 |
| The girl in the high tower |
Tangled was released at a point when I wasn’t really paying attention to Disney. Don’t get me wrong: I was still a fan, reading up on Disneyland and possessing a modest collection of DVDs – but wasn't nearly as into their slate of films as I am now. Following the frankly awful back-to-back releases of Home On The Range and Chicken Little (maybe my opinions will change upon review?) I had basically written Disney animation off; they were doing CG movies now, chasing the successes of other studios and creating mere kiddie-fluff (once an animation studio adds dancing characters to their end credits, they’re dead to me.) At least I still had Pixar to scratch that animation itch. Heck, I didn’t even realize until later that Disney’s computer-animated output was considered part of their “official animated canon.”
And then Tangled came out – and it looked, for all intents and purposes, like a classic Disney film. My eventual viewing of the movie only solidified this impression.
While I don't think that Disney animation should only be about adapting fairy tales – some of their best works aren’t based on fables – but when the studio is in need of refocusing itself, they do it best by revising an old-world fairy story, just as they did with The Little Mermaid in 1989. The tricky part about doing what Disney does best is striking the right balance between the classic and the contemporary, and here is where they had faltered so often in the decade prior to Tangled’s release. Too often an animated film can become overloaded with painful attempts to be hip and current – especially prevalent in the era of CG, as movies can be produced more quickly than with hand-drawn animation, and therefore pounce on current trends (see the aforementioned Chicken Little, or just about anything from Universal.) On the other hand, when they rely too heavily on charming old stories and playing it safe with “what always worked before,” they run the risk of not connecting with their audience, and pushing out a boring film (2009'sThe Princess And The Frog steers awfully close to this pitfall.) With Tangled, and most of the films produced after, Disney seems to be striking the right balance for today’s audiences.
 |
| Permanecer sentados, por favor |
There are two big factors that make Tangled work so well, and one is the animation itself. Disney finally started to pull away from its CG-animation peers when it began to mimic its own hand-drawn style. Up until this point, the world of computer animation had followed the dictum of art following technology, to a certain degree. Look back at something like 2001's Shrek (no, the actual Shrek) and you will see characters and environments that follow real-world physics - in others words, characters that move more like filmed actors than cartoon characters. The best animators were able to get around this with different methods: Pixar chose its subjects to fit the animation (films about living toys, bugs or fish,) DreamWorks focused on fluid and dynamic motion, etc. Look again at Chicken Little, or Meet The Robinsons: the character designs are whimsical and cartoon-like, but their action (though frenetic) is still stiff and basically realistic.
 |
| For the ladies... |
What was missing was the old “squash and stretch” rule, the foremost of the so-called 12 Basic Principles of Animation defined by Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas (two of Walt’s “nine old men”) in their indispensable book, 1981's The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation. Once the technology at Disney's disposal was able to adapt this and other principles into its animation, and pair it with backgrounds that weren’t trying to imitate reality, the difference was astounding. Suddenly the characters onscreen were alive and vibrant, bypassing the “uncanny valley” effect and becoming true personalities, not just animated figures.
 |
| Unfortunately you then get weird stuff like this... |
While Tangled visually dazzles by looking back to Disney’s animated roots, the other big factor working in the film’s favor is one that looks forward: the characterization of Rapunzel. Voiced by actress and singer Mandy Moore, Rapunzel was the first Disney character in a long time that seems like a fully-formed individual. Sweet and naïve, the character is nevertheless driven in her dream to see and experience more than her captivity allows. This desire eventually overcomes her very real concern for her “mother” and captor, Gothel (a vampish Donna Murphy.) Once released from her tower - the only world she’s known - Rapunzel proves herself more than capable of taking care of herself. Her guide, Flynn Rider (an amusing Zachary Levi,) only earns her trust after they work together to survive a series of life-or-death exploits – and after receiving a few sound whackings with Rapunzel’s frying pan. The inevitable love story therefore feels as naturalistic as permitted by the fairy tale framework.
 |
| Welcome to the happiest restroom on earth! |
Not to take anything away from the “independent females” of other modern Disney films (Belle, Jasmine and Esmerelda went a long way to help smash the patriarchy – and Mulan kicked serious ass,) but Rapunzel’s independent spirit and, more importantly, her fluid temperament was like a breath of fresh air. It’s one thing to call a female character independent and push ahead with one or two defining characteristics (Belle is an outsider who reads, Jasmine doesn’t want an arranged marriage, etc.,) it’s another matter entirely to completely flesh them out with a world view and emotions that they struggle with throughout the story. See the way Rapunzel’s decision to leave with Flynn weighs so heavily upon her, and she continues to feel remnants of devotion to Gothel even after she’s revealed to be a villainous kidnapper. Rapunzel’s feelings about herself, her world and those she encounters continue to grow and evolve as the story moves along - not just the usual “first she thought A and then B happened to make her feel C.” That Rapunzel was quickly entered into the “Disney Princess” pantheon sent a message to both critics and defenders of the franchise (those who bother to pay attention, anyway) – the bar for princess-loving young girls to aspire to was to be set higher in the future.
 |
| Weaponized symbol of oppression FTW! |
I could continue to sing the praises of Tangled, but nothing can express how well it works better than actually settling in to watch it. I also don’t want to give an inflated impression – the film is far from perfect. Despite the strong characters, the story is predictable. The big quarry-set action sequence in the middle of the film is an obvious and over-long set piece. And despite Murphy’s strong vocal performance, Disney “nasty woman” Gothel still falls short of being a truly memorable villain (a problem Disney continues to face in the 21st century.)
 |
| Pascal: bringer of death |
In the works for decades and costing a whopping $260 million to produce (and earning an even-whoppinger $591 million,) Tangled has quickly secured itself as a modern classic, setting the stage for even greater successes and impressive feminine heroes to be showcased in coming years. Bravo.
 |
| Two thumbs up... |
No comments:
Post a Comment