Lambert the Sheepish Lion (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring Sterling Holloway, Stan Freberg, James MacDonald, Clarence Nash, June Foray Academy Award - NOM
Lambert is a timid lion cub who mistakenly gets delivered to a flock of sheep by Mr. Stork. At first the other lambs make fun of him, but when Lambert connects with his inner lion and scares away the wolf threatening his mama, he becomes a celebrated hero. Lambert follows in the footsteps of Ferdinand the Bull and The Reluctant Dragon. Lambert's character design, with his exaggerated and angular features, is new territory for Disney. His adversary, on the other hand, is lifted straight from Peter and the Wolf.
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 13, 2020 10:12:50 GMT
Mickey Mouse: Pluto's Party (1952) Director Milt Schaffer Starring Pinto Colvig, Clarence Nash, Ruth Clifford
At the end of the Pluto shorts in 1951, the Mickey Mouse series was briefly revived for four more conspicuously Pluto-centric shorts. This entry sees the last hurrah of the little mouse orphans, who play violently with Pluto and grab all of the cake he was looking forward to. Exactly why the dog gets to eat cake, I'm not sure, but Mickey saves a slice for him regardless.
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 13, 2020 16:13:40 GMT
Mickey Mouse: Pluto's Christmas Tree (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring James MacDonald, Pinto Colvig, Dessie Flynn, Clarence Nash, Ruth Clifford
Mickey chops down Chip 'n' Dale's tree to decorate for Christmas. Pluto finds out, but his efforts to alert Mickey and chase the chipmunks away lead to the tree's destruction. Minnie, Donald, and Goofy sing carols. Not the worst use of Pluto, but hardly innovative. Will Mickey ever take Pluto's hints? Of course not. The holiday atmosphere is a pleasant touch.
Lambert the Sheepish Lion (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring Sterling Holloway, Stan Freberg, James MacDonald, Clarence Nash, June Foray Academy Award - NOM
Lambert is a timid lion cub who mistakenly gets delivered to a flock of sheep by Mr. Stork. At first the other lambs make fun of him, but when Lambert connects with his inner lion and scares away the wolf threatening his mama, he becomes a celebrated hero. Lambert follows in the footsteps of Ferdinand the Bull and The Reluctant Dragon. Lambert's character design, with his exaggerated and angular features, is new territory for Disney. His adversary, on the other hand, is lifted straight from Peter and the Wolf.
Lambert is also Dumbo-like: the baby different from all his peers who is teased and ostracized by the others (adults, not just kids) but loved by a proud mother. His differentness is what allows him to do the thing that leads to his being celebrated.
The Ugly Duckling is different from his peers, but his foster mother does not give him unconditional love; of course, she's also the mother of his duckling peers. Lambert and Dumbo are only children.
Lambert is also Dumbo-like: the baby different from all his peers who is teased and ostracized by the others (adults, not just kids) but loved by a proud mother. His differentness is what allows him to do the thing that leads to his being celebrated.
The Ugly Duckling is different from his peers, but his foster mother does not give him unconditional love; of course, she's also the mother of his duckling peers. Lambert and Dumbo are only children.
Another wholesome spin on the same trope in the Disney canon comes in the opening segments of The Jungle Book — for a variation where the foster mother of the “different” child is still uniformly loving, even though she also has “normal” children besides. I always found the relationship of Mowgli with his adopted wolf-mother, and the cubs, quite charming.
Mickey Mouse: Pluto's Christmas Tree (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring James MacDonald, Pinto Colvig, Dessie Flynn, Clarence Nash, Ruth Clifford
Mickey chops down Chip 'n' Dale's tree to decorate for Christmas. Pluto finds out, but his efforts to alert Mickey and chase the chipmunks away lead to the tree's destruction. Minnie, Donald, and Goofy sing carols. Not the worst use of Pluto, but hardly innovative. Will Mickey ever take Pluto's hints? Of course not. The holiday atmosphere is a pleasant touch.
True, Mickey had previously ignored Pluto re: the seal in the house. But "Pluto's Christmas Tree" has become beloved for a reason, and not just because people have seen it on Christmas specials and holiday compilations. There are pieces of it that are visually striking and memorable: the wonder of the Christmas tree lights, which I think captures the wonder that a small child feels at seeing a lit tree, and the funny sequence where Dale tries to disguise himself as a Santa candle. Not surprising that that sequence has been immortalized in porcelain figures and in Christmas tree ornaments. There's nothing that approaches the staying power of these two scenes in the similar "Toy Tinkers."
Shout-out to the comic-book adaptation of this cartoon by Korhonen and Rodrigues. I think they did a very nice job.
Lambert the Sheepish Lion (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring Sterling Holloway, Stan Freberg, James MacDonald, Clarence Nash, June Foray Academy Award - NOM
Lambert is a timid lion cub who mistakenly gets delivered to a flock of sheep by Mr. Stork. At first the other lambs make fun of him, but when Lambert connects with his inner lion and scares away the wolf threatening his mama, he becomes a celebrated hero. Lambert follows in the footsteps of Ferdinand the Bull and The Reluctant Dragon. Lambert's character design, with his exaggerated and angular features, is new territory for Disney. His adversary, on the other hand, is lifted straight from Peter and the Wolf.
Lambert is also Dumbo-like: the baby different from all his peers who is teased and ostracized by the others (adults, not just kids) but loved by a proud mother. His differentness is what allows him to do the thing that leads to his being celebrated.
The Ugly Duckling is different from his peers, but his foster mother does not give him unconditional love; of course, she's also the mother of his duckling peers. Lambert and Dumbo are only children.
True enough. I was specifically thinking of the use of aggressiveness (or lack thereof), but the other examples are just as valid. I mean, the connection with Dumbo is made explicit with the return of Mr. Stork.
Another wholesome spin on the same trope in the Disney canon comes in the opening segments of The Jungle Book — for a variation where the foster mother of the “different” child is still uniformly loving, even though she also has “normal” children besides. I always found the relationship of Mowgli with his adopted wolf-mother, and the cubs, quite charming.
Not unlike Pecos Bill when he's adopted by the coyotes, although the mother is less present there. Tarzan doesn't have any siblings, does he?
Mickey Mouse: Pluto's Christmas Tree (1952) Director Jack Hannah Starring James MacDonald, Pinto Colvig, Dessie Flynn, Clarence Nash, Ruth Clifford
Mickey chops down Chip 'n' Dale's tree to decorate for Christmas. Pluto finds out, but his efforts to alert Mickey and chase the chipmunks away lead to the tree's destruction. Minnie, Donald, and Goofy sing carols. Not the worst use of Pluto, but hardly innovative. Will Mickey ever take Pluto's hints? Of course not. The holiday atmosphere is a pleasant touch.
True, Mickey had previously ignored Pluto re: the seal in the house. But "Pluto's Christmas Tree" has become beloved for a reason, and not just because people have seen it on Christmas specials and holiday compilations. There are pieces of it that are visually striking and memorable: the wonder of the Christmas tree lights, which I think captures the wonder that a small child feels at seeing a lit tree, and the funny sequence where Dale tries to disguise himself as a Santa candle. Not surprising that that sequence has been immortalized in porcelain figures and in Christmas tree ornaments. There's nothing that approaches the staying power of these two scenes in the similar "Toy Tinkers."
Shout-out to the comic-book adaptation of this cartoon by Korhonen and Rodrigues. I think they did a very nice job.
Also RE: the kitten in Lend a Paw, and I'm sure a couple of other Pluto shorts that I can't name off the top of my head. The Christmas atmosphere is very striking indeed; I have problems sometimes with finding words of the right intensity. It's not a bad Chip 'n' Dale short by any means, but it's not as slick as All in a Nutshell.
I'll probably post a ranking of the classic shorts I've reviewed some time soon, as it looks like I won't have another short to review until The Prince and the Pauper. Though of course, the Disney+ line is subject to change.
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 14, 2020 16:21:40 GMT
@mathilda: To be frank, I wasn't thinking when I made that comment about The Reluctant Dragon and Ferdinand the Bullon my Lambert the Sheepish Lion review. I very much expected it to be in that vein of another overly effiminate male character, but that element is missing. Dumbo was probably a better analogue.
Directors Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson Starring Bobby Driscoll, Kathryn Beaumont, Paul Collins, Tommy Luske, Heather Angel, Hans Conried, Bill Thompson, Candy Candido, Tom Conway
Another year, another Disney feature. The overall feeling that pervaded my viewing of Peter Pan was one of redundancy. It's another feature that I find difficult to appreciate due to how it has aged. I've seen virtually everything in this film done better elsewhere -- some of which was released before 1953, but most was made long after. Perhaps my viewing is colored because of this, but I found there to be little innovation or creativity in Peter Pan, apart from adaptation of its source material into a different medium. But that's hardly a novelty by this point.
Peter Pan appears to suffer from what I'm coining the Adaptation Trap, something that has become present in recent films. The Adaptation Trap happens in films that transplant the plot of the original over to a new medium without much thought, leading to a plot structure that is more keen on checking off all the memorable moments of the original than stringing a plot through character motivation. Oftentimes these films feel a bit episodic in nature, like we saw in Alice in Wonderland. This is purely subjective, of course.
I'm all for high adventure usually, but Peter Pan strikes me as an especially aimless example of the genre. There's no treasure hunt, no journey to be made. Just some kids fooling around. And this is reflected in the quality of the film. There's no particular scene or element that really stands out, especially with the similarly dreamlike Alice in Wonderland in such recent memory. Neverland is supposed to be an imaginary realm of high fantasy, but it's no Oz. Just some stereotypical depictions of pirates and "Indians".
The characters aren't faring all that better. It's arguably Bobby Driscoll's best performance yet, but Pan never gets challenged in any fundamental way. Wendy is exceedingly proper, something that Kathryn Beaumont made good use of previously, but next to Tinker Bell and Tiger Lily she's downright boring. John and Michael hardly have any characterization to speak of, as do the Lost Boys. The prime character-motivated actions in Peter Pan come from Captain Hook and Tinker Bell. I mean, even the Indians are more motivated then our leads. It's an awkward position to be in, especially since Hook and Mr. Smee are such a comic relief duo that it's hard to see them as a serious threat. Treasure Island, they ain't. And they're certainly not The Pirates of Penzance, the pinnacle of ineffective piracy.
I'll admit that I am by some measure the worst person to review Peter Pan. I was always more the 'old man in a young man's body' type. But I did watch Return to Neverland when I was a kid, which improves on the original in so many ways that my appreciation for it continues to grow. And Mischief Theatre's adaptation Peter Pan Goes Wrong is one of my favorite things in the world, making it hard to sit through a 'straight' version of the story. (I've never cared for Hook, so that one doesn't factor in here.) There's very little Disney's Pan brings to the table, and what it does bring hasn't aged well. Need I bring up the racism? Or the weird Oedipal complex at the heart of the story?
It also feels like a step backward within the context of its time. The backgrounds are not as interesting as they were in Alice in Wonderland, the audio is occasionally muffled (especially around Mr. Darling and to a lesser extent Captain Hook), and really, somebody had the bright idea to cast an American kid as the third Darling child. The songs are bland and mainly used to set a tone, rather than integrated into the motivations of the characters. Although I do have a soft spot for that one pirate who had a solo high up on the mast... before Hook shoots him, that is.
Maybe Walt was too wrapped up in his plans for Disneyland. Maybe the studio needed some money in order to finance the more elaborate pictures in the works at this time: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping Beauty. Or maybe I'm just an old-fashioned bore who can't believe in magic when it's in front of his face. That's also been a running theme in this review series! Oh, I don't know. But I rest safely in the knowledge of the great uptick in quality that lies ahead, and the eventual sequel that would be produced decades down the line. I may not have the fairy dust on hand, but faith and trust go a long way.
Mari Ness's article on Peter Pan on Tor.com explains some of the reasons why they didn't have the time & money to do Peter Pan right. Walt initially had thought Peter Pan might be his second major animated film! But the difficulty in getting the rights...and the animators' strike...and the war...and the competing projects once they finally were tasked with doing it.... "The flying sequences and special effects needed for Tinker Bell and the pixie dust immediately made it more expensive than either Cinderella or Alice in Wonderland."
Yeah, there's nothing visually magical about this Neverland.
Ness also talks about how Peter is a significantly worse person than in the book or stage adaptations, how badly Tinkerbell is treated, how the big resolution at the end is Wendy's resolution to grow up, but then Peter determines not to grow up? Which leads to a rather confused message. In the book, he's incapable of growing up.
As one of the commenters on Ness's post says, it is pretty amazing that Disney Co. deletes objectionable scenes in Santa's Workshop and Fantasia and buries Song of the South in the vault and yet permits Peter Pan to be distributed/shown including "What Makes the Red Man Red." Is it only anti-Black racism that they think they have to erase? Ness points out that the Red Man song does nothing to advance the plot and could easily be excised.
Mari Ness's article on Peter Pan on Tor.com explains some of the reasons why they didn't have the time & money to do Peter Pan right. Walt initially had thought Peter Pan might be his second major animated film! But the difficulty in getting the rights...and the animators' strike...and the war...and the competing projects once they finally were tasked with doing it.... "The flying sequences and special effects needed for Tinker Bell and the pixie dust immediately made it more expensive than either Cinderella or Alice in Wonderland."
Yeah, there's nothing visually magical about this Neverland.
Ness also talks about how Peter is a significantly worse person than in the book or stage adaptations, how badly Tinkerbell is treated, how the big resolution at the end is Wendy's resolution to grow up, but then Peter determines not to grow up? Which leads to a rather confused message. In the book, he's incapable of growing up.
As one of the commenters on Ness's post says, it is pretty amazing that Disney Co. deletes objectionable scenes in Santa's Workshop and Fantasia and buries Song of the South in the vault and yet permits Peter Pan to be distributed/shown including "What Makes the Red Man Red." Is it only anti-Black racism that they think they have to erase? Ness points out that the Red Man song does nothing to advance the plot and could easily be excised.
You certainly sent me down another rabbit hole! I absolutely agree with Ness' take on the movie. One thing that stood out to me was something she said in the comments:
In many cases, it’s difficult to discuss the original works and the films without that social/political context. Bambi, for example, was very written as a social and political commentary on marginalized groups in Europe, and was recognized as such by contemporaries – this was the stated reason why the WAKs banned the book, though its Jewish authorship was another factor.
Walt Disney had the rights to both Bambi and Peter Pan in the late 1930s. He ordered animators to focus on the WAK-banned Bambi, with its discussions of how to respond to violent political repression, instead of Peter Pan, with its stereotyped Native Americans. In the 1950s, with World War II over, he ordered animators to work on a film that emphasized the importance of mothers – a theme that he would focus on in later films – and retained stereotyped depictions of Native Americans. I think it’s fair to at least note this.
I personally didn't feel like going into this angle in my review of Peter Pan, as I felt that I'd covered the socio-political side enough recently. You don't need me to specifically point out that Peter Pan's racism is a lot strong than that of Song of the South. Plus, my rule about reviewing applies once again: if they didn't make the effort to put much thought into it, then neither will I.
I am surprised to be agreeing with Ness so much; not just here, but in other reviews as well. Peter Pan is only the first or second time I've given negative marks to a perennial critical darling. I've currently got it down in the Hall of Shame with Dumbo (4.5/10), Make Mine Music (3/10), Peter Pan (2.5/10) and Fun and Fancy Free (2/10). Though take those numbers with a pinch of salt --- I'm still working out some of the cracks. But it's good to know that I'm not alone in my opinions.
Last Edit: Sept 22, 2020 14:41:04 GMT by That Duckfan
Mari Ness's article on Peter Pan on Tor.com explains some of the reasons why they didn't have the time & money to do Peter Pan right. Walt initially had thought Peter Pan might be his second major animated film! But the difficulty in getting the rights...and the animators' strike...and the war...and the competing projects once they finally were tasked with doing it.... "The flying sequences and special effects needed for Tinker Bell and the pixie dust immediately made it more expensive than either Cinderella or Alice in Wonderland."
Ness also talks about how Peter is a significantly worse person than in the book or stage adaptations, how badly Tinkerbell is treated, how the big resolution at the end is Wendy's resolution to grow up, but then Peter determines not to grow up? Which leads to a rather confused message. In the book, he's incapable of growing up.
As one of the commenters on Ness's post says, it is pretty amazing that Disney Co. deletes objectionable scenes in Santa's Workshop and Fantasia and buries Song of the South in the vault and yet permits Peter Pan to be distributed/shown including "What Makes the Red Man Red." Is it only anti-Black racism that they think they have to erase? Ness points out that the Red Man song does nothing to advance the plot and could easily be excised.
I think Disney Co. presumed that that the racially insensitive scenes regarding black people would be called out more loudly than the ones regarding Native Americans, because the former is harder to ignore.
Speaking from a Brazilian perspective, indigenous issues aren't always given attention; most people sympathize with their needs, but it's only when something greater happens that the public attention turns to them. The current government is often accused of explicitly favouring invaders and illegal gold miners while claiming that exploring the resources from their territory would be good to them (something every indigeouns leadership begs to differ), so in this context, their needs and the attacks on them are on topic; aside from that, though, indian issues are distant from most people, and I assume the situation is similar in the U.S. reality, with most everyone distant from Native issues, needs and causes. Anti-black racism, on the other hand, is a subject one would have a hard time ignoring; even the least invested person couldn't look away at the notices, be it in times of race riots or in times of civil "peace", the subject never gets dorment. So it didn't take them too much to realize that the Black caricatures and the Historically oblivious film would cause outrage, while the Indian stereotypes probably wouldn't cause that much revolt, aside from a few complaints here and there; nothing big enough to bother the studio that'd go and make Pocahontas (which is a more complex subject, but still).
Last Edit: Sept 22, 2020 20:40:01 GMT by duckman87
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 22, 2020 20:20:47 GMT
I'm afraid that's so, Duckman87.
My friend who's into Indigenous issues sent me the following video a while back. It's nice to see a little cultural reappropration in the face of so much injustice.
As for Pocahontas, I'm sure we'll have enough to discuss when we get there.
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 29, 2020 23:54:08 GMT
Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Associate Producer Erdman Penner Directors Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson Starring Barbara Luddy, Larry Roberts, Peggy Lee, Lee Millar, Verna Felton, Bill Thompson, Bill Baucom, Dallas McKennon, Alan Reed, Stan Freberg, and The Mellomen
What strikes me about Lady and the Tramp is its complexity. The film is a step up from its immediate predecessors in almost every direction. The characters are more engaging, the humor is more varied, the story is thematically denser, the backgrounds are richer, the color scheme is more developed, the songs are more memorable, I could go on and on. It achieves a level of artistry not seen since the days of Pinocchio and Bambi. It's a warm, sentimental romance, the heart of the Walt-era animated canon.
One of the film's great strengths is its ability to seamlessly incorporate a story about dogs in a human-centered world without dumbing down either side. his alone is no mean feat, and something many a future film would struggle with. Back in Cinderella, the mice seemed capable enough to take over the kingdom if they put their mind to it. Lady and the Tramp presents talking animals from a Tom-and-Jerry perspective who lead a rich life away from human sight, and makes it believable. It connects with one's inner child: Lady running away from home to explore the city after some new development redirects the attention of parental figures, this taps into every child's dream. My respects to writer/producer Erdman Penner, an unsung Disney hero.
The main story is the romance between Lady, a sweet but somewhat sheltered dog from a good home, and the Tramp, a happy-go-lucky stray living on the other side of the railroad tracks. Their romance develops as the two explore the town after Lady escapes from the pet shop, culminating in the famous spaghetti at Tony's and a night in the park. Tramp briefly loses his favor when Lady learns of his other amorous adventures, but regains it soon thereafter in a fight with a rat. The relationship that develops between the two characters progresses so naturally, it's un-Disneylike. It's this strong emotional core, combined with the unusual perspective, that makes it one of cinema's great romances. The nostalgic setting, bookended by two Christmases, further adds to this.
But there's also a great deal of humor in this film. Much of it is genteel observational humor, that is ever so key to the characterization of the dogs. There's Tramp's wisecracks, which are a nice personal touch. But most notable are the light caricatures, that give each character a unique personality. Much of this is achieved by giving most of a characters a distinct cultural background: Scottish, Southern, Russian, Mexican, British, German, Siamese, Italian. It's probably frowned upon these days, but for me it reflects America's melting pot culture. In this sense, I think people who object to Si and Am are slightly overreacting: they're not evil Asians, they're evil cats who just happen to be Asian. It's not wholly unproblematic, but it's leagues removed from Peter Pan's redskins.
I'm surprised Disney was willing to consider the bohemian lifestyle at all at this time. The mid-1950s were some of America's most conservative and conformist. Of course, Tramp is a very watered-down version of a street dog. He may know how to fight, but he also knows how to treat a Lady. He's no Marlon Brando or James Dean. This is probably the most obvious way Disney has softened since the days of Pinocchio. Peg is already pushing the envelope, albeit in a different direction. Still, few Disney features address class so directly. It's a story with a clear focus, but a broad scope. A CinemaScope, in fact!
Yes, it's that time in Hollywood history: when studios try to measure up against rival media by widening their aspect ratios! Personally, I'm a big fan of this era's sumptuous presentation, and Lady and the Tramp looks especially gorgeous. Background design was directed by a revolving door of Mary Blair, Claude Coats, and Eyvind Earle. The background designs may not be as visually stylized as elsewhere in this decade, but they're all the more effective when they are (such as during Darling's pregnancy or the rat chase scene). The color schemes are rich, from the natural daytime hues to the deep blue nights, from the muted colors of the film's climax to the deep contrast of the snowy Christmases thereafter. It's a visual feast.
There are a couple of details that keep this film from perfect marks, such as the lack of incident in the first half hour, or the lack of closure with Aunt Sarah (who could have used done with a sterner voice and character design). But Lady and the Tramp is a film that belongs in the upper echelons of American animation. A true classic.
Post by TheMidgetMoose on Oct 1, 2020 15:15:51 GMT
Glad you seemed to like Lady and the Tramp, Duckfan! It's a personal favorite of mine which I've really only grown so fond of in relatively recent years, as opposed to Bambi, which I've enjoyed since childhood. It truly is one of Disney's most beautiful films, both in terms of visuals and story, in my opinion.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.