Originally published December 25, 1992, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #997
It seems that Disney keeps upping the stakes with every animated release. The animation crews look at the success of the previous film and must bite their fingers nervously, because they don’t want to be the ones who blow the current roll that the features are on.
It started with The Little Mermaid, of course, and the advent of Broadway-quality standards to the world of the animated film. It bypassed The Rescuers Down Under, which drew some accolades for some interesting computer tricks but not much beyond that.
Then it took a quantum leap forward with Beauty and the Beast, upping the stakes tremendously with not only audience and critical adoration, but the unprecedented Oscar nomination for “Best Film”–and quite a few people (myself included) felt it deserved to win.
So now the focus shifted to Aladdin, Disney’s 31st animated release. The pressure was on. The heat was turned up. Not to mention it brought with it the fact that it represented the final collaboration of composer Alan Menken and lyricist Howard Ashman, the latter having succumbed to AIDS prior to the release of Beauty and the Beast.
The verdict?
(Yes, I’m sure all America and critics nationwide have been waiting my say-so on the film.)
Well–it ain’t Beauty and the Beast. It ain’t even The Little Mermaid.
What it is is a much lighter-weight film, in everything from its design style to the music. If Beauty and the Beast is, say, A Little Night Music, then Aladdin is A Day in Hollywood/A Night in the Ukraine. It takes itself much less seriously, and seems a lot less ponderous somehow. It’s nice to see that Disney hasn’t become calcified into some sort of formula, and is not reluctant to release films that serve as stark contrasts to each other.
The story is a familiar one: Young Aladdin (spoken by Scott Weinger, with singing voice by Brad Kane), a street urchin, becomes the unwitting aid of the power-seeking Jafar (voiced by Jonathan Freeman) in the latter’s attempt to obtain a magic lamp. The plan goes awry and Aladdin finds himself apparently buried alive–until he discovers the lantern has an occupant: A genie (voiced, as everyone on the planet must know, by Robin Williams). Using the genie’s powers to grant three wishes, Aladdin works to win the heart of the multi-voiced Princess Jasmine (voiced by Linda Larkin, sung by Lea Salonga, best-known for her work on Broadway’s Miss Saigon).
The themes explored are as familiar as the story. Both Mermaid and Beauty have preached that judging people by their surface appearance is not the way to live one’s life. In Mermaid, Triton makes sweeping assertions about humans, using those prejudices to dismiss Ariel’s desires out of hand. Likewise, Prince Eric ignores what his instincts tell him and decides the now-legged Ariel can’t be the woman of his dreams because she can’t speak.
In Beauty, the entire plot hinges on seeing below the surface to the good within. Although, let’s face it, the Beast was pretty bëšŧìál on the inside as well as on the outside; if he weren’t, he wouldn’t have gotten himself into the fix he was in in the first place. The true “Don’t judge a book” philosophy in that film really applied to Gaston, a heroic, charming, fun guy who turned out to be the real beast of the film’s title.
Once again Aladdin returns to that tried and true (the less charitable would say clichéd) theme. Oblivious to the possibility that Jasmine could possibly like him for himself, the street-wise “diamond in the rough” Aladdin presents himself as the fake “Prince Ali Ababwa” (which sounds like “Ali Baba” as pronounced by Elmer Fudd). But you just know things aren’t going to fall into place for him until he drops the charade.
But if the general message of the film is evocative of the previous two Ashman/Menken efforts, the visual style is not. The animation and script has gone in a markedly retro direction.
Visually, they’ve shunned the rich and lush animation style of Beauty and Mermaid, and instead gone for a more–there’s no good way to say this–cartoony look (yeah, I know they’re all cartoons, okay?). The character designs and styles are evocative of mid 1940s Disney shorts, particularly in such efforts as 1943’s “Reason and Emotion.” Although there’s a general Sleeping Beauty look to it as well, in terms of the purposeful flatness. But whereas Sleeping Beauty had a deep, lush feel to it–and all the characters moved with ultra-human gracefulness–Aladdin has the frenetic feel of a short. It’s all arms and legs.
At least the lead characters look middle eastern–I was worried that they would give Aladdin and Jasmine cute little white-bread noses instead of the more proper Arabic profile they sport. Instead of Marlo Thomas, we got Danny Thomas.
There are two other aspects to the film that are throwbacks. The first aspect is in the voice casting.
Disney has experimented with two basic ways of bringing a character to life. The first is to create a character and cast it with an actor who then brings that character to life. This was the way it was done both with Mermaid and Beauty.
The second is to cast a well-known individual and then build the character around him. We haven’t really seen this since 1967’s The Jungle Book. Not only was Baloo the Bear a shaggy Phil Harris, but King Louie was head-to-toe Louis Prima, from his name down to his conversing in scat.
In the intervening 25 years, Disney seemed to stay away from the notion of casting such a strong presence that the animated end product was merely a cartoon version of the voice actor. The closest they came was Vincent Price in The Great Mouse Detective–but, even then, they refrained from drawing the ominous Ratigan to look like Price, and Ratigan was pretty much his own character within a few minutes of his first appearance on screen. Although they did toss Billy Joelesque shades on Dodger in Oliver and Company–but that was really more of an in-joke.
But the genie–make no mistake. The genie is Robin Williams. And it’s not even Robin Williams making an effort to be another character, as he did in Hook or The Fisher King. This is Robin Williams being Robin Williams with his rat-a-tat-tat comedic style, and “anything goes” persona. They simply let him go nuts with the script, and then took on the herculean effort of animating fast enough to keep up with him.
In a film that took itself more seriously, this would be a major distraction. But Aladdin is so loose, so funky, that somehow you find yourself saying, “OK, so Aladdin goes in a cave and finds a magic lamp, and there’s a genie inside who talks like Robin Williams, and then they get out and then–”
But it’s not just Williams. There’s another comedian in the film whose contribution is not only as important as Williams’, but his voice goes better with his character to create a more seamless whole–and that’s Gilbert Gottfried as Iago, the parrot sidekick of the evil Jafar.
Any number of Disney villains have had their familiars–Maleficent with the Raven, Ursula with Flotsam and Jetsam. But the familiars have always either cowered in fear, or else have settled for delighting in the evil doings of their bosses.
Not Iago. Iago is the parrot from Hëll.
Always wondered if, secretly, parrots were “holding back”? That they were capable of saying so much more than they’re allowing us to believe, so that they could secretly snicker at their intellectual superiority? Ever wonder if Polly thought something to the effect of, “Hey, Babe, I got your cracker right here.”
Wonder no more. Iago sets the record straight, starting off with the standard parrot imitation of just-spoken words, but–as soon as no one but Jafar is around–he launches into eloquent and stinging diatribes. No one is safe from the bird’s rage, including his nominal “owner.” When Jafar’s plans to awry, Iago loudly informs him, in Gottfried’s distinctive style, “I am not surprised! I am so not surprised, I could have a heart attack from not surprise!”
Gilbert Gottfried is a comedian whom I’ve never been able to stand for more than a few seconds at a time. I could handle the voice (which is that of every raucous New Yorker at every sporting event, all rolled into one) and I could handle the face (a human wedgie). But the combination is more than I can take.
Divorced from that perpetually pinched expression, however, Gottfried is a scream (literally). Making a concession to the source, the Disney animators have stuck more teeth into Iago’s beak than most humans have in their entire mouths, let alone the fact that birds don’t generally have teeth.
The second aspect of the film that’s a throwback is the use of anachronisms. You know–jokes that derive their humor from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We haven’t seen Disney do that to any degree since Sword in the Stone–a move which was apparently so successful that (aside from the bee-bop mentality of Jungle Book) it took Disney three decades to work up the nerve to do it again.
Once again the magical focus character of the film is the leading creative anachronist. But the genie makes Merlin’s “Blow me to Bermuda” gag look tame by comparison. Williams is all over the place, ranging from quick impressions of Jack Nicholson to entire scenes from Taxi Driver. Some viewers wonder whether the film will age well as a result. Yeah, well–who cares? It works fine now. Besides, Aladdin and Jasmine are engaging enough characters, in and of themselves, that the film’s not going to be wrecked even if a single viewer doesn’t know who Ed Sullivan is. (“Right here on your stage for your wish-fulfillment pleasure.”)
Yes, Williams is a strong enough presence that he can take two rarely used, and even questionable, techniques of Disney animation, and make them work through sheer force of personality. Good heavens, is there anything that Robin Williams can’t do?
Well–yeah.
He can’t sing.
It’s not like he’s tone deaf. He can carry a tune OK. In terms of vocal stylings, he’s right up there with Bruce Willis. But musical comedy is not his forte.
Fortunately, there are a number of things to distract viewers from this. First, there’s so much happening on the screen when he sings that you barely have time to listen to what’s being said–which is good, because his diction is so abominable in places that you can’t comprehend a word.
Second, Williams performs a song the way he performs comedy: schizophrenically. Having trouble with his own voice in “Friend Like Me” (the genie’s intro song that has been likened to “Be Our Guest”)? Don’t worry. Half the time he’s imitating Fats Waller, with snatches of French lounge singer and surfer dude thrown in.
Concerned that “Prince Ali,” the big number that announces the arrival of the disguised Aladdin, requires someone who can really belt to carry it off? Not a problem. Two stanzas in, Williams suddenly does Ethel Merman, and stays as Merman whenever the going gets rough. And, as was pointed out in a memorable Saturday Night Live sketch, anyone can do Ethel Merman.
Robin Williams singing on screen is easy enough to handle. But listening to Williams on the soundtrack can occasionally be a chore (although I am consistently broken up when he suddenly starts doing “Prince Ali” color commentary a la the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade).
As for the music itself, well, the score isn’t Menken’s best. Once again the computer-aided animation is so strong that you don’t notice shortcomings like music, particularly during Aladdin’s escape with the lamp from the hidden caverns–a sequence so evocative of Indiana Jones that, when Jafar is shouting to the dangling Aladdin, “Throw me the lamp,” I was yelling at the screen, “Throw me the idol! I throw you the whip!”
As for the lyrics, Tim Rice, who wrote half of the six songs, doesn’t display Ashman’s apparently boundless vocabulary and wit. When he tries to imitate Ashman, as in “One Jump Ahead,” the efforts are not impressive (“One jump ahead of the hitmen, one hit ahead of the flock, I think I’ll take a stroll around the block.” Eh.)
When Rice excels is when he creates evocative word pictures, stirring the senses and emotions. His “A Whole New World,” which will probably be nominated (and win) the Oscar for Best Song, is extremely lyrical. The performance of the song by Kane and Salonga was so moving, in fact, that the (apparently now requisite) pop version by Peabo Bryson and Regina Belle paled by comparison. If Disney is looking for radio airplay, they’d be well-advised to stick with the movie version.
Ashman’s work is uneven, although that’s really only in comparison to what’s gone before. And besides–not to sound trite–he kind of had an excuse. “Friend Like Me,” for example, doesn’t really display all that much lyrical verve, and never really seems to build right. Williams’ scattershot delivery doesn’t help. “Arabian Nights,” the film’s intro number, sounded like it had a promising start, but also seemed oddly truncated.
“Prince Ali,” on the other hand, shows Ashman at his best–namely when he’s using his word skill and gift for juxtaposition to comic effect (“He faced the galloping hordes, A hundred bad guys with swords. Who sent those goons to their lords? Why, Prince Ali!”).
If Beauty had a Sondheim feeling to it, then Aladdin is like something Gershwin might have cooked up. Middle Eastern stylings interspersed with yadda-yadda Broadway pizzazz. Crazy for You meets Kismet.
With all these elements tossed into the pot, what’s amazing is that the whole thing hangs together so splendidly. What does it, of course, is the thing that will make or break any animated film: the animation. (Duh!) Aladdin is consistently superb. The character designs are uniformly rounded, from Aladdin’s Turkish trunks to Jasmine’s hourglass figure to the genie’s entire Hirshfeld-inspired body. It nicely mirrors the reality of the Arabic architecture. The contrast is Jafar. Naturally the villain should stand out, and Jafar’s up-and-down, ramrod straight lines provide a distinct dissimilarity to the rest of his world. And there’s enough energy in the film to light up downtown Baghdad.
Not to mention that they even managed to give personalities to faceless, mute creatures such as the flying carpet. And I even got to like Abu the monkey, which was something considering that when I first saw him in the previews at the San Diego Comic-Con, he got on my nerves in less than five minutes.
Overall, an entertaining and noteworthy addition to the Disney string of hits. And, of course, accompanied by the requisite host of chachkas and toys. You know, I’m starting to think that the Ariel sneakers and the Belle sneakers and the Jasmine sneakers are all the same except for the picture! Whatta you guys think?
Although, if you’re in the market for a plush genie, I’d recommend the one from Mattel rather than the ones they’re selling at the Disney Stores or parks. The Disney ones have rubber heads, which aren’t nearly as attractive as the full plush heads of the Mattel model. Likewise with the plush Abu.
What I have not seen is a plush Iago. You just know that somewhere he’s seething, “Well that figures! I’m not surprised!” I’m so not surprised, I could molt!”
(Peter David, writer of stuff, must admit that Princess Jasmine’s pining for freedom from her castle-bound life prompted him to start humming, “I wanna be where the peasants are, I wanna see–wanna see them begging. Scraping around for those–whattaya call them? Oh yeah. Alms–“)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=79ecd654-dd0a-4d78-8343-509dde7d80af)
• 
Aladdin was pretty forgettable. My personal favorite of the era was “Little Mermaid”, though most preferred BnB. Just watching the opening scene with the underwater creatures was enough to tell me that Disney animation was back, and it was serious.
I think “Lion King” was their best of all time, though. Nothing since has come close (note: excluding Pixar).
I realize I’m an odd man out on such things, but I can hardly remember either “The Little Mermaid” or “The Lion King” — well, except for the villain’s finale in the latter movie and Robert Guilllaume’s, “Who cares? It’s in the past,” lesson. Can’t remember a tune from the former and only one from the latter. Meanwhile, I have a better memory for events and songs in “Aladdin” for some reason.
.
My favourite, though, was “Mulan”, the movie with lessons in lateral thinking. Oh, and James Hong.
For me, it is always BnB. While I might have Lion King on DVD, somewhere, I have only looked at it once. I have never really seen all of Mermaid, just bits and pieces here and there. I enjoy Aladdin, and it is now on our DVR, just for Robin Williams at his (clean!) best. But, Beauty sits next to the DVD player, and when we want something to watch, we pull it out and watch it again. We even have gone through all the extras and commentaries!
Of course, the anachronisms in The Sword & the Stone were straight out of T.H. White
–
It’s not surprising that Gottfried’s Iago went on to a much more prominent role in the two DTV sequels and the animated series.
–
Aladdin remains a favorite of mine. I wanted a girlfriend like Jasmine. Not as in “Middle Eastern,” (which, good luck finding one in small-town Oklahoma) but as in “plucky, smart, probably on to my BS, and not afraid to sneak out against Daddy’s wishes.” (Which, good luck NOT finding one in small-town Oklahoma.)
I knew someone who found a Middle-Eastern girlfriend in Oklahoma. Admittedly, it was in Stillwater (not exactly a small town, although I have heard some outsiders call it that).
I really enjoyed Aladdin. This is the only role I’ve ever enjoyed Gilbert Gottfriedin in and I liked Iago quite a bit.
.
They also made a TV cartoon series out of it, which was quite good. Jason Alexander had a role as a bumbling villain, with a henchman who was much smarter than he was. I think that was my favorite use of that trope.
The name of that bumbling villain, by the way, was a PAD-worthy pun: Abis Mal (abysmal).
I really liked Gottfried in FORD FAIRLANE. He was only in it for a few minutes, and half of that was his typical shtick as he played a radio shock jock, but there’s one scene where the wince goes slack, his eyes open, and he speaks quietly as he and the lead reminisce about their history. Great little moment.
On a slightly tangential note, there is a wonderful documentary out right now called Waking Sleeping Beauty; it recently made the film festival circuit and is now out in limited release, so I suspect a lot of people won’t be able to see it until it comes out on DVD, but I can’t recommend it more highly. It’s the story of Disney Animation in the early to mid-eighties, where the studio was putting out less than successful efforts such as The Rescuers, The Great Mouse Detective and The Black Cauldron. Having hit rock bottom, they finally managed to turn things around with a string of animated hits, including The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.
What I found absolutely fascinating was the extensive use of home movie footage. At one point early in the film, the cameraman (an invisible John Lasseter) is told to point the camera at one of their young animators who turns out to be a twenty-something Tim Burton, who looks a bit like a deer in the headlights. The director Don Hahn and producer Peter Schneider were both heavily involved in the various projects going on at the time, so they are the perfect team to tell this story. I’m actually a bit surprised that they were able to pull it off, considering a big chunk of the film is devoted to the behind-the-scenes battles between Jeffrey Katzenberg and CEO Michael Eisner. At one point, somebody asks how things on The Lion King are progressing and the response is, ‘Great, we’re making a film about ourselves!’ Anyway, I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning the film, as I suspect it’s not getting the attention or distribution it deserves but should definitely be of interest to folks reading Peter’s blog.
Ðámņ your ášš, Nazarro, you beat me to it! I was gonna mention Waking Sleeping Beauty myself. I’ve gotten great recommendations from AICN’s Eric Vespe, and from Roger Ebert. The trailer for WSB is enough to pique my interest; watching the camera peek in on all these young animators like John Lasseter and Tim Burton is a delight.
To the thread, though. For me, the joy of Aladdin was one person, Jafar. Disney lifted as much as they could from Alex Korda’s The Thief of Bagdad, and Jafar was taken pretty much whole cloth. He looked like they’d animated Conrad Veidt. As the mack daddy old movie gonzo of all time, I was thrilled.
The rest was reasonably watchable and fun, and I could even tune down Robin’s histrionics. Love the guy, but sometimes he gets on my remaining nerve.
Two problems with Aladdin:
1. The opened with the street vendor and should have closed with him. They only used half of the framing device they started. Sloppy story-telling.
2. Who cares if it’s Aladdin’s last wish and he has to decide whether to let the Genie go free or be a real prince and get the girl? After what just happened with Jafar he should have made another wish, given the lamp to Jasmine and had her wish the Genie free. The whole selfless act was pointless.
The first isn’t a problem. An afterword is not required to accompany an introduction.
.
I much prefer the second problem you described to your suggestion. That fix strikes me as disrepectful to both Jasmine and the genie. If Aladdin believes that the genie should be free, it should be his wish that makes him so. Passing one off to another round of servitude when he knew of an alternative is bad enough.
Expecting someone else to make use of the alternative on his behalf, so that he might exploit his wishes for all they’re worth, is much worse. He’d have no room to criticize Jasmine if she decided to use all three of her wishes for personal gain, then pass the lamp on to her father with the same expectation for him to use the third wish to free the genie, with him continuing to pass the buck to the next person ad infinitum. (And beyond?)
.
Even if she did honour the agreement, he’s still asking (or telling) her to do something he wouldn’t for selfish reasons. Why should she marry someone like that?
“He’d have no room to criticize Jasmine if she decided to use all three of her wishes for personal gain, then pass the lamp on to her father with the same expectation for him to use the third wish to free the genie,”
.
While I agree that it would be a bad ending for Aladdin, that actually sounds like a pretty good short story in itself. It reminds me of the Doctor Seuss story about the king who had an assistant to hold his tail, who got an assistant to hold his tail, on and on until finally someone declared that everyone had to be responsible for their own tails. I think I’d enjoy a story about a Genie who was constantly being promised freedom in exchange for his service, except that people kept passing the buck.
That was a good example, Mr. Bryant. Thank you for the Dr. Seuss reference. I hadn’t thought about it, but yes, that does sound like it would make a good short story.
Likewise, The Genie and Aladdin were friends…he could have just made him a prince after he was set free just because.
In Return of Jaffar, he uses that kind of plan with Abys Mal..though he’d likely just kill Mal after being set free.
Enjoyed Gilbert Gottfried as Mr. Mxyzptlk.
Alladin is my favorite Disney movie EVER. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, The Lion King and the classic Disney movies are all great, but I love absolutely everything about Alladin.
Aladdin is the only Disney movie from that period that I own on DVD. I liked The Little Mermaid well enough, but I kept waiting for the titular Beast from B&TB to get over his emo self (not that I had a word for emo at the time) and just get on with life.
Oddly, I also had no trouble with Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame, which I’m sure was their fallback plan when they couldn’t get the execs to approve Disney’s Les Miserables. Couldn’t you just see Javert and Jean Valjean dancing arm in arm, loaf of bread in Valjean’s hand, waltzing all the way to prison? CLASSIC!!
I enjoyed Aladdin the first time I saw it. I remember thinking the CG carpet scenes were cool (they were CG right?). I saw the Lion King and liked it but I never saw Beauty and the Beast because I though it was “for girls”. I saw The Little Mermaid about 4 years ago and I hated it. I remember liking Tarzan a lot because the characters did not break into song (I guess I was going through my “I hate musicals” phase). I have never seen Mulan but I would really like to.
What do people here think of the direct-to-video Aladdin sequels. I remember the animation to be really bad with lot of solid color only backgrounds (Star Trek TOS style). Robin Williams returned for the second movie but not so for the third one.
Actually Williams was in the 3rd film. The Genie in the second was Dan “Homer Simpson” Castellaneta who also voiced him the tv series (of which I was a fan)
Really? I knew the voice in the cartoon wasn’t Williams yet was good, but I didn’t know it was Castellaneta. Now the Simpsons episode where they parodied the Genie from Aladdin seems even funnier knowing that he already had a connection.
I stand corrected.
As I recall it, the carpet was a mix of hand-drawn animation and CG. The carpet itself was hand-drawn (by Randy Cartwright, whose home movies were used throughout the aforementioned Waking Sleeping Beauty), but the pattern was applied by a computer.
Watched the third Aladdin a few months ago when we moved and the Cable guy was a few days from coming. It was the only movie unpacked as it came from a bag of unsold garage sale stuff.
I remember hating it when it first came out (maybe because by that time I was so used to the “Homer” Genie) but this time around it was actually pretty amusing. I haven’t seen the second movie in ages!
And as a quick side note, and not to disrupt the thread, but my father passed away this week and he was an unlikely fan of PAD’s novel work, a few years ago he started reading books after I was finished, and was a big fan of Apropos and King Arthur. Just wanted to pass along my thanks to PAD for those characters we bonded over!
The street vendor that’s starts telling the story does show up again. He’s at the end of the third movie.
Both “Aladdin” and “The Lion King” were my favorites from the period, likely partially because of my age at the time. After growing up a bit though, “Mulan” now remains my favorite of the 90s/late 80s Disney films, and the title character is probably one of my favorite movie heroins. It’s “Hunchback of Notre Dame” and the utterly forgettable “Pocahontas” that appear to be the major losers from the era. Both suffered from too many irritating sidekick characters.
.
As for “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid,” I believe that as a kid, I found the leading girls to be too… well, girly for me. So I preferred movies with leading men (and I loved “Mulan” when it came around because, well, she’s as tomboyish as they come in Disney flicks). I remember that as a kid, and especially as a young teen, I always had a hard time finding characters in popular movies that I could relate to because most leading ladies out there are so feminine.
My feeling on Pocahontas, Jasmine was that it was just Michael Eisner sucking up to the environmentalists, it felt so pretentious about what we’ve done as a society and what we should do. very heavy-handed.
I remember going to school at that time and every last person mocking “Colors of the Wind” with that very breathy voice. My family had both the soundtracks to “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas” on cassette, and as one of the few positive memories I have of the later movie from being a kid, I remember really enjoying the “Virginia Company” instrumental song (at the beginning, when they go through the storm while sailing), probably one of the first orchestrations (apart from the them to Star Trek: TNG) I really liked as a kid. The whole of “Pocahontas,” while having some really subpar musical numbers, has a beautiful background score.
.
And as a kid, when it came to environmentally friendly family features, I got way more into “Fern Gully.” Unlike “Pocahontas,” that movie actually had a note or two of humor about it, which is somewhat essential if you don’t want children to mock your movie.
Yeah, Pocahontas was an insult. Putting aside the completely false history, and the annoyingly one-dimensional raccoon and bird characters, it almost seemed to imply that everything was okay-hunky-dorey between the Native Americans and the Europeans after the end of the movie.
I know everyone knocks Pocahontas (which I have never seen) but I’ve got to say I hated The Lion King and for reasons similar to the ones Luigi mentions regarding Pocahontas.
In Beauty and the Beast the big production number “Be My Guest” used flatware, dishes, et cetera to good effect as decorative and design elements creating pattern and motion complementing the music. The Lion King reproduced the big production number using animals as the decorative and design elements. I found this objectification of living creatures as decorative objects pretty offensive.
Second, just as Luigi criticized Pocahontas because it “almost seemed to imply that everything was okay-hunky-dorey between the Native Americans and the Europeans after the end of the movie”, in The Lion King as soon as Simba becomes King plants immediately begin to grow and everything is OK – BEFORE HE HAS DONE ANYTHING TO CREATE CHANGE.
(continued (accidentally submitted before finished))
This very much echoed to me the feeling among many people at the time that if a “good guy” is in charge everything will be fine. The movie was released two years into Bill Clinton’s first term so was likely in development during the last year or two of Reagan’s presidency and during Clinton’s campaign. I knew a lot of people who believed that if Clinton was elected the nation’s problems would be solved. The message I saw in the ending of The Lion King reinforced for it’s massive audience (and through repeated viewings over the years could really cement it) the belief that having the right leader can solve all ills.
OK – rant over.
OK – rant almost over
I said “the belief that having the right leader can solve all ills” but a key factor in the offensiveness of this to me is that that leader doesn’t have to have be the right leader by having any particular competency or even actually do anything – he just has to be a “nice guy” and everything will be all right.
OK – really done now.
…and, of course, the Disney people *never* saw The Thief and the Cobbler.
.
And they never watched Kimba, either.
Didn’t ‘The Thief And The Cobbler’ come out after ‘Aladdin’? I thought it did. I know it had been in production since the early sixties (Did it have the longest production time of any movie in history? I can’t think of anything that took longer, unless you count the ‘Up’ movies as a whole), but I thought it was the popularity of ‘Aladdin’ that secured the funding for it to finally get finished.
I realise I could be wrong. I don’t know much about it.
.
It is a great movie, though. Some scenes are not that well-done, but overall, it’s a very interesting and highly innovative film.
(The version I saw had Jonathon Winters as the Thief. I’ve heard that other versions are better.)
What I find to be really interesting about Aladdin is that the plot completely changed at one point.
Aladdin had three friends that he used to beg/sing with and there was the Genie of the Ring, an aspect of the story almost completely forgotten.
If you ever get a chance to pick up the Music behind the Magic the 4 CD set covering Little Mermaid Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.
It had demo versions of the songs some alternate versions. Silence is Golden the original version of Poor Unfortunate Souls. Human Again from Beauty, which eventually got released for the Musical. And from Aladdin they have several songs written for the original plot. Two highlights (for me anyway) was High Adventure, basically a song keyed to the music cue of the heroes going off to fight, and Proud of your Boy, a song Aladdin sings to his mother apologising for being a screw up. It took me YEARS before I could listen to that song and not get a little emotional.
Aladdin was probably my favorite of the Disney movies from that era. Following that are Hercules, Tarzan and then (believe it or not) Treasure Planet. Why these four? Well, they were kind of more “boy movies”. I was a little boy when I saw most of these movies and while they were all good, I always warmed up more to the ones with a hero than the ones featuring a princess. Also, they were a bit lighter than the other ones. Lion King had a male lead too, but it was kind of “African Shakespeare”. Hunchback was also kind of heavy. And Mulan, despite having a kickass lead regardless of gender, was kind of an animated war movie.
I should also note that I also have a real soft spot for A Goofy Movie. However, A Goofy Movie is really more it’s own unique thing and not really one of the standard “Disney Classics”.
I loved Aladdin when I first saw it, and Robin Williams is what made it great.
Note me down as one more vote for Aladdin as best Disney movie of that era. I liked it so much I went to the theatre alone to watch it twice after the first time, and that with Disney spanish distributor (that is, Disney itself) dubbing and translating even the songs. Later, when I could grab a copy of the ost, I nearly burned the tape from listening to it so much.
And while aknowledging the fact that Touchstone is’nt technically Disney, I have to say Nightmare Before Christmas comes very close after Aladdin. I liked BnB, kind of enjoyed Lion King but dont care much for Mermaid. Mulan was fun but ultimatelly (and regrettably) minor, same with Tarzan. Hercules had much to do with Aladdin but fell short. Recently I watched Lilo&Stich again and found it much better than I remembered, with a noteworthy character design (specially on the human side).
On a related note… I remember having seen Black Cauldron when I was a kid and that it scared me, but pretty much just remember that. Much later I managed to collect the whole Prydain saga by Lloyd Alexander and loved it. Whats your (Not just PAD, but any one) oppinion on that one? Is it worth the nuisance of tracking it and having it delivered? (because that one never got a retail distribution here, not even on VHS.
“The Black Cauldron” is actually quite good, although it mixes some really dark story-telling with some rather silly and upbeat characters… the backgrounds in it are absolutely gorgeous. And it is rather good, definitely one of the most underrated Disney movies, but that’s mostly because it’s so extremely underrated.
In response to the Bob/Jason solution” of Aladdin using up the wishes and passing the lamp on to Jasmine, that may make logical sense but would turn the selfless choice made in the movie into a matter of convenience. (“I’ll use my wishes and give you the lamp, you make three wishes and then give me back the lamp…”) It also skips the basic lesson of genies.
In an episode of PHINEAS AND FERB (a terrific if repetitive cartoon), the evil Dr. Doofenshmirtz (sic) complains about genies, describing how their wishes always backfire against the wisher and concludes “Who benefits from that? No one!” I think the genie is a magical and literal representation of the old saying: Be careful what you wish for. (D&D players know this from the Wish spell (GMs are encouraged to interpret wishes so they harm the wisher), and the story “The Monkey’s Paw” also expresses this saying.) People love to imagine that getting exactly what they want will automatically make them happy forever — “If I only had a lot of money;” “If I was only a ruler;” “If I was only married” — and that’s rarely the case. The genie, with the wishes granted, shows that instantly getting what you (literally) wish for doesn’t mean everything will be perfect or that you may not have thought of the consequences of having what you want. As for limiting the number of wishes, that reflects life: You can put a lot of time and effort into achieving/getting something — but you only have so much time in life to pursue what you want.
Perhaps it’s just a lesson in specificity, kinda reminds me of the “Monkey’s Paw” episode of “The Simpsons,” one of my favorite parodies they’ve done. Homer saying “… and the turkey’s a little dry. The turkey’s a little DRY! *sob*”
I loved Aladdin at the time, but unlike The Little Mermaid and BatB, it hasn’t really held up over time. The latter two films got better with repeat viewings, but Aladdin went down in my estimation each time I saw it. And Peter is right about the score not being Menken’s best. He’s my favorite musical composer, and Tim Rice is my favorite lyricist, but when put together, they didn’t really add up to much. Still, Menken at his worst is better than Randy Newman at his best (at least I remember the songs from Aladdin, which is more than I can say about The Princess and the Frog).
.
I seem to be alone here, but I think the true Disney masterpiece, not only of that era but of all time, is Hunchback. What a glorious, gorgeous, amazing movie that is.
One positive thing I got out of repeat viewings for “Aladdin” was finally an appreciation for the character of Jasmine. As we share the same name, I looked for a reason to like her as a kid and never really thought much of her. But when I rewatched the film as a teenager I was struck so much by the line “I am not a prize to be won!” as she stalks out of the room where Aladdin and the Sultan are discussing her marriage. Although she’s won over in the end, it’s awfully refreshing to see a girl in a movie object to being, well, objectified.
For me, Aladdin was the best of a great batch, and it was because the script had a genuinely inventive and clever way of defeating the bad guy. ‘The Little Mermaid’ just had Ursula get stabbed by the prince, Gaston just tripped and fell off a cliff, but Aladdin…
.
Aladdin had the main character actually use the wit that has been shown to be his strength throughout the movie to trick Jafar. Every time I see the movie (five times in the theater alone!) I always get a little thrill down my spine when Aladdin says, “You wanted to be a genie? Well, you got it! …and everything that goes with it.” As the little lamp appears on the floor.
.
And the best thing about it is that little worry at the back of your mind, when the Genie puts Jafar into the Cave of Wonders. That little worm of doubt that says, “But someday, won’t someone find that lamp, too?” (Which, of course, happened in the sequel. But I think it was more interesting as a question than as an answer.)
.
Man, was that a good run of Disney flicks overall. And then Pixar came along…
Luigi,
“Yeah, Pocahontas was an insult. Putting aside the completely false history, and the annoyingly one-dimensional raccoon and bird characters, it almost seemed to imply that everything was okay-hunky-dorey between the Native Americans and the Europeans after the end of the movie.”
.
Whereas I see it as possibly the most underrated and unfairly maligned Disney film ever. I could put aside the “completely false history” because – well, primarily because it was not ever promoted as a documentary or “based on a true story” – but because Disney tried to produce a breathtaking piece of entertainment with a message and they largely succeeded:
.
1.) Pocahontas, in the film, was beautiful. I have always bee bummed that Disney hardly has any Pocahontas merchandise in their Disney stores.
.
2.) Scenes from her diving silently, elegantly into the river below, her kind-heart and innocence realy resonated for me.
.
3.) The scene where she’s canoeing on the lush tidewaters and singing “just around the riverbend” is one of my favorite moments in a Disney movie. great song. great visuals.
.
4.) Speaking of great songs, “all the colors of the wind” was really powerful as well.
.
5.) While I didn’t find the sidekicks outrageously funny, they were cute for the youngsters. And exchanges like:
JOHN SMITH: Pocahontas? Boy, you people sure have funny names.
POCAHONTAS: You too. John. Smith.
more than made up for it, IMO
.
6.) Governor Ratcliffe WAS portrayed as an evil, selfish douchebag. So it’s not like the film pretended the Europeans and Native Americans all got along swimmingly well. In fact..
.
7.) That each side was ready to believe the worst in each other was brought to it’s peak with both sides believing the other to be untrustworthy. The countdown to what looked like an inevitable final clash with both parties claiming – and giving voice in song – that the other was a bunch of “Savages, Savages” really had me awaiting the conclusion and also conveyed a message
.
8.) As for the conclusion, what did people expect? It was a Disney movie. It showed what the end would be ideally, if everyone could overcome their greed and prejudices. I mean, even “serious” films like “Hurricane” and “Erin Brockovich” contain glaring inaccuracies and/or stuff that is condensed/simplified/”taken liberties” with in order for a story to be told.
.
Why this fine film with a great message and excellent production values is constantly bashed irritates me to no end.
I could put aside the “completely false history” because – well, primarily because it was not ever promoted as a documentary or “based on a true story”
If you use the names of real-life historical figures, then yes, it is indeed implied to be a true story.
.
As for “documentary”, I don’t buy that fallacy, and never have. Why is it indicated that the only type of film that purports to be based on actual events that has an obligation to be accurate are documentaries? The criteria, in my view, is whether it is implied or purported to be based on actual events, and whether viewers may understand it or remember it as such.
.
If they wanted to create a “breathtaking movie with a message and a beautiful main character”, then why not just do that–create a character? Why co-opt the names of actual historical figures, and thereby cause some to understand that the film accurate portrayed real events? Why not just create fictional characters with fictional names? Why try to have it both ways by telling essentially a fictional story, but using real people? Why use real people? Why value does that have, other than giving a fraudulent understanding of history?
.
Why the idea that a film or TV show or whatever is somehow more enjoyable if the viewers can be fooled into thinking that it “really happened”, as if that’s ever been a criteria for enjoying fiction? If you want to create fiction, then do so. If you want to tell the story of something that actually happened in history, then do so. But telling a fictional story, and then slapping on the names of real people on them, and implying that the fiction is accurate, is an insult. If Disney wanted to portray Pocahontas and John Smith as this hot Native woman and an attractive guy who sounded like Mel Gibson, and not a twelve-year-old girl running around naked and mostly bald, and an obese guy with a huge beard, then they should’ve done so, and give them MADE-UP NAMES LIKE WRITERS OF FICTION ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
.
Governor Ratcliffe WAS portrayed as an evil, selfish douchebag. So it’s not like the film pretended the Europeans and Native Americans all got along swimmingly well. In fact.
I did not say that Ratcliffe was “not” portrayed as evil. I said that the film’s happy ending implied that the Native Americans and Europeans got along well and everything turned out okay AFTER the film. You’re referencing what happened between them DURING it, a little bait-and-switch and doesn’t work with me.
“If you use the names of real-life historical figures, then yes, it is indeed implied to be a true story.”
Like Jesse James Meets Frankenstein’s Daughter?
Fiction that employs real people offers insight into the way our perception of real people changes.
.
I think it has merit for another reason: fiction is not expected to be interpreted as fact. An audience who assumes it is deserves what it gets. An audience that looks to the historical record learns that there is more to be had, by virtue of putting some personal effort into the interest.
.
Reading past fiction can also be good exercise for when it comes time to verify the factual accounts.
Robert Fuller,
“I seem to be alone here, but I think the true Disney masterpiece, not only of that era but of all time, is Hunchback. What a glorious, gorgeous, amazing movie that is.”
.
No. You are not alone. I love this film as well. But because it was dark, featured an unattractive “hero” and was also criticized for being “unfaithful” to the “true” Hunchback story, it too is not remembered as well as it should be, IMHO.
.
I swear, it’s like after four huge successes, people were determined to bìŧçh about Disney releases fora while. Like they were jealous or jaded or something. Shame.
“was also criticized for being “unfaithful” to the “true” Hunchback story”
.
Right, as if that means anything. Were Universal’s Frankenstein movies faithful to the “true” Frankenstein story? Absolutely not (they actually bear little resemblance to Mary Shelley’s novel). But so what?
.
To be fair, though, Hunchback was a tough sell. It was too dark for Disney fans, too light for Hugo fans, and too adult for kids, which left most audience members unsure what to make of it. I’m actually kind of amazed it was made at all (but very, very thankful).
I was a big fan of Disney’s Aladdin when it first came out. Had to buy the VHS the moment it was released. Watched it numerous times.
.
However, after having not watched it for some years, I eventually sat down to watch it with a younger relative… and couldn’t stand it. By then I had seen Pocahontas, which had turned me off to Disney for a while, and I suppose it had some kind of retroactive influence.
“If Disney wanted to portray Pocahontas and John Smith as this hot Native woman and an attractive guy who sounded like Mel Gibson, and not a twelve-year-old girl running around naked and mostly bald, and an obese guy with a huge beard, then they should’ve done so, and give them MADE-UP NAMES LIKE WRITERS OF FICTION ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.”
.
Wow. this really bothers you. Why? Does the appearance of Socrates and other historical figures in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” aggravate you as well. I’m seriously asking. I wonder what the basis is for your outrage.
.
Another example of why I wonder why you are so insulted by a “happy ending”. Have you ever seen “Ali” starring Will Smith? It was always described as Smith’s dream project and he was nominated for an Oscar for it.
.
The decision was made to have the film focus on the 10 years or so of Ali’s prime, from about 1964 to 1974, ending with what many saw as his most transcendent performance, a knockout of the seemingly-indestructible wrecking machine named George Foreman. The events depicted in that ten-year timeframe are widely regarded as being accurately depicted, but ending with Ali’s greatest triumph means we did not get to see his slow decline, the absolute beating he took from Larry Holmes or the medical issues that many see as being related to his ring career, especially the end of it. Instead, the film focused on his prime and ended on a high note. Do you find this approach to be just as offensive as the “okey-dokey” ending of “Pocahontas”? I’m seriously asking, because I still don’t get the root cause of your outrage nor the criteria for said outrage.
I hate to sound all politically correct here (I normally hate political correctness), but was I the only one bothered by the old-style (and inaccurate) Arabian stereotypes in ‘Aladdin’? It wasn’t as bad as a lot of movies (at least there were no terrorist religious fanatics), but it still annoyed me.
(I was really bothered by the Noble Indian stereotypes in ‘Pocahontas’, as well.)
.
Overall, ‘Aladdin’ was a decent enough movie, though. Not as great as ‘Beauty And The Beast’, but then, what is?
Overall, ‘Aladdin’ was a decent enough movie, though. Not as great as ‘Beauty And The Beast’, but then, what is?
.
“The Last Unicorn” and “The Iron Giant”. Neither by Disney, but I preferred the story and the sense of wonder I got from both of them. I’d rate the latter higher in terms of animation as well, if only for being one of the first movies to attempt to blend CGI into the rest of the animation instead of deliberately making it stand out as much as possible.
Sorry, that first paragraph is quoted from Mary Warner’s post.
Mary,
“hate to sound all politically correct here (I normally hate political correctness), but was I the only one bothered by the old-style (and inaccurate) Arabian stereotypes in ‘Aladdin’? It wasn’t as bad as a lot of movies (at least there were no terrorist religious fanatics), but it still annoyed me.
(I was really bothered by the Noble Indian stereotypes in ‘Pocahontas’, as well.)
.
Overall, ‘Aladdin’ was a decent enough movie, though. Not as great as ‘Beauty And The Beast’, but then, what is?”
.
Well, Mary I don’t know which “stereotypes” you are talking about, but no, didn’t bother me at all. I enjoyed the film. As for Noble Indian stereotypes, well…think about it, if they make the Indians more harsh and negative, they will offend some Native American groups for presenting what they will say is a negative depiction. Then, when shown as noble, people criticize for reinforcing a stereotype.
.
Is it any wonder that, except for the “Scalped” comic series, virtually no one seems to want to touch any project which would feature Native Americans – especially in the present day? It’s a lose-lose proposition and many studios/publishers see very little reward and a high probability of blowback no matter what they do.
.
This is what political correctness does. It silences people and frequently harms the “aggrieved parties” it intends to help.
Anyone know when Waking Sleeping Beauty will be released on DVD?
I pretty much agree with you (which is why I said I normally hate political correctness).
I just tend to be a bit more sensitive over the portrayal of Arabs in movies, since that’s the ethnic group that seems to suffer the worst in the modern age. (It really bothered me that for years the most positive Arab character from movies or TV that I could think of was Max Klinger.) As for American Indians, the portrayals aren’t really very negative today, but they still don’t come across as regular people very often. Living in Oklahoma, I’ve known several Indians, and they’ve all been regular people with real-people faults and virtues, not stiff icons, which is what I normally see in movies.
.
I guess it’s no secret that political correctness is most annoying when it involves issues you aren’t heavily involved with, but when it’s something that means more to you, you can become pretty sensitive to it.
I know I made too big a deal out of it, and the truth is it was just a minor quibble, which I only brought up because nobody else did.
.
I’m sorry if I came across as a humourless git.
No, you’re not a humorless git, Mary. I do agree that Arabs/Middle-Easterners get treated poorly sometimes. That being said, Ijust want to point out that the most famous example being used as post-9/11 PC-ness is the cinematic version of Clancy’s Sum of All Fears where the Middle-Eastern terrorists became a gestalt of various hate groups. The flaw with this is that the movie was either being made or was done when 9/11 happened. The change was made because prior to 9/11 I saw one of the tabloid shows and they said the change was made, because of demands by the Arab-American Defamation League, that there be better treatment for Arabs/Middle-Easterners in pop media. I felt the change was too pc, still do. If the script change was made because of 9/11, before filming, then yeah, no prob, but before 9/11 too PC
Disney has various styles of animated movies. They range from a spectrum on their ratio of seriousness to lightness and comic energy. Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Hunchback, are all pretty serious. Lilo and Stitch and Emperor’s New Groove are mainly manic silliness. Aladdin is somewhere in the middle, but it falls more toward the comic side.
I remember at the time, the director said they were going for a Bugs Bunny sort of feel with Aladdin, both in the style of comedy and the feel of the animation.
I think Disney’s less popular animated films have suffered, because some people go to Disney films always expecting another Beauty and the Beast or Little Mermaid. I don’t think it is fair to try to shoehorn Disney into only making those sorts of films.
Yes, if I walk into Aladdin expecting Beauty and the Beast, I’m going to be disappointed. However, if I walk into Beauty and the Beast expecting something as manically silly and laugh out loud funny as Emperor’s New Groove, I’m going to be equally disappointed.
By random chance, I watched the 3 Aladdin movies last night, and I felt they held up just fine.
I could claim some obliviousness, but to be honest, I don’t really see the stereotypes that Mary comments on (to be fair, though, I also get annoyed when I hear the opening song with the line “Where it’s flat and immense and the heat is intense” rather than the original “Where they cut of your ear if they don’t like your face”
I’m coming to this late-
I’ve never been able to understand what the critics see in “Beauty and the Beast.” I think that Belle is a seriously flawed character. At the very beginning she is set up as rather snobby. She views every one around her as “little.” (“Little town full of little people…”)
And then she is so fearless that the beast really has no reason to be a beast — she’s not afraid of him! He might as well be a good-looking jerk that she must learn to understand because the beast’s outer appearance provides no ruse that she must learn to see beyond. If she is able to launch directly into tackling the conundrum of is inner qualities with no struggle at all to get beyond is outer qualities then the beastly appearance becomes superfluous — a mere thematic contrivance at best.
And what’s more, we have a character that seems to be designed by the stars, as it were. For who but Belle, the “book learned” one with a scientist for a father, could possibly NOT be intimidated by this creature? There’s a little too much of coincidence in that. (Unless, of course, her coming to the castle is a fulfillment of prophecy. There are vestiges of that idea in the script, but it’s really rather understated. “She’s the one” comes a cross more as a declaration of “one who can make it happen” rather than “The One.”)
I also wonder that she could so easily break a promise (she flees the castle at being treated rudely by the beast) and never be held accountable by any moral standard, convention, or even sentiment or fleeting notion on the part of the writers.
There are other problems that manifest themselves because of Belle’s design. There’s really no purpose at all in Gaston being a handsome hunk, for one. He poses no threat to Belle until toward the end (when he has her father captured by the town shrink and then goes after the beast). That’s a rather weak antagonist — a buffoon, really. Gaston’s character could have been put to good use through the whole of the story if Belle’s affections were challenged by a more refined good-looking antagonist — with regard to her growing affections for the Beast, that is.
Basically, she has no vital internal struggle.