MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

P.S. On Snow White…

On the disc with Snow White is the first six minutes of The Princess & The Frog aka The 2D Animated Film That The Media Seems Oddly Interested In Pushing Towards Failure.
It was charming and sweet and yes, the lead character – here shown as a child – is black and lives in a shanty town in New Orleans, where she and her mother – a seamstress who works for rich white people – go home to after leaving the mansion where her mom is making a dress for a spoiled white kid (who looks remarkably like a living homage to the late, great Chuck Jones).
I am sure that some people will want to make something ugly of these black people in New Orleans being poor but proud and honorable. From this small look at the movie, I would have to say that this is very unfortunate.
What hit me most as the mom and child rode from the great, glowing mansions to the wooden stilted homes was Hurricane Katrina and the proud, but often poor people of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans. I thought, quickly, of films like Faubourg Trem

Be Sociable, Share!

24 Responses to “P.S. On Snow White…”

  1. Jeremy Smith says:

    Completely agree. I really hope there’s an audience for this. It’ll be interesting to see how hard Oprah pushes it.

  2. LYT says:

    If Snow White came out today, little people would be protesting it for insensitivity.

  3. Wrecktum says:

    Shit, don’t even mention Dumbo.

  4. Maybe it’s just nostalgia, but I’m really looking forward to this one. I saw a brief featurette with Keith David in the recording booth, and he seemed to be absolutely tearing it up. I just wish that Disney were offering their two-week LA engagement in some other form other than their $30 movie+exhibits package at the studio. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you this, but the reason much of the media is out to get this movie is that it’s ‘issues’ make for a better story. It’s sexier to write about Disney’s return to 2D being a ‘risky’ story about poor black people in New Orleans, more sensational to write about how racist it appears to be (more or less sight unseen). Simply acknowledging that Disney is making another 2D cartoon that looks awfully fun (and, oh yeah, it’s their first black princess lead) doesn’t allow one to fill column inches. Even if the movie turns out to be great and/or is a smash hit, we’ll still get the ‘is it racist?’ pieces from entertainment and/or political pundits.

  5. I’m looking forward to it as well! It’ll be nice to see the 2D animation again.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    I was thinking cynically earlier and the thought occurred to me that one of the reasons why the Disney higher-ups would have greenlit The Princess and the Frog must have been because they realized that, if Disney went all-computer animated-all the time, they’d be destroying the audience for their library titles.
    Right?

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    Wrong. If you watch your Three-Disc Wall-E DVD (two-disc BD). You will have an opportunity to watch documentary about Pixar. Which ends with one of the founders of Pixar overseeing Disney Animation studios, and stating how much everyone at Pixar loves 2-D. They love it so much, that they are going to start to do shorts and feature link films again. Which they did.
    So, really, Pixar runs the show now, and they love some 2-D. There’s your answer. Have a pleasant day.

  8. IOIOIOI says:

    Good god. Those types are horrible. Once again I ask my god of open top button; “AN EDIT FUNCTION! MY MR. BEAN BOXSET FOR AN EDIT FUNCTION!”

  9. jeffmcm says:

    Can somebody who knows about how things work in the real business world instead of the sentimentalized nerd fantasy world help me out on this one?

  10. Ju-osh says:

    IO is correct. Disney closed down all of their 2D studios six or seven years ago, publicly stating that they were getting out of it because “kids want 3D.” The real problem wasn’t that kids hated 2D, though. The real problem was that Disney was making some crap movies following the success of Lion King, and audiences were staying away from them, preferring the quality pics coming out of Pixar and the crasser ‘all ages’ comedies like Shrek. Fast forward five years to John Lasseter being promoted (as part of the Steve Jobs package), and one of the first things out of Lasseter’s mouth was, “In keeping with Walt’s original vision for the company, Disney is going to start making 2D animated films again.”
    As hard as it seems to believe, they really are attempting to ‘resurrect’ Disney 2D features for all the right reasons.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    I was already aware of that Lasseter story, and I still don’t believe that there wasn’t ANY calculation in the decision. Are 2-D movies cheaper to produce, perhaps?

  12. scooterzz says:

    just watched all three discs of the ‘snow white’ blu-ray set and am really impressed, however……
    my eyes can’t unwatch that trailer for ‘santa buddies’ and it still hurts…….be warned….

  13. The Big Perm says:

    Jeff, maybe the fact that there hasn’t been any decent traditionally animated movies IS the calculation. Why not try something that has worked big time in the past and see if it works still?
    Although I think Lasseter really is one of those guys who does what he wants. Sure there are commercial considerations, but in the end he got to where he is in order to do what he wants. Wouldn’t you want to make the kinds of movies you always admired when you have the chance?

  14. jeffmcm says:

    Sure, but the flip side of that coin is that he didn’t get to where he is without an innate understanding of both what will be artistically successful and what will be financially successful.

  15. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Wasn’t “Lilo & Stitch” a big hit for them in 2003? And “Tarzan” was only 1999. What others have they had to? Sure, “Home on the Range” was dire, but its not like their batting average is incredibly bad.

  16. The Big Perm says:

    Exactly. And Jeff, this is why they greenlit The Frog Prince instead of something like Triplets Of Belleville. They’re getting to do what they want animation-wise, but still stay in the protective umbrella of what has worked huge in the past.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Yes…which is why every Pixar movie sticks to what is a fairly safe formula, content-wise, too.

  18. LYT says:

    I wouldn’t say UP was a safe formula. Unless you’re just referring to the rating.

  19. dietcock says:

    LYT: I was driving on PCH today and saw a car with an “LYTRules.com” bumper sticker on it. Was that you or is your fan club that large? Either way, thought it was pretty cool.

  20. jeffmcm says:

    The storyline of Up was unusual, but it also wasn’t; gruff man learns to love? That’s a pretty time-worn sentimental story concept.

  21. LYT says:

    dietcock — I was on PCH today, so it was probably me. Though I know for a fact that at least two other cars on this coast have that sticker.
    Jeff – gruff man learns to love? He knew how to love from moment one, then lost his wife. I wouldn’t say he “learned to love” the fat kid…but he did learn to accept that his life wasn’t over.
    I cannot imagine any other studio green-lighting a movie about an old man who ties a bunch of balloons to his house, flies to South America, and finds his childhood idol who then tries to kill him…except from a studio that has earned so much clout and goodwill that they can do anything they want.

  22. The Big Perm says:

    You don’t see many animation companies doing a variety of types of movies like Pixar. I haven’t seen up, but Toy Story was basically like a kid’s movie, although made exceptionally well. You got an action movie, The Incredibles, where they basically kill tons of bad guys onscreen.Then Wall-E, and I don’t think you can say that’s a safe formula…45 minutes following what’s basically a box with no dialogue? That’s a risk most studios would not take, animated or otherwise.

  23. RudyV says:

    Lilo & Stitch, though, was a back-burner project made on the cheap in the Florida studio, far away from the interference of the Disney suits. And predictably, when its surprising success showed up “traditional” Disney fare, the studio was rewarded by being shuttered, its artists moved back to California, and the successful director put under such tight control he was eventually thrown off his own movie.
    Way to go Team Disney.

  24. Wrecktum says:

    “And predictably, when its surprising success showed up “traditional” Disney fare, the studio was rewarded by being shuttered, its artists moved back to California, and the successful director put under such tight control he was eventually thrown off his own movie.”
    Not that I’m some sort of Disney flunkie but:
    1) All animation studios were shuttered and returned to Burbank. It’s not like FL was singled out because they were producing successful film.
    2) Chris Sanders’ American Dog was a trainwreck. If anything, the suits were too lenient with him and allowed his vision to spin out of control. Lasseter was horrified when he came on board and immediately ixnayed the project and rebooted.
    3) Bolt sucked, just to get that out of the way.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon