'John Carter' trailer goes up!

Disney have now released a trailer for next year's sci-fi 'John Carter', directed by 'Wall-E' and 'Finding Nemo' helmer Andrew Stanton (in his first foray into feature-length live-action). This isn't quite as impactful as the much more enigmatic trailer I was shown in San Francisco last month - that one had much less dialogue and made more of a feature of the superb Peter Gabriel Arcade Fire cover - but it's still a good trailer that doesn't give too much away.

Personally, whilst I'm very excited at this point, I'm not yet sold on the two lead actors (Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins) though I remain open minded. But the sweep and imagination of the film is eye-catching indeed.

Check out my report on the production of the film when I had the good fortune of speaking to Andrew Stanton last month in his California studio.

A first look at 'John Carter' with Andrew Stanton

The whole of this Andrew Stanton article, obtained during last month's visit to Pixar, is up at What Culture.


You might not know it to look at him, but Andrew Stanton – co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios and the director of the beloved Wall-E and Finding Nemo – is a self-described member of a “secret society” for years operating “under the radar”. His co-screenwriter, the award-winning novelist Michael Chabon, is also a member. As are approximately “one in every twenty” people that he meets, including (apparently) the Governor of Utah. They are all obsessive fans of the “John Carter” novels, an obscured but apparently culturally significant series of books which have quietly been the inspiration for just about every major work of science-fiction and fantasy over the last hundred years, with an influence that can be seen in everything from Superman to Star Wars to Avatar, and which Stanton is now busily adapting into a major live-action feature film for Disney.

Written almost a century ago by Edgar Rice Burroughs, probably best known as the author of the Tarzan novels, the first John Carter book, A Princess of Mars, is the story of an American Confederate veteran named John Carter who finds himself improbably transported to the Red Planet where he becomes a great hero. It was a concept that enthralled 12 year-old future filmmaker Stanton when he encountered it, then courtesy of a 1977 adaptation from Marvel Comics, with its depiction of a brave hero battling strange alien creatures on an exotic planet. ”As a kid it pushed a lot of buttons in a primal way, especially for a boy,” recalls the director, who also enjoyed the hero’s turbulent romance with the titular princess: “I’ve always been a sucker for unrequited love, as I’m sure Wall-E shows.”
Read on...

'War Horse' and next year's awards season

The first trailer for Steven Spielberg's adaptation of Michael Morpurgo's award winning novel 'War Horse' (also a hit West End play) made its debut last week. I obviously haven't seen it yet and, to be honest, it looks like sentimental mush (co-written by Richard Curtis), but I fancy it's the year's first serious Oscar contender. Consider the facts: it marks the return of a prestigious (perhaps the most renowned living) director; it looks glossy and replete with period detail; and it's a war film - and don't forget that both of Spielberg's Best Director wins have been for war films ('Schindler's List' and 'Saving Private Ryan').

This logic is certainly reductive and open to criticism. After all, 'Empire of the Sun' didn't even garner the director a nomination. Yet I'm confident, however it turns out, 'War Horse' will at least be nominated for the major prizes next February. Part of the reason is that there is almost nothing else.

Seeing as it's still the summer of 2011 it may seem a little premature to start going on about the Oscars of 2012. Yet it struck me the other day that we've had something of a lightweight year so far in terms of potential Academy Award winners. There have been plenty of good films, but then again something like Golden Bear winning Iranian drama 'A Separation' (released in the UK today) is not likely to contend for Best Picture, being foreign language and having limited commercial appeal.



You know an Oscar film when you see one and we've arguably not had many of them yet in 2011. This might not be a surprise, after all many of the big hitters won't be released until the winter. For instance, this time last year 'The King's Speech' had not yet even played Toronto and 'The Social Network' was still just that "film about Facebook" everyone dismissed out of hand.

Yet this time last year, of the ten Best Picture nominees, 'Winter's Bone' and 'Toy Story 3' had already been released, whilst 'Inception' and 'The Kid's Are All Right' would be out within weeks.

I talked this over with some journalists last week and a few people mentioned 'Source Code' as this year's smart blockbuster breakthrough in the mould of 'District 9' or 'Inception'. But whilst that film was well received and did decent business, it grossed half as much as the former and around an eighth of the latter. Oscar movies have to do outstanding business. In this respect the awards are as much about industry as they are art. What exactly is this summer's huge critically acclaimed blockbuster? There isn't one.

As for the animated vote, Pixar's 'Cars 2' is currently generating middling scores from critics and I can't see the likes of 'Rio', 'Rango' or 'Kung Fu Panda 2' making an impact with voters. Especially as a modified nomination process means that next year's field may be back down to five films, with any other films (up to ten) having to receive 5% of the total votes to be nominated.



So, aside from 'War Horse', what else could be generating awards buzz this winter? Well, Lynn Ramsey's 'We Need to Talk about Kevin' (above) was certainly the talk of Cannes Film Festival. It depends how widely it is distributed, but if the Academy gets wind of it that could garner a nomination at least. Woody Allen is no stranger to Oscar nominations and 'Midnight is Paris' is pretty good and has been one of his best received films of the last decade in the usually indifferent US. Meanwhile, Terrence Malick's Palm d'Or winning 'Tree of Life' is presumably a certainty for a few nominations if not a contender for the top prize. I'd bet against Lars Von Trier and 'Melancholia' being invited at this point.

Right now though, I'd hesitate to bet against Spielberg and his 'War Horse'.

The Best Video Game Movies Never Made? + More Muppet Craziness!

As with yesterday, I spent this morning channelling my renewed enthusiasm for video games into writing a video game film adaptation article over on Obsessed with Film. Check it out!

And so this wasn't a complete waste of time for loyal blog readers, here is the second trailer released for 'The Muppets'!

This trailer is freakin' awesome!

I just wanted to post this...



It's apparently due for release on November 23rd. Can't wait.

'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' review:

"It's not the destination so much as the journey" Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow assures his weary audience somewhere near the end of this fourth installment of the lucrative 'Pirates' franchise. And he'd be right too, if the journey itself wasn't utterly tedious. I assume this line was written as a tacit meta-apology for the film's unabashed pursuit of 3D spectacle over anything resembling a plot or approaching character development. Although admittedly character development would have been difficult in this series, enamoured as it is with the exaggerated pantomime turn of its once-promising lead.

The story of 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' can be summed up thus: the perpetually feisty Penelope Cruz recruits a reluctant Jack Sparrow into the service of her father Blackbeard (TV's Ian McShane) as they seek the Fountain of Youth. Jack was in possession of a map to the Fountain and knows the way. The map, however, is now in the hands of the British Navy, headed by a reformed Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) who has been charged, by Richard Griffiths' rotund King George II, with claiming the same prize in the name of the crown. Also in pursuit of the treasure are the Spaniards, of whom we see very little - presumably because their crew contains no name actors. It's all apparently inspired by Tim Powers' novel On Stranger Tides, but after a quick read of the Wikipedia plot summary it would seem that the only two base elements of the novel that survive the book's transition to film are Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth itself.



Gore Verbinski, director of the first three films, wisely opted out of this installment and was quickly replaced with Rob Marshall - whose 'Nine' is notable for being one of a small handful of films actually worse than 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'. A former Broadway director, Marshall was never going to rein in the kitsch and, indeed, everything is big. Every single main character is introduced in shadow, or in a hood, or from behind so we can anticipate the exciting moment when we finally get to see Ian McShane or Geoffrey Rush's hairy face. In one of the film's five-thousand interminable sword fight sequences, Penelope Cruz is introduced as an exact double of Depp, before being revealed - at which point she becomes markedly shorter and somewhat chestier than the beloved wastrel.

In fairness, Cruz is an instantly appealing force in the movie, even if her Angelica fluctuates uneasily between being Jack's piratey equal and a helpless damsel. McShane bucks the franchise trend and bravely underplays Blackbeard, which is admirable but tends to get lost amongst all the mugging. Meanwhile Rush is easily the most engaging actor in the piece and in his performance lie the last vestiges of comedy left to the series. However, these actors are easily counterbalanced by Depp's increasingly charmless mincing and by the presence of Sam Claflin as a bare-chested missionary who has defied the odds to become thirteen times more grating than Orlando Bloom.



More perplexing though is the film's calculated exploitation of the '12A' certificate. Like the 'Transformers' movies before it, 'On Stranger Tides' is essentially a kids film front-loaded with sex. Depp and Cruz speak in naughty little double-entendres ("I support the missionary's position"; "how is it we can never meet without you pointing something at me?"), and Angelica's back story is that Sparrow took advantage of her in a Spanish convent, mistaking it for a brothel. Often they hold erotic conversations in a breathy hush, speaking of "writhing" and such. The film's lustful energy is also shamelessly channelled into its depiction of mermaids - shot with the exact same aesthetic as a Lynx deodorant advert as they tantalise us with their carefully concealed breasts. I'm not offended by this - it's just one small example of the tacky sexualisation of all things everywhere - I'm just confused by it. Didn't young boys and girls used to think kissing was icky? What I'd have made of this aged nine I cannot begin to imagine.

Whilst I'm sermonising, it's also odd that the film's only black "character" is a mindless, brutish zombie. I'm not saying this is a pre-meditated act of racism, but it's at least a bit careless (again, 'Transformers' comes to mind). Furthermore, the message of 'Pirates 4' (if it has one) seems to be that women are deceitful and the ruin of men. The mermaids here, as in folklore, delight in luring sailors to their deaths with their wiles, whilst Angelica (the film's only prominent female) is also a proficient liar: introduced concealing her identity and gender, and manipulating men throughout. Not that these politically dubious elements should necessarily prevent you from seeing this sea-faring adventure yarn - after all, if you took that kind of moralistic stand, how many Hollywood films would you be left with each year? No, in fact what should stop people from seeing 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' is the fact that it's total and utter dross. And not fun dross, but deeply cynical dross. In 3D.



As 'Pirates' films go, it's not worse than the third one. But that will have to remain the highest praise the film can expect to receive from any but the most ardent 'Pirates' apologists. What started as a happy surprise and a breath of fresh air in 2003, has long since worn out its welcome. Nevertheless, prepare yourself for films 5, 6 and 7. Depp and co will always be willing to appear, as long as the "material" stays this good.

'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' is showing now and has been rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'Winnie the Pooh' review:

"Promise me you'll never forget me because if I thought you would I'd never leave", says the young Christopher Robin to Winnie the Pooh in one of A.A Milne's original short children's stories about that stuffed bear of little brain. Milne's wit endures, but it is probably Disney who have done to the most to ensure the endearing little chap is never forgotten, along with his friends Eeyore, Rabbit, Piglet, Owl and Tigger.

Three Wolfgang Reitherman directed short films, made by the studio in the mid-sixties, were turned into the celebrated feature 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh' in 1977 and Disney haven't stopped milking the "franchise" for all it's worth since - turning Milne's creations into a brand famous around the world among people of all ages. As well as piles of every kind of merchandise, the years since have seen dozens of small-screen series and even a handful of cheaply produced theatrical releases courtesy of the television unit.



Yet the latest commercial outlet for the series is a refreshing return to those early shorts and a loving, respectful homage to everything that is joyful about Milne's characters. Not to mention a faithful successor to the original film, with an opening tracking shot through Christopher Robin's live-action bedroom and with suitably retro styling on the credits. The new film, simply entitled 'Winnie the Pooh', is no half-hearted knock-off. Instead it's a proper part of the Disney animation canon - Disney Animation Studios 51st feature - and boasts some of the best hand-drawn animation talent the company has ever produced, with Renaissance-era veterans like Andreas Deja and Mark Henn reliably providing the nuanced and detailed character work demanded by the source material.

It may seem at odds with the folksy, laid back charm of this resolutely "old-school" piece to talk about the animation work in these terms, but a lot of work went into the film's apparent simplicity. Moments of good natured humour are emphasised by some of the finest character animation in memory, with subtle sighs and changes in facial expression being the principal joy here. The story is slight and the running time relatively short (though only a minute shorter than its 1977 predecessor), but that's what you want from Pooh. The film is a whimsical breath of fresh air that never comes close to outstaying its welcome.



With many of the original voice actors no longer with us, the characters have new voices, though they feel familiar as the new actors pay respectful tribute to those who came before. Pooh is hilarious as voiced by Jim Cummings (also the voice of Tigger), who captures the right level of sweet simplicity, with an edge of impatience for the bear. Scottish comic Craig Ferguson somehow manages to channel the spirit of Hal Smith as the pompous owl and John Cleese even sounds a little like the original film's narrator Sebastian Cabot (best known as the voice of Bagheera in 'The Jungle Book'). Only Tom Kenny as Rabbit is a little less effective than his ancestor, with his voice lacking the impotent rage of Junius Matthews.

There are several songs along the way, which are simple, forgettable and inoffensive and probably represent the film's weakest suit - especially when compared with ditties like "Rumbly in My Tumbly" and "Up, Down Touch the Ground" from the original. But Zooey Deschanel's rendition of the original theme song is suitably winsome and the tunes that misfire are still endearing in an ineffectual, childish way that is so very Winnie the Pooh. In any case, they are always accompanied with imaginatively animated sequences and full of innocent humorous phrases which take the curse off any faltering melody.



As with the 1977 classic, 'Winnie the Pooh' is at its heart a combination of three very simple short stories: a search for Eeyore's missing tail, Pooh's search for honey and the gangs' quest to rescue Christopher Robin from the dreaded (and imaginary) "Backson". But whereas the original feature was divided into three brief episodes, this new film more ambitiously entwines them into one feature-length narrative. Yet despite a slightly more plot-driven approach, the film is still content to meander at a leisurely pace towards its conclusion. Like a sunny stroll through the Hundred Acre Wood, it's much more about the journey than the destination and the amount of fun you have will very much depend on your pre-existing level of fondness for these characters.

As you might expect from a gentle children's tale, this film is very much aimed at youngsters - a fact amplified by the presence of two excessively toddler-friendly shorts beforehand. There are no nods to the adults or in-jokes at all. But it's nice to find a modern animation totally free of any post-modern winking and there is fun to be had here for adults so long as they are prepared to indulge their innermost child. As the credits rolled I found myself identifying with the sentiment of this bittersweet passage from Milne's The House at Pooh Corner: "And by and by Christopher Robin came to an end of things, and he was silent, and he sat there, looking out over the world, just wishing it wouldn't stop."



With the knowledge of a job well done, maybe Disney should allow these characters to get some rest for a while, safe from some of the more crass exploitations of recent decades. They needn't remind us of their charms quite so incessantly now, because with 'Winnie the Pooh' they've ensured that our old friends, as we remember them, are not soon forgotten - all with a wistful poetry and fondness for childlike wordplay that would make A.A Milne himself proud.

'Winnie the Pooh' is rated 'U' by the BBFC and is on wide release across the UK from today.

'Alice in Wonderland' Blu-ray review, etc etc

I've been back from a ridiculously nice holiday in Tuscany for the past few days, but I've just started an internship that I'm hoping could become a full-time writing gig (AKA the Holy Grail). I'm still writing day and night but not about film, so I haven't the time to update here in the usual way.

However, before I left for Italy I did write a review of Disney's animated 'Alice in Wonderland' for the folks at Obsessed with Film, which you can read here.

I've already agreed to write reviews for a few more upcoming Blu-rays coming out on Monday, so there will be some more film stuff up here next week for sure. 'Tamara Drewe', 'Charlie Wilson's War' and an anime the name of which escapes me right now (but which is very good indeed) should be among them, so check back for that soon.

'Tron: Legacy' review:

It seems that 2010 is the year when Hollywood decided all 1980s entertainment properties needed to be re-tooled for the modern age. We've already had 'The A-Team', 'Clash of the Titans', 'Predators' and 'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps'. We also got Sylvester Stallone's nostalgia reliant, berk-fest 'The Expendables'. Now it seems it's Disney's turn with 'Tron: Legacy', a sequel to the 1982 movie 'Tron' which explored, using then pioneering computer effects, what happens when you zap Jeff Bridges into an arcade game.

Whilst the original now has a certain campy charm, with its fluorescent world of all-in-one jumpsuits, it certainly isn't "cool" in a conventional sense (if you're in doubt, see YouTube phenomenon "Tron Guy"). By comparison, this sequel has re-imagined "The Grid" (the world inside the computer) with the aesthetic of an especially chic, modern car ad. Like the swanky flat of a Soho trendy, it's a world characterised by clean, minimalist designs and set to a pulsing Daft Punk soundtrack. Watching 'Tron: Legacy' is like spending two hours in an exclusive night club, only here your headache comes as a result of RealD 3D glasses and not as a result of too many blue After Shocks (though if 'Tron: Legacy' were a drink, you suspect that would be it).

Fittingly for a sequel that's 28 years late, 'Tron: Legacy' picks up some years after where the original left off. Jeff Bridges' game designer and arcade owner Kevin Flynn ended that film as head of ENCOM, the shady company that had stolen his computer programs. Apparently between the two movies Flynn fathered a son, this film's protagonist Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), and promptly disappeared leaving Flynn the younger desperately in need of a father - a role filled by Alan Bradley, his business partner and designer of "Tron" (an independent program and hero of The Grid).

Bradley is again played by Bruce Boxleitner who, with his distinguished grey hair and glasses, resembles a sort of budget Richard Gere. 'Tron: Legacy' begins with an aimless Sam Flynn pulling a juvenile prank on the board of ENCOM (now re-cast as a sinister analogue of Microsoft) after which he is visited by Bradley who, after giving a half-hearted ticking off, tells Sam that he has received a mysterious message on his pager, apparently from Sam's father. After this revelation, Sam is persuaded to visit his father's old arcade, where he finds a hidden room which teleports him onto The Grid via a laser beam.



Once there Sam is promptly undressed and more appropriately attired by what look like a gang of automated perfume counter saleswomen. (Wearing vaguely exploitative sci-fi clothing and ridiculous high-heels, the women are literally objectified as they walk out of sockets in the walls to cater to Sam's needs.) He doesn't know it, but he has been prepared for "games": iconic events directly lifted from the original film and then improved infinitely by current computer effects (as well as this new film's sexed-up styling).

The discus throwing duels now take place in a glass box, suspended in the air and ever diminishing in size as the flying discs smash it to bits. The computer world's liberal grasp of physics means that the duels are enhanced further as fighters are able to run around the walls and across the ceiling as they smash things up. The discs themselves are now not only thrown but also used in hand-to-hand combat and the defeated combatant no longer turns into a cosy beam of yellow light but crumbles into thousands of tiny pixels, in the film's most eye-catching effect. Likewise the "Light Cycles" of the original have been given the Tron 2.0 treatment, now operating in a multi-tiered, translucent arena, with riders now combining the ultra-sleek future bikes with their discus. The result of these changes is set pieces that easily surpass anything seen in the original. Though sadly they are few in number.

Although the original film was considered something of a flop back in its day, Disney have clearly pitched this film to a young audience seeing this sequel as a fully-fledged franchise re-boot with the ambitious cross-promotional platform for the movie including a video game, an animated series and, of course, the Daft Punk composed soundtrack album. But whilst "the kids" will want to see Sam to smash people into little blue bits with his discus and ride around in a cool, neon motorbike, what they will actually see is a few imaginative and high-octane action sequences buried amongst drawn-out scenes of plot exposition, flashbacks and parent-child angst as Sam catches up with his aged father.

Kevin Flynn, it transpires, has been trapped within the program since his sudden disappearance all those years ago and the role is reprised by Jeff Bridges. There is, naturally, a romantic sub-plot for young Sam which springs from nowhere in particular, as Quorra (Olivia Wilde) emerges as our hero's capable companion. Though whilst Wilde is fun to watch and delivers her lines with a disarming playfulness, in truth she is given little to do. Also underused is Jeff Bridges himself, with Kevin Flynn's Grid-bending powers (as seen in the first film) used far too sparingly.



Bridges appears as two characters in 'Tron: Legacy'. He is of course Flynn the elder, who has become more like "The Dude" of 'The Big Lebowski' since we last saw him (he now ends most sentences with the word "man" and at one point exclaims "radical!"). But he is also CLU - a program version of himself that he created to oversee The Grid in his absence and the film's villain. CLU is a CG motion captured version of Bridges, meant to closely resemble his appearance in the original film. It is a bold move to use CGI to animate a human character in a live action film, where he must appear alongside actual people, and the film almost pulls it off. Yet you can't help feeling that he's rolled into town on the Polar Express and doesn't belong. There is something not quite right about it. It doesn't help that the first time we see this effect, it is used to portray the real, younger Kevin Flynn interacting with his son outside of the computer world. Though it is unquestionably state of the art for now and the idea itself - of the young and old Bridges facing off onscreen together - is compelling enough for Disney to have taken the gamble. I'll say this for it: the more you see the effect the less weird it seems until by the end of the film you've accepted the whole thing.

The story itself is logical for this follow-up and serviceable, if nothing new, but the dialogue is below average. It's one of those scripts that consists only of clichés and exposition. "What is it like... the sun?" asks Quorra at one stage. "It's warm, it's radiant..." replies Sam before looking her deep in the eyes and adding "... it's beautiful." "Tron! What have you become!?" shouts Kevin Flynn during one encounter with his old cyber-buddy, now in the services of CLU. This poor writing could be forgiven. I didn't go into 'Tron: Legacy' expecting an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, after all. But 'Tron: Legacy', the maiden effort of director Joseph Kosinski (until now best known for video game commercials), forgets to be escapist fun for much of its length and bad dialogue is left to provide most the laughs.

You certainly won't get laughs from the one sequence in the film intended to be purely comic, which falls embarrassingly flat as Michael Sheen (no stranger to camping it up) makes an appearance as an effete nightclub owner in one horrible car crash of a scene. He plays air guitar with his cane, dances about and shouts ridiculous things throughout one fight, seemingly on a one-man quest to ruin the entire film. I hope it was worth it Sheen (though I guess it's at least a step up from 'Underworld: Rise of the Lycans' and 'Twilight: New Moon'). Thankfully, Jeff Bridges does manage to come out of things with his credibility in tact. Especially when he sees his son for the first time in years, as he delivers his lines with almost tear-inducing sincerity above and beyond the writing.



'Tron: Legacy' has the distinction of being the first film since 'Avatar' to use that film's high-end 3D cameras - with every other major 3D release of 2010 subject to a controversial post-production conversion process. As a result the 3D is better than that seen in the likes of Disney's own 'Alice in Wonderland' and seems to suffer less from motion blur than any other live action 3D film I've seen. Perhaps this also has something to do with the less busy visual design of the Tron world, which may have been designed as much with 3D in mind as anything else.

Though for all the polish, as with every other 3D movie I've ever seen, I forgot it was in 3D after twenty minutes of watching and its most positive attribute was that it was subtle and unobtrusive in its use of the extra dimension. All of those words of faint praise lead to the obvious question: "what was the point of it all then?" (aside from the bump in ticket prices and security against piracy).

Unlike some of those other denizens of 1980s popular culture recently thrust into renewed relevance, 'Tron: Legacy' is a sequel nobody asked for, to a film that I suspect nobody below the age of twenty-five even remembers. With a week to go before its release I find it hard to imagine that it can be anything like the hit that Disney needs it to be in order to consider it a success. Who exactly is it for? It's too slow (and possibly too complicated) for young children, whilst it's a little too juvenile for adults. It looks and sounds excellent and it would not be any kind of scandal if it picked up a few technical awards in the new year. Plus there are two or three genuinely awe-inspiring set pieces and some really imaginative touches here and there.

But the central problem is that the world of Tron, which must have seemed so exotic to those who went along to the cinema in 1982 when computers were young and promised a world of seemingly infinite possibility, now seems to raise too many questions (with "why are these programs people?" the first among them). It is even a sequel that beats its original, yet baring in mind the limitations of the original 'Tron' that is no exceptional boast. Yet in spite of 'Tron: Legacy' being in many ways so deficient, I'll be sad if it tanks at the box-office. Disney have taken a massive gamble and, in Hollywood especially, that sort of daring should be rewarded. Also, Light Cycles are pretty cool.

'Tron: Legacy' is out on December 17th and is rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'Tangled' review:

The last decade hasn't been especially kind to the Disney animation fan. The annual triumphs of the folks at PIXAR aside, the in-house output of Walt Disney Animation Studios has been lacklustre as the once dominant studio have struggled to remain relevant in the 'Toy Story' inspired age of computer animation. Prior to this year, the 2002 film 'Lilo & Stitch' was probably their last genuinely good feature. Then, after the commercial disasters of 'Treasure Planet' and 'Home on the Range', Disney began making their own forgettable computer animations: 'Chicken Little', 'Meet the Robinsons' and 'Bolt'. Things seemed bleak until, earlier this year, Disney restored a lot of faith with 'The Princess and the Frog' - a return to the type of hand-drawn animated musical which defined the 90s renaissance - which did well with critics and at the box office. Given this success, it seemed a shame that their next film 'Tangled', an adaptation of the Rapunzel Grimm fairy tale and the studios 50th feature, would be yet another computer animation... and in 3D.

But as with buses, you wait for ages only for two to show up at once. 'Tangled' is brilliant, possibly better even than 'The Princess and the Frog' and certainly one the best Disney animations of the last ten years. Unlike the studio's other computer animations, which lacked any real character and seemed to bear little relation to the Disney style of old, 'Tangled' feels exactly like a 1990s classic in the mold of 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'The Hunchback of Notre Damme': in terms of the film's design, the quality of the animation, the timeless appeal of the source story and with the songs composed by Alan Menkin. Like all classic Disney the pacing is exactly right too with action, gags, musical numbers and romantic sequences all balanced well, leaving the whole thing feeling like an example of perfect story telling economy. Uncle Walt himself would approve.



This telling of the Rapunzel story has it that the titular girl's long, blonde locks possess magical healing properties. It is for this reason that she is stolen from her parents (here a king and queen) as a baby and spirited away to an isolated tower by a vain old hag named Gothel, who wishes to use Rapunzel's hair to keep herself forever youthful. Running parallel to this story is that of Flynn Rider, a scoundrel who has stolen a valuable crown from the palace in his latest daring heist. On the run from the guards - and from a couple of gangmates whom he betrayed - Flynn stumbles upon the tower and is soon a bewildered Rapunzel's prisoner. Rapunzel, who has been told that the outside world is far too dangerous for her, hides Flynn's valuable prize and forces him to escort her safely out of her tower so she can see the world outside. Gothel comes back to find she has gone and pursues, whilst Flynn continues to evade the law.

If I was surprised to find a computer animated in-house Disney film of this high quality, then I was even more surprised to find that it was in many ways technically the most advanced computer animation I've yet seen - dare I say it, even surpassing PIXAR. The lighting, water and fabric effects are staggeringly well done in 'Tangled' as is, perhaps unsurprisingly, hair. Though the charm of character animation is what really sets this film apart, so in keeping is it with the studio's traditions: a transformative melding of the old with the new. Generally human people look best in animated films if they are heavily stylised, whilst realistic people, such as those seen in the ugly rotoscope animations of Robert Zemeckis ('The Polar Express', 'Beowulf' and 'A Christmas Carol'), suffer from the uncanny valley effect and look unsettling and unappealing.



PIXAR have had their own trouble with this in the past: when we see people in the original 'Toy Story', they are stiff looking and unconvincing. It took almost ten years before they felt confident to make their first feature length film about recognisably human characters, 'The Incredibles' in 2004, and then they were highly stylised caricatures. Tellingly for 'Wall-E' PIXAR chose not to animate the film's recognisably "human" character at all, and instead used a live-action actor, only using computer animation to bring to life the devolved, more cartoonish, future humans. Similarly, for 'Tangled' the approach has been to create cartoon characters rather than humans, but even better than that: unlike those present in 'Meet the Robinsons' (who could sit comfortably in a Nickelodeon TV series) these are recognisably Disney creations. These characters go well with the bright and lush world in which they are placed, with its blue skies and green grass and the design of the whole picture manages to create a vibrant fantasy kingdom that feels as though it has burst from the pages of a Grimm fairy tale, very Disney whilst definitely retaining something Gothic at its core.

Rapunzel herself (voiced by a disarming Mandy Moore) is wonderful to watch, the picture of girlish "cuteness", with her disproportionate eyes in her huge head. She is an incredibly expressive and entirely likable creation, and one of the most fun Disney princess characters. She is sharp, funny and, as is typical of the modern heroine, extremely feisty. Her "prince" is equally good to watch. Voiced by Zachary Levi, Flynn Rider narrates the tale and is our post-modern anti-hero. He refuses to sing and dance and isn't taken in by all the warmth and sentimentality. If Rapunzel is a less helpless version of Belle or Ariel, then Flynn is Aladdin combined with the more recent Prince Naveen. He is quick-witted and agile, stealing to survive (and for sport), but he is also extremely narcissistic. With Naveen in 'The Princess and the Frog' and Flynn in 'Tangled', Disney have successfully rejuvenated the once dull "prince" character, so long considered a thankless task among animators.



The obligatory, toyetic animal sidekick characters - a violent, yet cowardly chameleon and a determined and moralistic white horse - are likewise superbly well animated. Particularly the horse, who is terrifically funny with his proud stride and his vendetta against Flynn, whom he hunts prodigiously. 'Tangled' allows itself some truly silly moments no longer really seen in animation as things have become more sophisticated and less exaggerated. In one scene Flynn has a sword fight with the horse, turning to Rapunzel and saying proudly, "You should know that this is the strangest thing I've ever done!" Whilst another very funny sequence sees a group of murderous ruffians burst into a brilliant song called "I've Got a Dream", in which they all state that they'd rather become interior decorators or concert pianists than tough fighters. It is a song that recalls Howard Ashman's lyrics for "Gaston" in 'Beauty and the Beast' as much as the animated sequence channels Monty Python and Mel Brooks.

Then there is the evil Gothel, who Rapunzel believes to be her mother for the majority of the film which leads to an interesting dynamic between them - one that seems to be of very genuine love between the hero and villain. Gothel is one of the most properly horrifying Disney villains. After all, she abducts a child whom she keeps locked in a tower for eighteen years. Also the fact that her power is derived from years of manipulation and brainwashing is far scarier a concept than magic or violence.



'Tangled' shares one of its co-directors, Byron Howard, with Disney's last computer animated, 3D film 'Bolt' and, like 'Bolt', the use of 3D in 'Tangled' is restrained and tasteful rather than eye-popping. With the exception of some floating lanterns, things are rarely made to fly out of the screen at you and instead the extra dimension is employed to allow depth. As with 'Bolt' 3D is also occasionally used to make self-referential jokes (it is harder for a chameleon to hide in a 3D cartoon than a 2D one after all) but this is still not done so overtly as to be distracting. Does this film need to be in 3D? Of course not. Nothing needs to be in 3D - or at least nothing worth watching. But the 3D does add depth and, for the moment at least, is still a fun gimmick when used with animated films (live action 3D tends to give me a headache and the motion blur is awful during action).

For years I've been a hand-drawn snob who felt that by going over to computer animation Disney had lost their way - along with all of their charm. 'Tangled' has won me over wholeheartedly, putting a recognisably Disney style into computer animation for the first time. If they keep this up, the studios identity crisis might finally be over and the problem of differentiating Walt Disney Animation Studios from their more lauded cousins PIXAR might finally be solved. I'm still glad to see that Disney have hand drawn projects in the works, as next April sees the release of the beautiful looking 'Winnie the Pooh', for instance. But now I don't think the studio's future depends on taking that old fashioned route. In fact alternating between computer animation and hand-drawn (hopefully as material warrants) might keep both art forms from out staying their welcome a second time on Disney's watch.

'Tangled' is released in the UK on January 28th 2011 and has been rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

Trailers for 'Winnie the Pooh' and 'Tangled'

Last week Disney unveiled the first trailer for next year's hand drawn 'Winnie the Pooh' (above). Visually in keeping with the style of Wolfgang Reitherman's 1977 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh' - albeit lacking the "dirty" look of Disney's Reitherman era films, with a cleaner look - the new film looks beautiful and the character animation is as good as anything Disney Animation Studios ever produced (especially Pooh's thoughtful facial expressions, animated by Mark Henn). The Keane song on the soundtrack could stand to be removed, but I am fairly sure that won't be in the finished film when it's released next year, as Hans Zimmer is scoring the film.

This trailer was pretty good timing for me, as I've very recently been re-watching a lot of the classics, motivated in part by the recent Blu-ray releases of 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Fantasia'. Disney's next "animated classic" is the computer animated, 3D film 'Tangled' (below), which opens before Christmas in the US, so I am heartened to see another hand drawn film shown by Disney following the excellent 'The Princess and the Frog'. I hope there are many more to come, and maybe they can leave the CG stuff to the chaps at Pixar?

Disney Fiercely Protecting Their Legacy on Blu-ray...

As a huge fan of animation I have eagerly devoured every one of the Disney Blu-ray releases from the so-called "animated classics" canon* as they have been released. Not especially prudent use of my money, as I already owned them all on DVD, yet the superior treatment afforded to the 50th anniversary release of 'Sleeping Beauty' in 2008 convinced me that they were well worth investing in, yielding new insights into the old classics. As well as being presented in its original aspect ratio (Super Techirama 70) for the first time since it's 1958 release, 'Sleeping Beauty' received a glorious array of extra features, the best of which was a commentary track by Pixar legend John Lassester, film historian Leonard Maltin and veteran Disney character animator Andreas Deja.

What made that commentary so brilliant was its unprecedented level of depth, as it looked at all the circumstances behind the film's production, even including picture-in-picture images which allowed for archive interviews with the film's animators, as well as storyboards and concept art, to be displayed alongside the relevant bits of the movie. Happily Disney followed suit with their next Blu-ray animation titles, investing just as much love and care in 'Pinocchio' and Pixar's 'Wall-E', both of which boasted those same picture-in-picture commentaries (dubbed "Cine-Explore" in the promotional materials).



However, I was really disappointed to find that the same treatment has not been afforded the subsequent releases. Don't get me wrong: 'Dumbo', 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', 'Princess and the Frog' and 'Beauty and the Beast' have, by any other studios standards, benefited from a decent array of extras and the main feature has been provided in the best possible quality. But the thing about those other commentaries was that they were much more in-depth than the standard director's observations that we usually hear. They contextualised the films they accompanied wonderfully and the picture-in-picture element gave you the chance to see some interesting supporting materials alongside the feature. For example, when being told about the influence of Hieronymus Bosch paintings on Eyvind Earle's designs for Malificent's goons in 'Sleeping Beauty' we were also shown the paintings themselves. To my mind that was the way every Blu-ray commentary should have been done since. Certainly, those features certainly made me less reticent about re-buying films I already own on DVD.

But it seems Disney has its own quite canny and interesting new strategy for converting its customers to the format, eschewing extras as the big selling point. Disney have for a while now been at the forefront of the move to include a DVD with each Blu-ray as standard (they've been doing this since 'Sleeping Beauty' was released two years ago), but earlier this week (when buying 'Beauty and the Beast') I noticed a very clever and hugely interesting new development. With previous releases Disney has put out a cheaper standard DVD version alongside a more expensive Blu-ray version (with DVD included), however 'Beauty and the Beast' is the same price in DVD form as it is in its Blu-ray incarnation. The reason? The DVD edition now includes a "bonus" Blu-ray version of the film! In familiar DVD packaging, standard-def customers are now unwittingly buying Blu-ray.



Many may express anger at this bold move. After all, aren't Disney charging the majority of people extra money for something that they don't want/need? Well, yes. But, as a supporter of that format who hopes to see it take off (and take over) I welcome the move. What better way to move the discs into people's homes Trojan horse style? Of course there is more in it for Disney then just creating a user base for the next generation of home entertainment players. It is also a rather ingenious way of allowing their cherished classics to retain their value in a world where the £19.99 DVD is a thing of the past.

Disney has always been justly protective of these films, re-releasing them and subsequently withdrawing them from stores in an endless rotation designed to keep them "special", and what better way is there to reasonably keep the value of these films up? (And I say this as someone who has paid the full price for many of them more than once.) You never see a Beatles CD on sale for less than £10 for the same reason you never see a Disney classic in the bargain bins: like Apple Corp, Disney just won't let it happen. Just try making money selling copies of 'Men in Black II' once it's been available for 99p (or possibly less). Once you reduce somethings value you reduce it forever. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.



Whilst I wouldn't argue too strongly against those who would argue that Disney's keeping these films sacred is chiefly for financial gain (yes, they are a company with shareholders), I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea that the Mouse House is historically run by people with an earnest desire to maintain the company's heritage. After all, in 2006 Disney were rumoured to have paid a huge multi-million dollar sum to acquire the rights to Mickey Mouse's ancestor Oswald the Lucky Rabbit from Universal. Oswald, the first big claim to fame of Walt Disney in his earliest days as an animator, was purchased at the behest of the Disney family (the real family... that wasn't a creepy corporate metaphor) for no other purpose than maintaining Walt's legacy. Whilst Oswald merchandise is no doubt now available, it is not really a big money spinner - at least in the short term - and certainly not enough to offset the cost of buying the rights. You could say Oswald is just Mickey Mouse with longer ears and fewer fans: and you'd be right. But I guess at the corporate level buying him is the equivalent of paying out for the Blu-ray hoping to get that little extra you were missing.

Anyway, I have just sat through the commentaries on 'Princess and the Frog' and 'Beauty in the Beast' and wanted to spout off about it all somewhere. I am super excited by the prospect of the 'Fantasia'/'Fantasia 2000' box set which comes to Blu-ray on Monday - and which will no doubt cost just as much on Blu-ray with a free DVD as on DVD with a free Blu-ray! I am interested to see what form Disney's home video releases take in the next few years, namely on the subject of which titles will be re-released and what sorts of features they will boast (especially in the post 3D-TV era). Whether Disney's new pricing strategy will continue beyond 'Fantasia' and 'Toy Story 3', who knows? Could it continue into releases by other studios? As the format comes close to being half a decade old, surely the next few years are decisive if it's to become a feature of the living rooms of people other than early adopters and obsessive collectors. In summary: I hope more people are persuaded to buy these things so Disney can keep releasing them.

*As a random geeky sidebar: whilst Disney's effort to preserve a hallowed canon has been consistent for years, what actually constitutes an "animated classic" is under almost constant revision somewhere in the marketing department of the home entertainment wing. In the mid-90s predominantly live-action features such as 'Pete's Dragon', 'Bed Knobs and Broomsticks' and 'Mary Poppins' were treated as part of the canon, whilst the 2000 release 'Dinosaur' has only recently begun to be included in the official reckoning - now listed as number 39, with everything from 'The Emperor's New Groove' onwards shifting up a number.

'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' review + My slot on Radio Reverb

Yesterday I posted a review of Disney's latest blockbuster, 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', over at Obsessed with Film - so check that out! It is rather less inflammatory than my last bit of writing for the site, so hopefully I can leave the witness protection program now.

'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' is rated 'PG' by the BBFC and released this Friday (13th) in the UK.

I have also neglected to mention that I have, for the last two weeks, been acting as a regular film reviewer for a breakfast show on Brighton's Radio Reverb, hosted by a lovely lady named Ridder. The show is from 8-10 on Friday mornings and my regular guest slot is around 9.10. So listen in online or on 97.2 FM if you're a local person.

Don't forget to tune in!

'Giant Sand' tonight at the Duke's, plus moving house delays me seeing 'Toy Story 3'...

Aside from the being the oldest functioning cinema in the land, Brighton's Duke of York's Picturehouse also occasionally serves as a music venue. In the past year artists such as Duck Baker and 'Angus and Julia Stone' have taken the stage and tonight it is the turn of Arizona rock band 'Giant Sand'.

I have never seen them (or heard of them), but I am planning to go along tonight and check them out all the same... and you should too!

Anyway, not strictly film related, but I am moving house this week and so probably won't be updating very much at all. This is a shame as there are few films I look forward to more than those by Pixar and I would very much like to see and review 'Toy Story 3' this week. I'll see what happens. Failing that it will be reviewed next week at the latest! I can't wait. I have been a little sceptical since seeing an underwhelming clip at a Disney conference back in April. But almost everyone who has seen it seems to have loved it, so far, so I'm sure it will be good even if it isn't as great as 'Up' and 'Wall-E'.

Finally, I recorded the August edition of 'Flick's Flicks' yesterday with the smashing James Tucker. In it I previewed the August line-up coming to Picturehouse cinemas, including 'The Illusionist' (below), South Korean drama: 'Mother', 'The Girl Who Played With Fire' and 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World'. Check it out when it is online at the start of next month.

Capital and Credibility in Sleeping Beauty: Eyvind Earle and the Disney Pre-Renaissance

I said, yesterday, that I would explain why it is that 'Sleeping Beauty' is one of my favourite films. The following is an essay I wrote in 2008. It explains the auteurist nature of the film and its unique place in the wider Disney canon. I was tempted to edit or improve upon it, but instead it is here warts and all. Enjoy:

1959 saw the release of one of the decade’s most highly anticipated event movies: 'Ben Hur'. However, William Wyler’s mega-hit was not the only big Hollywood event movie that year. 1959 was also the year that Walt Disney would release his long anticipated 'Sleeping Beauty' (1). Four years had passed since Disney’s fifteenth animated feature 'Lady and the Tramp' (2) had hit the world’s theatres. Disney fans had not been kept in the dark during this wait, however, as Walt promoted 'Sleeping Beauty' throughout its six year development (3 p. 299) on his weekly television show (4 p. 75) (even opening the Sleeping Beauty Disneyland attraction two years before the film’s release (5)). The film marked the studios return to the classic fairytale (6). At the beginning of the decade, in 1950, 'Cinderella' (7) had been a huge success credited with getting the studio back on their feet after financial difficulties during the war years (4 p. 75), where the studio released a series of progressively banal musical package films (3 p. 276). During a decade which had seen the success of 'Cinderella', 'Peter Pan' (8), 'Alice in Wonderland' (9) and 'Lady and the Tramp' (10 p. 9;48): 'Sleeping Beauty' “was conceived as the most spectacular of the postwar productions.” (3 p. 299) This hope is reflected in the following passage of Walt Disney’s biography by Neal Gabler: “Lady [and the Tramp], despite its long gestation period and despite the fact that it turned out well, was essentially make-work. Sleeping Beauty was something else. It was intended to be a magnum opus – ‘our most ambitious cartoon feature, to date’ Walt wrote...” (11 p. 558). But with a growth in the production of live-action films, with the creation of an ever expanding theme park empire, with aggressive interest in television programming and with ancillary revenues more important than ever to Disney (12 p. 4) (and more demanding of Walt’s attention (3 p. 300)), was there a place for art in an increasingly commercial House of Mouse?

'Sleeping Beauty' was certainly an expensive film to produce. It was the last Disney film to be hand inked before new Xerox practices were developed, which would be used on their next feature 'One Hundred and One Dalmatians' (13), saving time and money (and indeed making that film, with its hundred and one puppies, possible) (3 p. 301). The hand inked 'Sleeping Beauty' was incredibly labour-intensive as inkers had to hand paint all of the animators drawings onto each cell (it took 24 days to animate a single second of movement). This came at a great cost as the budget went through the roof. Eventually Disney spent over $6 million on 'Sleeping Beauty' (14 p. 15), although nothing in today’s Hollywood (Leonard Malton has joked that $6 million would be the “lunch budget” for a modern action movie (5)), it was a huge sum for an animated feature the fifties (indeed 'Lady and the Tramp' cost half the amount) (11 p. 557). The relative commercial failure of 'Sleeping Beauty' (11 p. 560), which “began in high hopes and ended in disaster” (3 p. 229), almost convinced Walt to scrap the production of animated feature films altogether (11 p. 559). Whilst 'Sleeping Beauty' and its relative lack of success at the box office didn’t put an end to animation at Disney, it did lead to a growth in live-action features, which continued to do well for the studio into the mid-70’s (11 p. 585). It also led to '101 Dalmatians' being made on a significantly reduced budget, which was cut even further for 'The Sword and the Stone' (15) (11 p. 620).

At the time of the film’s release, studios were experimenting with various widescreen aspect ratios. Sleeping Beauty was made in one of the widest: the Super Technirama 70mm format (3 p. 299). The film also took advantage of developments in sound recording, bring released in 6-track stereo sound (5). The widescreen process presented particular problems for animators, who, faced with more characters on screen at any given time, would have to spend more time animating each frame than they would traditionally. Ollie Johnston, who animated the fairies in 'Sleeping Beauty', noted this as a particular concern in regards to close-ups saying “you couldn’t get rid of a fairy” as they always seemed to co-exist within each frame. This complicated the staging of the movie in regard to the use of space, as animators had to think creatively to avoid the frame looking bare.

Though Sleeping Beauty was made by much of the same crew as those other 1950’s Disney features, celebrated Disney animator Andreas Deja describes the films style as being “more graphic than 'Lady and the Tramp'” (5). The film proved to be a break from the traditional Disney style in a number of ways. With Walt eager for the film to boast “a more unified look” (5), apparently inspired by an exhibition of medieval artworks known as the “unicorn tapestries” (fig.1) (5), he turned to background artist Eyvind Earle. Up to that point Earle’s work at the studio had consisted of backgrounds for 'Lady and the Tramp' and 'Peter Pan', as well as work on a handful of experimental short subjects, including the Academy Award winning 'Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom' (16). However, Walt was convinced of his talent and charged him with responsibility for styling 'Sleeping Beauty', with Walt’s instruction that it should resemble a “moving illustration” (11 p. 558). Ken Anderson, the film’s production designer, described Earle’s work on the film as a “strange and sterile look” given the dominance of vertical and horizontal lines and geometric shapes. Earle came to the project with a rich understanding of pre-renaissance, medieval and gothic art, which he faithfully incorporated into the look of the film:

“I’ve always been informed by pre-renaissance, medieval, gothic and here’s a movie based on that period of time. I first started with the old medieval artists and almost everything that was gothic. The tapestries [fig.1] were perfect examples of how foregrounds ought to be. The gothic came from the Persians and all their little details of grasses and weeds and trees fit perfectly, so I realised I could use anything that was in harmony with what I was trying to accomplish. And out of all of that a little tiny bit of myself came through.” (5)

Earle’s studies of Persian painting gave him major inspiration as he realised that everything was painted in focus, clear and clean all the time (5). This stylistic choice led to one of the biggest departures from traditional Disney on the movie, as Earle’s insistence on everything being in focus went against the purpose of multi-plane camera techniques Disney had made famous on previous films. The illusion of reality (by way of the presentation of depth) was being cast aside to give the film the more unified, stylised look Disney had insisted upon. The result was a series of backgrounds which were like nothing seen previously in a Disney picture, as Andreas Dejas suggests: “When you look at backgrounds from Bambi (17) and Snow White (18), as beautifully as they are painted in watercolour, but [if] you take the character level out of it they look like an empty stage set. These backgrounds [Earle’s for Sleeping Beauty] look almost like complete paintings with characters on top of them.” (5)

Pixar Animation Studios co-founder John Lasseter has been similarly enthusiastic about Earle’s backgrounds in 'Sleeping Beauty', also noting the departure from what had come before: “One thing Disney has always been good at is focussing the audience’s eye. Then here comes this film which is just gorgeous from one edge of the film to the other.” (5) This would prove to be a concern for the character animators, as it was feared it could distract an audience’s attention away from the characters themselves. Disney had become famous for their rounded and “cute” characters, from 'Steamboat Willie' (19) to 'Lady and the Tramp'; Disney characters were drawn to be appealing and warm. However, Earle was responsible, not only for the films lush backgrounds, but also in overseeing that the character animators styled and coloured characters to work with his backgrounds. This led to a certain amount of conflict between Earle and the animators, who petitioned Walt to remove him from the project, but Walt backed Earle and the animators were forced to make characters to fit the backgrounds (5), whereas traditionally the reverse would have been expected. Christopher Finch’s book The Art of Walt Disney describes this stylistic choice in unflattering terms: “unfortunately its [the films] stylised treatment tended to slow the action and interfere with character development.” (3 p. 299) He also backs up the concern of the artists that Earle’s backgrounds “are so busy they distract from the characters.” (3 p. 300) The way the characters were styled to achieve that stylistically unified look for 'Sleeping Beauty' marked another major change for Disney.

Earle’s influence on character design is noticeable when comparing Maleficent, the villain of 'Sleeping Beauty' (fig.2), with the stepmother from Cinderella (fig.3).These two are useful subjects of a comparison as both villains were based on live-action reference footage of the same actress (fig.4) and were drawn within the same decade. Maleficent is comprised of strong and distinct vertical and horizontal lines. Even the round parts of her design, such as her facial features and her horns, are jagged and almost appear as distinct vertical lines. Her colours are more subdued in order to compliment the dark grey spaces she usually operates in. By contrast Cinderella’s stepmother is a more traditional Disney character. She has rounded facial features, hair and clothing, whilst wearing comparatively bright colours. Whilst both characters are recognisably based on the same reference actress, Maleficent emphasises her eyes and her mouth, as well as her mannerisms, but puts then firmly within the films stylised look. The stepmother, on the other hand, resembles the actress more closely, but has exaggerated her into the more rounded classical style associated with Walt Disney. Ken Anderson has criticised the Eyvind Earle style character designs as “unfortunately quite stiff”, saying it “wasn’t possible for the characters to fit the style and be attractive” at the same time (5).

The three good fairies of 'Sleeping Beauty' represented something of a compromise between Earle and their animator Ollie Johnston, who managed to strike a balance between their geometric and angular costumes and their cute and cuddly Disney faces (fig.5). Walt Disney had discussed making the fairies identical (in the mould of Donald Duck’s three nephews), but the animators ignored this direction, giving them individual looks and personalities as distinct as those of the seven dwarfs. The fairies in the film fill the established Disney role of providing comic relief. However, this role is complicated by the fact that they are also (if only by virtue of screen time) the central characters. Rather than being the subject of a wacky sub-plot, the comic relief in 'Sleeping Beauty' is always part of the action, driving the story forwards. For example, as they make the cake and the dress for Princess Aurora’s birthday they argue and end up making a mess of everything they set out to achieve, yet this scene is not superfluous. In order to make the surprises they send Aurora out of the house and into the woods, where she happens to meet her Prince for the first time. The scene also enables us to see how much the fairies have come to care for Aurora during the years they have been charged with looking after her. It therefore serves to advance the plot of the film, show the development of the characters and provides emotional weight to the rest of the film. To a 1959 audience the three fairies voice actors would also have been recognisable, being comprised of popular radio and television personalities of the day. This would bring a certain likeable quality to the characters as audience expectation of their various roles would have provided a certain amount of pleasure, as it did to a contemporary reviewer in Variety (20 p. 6), perhaps lost on a modern audience.

Other characters with a clear medieval influence might include Malificent’s demon-like henchmen (fig.6) which resemble something from a gothic rendering of hell, like in this 15th century piece by Hieronymus Bosch (fig.7). They are not human, but nor are they animal, but some strange and grotesque hybrid. Similarly the crowds in the film are unusually static for a Disney animation and blend into the background, being comprised of ‘held cells’. This economy of movement allows for the film to feel like a moving illustration, where only the principle characters are moving in the frame.

The faces of people in these crowds in 'Sleeping Beauty' are either indistinct from one another or they are without detail altogether. Whilst art of the renaissance made a feature of celebrating the human through detailed portraits of faces, pre-renaissance art came before this humanist tendancy, the result being a lack of interest in individuals and in facial expression (21 p. 106). This tendancy is, understandably, not reflected in central characters, whose faces are expressive and detailed. The presentation of people in the art of 'Sleeping Beauty' is firmly routed in western Christian tradition: in Islamic art patterns and symbols are favoured over the depiction of humans and animals, which are considered idolatry (22 p. 110). By contrast (and in Disney tradition) 'Sleeping Beauty' depicts a plethora of woodland creatures, as well as people. The Persian influence Earle mentioned is, therefore, routed mainly in the details of patterns seen in interiors and in the painting of buildings and trees (22 p. 189).



As mentioned, the styling of these characters in this bold and graphic way was done in order to make them better read against Earle’s medieval/gothic influenced background paintings. The medieval influence on Eyvind Earle’s background work is visible throughout Sleeping Beauty. The films backgrounds are highly detailed (see the brickwork in fig.5 or the town in fig.9), and the colours are vibrant rather than naturalistic, with clean horizontal and vertical lines which dominate the look of the film. As Deja’s points out, there is also more than a hint of modernism: “It [Earle’s painting] takes the ideas and the colours and the motifs of the middle ages and then re-interprets them with a fifties point of view, being very graphic... it’s a modernist 20th century approach to re-interpreting pre-renaissance art.” (5) Flemish artists the Limbourg brothers, who painted the pictures for The Book of Hours (fig.8 & 11), “accomplished a revolution by introducing the landscape copied direct from nature into their painting” (22 p. 226). Earle has, similarly, taken their artwork and added a graphic modernism.



Shadows are usually absent in 'Sleeping Beauty' (with a few noteable absences such as the demonic fire dance in Malificents lair), which must be a stylistic choice rather than one based on limitation as shadows are rendered for all of the characters in 'The Lady and the Tramp'. Similarly, pre-renaissance art is usually devoid of the detailed recreation of lighting, including shadows, as can be gleened from the illustration (fig.8). Another influence emerges when you consider how the horses in the foreground in both pictures (fig.8 & 9) seem to exist on one plane. In medieval art details can exist in the foreground and the background, but without any real sense of perspective. Background objects are meerly drawn smaller and foregrounded items drawn bigger, all in sharp detail. The same can be seen in any frame from Sleeping Beauty (as in fig.9). The difference between this gothic stlyling and the art which would come later has been nicely described by Henry Focillon, who wrote:

“There are two kinds of painting: one imitates the light of the sun, with its play of brightness and shadow, and seeks to create the illusion of a complete space, modelled in depth; the other accepts natural lighting and utilises it for its own purposes, which are not those of nature, gives it a novel and perculiar character, and embodies it in a flatterned space... Gothic painting is essentially of the second category; even when it tends to give the figures the fullness of their substance...” (21 p. 110)

The gothic look is applied futher to the architecture of the film, with all of the castle interiors seen in Sleeping Beauty ressembling the interiors of great medieval Cathedrals like those at Salisbury, Troyes and Strassburg (23 pp. 45-53). If a Cathedral is “a universe devised by the power of human thought”, as Focillon suggests (21 p. 110), then a Cathedral is perhaps a fitting metaphor for the singular beauty of Eyvind Earle’s work on 'Sleeping Beauty'.

Earle’s unified styling of 'Sleeping Beauty' so impressed Disney that it came to infilrate all aspects of the project. The original plan for the film is that it would be a musical with broadway-style popular song tunes, like 'Peter Pan' and 'Lady and the Tramp' before it. However, when Walt Disney saw the elegance and refinment of Eyvind Earle’s paintings he decided that the song score had to be scrapped, with the exception of the song “Once Upon a Dream”. Instead he had a musical score composed based upon Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s ballet based on the same story (5). This move represents a huge commitment to the artistry of the project from Walt Disney, seeing as how Disney films made many millions each year from the sales of sheet music and records, based on the popular songs they featured (4 p. 77) (12 p. 4). Perhaps this was borne out of Walt’s desire to make another 'Fantasia' (24), heralded by the media as a masterpiece upon its release, in no small part down to its use of “high” art in the form of classical music (25 pp. 214-36). In Walt Disney’s biography, it is suggested that Walt’s determination to make 'Sleeping Beauty' “art” was in no small way due to a desire to prove the “superiority of the Disney style, and in doing so... would also constitute a major assault on everything [his rivals] represented” both in terms of content and form. (11 pp. 555-8).



Disney had long felt that the wonderful concept paintings of artists like Mary Blair (whose concepts for 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Peter Pan' can be seen in fig.12 & 13) were being watered down and homogenised for the final film (11 p. 558). He had hoped that in 'Sleeping Beauty', by handing creative control of the overall design to one man, he could produce a piece of unparalleled animated art. As Walt Disney became more and more interested in theme parks and television, his interest (or at the least the time he could spend with) the animation department appeared to wane (11 p. 559) and in this period he seemed split down the middle between the hard-nosed businessman, whose empire had reached all four corners of the globe; and the young man with the wide-eyed facination of all things animated. People who worked on 'Sleeping Beauty' often recall that Walt would be enthusiastic about the artistic aims of the film on one day, and then go the other direction on the next, fretting about the mounting cost. On one of the bad days he fired Eric Larsen as director of the film because the scene he was working on (‘sequence 8’ in which Aurora meets her Prince) had run over budget and taken (literally) years to produce, and even then he hadn’t been happy with the results declaring that the scene needed “more cute animals” (5).

'Lady and the Tramp' could be seen as a more influential Disney movie than 'Sleeping Beauty', as it set a less formal tone, whilst being based in a contemporary setting, something which many of the 1960’s Disney films would seem to continue (3 p. 300). But whether Earle’s influence stayed with Disney or not, his time on 'Sleeping Beauty' seemed to stay with him after he left the studio following the films release to continue his career as an artist in his own right. His painting of northern Californian landscapes (fig.14) bare more than a passing resemblance to his work on the film, whereas his work prior to Disney had been more obviously modernist (fig.15).



Did 'Sleeping Beauty' represent a successful fusion between “high” and “low” culture as 'Fantasia' had been heralded as achieving nearly twenty years prior? Ollie Johnston never thought so, ever critical of the films style. He believed that the background paintings in a good film would “support the action by minimizing detail or bright colours that could distract from the action, thus the background palette is said to reinforce the characterization and the action’s effects subtly and plausibly.” (26 p. 109) Similarly, the faint praise the film is afforded in its highly critical entry in The Art of Walt Disney is that it features “some excellent moments”, but the characters are criticised as the “merest of ciphers... wholly compounded from clichés” whilst the backgrounds are “so busy they distract from the characters” (3 p. 300). In the 500-plus pages of Finch’s book (which only goes as far as 1973) there are only one and a half pages dedicated to 'Sleeping Beauty'.

The film did receive more encouraging contemporary write-ups though. Variety of January 21st 1959 featured a positive review which proclaimed the film as a guaranteed treat for audiences who it says may be impressed despite their familiarity with television. It also praises the characters voice work and singles out the Prince as “considerably more masculine than these Disney heroes usually are” and acknowledging that the characters “match the visual concept” (20 p. 6). In the next issue of January 28th a story expresses the excitement investors felt at a screening of the film, even going so far as to suggest the $6 million had been well spent (14 p. 15). February 4th sees an issue of Variety released which reports that the film had broken records for its opening showings in Los Angeles (27 p. 4).

Whatever the contemporary view of audiences and critics (and Disney animators) toward 'Sleeping Beauty', the fact remains that Disney has been (in the long-term) profiting from the film with endless Home Video reissues since 1986, as well as theatrical re-releases in 1970, 1979, 1986 and 1993 (with a limited release in 2008). When adjusted for inflation of ticket prices 'Sleeping Beauty' is the 29th highest grossing film of all-time in the US alone (28), earning a combined $523,267,600 domestically (making it the sixth most successful Disney film at the US box office). Recent years have also seen the film receiving greater critical attention, as more people start to appreciate the efforts made by Eyvind Earle to break from some established Disney traditions in form, whilst maintaining the fluidity of the animation itself (5). A highlight for this spectacular animation can be seen in ‘sequence 8’ (the forest dance) as Aurora’s dress moves so naturally in relation to her movements. The characters may have been stylised and vertical, to the ire of many of their animators, yet the Disney flair for animated movement still shines through and, arguably, compliments the films look far more than it hinders it.

'Sleeping Beauty' is a triumph of art, produced in a commercial setting. Whilst it has been exploited for theme park rides, dolls, home videos, recorded music, books, costumes, bedding and even video games, these things are irrelevant to Eyvind Earle’s art. There is a difference between the Disney Corporation and animators and artists whose life and vocation is animation, just as there was a difference between Walt Disney the businessman and Walt Disney the animator. Of course, this essay has ignored many things which would seem to criticise the art of Disney; namely gender politics. But whatever the politics of the Disney canon at large, 'Sleeping Beauty' is secure as the last classical Disney film: the last to be hand-inked and the last (for better or worse) to be so two-dimensionally embedded in a fairytale past. It was also the first (and possibly the last) Disney film to so wholeheartedly embrace the notion of animation as art: and there cannot be a better epitaph, for it or Earle, than that.

Bibliography
1. Clark, Les, et al. Sleeping Beauty. Disney, 1959.
2. Geronimi, Clyde, Jackson, Wilfred and Luske, Hamilton. The Lady and the Tramp. Disney, 1955.
3. Finch, Christopher. The Art of Walt Disney. Burbank, CA : Walt Disney Productions, 1973.
4. Gomery, Douglas. Disney's Business History: A Reinterpretation. [book auth.] Eric Sooodin. Disney Discource. New York : Routledge, 1994.
5. Dejas, Andreas, Lasseter, John and Maltin, Leonard. Audio Commentary. Sleeping Beauty: 50th Anniversary Edition. [Blu-ray Disc] s.l. : Disney Studios/Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 2008.
6. Perrault, Charles and Translation by Carter, Angela. Sleeping Beauty & Other Fairytale Favourites. London : Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1982.
7. Geronimi, Clyde, Luske, Hamilton and Jackson, Wilfred. Cinderella. Disney, 1950.
8. —. Peter Pan. Disney, 1953.
9. Geronimi, Clyde, Jackson, Wilfred and Luske, Hamilton. Alice in Wonderful. Disney, 1951.
10. All-Time Blockbusters. Variety. January 7th, 1959, Vol. 213, 6.
11. Gabler, Neal. Walt Disney: The Biography. London : Random House, 2006.
12. Disney Profits Continue to Rise. Variety. January 14th, 1959, Vol. 213, 7.
13. Geronimi, Clyde, Luske, Hamilton and Reitherman, Wolfgang. One Hundred and One Dalmatians. Disney, 1961.
14. Investors Predict Disney Growth. Variety. January 28th, 1959, Vol. 213, 9.
15. Reitherman, Wolfgang. The Sword and the Stone. Disney, 1963.
16. Kimball, Ward and Nichols, Charles A. Toot, Whilstle, Plunk and Bloom. Disney, 1953.
17. Hand, David D. Bambi. Disney, 1942.
18. Hand, David. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Disney, 1937.
19. Disney, Walt and Iwerks, Ub. Steamboat Willie. Disney, 1928.
20. Sleeping Beauty Review. Variety. January 21st, 1959, Vol. 213, 8.
21. Focillon, Henry. The Art of the West: Gothic Art. New York : Phaidon Publishers, 1963.
22. Bazin, Germain. A History of Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present. London : Bonanza Books, 1958.
23. Frankl, Paul. Gothic Architecture. London : Penguin, 1962.
24. Armstrong, Samuel, et al. Fantasia. Disney, 1940.
25. Luckett, Moya. Fantasia: Cultural Constructions of Disney's "Masterpiece". [book auth.] Eric Smoodin. Disney Discource. New York : Routledge, 1994.
26. Neupart, Richard. Painting a Plausible World. [book auth.] Eric Smoodin. Disney Discource. New York : Routledge, 1994.
27. This Week at the Box Office. Variety. February 4th, 1959, Vol. 213, 10.
28. All Time Box Office With Ticket Price Adjusted for Inflation. Box Office Mojo. [Online] [Cited: January 12, 2009.] http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm.
29. Thomas, Bob. Disney's Art of Animation. New York : Simon & Schuster, 1958.
30. Kühnel, Ernst. Islamic Arts. London : G. Bell & Sons, 1970.
31. Canemaker, John. The Art and Flair of Mary Blair. Burbank, CA : Disney Editions, 2003.

Figures
1. ‘The Unicorn is Found’, ca. 1495-1505. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image obtained from http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Unicorn/unicorn_hunting_2.htm
2. Malificent in Sleeping Beauty. See (1). Image obtained from DVD.
3. The Stepmother in Cinderella. See (7). Image obtained from DVD.
4. Eleanor Audley. Image obtained from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0041598/
5. Three Good Fairies in Sleeping Beauty. See (1). Image obtained from DVD.
6. Maleficent’s Goons. See above.
7. ‘Hell’, Hieronymus Bosch, ca. 1490-1500. Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Vienna. Image obtained from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/judge/
8. Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Limbourg Brothers, ca.1485-1489. Musée Condé, Chantilly. Image obtained from http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/
9. Sleeping Beauty. Image obtained from DVD.
10. Sleeping Beauty. Image obtained from DVD.
11. Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Limbourg Brothers, ca.1485-1489. Musée Condé, Chantilly. Image obtained from http://www.christusrex.org/www2/berry/
12. Concept for Alice in Wonderland, Mary Blair, Image obtained from http://todountipo.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/montreal-april-12-mary-blair.jpg
13. Concept for Peter Pan, Mary Blair, Image obtained from http://cartoonmodern.blogsome.com/category/mary-blair/
14. Gothic Forest, Eyvind Earle, 1999, Gallery 21, California. Image obtained from http://www.gallery21.com/a_graphic_gothic_forest.htm
15. Deer, Eyvind Earle, Image obtained from http://www.excellentvirtu.com/eyvind_earle_deer.htm
16. Various Home Video Boxes, found on amazon.co.uk.

All images belong to their respective owners.