t also because it illuminated the fundamental shift in the animated industry from traditional 2D features to almost exclusively computer modeled features. In the special (which was excellent and well worth the time), the notion that Pixar killed traditional animation was discussed at length. While those mired in the 2D world (and the industry at large) blamed the folks at Pixar for the decline and near annihilation of the ages old medium, I was most struck by Pixar's response because I agree whole-heartedly. As Pixar attests, it's not a matter of medium, it's a matter of story.
Traditional animation was in decline long before Pixar came along, and like a sickle, cut down it's competitors with record-breaking success after success. The stunning visuals played a part in this success
, I have no doubt, but after all is said and done, Pixar's domination comes down to good storytelling (tattoo-it-on-your-leg storytelling). If it didn't, then the dazzling visuals wouldn't matter 3, 4, or 5 films down the road because we've already seen it. At present, Pixar is 11 for 11, which is basically unheard of. Therefore, what Disney 2D animation began to lack was solid narrative, not visual appeal or whatever magical bells and whistles they seem to think made Pixar a success. Indeed, the crew at Pixar, much like myself, rather adores traditional animation. It's because of this that the steady decline in quality of Disney 2D films is so irksome and disappointing.
As far as I'm concerned, things started to decline after The Lion King, which premiered in 1994 (which, holy hell, was 16 years ago--I'm suddenly very old). Many would contend that this is because it was the last traditional film to be released prior to 1995's Toy Story. I simply think it was just one of the last ones to have a great narrative and wonderful songs at its core. The rest of the nineties were populated with respectably successful, although not earth-shattering
features such as Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan rounding out the decade in 1999. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed each of those to certain degree (in some cases quite a lot), but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who lists them among the aforementioned The Lion King, recent predecessors like Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, or the older classics like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinnochio, etc. For me, the last two truly great 2D films were Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove. Here, Disney stepped out of the mold, focused on having solid, if unconventional, storylines, and in my opinion, succeeded greatly (these are truly two of my absolute favorites). Beyond that, and with incredibly weak offerings like Brother Bear and Home on the Range, I figured traditional 2D was basically over. Again, it's not that I don't love the medium, it's that lackluster storytelling doesn't bring in the crowds. It's a real shame that this happened and even more of a shame that Pixar is unfairly blamed for a once-hallowed medium biting the dust.
Which brings us to now now. I had heard that the powers that be were going to bring back traditional animation with a flourish and a big ending. Well, that gusto brought us The Princess and the Frog. In spite of misgivings, I had heard from a number of critics
that it was actually quite good. Having heard about the production woes prior to release, I rather surprised to hear that it turned out so well. Then I actually saw it. Apparently my initial misgivings should have been heeded. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a terrible film or anything, but it was in no way the grand return to form that I had so desperately hoped for.
More than anything, I was just plain disappointed. I don't think it's that the critics' positive reviews raised my expectations unrealistically because I still went into this with a healthy dollop of hesitation and skepticism. Having heard about the production woes and numerous rewrites, even the most glowing of raves couldn't have allayed my concerns. What a lot of the issues boiled down to was that this is the love story of a young, southern, African-American girl as written by a couple of old, white WASP-y men... Why, I can't imagine that would cause any problems at all! Having taken a quick look at the two director/writers, it was suddenly apparent where the cries of racial insensitivity may have come from, even if I didn't think all the criticisms were fair. As I recall, the main character's name was originally supposed to be "Maddie" but was changed to "Tiana" because critics cried fowl, saying that "Maddie" sounded too much like "Mammie". I never would have made that connection, but I'm not exactly at the center of the conflict either, so what do I know. (I do know that when I think "Jazz Age New Orleans" the name that pops into my head isn't "Tiana".) I also recall there was a lot of hullabaloo about the fact that this is Disney's first African-American princess and she spends the better part of the film as a frog. I didn't see that as a problem, given the nature of the story, but apparently others did. Whatever the complaints or accusations of racial insensitivity (or even indifference), they all led to a hell of a lot of rewrites, deletions, and modifications to script after script as the creative team tried to
please everyone. The end result seemed to work for most people, but I could feel the rewrites as I was watching it and got the impression that a lot of story and character development may have been lost in the shuffle. I'm not saying they should have ignored racial considerations (far from it), but when the writers didn't know how to handle these concerns properly, the story was left timid and watered-down. Again, this is why you don't have a bunch of old white men writing a story about a young, African-American girl. Not a whole lot of common experience or understanding there, you know?
Anyway, the film's problems don't stop there. I think a big part of the problem was Disney's approach to bringing back the medium. On the one hand, I can absolutely see where they wanted to usher in a new era for traditional animation by harkening back to the kind of classic story that started it all. I think any attempts at reinventing the wheel here probably would have failed, but for me at least, so too did this attempt at your standard princess story. I love the princess stories of yore, but that's just it. Yore. I think the main problem with a princess tale is that this film isn't set in some remote European village during the 12th century when castles and princes and glass slippers were on every street corner. This is supposed to be Jazz Age New Orleans, a time and a place when
princes are head-scratchingly anachronistic. Even if they had found a way to make this them work for this particular setting, it still wouldn't have the panache of other princess stories because, after so long and so many, The Princess and the Frog couldn't help but feel blandly derivative. This is the same old story I've seen oh-so-many times before, only not as good. It was an adequate story, and filled the royal slippers as well as it could, but it just didn't strike me as special. In short, it quite simply wasn't magical.
As mentioned, the story was adequate, all required elements were there and all major plot-points were hit, but it felt utterly hackneyed. This is the story of two total opposites who start off disliking each
other, only to fall improbably, but completely in love. It's a... tale as old as time, you might say... It's a conceit that has worked time and time again, so I can see where writers keep tapping that well, but the writers here did very little to dress up this tired conceit. This time around, we have a repressed girl who spends all her time working meets a mad cap rogue who teachers her how to live a little, while she teaches him some depth, all while falling in love. Been there, yawned at that. In all honesty, I got pretty bored pretty quickly (what with knowing exactly where things were going and where they'd end up almost immediately) and started puzzling (i.e. putting together a jigsaw puzzle, not pondering the mysteries of the universe)... so there's a chance I probably missed a few things (what can I say, it was a particularly difficult, yet addictive puzzle--seriously, I loves me some Klimt, but those spirals were murder). None of this story seemed special or unique to me, which, given the setting and the narrative approach, is kind of hard to believe. It felt uninspired and none of the characters seemed genuine or real to me.
The film wasn't without merit, and indeed had some truly charming moments, but as a whole, it fell completely flat. At the center of my indifference was Tiana, the central figure of the film, and who should have been the emotional backbone of the story. I think I first stopped really caring about her or her woes when it was revealed that her raison d'etre is to open a restaurant. Really? Opening a restaurant is the central
motivation here? That's why so much of what is happening is happening? That's the prince's main concern when things are all going to hell? He wants to make sure she gets the money for her restaurant... Honestly? Wow, don't care. I didn't care about her restaurant from minute one and spent the entire film feeling like that was a pretty flimsy reason for her journey. I get that she mainly wants the restaurant because she associates it with her late, beloved father, but I just didn't feel it. The stakes weren't high enough, the predicament didn't carry enough gravity, and as for the ticking clock? I simply forgot about it and even forgot why it was ticking at all. Oh, that's right. If she doesn't get the money together for the restaurant in time, she'll, uh, lose the dilapidated space she had picked out for it...? Yep, that was the ticking clock. Well, the film would have you believe that the clock is ticking to midnight when they'll be stuck as frogs forever, but I didn't feel any real urgency there and when no one turned back into a human, no one seemed all that upset about it. It felt like Fiona staying an ogre. It wasn't that she would turn back into Cinderella and coach would turn back into a pumpkin at midnight (to devastating effect), or that she'd prick her finger on a spinning wheel on her 16th birthday and die, the real conflict at the center of Tiana's world is a matter of real estate. Indeed, the necessary gravity was only applied when the prince's life was in danger, and even then, I was so hardly invested in that character that I could barely be bothered to care. When the death of a lightning bug and the dreams of a gator are more pressing, more central, and important t
o the viewer than the love story or impending death there of, you know you're in trouble.
Even the songs didn't grab me, and for a musical-phile such as myself, that's surprising and disappointing. Once again, it's not that the songs were terrible or anything, but they were simply adequate. I didn't feel inspired listening to these characters and honestly can't even remember any of the tunes. I didn't walk away humming and had no desire to load up my iPod. As with the perfunctory elements of the story, it honestly felt like the writers sat around and pondered things like, "Okay guys, we're 14 minutes in and we need a song... What do we do?!" None of them felt particularly organic to the story and none of them struck me as special or memorable. What a let down. I walked away thinking, "Yeah, maybe they shouldn't have tried to make this a musical at all..."
I guess at the end of the day, it's not that this was a terrible film or anything (in fact, it was incredibly beautiful), it just wasn't anything special, and for Disney to reinvigorate traditional animation, they needed something special.
Very special. When you're trying to put your medium on a level with Pixar, your story needs to measure up. This one didn't. I didn't hate this film and it really was beautifully made with a few nice moments peppered throughout, but that's not enough for me. And it's not enough to go toe-to-toe with Pixar. Seriously, when a film has me sobbing because a girl's cowboy doll gets donated to Goodwill, you know the storytelling can hardly be matched. God, just thinking about that scheme makes me a little misty. Between "Jessie's Song" and that commercial for sad-looking homeless puppies, I have to assume that Sarah McLachlan simply enjoys making people cry. Geez, that commercial evoked more of an emotional response than The Princess and the Frog did... Not good.
Anyway, I've been blathering on about this for entirely too long, but I needed to do a little venting. Disney had a real opportunity here, and while most seemed to have enjoyed the film well enough (except Annie, she's on my team!), I can't think of anyone who ranks it among the true classics. I d
on't quote lines from the film, I don't know the songs by heart, and I can't even remember half the characters' names... Did the prince have a first name? Or was he just "Prince of Maldonia"? I haven't the slightest idea. The finale was utterly anticlimactic and ultimately forgettable. It almost seemed like an afterthought. Oh, so they got married and that made her a princess and that made them turn back into humans and stuff... Awesome? Not really. I walked away underwhelmed and fairly bored.
I'm hopeful Disney takes a chance on 2D animation again, only with Pixar's attention to storytelling. I generally don't care what medium is chosen, so long as the characters resonate, the narrative is gripping and memorable, and the film is cohesive and memorable.
It could be a bunch of little stick figures and that would be fine.
(Although that wouldn't necessarily be my first choice...)
