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.