Archive | April, 2012

Post #11: Donald’s Crime

26 Apr

So I decided that while watching Disney movies is great, to truly get a sense of all things Disney, I need to look at some of their short films too.

As I talked about in my look at Disney eras, the mid 1940s to late 1950s were marked by many short films, due in part to many animators fighting overseas in World War II and part to financial troubles of the company. As we looked at in class, many of the short films in the early 1940s were war propaganda films.

Donald’s Crime was made in 1945 and is a parody on film noir, which was starting to gain popularity at the time after films such as The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Double Indemnity (1944).

The short follows Donald Duck who is preparing for his big date with Daisy, but realizes that he doesn’t have any money. This causes him to steal $1.25 from his nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie, but afterwards he feels terrible about it, and sees himself as a gangster on the run from the law.

The animation on this is real fun, particularly when Donald goes “on the run.” Seeing him in a prototypical gangster outfit and going through typical Donald Duck physical humor is just fun for me, being a fan of film noir and a huge Donald Duck fan.

This short is particularly entertaining for people who have watched classical film noir, because it does make fun of the typical conventions of the genre, again, in the scenes after Donald’s date with Daisy. For example, when Donald is trying to hideout on the roof and goes to the edge to look at another far off building and the narrator tells him “Jump! All gangsters have to do that.”

The short is significant in Disney lore for being nominated for Best Animated Feature in 1946 (it lost to Quiet Please, a classic Tom and Jerry short) as well as being the first time that we hear Daisy’s true voice. As for me, I enjoyed the short immensely, and it has one of my new favorite lines of all time, “I’m financially embarrassed.” Trust me, I’ll use that one at some point in the near future.

Below is the short, and if you have 8 minutes to spare somewhere, I’d give it a watch. It really is a classic.


Post #10: Chicken Little – Disney’s First Full Attempt at CGI

12 Apr

Trying to stay on top of my Disney history, I figured it was high time that I took a look at Chicken Little, Disney’s sometimes forgotten first foray into the world of exclusively CGI animation.

The story of a chicken who thinks that the sky is falling is a fun little movie, and honestly, I thought it was decently entertaining. The voice acting was really good, and really, the animation was fairly impressive, using all sorts of new technology for Disney animators to achieve a full length CGI feature. Clearly Disney animation had come a long way from the hand drawn cels of Snow White nearly 68 years prior.

One of the biggest knocks on the film, and the reason why it never really was considered a classic despite it’s strong performance at the box office was the weak storyline. Honestly, I can see where the critique comes in, and what frustrated me was that the movie had a lot of good elements going for it.

For one, I actually liked the character of Chicken Little and I was enjoying the dynamic between him and his father, who Chicken Little believes doesn’t believe in him. The story of Chicken Little trying to earn his Dad’s love is apparent, but not fully fleshed out, and that I thought was a miss on the part of the studio. I understand that the whole “sky is falling” storyline needed to take center stage, but I can’t help but feel that there was a way to look at both storylines while doing both due justice. There was also a quick and forced love angle between Chicken Little and his friend Abbey Mallard that I could of done without, but hey, that’s just me.

The other odd thing, though not necessarily a bad thing, was how modern the movie seemed. When’s the last time you saw cell phones in a Disney movie? It almost seemed out of place, with so many of Disney’s films taking place “Once upon a time.”

There was also an unusual amount of cultural references and one of the most unique soundtracks you will ever find on a Disney movie. This movie clearly showed that gone were the days of the Disney musical and the dramatic, original scores in favor of the more modern pop songs and covers sung by the characters. Instead of getting “Hakuna Matata” and “A Whole New World,” we were treated to renditions of “I Will Survive” and “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart.” Like I said, it wasn’t bad, so much as very different, and for my money, I’m still a fan of the original music. I don’t know, it just feels more like Disney that way.

This movie was extremely important for Disney, particularly in its relations with Pixar. With the Disney-Pixar deal expiring after 2006’s Cars, this movie helped decide who would have the leverage in negotiations between the two companies. If it did well, Disney could argue that they could do CGI just as well as Pixar. If it bombed, Pixar could argue that Disney needed them to produce quality CGI films.

Chicken Little‘s modest success led to the two sides agreeing that they were better off with each other than without, causing Disney’s huge acquisition of Pixar in late 2006.

Overall, Chicken Little is definitely an important film in the Disney canon for a host of reasons, and certainly has a different feel from any Disney movie that preceded it. I thought it was an enjoyable little movie that actually had me laughing here and there, but what did you think?


Post #9: An “Incredible” Triumph for Pixar

12 Apr

So the other day, I found myself watching The Incredibles from Pixar, and I gotta say, after watching it through, doing some research on it, and listening to Brad Bird, the director, I’m really very impressed, and for my money, The Incredibles may have been one of, if not the, most important films that has come out of Pixar.

Up until 2004, Pixar had been a juggernaut. Already with two popular and successful Toy Story movies as well as the wildly successful Finding Nemo, it truly began to feel like Pixar could not miss. A big fear for the chief creative officer at Pixar, John Lasseter, was that the animators and higher ups at Pixar would become complacent with this success.

Enter Brad Bird.

Basically, Bird had been trying to pitch his movie about a family of superheroes for a number of years, before finally, Pixar picked it up. The movie was going to be technically challenging, almost to the point of impossibility, which was what scared most animators and why I think it is so impressive. Through this point, Pixar had not really touched humans, aside from the occasional views of a glassy looking Andy in the Toy Story movies.

Due to this, new systems had to be created in order to achieve making a convincing looking human. Beyond that, there were over 90 different locations and effects ranging from wind weight, and water for animators to contend with.

All of that made for a visually stunning movie, and for my money, one of Pixar’s biggest triumphs. The movie did spectacular at the box office, and the drive to animate humans as well as go for a children’s movie with a complex storyline ended up paying major dividends down the road for Pixar.

The story of The Incredibles is actually really heavy. There’s aspects of how past decisions can affect the future, how people react to their midlife crisis, and even a subtle, albeit strong, look at trust issues within marriage. Pixar’s decision to not just pander to children and give an interesting and mature storyline helped make this movie accessible to all different age ranges, and opened the doors for future features to have emotionally driven mature storylines as well, particularly Up, which was universally acclaimed for its use of emotion.

Without Pixar refusing to rest on its laurels and just continue to make buddy films featuring bugs, toys, monsters, or whatever else they could find, they decided to go big for a technical and theatrical challenge, and it not only paid off in 2004, it is still paying off in 2012.

My Animation

10 Apr

Here is a link to my animation:

Post #8: The Accuracy of Disney Movies

3 Apr

One of the topics that became heavily debated in the comment section of my Hercules post was the historical accuracy of Disney movies. It seemed like a lot of people understood why the movies strayed from their source material so much, but there was also the argument against such wide deviations.

For me, I understand both sides of the arguments, yet I’m of the theory that the movies don’t have to be word for word to the original source material. We have to remember, these movies are still intended for a children’s audience, and a lot of the source material is rather dark, and not exactly kid friendly. 

These movies try to convey a simple moral for children, as opposed to the set of complex ideas and statements like full length novels that some movies are based off of try to convey. Even the Grimm Fairy Tales, which many of the Disney films are based off of, give a moral through dark means. These Disney movies try to convey those same messages, but do it in a much more bright, colorful, kid friendly way.

Even further than that, as I got older, the Disney movies prompted me to look up these stories and novels on my own, and read the originals and make my own assumptions on them. I never would have read The Fox and the Hound, for instance, but because I loved the movie so much, I looked up the book and read it. The same goes for a host of Grimm Fairy Tales, like Snow White and The Little Mermaid.

Now, the one movie that I have some issue with the blatant lack of reality is Pocahontas, and that’s only because these were real life people who’s story was changed. Even there, I understand why things were done as they were, but just the thought of blatantly changing history didn’t sit as well with me.

So overall, I am ok with Disney’s deviations from their source material, purely because the movies still convey the same morals and actually expose these great stories to a wider, younger audience. Of course, that’s just my opinion. What do you guys think?