Selling Out
By Tom Macy
December 18, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
True, these companies work under the same roof. But only in title. To fully understand the magnitude of this event requires some exposition that I laid out in a column I wrote back in June. After I saw Up I tried to reasonably explain the sustained brilliance of Pixar films. If you aren't one of the seven people that I suspect read it here's the gist.
Pixar is run by an alien race whose comprehension of how to blend entertainment and art comes from a higher intelligence too complex for our lesser minds to understand. My reasoning for this is that their movies are too good to be made by humans. But that's not all. Their predecessors in animated genius, Disney, are of another world as well, originally traveling to Earth in the 20s. Unfortunately their power hungry leader - one Walt Disney – led the company astray due to his aspirations for World domination. Disney was famously frozen – to be risen when the time was right – and gave instructions for the company to implement his devious plan over the ensuing decades. This plan hinged on converting the youth into to Disney loyalists without any original ideas whatsoever - i.e. Dumbo 2, the horror. But then Steve Jobs arrived, aka Luke Skywalker, with his advanced knowledge of narrative structure and character development and that threw wrench into things.
Jobs purchased Pixar from an equally formidable foe in George Lucas and sought to build it up to rival Disney with the hopes of ultimately bringing them back to the light side of the force, if only for a few redeeming moments before they die (god, aren't you glad George Lucas didn't have Hayden Christensen redo Darth Vader's death scene and edit it into Return of the Jedi? I could totally see that happening. I should shut up, though. I don't want to give him any ideas).
Jobs' plan really went into full swing when Pixar became part of Disney - a Trojan Horse type deal. With their vastly superior films, Pixar used Disney's massive marketing engine and universal brand recognition as a tool to reach the audiences they needed. As the consistent excellence of their films persisted, folks started to recognize that the brand to really look for was Pixar's. In essence, Pixar used Disney's brainwashed army they had been building for decades against them.
Since infiltration was achieved, great strides have been made. Let's call John Lasseter Han Solo. Wait, then who would Brad Bird be? Maybe Jobs is Obi-Wan Kenobi, Lasseter is Skywalker and Bird can be Solo. Yeah, that works because Lasseter is more pivotal in the grand scheme of things, but he just isn't cool as Brad Bird. I mean, Lasseter started out well with Toy Story 1 and 2, but (stay with the Star Wars metaphor people!) by the time Pixar reached Empire Strikes Back territory, he gave us A Bug's Life and Cars. Meanwhile, Brad Bird was all seducing Princess Leia and directing The Incredibles and Ratatouille. So Lasseter is Skywalker (or Mark Hamill) and Brad Bird is Harrison Ford. Ah, tangents.
Back to the fake mythology, in April 2006 Luke Skywalker (we all remember who we're talking about now, right?) was named chief creative officer of both Pixar and Disney animation studios, where he reports directly to Disney President and CEO Bob Iger, bypassing Disney's studio and theme park executives. He also received greenlight power on films with Roy E. Disney's consent. Word! With this newfound authority, the straight-to-DVD sequels inducing forehead slaps around Best Buys everywhere – or is that just me? – have been terminated. Said Lassester, "We believe that the only reason to do a sequel is if you have a great story, period. It's not, 'Let's just keep cranking it out.'" Again, word!
But the events of December 11th - 13th of 2009 were always going to be the first big test. Could Lassester and Disney in Disney's first venture with their patented cel-animated-fairytale-driven mold since Tarzan (whose inclusion in that category is arguable given the presence of Phil Collins) tap back into the alien magic that brought us Snow White in 1937, and Beauty and the Beast in 1991? And if they could, would audiences still care to see it?
Looking at the outcome, you could answer in two different ways. The opening of The Princess and the Frog didn't knock anyone's socks off. But for my money, it's a big step in the right direction. Sure, the lead characters were broadly "drawn" – puns and Star Wars metaphors, do I know what the people want or do I? – making them relatively uninteresting. There were no particularly memorable songs, I kept waiting for the definitive Whole New World-type love song, no dice. And there was plenty of schmaltz to go around - not cute schmaltz, big difference. Still, did I cry? You betcha.
The greatest aspect of The Princess and the Frog was that it emanated with the classic touch - gorgeous, rich colors, handsomely exaggerated features, elegantly fluid gestures. But what really struck me – especially as an avid lover and advocate for the superiority of Pixar films - was the realization that what Disney and Pixar are not competitors. The things they excel at are wholly different, for grownups, that is. Pixar makes films that appeal to kids on one level and adults on another - the kids have a blast and the adults have their souls shown to them on the screen. On the other hand, a great traditional Disney animated film is a blast for kids but for adults, is a chance to see the world through a kid's eyes. Simpler eyes. A world with different rules. Where true love exists. True evil too (usually of the effeminate male kind - Scar, Jafar, Prince John. Maleficent was totally a dude in drag). The themes are far less profound than Pixar's, but the ideals are rather wholesome. Disney films are naïve – some might reference the relative aversion of the race issue in Frog, which many are crying foul over...personally, it didn't cross my mind - while Pixar is decidedly more mature. The one thing they do have in common is that when they're done right, they're both magic.
I guess what I'm saying is that maybe there's enough room for them to co-exist on Earth after all - Pixar making kids' movies for adults and Disney making kids' movies that make adults feel like kids.
One could argue that today's audiences have outgrown traditional Disney films. And that may be. Nothing lasts forever. But I believe there's still a place for beautiful classic triteness in today's cinema world. I've always said, I don't mind a cliché – and Frog is wrought with them – as long as it's done well. And on this level I would say The Princess and the Frog succeeded.
But this is just the beginning. Much is still undecided. Are we at the end of Star Wars or Return of the Jedi? Or, gulp, The Phantom Menace? How the rest of December plays out in terms of box office for Frog will determine much about the future of Disney's willingness to put in a creative effort into original enriching works rather than rehash an old concept and pick up a paycheck. The battleground for the next clash to be forged is Thanksgiving 2010 when Rapunzel – the initial images of which look stunning – hits theatres. Judging by that film's success, we'll know if we're looking at a new trend taking shape, or if the nominal success last weekend was just audiences giving a slight nod to a bygone era. I hope it is the former.
If you haven't seen The Princess and the Frog yet but still believe that there is good in Disney and that they won't throw John Lasseter down that lightning covered chasm, get in the fight! And tune in later this month for the next installment of Animation Wars (if you have a better idea for a title, please, for the love of God, help me out).