 |
| Disney Draws Blood ... the Dragon Sleeping Beauty's Undoubted Highlight |
Wide Worlds: Two for All the Family
SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959) --- I am drawn to Disney’s Sleeping Beauty like moths to
flame, having written of it in two 2006 parts, reflecting also on other Buena
Vista releases from 1959. Blu-Ray since permits viewing the show very much as roadshow
patronage from early that year through latter months when laggers like the
Liberty finally took delivery. Disney wanted in on roadshow money and that was
understandable, trouble being this was not his audience, advanced admissions
and reserved seating scarcely stuff of the family friendliest company. Disney
attractions were more the sort you’d drop kids off for, not go in with them, let
alone pay premium price for doing so. The short that came with Sleeping Beauty
for most dates was Grand Canyon, which breath-takes still on a wide enough home
screen with proper separation of its rich stereo sound (and included on the Blu-Ray). I sat for and felt
transported to time when $1.90 would buy my adult ticket, a bane to then-grown-ups dragged to 70mm shows for sake of small fries seduced by
strongarm saturation on ABC’s Disneyland, this effective despite color not yet
part of the broadcast mix. Noteworthy was Disney road-showing a
seventy-five minute feature cojoined with a thirty minute travelogue, these on
reserved seat, hard ticket terms. Both were weightingly artistic whatever their
length, a plate piled high with spinach, all which suggested we’d be more enriched than amused, prices pledging more than shaggy dogs or Mickey
and pals up a beanstalk. Walt Disney who appealed best to basic appetites was serving filet to a hamburger audience, the more so considering content he tube-gave them weekly. Snow White had been art, but less
self-consciously so. Sleeping Beauty for all of width and clarity was former
plus Cinderella warmed over. What was a prick on the spinning wheel but reprise
of the poison apple, similarly motivated witches arranging both? |
| Animation Less Fleshy and More Stick Figure. Which Looks Better To You? |
One problem, an essential one, was artists and staff largely middle age,
many more than that, having been with Walt since twenties beginning, their skill on
the increase to support situations and humor tendered before, repeated times
before. Such veterans were near receipt of their gold watch and
retirement, fun-making on hep and now terms beyond most. Closest to forward
thinking might have been Ward Kimball, him around forever too, but
with a mindset still like kid-at-heart he’d been and would stay. Could that be
why Walt chose this approximate time to let air out of Ward’s tire by publicly
demoting him off Babes in Toyland, Kimball having overstepped procedural bounds
by announcing himself director for benighted Babes? Warner cartooning too had
gotten staid too for simple reason those guys were no longer young like when
starting out for the firm. If Kimball had a WB counterpart, it likely was Bob
Clampett who had left the shield years before but kept his sharp edge for TV
projects harking ahead rather than backwards. Who were young turks of fifties
animation? I say Chuck Jones still at Warners, him hardly a kid but smarter, the most creative, and being Chuck, said so. Then there was talent at minimalist
UPA, but were they less funny than innovative? Jay Ward and Bill Scott were
cartooners that Mom and Dad could enjoy with their martinis, the little ones
laughing with Bullwinkle even where they didn’t get all his acidic asides. Fifties
animation was a lot of old guys hanging on, but who of beginners had
their discipline, inventiveness, experience? Search suggests that Sleeping
Beauty did not have a 70mm playdate in North Carolina during 1959. South
Carolina either. My parents would have had to drive me to Atlanta to see it roadshown. Not that I cared one way or the other (“This is the Only Theatre in This
Area …” being policy endlessly repeated on ads, note ones here). Sleeping Beauty knocks us out
for craft, a show window for sleekest electric trains so far built. I can
enjoy it still for expertise applied, allowance made for what’s not there by
way of story breakthroughs. In short, comfort Disney, a last roar
for big-spend feature animation before boxoffice disappointment told Walt
finally to cut corners where necessary to keep his long-form cartoons in profit.
He’d do that successfully with sixties ones to come. |
| The More I Look At This, the More It Seems Doctor Dolittle Should Have Worked |
DOCTOR DOLITTLE (1967) --- Hark back a year to Greenbriar coverage of
Midnight Cowboy. One image shows signage for Doctor Dolittle wrapped round
the block, a smash not just presumed, but guaranteed. Starkest truth here was Doctor
Dolittle being backdrop for a past soon to be scuttled by Midnight Cowboy,
the old kicked curbside by pitiless new. For Fox still drunk on receipts from The Sound of Music, Dolittle seemed a cinch for even more. Hindsight suggests they should have been out looking for their own
Midnight Cowboy. The sixties by this point amounted to stand-off between
understood approaches and incoming, insistent change. Fox wasn’t doing anything
specifically wrong so long as they let product be guided by what worked before. Wasn't that how studios always operated? The crutch now was kicked from under them, winds of change fiercer by the day and
no one knowing in which direction a public would blow. Doctor Dolittle was sold
on reserved seat basis. How else where such colossal sums had been spent? This they proposed was a blockbuster for all the family to enjoy together! Taking all of one's brood out, parking the car, that is paying for the car to sit and hopefully not
be stolen or vandalized, especially if you’re going in Gotham, then the
getting-in, which adds way up where you’ve got multiple moppets, along
with Mom/Dad neither of whom care much about seeing Doctor Dolittle but are
there for sake of tots to experience “Entertainment for Everyone.”
Doctor Dolittle was sort of 67’s Sleeping Beauty, much that was good but more perceived
bad, certainly so by reviewers and impatient youth. Disney had their own
Sleeping Beauty for the same year, The Happiest Millionaire, which would not be
happy for loss it took. Due to top-heavy show scheduling, Doctor Dolittle had
but ten playoffs per week at NY’s Loew’s State, so how do you break even unless the show stays a year at least, which The Sound of Music had, but
Doolittle distinctly would not. 70mm was the by-now familiar hook, Doctor Dolittle an only feature playing the enlarged format that year that had been filmed
that way. |
| The Thing Behind Rex Was Not a Miniature, Nor Stop-Animated, But Was Expected to Supply a Sock Finish |
Charlotte’s Park Terrace at the time had the largest, widest screen in
North Carolina. I saw a combo of Thunderball with You Only Live Twice there in
1972 and near fainted from bliss. The Park Terrace ran Dolittle on 70mm for
twenty weeks beginning in January 1968. Did it sell sufficient tickets for that
long or were twenty weeks contractual? No other theatre in North Carolina
used Doctor Dolittle on roadshow terms, certainly not on 70mm. I ducked it at the Liberty, having smelled an elephantine rat. Outcome for Fox was ruinous, $16.6
million spent on the negative, $6.2 million coming back in domestic rentals, $4.8
foreign. Who took fault, or got blame, for such utter fail? But how “utter”
really, because the soundtrack was liked, many wearing out grooves on their LP.
Fox loss would not be historic, least ways not for latter half of sixties Fox where disaster was the rule rather than exception. Looking at ledgers,
I’m almost surprised the joint didn’t shut down altogether. Reason to take up the topic today? TCM served Doctor Dolittle for Thanksgiving … presumed whole of it at
2:30 pm EST to wash down turkey and cranberries (“presumed” for uncertainty as
to run time … was theirs an edited version?). I watched
for never having seen Doctor Dolittle and doing penance for the oversight. How much do you suppose TCM paid for the license, presumably a
once-only run, usual arrangement the network has with Twentieth (or nowadays,
Disney). Figuring Doctor Dolittle for HD broadcast, I knew at least it would
look and sound great. There was a Twilight Time Blu-Ray that went out of
print years ago. You can have it for one hundred or so dollars at Ebay. I’ll
not pile onto Doctor Dolittle and call it an overblown fiasco as did many then
and more now. Of course it is dated. Isn’t that partly why we watch? Rex Harrison talk/sings his songs in more-less reprise
of Henry Higgins, not unwelcome as he did it well before. Parents obviously saw
Doctor Dolittle as a “treat” for their offspring, but how did offspring view
it? Treats are seldom best defined by elders. The Simpsons
did a brutal takedown of Doctor Dolittle to open a 2015 episode. The clip’s at
You Tube. Director Richard Fleischer gave a long memoir account of hellish
ordeal that was Doctor Dolittle, mostly his having to cope with Rex Harrison.
15 Comments:
"The Studio" by John Gregory Dunne spends a year at Fox, with Dunne a fly on the wall as "Doctor Dolittle" is readied for release, "Star" and "Hello Dolly" are in production, and less expensive films like "The Boston Strangler" are trying to catch the future. "Roadshow!: The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s" by Matthew Kennedy is an overview of the stampede to clone "Sound of Music". Both are very entertaining reads.
TCM followed "Dolittle" with "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (1968); old enough to remember seeing both in theaters. Amusing to contrast and compare.
-- Both are big fantasies, although CCBB frames most of the story as daydream. Both are based on well-known children's books. Both were eventually adapted into stage musicals.
-- DD takes its cue from "My Fair Lady", with Harrison's talk-songs clearly modeled on specific numbers from the earlier hit. Dolittle himself is overhauled from a jovial Pickwick type into another Henry Higgins, brusque and bossy until he grows accustomed to Samatha Eggar.
-- CCBB is an odd mashup of James Bond (villain, set designer, screenwriter, source book) and Mary Poppins (star, composers, choreographers). Bond's gadget master Q plays a junkman, and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang has an ejection seat. Maybe the Bond producers got the book rights in a package deal with Ian Fleming's Bond stories.
-- Both appeared to use the same marketing / merchandising playbook, swamping shelves all the way down to breakfast cereal premiums. Still have the Corgi version of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; missed out on the talking Rex Harrison doll.
-- Both add romances that aren't in the books. CCBB had a complete little family; the movie made Potts a widower and introduced Truly Scrumptious. DD not only turned Dolittle into Higgins but made Matthew Mugg a young man, he competing for Emma Fairfax's attention. That subplot was cut, but Anthony Newley still sings a couple of romantic numbers that feel weird without that context.
-- Both give their heroines musical soliloquies in the British countryside. In CCBB, Truly, on very brief acquaintance, rhapsodizes how this "lonely man" has become her life's purpose. In DD, following a quarrelsome meet cute, Emma goes from sputtering rage to contemplative (rather like "Accustomed to her Face").
-- Both carry over kid characters from the books. In CCBB they're central (if a tad cloying). In DD, Tommy Stubbins feels unnecessary, a central character from the books but with precious little to do in the movie.
-- CCBB dispenses with most of the book's actual plot, a fairly modest tale of gangsters robbing a French chocolatier, in favor of the cheerfully nightmarish Vulgaria. DD pieces together several set pieces from different Dolittle books, then invents Willie Shakespeare to replace Lofting's frankly racist Prince Bumpo.
-- In 1971 Disney itself got back into Clone Mary Poppins game. "Bedknobs and Broomsticks", while lacking the lunatic excess of DD or CCBB, was a biggie for the House of Mouse. Another children's book, another Sherman brothers score, another stage star, another set of British kids, another animated showpiece, more quaint mechanical effects, and David Tomlinson promoted to male lead. Okay, but not a hard ticket.
Okay, just one more babble ...
In the end, I'd say "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" is ultimately a more watchable movie for several reasons, not the least of which is the comic grotesquery of Baron Bombast and his court (Roald Dahl's contribution?) to counter the cuteness and sentiment. It's excess that's funny in itself ... What Blake Edwards often reaches for and sometimes attains.
"Doctor Dolittle" could actually use some sentiment as well as some urgency. Until his very last scene with Emma, Dolittle is usually smug and unruffled when not self righteous or annoyed. He's seemingly not worried about anything or anybody, including himself, giving us nothing to worry about. And his search for the Great Sea Snail is more a whim than a cause, with no purpose or ticking clock, and ending with the cold-blooded vet talking to that giant inert prop. CCBB is hardly Shakespeare, but inventor Potts cares about his kids, first struggling to save their beloved car and then struggling to save them from the Baron (who he pursues to rescue his father). And Truly's attraction is plausible.
Add Disney's "Babes in Toyland" to DD and CCBB for a full evening of visual mood music.
I saw Doctor Doolittle when it came out at a venue in Englewood, Colorado. I doubt highly it was 70mm as the only 70mm venue in the Denver area at the time was up the road on Hampden Street. Not many memories as I was six at the time, but I do remember the ballyhoo, going to a theater that was not the Havana drive in or the base theater at Fitzsimmons, and I remember not being very much impressed with the film. I do remember kids singing "Talk To The Animals" myself included, at the school playground, and a lame ass cartoon of Doolittle on saturday morning TV. My Mom bought me a Doctor Doolittle book that was contemporary of the film's release and the character illustrations in the book did not resemble the actors who played the characters in the movie.
Under the diiferent LOONEY TUNE/MERRIE MELODIES studio heads each of the animation directors was free to follow their own heads however Chuck Jones, when he became head, imposed a house style on the studio which meant Freleng and McKimson were no longer free to create as they wished. This hampered them. However, in my view, they still continued to do interesting work.
I saw Dolittle at the Michael Todd Theatre in downtown Chicago on a field trip in third grade. 70mm. The theatre was packed with kids and teachers. The showing must’ve been around 11 am or so, we were home in time for dinner. We were bored stiff. I was caught up in the publicity around the movie and had read the first three books. I loved them. What a let down. Nobody liked the movie. The Great Pink Sea Snail looked so phony. Fox left it there, probably to rot. It was the first time many of us saw Black kids up close. They were looking at us like we were looking at them. Just genuine curiosity. When the Black kids started clapping along to “Talk to the Animals” our teacher shot us a Don’t you dare look. Kind of a fun killer. I still find the whole story of the film, and its failure, fascinating. Rex Harrison is no child's idea of a good time, he seemed cold and crabby and like an unpleasant teacher. The book by Mark Harris, Pictures at a Revolution, about the 1967 Best Picture nominees, is also a good source of information about Dolittle. Also of note is that 20th and their partners were so burned by unsold merchandising that Fox had no qualms about giving George Lucas the merchandising rights for Star Wars. Or so the story goes. Dolittle taught me not to believe the hype, a good lesson to learn. As an aside, the Michael Todd Theatre was owned by his estate, and Elizabeth Taylor, for years afterwards. Eventually they donated the property to the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, at least according to the Chicago Tribune.
Marvelous comments, DBenson, Tommie Hicks, Reg Hartt, and Eric Swede. Alas, but I'm not able to join you in sharing my experiences of seeing either "Sleeping Beauty" or "Dr. Doolittle." Disney animated features were surely a part of my childhood, but only "101 Dalmatians" and "The Sword in the Stone" were seen during their original runs. All of the others--"Pinocchio," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," "Bambi," and "Dumbo"--were re-releases. Not that Disney skimped on selling their product even then. For a brief while, I possessed a little felt Pinocchio cap with a feather in it that my mother bought for me from the theater concession stand. It was not the most durable article a rambunctious child might have had, but at that, its end was mundane compared to the spectacular destruction of my Davey Crockett simulated coonskin cap, which burst into flames when I held it over the chimney of a lamp. But "Sleeping Beauty" eluded me. I've never seen it at any time or in any format, other than in excerpts, which impressed me with their cool, formal elegance. After reading this week's piece, though, I begin to think that an acquaintance with it could be more than worthwhile.
As for "Doctor Doolittle," it came out when I had begun seeing a broader variety of theatrical releases on my own, having been initiated into adulthood, so to speak, during a family outing to see "Goldfinger." These would include "Major Dundee," "One Million Years B.C.," "Planet of the Apes," "2001: A Space Odyssey," a re-release of "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Given such fare, the disinclination of my parents to see it, and my unfamiliarity with the Doolittle stories, I let it pass by, even though the record department of the local F. W. Woolworth's was repeatedly playing "Talk to the Animals." Had it been released a couple of years later, I might have found it worthwhile if, for no other reason, the appearance of Samantha Eggers. Now, however, I find myself somewhat intrigued by the prospect of Rex Harrison talking to an "inert prop." So, who knows whether I might yet seek it out.
I have that book, knew it included a good chapter on DOCTOR DOLITTLE, but did not consult it. Intend to now.
Knew a girl whose parents drove she and her brother down to Winston to see Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Something about that seemed almost perverse at the time.
Funny thing about a picture like DOCTOR DOLITTLE. I don't recall one person ever mentioning anything about it at school.
Nothing was so nourishing for children during the sixties as James Bond.
I infuriated an English class by describing James Bond as a little bit more sophisticated version of TARZAN OF THE APES. The teacher shocked them by saying I was right. Does not mean I don't like James Bond. I do. Have not read the books. Did read all the Burroughs' Tarzans.
My 5th grade classroom had what seemed to be a first edition of Doolittle, which I read and enjoyed immensely. When the movie was released soon afterwards, I refused to see it, as Rex Harrison looked nothing like the original illustrations, where he resembled W.C. Fields. Didn't like the idea of it being a musical either.
About a year later I read CCBB, primarily because it was written by "the James Bond guy", who also included a recipe for fudge brownies made by the lead character. Saw the movie when it was released, didn't care for it. My adolescent self never understood why "our" books were turned into musicals when they worked perfectly fine as straight novels. It felt like the studios were talking down to us,
A BIG problem is that the giant snail looks totally fake. Now I realize that whatever special effects are used it is still fake however had they spent a few extra dollars on Ray Hrryhausen (who was NEVER paid what he was worth) the fake snail would not have looked so fake. In 70mm high def it just looks cheap. Our job as entertainers is to exceed expectations.
Okay, they call it Walt Disney's SLEEPING BEAUTY, but for me it will always be Eyvind Earle"s SLEEPING BEAUTY. The painter created the film's unique look mashing together ancient tapestry-like influences with mid-century illustration. Even the angular character designs reflect his singular aesthetic. Nothing else in the Disney canon quite looks like it!
Post a Comment
<< Home