It was only a small change. No one even noticed that Disney’s premiere animation department had stopped using Disney pegs. It was the early eighties and Disney’s animation department had just been spared from an early death. Vice chairman, Roy Edward Disney had just given animation a new lease on life, and animation had to do whatever was necessary. It was understandable of course. When one’s head is on the chopping block, compromise is expected. Though only an animation geek would notice that the horizontal pegs were a bit wider and 5000 was no longer center, this ushered in a series of changes that would in time transform the animation unit from being uniquely Disney to becoming simply generic.
Then again, why not be generic? Why not follow the crowd? Wouldn’t Walt Disney have done that? For arguments sake, why not get rid of Disney pegs, paint and paper? After all, that put you in conflict with every other studio system that used the Acme standard. If Disney animation was going to be in sync with studios around the globe, it only made sense to adopt the standard. It’s efficient, it’s practical, and it’s the way business is done. The reinventing of Disney had slowly begun.
I loved Hollywood’s animation studios. Back in the old days, each studio had it’s own trademark look. It was a distinct in-house style that set it apart from all the others. Today, there might as well be one studio producing movies. It’s a generic, plastic world where the animation is so sterile, the stories so devoid of charm, wit and humor, it hardly matters which “factory” churned them out. Gone are the days when Clever writers and inspired artists worked together to painstakingly craft an animated motion picture that would entertain generations of adults and children. Still, many say this 3-D world is the wave of the future, and it very well may be. To be sure, the images on screen have depth, even though the stories may lack the same.
I suppose it’s no secret that the Disney organization in the nineties was a corporation that seemed uncomfortable in its own skin. That’s what prompted Feature Animation to remove Mickey Mouse from its official logo, and business units removing Disney art from their offices. Executives were happy to take the Disney paycheck but wanted nothing to do with “cartoons.” Ironically, for a company that was so obsessed with “branding,” I was amazed at the lengths executives would go to disassociate themselves from the company. Yet, like it or not, there was a Disney image. An image carefully constructed over time by the Old Maestro himself. In time, people began to recognize that image and what it represented. Family entertainment of course, but Disney also meant creativity, innovation and quality. Values not immediately embraced by the new marketers now in charge of the mouse house in the early eighties. They served the contemporary gods of relevance, edginess, and the latest trends in entertainment. If the Disney organization was going to survive in Hollywood’s brave new world, they had better get on board.
If you think perhaps I protest too much, let’s consider how the Old Maestro himself felt about these things. After laboring long and hard on “Sleeping Beauty,” Disney designers, Ken Anderson, Tom Oreb and Walt Peregoy decided to come up with a new, fresh look for the next feature, “101 Dalmatians.” Though the movie was a hit, I can tell you for a fact that Walt Disney hated the look of the film. Though the artists were going for a modified rendition of a style created by British cartoonist, Ronald Searle, Walt was not pleased and made his feelings known to all. A few years later, development was underway on “Mary Poppins.” Midway through the film an animated sequence takes place within the world of Bert’s fanciful chalk drawings. Once again, Walt’s designers decided to push the envelope and come up with an animation style that would emulate moving chalk drawings. And, again Walt Disney said no. Clever and inventive though the style may have been, it was not the Disney house style, and Walt was having no part of it. Some may have thought the Old Maestro was growing old and stodgy for once again giving thumbs down on an innovative new style. But, Disney stood his ground, and once again the house style prevailed.
However, Disney could occasionally be persuaded to step outside the box. Animation directors, Ward Kimball and C. August Nichols were allowed to produce two wonderful short films in the series, “Adventures in Music.” The first film was entitled, “Melody,” followed by the stunning, “Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom.” both films traded the standard Disney style in favor of a simplified stylized technique full of color, energy and verve. Yet, even the skeptical Walt managed a grin when “Toot, Whistle” won an Academy Award for best-animated short. Still, Walt Disney remained a tough man to convince when it came to moving too far a field from his standard style, and didn’t hesitate to let it be known. I was lucky enough to attend a screening of Kimball’s “Mars and Beyond” back in the fifties. At the time, I was dazzled by what I had just seen, but Walt Disney felt otherwise. Once again, he dressed Kimball down for his handling of the cartoon characters. Not Disney enough for Walt, it appeared. Lest you think this is hearsay, let me remind you again — I was there.
As the Disney Company embraces new film making techniques, one might consider what pit falls lie ahead. Outsourced animated fare such as “Valiant” drew only stunned silence from the audience as I watched the trailer in a local multiplex. And, I doubt “The Wild,” another bargain basement cartoon movie will do much better. Walt was continually concerned about his creations being clearly recognizable as “Disney.” Because of the look of digital filmmaking, Disney’s creations could become indistinguishable from the competition. I’m not about to enter into a debate over which film making medium is superior, but the marketers who depend on Disney’s trademark style to keep earning the company millions should be. As more and more digital films crowd the multiplexes, wouldn’t it have been something if the Disney Company had embraced its signature style and produced an incredible motion picture that looked nothing like the competition? In so doing, Disney wouldn’t have been like everybody else. They would have been the leader, not the follower. Besides, Disney had already led the CGI revolution some time ago. They financed, distributed and nurtured a production back in 1995. In case you’ve forgotten — it was called “Toy Story.”
Major corporations spend millions developing and maintaining an image. They nurture and protect that image because it reflects who and what they are. Walt Disney was no fool. He knew the Disney look, and the Disney style was recognized around the world. If that “recognition factor” becomes just a little bit blurred, the results may not be pleasant. As Disney moves forward in the next few years they would be wise to remember the things that made the company great. Wonderful, timeless stories well told. Delightful, memorable characters imbued with charm and appeal. And, of course, beautiful art that nourishes the soul. These things cannot be replaced by superficial flash and dazzle, and the audience will know the difference.
Did you enjoy Floyd’s cautionary tale today? well, if so, please be aware that there are three great collections of Norman’s writings & cartoons currently on the market: his original collection of cartoons and stories — “Faster! Cheaper! The Flip Side of the Art of Animation” (which is available for sale over at John Cawley’s excellent www.cataroo.com web site) as well as two follow-ups to that book, “Son of Faster, Cheaper” & “How the Grinch Stole Disney.” Which you can purchase by heading over to the Afrokids.com website.