much-lauded Disney Renaissance. It has a love story, a big bad villain and big production numbers. It actually isn’t, it’s just an attempt to make a good, heartfelt musical in the vein of classic Disney musicals, from any decade of Disney's history. The Princess and the Frog does not go for some epic plot like most of the Renaissance films do. In fact, it’s a simplistic plot that’s very character-driven. Tiana (voiced by Anika Noni Rose) and Prince Naveen (voiced by Bruno Campos) are both the polar opposites, who both learn about the most important things in life on their journey.

Tiana is the textbook example of a workaholic, chasing a seemingly impossible goal. She puts her job and hard work before everything, rejecting spending time with her friends or getting married and raising a family. Her mother Eudora (voiced by Oprah Winfrey) wants her to follow in her deceased father’s (voiced by Terrence Howard) footsteps. Tiana believes she is, by fulfilling his dream. A hardworking man he was, he still made time for his family, something Tiana fails to realize. At the same time, Prince Naveen is cut off by his family for being a lazy schmuck. His valet, the whiny Lawrence (voiced by Peter Bartlett), tries to ram that point home by telling him to either marry a rich woman or get a job. The Maldonian prince (fictional location) doesn’t seem to care, he just wants to live life.

Enter Dr. Facilier (voiced wonderfully by Keith David), a voodoo witchdoctor whom they make a deal with. He's not a big bad powerful villain like some of the Disney Renaissance villains (Jafar and Scar, anyone?), he already has some power, which proves to be his undoing. He has no relationship with the main characters, he's just a con man. He's a threat because of Naveen and Lawrence, he's not a threat from the get-go. A recreation of the Renaissance films? Think again. Facilier grants them a better future, but it ultimately backfires on Prince Naveen. He’s turned into a frog, whereas Lawrence is magically transformed to take on the appearance of the prince, as long as the prince’s blood isn’t used up in the voodoo charm. Tiana meets the frog prince on a balcony during a masquerade ball. The prince tells her that a kiss will undo everything, but it only turns Tiana into a frog. The two find themselves lost in the Louisiana bayou, as the second act goes into full throttle. The two embark on a quest down the bayou to get to a voodoo lady named Mama Odie (voiced by an outrageous Jenifer Lewis) with the help of Louis (voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley), a jazz enthusiast alligator and Raymond, a Cajun firefly (voiced by voice actor veteran Jim Cummings).

At first, these two come off as the typical Disney sidekick characters. The ones that are there to provide comic relief. There’s nothing with this, but Disney had so many annoying sidekicks in the 1990s that popped up in serious moments to lighten the load for children that weren't really necessary. In this film, they aren’t. They’re important to the story, which does get a bit muddled towards the end when the gang meet Mama Odie. Despite some messy odds and ends, the third act climax solves this all without haste. Everything locks together perfectly. Supporting this colorful story are a screenplay that never panders or pulls any punches and musical numbers that ooze with confidence. Randy Newman's New Orleans jazz-infused songs soar, and his score captures the setting of the film quite wonderfully. You can feel the energy that went into this film, it’s quite exciting to experience.

Take “Down in New Orleans” for example, it’s fast and directed with such verve, it pulls you right into the story. Dr. Facilier’s surreal production number, “Friends on the Other Side”, is reminiscent of the outright madness of “Pink Elephants on Parade” from Dumbo mixed with a psychedelic voodoo nightmare. Tiana’s dream song, “Almost There”, is set to a beautiful Art Deco style scene. The animation style shifts, much like it did for the “Barking at the Moon” montage sequences in Bolt.

The other songs are satisfying, though some are better than others. The thumping zydeco tune “Gonna Take You There” (sung by Ray) is a bit flimsy, but Mama Odie’s “Dig a Little Deeper” is bombastic and exciting. “When We’re Human” is like “I Wan’na Be Like You” from The Jungle Book in the Louisiana bayou, it’s a lot of fun. Ray’s love song to a star, “Ma Belle Evangeline”, serves as a love ballad for Tiana and Naveen, much like “Kiss The Girl” and “Tale as Old as Time”.

While moving the story forward with songs that define the characters and situations (not production numbers for the sake of having them), the writers tried incredibly to balance a lot of subplots here, especially the ones concerning Dr. Facilier, Lawrence and Charlotte (Lottie), a wild and obnoxious debutante who is close friends with Tiana (voiced by a hyperactive Jennifer Cody). This is why the story does get a bit inconsistent towards the end of the film, but everything is wrapped up nicely.

The Princess and the Frog’s only other problems are some of the similarities to the older Disney films, but it never feels like they are trying to revive the same old hat tricks. Instead, they’re breathing new life into these Disney traditions. Also, the film does have some unnecessary slapstick, mainly a very cartoony scene involving three swamp hunters, which starts out funny but turns sour when the violence emulates a Warner Bros. cartoon. Slapstick is fine in animation, but when it really goes against the realism of a film, it's a problem.

Best of all is the animation, combining the vivid beauty of films like Bambi and the Golden Age films with the softer style of the 1950s Disney films like Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp, while also having the style change (“Almost There”) and adding other surprises along the way, such as flashes of Tim Burton (particularly with the scenes with the friends on the other side), Richard Williams ("the cards... The caaaards!") and others. The bayous look lovely, much like the forests in Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The design of New Orleans itself is pretty to look at, as said before, it has a Lady and the Tramp feel given the turn of the century setting.

The character animation shines, always vibrant and energetic. When it comes to hand-drawn films from Disney, always expect the character designs to be great. The characters move swiftly, and they all have unique designs. Tiana and Naveen may draw similarities to other Disney couples, but then you got Dr. Facilier whose sleek design suggests his snake-like nature. His shadow is creepy, resembling something out of a Tim Burton film or The Haunted Mansion. Lawrence comes off like Cogsworth, but his design is actually rather sinister. Lottie's design is off the wall, going along with her crazy character. Mama Odie's design is hilarious. The frog versions of the two protagonists are fine, but a bit lacking. Louis and Ray? Great designs, especially Ray. You can tell the animators had a field day here.

The Princess and the Frog feels like the studio has gotten their confidence back after years of executive interference. Directors Ron Clements and John Musker essentially delivered the classic Disney musical (after all, they directed Disney's The Little Mermaid, which felt more like a genuine Disney film than the few that came before it) with traces of the other Disney films from every era, but with fresh new twists. It’s a real treat.
A-

~

The Second Coming of Disney?

The Princess and the Frog was chosen for the studio's first hand-drawn film since Home on the Range, most likely because Disney hadn't adapted a classic fairy tale for years. It was announced that this would be the return to hand-drawn animation as far back as July 2006, when projects like American Dog and a Rapunzel adaptation were still in the works. Of course, these two projects would become Bolt and Tangled. When early concept artwork was shown sometime around early 2007 (with the title The Frog Princess), it got criticism from all across the board, directed at the character designs, the setting and the title itself. Changes were made, but the writers kept the idea of having the film be about an African-American princess and it being set in New Orleans (being John Lasseter's favorite city). Originally, Alan Menken was going to write the songs, but the job was given to Randy Newman instead. Disney legends Ron Clements and John Musker (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin) were to direct the film, with Peter del Vecho as producer.

The first trailers began popping up in 2008, but the marketing kicked into full gear a year later. It's too bad that the film's trailers and TV spots didn't sell the movie as an event (I didn't want to see it back when it came out, the ads made the film look lame). Despite the fanfare, positive critical reception and its wonderful performance at the two theaters in both Los Angeles and New York respectively (on Thanksgiving weekend), it took in a disappointing $24 million on its opening weekend. Disney apparently felt that releasing the film a week before competition like Avatar and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel was a good idea. So, with it disappointing, what happened after that?

People liked the film, despite families being suckered in by the dreadful Alvin and the Chipmunks sequel, they went to see it as the holiday season ended. It crept up to $104 million domestically, not bad for a film that opened so low. It grossed less than Bolt though, and worldwide, it only took in $267 million, against a $105 million production budget. The executives blamed everything on the film having "princess" in the title. However, Disney was at least happy with how it did in the long run (add huge merchandising sales to that). Production on a hand-drawn animated film every two years was a go, rather than being every year. Soon after, a hand-drawn Winnie the Pooh film was announced for 2011.

The Princess and the Frog did well on Blu-ray and DVD, deservedly, as it found new audiences. Like Bolt and Meet The Robinsons, it's one that people are going to discover over the years.

So that wraps up Part 2. It was originally going to include Tangled and Winnie the Pooh, but those were saved for Part 3. The Princess and the Frog's qualities and the fact that it was the big return to hand-drawn animation (not financially, of course) for Disney called for its own part.