You sure this is the right blind Voodoo lady who lives in the boat in the tree in the bayou?

The Princess and the Frog

(2009)

Disney’s brief return to the hand drawn animation that made its name is an unextraordinary, box-ticking affair; bells-and-whistles reinvention of a traditional fairytale (The Frog Prince/The Frog Princess), sparring romance between two lead characters, charismatic villain, anthropomorphically endearing supporting characters, a liberal sprinkling of half-cooked songs. Its main claim to fame is that it features Disney Animation’s first African-American protagonist, albeit she is shrouded in amphibian apparel for much of the running time.

Returning directors Ron Clements and John Musker (who rode the crest of the early ‘90s rejuvenation of the animation division, responsible for the likes of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Hercules). Their previous film with Disney had been the expensive bomb Treasure Planet, one of the failures that signalled Disney’s switch to CGI. They bring the expected lightness of touch to the tale, along with a brace of songs, some more successful than others (Pixar mainstay Randy Newman wrote the majority of them, but fortunately we don’t have to endure him singing, nor his somnabulent orchestration).

The opening section, introducing us to young Tiana and the rich family her mother works for, doesn’t bode well. It looks like we’re going to be on the receiving end of the insipid cutesy depiction of kids that can be found around the edges of Pixar features. Thankfully, the machiavellian magical machinations of Dr. Facilier (wonderfully-voiced by Keith David) soon put paid to this, as Tiana is reduced to the status of a frog, along with spoilt-difficult-to-get-along with Prince Naveen. Then they’re off to the bayou, while Naveen’s assistant poses as the Prince (thanks to a Facilier spell) and attempts to secure marriage to Tiana’s childhood friend (she has a rich daddy).

The African-American characters, and New Orleans setting, instantly drew increased scrutiny of the production. Disney, mindful of any accusations of stereotyping, drafted in Oprah Winfrey (who else?!) to advise and stem the tide. You could probably still lay accusations of stereotyping, but only as much as every other Disney feature has indulged in it (it certainly created none of the controversy that animated Pocahontas elicited over a decade earlier).

As ever with Disney features, it’s the quality of the supporting characters who spell success or failure and this time out they are very familiar but effective nevertheless. The Voodoo aspect is probably the most controversial one (not a practice that Christian watchdogs will get behind, and praised by the black villain at that) in the film, but it’s an effective and atmospheric inclusion. In particular, the “Shadow Man” animations, which minds of their own. Anyone familiar with Live and Let Die will recognise the stylings of Dr. Facilier; both appropriate the look of Baron Samedi, the Voodoo god of magic, death, and ancestor worship.

The comedy characters include Louis, a trumpet-playing alligator whose design could come straight out of Peter Pan, and Ray, a Cajun firefly besotted with the Evening Star.

It would be shame if this does end up as the last traditionally animated Disney film (although, realistically, I expect one will come along every five years or so, just to test the waters; it only requires one big head to initiate a whole new batch); it’s eminently likeable, but too formulaic to really stand out from the crowd.

Disney’s unwillingness to really push boundaries in terms of story and form could be seen as part of the reason for the ultimate loss of enthusiasm for their product. The likes of The Emperor’s New Groove was a rare, and troubled, exception that only ensured that the studio would become further entrenched. The Princess and the Frog just about balanced its budget in takings (but that’s not including all the marketing and distribution costs), so no one at the Mouse House will be screaming out for more for a while. Meanwhile, Pixar is following exactly the same course of playing it safe…

***

Comments

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog