Week 20: "The Aristocats" (1970)

The Aristocats falls into the category of Disney films that I enjoyed as a child, yet never spent a great deal of time watching. Other such movies include Robin Hood, The Fox and the Hound, and Sleeping Beauty. I'm not exactly sure why they weren't given as much attention in my house as classics like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, or Peter Pan, but it is what it is.

Either way, watching The Aristocats was a nice refresher for me as it has easily been ten plus years since I've sat down to watch it. What was surprising to me, however, was just how much this movie borrows and is borrowed from by other Disney Animated Classics. In fact, were I not chronologically aware of when the "classics" were made, I might be inclined to think this movie was more of an amalgamation of countless Disney movies, but alas, I would be wrong.

The most apparent way that The Aristocats borrows is in its overarching story. Pets being separated from their owners was already a Disney staple by the time its twentieth release had hit theatres having been previously seen in Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmatians. With Lady and the Tramp in particular, there's the love story between the "high-born" lady and the stray male that is carried out, although with fewer complications in The Aristocats, plus there's the ending wherein the male comes to the rescue of the heroine. With 101 Dalmatians, we see the basic plot of the film carried out in the first act of The Aristocats, wherein the kittens and their mother are displaced to the country. There are also more subtle instances of borrowing seen throughout, too. For one, Madame Adelaide (the cats' caretaker) bears a close resemblance to the wicked stepmother in Cinderella as does her bedroom. The scene in which she realizes her cats have gone missing and runs around the house calling for them recalls Nanny from 101 Dalmatians. Another way the film borrows, and this is a more common thread for Disney movies made around this time, is the recycling of vocal talent, a topic I briefly mentioned several films ago in my Alice entry. I would make a list of all the repeated actors, but it would take far too long! So feel free to do some independent research of your own.

Of course, I don't mean to harp on the ways that this film borrows from others, in fact, it's more of my nerdy side showing through and wanting to point out everything I noticed - though I promise, I've already shown great restraint. That being said, many subsequent Disney films have found ways to borrow from The Aristocats and I'll share a few of those ways. Roquefort, the house mouse and friend to Duchess and her kittens, looks like Basil, the titular character from The Great Mouse Detective. Roquefort also has the investigative qualities later seen in Basil as it is he who sets out to uncover the cat-napper. Toulouse, the eldest of the three kittens, seems to be something of precursor to Simba in that he acts tough and fancies himself to be adventurous, but is still young and more afraid of the wild than he's willing to admit. There's something about the look of the countryside settings that feels Winnie the-Pooh-esque to me, too. Though The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was technically released in 1977, it was a combination of three shorts merged together, with two being released prior to The Aristocats in 1970. So, this comparison falls into some tricky grey area.

The best thing about the similarities between The Aristocats and the many films that came before and after it, is that it seems to be perfectly positioned between the new and the old. Especially fitting given Walt's death during the film's early days of production. It manages to both carry on in the tradition set forth by earlier Disney films and to give the audience a glimpse at what was yet to come.

The Aristocats struck me as surprisingly funny and that's not something I can say I remember liking about the movie from when I was younger. A lot of the comedy early on is inspired by the three kittens and their varied personalities. I found one line to be especially amusing and it comes from Marie, who is defending herself following a scuffle with Berlioz, "Ladies do not start fights, but they can finish them." If my cat could talk, she would've undoubtedly used this one by now. Anyway, the banter and fights that break out amongst the kittens is actually pretty entertaining. Thomas O'Malley provides some comedic moments as well, notably his attempt to swim after rescuing Marie. I would add to that that I was a big fan of O'Malley as a kid because we had the same name. I remember getting The Aristocats for Christmas one year and receiving a stuffed O'Malley to go with it. It was pretty awesome.

As for the overall narrative, The Aristocats obviously wasn't the most original plot, but it was entertaining nevertheless. And I think a large part of the film's greatness came from the personalities of its characters.

Next up: Robin Hood, which I just bought on Blu-Ray. Woo!

Week 19: The Jungle Book (1967)

I won't lie, it has probably been close to a month since I watched The Jungle Book, but I am going to do my best to recall snap judgments and memories. So, forgive my lack of specificity.

Of all the movies I have watched throughout this journey, this was the first one that I got to co-view, which made it a slightly different experience for me. When I watch movies in a group setting, I tend to interact with others and comment on the movie in a way that I obviously can't do on my own. The biggest takeaways from the experience were that the movie had a surprising amount of musical numbers (for my part I only ever think of "Bare Necessities") and that it ended on a rather abrupt note. Aside from those two points, there wasn't a lot of chatter about the movie.

There are a couple of interesting stories about the production of The Jungle Book that I think are interesting and worth sharing. The first is that this was the first film to be released following Disney's death and therefore the very last that he was involved in the making of - I believe I wrongly acknowledged this in my last blog about The Sword in the Stone, though it was the last film to be released during his lifetime. Obviously, Disney was not aware that this would be his final film, but it is somewhat fitting as he took a more active role in its development.

The writer of 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone, Bill Peet, came to Disney and suggested The Jungle Book as the source material for the next animated Disney feature. Walt agreed with Peet's recommendation and gave him free reign with the script as he had done with Peet's in the past. The result, however, was a film darker and more dramatic in tone than Disney was comfortable with, even if it was based rather closely on its material. The conflict led to a falling out between Disney and Peet, with the latter leaving the studio.

Nevertheless, Disney had become invested in the characters and felt strongly about the concept, so a new team of writers was brought in to take the story in a new direction. The result, of course, is something close to what we now know to be Disney's The Jungle Book. Almost entirely gone is any remnant of Peet's original script, though Disney did stick with the personalities he had created, and in its place a more comedic and light-hearted look at Rudyard Kipling's classic tale.

I have to admit that I am intrigued to know more about Peet's original draft for the film as I myself am not a major fan of The Jungle Book. To me, the film lacks direction and feels more episodic in nature, which is claim I also made about The Sword in the Stone, a film that Peet also had his hands in. But as this film is said to have little of Peet's work left in it, I'm not sure a connection could be drawn between the two. If anything, it may have more to do with the source material. I do know this, though, as a kid The Jungle Book and The Sword in the Stone were not among my favorite films nor are they today and I think a part of that feeling comes from my inability to jump into the story. If I'm not watching either film from the beginning, I can't join the movie late, because I have no way of telling where I am within the story. The most classic of Disney films, for me, are accessible because I can pinpoint exactly where I am within the story and know the given circumstances of that moment. So, it's possible that Disney's quest to really root some of his stories in the characters was to the detriment of the overall narrative of certain films.

But before I get too steeped in the negative, there are a few highlights that I'd like to touch on, because I don't mean to say The Jungle Book is a bad movie, it's just not among the best that Disney has done (in my book). The animation in this film is stunning, particularly the backdrops. The way the backgrounds were illustrated (painted?) really give the sense that the characters are deep within the jungle and create a strong sense of space. The use of color is soft and brilliant as well, because unless you really hone in to the landscape, you almost don't notice that they're there in spite of their impressive detail, which is an amazing use of artistic restraint.

I'm also a pretty big fan of the scenes with the elephant patrol, maybe because elephants were my college mascot, maybe not. I will say that I do remember liking those scenes as a kid though. I think what works about those scenes is their ability to mix comedy and conflict. On the surface you have Mowgli trying unsuccessfully to sell himself as an elephant with the reality that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never truly fit in with them, because he's human, which is in essence the plot of the film. To me, those scenes feel authentic and true to the nature of the story, whereas the scenes with King Louie and the monkeys feel less organic and more intentional.

In a nutshell those are my thoughts related to The Jungle Book, so I hope you enjoyed the read.
I shall return shortly with a report on Disney's 20th Animated Classic: The Aristocats.

Week 18: The Sword in the Stone (1963)

I'm finally getting back to my Disney blog after an unexpected hiatus that hopefully hasn't thrown me too far off of my goal to watch the 53 Disney Animated Classics in one year!

This week I watched The Sword in the Stone, which turned out to be Walt Disney's final film before his death in 1966.

Though similar in visual style to that of Sleeping Beauty, the closest Disney film - up to this point -  that I could compare Sword in the Stone to would probably be Bambi. Like Bambi, Sword in the Stone is less interested in a strong narrative and instead aims to give its audience a glimpse into young Arthur's life. But unlike its predecessor Sword in the Stone feels unorganized, with certain scenes  flowing illogically from one to the next. Such is the case after Arthur and Merlin are returned to human form following a brief (and oddly seductive) stint as squirrels. For that matter, all of the adventures that Arthur and Merlin take as animals feel at odds with the rest of the narrative.

On the topic of narrative, I was surprised at just how little build up there was to Arthur ultimately pulling the sword from the stone. Maybe part of that is connected to the fact that I have only seen The Sword in the Stone a handful of times, most of which were in my childhood and the last being during sophomore year of college when I fell asleep as Merlin transformed Arthur into a fish. So, ultimately knowing where the story was headed might have set me up with skewed expectations. Though to be fair, I watched this movie with a couple of other friends (this was my first group viewing for the blog) and they were equally surprised at the lack of build up to the revelation that Arthur was the rightful king. We could hardly believe that with less than 20 minutes remaining of the film that Madam Mim had yet to make an appearance. And at that it's really not up until about the last ten minutes or so that the movie comes to any sort of climax or falling action.

That being said there are still many things that I like about the film, some of which I immediately connected back to my earliest viewings. One such moment occurs almost at the top of the movie when Merlin makes the sudden decision to tutor Arthur and quickly sets out to pack up his cottage into an unassumingly gigantic bag. It's one of those magical movie moments that stays with you. It reminds me a lot of the scene in which the three fairies preparing for Aurora's birthday in Sleeping Beauty. Similarly, I love when Merlin moves into the decaying tower of the castle and struggles to overcome his leaky roof.

All in all, The Sword in the Stone is not a favorite of mine, because of its unconventional narrative, but that's not to say that it's missing the memorable moments or fantastic visuals that have become a staple of Disney's animated releases.

Next up: The Jungle Book

Week 17: 101 Dalmatians (1961)

I have always loved 101 Dalmatians.

I remember at one point in my childhood that I wanted to own 101 Dalmatian toys. Inevitably the plan didn't get past my parents and I settled for something like a dozen miniature Dalmatian stuffed animals and figurines, but the idea was out there.

I also, after the live-action release, owned a Dalmatian for a short time. As my family came to learn, however, Dalmatians are difficult to own and often prone to health issues (mine suffered from dwarfism and retardation). Add that the to the fact the she did not get along with my other dog, who came first, and she was out. Daisy, our Dalmatian, was sent to a "Dalmatian Farm," a story I allowed myself to tell for almost a decade before it gave me pause. It was my freshman year of college that it finally hit me, I was one of those classic sitcom characters who had been duped into believing his/her dog was sent to a farm, when in reality the dog was euthanized. I immediately took to calling my mom to set the record straight and, much to my surprise, the story I had always known was legitimate. After the theatrical release of 101 Dalmatians starring Glenn Close a lot of people went out and bought Dalmatians only to learn what my family had learned - Dalmatians are high maintenance! So little Dalmatian rescues were opened all of the country to accommodate the influx of Dalmatians being given up.

In other words, I don't know how Anita and Roger took on 101 Dalmatians, but maybe they weren't alone in opening a "Dalmatian Plantation..."

The movie, though, is great. I may eat my words later, but I sincerely feel that of all the animated animal films Disney created, this and The Lion King are the two standouts.

For this week's entry, I'm just going to go through and point to the highlights, which begin with the opening sequence, because how true is it that dogs and their owners just fit?

• The sequence of Pongo looking for a possible match for him and Roger is perfect.

• As a kid I was always troubled at how Roger and Anita were knocked into the lake by Pongo, because that's just how I operated and I think that says a lot about me.

• Pongo and Perdita getting married as Roger and Anita exchange vows is adorable. 

• When the puppies are born I love that Roger is able to revive Lucky. Watching it this time around I was surprised at how much suspense was built up in that scene! Also have to give a shout out to Purdy for having puppies during a dramatic rainstorm. 

• Cruella is a classic villain. Her drive isn't made as clear in the cartoon as in the live-action film, but I supposed when you have Glenn Close you have to turn her into the star of the film. Either way, her antics are both theatrical and amusing and that's about as best as you can get. Her driving is another highlight.

• The dogs' fixation with watching TV is such a spot-on observation. I loved it when my dog, Holly, used to get transfixed by the screen. And I can't lie, that "Kanine Krunchies" jingle sticks with you.

• Everything about the "Twilight Bark" sequence is fantastic. We even get in some Lady and the Tramp characters. It's interesting because the "channel" is often used to spread gossip, but in this case is used to convey important news, which is oddly reminiscent of what we saw with social media during the Marathon Bombings. 

• Colonel, Captain, and Sergeant Tibbs are a winning combo.  

• Again, another interesting part of the film that feels close to life is the game show Jasper and Horace watch wherein the contestants have to guess the criminal's crime. It feels exactly like the type of reality/game show people would want to watch in this day and age. 

• The suspense of the puppies escaping is actually really well done. As I noted last week, Sleeping Beauty was kind of missing that, so it's good to have some nice build up.

• The puppies getting covered in soot is such a genius idea and is so well animated. As a kid I used to get so antsy about the soot being washed away as the dogs headed for the moving van.

• Roger uncovering Pongo's true identity at the end of the movie is a classic bit, but I always did worry about how messy all that soot would make Roger and Anita's town home. 

So there are a dozen highlights/reasons I love 101 Dalmatians, enough to account for the Dalmatian collection I had growing up!

Next time I'll have commentary on Sword in the Stone. 

Week 16: Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Of all the Disney Princess movies, Sleeping Beauty sometimes feels like the red-headed stepchild. Somewhat similar to Lady in the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty feels a bit less popular than its contemporaries. As princesses go, Snow White was the first, Cinderella had the superior film and the ever-popular rags-to-riches thing going for her, and Aurora was just sort of there before the arrival of Ariel, Belle, and the rest of the cash cows. Having worked at a party store in my youth (can I say that yet?), I can attest to the fact that most parents don't even know "Sleeping Beauty" by her name, Aurora, so I think I may have a case for her being less popular.

Add all of that the fact that Sleeping Beauty, in its initial theatrical release, was considered a financial flop, while Snow White and Cinderella were major successes. It was actually the fledgling ticket sales of Sleeping Beauty that ultimately caused Disney to pull back on the princess movie quota for the remainder of his life. A few decades later, the studio did, however, reverse its stance and here we are ten or so princesses deep.

An interesting piece of trivia is that Sleeping Beauty's Castle at Disneyland was originally supposed to belong to Snow White, but in order to promote the upcoming film was ultimately named for Sleeping Beauty (the park opened in 1955, a little more than three years in advance of the film's opening). I guess that's one point against the red-headed stepchild theory.

Bonus fact: after the above photo was taken of JT and me, the photographer asked us to kiss, which led to maybe the most awkward conversation I have ever had with a stranger.

But I'm here to talk about the movie. As far as Disney cartoons go, this one has a pretty simplistic feel to it in that the basic plot line of Aurora eventually falling prey to Maleficent's curse and being rescued is really the only plot. True, most Disney cartoons could be summarized as quickly, but this movie seems to fly by with little in the way of conflict or twists. In the end, it lacks a certain theatricality.

By that measure, the characters don't feel terribly deep. Maleficent is a great villain and probably one of the better known and better liked of the lot, but when I really think about it, she doesn't have a lot of drive behind her evil. She hates the kingdom and the fairies, because she's left out, but it doesn't feel like nearly enough. I imagine that if Disney were to have made this film in the last decade or so, Maleficent would have been given a more concrete background.

Aurora, with approximately 17 minutes onscreen (!!!) not counting her moments as a baby, suffers a somewhat similar fate in the development department. She does have a full on interaction with her future prince, though, which is some serious progress considering that Snow White only squealed and blushed in front of Charming before they rode off into the sunset together. I suppose Cinderella did have more than a moment with her Charming, but this Phillip/Aurora interaction seems significant. If we fast forward, it's worth noting that Aurora shares more conversation with Phillip than Ariel does with Eric. And while we're on the topic of Aurora and Phillip, did anyone else notice that young Phillip is basically Aurora?

Weird, right? I guess they did marry off a lot of relatives back in those days...

Phillip, as it turns out, might have the most development out of all the characters. We get to see him meet Aurora, fall in love, defy his father's wish for him to enter into a prearranged marriage (ironic), fight to save Aurora, and finally end up with his true love. His story has obstacles and that he gets to fight against, while Aurora only learns of her prearranged marriage moments before falling into a coma. It is a bit strange that of all the characters the audience gets to know Phillip the best, who isn't even the film's titular character.

The animation is also a bit on the strange side and one of the things that came to my mind first while I was watching. It has a simplicity that makes it look at times low budget, which is funny, because it was the most expensive Disney movie made up to that point. I did learn after my viewing that the look of the film was intentional as Disney wanted Sleeping Beauty to resemble a moving illustration. He didn't want it to have the realism he and his animators had tried to achieve with previous efforts. The idea was that Sleeping Beauty ought to reflect the art from the time period that inspired the tale. This logic was later reused with Hercules, in which the film's animation was to reflect that of Greek statues and paintings. From a personal standpoint, I'm not a huge fan of the execution in either of the two cases.

In sum, Sleeping Beauty isn't the best of Disney's efforts, but it's a solid enough film to entertain one for 75 minutes.

Next week: One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Week 15: Lady and the Tramp (1955)

Lady and the Tramp has always fallen into a weird part of the spectrum for me. It's a Disney classic to be sure, but growing up I can't ever remember a time when it was my favorite movie, so it hasn't really ever come to the forefront of my mind when thinking of Disney films. And it's possible that Disney is partially to blame, because in its parks and in its merchandising, Lady and the Tramp just isn't something you see all that often. It's not a princess movie and it doesn't quite fit the bill of being a "boy" movie - I promise I'm not trying to stereotype here, but let's be honest about how kids movies are generally divvied up to the masses - which might have caused it to sort of fall by the wayside over the years. What seems to have really helped the Disney Princess franchise over the years is that every time a new princess is introduced, she is seen alongside her predecessors and merchandised into all of eternity.

In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want to apologize to movies like Lady and the Tramp that for one reason or another seem to be forgotten in spite of the fact that they are legitimately good. I will just say now that Robin Hood also comes to mind for me, but it's too soon to get into that!

Whether or not it's a movie I associate with the Disney brand is somewhat beside the point, because when it came to rewatching this movie after fifteen to eighteen some-odd-years, many scenes had stayed with me, visually speaking. I had forgotten certain plot points such as Lady and Tramp's all night adventure - who knew things kept going after their spaghetti dinner? Quick aside about that moment we all know and can't help but love, Disney nearly cut the spaghetti scene because he didn't think dogs sharing a meal would be at all appealing. But, thanks to some determined animator, the scene was drawn up anyway and has clearly lived to prove the animator's point and Disney himself wrong. I honestly can't think of (m)any animated movie moments as iconic as this one. And I'm not the only one who refers to the act of co-eating food as Lady-and-the-Tramping, right?

But that's what makes Disney movies so special, isn't it? Sure I've gone on and on about characters and story, because yes they're important in their own right, but Disney movies so often give us, the viewers, animated scenes that seem to stay with us forever. Or they do for me... and that's what really counts!

Another such instance, I think, is when "Jim Dear" balances the gumball on Lady's nose. As a kid, I always found this to be such a joyful moment. First, it was a cool trick and, second, it involved candy. What's not to love? Seriously, though, I remember looking forward to this scene as much as Lady looked forward to greeting her master.

The plot is pretty sophisticated and accurate, too. Well, as a set up that is, I won't speak to the dogs eventually overturning the carriage with Tramp as a prisoner. That doesn't feel accurate, but by that point who cares? No, what really works is Lady's trajectory. She starts out as the new addition to Jim Dear and Darling's young married life together. At first she's frightened of being left to sleep alone and only begrudgingly allowed a place in their bed "for a night," but soon enough she's full-grown and apparently a welcome addition to the bed. Then, just as Lady has started to settle into her role as the center of Jim Dear and Darling's lives, she starts to be pushed away without warning. In time she learns that she was pushed aside to make way for a baby and can come to terms with the change in status quo. But, before long she becomes as protective and attentive to the baby as either of its parents.

In other words, her life undergoes a lot of shifts, which is very authentic. These beats also help to bond the audience to Lady. I have considered the fact that if I were to buy a pet at this point in my life that it would very likely live long enough to see me settle down and have a family of my own as weird as it is to think of. I'm also pretty set on a cat, which feels like a controversial thing to say in a blog about a dog movie... But going back to the different beats of Lady's relationship to her owners, I know that when my mom came home from the hospital with my oldest brother that the first thing her dog did was throw up on her, which is why it is so easy to buy into how rejected Lady feels by her owners at first.

My other thoughts on Lady and the Tramp are scattered. As a kid I never could understand how Aunt Sarah, who seemed so nice at first, could have such horrible cats and be so mean to Lady! As for the cats, I'm not afraid to say that I still don't like Siamese cats very much because of their depiction in this movie. I recall also being pretty distressed about how much of a mess they made of the house - this was a recurring theme for me in any sort of movie or show where things were ruined, I don't even know. It seems wrong not to mention much about Tramp, but as far as characters go, he doesn't have a huge impact on me until the scene of him running inside the house to chase off the rat. After that point I really like him, but prior to it, he's just kind of there.

In all, a solid film, if not perhaps the most memorable in the canon.

Up next: Sleeping Beauty.

Week 14: Peter Pan (1953)

Have you read J.M. Barrie's book adaptation (it was a play first!) of Peter Pan? If the answer is no, you're doing it all wrong. I know, you're not a "reader" and honestly, I'm not either, but I'm trying, and this book has the power to truly captivate. Barrie has, perhaps, the most distinctive and magical voice of any writer I have ever encountered. For that reason alone, you should go buy the book and at least give it a try, because it's really quite phenomenal.

Now that that's out there, let's chat about Disney's take on Peter Pan. 

This was a rather exciting week for me, because it had easily been ten years since I last saw this gem in its entirety. I attempted to watch it a few years ago when I was at Disney World, but after a 14+ hour day of park going, who could blame me for falling asleep? In any case, I was so thrilled to know that this movie was coming up on my list that I went out and bought it a month ago. Yeah, I splurged for the Blu-Ray/DVD combo. Who do you think I am?

Oddly enough, with all the delays in my schedule, it so happened that I watched this movie the week after my 23rd birthday, the very same week that Boston, my current home, was attacked by the marathon bombers. These events made my viewing feel a little deeper than it probably would have been otherwise, because it's hard not to wish for a life of eternal youthful bliss when everything around you is completely out of control. So, for a time I was able to escape reality and that was nice and needed.

It's easy to see why Peter Pan is among Disney's most popular films, because it really has a lot going for it. It has fully-realized characters, a compelling plot, and the magic of Disney animation. The older I get, the more intrigued I am with the characters of Peter and Hook. There's something so interesting about their rivalry, because they share a decent number of similarities. They're the leaders of their respective groups, they invest a serious amount of time in trying to outdo the other, and they ultimately want to control the small island where they reside. Another thing they share, more so in the book is the desire for a mother figure. Ultimately, two such similar beings cannot coexist, because otherwise the rivalry wouldn't exist and, fittingly, this is where the plot comes in. Wendy, to Peter's mind, fits the bill of a motherly figure. She's old enough to understand the traditional duties of a mother, but not so old that she can't sense a great adventure. Hence, he invites her to Neverland and allows her two young brothers passage. As for the magic of Disney animation, there are plenty of memorable moments. I will always remember Peter, Wendy, John, and Michael flying around the nursery and over London to the tune of "You Can Fly." In that vein, who doesn't cry a little for Nana as she waves goodbye to the children?

I will say, however, that one area where the film comes up short (for me) is in its ability to really capture the voice Barrie gives to the story. I don't know whether the insertion of a narrative voice  throughout the whole film could have aided this shortcoming or not, but it's something that immediately came to my mind. The narrator only provides the opening introductions. On the other hand, I have seen a few film adaptations of Peter Pan and I don't think I'm biased in saying that this one comes the closest of them all. It may also be the most faithful of them all, too. But my concern is more for capturing Barrie's tone than it is for replicating his plot. That aside, I do love this movie and have since my childhood. Remember the story of how my mom went on to hide our copy of Peter Pan? Yep.

Above I mentioned one of my favorite moments from the film, when the children fly for the first time, and I wanted to talk about a couple of others that I've also enjoyed all these years. As a kid, I always wanted to fly in the clouds based on the scene where Peter and the children arrive in Neverland only to be attacked by Hook and his men with a canon. That always seemed like it had the potential to be a great game, albeit dangerous. Then there's Smee accidentally shaving the seagull. Who thought to add that scene? It's so ridiculous and perfect. I love it as much today as I ever have. And how cool is the animation in the scene where Tinkerbell hides behind a leaf as Peter scolds her for not helping Wendy? Lastly, I have a fondness for Wendy's bedtime story that she tells as she cleans off Michael's cheeks and talks to him about their mother. I will say that in the book (I'm that person, ugh), she, too, starts to forget their mother and it's a very interesting turn for her character that Disney might have been able to bring out.

Before I wrap up, let me take a moment to share some interesting facts about this movie. First of all, three cast members from Alice in Wonderland were brought back for this film to voice Wendy, Smee, and Mrs. Darling, they previously played Alice, the White Rabbit, and Alice's sister, respectively. Initially, Disney wanted to make this as his second animated film, which, I know, sounds like a repeated fact, because I said it about Bambi, too. But here's how it really went, Walt Disney wanted to make Peter Pan his follow up to Snow White, but couldn't get the rights, so he turned his attention to Bambi, which got held up and ultimately became the fifth Disney animated release. Disney did, obviously, earn the rights to Peter Pan, but sat on them through the 1940's as he attempted to find a version of the story that he wanted to tell. Finally, this was the last film to be worked on by all nine of "Disney's Nine Old Men," a crew that had started work together on Snow White. Some, of course, stayed on and worked on future released, but this was their last collective work. Lastly, Disney considered having the opening of the film be about Peter's backstory, but decided against it. Good thing, because there's no way he could have compared to Peter and the Starcatcher. Oh... which reminds me, though no film has aptly captured Barrie's voice, Peter and the Starcatcher, a play, certainly has. Ah, yes, the magic of theatre.

Though I've always appreciated Peter Pan, I've grown to enjoy it more and more with time, especially after reading the book and seeing some of the characters pop up on Once Upon a Time. I even dressed as Captain Hook from Once Upon a Time for Halloween this year. Plus, there's also that part about never having to grow up and I've never wished that more than when I had to actually start supporting myself. Overrated.

 Next week: Lady and the Tramp.