WARNING! Unrelated to Movies!

NOTE! For those of you who read my blog as a genuine resource, i.e. not my English teacher, be warned. This post is completely unrelated to animated movies. I have been required to do an English assignment here, but hopefully I’ll have a new movie ready in a week or two. (I seriously doubt that there are any of you out there anyway, but this is just to make sure.)

Now, getting on with business. In my English class at school, we have recently begun a unit about food. To kick off the unit, we were asked to keep a journal of our meals for a week. Here is my report on what I found.

The first thing that stands out when looking through my food journal is realizing what creatures of habit we are at my house. Almost every morning without fail, I have a bowl of cold cereal in milk for my breakfast, Raisin Bran if possible. On school days, my typical lunch consists of:
-a small sandwich, either deli meat or PB&J
-a snacky, grain-related food such as pretzels, crackers, or chips
-carrots, either sticks or baby
-at least one fruit item
-a granola bar
At dinner, we toss together a simple salad (lettuces, sunflower seeds, dressing, and something extra) about 80% of nights. Sometimes I resist, but it’s a habit of mine to have another bowl of cereal (albeit smaller) before bedtime.

Seeing this in my journal made me realize what food means to us; more often than not I simply eat what is given me or what I can find easily. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy the different flavors that food has to offer—quite the opposite! I am pretty sensitive to the tastes and textures that different foods have. It’s just a bit of a wake-up call to realize just how much we rely on repetition, on having a norm.

Something else I noticed was a recurring affinity of making note in the journal what things were “healthy” and which things were not. These comments consisted of my explanations for the recurring Raisin Bran, produce-heavy lunches, and daily salads, among other things. I remember there was a word for it that someone in the other English class mentioned, but it’s eluding me right now.

I hadn’t before really thought of myself as a health nut. This journal forced me to recognize how health-conscious my family is. True, my mother recently took it upon herself to exercise more and eat more vegetables, resulting in an impressive weight loss that has been drawing attention from relatives whenever we have visits. The mentality clearly still lingers in our house, though I think it’s mostly a good thing.

I was also shocked to realize just how little I know about where our groceries come from. What store, what company? Most of the time I just let my family do the grocery shopping, just as most of the time I let them create dinner and feed me with it. This was probably the biggest wake-up call of this entire project. I am a very dependent creature, even for a high schooler. My mother has often bemoaned what will happen to me when I leave for college, but only now can I perceive the scope of her worry. If I keep waiting for nourishment to come to my mouth, what in the world will I do when I leave the house?

When I look back at all of this that I previously didn’t recognize, I have to say that this assignment, the food journal, was a very useful one. Thank you for opening my eyes enough that I could see myself.

Anybody Want to Go to the Circus?

Hello again! As promised, this next film features animals, and lots of them. Join me in welcoming one of Disney's oldest and finest to the stage:

Dumbo
Original release: October 23, 1941

So there's a little baby elephant who comes to a mama elephant in a circus. As it turns out, his ears are far too big. "Hmm," Mahewa mutters. "They must have shipped an African elephant by mistake." He is ridiculed by the other elephants and by obnoxious kids attending the circus; when his mother tries furiously to protect him, the workers think she is going mad and put her in solitary confinement. The poor baby elephant is befriended by Timothy Q. Mouse, who tries to make the kid a star attraction so he can feel good about himself and get his mother out of her cage. Little does anyone know that Dumbo has a surprising secret up his sleeve...

This classic is the fourth if the Disney animated features canon; it was preceded only by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinnochio, and Fantasia. So it's a real oldie. And, though it hurts to admit it, it's a bit...strange. My mother prefers to use the term "stylized." A handful of the scenes are definitely a bit spacey. Let's take a look.

Firstly there's the intimidating introductory narration, in the midst of a stormy night, which yields to nothing but calm storks carrying baby animals. Then there's the somewhat anthropomorphized engine of the circus train (which is actually fairly funny). There's that strange, unnecessary song when the workers and the elephants set up the circus tent in the rain. (Those are some really smart elephants!) There was Timothy's bit where he pretends to be the ringmaster's subconscious. There were the partying clowns silhouetted against the tent. And then there's the scene when Dumbo and Timothy get drunk. Ooh boy, where to start on that. At first they're hiccuping, grinning stupidly, and playing with bubbles: that was the funny part. And then...then there came the *shudder* DISTURBING part.



If that scene didn't scare you, I don't know what will.

But aside from the more (ahem) artistic scenes, this movie features a deep, endearing story. My favorite scenes are when Mrs. Jumbo is cuddling or playing with her son. "Baby Mine" almost made me cry. Every time Dumbo trips on his ears or is laughed at, you can't help but feel the utmost sympathy. There's a definite 'Don't judge a book by its cover' strain in this movie, as well as a predominant theme of unconditional motherly love.

A controversial aspect of this movie is the possibly racist portrayal of the gang of crows. While the primary crow was voiced by Cliff Edwards, the other four were voiced by members of the African-American Hall Johnson Choir. Though the crows' names are never mentioned, the lead crow is affectionately nicknamed "Jim Crow" in the script. Some have claimed that the crows were results of a racist attitude from the studio. But if you think about it, the crows are the most helpful characters towards Dumbo (besides Timothy) in the entire movie. In fact, it struck me as very similar to the Spanish-speaking Adélie penguins from Happy Feet. They are simply a nation of sorts, a familial group of characters.

The bottom line: this movie has its peculiarities, but it's sweet and moving underneath.

Mahewa's rating: 3.2/5




Check out some reviews at Ultimate Disney, The New York Times, and DVD Verdict.

On the Brink of Obscurity

We’re going to shake things up a bit. The movie featured in the following review is one of those ones that about two percent of the population knows about. You could probably call it a “cult movie,” and you would probably not be that far off.

Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland
Japanese release: July 15, 1989
U.S.A. release: August 21, 1992

Yeah, I know. You’re thinking, “Whaaa?” because the name isn’t ringing a bell. This film was animated by a company called Tokyo Movie Shinsha, directed by Masami Hata and William Hurtz, and produced by Yutaka Fujioka. (Here’s some trivia for you: originally Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata were the directors, but because of differing visions of the movie and more tempting movies to work on, they left the project early on.) The story is loosely based on an American comic strip by Winsor McCay. The protagonist is a young and very imaginative boy named Nemo, who is constantly plagued by nightmares. One night he has a particularly involved dream about visiting the magical world of Slumberland, in which he must endure the burden of being crowned the heir to the throne, struggle with temptation and guilt, and do what is right if he is to conquer his nightmares forever.

What is central to this movie’s success is its sojourn into the fantasies and motives of little kids. The film is chock full of things that, at first glance, seem unrealistic and ridiculous. But what we really have is simply a young boy who loves trains, circuses, roller-coaster thrills, causing trouble, and other really-random-but-insanely-fun stuff; he hates school and doesn’t like to play with girls.

“Wait a minute. This princess is a girl? But…I’ve never played with a girl.”
“What?”
“A ‘girl’? She’s a princess!”
“Doesn’t matter. She’s still a girl.”

Anyway, I have to say that I really sympathized with Nemo’s desires and woes. He has nightmares that could very well happen to anyone, he’s clearly sick of being told “perhaps tomorrow” by his parents, and he will reject the company of a presumably snobby princess one moment and claim that he’s all for making the trip to see her the next—once he’s been one over by the cookies, of course. Maybe it’s because I’m still such a kid at heart. After all, why else would we be blogging about cartoons?

As usual, it was fun for me to see and take in all the different characters; and for once, I actually liked all of them! Professor Genius is a proper-minded gentleman who is actually quite the comic relief character, always falling victim to gags about his clumsiness. Princess Camille is a strong-willed girl who, despite seeming spoiled at times, cares extremely deeply about her father and is never afraid to have fun (since she is, after all, a kid too). King Morpheus is the slightly clichéd wise ruler with the big beard; he knows when to be professional and majestic, and he knows when to let out his fun-loving side. (“Very like Mufasa,” Mahewa is compelled to add.) Flip is somewhere in between the not-so-innocent good guy and a friendly minor villain, who takes pride in being officially “Wanted” because he has so much fun making mischief. The Boomps (or whatever the heck they’re called) are slightly disturbing but extremely cute, and this time around watching the movie I actually picked up the details of their predicament: the smaller four of them escaped the Nightmare King’s confinement, which was a punishment for not being evil/scary enough, and they’re back to help the fifth. (As it turns out, Oompo manages to escape by himself before the others can get there, bringing insider information with him.) The Nightmare King is a villain who, for once, doesn’t really need much of a background story; he is simply evil, and that’s all he has to be. And let’s not forget Icarus, Nemo’s best flying squirrel friend who follows him to the end. Not to mention the fact that he's adorable.

If I were to give this movie a theme, that theme would definitely be remorse. This is a traditional morality story here. Nemo is entrusted with great responsibility, but the temptation of troublemaking is too great to resist and he accidentally unleashes the inhabitants of Nightmareland. His guilt at breaking his promise to the king and betraying the trust of every other inhabitant of Slumberland is profoundly moving. He realizes that he must take responsibility for his actions and sets out to rescue the king and ultimately his friends as well, paying the ultimate price. Luckily, though, the newly freed king has the power to restore the “dead” Nemo to life, another moderately annoying cliché. In the end Nemo receives priceless rewards for his bravery: the kiss of the princess, understanding from his parents, and most importantly an end to his chronic nightmares.

In summary, this movie is a fine watch for anybody interested in something out of the mainstream. It has an uplifting story and lots of flashy fun to bring out your inner child. What’s to lose?

Mahewa’s rating: 4.4/5




Speaking of Mahewa, next time we’ll probably do a more animal-oriented movie. I feel like I’m leaving her out.

If you'd like to look at some more (and more varied) reviews of this hidden gem, check out The New York Times, Variety, or rogerebert.com.

If You Like Epic Soundtracks...

The time has come for our next review! Our next animated film comes from an era called the Disney Renaissance, a period of animation “revival” that began with The Little Mermaid and ended with Tarzan (1989-1999). Say hello to…

The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Theatrical release: June 21, 1996

There’s one word that described this film perfectly: epic. Throughout the movie I just couldn’t keep from writing more and more notes about the soundtrack; it is simply stunning. You try watching the first six minutes of the movie and not being thoroughly impressed. (That choir must have felt pretty proud of itself at the premiere!)



The musical numbers are all impressive and each one has a unique characterization: as you can see from the video above, “The Bells of Notre Dame” sets the stage for a very deep film to come; “Out There” is touching and genuine; “Topsy-Turvy” is zany, a nice diversion; “God Help the Outcasts” is perhaps the most beautiful; “Heaven’s Light” is gentle, innocent, and very sweet; “Hellfire” can only be described (at least by me) with terms like “awesome” and “pwnsome;” “A Guy Like You” is the catchiest of them all; “The Court of Miracles” is mischievous yet clearly dangerous.

It is relatively common knowledge, at least to people who have seen a few Disney movies in their lifetimes, that animated features by Disney have a bothersome habit of replacing the protagonists’ voices in the musical numbers with the voices of “better singers” while letting the minor characters and villains sing their own songs. Therefore I was extremely impressed when I learned that Tom Hulce, Quasimodo’s voice actor, sang his own songs. I don’t know why, but I felt a lot better about the movie after I found that out. The only character that required two separate voices was Esmeralda; perhaps Demi Moore was unaccustomed to doing anything above alto. Heide Mollenhauer sings Esmeralda’s song instead.

Hunchback has been considered one of the more unusual Disney animated features because it deals with more adult-oriented themes than the rest, most notably lust, torture, and religious hypocrisy. One could also include things like prejudice and injustice, but these latter two are more likely to be at least partially grasped by children. There’s also the unusually extensive vocabulary; one of my favorite scenes has got to be when Quasimodo says his ABC's.

"A?"
"Abomination."
"B?"
"Blasphemy."
"C?"
"Contrition."
"D?"
"Damnation."
"E?"
"Eternal damnation."

I rest my case.

I was initially surprised that Disney would make a children’s movie that hinges on religion, but then again, if you’re going to talk about a church in 15th century France that’s kind of a given; the religious themes fit very well into the concerns of the characters, and I think these themes contribute (at least partially) to the depth of the movie. I may be an atheist here in the 2000s, but religion was very real to people in the 1400s, and I deeply respect that.

I had seen this movie when I was younger, but the only things I could remember were (a) bits and pieces of the Feast of Fools, (b) Frollo stopping his soldiers from firing at Phoebus in the water and his corresponding line, and (c) Quasimodo screaming “Sanctuary!” from the balcony of the church at the top of his lungs. Among many of the things that I did not remember was the mini-theme of Frollo’s lust for Esmeralda. I must say that the song in which it is featured, “Hellfire,” is extremely powerful. The theme is clear to older viewers, but luckily it’s been toned down just enough so that a parent could easily explain away what Frollo feels with something relatively innocent, along the lines of “He doesn’t like her, but he’s in love with her.” I think a kid would be able to basically understand that much without emotional scarring.

Don’t worry, there’s plenty enough to keep the kids happy, most obviously the comic-relief gargoyles. But aside from the obvious, the Disney team made many drastic changes to Victor Hugo’s original novel when they staged this movie out. Amazingly, Frollo was originally the Archdeacon and a relatively nice guy…who actually did take in the abandoned baby Quasimodo of his own accord. Phoebus, a real “good guy” in the movie, was as nasty as the movie’s Frollo in the book. Quasimodo was a lot grumpier than the gentle soul we seen in the movie. Esmeralda was a much deeper character in the novel; I got the sense several times that the movie version of her is too kind and nice and innocent, considering her life so far.

Even though the two stories differ so dramatically, the finished film is still deep, impressive, and very moving. I’m willing to confess that this film has become a runner-up for The Lion King’s position as my favorite movie!

Shouldn’t have said that. Now Mahewa’s sulking and won’t talk to me. Give me a second.

Okay, I’m back. She’s agreed to rate this movie well if I promise to draw the characters as anthropomorphized lions instead of humans. Shouldn’t be too hard.

Mahewa’s rating: 4.1/5




Don’t just listen to us, though. It has elicited mixed reviews, primarily having to do with the dumbing down of the material for kids. If you’d like to see this movie get bashed, have a look at Janet Maslin’s original (1996) review via The New York Times; to get a more neutral position, check out James Berardinelli’s comments on reelviews.

And Now For Something Completely Different.

If we may, let's take a little break from Disney movies. They didn't hog all the animation, you know! Our next review is of a somewhat lesser-known (but still known!) movie called:

The Last Unicorn
Theatrical release: November 19, 1982

This animated feature was created by Rankin/Bass Productions, Inc. through the animation studio Topcraft. It was released by ITC Entertainment. The story, based on Peter S. Beagle's novel--he was the main screenwriter, as a matter of fact, so the movie and the book are much more similar than Disney could ever manage--centers around a unicorn who learns that she is the last of her kind and sets out to find the others. Along the way she makes a few human friends, has a handful of misadventures, and learns what it means to be mortal. This movie has been described as one of the most mature, frank, and emotional of the G-rated movies. (Nowadays it would probably be re-rated to PG, due to very mild swearing and partial nudity. The uncensored version, that is. In my opinion, censoring stuff this mild in order to "keep it G" instead of just saying it's PG is stupid, but they did it anyway for the 25th anniversary DVD release! I find censoring bothersome and tacky anyway, but this is just sad. Luckily I own the original, untouched VHS.)

Okay. Censorship rant over.

I noticed right away that the animation was of a slightly lower caliber, but maybe that's just because I'm used to Disney. Most of the time it was fine, but several specific elements of animation kept grabbing my attention when I didn't need them to. One, the birds were animated poorly when in flight. Two, the water stood out like a sore thumb. Three: in several scenes the Unicorn moves her head around way more than she actually would, usually as a way to punctuate her thoughts or make a static shot look more "interesting." On the backgrounds: the occasional shot used extremely stylized scenery and shrubbery which kept distracting me, though this was mostly in the Unicorn's home forest. These were the only things that really bugged me, though. The way they drew long hair and manes was definitely unique and pleasing to look at. The opening credits, using the art from those old tapestries, were really clever.

Actually, I thought was interesting when I learned that Topcraft went on to get hired by Hayao Miyazaki and eventually morphed into Studio Ghibli. But I digress.

This film's weak point is most definitely the music. The score seems to receive undue emphasis in strange places and go unnoticed where it's needed. So the Butterfly's showcase of crazy memorization skills got a fancy score while the intense discourse in the Red Bull's cave went along without any interesting music? Tsk tsk. The songs were even more annoying. Here, I'll rank the songs from most annoying to relatively okay.

1. "Now That I'm A Woman"
2. "That's All I've Got To Say"
3. "In The Sea"
4. "The Last Unicorn"
5. "Man's Road"

There you go. Well, okay, they weren't totally horrible. They had meaningful lyrics and all. But still, "Now That I'm A Woman" was a torture to listen to, though perhaps not as bad as our old favorite "I'm Wishing."

All rightey, time for the character study! (I'll try to make it shorter this time.) Our Most Lifelike Character award this week goes to Molly Grue. I liked her gruff annoyance with Captain Cully, it loaned a lot of spunk to her character. Yet she's extremely kind to her friends, namely Schmendrick and the Unicorn, and her heart's in the right place. Schmendrick and Mommy Fortuna are about tied for second place. While Schmendrick's true desire is to become a real magician, Mommy Fortuna's wish is to leave a mark on the world through the Harpy's memory: "So there's my immortality, eh?" Schmendrick cares deeply about his friends. Mommy Fortuna has a sense of protection for the animals in her cages. The Unicorn/Lady Amalthea ranks near the top of the list as well. Sure, it's kind of hard to write down the thoughts of an immortal being since it's a little difficult to find one in real life, but I think Peter S. Beagle and the others did well. She doesn't have any problem with being friendly with those who deserve it. I could almost imagine her agony when she was first forced into a human shape. I even managed to catch an amazing quote: "I can feel this body dying all around me!" Her gradual confusion in her human body really touched me. The lesser characters of the skeleton and the cat each have their places as well; the skeleton is unusually funny and the cat is refreshingly witty. The Harpy and King Haggard are all right. Hey, they have their motives. Poor Haggard, he just can't make himself happy. :( Characters that could have done with some more work were the butterfly and Prince Lir.

I have noticed that the minority of people who are familiar with this movie seem to really like it. I must say that even though I was looking for flaws and imperfections, which I did find, this film has a deep collection of emotional and existential conflicts. What does it truly mean to love? Where is the dividing line between reality and illusion? Is immortality all it's cracked up to be? Is Disney really all that great? (Heh. Just kidding.) Though I've seen movies that I liked better overall, this one holds a special significance to me despite its flaws as a film. If you have never seen this film or haven't watched it in a while, it's most definitely worth a look.

And just so you know, before you worry, Mahewa didn't have much to say. I think she's a little groggy from this weekend.

Mahewa's rating: 3.4/5




New feature: here are a few other reviews of this movie, not done by us. The one from The New York Times is an original from 1982. The others are from The Unknown Movies and DanielThomas.org.

Into the Indian Rainforests...

Hello again, and welcome to our second dive into the depths of ancient animated films. This week we took a virtual trip to the jungles of India in a timeless Disney classic,

The Jungle Book
Theatrical release: October 18, 1967

This well-loved movie is based on some of the tales from Rudyard Kipling’s book of the same name, published in 1894. The movie focuses on the adventures of the feral child Mowgli, though the original book contained other sections devoted to different characters. Like any Disney film based on an already existing myth, fairy tale, or book, many character roles and timeline events were shuffled around to make a more appealing story. I was quite intrigued to discover in my research that the python Kaa, a minor antagonist/comic relief character in the film, was in fact Mowgli’s ally in the original stories. Apparently Baloo the bear was the wolves’ trainer, too. That one struck me as a little odd.

Anyway, back to the movie. One again I was very impressed with the animated water, and the background art looks quite nice. I noticed that the animation in this movie has a rough, almost sketchlike quality which I thought lent the characters a more earthy look. What stood out almost immediately to me, though, was Bagheera’s animation. I mean, wow. Looks just like a real big cat! The fluidity, stealth, and power… but I’m getting carried away. I love big cats too much for my own good.

Mahewa just poked me, saying, “Go on, go on! More big cats!” Heh heh.

So, it looks like it’s time to assess the respective credibilities of the different characters. Here I would rank Baloo on top. He strikes me as a fun-loving, rough-and-tumble father type, enjoying life but caring about his “child.” Even though he seems at first glance a mainly comedic character, he has a much more caring and well-meaning side that is tapped into in several scenes. He clearly will do anything to get Mowgli away from the monkeys. After Mowgli’s retrieval, the conversation between Baloo and Bagheera about Mowgli’s future is very deep, and Baloo’s emotional distress is heart-wrenching. I was touched when Baloo tried desperately to talk to Mowgli about it later. Then after Mowgli ran away and Bagheera and Baloo split up to look for him, what did Baloo say to himself? “Oh, if anything happens to that little guy, I’ll NEVER forgive myself. I’ve gotta find him!” He puts himself in danger to save Mowgli during the climax, and he can’t bear to see his son leave in the end. All in all, I think Baloo is a really touching character. (Phil Harris’ voice really helped.)

Bagheera is most likely the next most complex and lifelike character after Baloo. He’s very practical-minded and down to earth, as well as very watchful of Mowgli and his safety. He definitely knows what’s best for the little man-cub. Yet he has his comical moments, too. Take the scene near the beginning when he’s trying to get Mowgli up a tree, or when he pathetically resists Kaa’s hypnosis. Or after the climax, when he gives Baloo a grand eulogy but is quickly infuriated when he realizes that Baloo is still alive. It’s rewarding to see how Baloo and Bagheera progress from being acquaintances to friends throughout the course of the movie.

I was surprised to note that most of the minor characters are very genuine. The wolves could do with more screentime, but from what I saw, they (the mother Raksha, the father Rama, and the councilor Akela) are all unique characters with unique yet easily understandable opinions about Mowgli. Now, Kaa is an annoyable, frightenable, self-helping predator. I could understand his motives very well: “I need food to live, and I’m taking care of myself and myself only.” He’s also a very good subject to be placed on the receiving end of physical gags. Sterling Holloway’s voice acting made the character that much more memorable. Colonel Hathi really surprised me, actually. This time around watching the movie, I picked up so many more military jokes. I thought his character was really funny! I also found I rather liked his sassy wife (named Winifred, I might add) and innocent son Junior. King Louie, another minor villain, acts very strangely for a villain, but then again he’s supposed to be a bit off his rocker, right? And the vultures! I forgot how much I liked the vultures. So friendly, such good singers. I just wish they’d been introduced a bit earlier in the story.

Now, Mowgli is a little less appealing. I really sympathized with his wishes to stay in the jungle with Baloo. His animation is pretty nice, too. But the voice acting came across as a bit sloppy. The nuances and phrasings sound too much as if multiple takes were taken of short, successive lines. He also sounds a smidgen too old. His best bit is when he gets mad at Baloo about breaking his promise.

Shere Khan, though he has a cool voice and some distinguishing mannerisms, leaves something to be desired. Though mentioned quite early on in the movie, he doesn’t actually appear until three-quarters of the way through or so. He could have done with much more screentime, if only to give the viewers more time to get used to his pompous manner and quirky sayings. As a villain with a motive, he seems far too happy about hunting down Mowgli. Wasn’t he supposed to hate man with a vengeance, fearing guns and fire? I’d think he’d be furious to learn of a man cub in his jungle! His interruption of the vultures’ song is just plain weird. In the final battle, his animation seems somewhat tacky. Not to mention when he says to Baloo, “I’ll kill you for this!” (for what, exactly?) and makes a series of very silly-looking off-camera swipes at Baloo. Baloo is only shown being hit once. Sure, it’s supposed to be a low-violence kids’ movie, but a static camera right there just does NOT work. I will say, however, that the opening shot of Shere Khan stalking a deer is really cool and amazingly realistic. (“YES!” says Mahewa.)

And what’s with the girl? You’ve already had the climax, don’t introduce a whole new major plot point! If you’re going to think of a way to get Mowgli to go live with humans, maybe make him realize after Baloo’s near death that the jungle isn’t the place for him. Or maybe he stays in the jungle for many more happy years. Or something! The girl’s song is dated and somewhat dull, and her singing voice sounds far too old for her. And she’s not at all surprised, let alone shocked, to see a wild boy in a loincloth watching her from the trees? She just looks at him flirtingly, as if she knew he was there the whole time. I think she’s just a screenwriter’s tool to have Mowgli conveniently end up in the man village at the end.

Now that we’ve gone through the characters, I’d like to talk a bit more about the movie’s wildlife. Most of the Indian animals are accurate, as expected. The only questionable characters are Baloo and the wolves. Baloo is most likely a Sloth Bear, since he has the approximate colors as well as the very long, sloth-like claws and the pale muzzle. However, it’s clear that he was modeled on a more “Western” bear, and the trademark gold patches on the chest are absent. Funnily enough, Rudyard Kipling’s original Baloo was a Eurasian Brown Bear. Now, the wolves have always bothered me. I think they’re supposed to be Indian Wolves, a species recently determined to be separate from the Grey Wolf. Real Indian Wolves are thin and reddish, like jackals. But the movie’s wolves are clearly modeled after the more recognizable Grey Wolf. Perhaps they’re actually the Himalayan subspecies of Grey?

So, what rating do we give this movie? Any movie has its flaws but this one’s respectable, touching, and pretty darn funny.

Mahewa’s rating: 3.7/5

Let's Get This Party Started!

Greetings to all! I'm Amanda, here with my trusty animated companion Mahewa. (She says hi.)


Together we'll be supplying you with our humble little blog, something we like to call Animation Revisited.

Each week (hopefully) we'll get our hands on an animated film. Not a 3-D computer animated one, either. A genuine cel-drawn film from the good old days. We'll sit down and watch it. We'll take notes. Then we'll write up a review for it and post it here for people like you to read. The point of this blog is to bring attention back to some animated movies that have long since slipped out of the hype of their releases. If you like the sound of one, please go find it and watch it. As lame as some of these films may seem, none of them deserve to collect dust in a closet. (If I come across an exception, I'll say so.)

So, without further ado, let's begin this blog with, fittingly, the animated feature that started it all:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Theatrical release: Feb. 4, 1938 by RKO Radio Pictures

It's hard to find someone who hasn't heard of this old classic. Walt Disney's first ever feature-length animation, it made astounding breakthroughs in the history of motion pictures. The animation was better than I remembered. The multiplane camera: wow! They knew what they were doing when they used that baby. Imagine what animation without the multiplane camera would be like! I particularly thought the various water effects looked really nice, but my favorite showcase of animated awesomeness has got to be the scene where Snow White flees into the woods. The grabbing trees, the log crocodiles, the spooky eyes especially! Zooming, cross-fading, surrounding both the panicking princess and the viewer. One of the few qualms I had with the animation was the way they drew the vultures. WAY too cartoony-looking. Mahewa agrees with me.

As far as characters go, this movie wouldn't have gotten anywhere if the dwarfs weren't as good as they are. They are by far the deepest, most realistic of the characters. It's easy to see the bond of friendship/brotherhood between them, even (or perhaps especially?) when they get frustrated with each other. This was also the first time I remember really paying attention to Grumpy. When I was a kid I didn't like him very much, but he's really got a nice story going behind him! How he's so mistrusting of Snow White at first, but he comes to realize that he really cares about her. Dopey has got to be one of the funniest little comic relief characters I have ever laid eyes on. I couldn't help but keep going "awwww" when certain things happened that had to do with him. By the way, whatever happened to that bar of soap he swallowed? The whole scene in the washroom is pretty darn funny. (The song itself gets on my nerves, though.) The one thing I couldn't quite understand about the dwarfs was whether they were gay or straight. On the one hand they clearly can't help but secretly like her, as in like. How else would they do all the things they did, if not for her? Washing up, giving her the bed, putting on a show... Happy himself said, "I'll take a chance for her!" They also act pretty rough-and-tumble with each other, like any males. On the other hand, they aren't competitive with each other about her. They listen to her love song--about some other guy!--looking all gooney-eyed and romantic. They let the other guy approach the "dead" Snow White without saying anything. And then they get so happy when he sweeps her off her feet and carries her away. Whatever happened to possessive male instincts?

Second on the character believability list is the huntsman. When I was younger he freaked me out (probably because he had a knife), but after paying close attention to his limited screentime, I realized how realistic and human his dialogues and actions were. Just the way he protested the queen's wishes and couldn't bring himself to kill Snow White... I really liked him. Mahewa did too. But then again, her ears did perk up when she heard "hunt." I guess it's easy for her to relate to.

The queen is close behind the huntsman in character development. As a child I was terrified of the queen (weren't we all?), but I have to hand it to her; she's one heck of a Disney villain. Definately one of the best I've seen. In fact, I think she's the most DIY evil queen/king I've ever seen in a movie. No henchmen, no myrmidons. Just her and her black magic. Come on, what other evil queen would head right out of her castle in a disguise she made herself to go take care of business?

Snow White is a middle-range character. On the realistic side, I can understand her fear in the forest and her friendliness with the dwarfs. Even her encounter with the prince was pretty well-paced for a fairy tale, at least on her part. Initially freaked out by the prince appearing out of nowhere (I would be too!), she listens nervously at first to his ode, is clearly flattered/charmed by the song, and thinks to herself, "I think I like that guy." The prince is mentioned elsewhere in the movie, and it's understandable that she thinks about him, since she's fallen in love. Also, though speaking with the animals may seem ridiculous, if you were stranded in the woods, you'd probably talk to yourself too. Whether or not the animals would understand what you were saying depends on whether you're in a Disney movie or not. On the less appealing side, she says some unusual things (such as "Oh, I feel so strange!"), trusts the creepy old hag/queen too quickly, and has the most annoying voice! Augh! I never want to hear "I'm Wishing" ever again. But it is a musical, and she has to sing some songs. I guess warbling super-soprano isn't my cup of tea. The instrumentals in the score were actually quite nice.

The prince? Oh, gosh. At the bottom. He's walking along, hears somebody singing in a whiny warble, and randomly butts into her song. (I will never forget his grand entrance. "Toodaaaaay!" Ugh.) He sings a love song to her when he's only seen her for about twenty seconds. And where is he for the rest of the whole freaking movie? He hasn't seen her in months and he just waltzes in and kisses her "dead" body? Sick.

So all in all, what do I rate this movie? It's got its weird bits, but I have to hand it to them: this thing is a work of art and always will be.

Mahewa's rating: 3.9/5