Originally Posted By Rebekah This topic is for discussion of the 8/4/2003 news item <b><a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059478603038&p=1012571727092" target="_blank">FT:Visual arts - Oh brothers, where art thou?</a></b> The July 31st <I>FT.com</I> talks with animators Paul and Gaetan Brizzi, the creative forces behind <I>Fantasia 2000</I>'s Firebird Suite. They talk about the drastic changes at Disney animation.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic IMO a great article! Particularly compelling (and damning) is the quote from Tom Schumacher "What you did was too smart" and the assessment, widely suspected here on LP and elsewhere, that "the management culture - pervasive at both Disney and DreamWorks - that is directed, according to Gaetan, by 'the fear of not pleasing everyone'." But I also find interesting and intriguing their comments that "Romance has always been fine with Hollywood. It is the 'dark' part that has been the problem. 'The US audience rejects totally anything in our field with a sad or dark tone,' says Paul. 'More today than ever,' adds Gaetan. He is referring to the impact the September 11 attacks had on the creative climate on the East Coast. The effects are so severe, they say, that their 'Hell Fire' sequence in Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame would be censored today. The scene, one of nine directed by the brothers, illustrates Minister Frolo's ambiguous vision of Esmeralda. It mingles malevolence and lust in a virtuoso display." Wow. I didn't know the "Hell Fire" sequence was directed by anyone other than the canonical Disney group. In particular I always think of that sequence as making a lie out of both statements and feelings that Disney cannot or should not deal with very adult subjects in its movies or that it is impossible to deal with them and not show skin or earn a PG or worse rating. But if, indeed, September 11th has caused a retreat into a syrupy make-believe world of "there really aren't any bad guys" or "the good guys always win", then I do think September 11th and whatever preceded it has turned a chunk of the American public into neurotics, unable at some level to accept reality or bad news.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Agreed. This is easily possibly the best article on animation that I've read recently, and an excellent insight into how taking animation out of the hands of the artists and placing it in the hands of less skilled decision makers has lead to near extinction of the craft. The Schumacher quote is the least of it. He mocked them behind their backs, mimicking them by using a purposefully bad French accent and other deplorable and childish actions. He badgered more than just the Brizzis in this fashion and he dismantled the greatest collective of talent and passion since the mid 1940's at Disney. Just as sad is the tale of their treatment at DreamWorks. Jeffrey may claim be their champion, but it's something he espouses out of only one side of his mouth. Rest assured that no note on a storyboard makes its way to artists of that calibre that doesn't first go by Jeffrey, not one single comment, and that's guaranteed. I wish them great luck under Penney & Sandy's regime at Sony, but I don't hold out much hope. I strongly doubt that the Brizzi brothers would have had a life-long run with commercial animation anyway. Ultimatley they would have met with the harsh reality that may well have to burn bright, burn fast and then go back to doing it on their own. Most of what they've suffered, however, was easily avoidable and it's a great shame that they have repeatedly met with such small minds. The dilemma with folks like the Brizzis is that talent of this sort needs to be managed as much as it needs to be trusted. It's important to understand that a commercial product has to be under the tempered guidance of someone who can properly negotiate what will be exciting and groundbreaking without being so far out there that it puts audiences off. This is showBUSINESS. The Brizzis were made more famous because they were brought from a non-commercially successful environment into a very commercially savvy studio. That's a smart move on Disney's part, but you have to wonder if it was ever really going to last. There are plenty of other examples of how Hollywood recognizes great talent and tries to assimilate it into the confines of the main-stream. It's most notable with screenwriters (e.g. Brecht and Trumbo and Copote who could only survive in that environment for so long.) As much as I admire (nay, worship) the "Hellfire" sequence of THBONT, I think we're unlikely to see anything like it again for a long, long time. I know of dozens of parents - open minded, liberal and even keeled though they may be - who found the sequence innapropriate for their children aged ten or younger. And liberal old lefty me would agree. Like it or not, children are THE main target of Disney's animated films. Before I get roasted, let me say that I do not think the sequence was innapropriate for the film, nor should it have been cut, but it does make the film difficult to market to a huge segment that typically adds to the success of a Disney animated film. Disney broke ground with that scene, but they took a lot of heat for it in the end. Schumacher was wrong in confusing maturity with intelligence, and thus proved himself a short-sighted and poor negotiator, as well as just blind to the dramatic possibilities in animation - something Walt always understood perfectly. It's a very difficult thing to navigate this kind of dramatic sensitivity in commercial animation. I would have thought that DreamWorks was more sensitive to it - or so Jeffrey keeps claiming. In the end it appears that he doesn't have the courage of his conviction, and I suspect box-office statistics have dictated the retreat. Walt tried and tried time and again to get the Cervantes stories on screen, and ultimately their seductive nature proved too weak against the harsh reality that it wasn't something his audience - or at least the audience he was cultivating - would ever embrace in the kind of numbers that would justify spending the money to make it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but with an industry so precariously poised I have to have some sympathy for the decision not to invest in something that would almost certainly fail at the box office. TREASURE PLANET was too smart for them, and they meddled plenty with it in an attempt to make it more palatable. In the end they didn't even have a clue how to market it. Lord only knows how badly they'd do with Don Quixote. Walt's great experiment, FANTASIA, was and still may be the only proper venue for brave and more mature animation. I don't know. Just my opinion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Walt's great experiment, FANTASIA, was and still may be the only proper venue for brave and more mature animation. I don't know.<< I still think that a late night show on The Disney Channel, or some direct-to-video fare would be an ideal "proving ground" for animators to experiment and play and grow. The John Henry segment of American Legends comes to mind -- wonderfully fresh and stylistically bold, the folks working on this segment were clearly having fun, and growing. That's exciting for some (maybe not a huge audience) but some, to watch. The Disney Channel could hold off on yet another rerun of Sister Sister late at night, or not show an episode of Duck Tails on Toon Disney, ad create a very arty program or line of videoes that could be an animated version of the old Playhouse 90 series. It might be to young animators what a guest shot on Johnny Carson used to be -- a chance to show their stuff. Walt's animators used the shorts as their playground, especially during the Silly Symphony days. I'd love to see a similar mindset at work in the DisCo today, encouraging growth in the animation artform in this way.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic That's a nifty post, actingforanimators, with a lot of good information and interesting insights. In the end, animation may get the last say, for it is entirely possible that as computer-based 3D animation is trending, more as evidenced by its use on a big scale in LORD OF THE RINGS than by Pixar, some day most characters in most films may well be animations. No doubt this will be fought by the Actors' Guild and others. However, both present-day animators and present-day executives may not be able to make the leap to such a situation, a day which as I and several others here on LP have argued will see all entertainment companies becoming basically technology companies and entertainment becoming the biggest single market for advanced computing technology, something it almost is now. Personally, I don't think one's view of the "Hellfire" sequence in Hunchback has anything to do with liberal vs conservative. That may be because, as I've written often elsewhere, those terms mean very little any more. Or it may be that it is a matter of how comfortable a parent is understanding that sexuality is present in all aspects of human life, although in different forms. So, to me it's a question, for instance, of how comfortable or matter of fact a parent is when their 4, 5, or 7 year old child observes that women have breasts or there's something unusual about immediately-post-marriage adults ("Daddy, what's a honeymoon?"). To me, the only way something like "Hellfire" can be troubling is if there's maintenance of an illusion that younger-than-puberty kids are denizens of some quasi-angelic world(*) devoid of animal needs and naturally perfect and "pure", whatever that latter means. To me, maintaining such an illusion and, in particular, getting kids to buy into it is itself a troubling condition. To me, the baseline is LORD OF THE FLIES. NOTE (*) I say "quasi-angelic" because in original sources and quite in contrast to popular conceptions, angels are indeed sexual beings. Think Spielberg's "angels of death" sequence in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and add a touch of Las Vegas.
Originally Posted By electra good article.. why doesnt Disney set up a branch of its Miramax arm to release more adult or darker creator led animated films...they can have a smaller budget & be marketed as more prestige pictures...I dunno, just an idea...
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I don't know, Disneylogic, I think that pre-pubescent children are naturally devoid of the more sophisticated understanding of sexuality, and for good reason. Of course, such things as knowing that women have breasts, or that newly married (or, hopefully long married) couples are intimate and affectionate are not things to be kept from children. But they reason through them in a more romanticized fashion than adults. Seeking sexual pleasure or satisfaction is very different from an understanding of the basic biology of gender or the more romantic ideas of loving someone and being loved as parents and family love each other. I don't think all adults see children as quasi-angelic, surely the parents I know don't think this. And yes, children do have animal needs - clearly they feel things like revenge and fantasize about death, even have romantic feelings - but the animal needs of someone who has not yet sexually matured do not equate to the animal needs of mature adults. Children's needs are rooted in non-sexual notions of romance, danger, even violence. Ghost stories, vampires having stakes driven through their hearts, witches being burned in ovens, ogres felled from thousands of feet atop beanstalks - all fairly violent and frightening images – and brave rescues, happily ever afters, even best friends and crushes are simplifications or purifications that have a place in the natural maturation process of young children. While children thrill to images such as these, they do so with and understanding and rationalization that is wholly in accordance to their own level of understanding. So, I argue that Frollo's experience in "Hellfire" is not something even the most sophisticated eight year old can rationalize through in relation to their own experiences (hopefully.) Children’s fantasies about such things as death and revenge and survival and romance are devoid of an understanding of the lasting consequences of real murder, or how the need to love and be loved is complicated by sexual desire. Children's fantasies serve a very real purpose in helping children reason through their feelings, and they are perfectly natural. But introducing sexuality, that is adult sexual fantasies, is truly inappropriate for pre-pubescent children. Frollo's emotions, his angst and lust, are the realm of adults who can make choices and can reason through consequences, and children as young as five or six or even ten can not easily make adult choices. Nor should they be expected to. Adults have to recognize the implicit authority we have over children, and the trust they put in us, accordingly. We also have to recognize our obligation to let them mature at an appropriate pace. I don’t think being mindful of that is sheltering them or buying into any illusion. OK, vacating soap box....letting someone else up now.
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic actingforanimators, thank you very much for explicating your view. I very much agree with you regarding the nature of pre-pubescent kids' sexuality and "animal needs" but I guess I see in "Hellfire" plenty of opportunity for kids to interpret it differently. The fantasy and sci-fi realm and some of the better video games offer this kind of opportunity for kids to "kill monsters" and by doing so deal with some of these feelings and needs, including empowering themselves. I very much agree with Gerard Jones thesis in his book of similar title KILLING MONSTERS, subtitled "Why children need fantasy, super heroes, and make-believe violence", and think animation has plenty to offer there, if only because the plots and characters available through animation are more sophisticated and realistic than video games seem willing to draw, with a couple of exceptions. I hope eventually there will be convergence here, so computer based gaming really does become more story-like. Games like NEVERWINTER NIGHTS are approaching that, but they are still pretty stylized. Anyway, thanks for a great discussion.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators You're welcome, and thank you. I very much agree with you on many points, DisneyLogic. Gerard Jones' book (ok, is it just me or does he look for all the world like Niles Crane?) along with the great old stanby USES OF ENCHANTMENT by the late Bruno Bettelheim, are both wonderful polemics on this topic. Jones' book is worth the read because it provides the perspective of the creator of such "stories" in defense of their purpose (and a very articulate defense most of the time) and Bettelheim's book gives voice to a more studied albeit passionate clinical perspective. I think the only place we appear to diverge is that while you think "Hellfire" has plenty of opportunity for kids to interpret it differently, I think "Hellfire" is truly more mature and sophisticated than the core audience of pre-adolescents. I guess I experience the song as being so obvious and specific that it leaves very little room for broader or softer interpretation. Mind you, I love the sequence (in fact, I think it's a higher water-mark than the Firebird sequence in FANTASIA 2000) and would never advocate that the scene be edited out for "younger audiences"..if you will. I think it's just something that makes THBONT one of the films in the Disney ouvre that should be reserved for viewing by kids 10 or older. Just like I believe that games with lots of gore or hyper-realistic violence should be reserved for more mature players. Let me say that I disdain censorship, so perhaps I should examine whether or not my opinion crosses that line. I don't believe it does, but maybe I'm wrong. (That's just my thought to myself - mind you - it's not something I bring up because I think you're saying or implying it of me.) And yes, I believe that with the influx of story oriented animators and more sophisitcated programing, games will grow to be more and more story-like. The evolution is inevitable in my mind.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I guess I experience the song as being so obvious and specific that it leaves very little room for broader or softer interpretation.<< As an adult, it's very clear to me what the Hellfire sequence is all about. But I do believe that to younger viewers, it could simply be interpreted that Frollo wants Esmerelda to marry him. The deeper sexual desires, evident in Frollo's caressing her scarf and the way he leers at her, I think from a child's viewpoint could simply mean he's a bad guy like Gaston. I know that some movies and TV shows are clearly written at two different levels. When I was a kid, Batman was an action-packed show about good guys vs. evil guys. Only when I was older did I really "get it" that the show was campy fun with lots of in-jokes for grown ups. Maybe more sophisticated scenes like the Hellfire sequence can be interpreted on different levels, too, making them not inappropriate for younger viewers?
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I agree, Kar2oonMan, that there are many excellent songs and scripts which play on many levels - e.g. the very witty and satirical ROCKY & BULLWINKLE SHOW, and many Chuck Jones cartoons. But as much as I admire Stephen Schwartz as a lyricist - and I like him very much, mind you - I've never found him to be someone whose poetry has subtle and full of clever duality. Consider: I feel her, I see her The sun caught in her raven hair Is blazing in me out of all control Like fire Hellfire This fire in my skin This burning Desire Is turning me to sin Protect me, Maria Don't let this siren cast her spell Don't let her fire sear my flesh & bone Destroy Esmeralda And let her taste the fires of hell Or else let her be mine and mine alone I love the film, I think it is an extraordinary scene and I like the song, but I can understand how having your eight year old walking around singing this with or without knowing the context and meaning -- possibly worse WITH knowing -- would make a parent wary of putting the DVD back in the player until the child was a bit more mature. MS. NANCY O.K. Second graders! Today in music class we're going to sing some of our favorite Disney songs! Who has one to share? BOBBY Things are much better, down where it's wetter, under the sea! MS NANCY Thank you Bobby! TRICIA Can you paint with all the colors of the wind? TOMMY, ELLEN, CODY (joining in) You can own the earth and still all you own is earth until you paint with all the colors of the wind! (sounds of many little hands clapping) MS NANCY Very nice! Anyone else? RODA Hellfire, Dark fire, Now gypsy it's your turn. Choose me or your pyre. Be mine or you will burn! (Sound of crickets)
