Kind of harsh, and quite blunt, but you do have a point. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Perhaps that says more about my love of bonus footage than my understanding of documentary film-making. I for one would love to see a Hannah Barbera equivalent fyi ;)
Some supplementary information on the period, the animation and the animators can be found at: DISNEY, THE WAREHOUSE YEARS part I - http://bit.ly/dosxeo DISNEY, the WAREHOUSE YEARS part II - http://bit.ly/b6zWk2 DISNEY, THE BLUE HAT YEARS - http://bit.ly/ba5jD5
Very interesting article. I would definitely love to hear about those years from the point of view of the artists. In spite of that, I will have to check out this film for myself.
A perfectly apt review. As I said a while back, the film left me frustrated and disappointed. It is only about the management and doesn't even bother to identify those who made the animated films.
I saw the film with most of the artists who were a part of this incredible period at Disney. In a way, it made me wish someone had made a documentary about our years with Walt.
In any case, I enjoyed Don's movie, and was happy to contribute my cartoon gags to the film. Overall, it was the Battle of the Titans because that's what most people care about.
Only artists care about other artists. It's a shame, but it's true.
December 06, 2010 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...
I agree with your review completely, and find it odd that the 2 people who made this documentary so deftly tiptoe around their own roles in bringing the animation division to it's knees.
This should have been released as a double feature with "The Sweat Box--" an equally flawed but far more interesting film. As for that "Dream On" film, it's a pretty lightweight yawn.
Still, the book I'm most looking forward to is the upcoming one on Disney Animation studios from 1965 through 1985-warts and all. It's going to be a doozy!
you are absolutely right! the only reason I enjoyed watching it and putting all my criticism aside was that I know all the guys running around in the background unknown to most of the audience around the world. and something else is just a wrong statement, the quality of the films was not improved by the new management or their incredible good decisions but by a fast learning process of the artists. because they were able to see a future for themselves and wanted to improve. you can clearly see that from mermaid, to me the worst, and beauty + beast, the second worst, to aladdin and lion king, where the visuals equaled the story and music quality. what the executives always said, that they only improved the quality of the films, because they constantly threw out finished big parts of the films and had them redone over and over. that to me was always just bad decision-making and created finally an immense explosion of costs. too bad the film stops where it stops, because after that the slaughtering became really interesting for a few years.
I felt mostly the same way watching it. I guess being an animator myself I was a bit biased & expected to see more craft than they showed.
Also, I seem to be the only person I know who felt like the demonizing of Don Bluth in this doc was almost comical.
Overall though I enjoyed it but I agree the film is a failure.
January 07, 2011 7:14 PM
[Image]Watching this film, I got the feeling that Don Hahn and Peter Schneider made it because they realized their best days were behind them and they were looking to celebrate and mourn the end of their greatest successes.
This film covers the period of Disney animation history from the change in management in 1984, when Frank Wells, Michael Eisner, Roy Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg took over from Ron Miller until Katzenberg's resignation after The Lion King. Because the film is bookended by these two changes in management, the film gives the impression that the rise and fall of the studio during this period was due to the people at the top. While they undoubtedly had a strong influence, such as deciding which films were made, the quality of those films was determined by the literally hundreds of people who created them.
Those people are portrayed as bystanders to management politics and the film is curiously selective about who gets identified. I don't believe that Andreas Deja or Eric Goldberg, while they are shown, ever have their names on screen and (except for a deleted clip in the extras) Goldberg is not heard either. I spent a great deal of the film wondering who I was looking at or knowing and waiting in vain for the film to identify them. In an odd way, the film is like a monster movie where giant executives face off while anonymous artists run for cover. Even when the artists are identified, there is no sense of what part they played in the making of the films or their individual sensibilities.
The film is fascinating for anyone interested in animation history, but I think that overall the film is a failure. It doesn't explain why the animated features became successful except to talk about management shaking up the animation staff and the presence of Howard Ashman. There is no doubt that Ashman was a major influence in terms of the musical numbers and story construction, but he had nothing to do with the creation of the visuals. Those are left unexplained.
The film takes for granted the status of the animated features, measuring them only by box office. There's no further attempt to evaluate them in terms of quality or dissect why some were more successful than others.
The management infighting that led to the collapse of Disney animation is spelled out and no one comes off looking good. Once Frank Wells died, the remaining executive team was jealous of each other and couldn't put aside their differences for the good of the stockholders or the art form. The studio may have run out of energy anyway, but it took only seven years from The Lion King to Atlantis: The Lost Empire. For an explanation of that decline, see Dream On, Silly Dreamer.
There is one segment in the extras that shows perfectly what's missing from this film. The recording session for The Little Mermaid's song "Part of Your World" was videotaped. Inside the recording booth, Howard Ashman and Jodi Benson work on getting the interpretation right amidst the chatter from the control room. While Benson hasn't yet nailed what Ashman is looking for, her performance is superb. Her voice is beautiful and her phrasing is masterful. Music is more cinematic than animation in that it can be created in real time, but this is perhaps the only example on the DVD of the creative act, the thing at the center of the films that this documentary is supposed to be celebrating. The Disney artists were Benson's equal in their own field, though the film doesn't acknowledge this. No matter how sharp Wells, Eisner, Katzenberg, and Disney were, they were not the ones writing, directing or drawing. In this film, all the glory goes to the jockeys and too little to the horses.
It's only the popularity of the films covered in this documentary that justify its existence. Few would care to see a documentary about Hanna Barbera during the same time period. But as this film does little to explain the success of the animated features from 1984-'94, what's left is little more than a souvenir for the crew and those fans with a hunger for a look behind the scenes.
"Waking Sleeping Beauty: Requiem for a Studio"
10 Comments -
This comment has been removed by the author.
December 05, 2010 4:32 PM
Kind of harsh, and quite blunt, but you do have a point. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Perhaps that says more about my love of bonus footage than my understanding of documentary film-making. I for one would love to see a Hannah Barbera equivalent fyi ;)
December 05, 2010 4:33 PM
Some supplementary information on the period, the animation and the animators can be found at:
DISNEY, THE WAREHOUSE YEARS part I - http://bit.ly/dosxeo
DISNEY, the WAREHOUSE YEARS part II - http://bit.ly/b6zWk2
DISNEY, THE BLUE HAT YEARS - http://bit.ly/ba5jD5
December 05, 2010 4:42 PM
Very interesting article. I would definitely love to hear about those years from the point of view of the artists. In spite of that, I will have to check out this film for myself.
December 05, 2010 5:14 PM
A perfectly apt review. As I said a while back, the film left me frustrated and disappointed. It is only about the management and doesn't even bother to identify those who made the animated films.
December 05, 2010 11:41 PM
I saw the film with most of the artists who were a part of this incredible period at Disney. In a way, it made me wish someone had made a documentary about our years with Walt.
In any case, I enjoyed Don's movie, and was happy to contribute my cartoon gags to the film. Overall, it was the Battle of the Titans because that's what most people care about.
Only artists care about other artists. It's a shame, but it's true.
December 06, 2010 3:33 PM
I agree with your review completely, and find it odd that the 2 people who made this documentary so deftly tiptoe around their own roles in bringing the animation division to it's knees.
This should have been released as a double feature with "The Sweat Box--" an equally flawed but far more interesting film. As for that "Dream On" film, it's a pretty lightweight yawn.
Still, the book I'm most looking forward to is the upcoming one on Disney Animation studios from 1965 through 1985-warts and all. It's going to be a doozy!
December 07, 2010 1:50 AM
you are absolutely right! the only reason I enjoyed watching it and putting all my criticism aside was that I know all the guys running around in the background unknown to most of the audience around the world. and something else is just a wrong statement, the quality of the films was not improved by the new management or their incredible good decisions but by a fast learning process of the artists. because they were able to see a future for themselves and wanted to improve. you can clearly see that from mermaid, to me the worst, and beauty + beast, the second worst, to aladdin and lion king, where the visuals equaled the story and music quality. what the executives always said, that they only improved the quality of the films, because they constantly threw out finished big parts of the films and had them redone over and over. that to me was always just bad decision-making and created finally an immense explosion of costs. too bad the film stops where it stops, because after that the slaughtering became really interesting for a few years.
December 08, 2010 10:55 PM
Who's writing a book about Disney Animation 1965-1985? I was around most of that time. Even though I was sacked in 1972 by Don D. and Fast Eddie.
It remains a fascinating period at Disney as well.
December 11, 2010 5:35 PM
I felt mostly the same way watching it. I guess being an animator myself I was a bit biased & expected to see more craft than they showed.
Also, I seem to be the only person I know who felt like the demonizing of Don Bluth in this doc was almost comical.
Overall though I enjoyed it but I agree the film is a failure.
January 07, 2011 7:14 PM