Prizefight: Dreamworks Vs Disney

This may seem like a done deal, however it is actually much closer than i would like to admit. I have not been the biggest fan of Dreamworks over the years, and their history is much shorter than Disneys, so for fairness i will only be counting films released since 2000, as in this time they have made similar types of films, and they have both had a similar creative output quantitatively, and they both have had successes and failures in this period. I will compare these studios based on their critical success, the franchises they have set up and their box office returns, in addition to looking at the number of true 'hits' they have had in this time.

Critically it is not as clear cut as it would seem. Dreamworks started out the century well, releasing two critically acclaimed films in succession, then they stumbled a little, recovering with Shrek 2. After this they stumbled some more, finally releasing Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda in 2006 and 2008 respectively, both of which were mild critical hits. Dreamworks would wait until 2010 for their next hit with How To Train Your Dragon, finally releasing it's next critically acclaimed film 4 years later, a sequel to Dragon. Although Dreamworks have had their critical successes, they lack consistency, their films are too erratic.

Disney manages to be more consistent, though they started the millenium fairly well releasing Fantasia 2000 and The Emperors New Groove, both of which were fairly well recieved, however they soon fell into a slump that they would take the rest of the decade trying to claw themselves out of. They would not have another hit until 2009's The Princess and The Frog, which would launch an era known as the Disney revival, a string of five critically acclaimed films that continues to this day, rising to a zenith with Frozen, which was proclaimed to be the greatest Disney musical since Beauty and the Beast.

Dreamworks has had significantly more success than Disney in creating franchises. Dreamworks has successfully launched the Shrek, Madagascar, Dragons and Kung Fu Panda franchises. Disney, on the other hand has struggled, their franchises have mainly continued through direct to DVD releases, merchandise, television series', attractions in the parks and stage productions. Disney have only released two sequels theatrically, during their whole 80 year history. However despite their merchandise sales and DVD's making the executives in Cinderellas castle very rich, this is a cinematic comparison, and on that level Dreamworks is clearly superior.

In recent years, Dreamworks have stumbled at producing consistent hits. They have released two films a year for the last three years, and in each one of these years, one of the films was a success while the other was a failure. Only one Dreamworks film has ever grossed over $800 million, and while films within their Shrek, Madagascar and Dragons franchises regularly gross well over $500 million, their only original commercial success outside of these franchises is The Croods. Disney, howere is considerably more successful, while their films, mostly being originals, don't always gross as much as Dreamworks films do, they are relatively consistent, and despite the failure of Winnie the Pooh (which was critically acclaimed), they haven't had a commercial disappointment since 2006's Meet the Robinsons.

Disney have produced considerably more 'hits' than Dreamworks have, the first example is Frozen. The highest grossing animated film of all time, a huge critical success, and has been credited with breathing life back into Disney animation. Tangled was also a huge commercial hit, as was Lilo and Stitch. Outside of their previously mentioned franchises, Dreamworks have had few hits. The last true 'hit' they produced that wasn't a sequel or spin off was Over The Hedge, released in 2006. So despite Disney having less franchises, they don't rely on franchises and sequels for commercial or critical success.

This prizefight is a great deal closer than i expected it to be, i knew that it would be close, however despite Dreamworks' films being less acclaimed than Disneys, they are far better at establishing franchises from a commercial standpoint, and they have produced quite a few franchises over the years. Their struggles come from creating original films outside of these films and in setting up new franchises, Dreamworks latest franchise was Dragons, which launched in 2010. Since then their only real original hit was The Croods, which was met with mixed review and was a reasonable commercial success. Disney have shown themselves to be much more consistent, whilst their transition to digital filmmaking was laboured and difficult, they nonetheless have had a recent string of critical and commercial successes, cementing their place as the best animation studio making films today.

PIXAR: The Recession

The title may seem a little sensationalist, but i promise you that this blog is not about to turn into a tabloid, i make an attempt to steer clear of gossip on this site, however it is no surprise to anyone that Pixar is a little stuck at the moment, they haven't released a film this year, only the second year since their inception that they haven't released a film.

Pixar was supposed to release a film in 2014, The Good Dinosaur, however this film was pushed back to the end of next year, after Inside out will have been released, next summer. The film has been completely restructured, and its director has been replaced. For a while Pixar looked unsinkable, they had a string of critical successes which broke abruptly with the release of Cars 2. It was a very abrupt turning point for the company, and while box office returns are still up, they haven't had an acclaimed critical hit since 2010's Toy Story 3.

In this time they have also released a prequel and a sequel, the first franchises for the company outside of the Toy Story series. The first sequel was Cars 2, a sequel to the 2006 film. The film was badly received, almost gleefully so, and ended the studios streak of critical successes. Cars itself was not a particularly well reviewed film, while it wasn't reviewed as badly as Cars 2, nonetheless it was seen to be one of the inferior Pixar films, and the move to make a sequel and to turn it into a franchise was generally seen as one influenced by the copious amounts of merchandise the film sold, which generated over a billion dollars in it's first year.

The second film, which they released a prequel to was Monsters Inc, again, whilst Monsters Inc is a charming film, it's not their greatest film, and it doesn't have the best sequel potential, and while making a sequel to Cars seemed like a good move from a financial point of view, Monsters University was a perplexing choice both commercially and financially. The film didn't generate a huge amount of interest when the first was released in 2001, and the prequel slightly underperformed at the box-office. In choosing these films to mold franchises around, Pixar made bad choices critically, neither of these films were Pixar's best, and specifically Monsters Inc didn't have a huge amount of franchise potential.

The first film that one would think of producing a sequel to would be The Incredibles, the film is a light parody of superhero films and comic book adaptations, this type of storytelling is episodic by nature, and many Hollywood franchises are now based around superheros. This film was perfect for a franchise, and disney finally announced a sequel to this film, which, in my opinion, is long overdue. The other sequel which has been announced is Finding Dory, a sequel to Finding Nemo. While Finding Nemo doesn't appear to have a huge amount of franchise potential, and while the film seems to wrap itself up pretty neatly at the end of Finding Nemo, the films breakout character was Dory, the forgetful fish played by Ellen DeGeneres, and the director has made the smart choice to base the next film around her.

This is a good choice from a narrative standpoint and commercially, the character of Dory was by far the most interesting and funny part of the original film, and it makes sense to base the film around her, it also takes into account the bankability of Ellen DeGeneres, since 2003 Ellen has become a huge star, and although her ability to become bankable at the box office has never really become tested, she has a huge fanbase, is popular with families and her talk show is the most successful daytime show in the US. The future seems brighter for Pixar, despite the impending release of Cars 3, with three original films being released, Inside Out, The Good Dinosaur and Dia De Los Muertos (based around the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico), and the release of two promising sequels, Pixar looks to be back on the right track, at least for now.

Five Favourite Pixar Films

I love Pixar, as do many others, and this should be a fairly easy list to compile, despite Pixar having produced only 14 films, they are mostly excellent, and even if they haven't produced a really good film since 2010's Toy Story 3, up to that point all their films were excellent, and there is a wide variety of films to choose from, in addition to their narrative successes, Pixar's films are also visually stunning, use a subtle blend of photo-realism and quirky distinctive character animation.

• The Incredibles

Pixars first film featuring entirely humanoid characters, The Incredibles  are a group of superheroes, who attempt to live covert, undercover lives, hiding their powers. The Incredibles is a fantastic example of why animation is so important, as this film could just as easily be a live action film, the film walks a fine line between a parody and an homage to superhero films and comic book adaptations, the fact that it is an animated film makes that all the more clear, and gives it a fun twist. The Incredibles features some of the most well rounded and imaginative Pixar characters ever, creative and subtle, these characters have sets of well defined powers, and are an almost iconic crime fighting group.

• WALL-E

The opening hour of this film is a testament to the beauty of Pixar's character animation, despite being anthropomorphic, the characters do not communicate with human voices, but instead with gestures, subtle facial changes and sounds. The two characters of the film, despite not being able to speak, are really well rounded and subtle, and despite not containing any speech during its first hour, it is gripping and subtle, and it is the best silent film work since the thirties. The rest of the film is a testament to our future if we do not change our ways, a future where we are fat, emotionless, and when we will have to leave earth because of our reliance on consumerism and commercialism. WALL-E is beautiful, poetic and nostalgic.

• Up

The first Pixar film to be nominated for best picture at the oscars and only the second animated film ever to be nominated. Up is a film about life, a film about never giving up on life, and never stopping the adventure of life, beautifully animated and heartwarming, the opening sequence alone, showing Carl and  Ellie falling in love and growing up makes it worthy for this list, the film is winsome, fun and emotional, visually beautiful and thrilling, Up is truly a classic film.

• Finding Nemo

Setting an animated film entirely underwater is tough, Disney have done it only once with The Little Mermaid, and particularly doing it in a photorealistic way is virtually impossible. With Finding Nemo, Pixar succeeded with this whimsical treasure, a visual delight featuring a fully realized underwater world, of colourful creative characters. This film also features some fine voice work, Albert Brooks plays Marlin, Nemo's father, and Ellen DeGeneres plays Dory, a regal blue tang with short term memory loss, her performance is hilarious and distinctive, and was partially improvised. Finding Nemo features a stunning, expansive ocean as a backdrop for its complex subtle characters.

• Ratatouille

In my mind this is the best Pixar film, and one of the best films of all time, food is incredibly difficult to animate, and to make it look appetizing, and rats are hard to make look cute, however amazingly this film successfully does both, the film is a foodie's delight, featuring inventive and elegant dishes, and the fact that the two main characters never speak to each other, yet have an intimate connection is impressive. Ratatouille is an odd children's film, from the outside it seems difficult to market or merchandise, as neither rats nor food are particularly appealing to children, however the film succeeds despite all these obstacles, and Ratatouille is witty and charming.

Adapting Wonderland

I will start today's post, like so many, with a story, the other night i decided to watch Tim Burton's 2010 adaptation of Alice In Wonderland, a happy accident lead to me actually watching the Walt Disney 1951 animated classic. I had seen the animated film before, but not for some years, and in re-watching the movie, i discovered it to be an interesting an beautiful picture if not a particularly watchable one, i watched the Tim Burton version the following day, and found it to be again a beautiful picture but nonetheless a flawed one.

Disney adapted Alice in Wonderland first in 1923 as a 21 year old student, however the film, which was part live action was never released to the public, and after the success of Snow White in 1938 he decided to make the film, Disney made several attempts to streamline the story and convert Carroll's nonsense literature into something less episodic and more suitable for film, however with limited success, as the movie still feels highly disjointed. Tim Burton's Alice is far more successful, however i use the word more with caution, as the story still has problems, despite being far more effectively streamlined, the story still lacks an emotional connection, and we never really get to know Alice Kingsley as a person, despite her being given a slightly more fleshed out back story than in the original film. The plot of the film is more successful, Burton creates a trajectory and a story arc for Alice that is lacking in the original version, unfortunately the plot, although successful uses a plot device about a character embracing their destiny which at this point is incredibly overused.

Visually both films are stunning, the 1951 film was designed mainly by Mary Blair, who would subsequently become renowned for her work on the theme park ride Its A Small World, the film is a visually delightful psychedelic adventure, no doubt slightly LSD inspired, however the imagery in this version remains reasonably light, the 2010 adaptation is another story. Tim Burton's film, is, to put is simply, a Tim Burton film. The film is visually quite dark, and the world of wonderland was created entirely on a green screen. This was not entirely de rigeur at the time like it is now, and Alice In Wonderland was really only the second film after Sky Captain to use this technique.

Extensive green-screen usage is seen to be incredibly easy, but it is actually incredibly difficult and can be jarring if not used properly, Oz the Great And Powerful used a similar effect for the Brick Road sequences, and with no reference point between the actors and their environments, and no interaction, everything looks out of perspective, and the actors look oddly small, this effect is absent from Alice, and this is partly due to Burton successfully blending the actors with their environments, some characters are entirely CGI, some are a blend of CGI and live action, some are live action that has been modified using CG, such as the Red Queen's head and Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The film is a seamless blend, and although being visually spectacular, the effect was never jarring.

Both films were hugely influential, the 1951 film which rode on the wave of fairy tale adaptations started by Snow White, and it later convinced Disney to search for the rights to other literary works such as Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh and Mary Poppins. The 2010 film was responsible for the recent wave of fairy tale live action adaptations which include the recently released Malecifent and Oz, The Great and Powerful. The film was also responsible for studios taking fairy tale heroines and making them warriors in armour with a sword, a trend which is rarely well achieved. However both of these films remain visually delighting adventures.

Saving Mr Banks

Saving Mr Banks is a 2013 adaptation of the making of the film Mary Poppins, and of the 20 year legal battle that preceded it. Mary Poppins was released in 1964, however Walt Disney first attempted to secure the rights in the 1940's, he repeatedly asked every year for twenty years, until the author of the story PL Travers finally acquiesced, mainly due to the fact that she had no money. Disney brought Travers to Los Angeles for a two week story meeting in order to discuss the project, and ended up attaining the rights and making the movie.

Mary Poppins is one of my favorite movies, and i was intrigued to see this film, to discover the story behind one of the most iconic movie musicals of the century, i had absolutely no idea that it was such a laborious and torturous process, Travers was fiercly protective of her creation, and didn't like the idea of Walt Disney changing it, in fact she was so enraged by the finished film that she refused all ideas of a sequel, and in fact started to write more Mary Poppins novels as a result. The fact that the film was released by Walt Disney Pictures is also significant, this is the first time that Walt Disney himself has been used as a character in a major motion picture, and yet the film makes no attempt to sugar coat him or objectify him, he is shown to be a smoker, to be overly familiar and to be conniving. Towards the end of the film Disney is openly shown to have crossed Travers, and he is not always shown in a highly positive light.

That said, the entire film is coated with a sickly sweet sap of melodrama, in reality Travers never came round to the film and was angry with the way she had been treated by Disney, the entire film is aggressively sentimental, and implores you to like it, but it pays off, there is a real emotional weight to the film, and i found myself getting teary eyed on more than a few occasions, the entire film has a parallel storyline structure, with Travers' experiences in Burbank mimicking her experiences as a child with her alcoholic father, although this structure allows us to connect emotionally to Travers, the parts which take place in her childhood are significantly less interesting than those taking place in Los Angeles, and the flashback's seem to take the audience out of the moment.

The film is impeccably acted, Emma Thompson gives an Oscar worthy performance as the grouchy, moody muttering Travers, a woman who is deeply complex and barely human, Thompson turns Travers into a complex and difficult woman, a woman scarred from her experiences as a child and who is not hard-hearted, but merely protective of her beloved creation. Tom Hanks is also fantastic as Walt Disney, Hanks has some pretty big shoes to step into, playing such a well known, well liked and iconic man, yet Hanks manages to perfectly portray the man as clearly good-natured and likeable, but also cunning and conniving.

Despite being aggressively good hearted and sentimental, Saving Mr Banks is a story with real emotional weight, which could push even the most emotionally constipated person to tears, the film is an interesting exploration of a little known story, and despite it's jettisoning of the facts for something more dramatic, Saving Mr Banks succeeds of impeccable performances and an interesting plot. Rating: B

P.L. Travers: You think Mary Poppins is saving the children, Mr. Disney?

STAR WARS: REBELS

Last week the internet almost imploded with the news of the release of the cast of the upcoming episode 7, and the list pleased me somewhat, the stars of the original trilogy are all returning, which seems like auspicious news. Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac, two of my favorite current actors, have also joined the cast. Also joining the ensemble is Andy Serkis, an actor mostly known for playing CGI characters such as Gollum , King Kong and Captain Haddock. Serkis' presence in the cast suggests that he will perhaps be playing a CGI, motion capture character, which is incredibly de rigueur right now. Also returning are C-3PO and R2D2, in addition to Chewbacca, all of whom are fan favorites.

However, this post is not specifically about Episode VII, but about the recently announced animated television series, airing on Disney XD in the autumn of 2014. Since reaching an licensing agreement with LucasFilm, and especially now since acquiring the company for 4.05 billion in 2011, Disney has developed a number of animated series based around the star wars characters and universe. During the 1990's these were developed by LucasFilm in conjunction with ABC or Cartoon Network, however since 2008's The Clone Wars, they have aired exclusively on Disney owned channels. Early series had limited success, and The Clone Wars, despite running for six seasons could only be described as a partial success. A few early episodes were bundled together as a feature film and released to cinemas, a move which rarely works and concurrently the film was panned by critics. The latest season was aired on Netflix instead of on cable, and will be the end of the series.

Although i try to keep television posts on Popcorn@Movies to a minimum, and i would normally never dream of writing about an animated television series, the trailer, recently released for Star Wars Rebels succeeded in piquing my attention. The trailer, which lasts all of  15 seconds (and which can be found HERE) features some pretty stunning animation. The series looks almost photo-realistic, with the exception of the human characters, who are animated in an asian inspired manga style. It seems that the merger with Disney has been good news for LucasFilm's animation department, as the quality of animation looks to be extremely high, particularly for a television budget.

I am oddly excited for this series, whilst i would previously never really care about a series airing on Disney XD, this looks to be a well produced, exciting and fun animated series, wit unusually high production values. As the first real product of the merger between Disney and LucasFilm, it looks to be an auspicious start, and should give Star Wars fans high hopes for the upcoming Episode VII.

Anita Daaahhling!

Well, please excuse the unfortunately low concentration of posts on this website for the past few weeks, i've been busy! The Disney animated canon features a fantastic range of villains, and with the release of Maleficent impending, disney have announced the development of Cruella, a live action adaptation featuring Cruella De Vil. In this post i will be listing some of my favorite villains, why they too deserve a live action adaptation. Disney live action films have been troubled for the last few years, with The Lone Ranger and John Carter standing out as monumental failures, so disney turned to adaptations, adapting some of their most beloved animated classics to celluloid, such as Cinderella and Alice In Wonderland.

MALEFICENT: A film adaptation is already in post production, and Angelina Jolie seems perfect to play the iconic role. Maleficent truly embodies what it means to be a disney villain, she is driven, focused, iconic and menacing. Voiced by Eleanor Audley in the 1959 film she remains one of Disney's most visually inspired and daring characters. With pallid green skin and a long thin neck, like many disney villains she carries a staff and has a bird on her shoulder. The only thing that would make this character better would be if she breathed fire...oh wait.

CRUELLA DE VIL: Here is one of my favorites, a film adaptation is in development, with Glenn Close set to produce but not star in the film, as far as casting goes i personally would love to see Emma Thompson in the title role, she is a great actress and has the guts to committ to such a heavyweight role. Cruella DeVil is a fabulous villain, she has a great dress sense, and of course, like all iconic villains, a great catchphrase, she's also british which only sweetens the pot, and has a pretty awesome car. Giving Cruella a live action adaptation allows us to see further into her history and background, and gives us the opportunity to see some pretty great costumes
HADES: There is nothing actively in development for this character, but there should be, Hades is not only menacing and iconic, but also highly funny. Whats really stopping this character from coming to the big screen is the visuals, a grey man with a flaming head might not work on screen, but we'll see.

JAFAR: Here is a really underrated disney villain, visually iconic, and with an animal sidekick on his shoulder, Jafar uses a wry wit and sardonic humor that make him highly entertaining. He also manages to be physically menacing, like many disney villains he's tall and thin, and he holds a staff shaped like a snake, he even turns into a giant viper at one point and traps Jasmine in a giant hourglass. We know almost nothing about Jafar's backstory, and an adaptation would allow us to get to know him a little better.

CLAUDE FROLLO: Here is one of the only characters who actually makes any kind of political statement, the character of Frollo, whilst not explictly a judge, dresses rather like a priest, is based on a character who is an archdeacon and who seems to spend rather a long time at the cathedral. Frollo sees himself as effectively above the law, Frollo is a critique of religion and the role it plays in society, the way it makes us fear strangers and outcasts. Frollo is a truly compelling character and an adaptation of this character would really help us to understand his motives and his past.

Will The Next Walt Disney Please Stand Up?

I was re-watching “Waking Sleeping Beauty” the other day, the 2009 documentary about the Disney renaissance, and heard Peter Schneider proclaim: ‘ever since Walt’s death, the country has demanded “who is the next Walt Disney, the country demands a central charismatic figure”’ The answer is a bit of an enigma really, for despite their being plenty of candidates, there is really no one who embodies completely what Walt represented, but the good news is that there are plenty of plausible men who embody, at least part of what Walt Disney stood for.

Walt Disney

Michael Eisner seems like a good place to start, seeing as he was chairman of the company, like Walt was, and was CEO during Peter Schneider’s tenure, Eisner, despite being a fantastic businessman, isn’t the visionary that Walt Disney was. During the nineties the Walt Disney Company experienced a period of unprecedented growth, animation experienced a renaissance, theme parks were built in Tokyo, Paris, Florida and California, and Disney acquired ESPN and ABC. Eisner transformed the company from a film studio making movies for children into a multi-national corporation selling movies, music, merchandise and amusement parks, Eisner coined the Disney Decade, ten years of unprecedented growth for the company. Eisner is often unfairly criticized for the way he ran the company by fans, however I feel we need to start recognizing his achievements, without Michael Eisner having helmed the company for 15 years the Walt Disney company wouldn’t be what it is today. Despite Eisner making a huge success of the company, and the animation department especially, Eisner wasn’t the visionary that Walt Disney was, he’s a businessman, always watching the purse strings, and never attempting the unreachable, in this sense he is the opposite of what Walt was, for Walt often made financial gambles, most of which fortunately paid off. So Eisner, despite being fantastic for the Walt Disney Company and a charismatic leader, isn’t the visionary risk taker that Walt Disney was, and thus is simply not “the next Walt Disney”.

Michael Eisner

The other possible candidate, from the same era is Jeffrey Katzenberg, despite Katzenberg being very out-front on the films of the renaissance era, just isn’t a visionary. While yes, the animation department at Disney was very successful during his tenure there, it is debatable how much if this is due to him, Jeffrey Katzenberg subsequently left Disney, and is now running Dreamworks, helping to turn that animation studio into a true financial success. Despite Dreamworks Animation Studio being a success financially, they have yet to produce a real critical, and few of their films have endured the test of time. Only Shrek, which won the first Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and which was subsequently ruined by its numerous disappointing sequels, showed any promise, and it was downhill from there. Dreamworks mostly produces films that are okay, without being original or intelligent, and without having any kind of beauty. What separates Walt Disney from Jeffrey Katzenberg is that Disney took huge risks, and made films that might not have huge commercial potential, if they were great art. The most obvious example of this is Fantasia which was a commercial failure, but a huge critical success, and which has gone on to be one of the most beloved Disney films. Fantasia is the kind of film which would never have been green-lit under Jeffrey Katzenberg, as it was too much of a gamble, Dreamworks have never made an experimental animated movie, and is highly reliant on sequels to bring in the money. The one way in which Jeffrey Katzenberg is highly similar to Walt Disney is in behavior and showmanship, like Walt Disney, Jeffrey Katzenberg was incredibly strong in promoting Disney movies (and himself), and eh was often found to be taking credit for the most successful Disney films, even claiming to have come up with the idea for The Lion King (only after the movie was successful of course, before the films release he told all the animators that the most successful film of that period would be Pocahontas, which went on to be the renaissance’s only real flop). Overall despite being hugely charismatic and incredibly out-front, Jeffrey Katzenberg isn’t the risk taking, visionary artist that Walt Disney was.

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Current Disney CEO Robert Iger is a bit of a disappointment really, he’s a bean counter and a caretaker at best. The Disney company’s animation department is currently experiencing a revival, but it really isn’t due to Iger at all, it’s due to the people he hired and the acquisitions he made, Iger oversaw the buying of PIXAR, Marvel and Star Wars which despite costing the company each in excess of 7 billion dollars, paid off over time. But Iger, like Eisner, is a businessman, and like all businessmen, Iger refuses to take risks, and will only give if assured of a solid rate of return

Bob Iger

This is not a post without an answer, and I do have an idea, of who embodies Walt Disney the most completely. John Lasseter started, during the nineties, a small computer graphics firm which was then hired by Disney to produce CAPS, a system for coloring animated films using computer software which was subsequently used on the film “Rescuers Down Under”. The firm was called “PIXAR”. After Disney’s acquisition of PIXAR in 2007, John Lasseter was hired as the head of the animation department of The Walt Disney Studios, and is largely responsible for the revival Disney animation is experiencing. John Lasseter is nothing short of a genius, he transformed PIXAR from a small company to an animation powerhouse producing a string of unprecedented critical and commercial original hits, he then transformed Walt Disney animation. John Lasseter, despite not being the charismatic showman that Walt Disney was, transformed animation with the production of Toy Story. Lasseter took risks at PIXAR, and most of their films are original stories, similarly at Disney, Lasseter took risks, producing a mixture of hand drawn and computer animated films, most of which were critical and commercial successes. John Lasseter, despite not being the showman that Walt Disney was, is nonetheless the new messiah of animation, a man who seems to turn to gold all that he touches, and who has revitalized Disney animation a second time.

John Lasseter

I know that this post might seem like a bit of an indulgence, and I don’t pretend that any of this is anything other than opinion and waffle, but I honestly do believe that John Lasseter is the only person who can possibly carry on the flame left behind by Walt Disney, a true genius, who revolutionized the field of animation once again.

  

“All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them.” Walt Disney

FROZEN - A Review By Philip Josse

Frozen is a 2013 computer animated epic musical fantasy film produced and distributed by Walt Disney Studios. The film is a loose adaptation of The Snow Queen, a classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson. The concept has been in the pipeline since the 1940’s, and was even pondered by Walt Disney himself, before being dropped due to story problems. The film was directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, and is notable for being the first Disney film ever to be helmed by a woman (how is this possible?). The film features two sisters, one of whom has the power to create ice with her hands. This power frightens her, and she hides away from the whole world, including her sister.

Frozen uses largely the same format as Tangled, and indeed the film was only greenlit after the success of Tangled at the box office. The animation style is fairly comparable and the characters are animated in a near identical style. The film uses large epic vistas, and is the first Disney film to be made using ultra-widescreen since Sleeping Beauty, this enhances the animation and gives the film epic scope. The film is incredibly beautiful, and the animation is enhanced by 3D, giving the film a tactile painterly feel. The 3D is particularly well handled and the snowflakes really do seem to fall from the heavens, I am not the largest fan of 3D and I feel that it is often superfluous, however animated films of often work quite well in 3D, and frozen is no exception, and I was glad to have seen it in this format.

Frozen is also unique in its setting, in that it is the first Disney film to be set in Scandinavia, and the first to have a particularly continental feel. Let me elaborate, other Disney films, despite being nominally set in a certain country, have no real character and could be set anywhere. Tangled is nominally set in Germany, Beauty and the Beast and sleeping beauty in France. Frozen belongs to another group, like The Princess and the Frog and Aladdin, Frozen is grounded, and is set in a defined place, the wooden architecture with the steep gables and Fjords remind one of the ancient architecture of Norway, and covered in snow it is simply stunning. I feel that setting the film in a defined culture is highly beneficial to this film, as it differentiates it from other Disney films, and stops it becoming bland. The characters, though not designed with particularly Scandinavian features, are dressed is a style similar to that of traditional Scandinavian dress, with the patterns and silhouettes being slightly modernized. The costume design of the film is fantastic, with Anna’s coronation dress and Elsa’s ice dress being standouts. The clothes have a tactile quality, and they feel real, despite being animated.

The story differs somewhat from the original fairy tale, and like Tangled, it retains the setting, concept and some of the characters of the original story, but features a new plot. Frozen was canned multiple times since the 1940’s largely due to the plot, the filmmakers struggled to find a link between the Snow Queen and Anna, and struggled to find a way to connect the characters and explain The Queen’s cursing of Anna, in Frozen this issue is ironed out with the characters becoming sisters, and the Snow Queen being rewritten as a protagonist, this creates an important connection between the two women, and means that her action are out of fear rather than antagonism, and that in order to save Arendelle, Anna must melt the ice around her sisters heart and allow her to love again. The film is also notable in its depiction of love which differs from other Disney films, whereas love in other films being between a woman and her suitor, being able to conquer evil, in Frozen, the love between two sisters is shown as being the vanquishing force, and it is only after Elsa learns to love her sister that she can control her powers

The film features some pretty spectacular voice talent, Idina Menzel stars as Elsa and Kristen Bell as Anna. Jonathon Groff stars as Kristoff, a rugged mountain man and wanderer. The film is a musical in the style of traditional Disney musicals, and the songs are fantastic. The film uses new Disney collaborators Robert and Kristen Anderson Lopez as songwriters, and the music is lyrical, catchy and melodic. Overall despite the films setting, the music never strays far from traditional musical theatre, the only exception is the first song, a chorus with a fairly traditional feel and Nordic sound, and which is in some ways reminiscent of the dwarfs’ song in Snow White. The highlights of the film include Let it Go, an emotional powerhouse sung by Idina Menzel and a sure winner for the academy award for best original song, and Who Wants to Build a Snowman, a song accompanied by a montage showing the two sisters growing apart as they grow and change.

Frozen represents a huge return to form for Walt Disney Animation, and is currently the high point of the Disney Revival period, in my mind even topping Tangled, one of my favorite Disney films of all time. Epic beautiful animation, great music and fascinating complex characters make this film a modern, instant classic that will surely endure for years to come. Rating: A+

Elsa: The cold never bothered me anyway.

The Pixar Slump and The Disney Revival

It seems to me whils not waiting in line at the supermarket that Disney and PXAR are like a see saw, when one is up, the other is down. This of course is not a hard and fast rule, and there are exceptions, for instance PIXAR released their first film in 1995, when Disney was coasting through the ninties, high on the Disney Renaissance, nonetheless the film was critically acclaimed. PIXAR animators recently spoke about the alleged rivalry between the two studios, passing it off as being healthy and necessary.

The ninties represented the height of disney animation, during the early ninties disney paid PIXAR, then a struggling graphics studio 10 million dollars to co-produce a piece of software with them that would allow them to paint the films using a computer, and bypass the ink and paint stage, when a deal could not subsequently be reached between the two companies, Disney gave PIXAR millions of dollars to produce their first animated feature film, it was called Toy Story. The relationship between PIXAR and Disney subsequently evolved with Disney buying the company in 2006 for 7.4 billion dollars, even more than they paid for LucasFilm. Disney's string of commercial and critical successes ended in 2000 with the release of Fantasia 2000 and Dinosaur, the first films in a long slump for the disney studios commercial and creative output, culminating with disney shutting down it's hand drawn animation department.

For contrast the 2000's represented the roaring twenties for PIXAR, producing a long string of critical and commercial successes. It did seem for a while like PIXAR was unstoppable, after film after film did well at the box office, and with the critics. WALL E, Ratatouille and UP were a string of particularly acclaimed film, coming one after the other. During this period Disney animation was in a slump, the company had failed to make the jump between hand drawn and computer animation, and their films were lacking in the visual and story departments, the box office returns weren't great either.Disney struggled to make the gap between the two mediums, and these films were always lacking visually, the studio underwent some reshuffling after the release of The Lion King, with Jeffrey Katzenberg relocating to Dreamworks for co-found Dreamworks Animation, thus the films that were released during the early 2000's were really the first to be developed after the departure of Katzenberg, a similar effect can be seen now with PIXAR, as the PIXAR films being released now are the first developed since the purchase of PIXAR by Disney, which perhaps explains their problems.

The period in which we are now living is known as the Disney Revival, a series of films higher in quality than those released in the early 2000's. In contrast, PIXAR is suffering what can only be described as a slump, since Cars 2 none of their films have reached the heights of PIXAR's golden age, this can be explained by some reshuffling having taken place since the companys acquisition by Disney.

What is interesting about the alleged rivalry is that each division tries to outdo the other on their own soil, and yet PIXAR rarely comes out on top, in 2007 Disney released Meet The Robinsons, about a boy inventor who travels forward in time, despite not being a huge critical or commercial success, the film is one of my favorites. The movie does tend to encroach on some PIXAR territory, but they do really well with it, and the film is a fun and touching father-son story, in addition to being a sci-fi movie and a buddy comedy. In 2012 PIXAR released Brave, an original fairy tale about a mother daughter relationship that goes awry. Despite not being a Cars 2 style faliure, the film just doesn't match up to Disney fairy tale adaptations like Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid or Tangled, it pales in comparison, and although i have seen it one, i have absolutely no desire to watch it again, whereas i have seen tangled dozens of times, the PIXAR style of animation also doesn't translate well to fantasy stories, and the film doesn't have the painterly style of Tangled of the upcoming Frozen.

This is a tough post to write, as i truly do love PIXAR films, and i am hugely excited about their upcoming attractions, however the Disney Animation Studios is simply more versatile, and has a longer history, and they too have had their slumps, in fact from Sleeping Beauty to The Little Mermaid was one long slump. Overall these slumps are part of any studio, and this doesn't mean that PIXAR had 'had it' or that they're 'over', it simply means that their evolving into a full blown studio, and that this is a hugely exciting time to be a Disney animation fan, because when Disney nails it, they really nail it!

Waking Sleeping Beauty

Last night i had a bit of a surprise, i had always been fascinated by disney animation, and growing up during the disney renaissance, and living now through the disney revival, i was intrigued by Waking Sleeping Beauty, a documentary detailing the rebuilding of the animation department during the late 80's and early 90's. The film is produced by the Walt Disney Company itself, and yet provides an honest and unbiased insight into the period between the production of The Black Cauldron and The Lion King.

The film is notable for the fact that it uses no new filmed interviews, instead it uses new audio recordings and archive footage, most of it filmed guerrilla style without permission by employees of the animation department, as well as vintage recorded interviews and clips from various disney movies of the era. The film starts by detailing the state of the animation department at the height of its success, just before the release of the lion king, when the money was pouring in and animation had become a powerhouse again, the movie then details the era from 1984 up to this point, showing the rebuilding of the animation department.

The film, despite being released by Walt Disney Pictures, offers an unbiased and honest account of this period, the film openly depicts the infighting and tension of this period. The company was being restructured and Michael Eisner was brought in as chairman, and he brought in Jeffrey Katzenberg, his colleague from Dreamworks. He quickly ruffled feathers by personally editing The Black Cauldron, to make it more child friendly, and insisting that he wanted to win the 'Bank of America Award'. The artists were terrified they were going to be layed off, they were finally unceremoniously evicted from the inking and painting building on the disney lot, and forced to move into a delapidated warehouse in glendale, a big shock for the department who developped Cinderella and Peter Pan. From the ashes the animation department rose into flame and produced some of the best animated films of all time.

Overall i found the film to be surprisingly honest, the film despite being produced by the Walt Disney Company, doesn't sugar coat any of the events portrayed, and is honest about the sleepless nights, the long hours, the carpal tunnel and the overworking, and is refreshingly honest about the difficulties of working for the Walt Disney Company, including dealing with difficult bosses, including Roy E Disney, Walt's nephew.

Waking Sleeping Beauty is a surprisingly watchable film, and doesn't sink to the salacious depths of other Michael Moore style documentaries, and manages to be surprisingly balanced, not having a singular narrative voice, but many, the film, if one has to see a point of view, is essentially from the point of view of the artists, and tends to empathize with them rather than the management or the marketing department, interesting considering that disney is a mega-corporation known for marketing themselves as being like a family. Waking Sleeping Beauty is a surprisingly fascinating look into one of the most tumultuous and groundbreaking decades in the history of animation. Rating: A-