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
Post a comment