Cavalcade** (1933)

Maybe it’s because it won Best Picture at the Oscars. Maybe it’s because it was so darn difficult to track down a copy. Whatever the reason, I think I came into this film expecting too much. Instead of a rousing through-the-years drama, Cavalcade turns out to be more like Cimarron for stuffy, upper-class Brits.

Beginning on New Year’s Eve of 1899, the Marryot family is living high on the hog. They’ve got a team of servants, two strapping young boys, and a very nice position among upper class London. The 20h Century offers more than they could have ever expected, as the family finds themselves intimately connected to several key historical events. The Second Boer War, the death of the Queen, the sinking of the Titanic, World War I, and beyond- yes the Marryot family sees it all as the cavalcade of years passes them by.

My initial reaction to this film is that many of the scenes feel very stagey. Sure enough, Cavalcade is based on a popular Noël Coward play from earlier in the decade. That explains the rigidity and plethora of static shots. I would assume that plays were being converted into films quite regularly in this time period to capitalize on popularity and mass appeal. The detail in the sets and costumes is certainly commendable.

The trouble lies in that these details don’t need to be quite so painfully exacting to build up the illusion in a film. Interesting characters and a good story are what drive film. The main characters haven’t aged well for modern audiences, so it’s up to the supporting cast to spice things up. As far as the story goes, it lacks any central conflict or purpose. It’s simply a series of vignettes progressing in chronological order. The only thing tying it all together is the Marryot family. At least with Cimarron there was the subtle plot of taming the wilderness of the American frontier hiding in the background.

I can see why this film won Best Picture (though I haven’t seen any of its competition yet). In 1933, some of the events covered in this film were still somewhat fresh in the minds of the industry bigwigs making up the Academy. This, on top of the popular stage play, probably gave it enough populist appeal to make it a no-brainer pick for the Oscar.

Unfortunately for Cavalcade, it has not aged as well as some of the other early Oscar winners. Static shots and a barely-existent plot make for a boring film by today’s standards. The sets are quite good and there are a few scenes that are large in scope but a few sprinkles can’t mask its decidedly vanilla flavor. Appreciable as it may be for what it is, I would steer you away from this film unless you are making a point, like me, to watch every single Oscar winner for Best Picture.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Rescuers (1977)

I remember loving to listen to the story of The Rescuers as a child on one of those Disney read-along books with the cassette tape that jingled when it was time to turn the page. I also recall adoring the sequel to this film, The Rescuers Down Under. You can imagine my surprise when, after taking this film in for the first time in ages, I found I did not like this film very much. Sure, it passes the Disney litmus test of likeable characters, a good story, and plenty of morals and lessons, but I find fault with its underwhelming animation.

In the heart of Devil’s Bayou, a little orphan named Penny sends for help via message in a bottle. This message reaches the Rescue Aid Society, an international assembly of mice determined to make a difference in the world. The lovely Miss Bianca (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her awestruck new partner Bernard (voiced by Bob Newhart) set out on a mission to save the poor girl from the clutches of the vile Madame Medusa and her nefarious cohorts.

The story is fine, though it rockets by quite quickly (even for a Disney film). The problem here is the animation. I hate to sound like a broken record but Disney botched most of its animated films through the 60s and 70s with lower-quality animation techniques. Thankfully, the xerographic technique seems to be improving because there aren’t anywhere near as many sketch lines running through the characters this time. Unfortunately, the animation here is some of the flattest in Disney history. Instead of detailed backgrounds that move with the characters like a real environment, many times The Rescuers involves static (but well drawn) storybook-like backdrops over which very two-dimensional characters moved. I find the lack of depth disconcerting. Rather than moving through space, characters simply move across the screen.

From researching the history of Walt Disney and the studio’s successes and struggles after his passing, I know that animator Don Bluth had once worked for Disney before defecting to make his own studio (and taking a number of young Disney animators with him). Within the first minute of this film, Don Bluth’s influence is felt heavily- the darker tones, a more ethereal and blended color palette, and minimal lines separating elements and characters on the screen. It all looks interesting, and works quite well with Don Bluth’s independently-made films, but it just doesn’t resemble a Disney film.

Maybe I’m biased because I grew up during the Disney Renaissance. Those films and the early films are the best stuff Disney Studios ever made. I can see how this totally different art direction seemed like a good shot to the arm at the time but I don’t think Disney could have sustained such moody atmospherics in films geared towards children. Breaking away from the formula can be a good thing (they certainly seemed stuck in something of a stylistic rut for a while) but The Rescuers diverges away from the “Disney formula” so much that it feels un-Disney.

Am I becoming some kind of obsessive Disney purist? Gosh, I hope not. I just can’t help but feel that this film is a tad too violent (yet corny at times as well- go figure!) and stylistically different from everything else I know to be a Disney product. I love the characters of Bernard and Bianca and their budding romance is cute to watch. Aside from this occasional cuteness, the film leaves me feeling on edge. Fortunately, Don Bluth and Disney would only share their awkward relationship partway into their next film.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

I grew up watching Winnie the Pooh cartoons every Saturday morning as a kid. I remember loving the characters and adventures they embarked on. Watching this original animated collaboration was quite an interesting experience to say the least. Of all the Disney animated films I have watched on this journey from Snow White to present day, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh elicited the most jarring reaction in me from an adult’s perspective yet.

This film is actually three pre-existing Disney shorts: Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too. The shorts are laced together with new segue sequences. Each segment features Winnie the Pooh and his friends on a new journey with lessons to be learned.

Each of the three animated shorts is enjoyable in their own right. The animation is consistent throughout, so it’s not like you can tell that Tigger Too is almost a decade newer than Honey Tree. Kudos to Disney for that. I also find the storybook animation and what they do with it adorable. Like Disney films of old, Pooh opens with live action scenery, including the opening of a storybook. Instead of transferring into just an animated world, we journey across pages with Pooh and his friends. There is interaction with the writing on the pages and hopping between page illustrations. It’s clever and works perfectly for the story material.

Another bold move is the breaking of the fourth wall. The narrator interacts with Pooh and friends and the characters also make their own sly quips directly to the audience. Children and adults will enjoy this because it’s rarely done in animated films. More importantly, it’s done right. Breaking the fourth wall can completely take someone out of the film, so it’s a dangerous move. It works here because the characters are innocent and likeable.

One thing that I was taken aback by is how irritating and rude Winnie the Pooh is. He’s referred to as being a little on the slow side but since when is that an excuse for being a shameless mooch? He gets hungry and discovers he’s eaten all of his own food so he invites himself inside his friends’ houses to eat theirs without allowing them any time to object. Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill but it seems that the one crucial lesson going unlearned here is that Pooh needs to be more considerate of others.

In the end, Winnie the Pooh and his friends prove to be too likeable to get hung up over character flaws. Was Disney being just a wee bit lazy by throwing three preexisting shorts together? Yes and it comes back to bite them in the end, if only slightly. The slow and delicate pacing works great when you take each short individually but it drags a bit when showing them back-to-back-to-back. Even though it clocks in at only 74 minutes long, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh feels one adventure too long.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Robin Hood (1973)

With a few previous films using British folklore and fiction proving successful, Walt Disney Studios get its anglophilia on once more. In an unconventional but kid-friendly approach, the Disney crew tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men with anthropomorphic animal characters. With a solid story as its backbone and a little musical flair, this film gets an extra boost in my book from a little thing called childhood nostalgia.

The vain and money-hungry Prince John is taxing the people of England to no end. In the village of Nottingham, two men (or in this case, animals) dare to stand up against tyranny. Robin Hood and Little John find ways to steal from Prince John and give back to the poor what was taken from them. Their mission ruffles the feathers of the cruel sheriff of Nottingham and gains the support of many of the village’s denizens.

I have to be honest- I’m pretty sure that I rated this film higher than it deserves. I grew up watching this film and I have quite the sizable soft spot in my heart for it. I try to avoid subjectivity when rating a film but every once in a while I just can’t help myself.

There are a few things that Robin Hood has going for it. First, it’s anchored by a classic tale of fighting injustice. Second, it’s got a stellar soundtrack. Even after 20 animated films, Disney still boils down to animation and music. Most moviegoers don’t focus too heavily on the quality of the animation, so the music really matters. Which Disney films are the least well-remembered? By jove, it would be the ones that lack memorable songs! Coincidence? I think not.

While most moviegoers don’t consider the animation quality, I do. This is where I fear nostalgia has given this film a boost. The animation quality is better than The Aristocats in that there are fewer distracting sketch lines from the xerographic technique, but it may also be a bit worse in that there is little to no richness in background detail. It looks very much like a flat world, but not enough like a storybook to suggest an intentional creative artistic direction.

One thing that can go either way (depending on how picky you are with your Disney films) is the character of Little John. He’s drawn almost exactly like Baloo from The Jungle Book and is voiced by the same actor. This fails to bother me at all because I grew up loving this film. Perhaps that is the key to your opinion on his film. If you grew up with it, you’ll probably be more forgiving like me. If not, you might think I’ve rated it a notch too high. I fear the latter may be the case but I’m not entirely sure.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5