Mickey's Christmas Carol (1983)
Upon its theatrical release, Mickey’s Christmas Carol was the first animated film to star Mickey Mouse for thirty years. It was therefore accompanied with a large amount of hype and a wave of nostalgia. The US marketing stated “He’s Back. Mickey Mouse in his first new motion picture” which was somewhat misleading, as the actual animated film was just 26 minutes long. It was shown theatrically along with a re-release of The Rescuers in the US and The Jungle Book in the UK and other territories, in late December 1983. And despite his name being in the title, Mickey doesn’t have a lot of screen time as he plays Bob Cratchit. This is very much a vehicle for Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge. Overall, it’s a succinct distillation of the plot of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, filled with cameo appearances by classic Disney characters. Naturally it is replete with the humour and sentiment that is inherent in the process known colloquially as Disneyfication. However, does this mitigate the book’s message?
Upon its theatrical release, Mickey’s Christmas Carol was the first animated film to star Mickey Mouse for thirty years. It was therefore accompanied with a large amount of hype and a wave of nostalgia. The US marketing stated “He’s Back. Mickey Mouse in his first new motion picture” which was somewhat misleading, as the actual animated film was just 26 minutes long. It was shown theatrically along with a re-release of The Rescuers in the US and The Jungle Book in the UK and other territories, in late December 1983. And despite his name being in the title, Mickey doesn’t have a lot of screen time as he plays Bob Cratchit. This is very much a vehicle for Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge. Overall, it’s a succinct distillation of the plot of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, filled with cameo appearances by classic Disney characters. Naturally it is replete with the humour and sentiment that is inherent in the process known colloquially as Disneyfication. However, does this mitigate the book’s message?
Part of the fun of watching Mickey’s Christmas Carol is trying to spot various iconic Disney characters, many of which are in minor roles in the background such as the Big, Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs. The larger roles are played by the likes of Donald Duck (Scrooge’s nephew Fred), Goofy (incongruously playing Marley’s ghost) and Jiminy Cricket (the Ghost of Christmas Past). The verbal and visual humour you expect from Disney is clearly front and centre. The scene where Scrooge climbs the stairs to his suite of rooms, followed by Jacob Marley’s spectral shadow, is a wonderfully contrived piece of animation and up to the high standard you’d expect from the studio. As ever there are a lot of innovative shots from aerial perspectives and sequences involving a lot of movement both in the foreground and background. All are lovingly drawn and painted by hand, imbuing the characters with a sense of personality and charisma.
Charm and overt sentimentality are in the very DNA of Disney productions. Hence any material that the studio adapts always has such content enhanced and amplified. This is Disney’s brand of entertainment. For younger, unsophisticated viewers, Mickey’s Christmas Carol plays as a simple but safe morality tale. Bob Cratchit’s poverty is hyperbolic and stylised (he carves a single pea to eat). Scrooge’s meanness and lack of empathy is a caricature, rather than an accurate case study. And so the darker elements of Dickens’ story are neutered due to the “Disneyfication” effect but does it mitigate the power of the story and its essential message? Not really, because the audience has elected to watch a Disney product, so they know in advance that they are not going to get a historically accurate depiction of 19th century deprivation. There is a minor concession to drama at the end, as Scrooge encounters his own hellbound grave which is tonally a little jarring. However, a more practical flaw in the film is making Scrooge essentially comic himself.
By Ebenezer Scrooge being played by Scrooge McDuck, an inherently witty and droll character, the viewer never really disapproves of him or finds him repellent. Hence his redemption at the story’s climax lacks any real impact. Compared to The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) where Scrooge is played straight, with a cold and smouldering performance by Michael Caine, the comedy occurs around him highlighting his own emotional void. This different approach gives greater weight to the ending in the Muppet version. But I suppose it is critically redundant to apply such analysis to a short animated film that was never intended to be anything more than the sum of its parts. Mickey’s Christmas Carol is an entertaining half hour of family viewing, especially for those with young children still within Disney’s key age demographic. It provides the essential beats of Dickens’ tale along with all the key tropes of the studio that created it.
"Maclunkey"
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
I will try and keep this post as brief as possible because rants and tirades aren’t as funny as many writers think they are. Rather than “frothing at the mouth” I think a more accurate description of my feelings can be summed up just by a deep sigh and a shake of the head. So, where to begin? Well during the course of the day, several memes, humorous quips and oblique references appeared in my Twitter timeline featuring the phrase “Maclunkey”. As the joke didn’t immediately become apparent and I couldn’t reference the phrase (I initially thought it was about the band Mclusky) I took to Google to find out what this was all about. I like to keep abreast as to what are the current talking points online and I don’t want to be that old guy who doesn’t understand “the kids of today” or “that there interweb”. Fortunately, a brief internet search provided a clear answer. I shall now attempt to distil the relevant facts for the benefit of those who are still in the dark.
The Disney Plus streaming service has launched in the US, Canada and the Netherlands. It’s basically their version of Netflix with content from their back catalogue. Disney Plus broadcasts in 4K which means that Star Wars fans get to see the original trilogy and the various prequels and sequels in UHD format. Now despite the departure of George Lucas after the sale of the IP to Disney, it would appear that the current owners have taken a leaf out of the formers book and are still “tinkering” with (or fucking about with, depending upon your perspective) the original movies. It would appear that yet another change has been made to the iconic Han Solo shooting Greedo scene. Have they removed the awful change where Greedo draws his weapon, shoots first and misses? No. They’ve augmented the entire clusterfuck even further. According to Star Wars Visual Comparisons “Han and Greedo also now shoot each other at the same time”. And in this new version Greedo apparently says “Maclunkey” just before getting shot. Furthermore, according an article by Vanity Fair the "Maclunkey" change is the work of George Lucas, made before Lucasfilm was sold to Disney in 2012. The plot thickens.
Courtesy of Star Wars Visual Comparisons
For me Star Wars will always been an integral part of my youth. It was a cultural phenomenon and heralded a major shift in film making. However, despite its many merits, I do not put Star Wars on a pedestal. Like so many other movies that have connected with the wider public and become a part of the popular culture, there are many factors that have determined this. Time being one of them. The original movies maintained their mystique for so long because up until 1999, there were only three. Then the tinkering began. And the prequels and then the sequels. The reasons that diamonds are so sought after and desirable is because they are a rare commodity. If you flood the market with more diamonds then they become worthless. If you keep messing with a classic movie you eventually ruin it. Or become Ridley Scott. Disney is killing Star Wars, along with the fundamentalist fans. This entire “Maclunkey” debacle (because that’s what it’s becoming) will simply lead to more fundamentalist fanboy anger. It further tarnishes the franchise. And itt can potentially kill some fans interest in something they use to like. It’s a shame that George Lucas sold the franchise to Disney. Or perhaps we now see why he did. May be the Goose that lays golden eggs is in fact an Albatross.
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Disney’s live action remake of Beauty and the Beast was the highest grossing movie of the 2017. This clever and sumptuous re-imagining of the 1991 animated feature film grossed $1,263,521,126 at the box office worldwide. The studio wisely decided to retain the iconic songs composed by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice, as it was clear that they were an integral part of the original films popularity and critical success. Director Bill Condon cleverly oversees the transition from animation to live action with a film that is tonally right, witty, and genuinely emotional. The story and characters are defined in such a fashion as to have appeal to multiple age groups. His even-handed approach to the material and inherent understanding of the genre, means that Beauty and the Beast is extremely accessible. Although being very dependent on modern computer generated visual effects and numerous sequences played out against green screen environments, this is still very much a story driven tale.
Disney’s live action remake of Beauty and the Beast was the highest grossing movie of the 2017. This clever and sumptuous re-imagining of the 1991 animated feature film grossed $1,263,521,126 at the box office worldwide. The studio wisely decided to retain the iconic songs composed by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice, as it was clear that they were an integral part of the original films popularity and critical success. Director Bill Condon cleverly oversees the transition from animation to live action with a film that is tonally right, witty, and genuinely emotional. The story and characters are defined in such a fashion as to have appeal to multiple age groups. His even-handed approach to the material and inherent understanding of the genre, means that Beauty and the Beast is extremely accessible. Although being very dependent on modern computer generated visual effects and numerous sequences played out against green screen environments, this is still very much a story driven tale.
The film has an outstanding ensemble cast of quality character actors (Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Emma Thompson and Ian McKellen), all of whom do their own singing. Emma Watson is well cast as Belle and performs keys songs such as songs "Belle" and "How Does a Moment Last Forever (Montmartre)" superbly. I was very impressed with Luke Evans as Gaston, who sports a robust baritone singing voice. All performances are spot on in an appropriate idiom for such material. The script manages to find the right balance between the requisite comedy, drama and scares. Furthermore, the film has a handsome production design, blending both historical styles with Disney’s signature aesthetic. Tobias A. Schliessler’s cinematography uses all the colours of the spectrum, creating a vivid and lush visual canvas. Furthermore, Beauty and the Beast finds the right blend of song and narrative exposition and does not suffer any lulls in its story arc. If you are a cinephile then you’ll especially enjoy the song “Be Our Guest” which features a cornucopia of homages to the golden age of the Hollywood musical.
Although I clearly fall outside the target demographics for such a movie, I found Beauty and the Beast to be entertaining and greatly appreciated its craft as well as cinematic literacy. It would be foolish to compare it to Jean Cocteau’s sublime 1946 version, as they are not like-for-like equivalents. Disney’s Beauty and the Beast is a lavishly tooled and polished, but unashamedly commercial undertaking. A finely tuned and honed product that has been specifically designed to be sold to a clear audience. However, that is not to say that such undertakings cannot be entertaining and Beauty and the Beast more than meets that requirement. If Disney manages to produce a similar re-imagining for The Lion King, then I suspect that consumer goodwill will guarantee another killing at the box office. The question just remains as to whether the public appetite for such remakes is sustainable, but I suspect that the answer is yes.
Is Vanity the Achilles Heel of the Game Industry?
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
This entire matter is emblematic of a wider issue surrounding marketing, branding and PR. One that bleeds through into multiple facets of day to day life. We live in a curious world where politicians, communities and businesses are often very protective of their “image” and “reputation”. These may be hard earned through years of doing the right thing or simply be the product of proactive PR and spin. But the bottom line is no one wants to be negatively labelled these days, even if that label is justified. Hence, we live in a world were racists don’t like to be called such and companies hate to be perceived as “greedy”, although that is the nature of the very system that predicates their existence. Everyone seems to want to act with impunity but still be seen as a good guy and be able to hang out with fans at community events and bask in the warm glow of public adulation. It’s hypocritical and it stinks. Sadly, we allow it.
So, EA and DICE were told to stand down and this whole problem has temporarily been defused because Disney doesn’t want their image tarnished, although a little research will show they’re far from angels. Has this move worked? Well initial sales may be a little slow of Star Wars Battlefront II but it’s early days yet and I don’t see the game bombing any time soon. Fans also have very short memories and are their own worst enemy in so far as making a stand. People like to posture but they seldom care to go without and that is the only way to effect real change. What happens next with this game is still up for grabs. However, it does prove that vanity and “public perception” are the industries Achilles Heel and we should as gaming consumers continue to use this to effect the changes that we want. All we need to do now is figure out exactly what those are, as a cursory glance around the internet shows that gamers do not share a universal “dream”.
