The Disney Thread - Page 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I think I can at least make the argument that it was unintentional (although others have already done that for me).

 

Sorry if my casual dismissal bothered you, RD. I'll try and be more respectful with this sort of thing in the future.

Honestly mate it didn't at all, it was simply a kickoff that made me think of wider philosophical implications - you're allowed to think whatever you want sir. Mea culpa.

*squints*

What do you think about the whole 'anime characters are white' idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

What do you think about the whole 'anime characters are white' idea?

How does anime generally depict westerners in its animation when they turn up as opposed to the lead characters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 
Whiteness, in these countries, has been set up as an ideal, and that's been reflected in their art. That's what a video like Nooj's is getting at.

Actually that video argues against that.  Heheheh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

How does anime generally depict westerners in its animation when they turn up as opposed to the lead characters?

 

That video goes into it a little.  When they want to make sure a character is read as a westerner, they have boxier jaws and squinting eyes.

Now I don't necessarily agree with everything that video says, but I think it brings up a lot of worthwhile points.

I dig what Whiteboy Jones is saying, but without totally agreeing. I mean, if Aladdin looks white... how do you make a character look definitely Arab without being racist? If you enlarged his ears or something random, you'd be conforming to a stereotype. It's wild. There's almost no way to ethically portray another ethnicity, by members of a culture, that wont end up as being racist. It's like history should've let these cultures group up separately, or something. They should've formed their own art trends. Goddamn you, Europe! Goddamn you, globalization.

A Separation, to pimp it even harder, is pretty good as an example of a great work of art that represents the "foreign," I'd say. That's the kind of thing that should be watched by audiences in the West and understood as an accurate reflection of political and social life among these people. But see -- the problem is, it's just too complicated. Essentialization becomes necessary for the average Western person to understand that which he basically doesn't. A film like A Separation is basically antithetical to that, while Pocahontas endorses it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

It boils down to this: Name five Disney films in which the villain has lighter skin (or in the case of animals, lighter-colored features) than the hero.

 

Snow White and the Seven Dwarves

The Jungle Book

Robin Hood...

I would argue that Dr. Facilier in The Princess and the Frog actually has lighter skin than our heroine Tiana, even though they're both African-American.

Oh! Gaston is lily-white, while the Beast is brown and black. Tarzan is tanned, while Clayton is a robust White Man. Cruella De Vil is as pale as a sheet. Captain Hook is as white as Peter Pan. Frollo is the white male villain opposing the multi-cultural Gypsies in Hunchback.

See, not as hard as you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

I dig what Whiteboy Jones is saying, but without totally agreeing. I mean, if Aladdin looks white... how do you make a character look definitely Arab without being racist? If you enlarged his ears or something random, you'd be conforming to a stereotype. It's wild. There's almost no way to ethically portray another ethnicity, by members of a culture, that wont end up as being racist. It's like history should've let these cultures group up separately, or something. They should've formed their own art trends. Goddamn you, Europe! Goddamn you, globalization.

True enough but should the Aladdin animators have gone so far as to specifically model their hero on Tom Cruise and then just darkened the features?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Actually that video argues against that.  Heheheh.

I know, but that kind of thinking is a part of the discussion and that's just why I wanted to reference it. Whether it supports my argument or not be damned!

The Lighter Skin game makes no sense!  Hahahahahah

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

True enough but should the Aladdin animators have gone so far as to specifically model their hero on Tom Cruise and then just darkened the features?

 

Ironically, Cruise ends up looking like a Disney villain in that photo!

I agree with JMulder in that there is no sense in trying to make all things 'equal' in this discussion.  The reality is that Hollywood has had a more noticeable impact on the cinema culture internationally in the past and none of this is happening because of one single factor.

Sure, the animators say that Cruise was used as a model for Aladdin, but that's just one name they spouted for general consumption.  These artists use all kinds of reference from a variety of sources.  It's more unfortunate that they proudly stated that it was based on Tom Cruise though.  But Aladdin's design is simplified enough that I could easily buy that his design was based on some young Middle Eastern boy. 

That said, in light of the situation with Aladdin, I really appreciate the designs for the characters in The Prince of Egypt (at least in terms of a major studio's animated tentpole).  They weren't completely blandified for easy projection, but maintained a consistent design that went with the rest of the film (the fact that hero and villain are brothers that love each other).   The more distinguishable features didn't harm the appeal of the designs. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I would argue that Dr. Facilier in The Princess and the Frog actually has lighter skin than our heroine Tiana, even though they're both African-American.

 

Oh! Gaston is lily-white, while the Beast is brown and black. Tarzan is tanned, while Clayton is a robust White Man. Cruella De Vil is as pale as a sheet. Captain Hook is as white as Peter Pan. Frollo is the white male villain opposing the multi-cultural Gypsies in Hunchback.

 

See, not as hard as you think.

 

Frollo is more gray than white.
 

Ironically, Aladdin had a different design earlier on in production that, according to the animators, was based partially on Michael J. Fox. Some animation of that design still remains in the "Friend Like Me" number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

True enough but should the Aladdin animators have gone so far as to specifically model their hero on Tom Cruise and then just darkened the features?

 

Yeah, I think in concept I agree with this -- on a simple, generically normative level. I dunno if a profile like the one Aladdin has is really so white as to be compared to Tom Cruise, who is probably the white superman. But because a character like Aladdin is allowed to be that simple, with a typical haircut and a pleasing face and a good smile and only a tiny small hat that shows he might be Arab beyond his skin tone, he becomes a white avatar. Then you look at Jafar and he has a huge Fu Manchu moustache (they're getting their ethnics confused!), dresses in the most elaborately Middle Eastern clothes, has eyeshadow, wears a massive turban embroidered with jewels, has a parrot on his shoulder (what??)... it just becomes absurd. So in this framework, I think "normal" is basically white. Aladdin looks inoffensive because he is an Arab who could easily become white without ditching any of his essential features. And Jafar, who is such a caricature of the Middle East that he ends up feelings like he could've been created post-9/11 by animators in the Bible Belt, is a personification of everything that the West finds scary about the East and could never find a white version of himself without changing everything he inherently represents with how he's drawn as a character.

Edit: Nooj got at a bit of this before me. But yeah -- you could sum it up with observing that Jafar has a huge-ass turban and Aladdin has a little cap. Why? Well, I think I know -- but fuck if I do actually.

Meanwhile, there's nothing racist about the exaggerated physical characteristics of Lilo and Nani. I mean, I hope there isn't, because clearly that's not the intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

Meanwhile, there's nothing racist about the exaggerated physical characteristics of Lilo and Nani. I mean, I hope there isn't, because clearly that's not the intent.

Nah, that's just Chris Sanders' design style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

 

Then you look at Jafar and he has a huge Fu Manchu moustache (they're getting their ethnics confused!), dresses in the most elaborately Middle Eastern clothes, has eyeshadow, wears a massive turban embroidered with jewels, has a parrot on his shoulder (what??)... it just becomes absurd.

I love this.  Hahahahahah

Let's not forget how much of an effect the voiceover work has on these designs.  Aladdin is basically voiced by a guy that sounds like a California surfer dude.  Jafar is voiced by the stuffy Brit.  I wonder how 'white' Aladdin would come across when dubbed with a more region-appropriate voiceover actor?

Or are we really just focusing on the way these 'artistic choices' are taken in and perceived by audiences in America?
 

Also... what the hell?

Heheh yeah man, while plus -- the genie, who is probably the conscience of the film (whispering in Aladdin's ear in that clip, like a devil or angel, however you want to see it) is voiced by an American celebrity. And also it would be interesting to see how Aladdin, if he from the start of the movie had the moustache of Jafar along with his huge turban, would have been responded to by Western audiences. The answer I assume is not at all.

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

Meanwhile, there's nothing racist about the exaggerated physical characteristics of Lilo and Nani. I mean, I hope there isn't, because clearly that's not the intent.

Lilo & Stitch might actually "handle" race better than any other Disney film. That's one of the reasons I like it a lot without reservation.

Context changes depending on the film we're looking at in this case. Arab-American groups protesting Aladdin was actually one of the things that led Disney to be more globally mindful in their projects. Then, of course, they went overboard and ended up with the magic Indians in Pocahontas.

See, you've hit upon the answer right there. A lot of Disney's racial gaffes arise from their house style, which is basically a generified version of the original Disney artists' drawing, as it chafes against other cultures that simply don't click with its Anglo signifiers. Why not choose a style based more on classical Arabian art, if that's the setting you've chosen?

That's part of the reason I love Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch, and can't really fault an ambitious failure like Atlantis. They are at least trying something different with their style.

Nobody likes mustaches on younger characters!  Mustaches on youth represent dark secrets!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

Context changes depending on the film we're looking at in this case. Arab-American groups protesting Aladdin was actually one of the things that led Disney to be more globally mindful in their projects. Then, of course, they went overboard and ended up with the magic Indians in Pocahontas.

Arab-Americans, exactly.  Did anyone outside of the US give a shit?

A lot of these issues seem to arise due to the minority population of the US kicking up a fuss. 

Damned minorities!

We Asians should take our supporting computer nerd roles and like it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

See, you've hit upon the answer right there. A lot of Disney's racial gaffes arise from their house style, which is basically a generified version of the original Disney artists' drawing, as it chafes against other cultures that simply don't click with its Anglo signifiers. Why not choose a style based more on classical Arabian art, if that's the setting you've chosen?

I'm out of reps, so I'll give kudos to your point here.  It's what I brought up about The Prince of Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

We Asians should take our supporting computer nerd roles and like it!

 

Han Seoul-oh says suck it, mcnooj.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

 

Han Seoul-oh says suck it, mcnooj.
 

 

Han So-Cool!!!

I love some ALADIN, but let's not forget the original lyrics to the opening song "they cut off your ears if they don't like your face, it is barbaric, but hey it's home"

For the home video release it was changed to a line discussing the head and immensity of the Arabian world

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

I love some ALADIN, but let's not forget the original lyrics to the opening song "they cut off your ears if they don't like your face, it is barbaric, but hey it's home"

 

 

For the home video release it was changed to a line discussing the head and immensity of the Arabian world

Someone brought it up earlier, Kate.

Also, are you spelling Aladdin like that on purpose?  I think you spelled it like that elsewhere. 

I'll fully acknowledge that nostalgia is in play with my memories of that film, since it was the very first movie I saw in theaters, but I think it does a lot of stuff right, and is actually better than most of the Disney movies of the so-called 90's renaissance.

The weird thing is that I haven't watched most of these films in over ten years, but since I viewed them so much when I was little, I can recall them from memory. I should still seek them out again, and see them with grown-up (ish) eyes... Hunchback in particular I'm itching to re-view.

And to head back to Nooj's video about anime, I've personally never thought anime characters seemed inherently white. They can definitely pass off as white, which is part of why anime cartoons like Digimon and Pokemon are so willfully absorbed by white children -- but I think their characters can be interchangeably white or Asian without being definitively either. I think this is probably an example of the kind of complaint that arises as a result of ethnocentrism.

White critics see big eyes and think "this is white!" without thinking that large eyes are often used as a tool in animation to engender a response of sympathy. That's a trend that migrates into live action cinema with stuff like E.T., which Red Letter Media talks about. To call a simplistic cartoon-face like Sailor Moon's (I'm not well-versed in anime) automatically white because of its basic features (which boil down to big eyes, a narrow nose, and pointed chin, none of which I would consider inherently white) says more about the person doing the judging than whatever it is they're actually forming a judgment about.

Part of this stems from my belief that China, Korea, Japan, etc. mostly avoided English colonial influence and were thus able to develop their own cultures, largely independent of Western influence, in a way places like India or the Middle East were not. I think the distinctiveness of the cinema in these countries is a testament to that -- although granted, Asian movies acclaimed by American critics, like 13 Assassins or Oldboy, tend to touch on the same themes. Is this a result of stereotyping, which will only acknowledge Asian cinema when it plays into the idea of being preoccupied with cliched Asian ideas like honor, familial history, self-sacrifice from humiliation, even sexual perversion, etc. (Miike's other films, or Kurosawa)? Or is this a common touchstone of Asian cinema regularly that is not only seen in the movies that get wide play in the States? I'm not knowledgeable enough in Asian cinema to say, personally.

But that's only tangentially related to Disney, so yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

The weird thing is that I haven't watched most of these films in over ten years, but since I viewed them so much when I was little, I can recall them from memory. I should still seek them out again, and see them with grown-up (ish) eyes... Hunchback in particular I'm itching to re-view.

Re-watching Disney movies is a weird head-trip of deja-vu for me. It just feels so odd I sometimes have to opt out out of weirded out-ness.

This reminds me of watching Cats Don't Dance again for the first time in a few years and kind of falling in love with it. Mostly because while it's got that sleek feel of other animated films from the 90's the look owes as much to the Warner Bros. classics as it does to the in-house Disney style that was popular at the time. All the characters look interesting, funny, get to be bent into such odd shapes, or get such great expressions on their faces, and you basically look like cartoons.

Looking online at the people behind it, I found myself rather unsurprised that Mark Dindal also happened to be behind The Emperor's New Groove. The pace, the look, the willingness to just be rapid-fire and silly really delightfully sets it apart from the rest of the 90's run, which has lost a lot of my interest.

Hunchback of Notre Dame is maybe one of the most schizophrenic movies I've ever seen.

I remember watching Robin Hood with my nephew, and that was easily my favorite Disney film through a lot of my early childhood.* And just seeing how "SEVENTIES" it was amazed, and depressed me.

*In hindsight I was a very odd girl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

 

 

 

Hunchback of Notre Dame is maybe one of the most schizophrenic movies I've ever seen.

 

 

 

Seriously, just bizarre and utterly all over the place tonally.

Goddamned gargoyle pieces of shit.

COSTANZA??? Can't stand ya!!!

The Gargoyles are just utterly baffling creatures. It's not just the whole confused notion of what they actually happen to be(are they just imaginary friends or what?!) but how they almost seem to be utilized to fuck up any shred of dramatic tension whatsoever.

In regards to Disney movies "looking the same", I again urge y'all to rewatch some of them. From the more modern films, Beauty and the Beast has a classical style, Aladdin is VERY cartoony and Hirschfieldian, The Lion King has its own unique look thanks to the animal cast and African artwork influence, Pocahontas (much as I loathe it) has an interesting "realistic" graphic look, Hunchback goes back to a more classical look, Hercules is all Scarfeian angles and lines, Mulan is very graphic and Chinese-influenced, Tarzan is exaggerated, The Emperor's New Groove is more Looney Tunes/Warner Bros., Atlantis takes cues from Mike Mignola (who did do work on the film) and anime, Treasure Planet (according to the animators) takes from the Brandywine school of illustration, and Lilo and Stitch's round, pudgy style comes from Chris Sanders' own unique sense of design.

In regards to Hunchback and the gargoyles, here's the thing: I'm not sure you can actual tell that story in an animated film without them. Quasimodo needs *someone* to talk to in the early stages of the film aside from Frollo, and while the original idea was to have him speak to the bells as if they were alive as in the novel, I'm not sure that would've worked visually (he does still name some of the bells in a scene with Esmeralda, and the names are straight from the book). According to the audio commentary, the directors and producer Don Hahn note that there are scenes in the novel where Victor Hugo suggests that the gargoyles are alive to Quasimodo, so they didn't see it as much of a stretch.

Now, are they misused in some scenes? Possibly; "A Guy Like You" works thematically as Quasimodo deluding himself, but is easily the most jarring musical number in the film. And their use in the climax, much as I love those scenes, confuses me to this day. But I dunno, I've never found them *that* annoying, especially since they're voiced and animated so well.

Damn, that was a longer post than I had planned.

I think it's one thing to have Quasimodo speak to something imaginary, but having the gargoyles come back again, and again, and again, and again to seemingly deflate whatever tension or dramatic bit is going on kind of screws with the film. It's even odder when the filmmakers also kind of loose the plot of what they are in the first place, what with these imaginary friends eventually joining the battle at the end and whooping up on people.*

I think the songs are pretty though, so I'll give the movie that.

*This always makes me wish there was a cutaway showing what the various henchmen saw while attacking Notre Dame at the end. Which would be some deformed guy flying around shooting rocks out of his mouth, and summoning an army of pigeons to attack them.

I can see what you're getting at, Lauren, although I don't think they deflate *quite* as many dramatic bits as you think they do. They're almost never around for Frollo's stuff, which is some of the best in the film.

But then, I suppose I'm biased, as I love nearly everything about Hunchback: the songs, the gorgeous animation and scale, the voice acting (yes, even Demi Moore), etc. I can see how the gargoyles are problematic for others, but I've never found them a Jar Jar Binks-level annoyance.

Speaking of Hunchback, why the hell hasn't the German stage version hit the States yet?  From the clips I've seen on YouTube, it works pretty well on-stage, and the ending comes much closer to Hugo's version.  And the gargoyles come across a little more sinister than cutesy, which I guess is inevitable when you have a guy dressed as a gargoyle singing in German.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Speaking of Hunchback, why the hell hasn't the German stage version hit the States yet?  From the clips I've seen on YouTube, it works pretty well on-stage, and the ending comes much closer to Hugo's version.  And the gargoyles come across a little more sinister than cutesy, which I guess is inevitable when you have a guy dressed as a gargoyle singing in German.

Yeah, as much as I love the film, the German version KILLS on stage. I remember Menken saying a while back he was working on an American version with roughly the same book, but I haven't heard anything else in the past year or so.

(Also thanks for the rep on my above post. Was it more for the "Disney films don't all look the same, dagnabbit!" thing?)

More for nailing all the influences on each film's look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

More for nailing all the influences on each film's look.

Thanks! Yeah, I actually *study* this kind of stuff with things like DVD bonus materials and artbooks.

When it comes to the older films, there's a bit more of a "house style", but even then there's differences. The fifties films have some interesting varied styles, for instance: there's Cinderella, which is like a more modern-looking Snow White; Peter Pan, which is quite exaggerated and "toony"; Lady and the Tramp, where the dogs are simultaneously exaggerated and realistic in their canine behavior; and Sleeping Beauty, which was the first time the studio really experimented with a much more graphic, stylized look on a feature level.

Then you have the 60s and 70s films, which are dominated by the loose, sketchy style of folks like the director of most of them, Wolfgang Reitherman. Of course, this is also due to the then-new Xerox process of inking and painting the cels instead of doing them by hand. Once the 80s arrived, the sketchy style became more defined in films like The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective and the last film made with the process, The Little Mermaid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Someone brought it up earlier, Kate.

 

Also, are you spelling Aladdin like that on purpose?  I think you spelled it like that elsewhere. 

 

'pologies. I did check the thread but missed it. Glad to post on a site populated by so many well informed people!

And I am spelling it that way because that is how my memory told me it was spelled. Clearly it was an error on my part

...Never change, Kate.

Oh man... how I'd love to see this German stage version of Hunchback!  I've seen a clip too and it sounds amazing.

Yeah, I swear by the English soundtrack most days (Tony Jay and Tom Hulce OWN their songs), but those are some pretty damn good German singers/actors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

I think the songs are pretty though, so I'll give the movie that.

 

The film spends the rest of its running time trying to live up to its first ten minutes. Bells Of Notre Dame is actually one of the great Disney songs, so much so it belongs in a better movie (or at least a more evnly placed one), telling a dark and emotionally engaging story in five minutes. It certainly sets the bar way too high for the remaining film to jump over tho.

...and then those fucking gargoyles turn up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

The film spends the rest of its running time trying to live up to its first ten minutes. Bells Of Notre Dame is actually one of the great Disney songs, so much so it belongs in a better movie (or at least a more evnly placed one), telling a dark and emotionally engaging story in five minutes. It certainly sets the bar way too high for the remaining film to jump over tho.

 

...and then those fucking gargoyles turn up.

Here's my question, Rain: do you have a problem with the non-gargoyle comic relief in the movie? I personally don't; the wildness of a number like "Topsy Turvy" is both entertaining and thematically appropriate for where it is placed in the story, for instance. And "The Court of Miracles" is a darkly funny song.

And Kevin Kline gets in a good number of snarky lines as Phoebus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Here's my question, Rain: do you have a problem with the non-gargoyle comic relief in the movie? I personally don't; the wildness of a number like "Topsy Turvy" is both entertaining and thematically appropriate for where it is placed in the story, for instance. And "The Court of Miracles" is a darkly funny song.

 

And Kevin Kline gets in a good number of snarky lines as Phoebus.

 

 

No they work fine - its the shoehorned gargoyles that are the most incongruous part for me.

That's what I thought.

Anyway, switching gears for a moment: what are the worst Disney animated films? For me, they tend to fall into two categories: nice-looking but ultimately forgettable fluff like the original Rescuers (I love the hell out of Down Under though) or films that are bad on almost every non-technical level like Dinosaur or Pocahontas.

Well, and most of the DTV sequels. Some of them are fun (Lion King 1 1/2 and Simba's Pride, the Aladdin sequels), but most either redo the first film's plot with marginal differences, prequels, or the "midquel" attempts to tell what happened between long passages of time in the original. And some are simply episodes of failed TV shows with the characters slapped together.

A lot of people like to be dismissive of the post-Walt lull when Don Bluth left to do his own stuff, and while I think the criticisms of the lack of originality and recycling of much of the animation used in that era are valid, I still can't help but have a massive soft spot for some of that eras animated output - specifically The Sword In The Stone (best magic duel EVER) and Robin Hood (Ustinov is an utter delight).

That era also gave us The Fox And The Hound - hands down the most heart-breaking and traumatizing animated film I got taken to this side of Watership Down.