Skip to main content

Disney Sundays: The Princess and the Frog (2009)


          The Princess and the Frog needed to be good! Not only was it following on the heels of a severe Disney dark age (so much so that the one good film, Bolt didn’t draw in much of an audience), but it was also reviving the Disney staple: the princess movie. Furthermore, it was starring the studio’s first African-American lead, and was both the return of John Musker and Ron Clements whose last film Treasure Planet didn’t turn out so well, as well as traditional animation in general at a time when almost every competing studio had given up on it.
          Tiana is a young woman in 1920s New Orleans working two waitressing jobs so she can afford to open her own restaurant. While catering a masquerade ball for her friend Lottie, the local rich socialite, she meets a talking frog who claims to be the visiting Prince Naveen of Maldonia, transformed by a voodoo magician Dr. Facilier (also know as the “Shadow Man”); and after much convincing, kisses him, only to turn into a frog herself. Both upset with their situation, Tiana and Naveen try to find a way of reversing the spell while traversing the Louisiana bayous.
          The biggest problem with the plot is it tends to meander and doesn’t have the best sense of its own tone. For its opening act, it has the makings of one of the great Disney movies. First off, I love the 1920s, and this plays up both the vibrancy and humility of that era. But also it introduces us to some very different characters and situations than we’re used to in Disney. The backstory of Tiana’s father being a lover of cooking and how it can bring a community together establishes a unique motivation for Tiana for the rest of the movie. And I love the subtlety of that one shot of a photo showing her father in a military uniform. It’s all you need to know given the time period, that he died during the First World War, and nothing regarding his death needs to be stated explicitly. There are a number of other fantastic touches and promising moments…and then Tiana turns into a frog. Don’t get me wrong, I love the dialogue between Tiana and Naveen, and they have great chemistry and vivid personalities. But at that point the story struggles. Their journey isn’t interesting, there isn’t really a drive to it, the comedic side characters they meet don’t add anything, and though the bayou looks good, it gets monotonous after a while. The Princess and the Frog also can’t seem to decide whether it’s a classic Disney princess movie or an animated comedy. It has a lot of the qualities of both but they don’t quite gel. There’s a fair bit of slapstick in this movie and it’s done really well. The timing, animation, performance is all good, but it’s not funny because its in the context of a film that’s trying to take itself seriously most of the time. The pointless scene with the Three Stooges frog-hunters is the perfect example of this as are a number of Lawrence’s interactions with Lottie. Other kinds of comedy like cutaways and even low-brow butt jokes make it in and are a little awkward, even if on their own, they’re fine. Sometimes it actually takes away from stuff the movie could be doing really well. As I said, Tiana and Naveen’s interactions are terrific but because their screen-time has to be shared with comic relief like Louis and Mama Odie, their relationship doesn’t have the time to evolve as naturally as it should. By the time they’re apparently in love with each other, it seems too soon after they were at each throats and it’s not entirely believable. 
          But that doesn’t mean the characters themselves are any less. The main reason I’m so disappointed by these story issues is because these are such good characters. Tiana, voiced wonderfully by Anika Noni Rose is without question one of Disney’s best princesses. In fact she’s intentionally an anti-princess, constantly talking about working for her dreams rather than waiting for them to come true. Which is a great takeaway for kids, imparting a practical example of how to pursue their dreams. You can relate more with Tiana’s aspirations too, knowing where they come from. In addition to that, she’s intelligent and realistic. Particularly when she first meets Naveen. Bruno Campos is decent as Naveen, giving the character a unique accent that’s something of a mix between Spanish and French, and is a pretty fun personality. I don’t think we’ve ever had a Disney prince who was a playboy before, or who’s at times, a bit of an idiot. I also like the real world context for him and all the prince/princess stuff that needed to be worked in. He’s the heir to some South American throne who’s been cut off by his parents, and I think that’s a very believable set-up for both the environment and the character. The irresponsible Naveen actually has more to learn than Tiana. They’re an enjoyable pair, deserving of a more focussed plot. One of the show-stealers is Charlotte “Lottie” LaBouff voiced by Jennifer Cody. This character is friggin’ hilarious! She’s the one part of the comedy that’s really successful. Everything in her voice, flawlessly paced animation, and just her over-the-top boisterous attitude gets huge laughs. I also really like that though she’s a rich heiress and Tiana by contrast quite poor, they’re never enemies. It would have been so easy to turn these childhood friends against each other due to their differing backgrounds, but Disney chose the high road by making them genuinely caring for the others’ welfare. The supporting cast includes Oprah and Terence Howard as Tiana’s parents, voice actor extraordinaire Jim Cummings as Ray in yet another Cajun role, Jennifer Lewis as Mama Odie a Fairy Godmother satire who’s okay with animal cruelty, and John Goodman as “Big Daddy” LaBouff. But the best performance in this movie is definitely Keith David as Dr. Facillier. David has one of the greatest voices in the voice-over industry. You may remember he was Goliath on Gargoyles, and his smooth deliveries give the character a great aura of malevolence. One of the only great scenes in the latter part of the movie is his almost Biblical-like temptation of Tiana. His power of illusion and charisma is enrapturing enough you can see how she’d submit to it. The “Shadow Man” is by far the best Disney villain of the past ten years, a really slick and intimidating witch doctor whose connections to the supernatural world and black magic are actually really compelling. He answers to a higher power, one he’s even frightened of. Why? How? I want to know more about this guy. 
          He also gets the best song in the movie by a mile. Randy Newman’s soundtrack though very good at capturing the jazzy, R&B style of the time, isn’t all that impressive. However “Down in New Orleans” is catchy, “Almost There” is pretty good, and “Friends on the Other Side” is outstanding! It’s one of the best villain songs Disney’s ever done. It’s spooky, stylish, very original, and a rush! All these songs are culturally influenced, I have to give them that. Even though some are distracting and incredibly unnecessary, meandering the story even more, there is that flavour of early southern African-American culture to them.
          Right, let’s talk briefly about the elephant in the room through this entire movie. Though it’s never specifically addressed, the time period, place, and visual cues can’t help but suggest racism. It has no bearing on the plot and is never brought up outright, yet it’s unavoidable. We see the black families at the beginning living in a very dilapidated neighbourhood while  the LaBouffs have a stately mansion, as well as the implication the estate agents selling the old mill are passing Tiana over because she’s black. It is there but beneath the surface, and though it’s a nice world being portrayed where overt racism somehow doesn’t exist in the 1920s, the disingenuousness is strangely a little distracting. 
          For its unreal social environment, New Orleans in this movie does look really nice. After Home on the Range, I am so glad to see traditional animation looking so good and being used for such a better product. Any number of scenes in this movie could argue for the preservation of hand-drawn animation in American cinema. The song sequences make good use of it, both in the weird imagery of “Friends on the Other Side” and the beautiful art deco style of “Almost There”. I think it’s also worth noting the specific kind of animation on this movie. It’s not animated like Lilo & Stitch or Treasure Planet or Brother Bear or any of Disney’s more recent traditionally animated films, rather it’s specifically trying to go for the style of classic Disney, particularly in the character designs. At times, Tiana has something of a Snow White look to her, Lotty reminds me of some of the one-off characters from package films like Make Mine Music and Melody Time, Louis is clearly a heavier version of the crocodile from Peter Pan, and my god, Lawrence is every chubby sidekick Disney’s ever produced: Smee, Doc, Dr. Dawson, Cogsworth, etc. John Lasseter was in charge at Disney by this time, and you can tell he wanted to capture the feel of classic Disney films, particularly from when Walt himself ran the company.
          And in some respects he does. The Princess and the Frog is a very Disney movie with a classic look and a classic story retold in a very interesting way. And it does this with characters who for the most part are really enjoyable and fascinating. It just fails in the execution of some of its plot and comedy. I feel like if this movie wasn’t trying to be as much of a crowd pleaser it would have turned out much better. It’s sometimes grating to get through sequences that aren’t going anywhere important, or musical numbers and routines that just don’t work. But I think what it does well, is certainly enough to call it a good movie. I love Tiana, I love the animation, I love that villain song, the temptation scene, Naveen’s attitude, Lotty’s wonderful insanity, that random Streetcar Named Desire reference, and the mature touches that are a smart sign Disney once again knows what they’re doing.

Next Week: Tangled (2010)


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...