Disney's Animation Gold Rush

Disney/Pixar's Up has become only the second animated film in history to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.  The first was Beauty and the Beast in 1991.  Although the nomination was widely predicted after the Academy decided to expand the number of Best Picture nominees to ten, it is still a remarkable achievement since animated films have been largely relegated to the Best Animated Feature category since its creation in 2001.  Overall, Up garnered an impressive five nominations, including Best Animated Feature, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, and Best Sound Editing. 

In addition, The Princess and the Frog was nominated for three Oscars, including Best Animated Feature and two nominations for Best Song ("Almost There" and "Down in New Orleans").  The nominations are a nice validation for Disney's return to traditional hand-drawn animation given the film's mediocre box office.

Perhaps the only disappointment for Disney Animation is that the charming Partly Cloudy was not nominated for Best Animated Short.  But overall, it's a pretty good day for John Lasseter and his crew.

The Problem with Princesses

This past weekend, Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" collected $4.6 million at the box office, raising its total to $92.5 million.  As I previously mentioned, the movie is limping its way to the symbolic $100 million mark and is clearly not the hit Disney wanted it to be.  And yet, the movie received generally good or great reviews across the board and, in my opinion, easily earns its place alongside the traditional Disney animated classics.

So what happened?  Maybe the film simply couldn't compete with the pre-established appeal of "Alvin and The Chipmunks: The Squeakuel."  Maybe Disney splintered its own holiday audience by releasing both this film and "Disney's A Christmas Carol."  Maybe the film was too steeped in its Louisiana setting to appeal to a broader audience.  All of these possibilities have some plausibility to them.  But then I stumbled across a theory that suggested the problem may come down to just one word:  Princess.

"Brands are for cattle."  This quote was famously attributed to the late Roy E. Disney during the height of the "SaveDisney" movment that lead to the removal of Michael Eisner as CEO of the company.  It reflected Roy's conviction that the Walt Disney Company had shifted its focus from creating high-quality family entertainment to simply trying to push the Disney brand name in order to sell more product.  If you focus on quality and creativity first, he argued, financial success will follow.  He specifically criticized the Disney Princess franchise for essentially forcing all of Disney's classic heroines into a big pink sorority.

Once upon a time, Cinderella and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty weren't part of a calculated princess franchise.  They were each a part of their own unique story and film that appealed to everyone of all ages and were each a part of the great Disney family.  But in 2000, somebody got a great idea.  As stated in the company's own words, the consumer products division "brought all of Disney's beloved heroines -- Ariel, Belle, Cinderella, Jasmine, Mulan, Pocahontas, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White -- together in a comprehensive collection of fantasy-based girls' entertainment and products called the Disney Princess brand."  (Did you notice that you don't even have to be a princess to be a Disney Princess?  Just ask Mulan and Pocahontas!) 

Hitting the Target.  On the surface, it's hard to argue with the result:  $4 billion in global sales.  But is there a long term cost to this success?  Because of the aggressive and successful marketing of the Disney Princess brand, these characters -- and the movies they starred in -- are now exclusively seen as the domain of little girls under the age of about 10.  But the movies themselves are so iconic to the traditional image of Disney that now even the Disney brand is often associated with little girls, leading to Disney's perceived boy problem.  "Aladdin" was a blockbuster hit that appealed to boys and girls of all ages and to adults and parents too.  Now, it's primarily marketed as the movie with Jasmine and the magic carpet ride.

Stuck in the Swamp.  "The Princess and the Frog" is the first movie conceived from the beginning as an extension of the Disney Princess brand.  They were so aware of it's potential in this regard that they made sure to put it right in the title (the fairytale is traditionally called "The Frog Prince," after all).  This may have been the fatal flaw.  What little boy wants to go see a princess movie?  What teenager wants to?  When you only sell a princess movie, you will only get a princess audience.  This may be the best explanation for the dissappointing box office numbers.  In the short term, this calculation may pay off.  Toys and other merchandise related to the movie may sell quite well, more than justifying the cost of the movie.  But what about the long term value of "The Princess and the Frog"?  Will it endure to become a genuine Disney classic, and not simply another princess product?  Disney is at its best when it provides quality entertainment for the whole family, not aimed carefully at micro-targeted demographics.  "The Princess and the Frog" certainly qualifies, even if the suits in merchandising and marketing didn't realize it.

2009 is Up, Up and Away.

Happy New Year and welcome to 2010.  Before 2009 becomes a distant memory, I wanted to share my thoughts on my favorite movies from the last year before such thoughts lose all relevancy.  I won't do a proper Top 10 list because I don't think I've seen enough of the year's movies (nor did I truly love enough of the movies I did see) to make such a list.

Without question, I can tell you that my two favorite movies of 2009 were "Up" and "Up In the Air."  Beyond the titular similarities, the two films are thematically linked as well, as both are fundamentally concerned with the critical importance of authentic relationships to a life worth living.  Carl Fredricksen, the focus of Pixar's "Up," re-discovers that adventure isn't found in exotic locations or fanciful quests, but in sharing life, even the simplest, most mundane aspects of life, with someone else.  After grieving the loss of his beloved wife Ellie, Carl finds that someone in Russell, a little boy in desperate need of a father figure (he also finds a stray talking dog who wants nothing more than a loving master to take care of him).  As Russell wistfully says about his memories of his absentee dad, "It's the boring stuff I miss the most."  The story is whimsical, the image of a house flying under a bundle of colorful balloons is instantly iconic, but the characters and emotions are true and powerful.  Nothing I've seen this year is as beautiful and heart-breaking as the short, wordless montage at the beginning of the film that perfectly captures Carl and Ellie's life together.

In "Up in the Air," Ryan Bingham (played by George Clooney) has built his life around isolation but through a series of circumstances -- a one-night stand that becomes something more, a new coworker, a family wedding, and the lamentations of the people he has to fire for a living -- he gradually, poignantly, comprehends all that he has missed as a result of that isolation.  It is a simple film, but what it reveals about human nature is real and honest.  Relationships give meaning to life's successes and provide comfort during life's sorrows. 

Other movies that I really enjoyed this year:

"The Princess and the Frog" -- I discussed this film a few days ago, but it really is a gem.  It is a sweet, nearly note-perfect return to form for Disney animation.  I really think the animation is among the most beautiful that the studio has ever produced.  Randy Newman's songs wonderfully incorporate the rich heritage of Louisiana music -- jazz, gospel, zydeco, etc.  In fact, I am still slightly in awe of the extreme attention to detail employed to evoke the 1920s New Orleans setting.  I am still hopeful that positive word-of-mouth will sustain the film into a bona fide success.

"Star Trek" -- The more you think about the plot, the less it makes sense, but the movie is so much fun and the characters are re-created so well that it doesn't really matter.  I'm looking forward to more of these.

"The Hangover" -- It had been a few years since a movie made me laugh so hard that tears came to my eyes.  This one did.

I haven't seen "Avatar," which is a blindspot I hope to remedy soon.  And I will be posting my thoughts on my favorite films of the decade in the near future.

The Winter of Disney Studio's Discontent

I'm sure it looked good on the calendar: three sure-fire hits for the holiday movie season.  First, a 3-D animated Christmas film from award-winning director Robert Zemeckis, using the same motion capture technology that Zemeckis used to create "The Polar Express."  Instead of Tom Hanks performing multiple roles, it would now be Jim Carrey performing in "Disney's A Christmas Carol."  Next, a broad family comedy reuniting the director of the surprise blockbuster "Wild Hogs" with star John Travolta and adding Robin Williams for "Old Dogs."  Last, a triumphant and long-anticipated return to hand-drawn animation and classic fairytales, "The Princess and the Frog."  Now on the cusp of the new year, Disney instead has two disappointments and an outright bomb.  What happened?

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" -- First of all, I hate this title.  This will be addressed in a future post, but to me it's a branding shortcut that insults the audience.  When the film debuted to a less than stellar $30 million, some blamed the release date (first week of November) as being to early for a Christmas film.  But other Christmas-themed films have successfully debuted in that same time frame.  "Carol" showed some staying power and has grossed a respectable $135 million, but that's still less than "The Polar Express" made five years ago.  And for all the talk of dead-eye syndrome and the uncanny valley, "The Polar Express" is an original and charming story.  "A Christmas Carol" is, well, a tale as old as time.  Zemeckis keeps getting better at the motion capture animation and he makes excellent use of the 3-D environments, but his film lacks warmth and wit and charm.  It's simply a very competently told version of the story.  Without the 3-D gimmick there's not much of anything unique to recommend it.

"Old Dogs" -- I don't have much to say about this.  I have not seen the movie, but from the early trailers onward this looked like a lazy, tired, formulaic comedy that aimed squarely for mainstream audiences and apparently mainstream audiences completely saw through it.  The marketing conveyed nothing but uninspired gags, the movie title and poster were confusing (is this a "Beethoven" type of comedy about dogs?) and it's been over a decade since Robin Williams toplined a successful movie.  What were they thinking?  The movie has grossed about $46 million since it's debut a month ago and its box office run is essentially over.  A total dud.

"The Princess and the Frog" -- There was so much hope and promise bound up in this film, it may have been impossible for it to fully deliver.  But, realistic or not, this was supposed to be the beginning of the next golden age, the return of the great fairytale musicals of Disney's past such as "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast," and the coronation of John Lasseter as savior of Disney animation.  Personally, I think they nailed it.  I loved it.  The animation is truly beautiful, the songs are charming, the vocal performances are perfect.  Most critics seem to agree.  Richard Corliss at Time called it the movie of the year (that may be a bit much, but okay).  But you know what?  Audiences aren't really buying it.  It's grossed $70 million to date, and it looks on track to finish in the range of Disney's other recent middling animation successes such as "Bolt" or "Chicken Little."  To be an unqualified success, this needed to be a Pixar-sized hit.

I don't know why the audience isn't showing up, but I have a kernel of a theory.  The uniqueness of the film is that it is Disney's first modern fairytale.  It is not set in a storybook world, it's set in 1920s New Orleans.  The net effect is that the film really plays like a richly layered valentine to the Big Easy.  The attention to detail is truly remarkable.  As a native son of the Bayou State I loved it, but I wonder if it also limits the broad appeal of the film.  In the upcoming weeks we'll learn if word-of-mouth will sustain the film to higher grosses, but right now the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" sequel has a clear a strangle hold on the family market.  The redeeming hope for "Princess and the Frog" is that it will prove itself on the consumer products side by reinvigorating the Disney Princess brand.  This would follow the pattern of "Cars," which continues to be a merchandise juggernaut after what was considered to be a disappointing box office run in 2006 (and it grossed over $460 million worldwide!).

What does this mean for the future?  Three thoughts: 1) Iger's decision to dismiss former studio chief Dick Cook continues to look justifiable.  2) John Lasseter has yet to produce a big hit outside of Pixar.  There's no question that "Princess and the Frog" is a high-quality product, but  Lasseter is supposed to re-build Walt Disney Animation Studios into a powerhouse on par with Pixar.  Lasseter's success with Pixar has given him broad influence not only over animation but also into merchandising and the theme parks.  If Disney animation continues to struggle, will his influence and reputation diminish?  3) Disney has signed high-profile deals with Zemeckis (through his ImageMovers production company) and with Steven Spielberg (though DreamWorks Pictures) to help fill their pipeline of filmed content.  The first product of those deals was a disappointment.  Will Disney come to regret these deals?  With product from Zemeckis, DreamWorks, Pixar, and soon Marvel, in addition to Disney live-action and Disney animation, will new studio boss Rich Ross have trouble positioning all of these productions successfully?  This calls to mind the problems Disney had with Walden Media regarding the Narnia franchise.  2010 will be an interesting transition for Walt Disney Studios as they release another ambitious and unproven slate of films.

Remembering Roy

Roy Edward Disney, nephew of Walt Disney and son of Roy O. Disney, died today at the age of 79.  The LA Times has a thorough obit and photo gallery up, and the Walt Disney Company has put out a statement as well.  In short, this is a seismic loss for both the company and for Disney fans everywhere.  To many, Roy served as the conscience of the Walt Disney Company, a kind of Jiminy Cricket who vigilantly worked to protect the company's values and ensured that they would endure into the future.  He saved the Walt Disney Company from near-certain ruin twice, both times ousting the existing executive leadership to force a change in the company's strategic direction.  And he was particularly devoted to preserving the company's preeminent focus on animation.  He presided over the Disney's animation renaissance in the late 80s and early 90s as head of the animation division, and he personally shepherded through Fantasia 2000, a labor of love that fulfilled Walt's ambition to continue the Fantasia experiment.

Roy bore a striking resemblance to his uncle, which lent him an air of celebrity (particularly with hard core Disney fans) and served him well as he waged his battles to protect the company created by his uncle and his father, especially the very public battle he fought from 2003 to 2005 that resulted in the departure of CEO Michael Eisner.  With Roy's passing, it's unlikely that any other member of the Disney family will ever take such an active role in the company. 

Roy Disney got his start with the Disney company by working on the "True-Life Adventures" films.  It's bittersweet, then, that this year Disney returned to the tradition of those films under the new DisneyNature production banner.  And just last week, Disney made its much anticipated and triumphant return to traditional hand-drawn animation with the release of The Princess and the Frog.  And now, like his uncle and father, Roy E. Disney himself has become a part of the storied Disney legacy.