"Took a lil' NAP where the roots all TWIST!" - Disney Loose End #44: "James and the Giant Peach"

So here's our first loose end from the Disney Animated Canon, just recently available on Netflix. Actually, I'll consider it a good thing that I had to skip this one during the time I was originally watching/reviewing the Canon all those years ago, since "James and the Giant Peach" is a very interesting, all but forgotten film that deserves a bit of elbow room, rather than a quick paragraph-long review. The same could be said of the other three films I'll be reviewing over the next two weeks.

Some years ago, there was considerable debate as to which animated features made by Walt Disney Pictures should be considered "true" Disney films and which ones shouldn't. This was largely spurred by the glut of direct-to-video/DVD Disney sequels, as seen here, but the question is one that seems to have haunted Disney as long as I can remember. There is an Official Official List of films in the Disney Animated Canon, and even so, part of me wonders how much was added and subtracted just so Disney could say they've hit fifty films in all just last winter.

You see, back when I was a kid, if a Disney film contained animation, it was considered an "Animated Disney Animated Classic Animated Entertainment Event What is Animated." Simple enough. So clearly "Fantasia" and "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" were part of what would in the future be called the Canon, but so were things like "Victory Through Air Power" and "Song of the South" and even "TRON" (speaking of, here are more thoughts on this issue). If you were a movie and you gave Disney a reason to brag about it's animation legacy, you were in, which made a lot of sense back when Disney was hurting for things to brag about with regards to animated films. (To get a sense of what Disney was like in the late 70's through the mid 80's, picture a peacock who is desperately trying to replace his shiny display feathers, even as they are moulting.) As you can see here, when you count every notable Disney feature-length film with animation in it as part of the Canon, we left #50 in the dust years ago (then again, given the movie that gets to be number fifty by my reckoning is the much-derided "Dinosaur"...)

"The Nightmare Before Christmas" in particular has always had a strange and uncomfortable position within the Disney Animated Canon and, indeed, within Disney films period. When the film was initially released, Disney had little idea what to do with it, how to advertise it, and, most importantly (and tellingly) how to make it into a toy or a theme park ride or a Happy Burger King Kid's Club Meal. It took years and years for Disney to figure out how to appease fans of "Nightmare", and while one could argue that they are going way too far in the opposite direction, it's nice to see them doing anything at all with it. By far, the greatest bone thrown to "Nightmare Before Christmas" and it's fans is the appearance of Jack Skellington and company in "Kingdom Hearts" back before that series went off the rails in a way that is, come to mention it, truly impressive. For this reason, I'd have felt remiss if I hadn't included it in the Canon.

And if "Nightmare" counts then, by God! so does it's immediate successor. Which brings us, finally to today's entry in my journey through the Disney animated films I'd missed out on earlier for various reasons and just recently procured copies of (and never you mind how, though mad props to those of you who have supported this project). Ah, "James and the Giant Peach", what a wonderful little oddball in the history of animated films you are. It is very sad to reflect that, while Disney has taken so very long to acknowledge "Nightmare Before Christmas", "James" might as well be completely invisible.

Henry Selick, the director of both "Nightmare" and "James", and also of "Coraline" and the impressively bizarre "Monkeybone", is, God bless him and his beautifully crazy mind, the kind of director who makes whatever Bizzaries and Fantasies he would like to watch and screw you all if you don't like it. Which is why his adaptation of a Roald Dahl storybook lies among the best Dahl-inspired films. And this is because Roald Dahl, may he and his beautifully crazy mind rest in peace, always struck me as the kind of children's book author who wrote what he wanted and never mind if there are any concerned parents who don't like it. (Maurice Sendak is a close soul-brother.) To that end, his characters tend to face the most unthinkable trauma before some kind of magical thing or other whisks them away to their Happily Ever After. And I do mean "unthinkable". Very early on in "James and the Giant Peach", we are told by the sweetly grandfatherly voice of Pete Postlethwaite (and how I miss him!) how our young hero watched on helplessly as his kindly mother and father were eaten by an angry rhinoceros.

Methinks if almost any other children's book author at all had written something like that, it would warrant a passionate 😱 
  
In a Roald Dahl book, getting maimed by an utterly random animal is Monday. Hanging with large invertebrates (here designed by the wonderful Lane Smith) is Tuesday.

The action inside and around the titular giant peach is why we're here and Selick's work in "James" is astonishing and wonderful. All the creatures have great physicality and marvelous little character moments. The same astounding attention to detail present in "Nightmare Before Christmas" is here too. The live-action bookends are a touch awkward... but I *did* just watch "Rock-A-Doodle", so I'm willing to let them slide.

So here we have a lost little gem that, I think, deserves a lot more attention. Next up, speaking of lost movies, we dig a little deeper into the Disney vault. For more posts in this ongoing series, go here, or click the Chronological Disney Animated Canon tag below.

-----

Sketch of the Day!

Five weirder "Alice in Wonderland" varients

(Note that this was pushed back a bit from last week, thanks to the email from IF-X. And, once again, OMG YAAAAAY!!!)
When I say "weirder" adaptations of Alice in Wonderland, I mean probably weirder. I'm really not all that jazzed about "Tim Burton in Wonderland" though some of the nonhuman character designs are a lot of fun. (Honestly, this looks like the kind of movie Tim Burton could make in his sleep now, and as Sam Adams mentioned in this recent AVQ&A, it's very sad that in the last few years, Burton has "managed to rid his work of anything vaguely inventive or personal while still keeping up the facade of being the goth kid who sits alone at lunch.")
There is something about Lewis Carroll's Alice books that makes people want to do adaptations that play hard and loose with the source material. I'm limiting myself to five today, though I can certainly think of more (for example, you can't technically say that "Lost" and "The Matrix" AREN'T adaptations -however loose- of "Alice" can you?)
This is certainly not the first Disney take on Wonderland. But while everyone knows the 50's "Alice", and Disney fans are generally aware of the early "Alice' shorts, one Disney take has faded into obscurity. In the year 1990-ish, the Disney Channel announced a new series for young children. This was around the same time Disney/MGM Studios was still in use as a working television/film/animation studio and was essentially the Disney Channel's headquarters. A massive set was built upon a soundstage in the Studios, and the series "Adventures in Wonderland" was born:




Answering the inevitable question: yes, the early 1990's really were like this. Giant anthropomorphic rabbits and everything.
I've already discussed "Dreamchild" over at The Realm. Sadly, the film is not available at Netflix (which doesn't even seem to have even heard of it). Fortunately, a kind soul on YouTube has uploaded the utterly terrifying tea party scene, so I can spread the Nightmare Fuel around. (I am indeed giving this a very serious Nightmare Fuel warning. Kids, stay far away. Adults, don't watch this late at night.)
EDIT: "Dreamchild" has recently appeared in among Netflix's instant-watch options. Enjoy.
Speaking of Nightmare Fuel. There's also the odd tendency to want to make scary, dark and edgy versions of Alice's adventures and of all the Wonderland characters. When most 80's kids think of weird versions of the Alice books, their minds immediately go to this little slice of childhood trauma (again, not embedding this because, seriously, between the creepy mirrors, the parents ignoring Alice, and the monster -however cheesy the costume is- popping up in the dark hallway, the scene seems coldly designed by committee to scar a child for life). What's especially weird about this version is that this one scary scene comes right the f**k out of nowhere; the overall tone of the miniseries was upbeat and whimsical up to this point. But you can expect to say, "What the hell" at least once during the cast list in the opening credits.
Thankfully the next two weird "Alices" are far more lighthearted throughout. This was something my sister and I watched one Easter morning for some reason. This little slice of crazy stars Mr. T as the Jabberwocky. That's probably all you need to know.
Skipping right to the middle for you. This is because, as you will see, their Humpty Dumpty is... different:



And rounding out our journey through Wonderland is yet another 80's oddity. Even as a kid sitting in the theater, I thought, "This feels like the studio wanted to make an Alice in Wonderland movie, and then for the hell of it they stuck in their most famous characters." It's not hard to find the full film on Youtube:




----
Quick movie review. I watched "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and I thought it was cute. Yes, cute. Cute is not a bad thing. It's charming and whimsical, I love the herky-jerky low-tech stop-motion animation, and I'm curious enough to see Wes Anderson do more animated films. Also, it's interesting how the more derived adaptations of Roald Dahl books are better as movies. (If you're not sure what I mean, watch "Willy Wonka" and then watch "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". I am not talking about the nostalgia filter here.) By the way, "Mr. Fox" is fine for kids, though I wonder what kids will think of it.
----
And in case you missed it, there's a fun review of an old "Simpsons" episode (it happens to be one of my favorites) that turns into a meditation on the use of pop-culture references over at the Onion AV Club.
----
Sketch of the Day!

Hocus Crocus Alimagocus!!!
----
Feederwatch Friday!
Rock Pigeon 3
Mourning Dove 1
Downy Woodpecker 2
Blue Jay 2
American Crow 2
Black-capped Chickadee 4 (!!!)
Tufted Titmouse 2
White-breasted Nuthatch 2
American Robin 2
Song Sparrow 1
Northern Cardinal 1
House Sparrow 20
----
Next week: Four-Part Walt Disney World Trip Report!!!

So, let's talk about that "Fantastic Mr. Fox" trailer.

For those who have not seen it:



My quick thoughts:

1) Yay stop-motion!!!
I like how we're seeing more and more stop-motion these days. Seems that many animated films are avoiding the whole "hand-drawn vs. CGI" debate (which, in case I haven't mentioned it yet, is stupid; especially when it is erroneously called "2D vs. 3D") by taking a third option. So far, they've inadvertently proved that normal people (by which I mean people who are not themselves animators or animation fans) don't care what kind of animation you use as long as the characters are interesting and the story doesn't suck.
And I like how the animation in this movie looks a lot like Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion (go add "Jason and the Argonauts" to your queue if you don't know who Harryhausen is). It's hard to explain; I'm old-fashioned and I really like old-school animation techniques, especially their low-tech hallmarks. (And I'd love to do stop-motion animation myself; sadly God did not see fit to bless me with the 3D design talent, but that is a tale of woe for another day.) The fur on the Furries is messed-up slightly in each frame and it looks all the more awesome for that.
What I'd really love to see at this point is a big, mainstream summer action movie done in live-action/stop-motion a la Harryhausen. (A few years ago, there was a rumor of a "Sinbad" movie with animation by Harryhausen himself... but... yeah...)

2) With all this in mind, however, it makes me very, very sad to see many comments already online to the effect of, "NOT ANOTHER CGI AMINAL MOOVEE!!! >:( "
Sometimes, I hate people.

3) Open letter to people in charge of making trailers for animated movies: Unless, say, George Clooney sculpted the little wire skeletons or manned the camera or sewed the intricate little costumes or, you know, animated the movie himself, he has no business being listed in the credits. (More of my thoughts on the "Will Smith is a fish and he quotes old movie lines LOL" school of animated film voice casting are here.)