In the last post of this series examining Walt
Disney’s 101 Dalmatians, we unpacked
the film’s origins, and made a brief comparison of the strengths and weaknesses
of both the print and screen versions of the story. There were several other aspects of the book
I forgot to mention, such as how the film handles the two henchmen, or the fact
that the villain had an actual husband in the book. Perhaps the reason no time was spent on these
plot elements is because they were so minor as to make little impact in the original
book itself.
This post will deal with the Disney film itself. From now on, any attention paid to the source
material will strictly be in service to examining how a third (maybe even
fourth) rate book can be turned into an A-class film for both kids and
adults. The best place to start is with
none other than Uncle Walt, and a hitherto overlooked aspect of his talent as a
filmmaker.
I know how that sounds, and I don’t blame anyone who
thinks such an idea is suspect, at best.
91 years from the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is more than enough time
for the image of Walt Disney as Master of the Land of Enchantments, and Keeper
of the Keys to the Magic Kingdom, to cement itself (perhaps forever) in the
public. The main reason for this has to
do less with Disney the artist, and more to do with marketing. Aside from animation, Walt’s other talent was
an almost uncanny knack for the right form of self-promotion at the right
time. The best example of this had to be
when the launch of the Disneyland ABC
anthology series cemented his public image as a man of wholesome family
entertainment. Neal Gabler puts it best
in his definitive biography:
“He was the country’s great national uncle, “Uncle
Walt,” as some took to calling him. Walt
was now consciously fostering that image…As his creations conveyed reassurance,
so did the man. He was calm, modest,
unprepossessing, homespun, curious, charming, and of course, avuncular – the
perfect guest to have in one’s living room each week…. After Disneyland, Walt Disney was perhaps the
most widely recognized filmmaker in the world, and (animator Ward) Kimball
believed that Walt had to conform to the public persona, which made him the
very personification of American wholesomeness and decency. He was not merely subsumed by the persona, as
he had been in the postwar years, he felt he had to internalize it, live within
it, becoming a prisoner of his image as he had been a prisoner of his studio
(512 – 13)”.
What I’d like to do here is set Disney free from the
prison of his artificial, acculturated public image. I want show an alternate image, one that spotlights
where I believe his true strengths as a filmmaker lie. All true artist have their strong points, a
particular subject matter that more often than not is able to bring their
creative strengths into the spotlight.
Ray Bradbury wrote quite a number of mainstream stories, yet it’s always
either science fiction or horror that shows where his real talent as an author
resides. In the same way, the Weird Tales writer Clarke Ashton-Smith
wrote a great deal of poetry, and always considered verse his true calling. It doesn’t change the fact that most of his
poems offer just hints and fragments of inspiration. You have to go to his short stories of Gothic other-worlds and the monsters who inhabit them to discover the full reach of his
visionary imagination. In the same way,
Walt Disney shared one important trait with the two pulp scribes mentioned
above. All three men had a shared talent
for displaying the darker corners of the human mind.
This is a talent best on display in the more of out
the way pictures his studio produced.
While the media will forever push the image of Uncle Walt the
Babysitter, it ignores the facts of Disney the Artist. More to the point, it ignores that fact that
some (I’m almost tempted to call it most) of his best work was done when
working well within the creative parameters of the Gothic genre.
Stop and think for a moment about the scenes from the
classic Disney canon that most often make their way into the best-of
lists. You have a chase by a monstrous
whale, you have children turned into screaming, keening donkeys, and of course
there’s Bambi’s Mother. The guiding
thread that unites all these samples is that each represents the moment when
Disney dispenses with the customary magic and tips the scales well into the
realm of the horrific. What makes these
moments memorable is just how well constructed they are. All three depend on the action that has gone
for the last half hour or so. In that
span of time, Disney has lulled you into a secure sense of whimsy. We’ve hung around long enough for the ideas
of the fantasy genre to take hold of our minds.
We believe we know what we’re in for in the story of a puppet come to life,
or the bildungsroman of a deer in a forest.
Disney is so adept at achieving this sense of security that it ensures
the gut-punch of the sudden switch to horror leaves more of an impact.
This dark streak in Disney’s creativity has been noted
by enthusiasts and scholars. However,
this penchant for the macabre is most often noted when discussing The Haunted
Mansion, or else the nature of Disneyland’s dark rides. So far, no one has ever bothered to examine
Walt’s affinity for horror or stories with a decidedly dark and Gothic bent. This essay hopes to remedy that lack. I’d like to suggest that Disney is a natural
at telling ghostly yarns of the supernatural.
I’d also like to go further than that.
I wish to assert here that Disney was usually at his most creative
whenever he took his films into the dark areas where most fans fear to
tread. This is an ongoing concern, and
this essay will hopefully be the first of many to help bring awareness to
Disney as a legitimate Gothic artist.
The best place to start this critical analysis is with a look at the
thematic and literary echoes contained in 101
Dalmatians. There sure to be a few
surprises on the way. The most
remarkable discovery could be just how a simple children’s film can contain a
great deal of thematic richness, and how it shares the concerns, and above all,
the fears of both Noir and the Gothic
genres.
A Question of Genre and Character.
According to Paul Meehan’s book-length study, Horror Noir:
“The horror film comes in basically two flavors:
supernatural and psychological. In
supernatural horror, the threat to societal order comes from something
preternatural or anomalous: a haunted house, a curse, or a monster like a
vampire or werewolf. These threats are
external to any human agency and are inflicted upon the characters by the
designs of fate…By the early 1940s the supernatural horror film had become
passé, and began to be superseded by a new brand of psychological horror
film…this shift away from the preternatural and toward the psychological
provided a fresh direction for the horror film, and one that brought it closer
to the orbit of film noir. The screen
began to be populated less by supernatural creatures and more by human
monsters. Evil was not external,
deriving from a non-human source, but internal, reflecting the darkness in
men’s souls. Like film noir, horror
movies became studies in the psychopathology of evil. The psychological horror film emerged at the
same time as film noir, and the two forms developed along parallel course
contemporaneously (4 – 5)”.
If you had to ask me which type of genre Dalmatians qualifies as, then I’d have
to say all the elements go together to lump it into the psychological horror
study, rather than straight noir. There
are too many elements of the classic English Gothic setting about the film for
it to fit in neatly with something like The
Postman Always Rings Twice. Rather
than a sordid domestic drama, we’re treated to a kidnap and chase caper, first
in an old dark mansion, then through the country-side of a bleak, English
winter. These ingredients are indicative
of the cozier British mystery yarn, and yet there is a slight overlay of horror
in the form of the film’s villain.
At its heart, 101 Dalmatians is a combination or
melding of two genres into one. On the
surface, what we are presented with is a riff on the standard English chase
caper of the kind churned out by Michael Powell and Emerick Pressburger in
their prime. While the Chase Caper is an
important aspect of the film, it’s really just a skeleton, a ball field in which
the narrative and its characters can play their game. Beneath this kid-friendly exterior lies the
sub-basement level where the movie works its true power. What Disney has given us is a stalker film in
the shape of a kiddie flick.
By now Cruella
de Vil has pretty much left enough of an imprint on viewers young and old to
qualify as one of the best screen villains ever. The main reason is that she isn’t content to
be just a one note baddie. While her
portrayal in the story is simple enough for a child to grasp, the good news is
that she slowly reveals the subtlety underneath the broad character
strokes. It’s when the child has become
an adult that the element of horror in the character reveals its full scope. This element is all the more clear to any
adult who has also grown into the role of a caring parent Cruella is a character who deserves to take
her place in the grand pantheon of movie stalkers. The reason no one has ever dared suggest an
idea like this is because of a very ironic gap in our thinking.
The idea that a kid’s movies can also contain elements
found in adult works such as Psycho,
or Peeping Tom is not so much
anathema as simply unheard of. Our
current idea of what constitutes a children’s film is such that we often point
to films like The Incredibles as an
example of a mature kid flick. The irony
is that while we hang on to our popular perception of maturity in children’s
entertainment, a film like Snow White and
the Seven Dwarfs can sneak such themes as familial homicide, and psychotic
obsession right into the brains of impressionable young minds. The biggest
irony is that somehow this stuff is able to get past the censors. It still
doesn’t change the fact that such elements are also a part of the old fairy
tale books that are still read to children on a daily basis. Dalmatians is no different in this
regard. Though the volume is turned down
a notch, and there’s nary a drop of blood in sight, Disney’s film is still a
thriller centered around a stalker and the family she terrorizes.
This is an idea I’d like to unpack further. In the next installment of this series, we’ll
take a deep dive into the film’s mind of the hot-rod driving baddie at the
heart of the movie and show that she is full of echoes and allusions to famous
horror psychos of the past. This will be
the final bid towards a better appreciation of the hidden artistry that
undergirds one dark horse candidates in the Disney canon.
Stick around for next time, if you dare! Before that, let me know what think of my thoughts on the matter in the comments section below. Be seeing you!
Good stuff, sir!
ReplyDeleteI like that first image you chose a heck of a lot. What's it from?
I read a very interesting book years back along these lines called INVENTING THE CHILD by Joe Zornado. It's kind of tough to find, but the chapters in there on the darkness in Grimm and Disney were fascinating.
Looking forward to reading more.
Will you be covering WIND IN THE WILLOWS?
"WITW" is something I'll probably get around to eventually. There are a whole slew of Victorian/Edwardian authors I'd like to write about, and Kenneth Graham is one of them.
DeleteThe trouble is finding the right doorway into the subject. So far, I'm still looking for that particular one that leads to "Willows".
Also, thanks for pointing out the Zornado text. I'll have to look that one up.
DeleteThis is very fertile ground for blogging, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteA fair lot of Disney's movies could be said to contain scenes that qualify as horror. This is certainly true of his early features -- Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Dumbo -- but it's also true of many of the shorts. Later films, too: the Sleepy Hollow segment of "Ichabod and Mr. Toad" for sure, but Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc., as well. I think it's an essential element of Disney's work as an artist.
Of course, it's variable and/or debatable exactly how much of the credit for those various sequences he himself should get direct credit for. Still, the films in which he was personally involved all have a consistency of tone that speaks to a sort of singularity in vision, and if that singularity belongs to anyone, it's to Disney. He had lots of help along the way; but the fact remains that those are HIS movies at least much as they are anyone else's, and probably more.