Or about blooming time Disney!
Watch the trailer here.
Well, almost a full year since I last promised I would post again, here I am! We'll catch up on that later.
So last night I watched Frozen, (massively late to the party I know, but we'll get on to that later too!) this morning I purchased the soundtrack with my iTunes voucher (thank you Beardface) and drove into work belting out Let It Go on repeat.I'm not going to even pretend that I'm not a huge Disney fan, and I'm certainly not going to apologise for it. I know the evils, I know all about the commercialisation of childhood, I studied it at university for Pete's sake (I did actually write my dissertation on Disney) and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I know many argue that Disney has dictated an illusion of childhood for many, but for me it created a childhood of jumping from sofas playing Peter Pan (1953), the pleasure in singing as loud as you can instead of screaming at someone, and taught me from a very young age the importance of good storytelling. I think my fascination for film and plot all comes from my love of Disney as a child and is probably the reason I write, and why this blog comes to you now.
As I'm sure you can tell already, I really loved this film. It was the final conclusion to my hopes for Tangled (2010) and The Princess and the Frog (2009). The realisation of the return to the Disney model. The last of which I haven't seen since Mulan (1999) when I was still pretty young.
Now, being a 'Princess' film (or more importantly in this case, a 'Queen' film), Frozen is of course rife with gender politics which I may touch on, but I'm pretty sure every other reviewer would have done so already. Also, I have already dedicated a whole dissertation to gender politics in Disney films so I've done that to death for now. Therefore I'm going to look at it more as an analysis of the Disney model.
Disney, of course, brought the first ever animated feature film to the big screen with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) which is still the highest grossing, inflation adjusted animated film to date, and the 10th highest grossing film ever. The popularity of the Disney animated film reigned for nearly 30 years, but faced a staggering drop in both production and popularity after Walt's death in 1966. It wasn't until the Eisner years and the release of The Little Mermaid (1989) that Disney entered its second 'golden age'.
However, their popularity waned once more towards the end of the 1990's, and with the exception of the fluke success of Lilo and Stitch (2005) the majority of Disney films since have been considered 'flops.' I say this explicitly in the eyes of the industry, some of my favourite Disney films have been deemed failures.
Frozen has now apparently become the highest grossing animated Disney film of all time. Though these figures aren't inflation adjusted. In reality Frozen is the 11th highest grossing animated Disney film of all time and the 113th highest grossing film ever, which is still huge.This is where it sits amongst the Disney animated films in the top 200 (excluding Pixar);
Disney's 'golden age' eras come in ebbs and flows, and it has always worried me that they seem to be so oblivious to their own patterns, henceforth perpetuating their own declines, all be it for some pretty impressive returns to glory. Could we be a on a peak of such a return? Definitely, but only if they realise what they've done right.
So what have they done right?
It's just that time again?
I think the first issue is an obvious cultural one. The peaks have been in 1937 - 1966, 1989 - 1999, and has potentially started again in 2014. During the first period cinema was truly a family past time, and Disney films were considered much more family entertainment. However, in the 50s and 60s came the rise of the teenager, and coupled with the introduction of film ratings in 1968 meant adult entertainment was being introduced, causing family films to be slowly reclassified in the filmgoer's mind as 'children's films'. This and many other factors made family entertainment become more marginalised.
Further, the periods between the end of the first wave, the start of the second and the resurgence of this possible third are both 20 or so years. Time enough for each generation of Disney film lovers to grow up, and introduce their own children to the brand.
It was a musical!
As I mentioned previously, Disney had began to move back into its musical roots with Tangled (2010) and The Princess and the Frog (2009), and although I greatly enjoyed both, they just weren't quite there.
When I heard Disney was making not one, but two Princess movies in the space of a year, I followed them very closely. I was disappointed that Tangled wasn't set to be animated, and down right traumatised by some of the early plot concepts (thank Barnabus they sorted that out!) but ultimately intensely excited when I heard Alan Menken would be on board for one of them. Unfortunately Menken went to Tangled and Randy Newman to The Princess and the Frog.
Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing. His score helped make the Toy Story trilogy some of the most bittersweet animated filmmaking that will ever be seen. The score in The Princess and the Frog is intensely catchy (I love Dig a Little Deeper) but although Newman can put together an amazing and impeccable score, he just can't do that one stand out number. You know the one. The one you want to belt out at the top of your lungs and makes you feel better for singing it. Aladdin had A Whole New World, Beauty and the Beast had Tale as Old as Time, The Little Mermaid had Part of Your World, and the Princess and the Frog had a great score. Doesn't have the same ring, does it?
Tangled was beautiful, but the songs were relatively safe, generic and ultimately Disney recanted on its promise of a 'true' musical by not letting the titular characters actually sing their duet. Their voice actors sang the song, but it was used in a curious mix of both diegetically and non-diegetically. I'm still unsure if the characters were singing in their heads, or the song was meant as score, and I'm fairly confident this was intentional. Disney still wasn't sure if it should be attempting to break into song again, and so refused to properly commit. Why I will never quite understand. The success of High School Musical (2006) and it's subsequent franchise proved to Disney it was doing it right, and shows like Glee (2009 - ) have downright destroyed the notion that this generation of kids and tweens aren't just desperate to burst into a song and dance routine. Menken was wasted here. You bring in Menken when you want to do a proper musical, not just decorate a film with a pretty score.
Both films were great, but I believe if they had let Menken work on The Princess and the Frog they would have been celebrating Frozen like success 5 years ago. However, I don't think I would have appreciated it as much. The Princess and the Frog was an amazing some of its parts. The fact that no one element stands out just reflects how perfect a complete product it was. Yet I think the same of Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Though artistically sound, that isn't often reflected at the box office. Film buffs tend to mark quality, and most film buffs won't give animated films (barr Japanese of course) the time of day.
So why is Frozen different? Well, not only was it a musical, but it was a bonafide, straight off Broadway, 'I'm going to belt this song out until I feel better' musical. I was massively surprised that the score producer, Christophe Beck, was someone I had never heard of. Although he wrote the music for The Muppets (2011) (god, I love that film!) and Pitch Perfect (2012) his main success up until Frozen had been The Hangover trilogy! In TV he has also worked on such cult shows as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 - 2003) and Angel (1999 - 2004), and yes, his episode credits include 'Once More With Feeling'. I think we'll be seeing some pretty exciting things coming from this man.
Further, Disney hired a genuine musical theatre legend in Idina Menzel who is becoming a symbol of the resurgence of the new musical expression generation. She was the original Elpheba in Wicked and Mother of Rachel Berry in Glee. You can't get more iconic than that to this current generation. She is practically their matriarch. Additionally, the lead male, Kristoff is played by Jonathan Groff, another Glee alumni and ex-boyfriend to the aforementioned Rachel Berry. If Rachel Berry is the face of the new generation of musical loving girls, then casting her mother as the heroine's closest family member and her ex-boyfriend as the love interest certainly wasn't an uncalculated decision.
In Frozen, Disney finally accepted that 'all out musical' was the way to go, and they pulled out every gun in the arsenal, even following a narrative following straight from Wicked. Come on, two close female friends/sisters who end up having to go their separate ways as one is too powerful, and the other too privileged? You didn't seem the similarities?
Now, I don't want to give the impression that I think Disney should only do musicals. Far from it, some of my absolute favourite Disney animated classics have been from the two 'failure' periods. Oliver &Company (1988) (that's a musical I cheated), Atlantis (2001), Lilo and Stitch (2002), and Treasure Planet (2003) are all amazing. But, with the exception of the fluke success of Lilo and Stitch, they just didn't make a dent at the box office.
As I'm sure you can tell already, I really loved this film. It was the final conclusion to my hopes for Tangled (2010) and The Princess and the Frog (2009). The realisation of the return to the Disney model. The last of which I haven't seen since Mulan (1999) when I was still pretty young.
Now, being a 'Princess' film (or more importantly in this case, a 'Queen' film), Frozen is of course rife with gender politics which I may touch on, but I'm pretty sure every other reviewer would have done so already. Also, I have already dedicated a whole dissertation to gender politics in Disney films so I've done that to death for now. Therefore I'm going to look at it more as an analysis of the Disney model.
Disney, of course, brought the first ever animated feature film to the big screen with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937) which is still the highest grossing, inflation adjusted animated film to date, and the 10th highest grossing film ever. The popularity of the Disney animated film reigned for nearly 30 years, but faced a staggering drop in both production and popularity after Walt's death in 1966. It wasn't until the Eisner years and the release of The Little Mermaid (1989) that Disney entered its second 'golden age'.
However, their popularity waned once more towards the end of the 1990's, and with the exception of the fluke success of Lilo and Stitch (2005) the majority of Disney films since have been considered 'flops.' I say this explicitly in the eyes of the industry, some of my favourite Disney films have been deemed failures.
Frozen has now apparently become the highest grossing animated Disney film of all time. Though these figures aren't inflation adjusted. In reality Frozen is the 11th highest grossing animated Disney film of all time and the 113th highest grossing film ever, which is still huge.This is where it sits amongst the Disney animated films in the top 200 (excluding Pixar);
- Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937)
- 101 Dalmatians (1961)
- The Lion King (1994)
- Fantasia (1940)
- The Jungle Book (1967)
- Sleeping Beauty (1959)
- Pinocchio (1940)
- Bambi (1942)
- Lady and the Tramp (1955)
- Aladdin (1992)
- Frozen (2013)
- Peter Pan (1953)
- Beauty and the Beast (1991)
- Alice in Wonderland (1952)
Disney's 'golden age' eras come in ebbs and flows, and it has always worried me that they seem to be so oblivious to their own patterns, henceforth perpetuating their own declines, all be it for some pretty impressive returns to glory. Could we be a on a peak of such a return? Definitely, but only if they realise what they've done right.
So what have they done right?
It's just that time again?
I think the first issue is an obvious cultural one. The peaks have been in 1937 - 1966, 1989 - 1999, and has potentially started again in 2014. During the first period cinema was truly a family past time, and Disney films were considered much more family entertainment. However, in the 50s and 60s came the rise of the teenager, and coupled with the introduction of film ratings in 1968 meant adult entertainment was being introduced, causing family films to be slowly reclassified in the filmgoer's mind as 'children's films'. This and many other factors made family entertainment become more marginalised.
Further, the periods between the end of the first wave, the start of the second and the resurgence of this possible third are both 20 or so years. Time enough for each generation of Disney film lovers to grow up, and introduce their own children to the brand.
It was a musical!
As I mentioned previously, Disney had began to move back into its musical roots with Tangled (2010) and The Princess and the Frog (2009), and although I greatly enjoyed both, they just weren't quite there.
When I heard Disney was making not one, but two Princess movies in the space of a year, I followed them very closely. I was disappointed that Tangled wasn't set to be animated, and down right traumatised by some of the early plot concepts (thank Barnabus they sorted that out!) but ultimately intensely excited when I heard Alan Menken would be on board for one of them. Unfortunately Menken went to Tangled and Randy Newman to The Princess and the Frog.
Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing. His score helped make the Toy Story trilogy some of the most bittersweet animated filmmaking that will ever be seen. The score in The Princess and the Frog is intensely catchy (I love Dig a Little Deeper) but although Newman can put together an amazing and impeccable score, he just can't do that one stand out number. You know the one. The one you want to belt out at the top of your lungs and makes you feel better for singing it. Aladdin had A Whole New World, Beauty and the Beast had Tale as Old as Time, The Little Mermaid had Part of Your World, and the Princess and the Frog had a great score. Doesn't have the same ring, does it?
Tangled was beautiful, but the songs were relatively safe, generic and ultimately Disney recanted on its promise of a 'true' musical by not letting the titular characters actually sing their duet. Their voice actors sang the song, but it was used in a curious mix of both diegetically and non-diegetically. I'm still unsure if the characters were singing in their heads, or the song was meant as score, and I'm fairly confident this was intentional. Disney still wasn't sure if it should be attempting to break into song again, and so refused to properly commit. Why I will never quite understand. The success of High School Musical (2006) and it's subsequent franchise proved to Disney it was doing it right, and shows like Glee (2009 - ) have downright destroyed the notion that this generation of kids and tweens aren't just desperate to burst into a song and dance routine. Menken was wasted here. You bring in Menken when you want to do a proper musical, not just decorate a film with a pretty score.
Both films were great, but I believe if they had let Menken work on The Princess and the Frog they would have been celebrating Frozen like success 5 years ago. However, I don't think I would have appreciated it as much. The Princess and the Frog was an amazing some of its parts. The fact that no one element stands out just reflects how perfect a complete product it was. Yet I think the same of Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Though artistically sound, that isn't often reflected at the box office. Film buffs tend to mark quality, and most film buffs won't give animated films (barr Japanese of course) the time of day.
So why is Frozen different? Well, not only was it a musical, but it was a bonafide, straight off Broadway, 'I'm going to belt this song out until I feel better' musical. I was massively surprised that the score producer, Christophe Beck, was someone I had never heard of. Although he wrote the music for The Muppets (2011) (god, I love that film!) and Pitch Perfect (2012) his main success up until Frozen had been The Hangover trilogy! In TV he has also worked on such cult shows as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 - 2003) and Angel (1999 - 2004), and yes, his episode credits include 'Once More With Feeling'. I think we'll be seeing some pretty exciting things coming from this man.
Further, Disney hired a genuine musical theatre legend in Idina Menzel who is becoming a symbol of the resurgence of the new musical expression generation. She was the original Elpheba in Wicked and Mother of Rachel Berry in Glee. You can't get more iconic than that to this current generation. She is practically their matriarch. Additionally, the lead male, Kristoff is played by Jonathan Groff, another Glee alumni and ex-boyfriend to the aforementioned Rachel Berry. If Rachel Berry is the face of the new generation of musical loving girls, then casting her mother as the heroine's closest family member and her ex-boyfriend as the love interest certainly wasn't an uncalculated decision.
In Frozen, Disney finally accepted that 'all out musical' was the way to go, and they pulled out every gun in the arsenal, even following a narrative following straight from Wicked. Come on, two close female friends/sisters who end up having to go their separate ways as one is too powerful, and the other too privileged? You didn't seem the similarities?
Now, I don't want to give the impression that I think Disney should only do musicals. Far from it, some of my absolute favourite Disney animated classics have been from the two 'failure' periods. Oliver &Company (1988) (that's a musical I cheated), Atlantis (2001), Lilo and Stitch (2002), and Treasure Planet (2003) are all amazing. But, with the exception of the fluke success of Lilo and Stitch, they just didn't make a dent at the box office.
Bringing it back to the Girls.
Now, Frozen represents not only a return to musicals, but also cements their return to the Princess film. From 1999 - 2009 Disney went on its second mission to try to appeal to young boys. It decided it failed.
For nearly a decade Disney produced films with predominantly male characters; Tarzan (1999), Dinosaur (2000), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Atlantis (2001), Lilo and Stitch (2002), Treasure Planet (2003), Brother Bear (2003), don't even bother watching the three after this, they are horrendous, I mention them only to illustrate my point, Home on the Range (2004), Chicken Little (2005), The Wild (2006), Meet the Robinson's (2007), Bolt (2008). As I mentioned previously, with the exception of Lilo and Stitch (which was one of the first Disney animated films to feature an entirely original, non adaptation screenplay) none of these performed particularly well.
Now when you think of a Disney failure you always have to think of it in two ways, box office and merchandise. Atlantis and Treasure Planet are genuinely some of the best films the cannon has to offer, and they would have been forgiven for poor return if they could have sold a boat load of toys. Yet both were too sophisticated to be easily packaged up in this way. Though Disney heroines lend themselves well to dolls with hundred of outfits. Disney heroes just aren't your staple action figure toy.
Acquiring Pixar (for better, or worse) meant that Disney could finally use the computer animation giant's history in the industry to focus on boys and their toys. If the marketing potential for the Toy Story (1995) range wasn't enough, Pixar released Cars (2006). Now Disney could just create a new character (giiiive me a Brit, yeah, give me an Italian, yeh, give me a German, yeh!) every ten minutes and grow its own hot wheels brand. We now have Planes (2013) also and with more dedicated sequels. Keep and eye out for Ships. It will come.
Ironically Brave (2012) turned the tables and saw Pixar attempt to create its own Princess film falling into the same trap as Disney, but that's a different tale.
Now, as I said some of the 'boys period' films are my absolute favourites, but they just aren't what Disney is known for. I've spoken to several genuine film buffs who love animated films who have never seen Treasure Planet, Atlantis, or Brother Bear (2003), and believe them to be Dreamworks films or some other animation studio. These films were bred to fail. Disney knew they were taking a chance on the more artistic titles, but wanted to hit the boys market so desperately that it gave them a shot. However, Disney being Disney, it wouldn't commit until it was sure of the model. They were under marketed, under supported and therefore were pretty much doomed to fail. I haven't met a young boy yet who hasn't loved these films, and considering I love them also they have huge revisiting potential, but there will never be enough people who saw them in the first place to pass them on.
To conclude then...
Its great to see Disney have a return to its roots and create these truly show stopping, magical, musical films. However, I am a huge fan of the more subtle titles that aren't such box office successes. The regret I have in reviewing this, is that I know we are now going to have another period where Disney just pumps out one after the other of these successful formula films. Even when they are producing good movies of this type, it still means that we are in for a long period without any of the fantastic wildcards. There are no secret gems. That is until this cycle ends and they start failing again.
Disney seriously needs to learn some balance. Unfortunately, being the corporate juggernaut that it is, once it jumps on a success it will just keep repackaging and reworking it until that success dries up and audiences grow tired of the formula. Then they'll spend another 20 years trying to get something else right, until they have waited just long enough to pull that dusty old formula off the shelf again and package it out as something new.
Now, Frozen represents not only a return to musicals, but also cements their return to the Princess film. From 1999 - 2009 Disney went on its second mission to try to appeal to young boys. It decided it failed.
For nearly a decade Disney produced films with predominantly male characters; Tarzan (1999), Dinosaur (2000), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Atlantis (2001), Lilo and Stitch (2002), Treasure Planet (2003), Brother Bear (2003), don't even bother watching the three after this, they are horrendous, I mention them only to illustrate my point, Home on the Range (2004), Chicken Little (2005), The Wild (2006), Meet the Robinson's (2007), Bolt (2008). As I mentioned previously, with the exception of Lilo and Stitch (which was one of the first Disney animated films to feature an entirely original, non adaptation screenplay) none of these performed particularly well.
Now when you think of a Disney failure you always have to think of it in two ways, box office and merchandise. Atlantis and Treasure Planet are genuinely some of the best films the cannon has to offer, and they would have been forgiven for poor return if they could have sold a boat load of toys. Yet both were too sophisticated to be easily packaged up in this way. Though Disney heroines lend themselves well to dolls with hundred of outfits. Disney heroes just aren't your staple action figure toy.
Acquiring Pixar (for better, or worse) meant that Disney could finally use the computer animation giant's history in the industry to focus on boys and their toys. If the marketing potential for the Toy Story (1995) range wasn't enough, Pixar released Cars (2006). Now Disney could just create a new character (giiiive me a Brit, yeah, give me an Italian, yeh, give me a German, yeh!) every ten minutes and grow its own hot wheels brand. We now have Planes (2013) also and with more dedicated sequels. Keep and eye out for Ships. It will come.
Ironically Brave (2012) turned the tables and saw Pixar attempt to create its own Princess film falling into the same trap as Disney, but that's a different tale.
Now, as I said some of the 'boys period' films are my absolute favourites, but they just aren't what Disney is known for. I've spoken to several genuine film buffs who love animated films who have never seen Treasure Planet, Atlantis, or Brother Bear (2003), and believe them to be Dreamworks films or some other animation studio. These films were bred to fail. Disney knew they were taking a chance on the more artistic titles, but wanted to hit the boys market so desperately that it gave them a shot. However, Disney being Disney, it wouldn't commit until it was sure of the model. They were under marketed, under supported and therefore were pretty much doomed to fail. I haven't met a young boy yet who hasn't loved these films, and considering I love them also they have huge revisiting potential, but there will never be enough people who saw them in the first place to pass them on.
To conclude then...
Its great to see Disney have a return to its roots and create these truly show stopping, magical, musical films. However, I am a huge fan of the more subtle titles that aren't such box office successes. The regret I have in reviewing this, is that I know we are now going to have another period where Disney just pumps out one after the other of these successful formula films. Even when they are producing good movies of this type, it still means that we are in for a long period without any of the fantastic wildcards. There are no secret gems. That is until this cycle ends and they start failing again.
Disney seriously needs to learn some balance. Unfortunately, being the corporate juggernaut that it is, once it jumps on a success it will just keep repackaging and reworking it until that success dries up and audiences grow tired of the formula. Then they'll spend another 20 years trying to get something else right, until they have waited just long enough to pull that dusty old formula off the shelf again and package it out as something new.
I love Frozen and never want to take away from it's success, but just can't help feeling drastically sad for what we are going to lose in the meantime.
No comments:
Post a Comment