Dr. Toon: The Animation Critic’s Art: Taking the Heat
The blogger who vented his anger averred that the move was economic; Dr. Toon isn’t buying. The Disney empire was far from broke in 1973 and could have afforded much better effort. As if the failings of this film thus far are not enough, other inconsistencies help sink an already foundering vessel:
“Some of the characters, notably the Sheriff of Nottingham, are given voices that seem to come from rural Arkansas, and much of the music and score is far more mod than madrigal.”
One area where I am inclined to back off, and not by much, was my assessment of the animation:
“The animation in much of Robin Hood is frankly terrible; virtually everything animated in long shot is poorly done. One sequence, in which animal children play in the forest prior to meeting Maid Marian, is so sloppy and careless it is impossible to believe that Disney artists worked on it.”
I freely confessed that the “Most Wanted” restored DVD edition had not been released at the time of the writing, and it is possible that said edition had superior clarity to the DVD I viewed. However, the scene remains as described; Disney’s B-team could likely have delivered a livelier effort. In the end, I refer again to the beginning of my review:
“Robin Hood is a strong and nearly uncontested candidate for last place among the studio’s animated features. Given the talent that went into the making of this picture and the funds available, there is no excuse for this half-hearted, shoddy effort.”
Robin Hood was made during a time of enervation and was perhaps the natural result of creative entropy at the studio. It was preceded by The Aristocats (1970), a weak film in the Disney canon, and followed by The Rescuers (1977), a movie with a stronger pulse, but still no classic. (The Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh, released earlier in 1977, was basically a compilation film). Woolie Reitherman directed them all, and as stated before, was far from the surest feature director in the studio’s history. It would have been hard for any Disney film to achieve tremendous success in 1973, so I have to accept Robin Hood within its historical context. Unfortunately, that does nothing to change my judgment.
The bloggers who blasted me may have very fond memories of this film. Perhaps it was their introduction to the Disney canon, or stirs up memories of snuggling in a blanket at the drive-in with Mom and Dad, soda pop in hand. There are also those who believe Disney films to be sacrosanct, somehow above criticism. They may even see their defense of the movies as patriotic, a defense of the American (and capitalist) way of life. Or, more likely, they believe that Robin Hood was an exceptional film bereft of flaws and problems. They are entitled to this point of view, and in truth, I have done nothing to rob them of that.
What, then, have I done? The very same thing I ask of you future critics, journalists, writers, and pundits to do. Use your critical eye, your knowledge of animation history, your analytical skills, your convictions. Join them to your love of the animated medium. Be fearless, honest, and forthright with your readers. Believe in what you write, just as the lonely critic of the Lonely Hearts Club band did.
I am not claiming that my review of Robin Hood is “right”, only that it was done in a heartfelt manner using the ingredients listed above. I implore you to do the same. Only then will you be able to stand bravely in the critic’s shoes and be able to withstand the heat.
--
Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman is a longtime student and fan of animation. He lives in Anderson, Indiana.
Printer-friendly version
Martin, critical skills and analysis are important. But what first sets it off is instinct. Something just doesn't "seem right" about a film. I've always felt that a critic senses this first, then tries to analyze what causes this feeling.
This happened to me when I went to see the theatrical film Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the pilot for Cartoon Network's CGI series. Like so many who loved Lucasfilm projects, I went in with high hopes and came out disappointed. The focal point for me was the beards on the character; in a time when even basic CGI allows some movement of hair, why did the male characters have beards that seemed to be carved out of wood?
After churning it around in my Sunbeam Mixmaster brain, I realized why; these weren't full animated characters, they were toys. They weren't representatives of characters, philosophy, a story, a meaning. They were toys being used to sell toys. Lucasfilm and Lucas himself had been presumed to have something more than just commercialism, and that presumption turned out to be wishful thinking.
That intuition operates on the subconscious level. But that only makes it an opinion. It only becomes a valid critique when you reinforce it with your knowledge of the animation arts. Which is, of course, what you said in this wonderful article.
At first I was really annoyed that you would say such things about Robin Hood, but the more I read, the more I realized I probably haven't seen this movie in ten years. Now, I'll have to go back and watch it again to see if all this is true.
But, I would like to propose The Black Cauldron as a contender for the worst Disney animation movie. I had a hard time believing it was made by Walt Disney after I watched it. It is poorly animated and very forgettable.
Robin Hood was one of my favorite movies growing up... even going so far as to purchase the vhs and dvd versions... I think it was when I watched the VHS after obtaining it that there was a sour taste in my mouth... it wasn't as good as i remembered.... then when I finally got the dvd I realized what the critic pointed out: it's not a very good movie. The animation is ok but the story is piecemeal and they reused too many voice actors. I take it out sometimes and watch it as a "what not to do" exercise.....
I adored Robin Hood as a child and still do as of this day, but I completely agree with everything said here. The importance of art criticism is not so much to tell you how it is but suggest to you what could have been, and hopefully to elevate the medium as a whole.
I can't watch many CG animation features today (with few exceptions like the work of Pixar, ILM, Rhythm & Hues, etc) without the desire to pull my hair out but I'm sure children growing up watching these will still adore the unfunny toilet humor & not notice all the lazy, re-pluggable animation - but the job of a critic is to point out the factual and quantifiable truth - that we should expect better.
I find Critics are easy to find just check 4chan. I find Animation for robin fox was on pair for this movie when it came out in 1974. Back in the 30's to 40's was the golden age of animation Disney but soon start going down hill. 50 60 70 80 was the sliver age 80's and 90's had to be the bronze and anything made in 2000 and after was just made so Disney could make a quick buck and had a crap sequence too. I'm not going to be a ass about you jumping on one of my fav Disney movie when i was a kid but come on I think The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad was way worst but that just me. There are a lot of an disney shorts and movie but i don't think robin is one of than. Sorry for all the bad grammar and spelling error it late and i need to go some sleep,
snore
You know, Robin Hood is one of my favorite films but you are completely right. Even Milt Kahl who worked on this film was not satisfied. I think the work of a critic is to guide us through the creative process of a piece of art in order to understand how to improve. In this case, how to make better stories. Thank you for the article.
Post new comment