NOTE: From here on out, I'm changing up the landscape of the Disney Discussion. Rather than be broken into sections, I'm just going to write my thoughts in a more straightforward fashion. I'll still be discussing the essentials -- story, animation, music, characters -- but all in one fell swoop.
Movie #18 of The Disney Discussion
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
Featuring the voice talents of Sebastian Cabot, Karl Swenson, Rickie Sorensen, Junius Matthews, Ginny Tyler, Martha Wentworth, Norman Alden, Alan Napier, Richard Reitherman, and Ronald Reitherman
Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
Summary (in 150 words or less):
In sixth century England, the king has died and there is no heir to his throne. Magically, a sword in a stone appears with an inscription that states whoever pulls out the sword from the stone shall be king. Decades pass and no one has been able to succeed. Meanwhile, wizard Merlin tries to help a young servant nicknamed Wart (real name Arthur) become more educated while at the same time helping to boost his self esteem and confidence. It should come as no surprise that this young boy is being shaped by Merlin with the characteristic makings of a king.
Facts and Figures
The Sword in the Stone is the Walt Disney Company's eighteenth full length animated feature film and was released on December 25, 1963.
The film was a moderate success, becoming the sixth highest grossing film of 1963. Although the film was generally positively reviewed, critics did feel it paled a bit in comparison with Disney's prior efforts.
The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Score, but did not win.
Let the Discussion Begin...
Before I even begin, I have to say that I'm not sure I've ever seen The Sword in the Stone all the way through. If I have, it was at least twenty-five years ago and it certainly didn't resonate with me.
And there's likely a reason it didn't resonate...it's simply not that good.
For starters, let's take the plot. The overarching nature of attempting to find a replacement for the deceased king is a concept that is appealing, however, this aspect of the story is essentially abandoned after the prologue and isn't really picked up again until what could essentially be called the epilogue. Instead, the film focuses on the characters of the magical wizard Merlin and his newly discovered gangly protégé Wart. I'm not quite sure of Merlin's motivations for helping Wart except for the fact that Merlin is clairvoyant of sorts in that he can see the future. One assumes then that Merlin saw Wart's potential in being a potential replacement for the king and took in upon himself to shape this young boy into a well-rounded individual with the skills necessary to carry the royal name.
Unfortunately, the film never really makes Wart's progress interesting. In order to "teach" the young boy, Merlin turns him into a fish, a squirrel, and a bird. I'd assume that each iteration of Wart was supposed to teach him something new, but if this were to be the case, the writing was much too vague to make that apparent. Instead, we just get cute vignettes of fish Wart being chased by a larger fish, squirrel Wart being pursued by a lusty female squirrel, and bird Wart being captured by the mean(ish) sorceress Madame Mim. While these tales contain some whimsy, none of them are interesting enough to carry the film and they are immensely repetitive.
So with a story that's weak and characters that don't really add anything to the plot, I'd at least hope that I'd visually have something to look at. That isn't the case either. The animation here is lukewarm at best, with nary a visually stirring moment in which to go "WOW!" There's a looseness to the lines of animation that worked so well in 101 Dalmatians, but fails to impress here and ultimately looks a little sloppy. Backgrounds look like they were done on the cheap and the muted colors aren't striking in the slightest.
When I first saw the names of Richard and Robert Sherman pop up on the screen during the opening credits, I was excited. The songwriters of the fantastic Mary Poppins score were given their first shot at the animation realm with this one. How had I not known the songs from this growing up? Well, that became obvious after watching it because none of the songs the duo created are any good. Relying much too heavily on nonsensical rhymes and words (something that worked so well in Mary Poppins with Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious), there's not a hummable song in the bunch and certainly not one that's worth downloading for play on my iPod. A rare misfire in the Sherman Brothers canon that's for sure.
Random Thoughts
- The song "Higitus Figitus" is a poor man's version of "Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo." They should've left that one on the cutting room floor.
- Since Merlin can see into the future, he often makes references to things that haven't been invented yet. While these were likely meant to be humorous, they all fall flat. Even the self-referential one at the end in which Merlin states, "You never know, Arthur. One day you may be in a motion picture," just elicited an eyeroll from me.
Final Analysis
(Does It Belong in the Revered Disney Pantheon and How Does It Stack Up to Past Films?)
Poor Sword in the Stone. This was never caught on in the Disney legacy with its songs, characters, and plot essentially forgotten about in subsequent decades. I'd be upset about that if it were actually worth being upset about, but the fact of the matter is The Sword in the Stone is simply not worth remembering. Up to this point in the pantheon of Disney films, it's the worst full-length story we've seen presented to us. (Some of those "package" films we watched last year fare worse still.)
I will admit that I was hoping for a little surprise here -- a film I didn't remember would come along and provide enjoyment and make me wonder why in the world I never gave it a chance in my youth. That unfortunately didn't happen.
The RyMickey Rating: D+
Join us two Wednesdays from now for The Jungle Book, the 19th film in The Disney Discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment