The seventies and eighties are commonly seen as something of a low period for Disney feature animation, the films created during it regarded as a distinct step down from the triumphs under Walt. I’ve never subscribed to that opinion, and this blog will detail why, as well as touch on a new thought I’ve had about how the “Wilderness Years” became a thing to begin with. As always, these are merely the opinions of one person.
The first thing that’s always confused me about the “Wilderness Years” is that no-one seems able to agree exactly when they started. Some say it was the first film fully made after Walt died, The Aristocats (1970), others say it was The Jungle Book (1967), and I’ve even heard assertions it was as far back as 101 Dalmatians (1961) or The Sword in the Stone (1963). The only consistent element is the belief that every film in the 70s, and all but one film in the eighties, were of lesser quality, not up to the standards expected of Disney. The last film generally agreed to be proper Disney Quality ™ was Sleeping Beauty (1959), and that is worth taking note of.
You see, Princess movies have become a trademark of Disney, one of the things they’re most known for, which is a little curious given only three were actually made in the Golden Age of Walt, and most of the truly revered movies – Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), Peter Pan (1953), to name four – weren’t in that category. Sleeping Beauty was the last one for three decades, the next not arriving until 1989’s The Little Mermaid, which is seen as the start of the “Renaissance”, when they are widely accepted to have found their magic again.
Think about that a moment. The “Wilderness Years” started after a Princess movie, and the “Renaissance” was kicked off by the next one. The realisation certainly set my mental gears whirring. Whisper it, but I’ve never actually liked the Princess movies, mostly because their core theme is a lonely, lost girl finding salvation in the arms of a handsome Prince, something that doesn’t appeal at all to me, and has come in for some criticism over how shallow it is; it’s certainly more a male-driven fantasy than a female-driven one. I gravitate to the different Disney films, and the ones of the 70s and 80s were certainly that, even if they didn’t always seem so on the surface. Let’s take a look at them.
The Aristocats: often dismissed as just a rehash of Lady and the Tramp (1955) with cats, but in actuality follows its own hep beat. Great music – just try getting Everybody Wants To Be A Cat out of your head after hearing it – a snappy line in slapstick, engaging cast of characters, and a female lead in Duchess with a little more about her than previous Disney ladies, a resourcefulness and character and spark not seen in the Princesses, at least part in thanks to the fabulous Eva Gabor (more of her later). It’s a whole lot of fun, and subtly breaks the Disney mould.
Robin Hood (1973): I’ve gushed about this one before, in an underrated films blog, but it’s worth reiterating just how much this subverts and averts not just Disney tropes, but wider Hollywood ones: Robin is not at all your average male hero, Marian has more to her than the usual love interest, their romance has a depth arguably unrivalled in all of Disney, the songs aren’t as prominent an element as normal, It’s an irresistible delight.
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) is one I can’t comment on, as I haven’t seen it, other than to note it’s a compilation of earlier short films, and given the enduring popularity of the Disney take on Pooh, it clearly wasn’t a failure.
The Rescuers (1977): not so much criticised as overlooked, and for me shamefully so, as it’s a lovely film, with gorgeous songs and some impressive animation, that is actually gently subversive, with subtle depths. Here, we have a quiet, unassuming, self-conscious male character brought out of himself, helped to discover his inner strength, by an assured, capable, beautiful female character; it’s pretty close to the reverse of the Princess movie formula. That said female character is voiced by Eva Gabor is the icing on the cake.
The Fox and the Hound (1981): A charming film, but admittedly a little slight. It looks good, has a solid premise, certainly has its moments, but never fully gels. The first film of the “Wilderness Years” I’d agree is a little below-par, but it’s by no means bad. Some have criticised it for veering too far from the source novel, but given how unrelentingly bleak the latter is, I’d counter that’s not actually a bad thing.
The Black Cauldron (1985): Now things get interesting. I class this as a noble failure. It tries something very different, in setting and tone, and succeeds in some ways, like atmosphere and striking animation, but falters in the basics, with flat characters and a pretty generic plot. The experimentation came at the expense of the storytelling. As close to bad as a Disney film ever gets, but certainly not without value.
The Great Mouse Detective (1986): In stark contrast, this is an exhilarating rush of a film, soaring on every level, from animation – including Disney’s first use of CG, which holds up far better than that of the later, and more lauded, Aladdin (1992) – to Henry Mancini’s glorious music to sparkling voice acting, not least from the master of the macabre, Vincent Price. Easily the best Disney film of the 80s, and for me, up there with their very best.
Oliver and Company (1988): A bit of a curiosity, with it’s contemporary 80s setting – until recently, Disney hardly ever went contemporary – and pop-powered zing. Undoubtedly a lot of fun, not least in the songs and Billy Joel’s Dodger, and features more early, quality CG work, but has some tonal issues, especially toward the end, and the little cat isn’t the strongest incarnation of Dickens’ hero.
So, out of eight films, only two, maybe three, can be, at least for me, considered below-par. The rest are all delightful. It’s also very noticeable that they’re all very different, each time Disney trying something else, an experimental spirit fully in tune with the man who made Fantasia (1940). A couple of experiments didn’t quite work, but most succeeded beautifully. In contrast, the film that started the “Renaissance”, Little Mermaid, is very much in the older mould, a true Princess movie. Tempting to think that for some, the “Wilderness Years” weren’t so much a loss of quality, but a loss of the things that, to them, made a Disney movie. Mermaid restored those things, and thus Disney entered its second “Golden Age”.
There are a few other factors to consider, too. In 1979, Don Bluth, Gary Goldman and others made a pretty high-profile exit from Disney, Bluth reported as stating they did so because Disney had lost their way. How was never, as far as I can tell, specified, and Wikipedia states it was to do with the internal politics of the studio rather than strictly creative issues. Interestingly, the first, fantastic, film Bluth and Goldman released, The Secret of NIMH (1982), is arguably even less like classic Disney than the latter’s movies of the time. This loss of staff would undoubtedly have contributed to the dip in the first half of the eighties, but that’s as close as that period got to true “Wilderness Years”.
Another factor is The Rescuers Down Under (1990), which followed Mermaid, preceded Beauty and the Beast (1991), and is, weirdly, almost completely overlooked. I say weirdly because, other than a couple of niggles, like CG that’s dated as badly as Aladdin‘s and a dull character in Cody – it’s a great film, easily as good as the original Rescuers and, for me, better than Mermaid. If there was a “Renaissance”, it was Down Under that kick-started it, at least in a creative sense, not Mermaid. The latter is a good film, sometimes really good, but not as good, in my opinion, as it’s often touted to be.
A last one is that the “Renaissance” was actually pretty short. Two great films – Beast and The Lion King (1994), two really good ones – Rescuers 2 and Aladdin, the latter elevated by Robin William’s legendary performance as the Genie – and one good film – Mermaid. Between Lion King and Tangled (2010), at least in my opinion, is the period that can most justifiably be termed “Wilderness Years”. There were good films, but nothing truly standout, and a lot of unmemorable ones, until Tangled took the first steps to reimagining the Princess movie. Not coincidentally, it’s the first of the category I genuinely enjoy. Since then, it’s been pretty solidly really good to great, and guess what? Not one of them fits the classic Disney mould.
Of course, money can’t be ignored. The 70s and 80s films weren’t great box office successes, until Mermaid, and Down Under was a dip before Beast started the climb towards the megabucks Disney animated films now consistently make. The thing is, as has been demonstrated countless times in the century of cinema’s existence, box office success and creative success are not mutually exclusive. Far from it. In monetary terms, the 70s and 80s were a “Wilderness” of sorts, but barring the odd misstep, not remotely so creatively. The late 90s and 2000s were a creative “Wilderness”, and towards the end a financial one. 2010 onwards, they’re achieving both to a spectacular degree, a true second “Golden Age” that’s showing no signs of ending.
Disney have had their times in the wilderness, but have always found a way through, never stopped experimenting, never stopped growing, and are now about as strong as they’ve ever been. True, they’ve succumbed to the sequel bug, and the live-action remakes are pretty pointless, but as long as they keep pushing and growing and exploring alongside it all, I can live with that, and honestly, I can’t wait to see where they go next.
Foxy Musings 