Random thoughts of random lengths on
random films
Directed by Clyde Geronimi
Written by Erdman Penner adapting
Charles Perrault's/The Brothers' Grimm/Tchaikovsky's "Sleeping
Beauty"
Voice acting by Mary Costa (Princess
Aurora), Bill Shirley (Prince Phillip), and Eleanor Audley (Maleficent)
Edited by Roy M. Brewer Jr. and Donald
Halliday
Production Design by Ken Peterson
*Note: I don't know what the
equivalent of "cinematographer" is in animation, so I just put down
Ken Peterson. If I wanted to be fully accurate, I'd need to list every animator/visual
effects artist.
Sleeping Beauty can be
difficult to analyze. The characters are one-dimensional, there's barely anything
going on thematically, and the plot is a wisp. Princess Aurora's only defining
traits are that she's pretty and can sing. Her only desire is to get married.
Prince Phillip is a drip, with the features of a Ken doll and the personality
to match. Likewise, his one want is betrothal.
The
title gives the wrong impression. The Beauty of note only appears for 18
minutes, long enough only to sing to some animals and prick her finger. If she
is labeled the protagonist, the pacing seems lumpy. The majority of the action
is jammed into the beginning and end, with a long, barren section in the
middle. However, if our sympathies are re-centered on the three fairies, the
structure makes more sense and the emotional arc becomes satisfactory.
Despite
the aforementioned issues, Sleeping Beauty is an absolute pleasure for one
simple reason: its animation and design are unique and astounding to behold. As
a biochemist impersonating a cinephile with a limited vocabulary, the overuse
of stunning, striking, amazing, and all their permutations in film writing is
hugely frustrating. All of those words are accurate descriptors, but their
"dead to language" nature doesn't properly communicate the experience
of watching Sleeping Beauty, so I'll
try to be more specific.
Next
time you're perusing the film, stop on one of the scenes of Princess Aurora or
Prince Phillip gallivanting about the woods. Notice that there is a clear
distinction between the foreground (where the characters usually reside), the
middle ground, and the background. The three look flat and separated from each
other. This is different from the style developed in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, where fluid animation gives the
impression of depth to the humans and the scenery is highly detailed.
The
effect is like watching a stained glass window wrung through the Technicolor
process or an illustrated medieval scroll that has gained autonomy. I began
watching while eating dinner, and once the film opened with hordes of
multicolored knights and villagers lined up at a castle, I had to stop just so
I could gawk at what was onscreen. It's a cliché to say so, but nothing else
looks like it, certainly nothing in the past or future of the Disney canon. If
you venture outside of Walt's domain, Samurai
Jack and The Secret of Kells come
close, but they take the deliberately dimensionless aesthetic to further
extremes. The style extends to the people. When in profile, they look cut-out
and have multiple, discrete lines demarcating different parts of their bodies
and clothing. When they move, this effect is slightly dampened and they appear
fuller. Taken together, they twirl from 2-d to 3-d and back again in a
mind-boggling manner.
Perhaps
Sleeping Beauty's greatest asset is
the malevolent Maleficent. She is a successful villain based not so much on
what she does, but how she looks while doing it. Her scant few actions boil
down to placing the famous curse and turning into a dragon after ineffectually
detaining Phillip. And yet, she is awesome. Her garb of a black robe with
purple lining and a horned headdress hides whatever human form might exist
underneath, turning her into a shade or a wraith.
No comments:
Post a Comment