I do believe this is the first official full-length Disney animated feature of the 52 (but certainly not the last) to feature no human characters whatsoever. I do wonder what it would be like if the whole thing were done with people instead. It would probably be...less fun. But that also makes me wonder what it would be like if the human-heavy films would've been improved by enfurrification. This goes back to my imagining Ichabod Crane as an actual crane.
As I have been saying and will probably say more, this project is all about context. In a similar way that full-feature Cinderella was refreshing after seeing a long line of package films, I found the relatively cohesive story in Robin Hood a breath of fresh air after watching the loosely-strung-together-(though entertaining each on their own)-scenes of The Jungle Book and the mix of unnecessary and unrelated scenes comprising The Aristocats. That story isn't great (I haven't read the book but imagine there's more going on than what we see in the Disney version), but I appreciate that the characters do a better job of moving it along. Those characters aren't as loveable as those in The Jungle Book, but...again, maybe I'm making too many comparisons. Though I can't think of any reason to dislike "Robin Hood," I can't think of any reason to love it either. It puts me in that hard-to-describe feeling where, although I remember being entertained well enough I don't remember why or particularly feel like watching it again either.
Favorite character: Alan-A-Dale is a GIANT CHICKEN, I TELL YOU. Unless...the largest animals (like the rhinos and elephants) are smaller than they're supposed to be? Kind of funny how most of the Animals are scaled to human proportions, yet there are still "mouse-sized" mice. I think that's why the appearance of the mice in this picture seemed a bit jolting. You get used to cartoon sizes and realistic sizes seem out-of-place. I suppose it would seem even weirder if the mice were about as big as everyone else, huh?
Least necessary character: You would think the turtles would come in handy for back-up during scenes where arrow fire needs to be dodged. But nope, none of the turtles are willing to offer themselves as shields. How useless!
Overall: For lack of any strong feelings about "Robin Hood," how abouta slightly cheeky opinion?
Amanda's contributes
---------------------
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
D52 - Week 20 - The Aristocats
Kevin's Groovy Part:
It's tricky to judge The Aristocats as a whole because it comes across as more than one movie going on at a time. There's the story of a mother cat and her three children (what happened to their original father anyway?) making their way back home in an awfully familiar (101 Dalmatians-esque, down to recreating at least one certain scene) way and meeting an alley cat on the way. There's the story of a butler who seems to have pulled off the perfect crime but has to go back to cover his tracks, running afoul of two hounds in the process.There's a scene with a drunk goose (I notice his feathers have a tint of grey. I wonder what type of alcoholic beverage he prefers best?). There's a mouse solving a case with his ADORABLE LITTLE SHERLOCK HOLMES HAT AND COAT AWWWW. There's a group of swingin' alley cats, who are the characters I most identified with the movie for the longest time, largely due to the trailers (I remember when I was much younger not knowing what an aristocrat was and not yet having seen The Aristocats but having seen the trailers and assuming being an aristoc(r)at had something to do with playing music).
The Duchess story is sweet enough, helped by O'Malley not being as creepy as he could've been made out to be. But going back to the 101 Dalmatians comparison. Whereas there was a sense of danger that the dalmatians could be found by Cruella or her henchmen at any moment, here the only fear is...that Duchess's owner will...be heart-broken. But it's quickly enough established that O'Malley will be a able to help them greatly on their way, and since the butler already thinks he's solved his problem we know he's not going out to look for them, so they don't really have any apparent threat to keep them from eventually coming back home. Imagine how boring "Homeward Bound" would be if the pets didn't encounter threats like bears, a lion and a porcupine. Not to say that I want to see animals in dangerous situations. I do have to say, though, that it is rather refreshing to see a "swept down a river" seen that does not end with a waterfall (not being sarcastic here)! It's funny how O'Malley considers it more of an annoyance whereas any other TV or movie character would be in danger since every single non-Aristocats on-screen river has currents too strong to allow simply swimming to the shore.
My favorite character is Roquefort. He deserves a spin-off or something. But what was up with that scene where he hung on to the motorcycle only to be tossed off and ... then...then he, gave up and went back home, or something? Seems like there was a scene missing there. As if it was leading to him, as a result of being dropped at that point, running into the geese, who he could tell to follow the butler or relay a message. As it was it was a distractingly loose thread. But speaking of the least necessary characters, why did the gabbering geese have to be in this picture? Just change the script so that O'Malley knows how to get to London on his own, and bam. No need for geese. I guess chattering ladies were just funnier back then, somehow. Uncle Waldo was even less important (his character's function seemed to be a reason for the girls to go off on their own), but at least he has some great facial animation. He deserves his own comic strip. The butler scenes as as funny as some of the better Disney shorts (and speaking of shorts, huh-huh!). Same with the scat cats sequence. They obviously have something to do with the main plot, but they also could've very well been just the stars of a Make Mine Music-style music video short. And how about that jumpin' number "Ev'ry body Wants to be a Cat?" Yeah! Now quick, name any of the other songs before it!
And overall the unjointedness doesn't make The Aristocats a poor movie, as most of its scenes can be fun to watch, but it makes it hard to consider the whole thing "a movie."
Walt Disney World-related note, hoping you're not sick of hearing about Walt Disney World already: Guess which of the characters from The Aristocats could be met and gret in the France pavilion in EPCOT, at least as of January 2011. You would think it would be the most memorable possible character, like...uh, maybe O'Malley, or Duchess? It'd be funny if it was the butler, with some sort of pants-dropping mechanism.
Answer: Marie. I wonder how many kids actually recognized her and knew which movie she was from, as opposed to the ones who just wanted to see "the cute kitty-cat."
Amanda!
---------
It's tricky to judge The Aristocats as a whole because it comes across as more than one movie going on at a time. There's the story of a mother cat and her three children (what happened to their original father anyway?) making their way back home in an awfully familiar (101 Dalmatians-esque, down to recreating at least one certain scene) way and meeting an alley cat on the way. There's the story of a butler who seems to have pulled off the perfect crime but has to go back to cover his tracks, running afoul of two hounds in the process.There's a scene with a drunk goose (I notice his feathers have a tint of grey. I wonder what type of alcoholic beverage he prefers best?). There's a mouse solving a case with his ADORABLE LITTLE SHERLOCK HOLMES HAT AND COAT AWWWW. There's a group of swingin' alley cats, who are the characters I most identified with the movie for the longest time, largely due to the trailers (I remember when I was much younger not knowing what an aristocrat was and not yet having seen The Aristocats but having seen the trailers and assuming being an aristoc(r)at had something to do with playing music).
The Duchess story is sweet enough, helped by O'Malley not being as creepy as he could've been made out to be. But going back to the 101 Dalmatians comparison. Whereas there was a sense of danger that the dalmatians could be found by Cruella or her henchmen at any moment, here the only fear is...that Duchess's owner will...be heart-broken. But it's quickly enough established that O'Malley will be a able to help them greatly on their way, and since the butler already thinks he's solved his problem we know he's not going out to look for them, so they don't really have any apparent threat to keep them from eventually coming back home. Imagine how boring "Homeward Bound" would be if the pets didn't encounter threats like bears, a lion and a porcupine. Not to say that I want to see animals in dangerous situations. I do have to say, though, that it is rather refreshing to see a "swept down a river" seen that does not end with a waterfall (not being sarcastic here)! It's funny how O'Malley considers it more of an annoyance whereas any other TV or movie character would be in danger since every single non-Aristocats on-screen river has currents too strong to allow simply swimming to the shore.
My favorite character is Roquefort. He deserves a spin-off or something. But what was up with that scene where he hung on to the motorcycle only to be tossed off and ... then...then he, gave up and went back home, or something? Seems like there was a scene missing there. As if it was leading to him, as a result of being dropped at that point, running into the geese, who he could tell to follow the butler or relay a message. As it was it was a distractingly loose thread. But speaking of the least necessary characters, why did the gabbering geese have to be in this picture? Just change the script so that O'Malley knows how to get to London on his own, and bam. No need for geese. I guess chattering ladies were just funnier back then, somehow. Uncle Waldo was even less important (his character's function seemed to be a reason for the girls to go off on their own), but at least he has some great facial animation. He deserves his own comic strip. The butler scenes as as funny as some of the better Disney shorts (and speaking of shorts, huh-huh!). Same with the scat cats sequence. They obviously have something to do with the main plot, but they also could've very well been just the stars of a Make Mine Music-style music video short. And how about that jumpin' number "Ev'ry body Wants to be a Cat?" Yeah! Now quick, name any of the other songs before it!
And overall the unjointedness doesn't make The Aristocats a poor movie, as most of its scenes can be fun to watch, but it makes it hard to consider the whole thing "a movie."
Walt Disney World-related note, hoping you're not sick of hearing about Walt Disney World already: Guess which of the characters from The Aristocats could be met and gret in the France pavilion in EPCOT, at least as of January 2011. You would think it would be the most memorable possible character, like...uh, maybe O'Malley, or Duchess? It'd be funny if it was the butler, with some sort of pants-dropping mechanism.
Answer: Marie. I wonder how many kids actually recognized her and knew which movie she was from, as opposed to the ones who just wanted to see "the cute kitty-cat."
Amanda!
---------
Sunday, May 13, 2012
D52 - Week 19 - The Jungle Book
The Recollection of Kevin
The Jungle Book the book is to Disney's The Jungle Book what the 60s TV show Batman is to The Dark Knight. There's no point in saying one is "better" than the other because, despite sharing characters and plot points, the tones and directions are so different that there's barely a point in comparing them at all. But I do enjoy the campy Batman because I've seen The Dark Knight and can be amused by how different it is, and I think it's having read The Jungle Book that makes me amazed at how something with so much fun can me made from something that the word "fun" has no business being anywhere near.
Speaking of comparisons, I'm also reminded of Alice in Wonderland, in which we get a small child spending episodic amounts of time with each of the colorful sets of the inhabitants of a colorful set piece. And like Alice, Mowgli isn't terribly interesting. But luckily the Animals he encounters are more engaging than the Wonderland dwellers, and they each have varying personalities, rather than all of them just being loony. I've noticed how that a character's sadness has a much more meaningful impact when that character is happy and carefree most of the time. That's why Baloo's troubled talk to Mowgli can - well, get to me, anyway.
And the songs! Even if you watch The Jungle Book just as a music video jukebox, it's still worth the trip. Damn you, Sherman Brothers and your ridiculously catchy tunes!
Favorite character: Kaa showcases great animation, great voicework and a song that's entertaining without necessarily getting stuck in your head for the rest of forever.
Least necessary characters: What was the point of the elephants, again?
Overall: It has its highs and lows, but the highs are high enough to make at least one viewing worth it.
Additionals:
-Why do elephants in this picture have heads of hair?! It sort of works with the monkeys and the vultures, but why the elephants? I suppose I should just be thankful all of the animals didn't have mop tops.
-When Baloo dresses as an ape to dance around with King Louie, is Louie interested because [ ] he's a fun-loving guy who likes to dance with others in general or [ ] he thinks Baloo is a female ape? GIMME YOUR INTERPRETATION.
-I could've sworn there used to be a Jungle Book "kids" television show, featuring the animal characters as youngin's. Amanda backed me up on this, but I can't find any info whatsoever online about it, such as what it was even called. Who would like to rise to the challenge of solving this mystery? And no, we're not thinking of TaleSpin.
-My favorite Disney sound effect, "POIT" makes an appearance in this one.
The Song of the Amanda
-------
The Jungle Book the book is to Disney's The Jungle Book what the 60s TV show Batman is to The Dark Knight. There's no point in saying one is "better" than the other because, despite sharing characters and plot points, the tones and directions are so different that there's barely a point in comparing them at all. But I do enjoy the campy Batman because I've seen The Dark Knight and can be amused by how different it is, and I think it's having read The Jungle Book that makes me amazed at how something with so much fun can me made from something that the word "fun" has no business being anywhere near.
Speaking of comparisons, I'm also reminded of Alice in Wonderland, in which we get a small child spending episodic amounts of time with each of the colorful sets of the inhabitants of a colorful set piece. And like Alice, Mowgli isn't terribly interesting. But luckily the Animals he encounters are more engaging than the Wonderland dwellers, and they each have varying personalities, rather than all of them just being loony. I've noticed how that a character's sadness has a much more meaningful impact when that character is happy and carefree most of the time. That's why Baloo's troubled talk to Mowgli can - well, get to me, anyway.
And the songs! Even if you watch The Jungle Book just as a music video jukebox, it's still worth the trip. Damn you, Sherman Brothers and your ridiculously catchy tunes!
Favorite character: Kaa showcases great animation, great voicework and a song that's entertaining without necessarily getting stuck in your head for the rest of forever.
Least necessary characters: What was the point of the elephants, again?
Overall: It has its highs and lows, but the highs are high enough to make at least one viewing worth it.
Additionals:
-Why do elephants in this picture have heads of hair?! It sort of works with the monkeys and the vultures, but why the elephants? I suppose I should just be thankful all of the animals didn't have mop tops.
-When Baloo dresses as an ape to dance around with King Louie, is Louie interested because [ ] he's a fun-loving guy who likes to dance with others in general or [ ] he thinks Baloo is a female ape? GIMME YOUR INTERPRETATION.
-I could've sworn there used to be a Jungle Book "kids" television show, featuring the animal characters as youngin's. Amanda backed me up on this, but I can't find any info whatsoever online about it, such as what it was even called. Who would like to rise to the challenge of solving this mystery? And no, we're not thinking of TaleSpin.
-My favorite Disney sound effect, "POIT" makes an appearance in this one.
The Song of the Amanda
-------
Saturday, May 5, 2012
D52 - Week 18 - The Sword in the Stone
---Declaration of Kevin The Page---
I usually don't explain my previous experience with these movies because most would be "I think I remember seeing it as a kid but not the whole thing maybe." But here is an exception, because I do remember watching TSITS twice or thrice or maybe even more because it would regularly be shown on weekend mornings on TV when I was a preteen. And I do remember liking it at the time. Merlin's a lovable old coot (though not in the way that you would actually want to hang around him in real life) with a lovable old curmudgeon of an owl (all cartoon owls must be either grumpy, stuffy, or both!) and, forces combined, they succeed at making it a fun trip through the story. This is important, seeing as how the story itself, if you were to break it up and study it, is frankly a mess. Later on in Disney history there would be straight-to-DVD sequels of beloved classics, some of which could be called "midquels," because they show previously unseen events that (SUPPOSEDLY) happened during the course of the original film. The Sword in the Stone feels like a midquel to another movie that doesn't exist! I realize the point is to show what life was like for Arthur before he became king, but...it turns out [this version of] his story wasn't interesting enough for it to have needed be told at all! Maybe it would've worked better to have broken up the story into the different stages of his pre-adult life (since this movie is very episodic anyway). I'll gather that the Three Animal Stages Wart undergoes are already symbolic, but imagine if he started, as a child, as a mere lowly fish...learned in the trees about love as an adolescent...then graduated by literally spreading his wings, as a bird. As it is, anyway, the movie ends with Arthur pulling the sword from the sto....uh, anvil. Stone anvil? Sword in the Anvil in the Stone? Anyway, you would think it ends there, but then there's the awkward scene afterward that exists for some unclear reason. Just to establish that Merlin eventually returns? Well, at least I can be thankful that we don't get a shoehorned-in love interest for Wart (we know he will find a wife eventually anyway), despite the squirrel scene seeming to give the impression that it's setting it up.
As a kid, none of that really mattered though. What really made me love The Sword in the Stone was the magical fight scene between Merlin and Madame Mim. Yes, it's unnecessary plot-wise and pure padding. But it's damn-entertaining filler! Nowadays I still love it. Whereas with Alice in Wonderland I would start off enjoying the movie immensely only to experience a sharp dip in interest near the end, with The Sword in the Stone it's the opposite. I find myself just waiting for the dueling scene. Maybe it's that I'm a sucker for fights where someone uses what seems like a disadvantage cleverly to get the upper hand. But it plays out so entertainingly that, really, if it instead existed only as a short, I would easily rank it as one of my favorites of all time. And it ends on a satisfyingly genius twist.
As a kid, none of that really mattered though. What really made me love The Sword in the Stone was the magical fight scene between Merlin and Madame Mim. Yes, it's unnecessary plot-wise and pure padding. But it's damn-entertaining filler! Nowadays I still love it. Whereas with Alice in Wonderland I would start off enjoying the movie immensely only to experience a sharp dip in interest near the end, with The Sword in the Stone it's the opposite. I find myself just waiting for the dueling scene. Maybe it's that I'm a sucker for fights where someone uses what seems like a disadvantage cleverly to get the upper hand. But it plays out so entertainingly that, really, if it instead existed only as a short, I would easily rank it as one of my favorites of all time. And it ends on a satisfyingly genius twist.
Favorite character: Artemis is my favorite fictional owl. Can you think of a better one?
Least necessary character: We don't even actually even see Hobbes, do we?
Trivial thing: Merlin, you go through most of the picture relying on spoken incantations for your spells, but for your battle with Mim you didn't need to say anything to transform into various creatures. Can you explain that for me?
Overall: The fun characters and their engaging episodes do, I think, win out over any loss of sense that you're actually seeing a story being told.
---Something of Amanda the Something---
-----.......
Thursday, April 26, 2012
D52 - Week 17 - One Hundred and One Dalmatians
Or, as the DVD cover calls it, 101 Dalmatians.
Kevin's turn:
For me the highlight is the look. The change in art style, specifically in the backgrounds, is a pleasant treat not just because it's so different from what we've been seeing in Sleeping Beauty and the like but also because this is the only one of the Disney films that has that look. If it had been used subsequently the interestingness may have worn off quickly, but as that colored-straightly-but-outside-the-lines scenery stays within the confines of 101 Dalmatians and 101 Dalmatians only (I don't think the sequels/spin-offs even used it), it's the best reason to revisit Pongo and his pals. If I were to choose a favorite dalmatian of the 101, it'd definitely be Pongo. Which is a shame that not enough of the movie is about him, but the less dynamic puppies. I quite enjoy everything up that happens before the scene with his children watching television, and for me I actually think it goes downhill from there. The movie does a nice enough job of showing us A Day in the Life of Pongo at a calm pace, then has to go and ruin things by trying to be an action flick. Except, even when the story calls for action, things still seem to happen awfully slowly and leisurely! Do we really need to wait as the colonel listens to each single line of Twilight Bark code? Get on with it! Sure, Pongo forcing his pet to flirt isn't hugely exciting either, but I'd rather watch almost-mundane events played out well than almost-exciting events played out boringly. It doesn't help things that, as b***hy as Cruella DeVille is, she isn't what I would call scary or threatening. It's already established that she's not the type to get her hands directly dirty, so why would we be worried about her finding the dalmatians? Because if she did, she'd...what, call over Jasper and Horace and have them do something about it? I'm shakin' in my bootses, I am. Oh, and since it's obligatory that every review of a Disney film must point out any racial insensitivities as if the reader wouldn't have noticed it on their own (see my own Lady and the Tramp post, I guess), how offended do you think actual English people are by the two thugs?
Kevin's Kontemplation: So, we see the animals talk to each other while humans are around. But they're not really speaking the same language as the humans, because the humans and animals can't understand each other. So one would think that maybe when we see the animals talking to each other, they're really just barking/meowing/whinnying at each other (and that a dog can understand a cat who can understand a horse and so on) and we're just getting the "dubbed" version of their sounds.This holds up when you note, for example, that Sergeant Tibbs "whispers" (which would really be soft mewing?) when earshot of the bad guys. But if this is the case, why is the "Twilight Bark" a special thing (that we don't hear dubbed)? What would be the difference between sending out a Twilight Bark and, well, just bark-talking as they've (supposedly) been doing but very loudly? Are the barks really an entirely separate form of communication from the way we see them talk normally throughout the picture? If so, what exactly is going on when they non-barkingly (or meowingly, mooingly, etc) speak to one another?
Amanda!
-------Placeholder----------
Kevin's turn:
For me the highlight is the look. The change in art style, specifically in the backgrounds, is a pleasant treat not just because it's so different from what we've been seeing in Sleeping Beauty and the like but also because this is the only one of the Disney films that has that look. If it had been used subsequently the interestingness may have worn off quickly, but as that colored-straightly-but-outside-the-lines scenery stays within the confines of 101 Dalmatians and 101 Dalmatians only (I don't think the sequels/spin-offs even used it), it's the best reason to revisit Pongo and his pals. If I were to choose a favorite dalmatian of the 101, it'd definitely be Pongo. Which is a shame that not enough of the movie is about him, but the less dynamic puppies. I quite enjoy everything up that happens before the scene with his children watching television, and for me I actually think it goes downhill from there. The movie does a nice enough job of showing us A Day in the Life of Pongo at a calm pace, then has to go and ruin things by trying to be an action flick. Except, even when the story calls for action, things still seem to happen awfully slowly and leisurely! Do we really need to wait as the colonel listens to each single line of Twilight Bark code? Get on with it! Sure, Pongo forcing his pet to flirt isn't hugely exciting either, but I'd rather watch almost-mundane events played out well than almost-exciting events played out boringly. It doesn't help things that, as b***hy as Cruella DeVille is, she isn't what I would call scary or threatening. It's already established that she's not the type to get her hands directly dirty, so why would we be worried about her finding the dalmatians? Because if she did, she'd...what, call over Jasper and Horace and have them do something about it? I'm shakin' in my bootses, I am. Oh, and since it's obligatory that every review of a Disney film must point out any racial insensitivities as if the reader wouldn't have noticed it on their own (see my own Lady and the Tramp post, I guess), how offended do you think actual English people are by the two thugs?
Kevin's Kontemplation: So, we see the animals talk to each other while humans are around. But they're not really speaking the same language as the humans, because the humans and animals can't understand each other. So one would think that maybe when we see the animals talking to each other, they're really just barking/meowing/whinnying at each other (and that a dog can understand a cat who can understand a horse and so on) and we're just getting the "dubbed" version of their sounds.This holds up when you note, for example, that Sergeant Tibbs "whispers" (which would really be soft mewing?) when earshot of the bad guys. But if this is the case, why is the "Twilight Bark" a special thing (that we don't hear dubbed)? What would be the difference between sending out a Twilight Bark and, well, just bark-talking as they've (supposedly) been doing but very loudly? Are the barks really an entirely separate form of communication from the way we see them talk normally throughout the picture? If so, what exactly is going on when they non-barkingly (or meowingly, mooingly, etc) speak to one another?
Amanda!
-------Placeholder----------
Saturday, April 21, 2012
D52 - Week 16 - Sleeping Beauty
Kevin Says:
There's something I really like about Sleeping Beauty. But what is it exactly? It's not the story. It's not particularly engaging, and frankly full of plot holes (why can't the Golden Girls, I mean, the fairies turn Maleficent's hench-creatures into flowers?). And yes, it is another one of those very short movies padded into over an hour of sequences. Is it the beauty of the art itself? The film is full of beautifully drawn and animated art, but nothing I can think of that Fantasia had done better. But oh, the characters! They're all, um...well stout fairy makes me laugh, especially when she wiggles in frustration. I wouldn't say I love the movie just for them (though I do think a better title would've been The Three Fairies of Sleeping Beauty). What of the music? It's lovely, isn't it? Who could forget the best song of the whole thing...come on, sing along with me...SKUMPS! SKUMPS! A toast to the home! One grander by far than a palace in Rome! I'm...actually not being all that sarcastic when I say that. Okay, so maybe I tend to get mixed up with which songs are in Sleeping Beauty and not. Which is not to say that they're not catchy or memorable, just that...Once Upon a Dream could just as easily have been Cinderella's song, couldn't it? Even "Skumps," for a while, I could've sworn was from "The Sword in the Stone." And my second-favorite song, Riddle Diddle 123, is disappointingly only used instrumental as background music.
So what have I gone through...story, animation, characters, music...what else could it have b-OH wait! I've got it! Now I remember my favorite thing about Sleeping Beauty, that wins out over any of its other qualities in my opinion....
Amanda Says:
[under construction]
There's something I really like about Sleeping Beauty. But what is it exactly? It's not the story. It's not particularly engaging, and frankly full of plot holes (why can't the Golden Girls, I mean, the fairies turn Maleficent's hench-creatures into flowers?). And yes, it is another one of those very short movies padded into over an hour of sequences. Is it the beauty of the art itself? The film is full of beautifully drawn and animated art, but nothing I can think of that Fantasia had done better. But oh, the characters! They're all, um...well stout fairy makes me laugh, especially when she wiggles in frustration. I wouldn't say I love the movie just for them (though I do think a better title would've been The Three Fairies of Sleeping Beauty). What of the music? It's lovely, isn't it? Who could forget the best song of the whole thing...come on, sing along with me...SKUMPS! SKUMPS! A toast to the home! One grander by far than a palace in Rome! I'm...actually not being all that sarcastic when I say that. Okay, so maybe I tend to get mixed up with which songs are in Sleeping Beauty and not. Which is not to say that they're not catchy or memorable, just that...Once Upon a Dream could just as easily have been Cinderella's song, couldn't it? Even "Skumps," for a while, I could've sworn was from "The Sword in the Stone." And my second-favorite song, Riddle Diddle 123, is disappointingly only used instrumental as background music.
So what have I gone through...story, animation, characters, music...what else could it have b-OH wait! I've got it! Now I remember my favorite thing about Sleeping Beauty, that wins out over any of its other qualities in my opinion....
Amanda Says:
[under construction]
Saturday, April 14, 2012
D52 - Week 15 - Lady and the Tramp
Kevin's contributes:
For those who haven't heard, I'm going to be an uncle soon! My sister's first child (a boy) is due May 20th. The downside is that her and her husband's dog, who though not well-trained is friendly and loveable, will get the ol' heave-ho as a result. It's a shame especially since he didn't do anything wrong himself and won't even realize why he had to leave his owners. This is what helps me take to heart the main theme of Lady and the Tramp. It is a story of the confusion and fear of possibly being emotionally replaced. Not so much the love story between a sheltered lady dog and a streetwise mutt, as the trailers and promos and title would want you to think. Sure, Tramp plays a pivotal part in what would happen to her, but really only by way of being a love interest and coming to the rescue at the right time, which makes him more or less a Disney prince, just without the royalty. Yet the movies weren't called Cinderella and Prince Charming or Sleeping Beauty and Prince Phillip or The Little Mermaid and Prince Eric or well you get the point.* As far as Disney princes so far, though, Tramp at least has a personality to speak of! Touch too arrogant for me to call him "likeable," but barring that he is and does a great job of carrying the story along. But no, this isn't really a love story as much as a story that happens to have a love-ish element added. I'm not even sure if her meeting Tramp was necessary for anything other than making the film longer. It couldn't be for Lady to learn the importance of leaving her cushy life to explore the world outside of her own home, since, well...in the end she doesn't do that at all! Was it for Tramp to learn the lesson that living a leashed life is pretty sweet? No, no no. If there is a lesson to be found anywhere it only works to ignore the differing-classes theme and focus on how, hey, a new human in the household seems scary and threatening at first but you'll get used to it and things will be back to a comfortable new normal soon. And the whole Tramp thing, well, that's just a separate story that happens to collide with the first one near the end. Just like a typical Seinfeld episode!
In the final scene Jim says, "Where did you put the dog biscuits? You know, the box Aunt Sarah sent for Christmas?" Is it meant to mean that Aunt Sarah has changed her ways by then? I guess it's nice to know that she no longer hates Lady, but it would be nicer to be given an explanation of why, rather than just this cryptic and easy-to-miss clue. Maybe she just felt bad about having lost Lady and is now in Jim Dear and Darling's debt? Or something else happened that we can only imagine, like having discovered her cats to be the horrid nasty things they are? Your guess is as good as mine.
*Beauty and the Beast being an exception, but we'll get to that later in the year.
Trivial thingies:
-What was up with that scene where Jock and Trusty try to propose to Lady? How would that have worked, as far as their humans are concerned? Think about it.
-It makes more sense that Tramp would become part of the Dear/Darling household since no one would lose a dog in that transaction, and it was largely the Dear/Darlings' decision. But here's a question: What do they call their new mutt? Do they serendipitously name him "Tramp" because of his history, or confuse things by giving him a new name? Now that I think of it, I'm not sure if any of the dogs in the picture actually called him "Tramp" as a name (as I have been), rather than just calling him the tramp, so maybe this is all a moot point. Speaking of names given to the dogs, it may seem condescending for Tramp to constantly call Lady "Pidge" or "Pigeon," until you realize the alternative is to call her "Lady," which also sounds condescending when you put it into use at that level.
Favorite character: Tramp makes me want to own a dog just like him.
Characters that are admittedly necessary to the plot but that I did not like at all: Damn those cats. They're not villains I "love to hate," they're villains I'm bothered at the existence of. Does Aunt Sarah not notice them causing the same sort of messes and ruckus at her house? Or worse, do the cats only act that way when they have the chance to pin it on another animal? And they might as well have been named Ching and Chong, or something. The Asian stereotyping almost makes you seem more comfortable with the Scottish, Mexican and Italian stereotypes.
Overall: I'd just like to end my part by saying that Amanda and I have eaten at Tony's Restaurant and it was a fantastic experience, and dare I say a more enjoyable experience than its claim to fame moviesake.
Amanda's!...
........
For those who haven't heard, I'm going to be an uncle soon! My sister's first child (a boy) is due May 20th. The downside is that her and her husband's dog, who though not well-trained is friendly and loveable, will get the ol' heave-ho as a result. It's a shame especially since he didn't do anything wrong himself and won't even realize why he had to leave his owners. This is what helps me take to heart the main theme of Lady and the Tramp. It is a story of the confusion and fear of possibly being emotionally replaced. Not so much the love story between a sheltered lady dog and a streetwise mutt, as the trailers and promos and title would want you to think. Sure, Tramp plays a pivotal part in what would happen to her, but really only by way of being a love interest and coming to the rescue at the right time, which makes him more or less a Disney prince, just without the royalty. Yet the movies weren't called Cinderella and Prince Charming or Sleeping Beauty and Prince Phillip or The Little Mermaid and Prince Eric or well you get the point.* As far as Disney princes so far, though, Tramp at least has a personality to speak of! Touch too arrogant for me to call him "likeable," but barring that he is and does a great job of carrying the story along. But no, this isn't really a love story as much as a story that happens to have a love-ish element added. I'm not even sure if her meeting Tramp was necessary for anything other than making the film longer. It couldn't be for Lady to learn the importance of leaving her cushy life to explore the world outside of her own home, since, well...in the end she doesn't do that at all! Was it for Tramp to learn the lesson that living a leashed life is pretty sweet? No, no no. If there is a lesson to be found anywhere it only works to ignore the differing-classes theme and focus on how, hey, a new human in the household seems scary and threatening at first but you'll get used to it and things will be back to a comfortable new normal soon. And the whole Tramp thing, well, that's just a separate story that happens to collide with the first one near the end. Just like a typical Seinfeld episode!
In the final scene Jim says, "Where did you put the dog biscuits? You know, the box Aunt Sarah sent for Christmas?" Is it meant to mean that Aunt Sarah has changed her ways by then? I guess it's nice to know that she no longer hates Lady, but it would be nicer to be given an explanation of why, rather than just this cryptic and easy-to-miss clue. Maybe she just felt bad about having lost Lady and is now in Jim Dear and Darling's debt? Or something else happened that we can only imagine, like having discovered her cats to be the horrid nasty things they are? Your guess is as good as mine.
*Beauty and the Beast being an exception, but we'll get to that later in the year.
Trivial thingies:
-What was up with that scene where Jock and Trusty try to propose to Lady? How would that have worked, as far as their humans are concerned? Think about it.
-It makes more sense that Tramp would become part of the Dear/Darling household since no one would lose a dog in that transaction, and it was largely the Dear/Darlings' decision. But here's a question: What do they call their new mutt? Do they serendipitously name him "Tramp" because of his history, or confuse things by giving him a new name? Now that I think of it, I'm not sure if any of the dogs in the picture actually called him "Tramp" as a name (as I have been), rather than just calling him the tramp, so maybe this is all a moot point. Speaking of names given to the dogs, it may seem condescending for Tramp to constantly call Lady "Pidge" or "Pigeon," until you realize the alternative is to call her "Lady," which also sounds condescending when you put it into use at that level.
Favorite character: Tramp makes me want to own a dog just like him.
Characters that are admittedly necessary to the plot but that I did not like at all: Damn those cats. They're not villains I "love to hate," they're villains I'm bothered at the existence of. Does Aunt Sarah not notice them causing the same sort of messes and ruckus at her house? Or worse, do the cats only act that way when they have the chance to pin it on another animal? And they might as well have been named Ching and Chong, or something. The Asian stereotyping almost makes you seem more comfortable with the Scottish, Mexican and Italian stereotypes.
Overall: I'd just like to end my part by saying that Amanda and I have eaten at Tony's Restaurant and it was a fantastic experience, and dare I say a more enjoyable experience than its claim to fame moviesake.
Amanda's!...
........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)