July 21, 2007
Better than Bambi?!
I am a huge fan of classic animation, by which I mean the gorgeous work coming from Warner Bros., Disney and MGM from the 1940s throught the mid-50s, the late, lamented Golden Era of studio animation, before cost-cutting corporate execs forced the introduction of the 1960s-style of choppy animation, flat, featureless backgrounds and moronic writing that turned cartoons into the Saturday morning dreck that makes my eyes burn.
Disney's Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia, and Lady and the Tramp were often stunning; the artistry of the backgrounds, the attention to detail, the subtle and natural movements caught and brought to life by the animators, coupled with superb writing made for films that were truly masterpieces -- and ageless.
The folks at Warner Bros., led by men like Tex Avery and Chuck Jones gave us a series of wiseguy, depression-era characters -- voiced by the incomparable Mel Blanc -- who remain some of the funniest figures to come out of Hollywood.
What's up, Doc?
But it was Disney who pioneered the feature-length animated film, and in recent years the studio has churned out a number of direct-to-video sequels, with all the associated it-must-really-be-bad-if-it-didn't-get-a-theatrical-release vibe attached.
Slate's Dan Kois thinks these flicks have gotten a bum rap, in a titled (no-kidding!), "Why Bambi II is better than Bambi."
If you're expecting half-assed hack-work, you're in for a surprise. Lady and the Tramp II (2001), Bambi II (2006), and Cinderella III (2007), to take three recent examples, are certainly not perfect, but they're worthy successors to the originals, carrying the well-worn stories forward with care and charm. What's more, the movies tell their stories in the classic animation mode, using hand-drawn images, winning songs, and an energetic but not hyperactive style that has entertained children since Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. And which, given the chance, can still engage children today.
[...]
Perhaps ticket buyers (i.e., parents) long for a different era of animation. If so, Disney's sequels will do a much better job of reminding them of the animated classics than the slick gagfests in today's theaters. Despite their straight-to-DVD status, there's nothing cheap or knocked-off about the animators' work on these sequels. They have a rich, hand-drawn look that few studios' CG efforts can match. (The exception, of course, is Pixar: Ratatouille is so well shot it should be eligible for the cinematography Oscar.)
The dogs of Lady and the Tramp II are wonderfully expressive, stumbling through their junkyard environs in an endearingly imperfect way that sleek, computer-generated characters simply can't manage. And Bambi II is filled with some of the most painterly, awe-inspiring forest settings I've ever seen onscreen. Computers can make a forest look real; old-fashioned animation can make a forest look at once imposing and alluring.
And unlike the current crop of animated features, Disney's direct-to-DVD sequels tell their stories simply, without a constant barrage of slapstick and winking pop-culture references. All three films I watched were entirely free of crotch-kicking, and the only fart joke belonged, appropriately, to a skunk. Instead, the jokes tend to be quiet, the action gripping if only occasional, and the entire pace of the movie enjoyably slower than you're likely to see onscreen these days.
How much slower? Lady and the Tramp II and Cinderella III even make time for character-defining songs, the way animated movies used to.
I'm sold; off to the video store. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 21, 2007 09:10 AM
| TrackBack