Couldn't sleep this evening, so I ran across an old classic on Netflix: The Rescuers. And naturally, I couldn't leave it at that - had to take in The Rescuers Down Under as well. And being me, I had to look them both up on the interwebz and learn things about them and get all fired up to write another movie post! Grain of salt, as always, seeing as how we all know how reliable internet research can be...
What struck me about some of the information available on both films was the reception in their initial releases. The Rescuers, released in 1977, was hailed as an ideal film for children and even garnered an Academy Award nomination for Best Song ("Someone's Waiting For You.") It was considered a sign that the House of Mouse wasn't out of the game, even though the previous few films had underperformed compared to their initial Golden Age. Kinda hard to compete with a run that included the first few feature-length animated films ever. It set a box office record that was later broken by An American Tail...and we all know where things went from there. The Rescuers Down Under, released in 1990, was the first sequel to a Disney animated film. Wikipedia claims that it is also the first Disney animated film not based on an existing story, but I call foul on that one - The Rescuers is an adaptation of a book series, and since the sequel uses some of the same characters and the same premise outline that the prequel did, I'm calling Down Under a second adaptation rather than an original story. Unlike The Rescuers, it was less successful in its initial run and critics were split in their assessments. Some praised the story as engaging for children and relished the appearance, particularly the flight scenes, while others called the plot disjointed and its villain as too malicious.
This information struck me because much of it is pretty different from my own opinions about the two films...
Some concessions first: 13 years is a long time. Animation and recording made some pretty major strides, particularly during those specific 13 years between the two films in terms of computer-aided animation, so in terms of appearance and resources, time is on Down Under's side. Time is also on my side as far as being able to look at both films in the historical context of the overall Disney canon, whereas contemporary critics of Down Under could only do that for its prequel; seeing as how super game-changer The Little Mermaid had come out the previous year, it's not surprising that Down Under seemed less impressive. In terms of plot, looking strictly at the two films side-by-side, one cannot deny the fact that Down Under employs many more subplots and bounces between them much more frequently than The Rescuers, lending some credibility to the disjointed-plot criticism.
But for real, y'all. The Rescuers is straight-up depressing, happy ending notwithstanding. The fact that much of the action takes place in a swamp at night combined with the pop-style, melancholy 70s score makes the movie so dark and damp as to require mold testing. "Someone's Waiting For You" is a lovely song, sure enough, but it loses something when it has the same wistful ballad feel as every. other. song. in. the. film. It's one of three songs (four if you count "Rescue Aid Society") and is the last of those songs to appear in the film. By the time "My Journey," which plays over the opening credits (which are complete, by which I mean loooooooooong) and "Tomorrow Is Another Day," which plays over the travel montage, have finished their crooning, we're so beaten down by the sadness of the film's plot and atmosphere that by the time "Someone's Waiting For You" shows up, we're like, "ANOTHER WHINY SONG. And this one with images of an orphan crying," and search our medicine cabinet for happy pills. Likely owing to Bob Newhart's leading role, the dialogue is pretty dry and much of the humor comes from sight gags. Don't get me wrong: there are lots of great things about this movie. Bernard and Bianca are adorable characters, the swamp critters who assist them are fun to watch, Penny's pluck and active role in her own "rescuing" represent a nice departure from the damsel-in-distress trope and the settings, musty as they are, are an interesting change from the more conventional (prettier) film locales of other Disney films. While the music suffers from a dismal lack of variety, it still fits with the vibe going on in Disney animation at the time, which included the folding of contemporary and vernacular styles into film scoring; witness other 70s home-run Disney movie songs as "Cruella DeVil" and "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat." I realize that Madame Medusa already bears plenty of resemblance to Cruella, but would it have killed them to maybe throw in an uptempo jazz theme for her, even an instrumental one to act as a leitmotif? Le sigh.
Down Under uses only score and eschews vocal and vernacular musical performances altogether. In so doing, it doesn't bind itself to a specific style. This is not to say that adhering to a style is a bad thing - it worked great for Robin Hood, Aristocats, Oliver and Company...just not so well for The Rescuers. Down Under, on the other hand, employs your standard-issue film score orchestra and goes from there. And of course, the improved animating capabilities combined with the prettier setting and prevailingly daytime activity lend lots of vitality to the visuals. Going straight from watching The Rescuers to watching Down Under, the scene where Cody first releases and flies with Marahute is practically magical. The dialogue uses many more one-liners and zingers than The Rescuers. The greater emphasis on comedic dialogue rather than slapstick and the tendency to jump from subplot to subplot so much can, I think, be explained by the same thing: John Candy. I was only 4 when this film came out, so I don't remember the advertising, but I would be willing to bet that Candy served as the chief star-power bait, since Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor had both passed their heights of popularity and wouldn't be perceived as surprising or as cameos when reprising their roles as Bernard and Bianca. Ergo, they needed to give Candy as much screen time as possible, hence the diversions to Wilbur's hospital stay and attempts to demonstrate game (conclusion: he has none.) And of course, funny lines are John Candy's thing, no matter which character he's playing. To keep things in balance, they had to give all the characters at least one or two wisecracks, lest Wilbur steal the show. As far as the villain goes, there's an interesting parallel at work that may or may not be intentional. McLeach is certainly cold, heartless and chillingly violent with a readiness to kill that probably exceeds even real-life poachers. Recall with me the fact that The Rescuers' box-office record was broken by Don Bluth's big break, An American Tail. And the Bluth formula employed much darker, more frightening subject matter than Disney tended to venture into because Bluth believed that kids could handle anything as long as it all came out right in the end. Again, this was probably not intentional, but I think it's interesting that for their first sequel to an animated film, Disney drew closer to the style of the company whose work dethroned the prequel.
So there you go. Some thoughts on a fine pair of films.
No comments:
Post a Comment