Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Monday, May 15, 2006

Walt Disney's Babes In Toyland

Walking the Greenway last week, I ran into a woman I’ve known most of my life, and she asked me where she could find a copy of Disney’s Babes In Toyland. I told her they were all over Amazon, and we parted upon her vow to have one of these. A few steps distant, I turned and called after her --- "When did you first see Babes In Toyland?" She didn’t have to answer. I knew. "Back when it came out and I was eight years old…" was her immediate reply, "… and I’ve always loved it!" Well, how can you argue with that? Never mind that it’s critically reviled. Star Tommy Sands told me once at a Courts Autograph Show that he fell asleep at the premiere. Even Walt himself was aghast when they first screened it for him --- but there’s no arguing with the cherished memories of one who once was eight and found him/herself entranced with this Christmas 1961 musical event. Any of us alive at that time are certain to remember the massive campaign that heralded its forthcoming release. Babes In Toyland is the first movie I remember being bombarded with. Indeed, I think it was the most extensive promotion of a live-action feature Disney had attempted up to that time, and I’m not forgetting his 1954 juggernaut, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. By 1961, the studio had evolved into a model of marketing efficiency --- which makes all the more sobering the fact that this time they were peddling bad merchandise --- and knew it.

There’s a scene in The Bad and The Beautiful where the movie producer anti-hero, played by Kirk Douglas, watches his just completed (and dreadful) latest effort in a private projection room with his staff. At the end, there’s utter silence. Kirk finally announces he’ll shelve the million-dollar disaster rather than release such a thing with his name on it. His minions raise spirited protest, but Kirk is determined to stand the loss rather than sacrifice his integrity. According to staffers, this is almost precisely the scene that played out for real at the Disney studios when Babes In Toyland was first shown to Walt --- minus the talk of shelving and discussions about integrity. With millions sunk into this fetid well, there was no way he could deep-six Babes In Toyland. "Well, I guess Disney just doesn’t know how to make musicals" was Walt’s crisp summation as he quietly left the screening and its abashed audience of company employees. It was now their unpleasant duty to mount an unprecedented nationwide push for a movie that all but required the services of a fumigator to clear the air of its stench. The final receipts added up to roughly half of what the company had realized for The Shaggy Dog
, a black-and-white comedy that had gone out with far less expectations, but the ultimate failure of Babes In Toyland, both commercial and artistic, need not deter us. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the campaign for this movie that enshrines it among the immortals …

Walt Disney’s Wonderful World Of Color
had just premiered in the Fall of 1961 on NBC. Television saturation for Babes In Toyland began on November 13 for a December 14 release date. This would be Disney’s big Christmas release. One entire episode of the NBC series was dedicated to it. Backstage Party featured an avuncular Walt hosting a wrap gathering for Babes In Toyland with most of the cast (including Tommy Sands brazenly enjoying a cigarette!) and liberal samplings from the movie. Broadcast on December 17, 1961, Backstage Party was the first Disney program on the peacock network to specifically hawk a new theatrical release. Needless to say, the audience for a color NBC telecast was considerably larger than the lesser numbers previously delivered by ABC (television programmers today can only dream of the mass audience networks used to routinely attract in those days). Merchandising tie-ups for Babes In Toyland were staggering both in number and variety. The samples I’ve illustrated are mere drops in an ocean of bric-a-brac. The biggest coup for Disney had to be their alliance with Sears for its Christmas Wishbook. Those of you around back then no doubt remember the Wishbook. For every kid with a Santa list, this was where you went to fill it. Babes In Toyland had four pages of coverage. As you can see, every conceivable toy and accessory is there for the asking. Beyond the Sears line, there were books, multiple records, both albums and singles, Viewmaster reels, clothing, board games --- I checked ebay and there’s lots of Babes In Toyland stuff up for auction even as we speak. I guess those landfills could only hold so much at any given time. Has forty-five years been long enough to get rid of all this stuff?

Critics called it Babes In Disneyland. One review said it was all frosting with no cake underneath. They complained that it had no heart --- too mechanical --- there was no danger, no tension, no threat. I read all this before watching Disney's austere DVD (presented in full-frame despite the company’s 1961 directive to showmen that it be presented in 1:75 to 1 --- and no extras). It was tough sledding at times, but putting myself in the place of a child going with family and friends on an outing to the movies in 1961, I can understand how the color and pageantry of the thing would make quite an impression. The fact it panders in such an antiseptic and non-threatening way to the target "family" audience is at least partial explanation for its being so despised today. You really had to be there to stomach this one, and even little kids might go into a hyper-active exit dance after sitting through yet another production number that looks like something that might have opened a typical Jackie Gleason Show. Annette Funicello is plenty fine to look at, but a singer she’s not, and the "double-tracking" they did on her thin voice makes her sound like one of those space aliens addressing Hugh Marlowe in Earth vs. The Flying Saucers. The love scenes between she and Tommy Sands are so chaste as to be ludicrous, and Tom’s standard issue teen idol model, by way of Fabian, Frankie, and a dozen other sexless ciphers, is evidence Disney had no idea how to handle this kind of personality. Ed Wynn, with a neutered Tommy Kirk as his assistant, doesn’t get on until the second half, and a little of him, even in the best of circumstances, will get you to that saturation point quick. Principal villain Ray Bolger is anything but --- if he were any less menacing, he’d be taking pratfalls with woeful comics Henry Calvin and Gene Sheldon (come to think of it, he does). These two guys do nothing other than evoke far more agreeable memories of Laurel and Hardy in the 1934 Babes In Toyland
--- as for Calvin, he’d remain our most brazen, and ineffective, Oliver Hardy imitator until Alan Hale, Jr. came along to steal those honors with Gilligan’s Island. That "haunted forest" is about as scary as a petting zoo, and the wrap-up, with toy soldiers attacking a laughing Ray Bolger, amounts to a tepid climax. For all of this, I can still sympathize with my friend Jenny and her fond memories of Babes In Toyland. I only hope seeing it again won’t prove too disillusioning for her. Some childhood memories are best left undisturbed.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was born in 1962. Now I know where all my nursery room wallpaper, blankets, curtains, and lampshades came from.

8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw and was vastly entertained by the Disney BABES IN TOYLAND as a child -- the pixilated "march of the toy soldiers" thrilled me no end. A few days later, the experience largely evaporated; I had almost no memory of the movie, save for the garish color and perhaps the Herbert music. I wondered why this was. Up to that point, I'd been a undemandingly avid boy moviegoer, with fond feelings for practically all kiddie matinee fare, whether first-run or recycled '50s Universal comedies.

I believe this was the first movie I ever realized in retrospect to be just plain lousy.

Your point contrasting Jonathan Shields and his shelved war opus in BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL with Unca Walt and TOYLAND made me laugh. If Shields Productions had a robust merchandising wing in place, I can imagine Kirk shouting marching orders to Walter Pidgeon: "We'll need EVERYTHING! Cereal box tie-ins! A line of toy soldiers! We'll bring back Civil War fashions -- call Myrna at VOGUE! A big color take-out in LIFE, LOOK, the POST, COLLIER'S -- hell, even THE HOOKY PLAYER'S GAZETTE!"

[Are studio films ever shelved anymore? Perhaps the practice of shelving films perceived too bad to release went out with the advent of pay-cable and home video.]

The saddest thing about Disney's BABES IN TOYLAND is that the gifted Ward Kimball was originally set to write and direct the movie; the noted Disney animator worked for many months developing the script and concocting visual and stylistic ideas -- few of which were ever used in the ghastly thing the studio eventually made. Kimball had a falling-out with Unca Walt and was taken off the picture; this is said to have been a heartbreaking matter for the artist. I can't say with any certainty that Kimball's TOYLAND would have been a masterpiece -- musicals are difficult to pull off -- but it would certainly have displayed far more imagination and creative intelligence than the ill-considered disaster Disney released in 1961.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Poptique said...

Wow - and they say movies like the 1989 Batman invented heavy hype and torrential merchendising.

Luckily I never saw this on TV as a kid so I'm more than happy to stick with Stan & Ollie's version, which is not only hugely enjoyable but also fairly nasty at times...

"Upset? I'm housebroken!"

6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was 13 -- just old enough to know a bad movie when I saw it -- when BABES IN TOYLAND came out; I saw it at the Fox Senator in Sacramento, CA with my two brothers (11 and 7). I thought, "Well, THAT was a waste of time," but I don't recall if my brothers agreed, or if we even discussed it.

However, the movie did provide the occasion for one of my all-time-favorite movie-review slams: Time Magazine said Tommy Sands as a romantic leading man was "about as easy to swallow as a vaseline sandwich."

2:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, yes, it's a terrible movie, but I don't usually mention that, because Annette Funicello said it's her favorite of her own films (yes, even moreso than HEAD) and so she must see something in it the rest of us don't. God bless you, 'nettie.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No mention of Annette going by, simply, "Annette" on the poster?! She apparently attempted to join Margo, Valli, Cher and Madonna in that eleite club of film actresses!

1:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024