- Joined
- Nov 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,073
I confess that I still love the various Disney "heroine" animations -- I suppose that's the perennial little girl in me -- though admittedly on close inspection they all seem to be the same heroine in different guises: Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, Esmeralda, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, etc. Even Lady (of LADY AND THE TRAMP) was a classical Disney heroine in the body of a cocker spaniel! And of course FANTASIA is a true masterpiece (though from what I've heard Walt Disney hated it, probably too original for the old reactionary). Even FANTASIA 2000 had its moments: that charming "art deco" take on Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue", and the breathtaking, almost spiritual "flying whales" of Respighi's "Pines of Rome".
I also give Disney credit for bringing the magnificent SPIRITED AWAY to the awareness of western audiences. While TOTORO and MONONOKE did receive some attention in "art theaters" here, I suspect it was Disney Studio's involvement in SPIRITED AWAY that brought Miyazaki's brilliance to the attention of the general public in the English-speaking world.
That being said, I've always felt there was a sort of dark underbelly to the whole Disney thing. The standard Disney characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) leave me absolutely cold, with the possible exception of Mickey as Dukas' "Sorcerer's Apprentice" which worked pretty well. They seem positively bland beside the frenetic wit of the Warner Bros. "repertory players" -- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, et al. Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.
I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.
Finally, the history of the entire Disney concern is fraught with instances of suppression. In the middle and late '60s, men and boys with long hair (read: "hippies") were explicitly barred from entrance to Disneyland. Fast-forward several years to an incident of two young (gay) men who were thrown out of Disneyworld for simply dancing together at one of the clubs there. I imagine that all this has changed in recent years, but it still makes one wonder. (I find it ironic that nowadays, fundamentalists of various religions are opposed to Disney Studios for being "too liberal" -- I suspect these people would have felt perfectly at home in the "old Disney" era.)
Please forgive the rant (and a non-ceph-related one at that)! The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the moderators or anyone else on TONMO, and I don't want to turn this thread into a sociopolitical controversy -- I just tend to get emotional over certain subjects, and I guess Disney is one of them
Getting serious for a change,
Tani
I also give Disney credit for bringing the magnificent SPIRITED AWAY to the awareness of western audiences. While TOTORO and MONONOKE did receive some attention in "art theaters" here, I suspect it was Disney Studio's involvement in SPIRITED AWAY that brought Miyazaki's brilliance to the attention of the general public in the English-speaking world.
That being said, I've always felt there was a sort of dark underbelly to the whole Disney thing. The standard Disney characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy) leave me absolutely cold, with the possible exception of Mickey as Dukas' "Sorcerer's Apprentice" which worked pretty well. They seem positively bland beside the frenetic wit of the Warner Bros. "repertory players" -- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, et al. Additionally, the "Disneyfication" of Milne's delightful WINNIE THE POOH destroyed much of its charm, turning each one of those lovely "toy philosophers" into just another Disney character.
I also wonder whether the premise of the clever ANTZ was plagiarized by Disney for its far less edgy A BUG'S LIFE. The common explanation given is that both filmmakers happened to have the same idea at the same time, but whenever Disney is involved there is always the suspicion of their "cannibalizing" the ideas of more creative filmmakers.
Finally, the history of the entire Disney concern is fraught with instances of suppression. In the middle and late '60s, men and boys with long hair (read: "hippies") were explicitly barred from entrance to Disneyland. Fast-forward several years to an incident of two young (gay) men who were thrown out of Disneyworld for simply dancing together at one of the clubs there. I imagine that all this has changed in recent years, but it still makes one wonder. (I find it ironic that nowadays, fundamentalists of various religions are opposed to Disney Studios for being "too liberal" -- I suspect these people would have felt perfectly at home in the "old Disney" era.)
Please forgive the rant (and a non-ceph-related one at that)! The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the moderators or anyone else on TONMO, and I don't want to turn this thread into a sociopolitical controversy -- I just tend to get emotional over certain subjects, and I guess Disney is one of them
Getting serious for a change,
Tani