From: gjg@red7.acpub.duke.edu (GEARY GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney
Subject: Aladdin sucks?
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:37:34 GMT

A few answers to Phaze's problems with Aladdin:

> Aladdin tells the Disneyized version of the
> ancient Arabin Nights tale with almost no continuity or respect for
> the original .
 
True enough.  But why is this bad?  Disney has always performed
root canal on the fairy tales it borrows.  Disney's version of
Pinnochio, for example, is NOTHING like Collodi's Pinnochio.  Is
this bad?  Hardly.  Ever read Collodi's Pinnochio?  It's a long,
boring, moralistic, anti-children work.  IMHO, of course.  Disney
managed to keep much of the darkness and seriousness of the tale
but made it much more entertaining, and thus capable of reaching
a larger audience.  The same kind of revisions can be seen in many
other Disney films throughout the years.  I have found that for
the most part (exceptions like Sword in the Stone, Alice in Wonderland,
and Black Cauldron do exist) Disney's alterations are justified
both in terms of making a story popular, but also in enhancing the
theme of the work in question.  The Little Mermaid, Disney style,
has very little to do with Anderson's story, and frankly the Disney
version is far superior.  Anderson's story was a nice little moral
tale intended to keep little kids from misbehaving or they'd be
hurting the "air spirits" that must wait for a soul.  Interesting,
but limited.  The Little Mermaid is not only much more entertaining,
but you can do ALOT of interpretive work, if that's your thing.
TLM, the movie, has comments on racism (Triton's attitude towards
humans), the awakening of sexuality (ahem, no specifics included),
the child/parent relationship, and plenty of other stuff I could
include if I were THAT pedantic.  Luckily, you can also just watch
The Little Mermaid and be entertained.
 
>It shamelessly tries to cash in on the formulatic,
>tired plot that made the last 3 disneys hits such a finnancial
>success: A handsome hero, meets a beautiful heroine, but some evil
>creature or even prevents them from falling in love, the obstacle
>is overcome and they all live happily ever after. It's that simple-
>and it gets old after a while.
 
Ignoring The Rescuers Down Under for the moment because you do, is
that really all there is to the three (TLM, B&B, Al) that you refer
to?  What movie couldn't you reduce in those terms?  Citizen Kane :
Guy gets rich and then wishes he had his old sled.  Maltese Falcon :
Bunch of people want an ugly looking statue.  Casablance : Guy, girl,
love, whatever.  Snow White : Girl gets screwed out of her place in
the kingdom, gets poisoned, then gets married.  Cinderella : Girl gets
screwed out of her share of the inheritance, magic intervenes and she
gets married.  Sleeping Beauty : Girl goes into a coma, then gets
married.

Is that all there is to these movies?  Hardly.  Since we're talking
Aladdin specifically, I'll stick to it.  Aladdin puts some interesting
obstacles up before you - Al's social class problem, Jaffar's little
attachment to power, some very unfriendly guards.  Standard stuff?
Pretty much.  But the interesting thing is how these elements are
shuffled into an entertaining package.  Indiana Jones movies have nothing
new, but the blending of these old elements make an entertaining movie.
Even Star Wars has very little in terms of newness to its plot and
characters, but how it handles these old elements make it a breathtaking
achievement (IMHO).  True, Aladdin doesn't offer the psychological
depth of, say, Pinnochio, but that's not really the point.  Pinnochio
was intended as a dark movie with some serious messages in it.  Aladdin
is, above all else, a commedy.  Sure, you can see some thematic statements,
on the role of social class, the reasons for marriage, the value of being
oneself, the nature of the power mad, plus even a few interesting character
interactions (ever wonder why Jaffar wishes for Jasmine?  Think about it.)
But primarily, Aladdin MUST be judged as a comedy.  To do otherwise is
to put it into a paradigm where it was not intended to go.

>Robin Williams vocal proformance as the Genie is above par,
>and has a few noteworthy puns and chuckles, but that fails to make
>up for the humor that is absentfrom the rest of the movie. A majority
>of the attempts in the movie are slapstick and pointless. Some
>prefrmance, such as Gilbert Gottifried's part as a parrot
>are downright irritating.

Now here's the best part of comedy, it's completely subjective.  There is
no way to cosmically judge something as "funny" or "not funny".  Some
people find Monty Python hilarious, others find him stupid.  So how can
you judge the success of a comedy, other than on an individual basis?
Audience reaction.  The critics, the general viewing public, and yes,
even the foam at the mouth fanatics that live on this board have given
their overwhelming support.  The overwhelming majority of those who see
Aladdin, if nothing else, find it funny.  Thus, Aladdin must be doing
something right.

>Disney marketed Aladdin with the intention
>or creating pop merchadising icons, MTV videos, videocassette
>and soundtrak marketing, and too many promotions and spinn-offs
>to name.

As has been pointed out, this has very little to do with the quality
of the movie itself.  I see your point, that it is possible to "sell out"
to make a movie short term popular at the expense of enduring quality.
Is this the case with Aladdin?  I don't think so, but again, this must
come as a matter of opinion.  The Simpsons (which you like, and I agree
with you 100%) are often accused of "selling out", especially right after
they became tremendously popular.  I never thought this was true, and the
fact that The Simpsons is still considered one of (IMHO, the funniest)
shows on prime time bears this out.  Only time can test the lasting
quality of Aladdin, and I don't think it will have many problems.  Yes,
there are topical references, but most of them are hilarious even if
you don't fully get them or if they come from your era.  Groucho Marx
and the mystery word duck?  Not contemporary, but you can still get
it and laugh, and little kids who have no idea who Groucho is laugh.
Loony Toons proves that cultural references last alot longer than you
might think.  Shakespeare also tends to back this up, but we'll confine
ourselves to toons.
 
I understand the nostalgia for the Golden Age of Disney animation, and
in many respects the films of that age are some of the greatest films
of all time.  But there is alot to like (and moreso, even think about)
in the current crop.  If you don't like the past three (4, don't forget
RDU), you may be happier with what's coming.  Lion King has an opportunity
to revitalize the themes of Bambi (though if Samba has a rabbit friend
named Stumper and a skunk friend named Power, I won't be amused).
Pocohantis sounds like they may keep that story's unhappy ending, which
also opens up possibilities.
 
I decided to extend Phase the benefit of the doubt that he was not just
stirring up the rec.arts.disney facists but rather extending a real
opinion.  Try to do likewise.
 
- Geary, Aye tryed two spel everey thang write
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney