If my very telling blog title didn't make it clear, The Lion King has always been and always will be one of my all time Disney faves. It truly is a great movie! I'd like to use this blogpost to call attention to some of what I believe to be the movie's high points:
1. The MUSIC!!! Seriously one of the most memorable take aways from the movie. I would go as far as saying that "Hakuna Matata" is the most catchy Disney song of all time (though "Under the Sea" would give it a run for its money...). "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" is also incredible. I can feel Lil' Simba's excitement so strongly that it literally puts a smile on my face. Also, Nala gets an A+ for harmonies. Also, we can't discredit "Circle of Life" for being beyond powerful and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" for melting hearts everywhere. Ah, young lion love. Thank god someone else realized how great this music was and turned it into a Broadway show.
2. This may be the 4 years of photography class speaking from inside, but the graphics are absolutely beautiful! It all starts with the opening scene as being potentially the most breathtaking sunset ever. Yes, it is animated, but still. Kudos, Disney. Throughout the entire movie, the colors captivate me. The sky, the trees, the waterfall -- it's all so stunning! In the scene where Mufasa speaks to Simba telling him to remember who he is, the colors literally captivate you.
3. Although Simba is a lion, he is so relatable. I find myself easily being able to relate with his internal debate of trying to do the right thing (go home to be King of Pride Rock) and wanting to avoid all responsibility (staying with Timon and Pumba). Kind of like my daily struggle of deciding if I should be responsible and do school work or veg out and watch Netflix. I feel you, Simba.
4. Rafiki is amazing. That is all.
I believe a disclaimer is necessary. Like all the other Disney films I have rewatched this semester, I have noticed some flaws with The Lion King that I didn't notice as child. There are some issues in the movie that completely went over my head when I was younger. However, that being said, I still am a HUGE Lion King fan!
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
"Ariel, like the mermaid!"
While enjoying this much-needed snow day today, I heard a funny story. I'm not quite sure how it came up, but some friends and I were discussing how our parents chose our names. My friend Emily mentioned her friend named Arielle. She told us that Arielle got her name in an unusual way:
When Arielle's mother was pregnant, her parents asked her older sister (a young toddler at the time) what she would like her baby sister's name to be. Why they placed this responsibility in the hands of a three-year-old is beyond me, but not the point. The girl, without any hesitation, responds, "Ariel, like the mermaid!" And so, with a slight modification, her parents decided to name their newborn baby after The Little Mermaid.
My take away is that (1) it makes for a great two truths and a lie/fun fact and (2) at least her sister hadn't suggested Cinderella! It's a harder name to sport "casually"...
When Arielle's mother was pregnant, her parents asked her older sister (a young toddler at the time) what she would like her baby sister's name to be. Why they placed this responsibility in the hands of a three-year-old is beyond me, but not the point. The girl, without any hesitation, responds, "Ariel, like the mermaid!" And so, with a slight modification, her parents decided to name their newborn baby after The Little Mermaid.
My take away is that (1) it makes for a great two truths and a lie/fun fact and (2) at least her sister hadn't suggested Cinderella! It's a harder name to sport "casually"...
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Amanda Putnam: Transgendered Villains?
Before I get into my personal view on the topic at hand, I would like to applaud Amanda Putnam for such a creative and thought-provoking essay. I found her piece to be both extremely well-written and engaging. I loved the way she framed the piece with her daughter's naïve point of view, and found that her style of writing was well organized and fluid. However, despite my interest in the idea of her piece, I do not share Amanda Putnam's view that Disney portrays its villains in a transgender way. While I can clearly see that Disney portrays its villains in a very different, more negative light than its other characters, I do not find this portrayal to imply that villains have transgender attributes.
Putnam used a plethora of examples to try to justify her point that these villains had transgender qualities. I fully agree with her evidence that proves Disney does not depict its villains to be as attractive as its protagonists. For example, the short and pudgy Governor Radcliffe is nowhere near as handsome as the lean, toned John Smith. However, I don't think that the details Putnam cited adequately prove that the villains' differences make them somehow transgender. With the example of The Lion King, Putnam claims that Scar possesses feminine traits. When discussing Mufasa's proposal that Simba will become king, Putnam states "Scar's sardonic "I'll practice my curtsy" reiterates his acerbic personality, but also adds a transgendered as it locates Scar again in the female role" (156). I believe that Putnam stretched the meaning behind this quote in an attempt to prove her point. Scar's snarky response is merely a testament to his hostility. Putnam mentioned Scar's "acerbic personality" but tried to brush this off as not being the actual explanation for his rude quip. However, I truly believe that Scar intended to be sassy and bitter towards Mufasa and Simba. I don't think that him mentioning the idea of curtsying makes feminizes him in any way. In fact, it seems more to me like Scar is mocking the idea of curtsying. In this regard, Scar making fun of the curtsy would disprove Putnam's theory by depicting Scar as ruthless and insensitive.
Similarly, Putnam claims that the stepmother Lady Tremaine in Cinderella is masculine because of her facial features. Putnam "Her nose is crooked and large for her face, more reminiscent of 101 Dalmatians male villains Horace and Jasper, rather than typical Disney female features. Her over-plucked, arched eyebrows characterize her expressions as surprised and menacing" (153-154). Putnam is trying to show how Lady Tremaine's physical appearance makes her more masculine, but I find this to be, yet again, quite a stretch. I don't find the shape of the stepmother's nose and eyebrows to be sufficient in proving her to be male-like. I agree with Putnam that these features clearly contrast those of Cinderella, but I don't think that it is fair to associate these differences with having transgender implications. I can see how Disney is depicting Cinderella as being more beautiful than her stepmother, but I don't think that doing so gives Lady Tremaine any transgender characteristics.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed this essay and appreciated the creativity of the concept, I did find the overall argument to lack sufficient evidence in proving that Disney has given its villains transgender qualities by making them different looking than its main characters.
Putnam used a plethora of examples to try to justify her point that these villains had transgender qualities. I fully agree with her evidence that proves Disney does not depict its villains to be as attractive as its protagonists. For example, the short and pudgy Governor Radcliffe is nowhere near as handsome as the lean, toned John Smith. However, I don't think that the details Putnam cited adequately prove that the villains' differences make them somehow transgender. With the example of The Lion King, Putnam claims that Scar possesses feminine traits. When discussing Mufasa's proposal that Simba will become king, Putnam states "Scar's sardonic "I'll practice my curtsy" reiterates his acerbic personality, but also adds a transgendered as it locates Scar again in the female role" (156). I believe that Putnam stretched the meaning behind this quote in an attempt to prove her point. Scar's snarky response is merely a testament to his hostility. Putnam mentioned Scar's "acerbic personality" but tried to brush this off as not being the actual explanation for his rude quip. However, I truly believe that Scar intended to be sassy and bitter towards Mufasa and Simba. I don't think that him mentioning the idea of curtsying makes feminizes him in any way. In fact, it seems more to me like Scar is mocking the idea of curtsying. In this regard, Scar making fun of the curtsy would disprove Putnam's theory by depicting Scar as ruthless and insensitive.
Similarly, Putnam claims that the stepmother Lady Tremaine in Cinderella is masculine because of her facial features. Putnam "Her nose is crooked and large for her face, more reminiscent of 101 Dalmatians male villains Horace and Jasper, rather than typical Disney female features. Her over-plucked, arched eyebrows characterize her expressions as surprised and menacing" (153-154). Putnam is trying to show how Lady Tremaine's physical appearance makes her more masculine, but I find this to be, yet again, quite a stretch. I don't find the shape of the stepmother's nose and eyebrows to be sufficient in proving her to be male-like. I agree with Putnam that these features clearly contrast those of Cinderella, but I don't think that it is fair to associate these differences with having transgender implications. I can see how Disney is depicting Cinderella as being more beautiful than her stepmother, but I don't think that doing so gives Lady Tremaine any transgender characteristics.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed this essay and appreciated the creativity of the concept, I did find the overall argument to lack sufficient evidence in proving that Disney has given its villains transgender qualities by making them different looking than its main characters.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
So You Think You Can Disney (I Clearly Can't...)
I'm truly ashamed to admit my results of the Seriously, How Well Do You Know Disney Movies? Buzzfeed quiz. This 10-question quiz tests viewers to identify the Disney movie from just a single frame. It's fun!!! Honestly, with only 3 answer choices, you have a pretty good shot based on guessing alone. Personal favorite answer to get correct was Cinderella....I'd recognize that little mouse nose anywhere. I was practically fuming when I got Aladdin wrong. How did I not realize that the lava was from the scene inside the cave of wonders. DUH. Anyways, it's a fun quiz, and hopefully you can do better than my pathetic 5/10. Happy clicking!
Sunday, February 22, 2015
I Never Realized How Skinny Disney Princesses Were
Well, this is interesting: Pop Princesses Photoshopped To Have Disney Princess Proportions.
I'm not going to go on a whole rant about how the tiny size of Disney princesses is a trigger of eating disorders in society. Honestly, I don't think that's true. For starters, Disney princesses are cartoon characters. They aren't real people; they are literally drawn.
That being said, though, the article made me question Disney's motives in making his princesses so distinctly small-looking. I mean seriously, they're about half the size of Taylor Swift, and THAT is saying something! There has to be a reason that Disney designed princesses to have such tiny waists, long necks, huge eyes, and tiny feet.
What I've come to conclude is that Disney probably found this "model" to be the one that would be most attractive to his audience. I'm not saying he is implying that anyone who likes Disney princesses needs to look like this, but I'm sure his goal was to create princesses that would become popular. For example, a quick Google search told me that the big eyes are a symbol of the princesses' innocence. Makes sense, because the are supposed role-models for little girls.
It boils down to the fact that Disney making his princesses super skinny only parallels the ideal views of beauty in society. We see skinnier to be prettier, and this "we" is who Disney is trying to impress. Do I think we would oppose princesses to have a slightly thicker waist and feet that could actually hold themselves up? No, of course not. But at the end of the day we have to remember that Disney is merely marketing a product, one that we (his audience) approve of.
I'm not going to go on a whole rant about how the tiny size of Disney princesses is a trigger of eating disorders in society. Honestly, I don't think that's true. For starters, Disney princesses are cartoon characters. They aren't real people; they are literally drawn.
That being said, though, the article made me question Disney's motives in making his princesses so distinctly small-looking. I mean seriously, they're about half the size of Taylor Swift, and THAT is saying something! There has to be a reason that Disney designed princesses to have such tiny waists, long necks, huge eyes, and tiny feet.
What I've come to conclude is that Disney probably found this "model" to be the one that would be most attractive to his audience. I'm not saying he is implying that anyone who likes Disney princesses needs to look like this, but I'm sure his goal was to create princesses that would become popular. For example, a quick Google search told me that the big eyes are a symbol of the princesses' innocence. Makes sense, because the are supposed role-models for little girls.
It boils down to the fact that Disney making his princesses super skinny only parallels the ideal views of beauty in society. We see skinnier to be prettier, and this "we" is who Disney is trying to impress. Do I think we would oppose princesses to have a slightly thicker waist and feet that could actually hold themselves up? No, of course not. But at the end of the day we have to remember that Disney is merely marketing a product, one that we (his audience) approve of.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
75 degree weather can’t stop Frozen…
In the center of the store stood one display larger than all
the rest. You guessed it: Frozen. Every
inch of these tables was covered completely with Frozen gear. Literally. There
were the classic dolls, of course, but what really caught my attention was the
variety of other products. There were Frozen
flip-flops (because that isn’t at all contradictory) and Frozen band aids – Elsa’s powers can
heal your cut faster! My personal favorite was the totally necessary Frozen jellybeans.
I totally get that there are a ton of marketing
opportunities for Disney. I also knew that Frozen
totally killed it with the products– I mean Elsa outdoing Barbie is HUGE. But
that being said, I was still baffled by it all. Maybe it was the context…there
I am standing in sandals and a tank top and in front of me is a sea of Frozen. Or maybe it was the fact that Frozen premiered over a year ago and
it’s still this relevant. Either way, I’m curious to see how much longer Elsa,
Ana, Olaf, and the whole gang stay popular and keep rockin’ it.
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Little Mermaid: Ariel is a boss
Best part of watching The Little Mermaid? Being able to brag to everyone in my path that I was, in fact, doing homework. While sitting in the airport, my teammates slaved away on physics homework and polysci readings while I happily completed my assignment, and reminisced on my childhood memories while doing so.
The Little Mermaid always has and always will be one of my favorites. I think the main reason is that I love Ariel. I mean, how can you not?! She represents the angsty teen that we all once were/still are. Just a girl (technically mermaid, but same thing) trying to live her life without parental overprotection. Of course, Disney pulled the classic "leave-out-the-mom" move. Honestly I'm not even surprised anymore. Anyways, one of the things I love about Ariel is her badass-ness. First of all, she literally saves Eric. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. She casually rescues him after a dramatic ship explosion and returns him to safety. And then no one questions when he somehow turns up alive on the beach. Not the point, but just saying. Secondly, Ariel manages to actually make me feeeeeel. When she's pissed at her dad I'm thinking "I'm with ya, girl!". When Ursula persuades her to give up her voice I'm practically screaming, "NOOOOOOOOOO!". And when Eric keeps trying to get her to say something I literally feel Ariel's frustration. Like come on Eric, just kiss her...she's HOT. Ariel's just great. But major shout out to the aforementioned Buzzfeed quiz: HOW does her hair look like that?! Seriously, that volume + wetness combo is physically impossible.
Confession time. Perhaps part of the reason I love the movie so much is that the story is near and dear to my heart. In 2005, my first summer at sleep-away camp, my bunk put on a fabulous performance of The Little Mermaid. I performed flawlessly as Flotsam, delivering my 5 lines with the poise of a Broadway star. For this reason alone, The Little Mermaid will always be special to me since, despite how minor my role was, it was one of my earliest memories from camp: my summer home for the next eleven years.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Winnie the Boo-hoo-hoo
My cousins' family, much like my own, didn't manage to make the pilgrimage to Disney until their kids were older than most. When they finally caved and flew down to Orlando, I would guess that their kids were 18, 15, and 13. They loved Disney, but I think they were a little too old to believe in the whole "magical" aspect.
Little kids see the dressed-up characters that roam the streets of Disney as almost gods. They squeal with delight: "Look, Mommy! It's Simba!" With older kids, however, you're more likely to hear: "Hey, I bet that dude in the Simba costume is probably dripping in sweat right now!" While the younger crowd will happily wait on line to take photos with their favorite Disney characters, the older crowd may not be as compliant.
My cousins saw that the Winnie-the-Pooh character was available for pictures, and went over to inquire. My oldest cousin, a boy around 18, tried to strike a conversation with the man beneath the Pooh costume. However, Mr. Pooh was not too into that idea, as I'm sure he felt the need to protect his image as a Disney character, and not some mortal being dressed in a costume. When Winnie wouldn't respond, my cousin gave him a light punch in the arm, in the way that boys mess with each other. They took their picture and Pooh scurried off quickly.
Just moments later, an announcement blared through the park: "Ladies and gentlemen, we are sorry to announce that Winnie-the-Pooh will no longer be available for photos today. He has been **dramatic pause** injured."
As my cousin turned a deep shade of red, he heard a sea of "Awwwww's" from the young crowd around him. Let's just say that my cousins didn't do any more photo-taking that day...
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Tracy Mollet: VERY Refreshing
My favorite part of Tracy Mollet's "With a smile and a song..." essay? The POSITIVITY. Not that the rest of the readings we have been doing haven't been interesting (they have!), but it was also great to read a piece that wasn't bashing Disney for all his flaws, greed, OCD, etc. Yes, the other readings did bring up valuable points, but so did Mollet.
In 11th grade I took an American history course. One of the most memorable lessons was the day that my class talked about The Wizard of Oz as an allegory for economic America in the 1890s. It was full of symbolism. The yellow brick road represented the gold standard of the time that lead to the green Emerald City, which represented the fact that the greenbacked paper money had no actual value. All of the characters stood for things in society as well. For example, the scarecrow represented the farmers that struggled as America shifted towards the big business boom.
I loved that lesson because, whether or not it was 100% true, enough evidence existed so that the connection seemed totally believable! Mollet's analysis of Snow White was so sufficiently supported with details from the film. She really sold her point to me! The way I see it, Mollet and I are similar in that we both see the positive side of Disney. She took this optimistic view a few notches further. With enough evidence and analysis, she was able to create a very convincing argument.
The reason Mollet's essay was so effective is because her points were SO true. In Snow White, the hard-working dwarves prevail over the greedy witch. This parallels American history, in which the cooperative attitudes of 1930s workers were successful while the selfish indulgence of the 1920s failed. The dwarves led simple lives, which turned out victorious in the end. Disney's signature "happily ever after" motif proved to be very relevant in that case that everything did work out after the Great Depression.
Overall, job well done on this essay!
PS: I also chucked at the "Not So Grimm" pun. Solid wordplay, Mollet.
In 11th grade I took an American history course. One of the most memorable lessons was the day that my class talked about The Wizard of Oz as an allegory for economic America in the 1890s. It was full of symbolism. The yellow brick road represented the gold standard of the time that lead to the green Emerald City, which represented the fact that the greenbacked paper money had no actual value. All of the characters stood for things in society as well. For example, the scarecrow represented the farmers that struggled as America shifted towards the big business boom.
I loved that lesson because, whether or not it was 100% true, enough evidence existed so that the connection seemed totally believable! Mollet's analysis of Snow White was so sufficiently supported with details from the film. She really sold her point to me! The way I see it, Mollet and I are similar in that we both see the positive side of Disney. She took this optimistic view a few notches further. With enough evidence and analysis, she was able to create a very convincing argument.
The reason Mollet's essay was so effective is because her points were SO true. In Snow White, the hard-working dwarves prevail over the greedy witch. This parallels American history, in which the cooperative attitudes of 1930s workers were successful while the selfish indulgence of the 1920s failed. The dwarves led simple lives, which turned out victorious in the end. Disney's signature "happily ever after" motif proved to be very relevant in that case that everything did work out after the Great Depression.
Overall, job well done on this essay!
PS: I also chucked at the "Not So Grimm" pun. Solid wordplay, Mollet.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
The Original "Little Snow-White"
What could be so fitting but to blog on the original Grimm fairytale that inspired the Disney rendition of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I went into this reading knowing only 1 change that Disney made: naming the dwarfs. Besides that, I had no prior knowledge of the Grimm version of Snow White. Here are the changes I found most noteworthy:
1. I'm not surprised by the "disnification" of the Queen's request to the Huntsman. In the original she requests Snow White's lungs and liver, while in the Disney version she wants her heart. The heart evokes emotions of love, making the audience forget how vulgar the Queen's request is. The Grimm version is a little more graphic in the sense that "lungs and liver" are a lot more grotesque. Also, the Queen ever-so-casually eats the organs that she assumed to be Snow White's. Cool.
2. One of the most emphasized points in the Disney film is how Snow White arrives in a cabin that is messy beyond belief. However, in the Grimm story, the cabin is described as "neat and clean." Literally, it's as if Disney read the fairytale and deliberately decided to directly oppose Grimm's vision of the cabin. Although in the Grimm version Snow White does end up staying and doing the cleaning in the house, it is Disney who changes the plot so that it is Snow White's idea to clean up the disgusting house. In doing so, he also portrays the dwarfs as being dirty and messy (think: bathing scene) which doesn't seem to be the Grimm brothers' intentions. I am left to believe that Disney wanted to depict women and men in very traditional stereotypes of the time, where women are clean while men are slobs.
3. I always thought Disney Snow White was ditzy, but Grimm Snow White puts her to shame. I am SO amused at Snow White's foolishness. First of all, how did she fail to recognize her stepmother when, one, the dwarfs had warned her that she would return, and, two, her disguise was literally just "coloring her face". C'mon, Snow White. You're expecting your stepmother to come and try to hurt you, but then a lady who, besides a really different skin tone, looks just like your stepmother arrives...nothing fishy about that, right? Oh, and also the fact that the Queen came back a SECOND time, and still Snow White didn't recognize her nor resist the urge to bite the apple after already having been a victim of a poisonous comb. Seriously, Snow White, get it together.
4. The Queen's death. Need I say more? Yet another case of "disnification". I don't think Disney's intended audience (or their parents, for that matter) would have been too chill with Grimm's cruel and unusual punishment killing of the stepmother. Disney chose to go with something a little more natural like lightning and cliffs, rather than to create an create an animated torture scene featuring burning shoes. Disney, I'm with you on this one.
For better or for worse, Disney made some changes that completely altered the plot and the overall feel of the Snow White story line. I wonder what the Grimm Brothers would have thought about the movie...
1. I'm not surprised by the "disnification" of the Queen's request to the Huntsman. In the original she requests Snow White's lungs and liver, while in the Disney version she wants her heart. The heart evokes emotions of love, making the audience forget how vulgar the Queen's request is. The Grimm version is a little more graphic in the sense that "lungs and liver" are a lot more grotesque. Also, the Queen ever-so-casually eats the organs that she assumed to be Snow White's. Cool.
2. One of the most emphasized points in the Disney film is how Snow White arrives in a cabin that is messy beyond belief. However, in the Grimm story, the cabin is described as "neat and clean." Literally, it's as if Disney read the fairytale and deliberately decided to directly oppose Grimm's vision of the cabin. Although in the Grimm version Snow White does end up staying and doing the cleaning in the house, it is Disney who changes the plot so that it is Snow White's idea to clean up the disgusting house. In doing so, he also portrays the dwarfs as being dirty and messy (think: bathing scene) which doesn't seem to be the Grimm brothers' intentions. I am left to believe that Disney wanted to depict women and men in very traditional stereotypes of the time, where women are clean while men are slobs.
3. I always thought Disney Snow White was ditzy, but Grimm Snow White puts her to shame. I am SO amused at Snow White's foolishness. First of all, how did she fail to recognize her stepmother when, one, the dwarfs had warned her that she would return, and, two, her disguise was literally just "coloring her face". C'mon, Snow White. You're expecting your stepmother to come and try to hurt you, but then a lady who, besides a really different skin tone, looks just like your stepmother arrives...nothing fishy about that, right? Oh, and also the fact that the Queen came back a SECOND time, and still Snow White didn't recognize her nor resist the urge to bite the apple after already having been a victim of a poisonous comb. Seriously, Snow White, get it together.
4. The Queen's death. Need I say more? Yet another case of "disnification". I don't think Disney's intended audience (or their parents, for that matter) would have been too chill with Grimm's cruel and unusual punishment killing of the stepmother. Disney chose to go with something a little more natural like lightning and cliffs, rather than to create an create an animated torture scene featuring burning shoes. Disney, I'm with you on this one.
For better or for worse, Disney made some changes that completely altered the plot and the overall feel of the Snow White story line. I wonder what the Grimm Brothers would have thought about the movie...
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Mid Snow-White: my thoughts thus far
Of course I've "seen" Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs before. The reason I use quotes is because it's probably been nearly 15 years since I last watched it. I know the basic plot: Queen looks in mirror and gets mad, Snow White goes to live with dwarfs, the dwarfs mine, Snow White cleans, the Queen becomes an old hag, and the prince saves the day. I was pretty sure that, for the most part, I knew what I was about to watch. That's where I was wrong.
I want to emphasize that I'm only about halfway through the film. Snow White just met the dwarves and learned all their names. My opinion of the movie so far? WEIRD. And rather disappointing.
First of all, why does Snow White have such a strange voice?!?! Not just her singing voice, her basic conversation voice. I literally gasped when she first spoke. It's so high and light. Her words are unnecessarily wavery and song-y. I don't know how movies were recorded back in the 30s, but I'm laughing picturing the actress who voiced snow white (Adriana Caselloti, thank you IMDb) actually speaking like that. I mean come on, nobody actually speaks like that. Even 70+ years ago. The way Snow White talks kind of reminds me of the way Dora the Explorer talks when she's talking to her audience. Dora goes, "Do you see the big tree?" *Pauses* "There it is!". Snow White had a similar, playing dumb kind of vibe to her speech.
Besides that obvious, in-your-face shocker, I was also surprised by the lack of complexity in the film. Now I know that, duh, there are going to be major differences in the levels of animation between Snow White and Frozen. Clearly the ever-changing technology has improved animation exponentially in the past decades. The simple style of animation in Snow White was pretty much what I expected to see. However, what I didn't consider was that not only would the actual style of animation be different, but also the ideas behind the animation. Animating was such a new and unknown field. There was no past evidence on what worked and what didn't, so Disney was pretty much taking risks and crossing his fingers for good luck. Conceptually, this film so far is very simple. For example, when Snow White is fleeing after the huntsman let her go, she runs through the dark forest. In that scene, the tree branches come to life and "attack" Snow White. Additionally, eyes pop up in a dark hole and bats fly out. The fast paced music creates a frightened mood. This scene looks like something a student would make in Animations 101. It was very cookie cutter, not just in technique but in concept too.
Overall, I was disenchanted by this film. I expected to reawaken my childhood love for an old film, but instead I was reminded why Snow White isn't one of the Disney films I watch when I'm bored. There are many films that fall into this category (Aladdin, Pocahontas, Frozen, etc.), but I can assure you that Snow White won't be one of them any time soon. Off to go finish the movie now. *Sigh*
I want to emphasize that I'm only about halfway through the film. Snow White just met the dwarves and learned all their names. My opinion of the movie so far? WEIRD. And rather disappointing.
First of all, why does Snow White have such a strange voice?!?! Not just her singing voice, her basic conversation voice. I literally gasped when she first spoke. It's so high and light. Her words are unnecessarily wavery and song-y. I don't know how movies were recorded back in the 30s, but I'm laughing picturing the actress who voiced snow white (Adriana Caselloti, thank you IMDb) actually speaking like that. I mean come on, nobody actually speaks like that. Even 70+ years ago. The way Snow White talks kind of reminds me of the way Dora the Explorer talks when she's talking to her audience. Dora goes, "Do you see the big tree?" *Pauses* "There it is!". Snow White had a similar, playing dumb kind of vibe to her speech.
Besides that obvious, in-your-face shocker, I was also surprised by the lack of complexity in the film. Now I know that, duh, there are going to be major differences in the levels of animation between Snow White and Frozen. Clearly the ever-changing technology has improved animation exponentially in the past decades. The simple style of animation in Snow White was pretty much what I expected to see. However, what I didn't consider was that not only would the actual style of animation be different, but also the ideas behind the animation. Animating was such a new and unknown field. There was no past evidence on what worked and what didn't, so Disney was pretty much taking risks and crossing his fingers for good luck. Conceptually, this film so far is very simple. For example, when Snow White is fleeing after the huntsman let her go, she runs through the dark forest. In that scene, the tree branches come to life and "attack" Snow White. Additionally, eyes pop up in a dark hole and bats fly out. The fast paced music creates a frightened mood. This scene looks like something a student would make in Animations 101. It was very cookie cutter, not just in technique but in concept too.
Overall, I was disenchanted by this film. I expected to reawaken my childhood love for an old film, but instead I was reminded why Snow White isn't one of the Disney films I watch when I'm bored. There are many films that fall into this category (Aladdin, Pocahontas, Frozen, etc.), but I can assure you that Snow White won't be one of them any time soon. Off to go finish the movie now. *Sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)