The Aristocats
The 1970s was a trying decade for the Disney company. The studio was still reeling from the death of Walt Disney and as a result, I feel that the four animated features of the 70s lack a lot of the quality and originality their previous films contained. One can see it clearly in the first 70s Disney film, The Aristocats. Now, this film does hold the distinction of being the first Disney story not based on a previous work (yes, even Lady and the Tramp was based on a short story), however, it borrows copiously from several other Disney films in terms of story and character.
For example, the character of Thomas O'Mally, the alley cat, is voiced by Phil Harris (the same actor who voiced Baloo) and exhibits the same traits, in that he also believes in being carefree and living by one's own rules. At the same time, he is reminiscent of the Tramp in the same way and also in his ultimate fate, which is to give up said carefree life and live as a pet. Similarly, Duchess (voiced by Eva Gabor, also to become a regular for Disney), while more refined than Lady, finds herself in the same fish-out-of-water predicament that Lady did and winds up falling for the rebellious hero while teaching him some responsibility. Again, this does not make a bad story, but the characters feel too familiar to be very interesting.
The Aristocats is peppered throughout with a host of minor characters who serve no real purpose, but are infinitely more entertaining than the leads. These include a duo of hounds, Napoleon and Lafayette, who are always trying to thwart the villain, with comic results, and a pair of geese, whose uncle Waldo is perpetually drunk, having escaped a chef who 'basted' him in white wine, and steals the show out from everyone's feet. And then you have Edgar, the scheming butler, who is so bumbling, it is impossible to take him seriously as a villain.
All in all, these characters, while fun, aren't enough to save The Aristocats from feeling inferior. Furthermore, there is a laziness in style and animation that is prevalent. For example, several animated frames are used multiple times. There is shots of cats dancing during a musical number and, at the end, the exact sames shots are used, although with slightly different color tints. I understand that animators do this often, even Disney, but it never seemed so obvious before. Here it is obvious to the point of distraction.
So, in the end, while The Aristocats boasts a few colorful characters and energetic musical numbers (who can forget the catchy 'Everybody Wants to Be a Cat'?), it misses the creativity of preceding films, a pattern which unfortunately continues on into their next film
Favorite line: Napoleon is able to tell what kind of shoes Edgar is wearing just by hearing him coming.
Napoleon - "Let's see. They're Oxford shoes, size nine and a half. Hole in the left sole, it sounds like."
Lafayette - "What color are they?"
Napoleon - "Why, they're black... Oh, now how would I know that?"
Robin Hood
This was another one that I watched a lot as a youngster, probably for the same reasons I watched Sword in the Stone a lot. Robin Hood manages to do some very creative things with the age old legend about the man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, and yet still falls into the some of the same traps as The Aristocats did.
I like how they attributed different animals to the classic characters. They make a lot of sense, in a way. It makes sense that Robin Hood should be a fox, given that he is clever and wily. It also makes sense that King Richard should be a lion, since lions are the king of beasts (also, that historical Richard was known as the Lion-heart), and thus the villainous Prince John should also be a somewhat less regal-looking lion. The rest of the movie is populated by animals of all sorts, from badgers to rhinoceroses.
I also like the voice talents, especially Peter Ustinov as Prince John, giving him just the right amount of sneering contempt, sarcastic wit and cowardice. However, one of the film's shortcomings is Phil Harris as Little John, a bear. He is pretty much playing Baloo again, with the same intonations and personality traits, albeit without the carefree attitude. His casting again shows a lack of creativity.
Furthermore, the reusing of animated frames is even more obvious here than previously Not only does Robin Hood reuse its own frames, it clearly uses frames from The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, even Snow White. This sort of thing baffles me, because I don't really see any use for it, beyond a means of expediency, which still reeks of laziness.
In spite of these things, the film is entertaining enough, especially for young ones, and features some hilarious action scenes. The fight after the tournament in particular is a classic scenario of hysterical mayhem, and the film is worth watching for that scene alone (it begins at about the 5 min 30 sec mark in the above clip). Otherwise, Robin Hood isn't all that memorable an addition to the Disney collection.
Favorite line: Wise words from Robin himself - "Rob? That's a naughty word; we never rob! We just simply borrow a bit from those who can afford it."
No comments:
Post a Comment