![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
babyrodentPreviously on “Heigh Ho, Neighbor, It’s Off to the Races We Go”, we are introduced to Doug Walker’s Disneycember and take a look into his first of the reviews, special guest starring award-winning actress Joan Crawford*:
(*Due to budget constraints, we had to go with a dramatic recreation of her instead. We apologize for the inconvenience.)
Though we remain in Part 1 of this series, we now leave the test run that is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” behind and enter into new territory for Disney. Backdrop: it had been three years since Walt Disney helped pave the way for full-length animated films to be reality. In 1940, he would return with his second animated film: Pinocchio.
I would like to preface this one by stating that, when Pinocchio first came out in 1940, it was considered to be a bomb at the box office because of World War II since it had a limited release in North and South America. But don’t let it make you think it that it was harshly received at the American box office or by critics- in fact, it was critically successful and it actually did well at the American box office. It was because of World War II that it couldn’t get an international release and it had a higher budget compared to “Snow White” that the film would be written off as a box office bomb. But thankfully, this film had an ace up its sleeve in the form of rereleases at the movie theaters and on home video, allowing it to more than make up for these losses.
Now what do I think of this film? I really enjoy it, considering that- for those that might not know this- I partially have Italian in my heritage. Either on my mom’s side, my dad’s side, or both sides of the family, but regardless I’ve got a fascination with my Italian side. Not just that, but this film is truly innovative in a way in terms of animation. Like… everything about this film was before computers were even a thing with not just the details, but also the effects animation as well. If Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the test run, then Pinocchio is the experiment that tried something new. Plus, there's also the fact that this film is considered to be a masterpiece and now part of the National Film Registry. Which hey, not too bad.
Now the question remains: what does Doug think of this film? We’ve discussed what he thought of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, so let’s take a look.
And yes, I should get this detail out of the way real quick- Doug himself was born in Naples, Italy as his father was in the Navy, and thusly has American and Italian citizenship. That technically makes him Italian-American. Whether or not he actually read the novel the film is based off of, however, I won’t say.
Doug opens up his video on Pinocchio with this:
Doug (vo): Much like how Snow White was mostly fueled on emotions, Pinocchio was very similar. It’s not even really based on a fairy tale, it’s based on a book, and a very odd, deranged, dark book as well. Yeah, the movie’s dark, too, but, good God! The book’s downright sadistic.
Okay, this one is debatable. On the one hand, the film is a little lighter than the original novel it was based off of as a good majority of the characters (save for a few) are more enjoyable than their literary counterparts and some of the events in the movie are easier to digest. But on the other hand, I’d argue that the film is darker than the original book- the original novel wasn’t so much a deranged and sadistic one as it was more of a more satirical in a dark manner- because it’s placed hand in hand with the lighter moments. I’ll get into why I think this later, but for now, let’s go ahead and move forward.
He also brings up this:
Where in a fairy tale, you just know it’s sort of a magical world where magical things can happen, this world treats it a little differently. I mean, there are magical things like the Blue Fairy that brings the puppet to life, but then how about the fact that there’s just a fox and a cat walking around like normal people. I remember how blown away they were that they saw a puppet boy walking around, and all I could think to myself is, “Why isn’t anybody blown away that there’s a giant fox and a giant cat just walking around?” Well, it’s just that kind of world where things like that can happen.
It’s funny how he brought up the original novel that this movie is based off of when Doug should have realized something: the story in the book is technically a fairy tale, though with an Italian edge to it. In fact, this is Italy’s most beloved fairy tale and the only one of Carlo Collodi’s works that is translated internationally. Not too shabby.
But whatever, I think we should begin with Doug’s explanation of the plot.
Doug (vo): Geppetto makes a puppet boy, wishes one night that he were real, and the Blue Fairy comes and makes it happen. It’s ironic because probably, the film should be centered around Geppetto. He’s the one that has a past, he’s the one that actually has some character.
Ironic how Doug brings this up because there’s already a retelling of this story out since 2002 that stars Drew Carrey as Geppetto and features a score by Stephen Schwartz. It was also the subject for one of Diva’s cases in Musical Hell as well.
But let’s bring up something that’s going to be a pattern with this series: Doug expressing a want about how a film should have centered around this character, that character, these characters or those characters instead of the main character. A lesser extent is Doug expressing a similar about how a film should have centered around one particular concept instead of what it’s supposed to be about. I understand that the above stand out to Doug more than one would expect, except it does highlight a problem: ever heard of the saying “wanting something is better than having”? This definitely applies here. And not just that, but a good majority of the desires and wants that Doug expresses regarding the films… they don’t make any sense at all, especially when you actually watch the movies.
(There are also moments where he will mention a detail before following it up with a “...Wait, what?!” And believe me, the details where he says this- they will be addressed.)
In this case, his statement of how “the film should be centered around Geppetto. He’s the one that has a past, he’s the one that actually has some character”. The thing is with Geppetto is that we actually don’t know anything about his past other than the fact that he never had a family until he was well into his old age. Likewise, his main characteristics are “woodcarver, toymaker, Pinocchio’s father, old guy with a kitten and a goldfish”, so there’s really not much in the way for a character arc. And this is the Disney version of the character as the original novel version was…
How do I put it? *sighs* Book!Geppetto is so poor, he painted wood in his fireplace. Not even making that up.
Anyway, I’ve gone on long enough, let’s take a look at the next thing.
Pinocchio is just sort of born with his personality, so the fact that he has to learn lessons and be given a conscience is kind of strange because the Blue Fairy just sort of made him up, didn't she? If you want him to learn lessons, why didn't you just have it where the lessons were already learned? But again, I’m totally over-analyzing this.
And once again, Doug misses the point (and slightly going off topic because this should have been saved for the review portion, but whatever) and brushes it off as over-analyzing it. But this time, it’s in regards to Pinocchio’s personality. First off, the Blue Fairy only gave him life since Geppetto made the wish for Pinocchio to be a real boy- it’s only when Pinocchio comes alive that his character arc for his story is kicked off. There is a reason why that the Blue Fairy didn’t automatically give Pinocchio the lessons that were already learned: she needed him to prove himself to be “brave, truthful, and unselfish” for him to become a real boy. That is Pinocchio’s character arc since characters are supposed to go through character arcs. He starts off as being childlike (because y’know, he’s a child) but has to learn from his experiences- because if you start off as already knowing the lessons right from the get-go, then that doesn’t make for a very good story. In fact, that just makes it all the more boring.
The irony of all this is that Doug acknowledges this detail in his assessment of Pinocchio himself:
Doug (vo): Pinocchio is a pretty likeable character, and I like the fact that they do make him, for lack of a better term, a real boy. He isn't just pitch perfect, he is gullible, he does want to do bad things sometimes. It doesn't mean he’s a rotten kid, it just means he’s a kid. What sets him apart, though, is that he does learn his lesson and he does try to do better.
At least he’s a little understanding of Pinocchio even if the concept of character arcs seemed to fly by him. His assessment of Jiminy Cricket, on the other hand…
He has a conscience named Jiminy Cricket, who, I’m just gonna say out there, I never enjoyed, even as a kid. Yeah, I know, that means I have no heart and I’m going to Hell or whatever you want to say, but I just don’t like this guy. [...] I just didn't find him that charming, I didn't find him that funny, his voice sort of grated on me, but he sings that one song and everybody’s putty in his hands. I don’t know. I was always waiting for Pinocchio to step on him.
...Let’s read that last bit and then compare that with what Doug said earlier regarding Pinocchio, shall we?
Pinocchio is a pretty likeable character, and I like the fact that they do make him, for lack of a better term, a real boy. He isn't just pitch perfect, he is gullible, he does want to do bad things sometimes. It doesn't mean he’s a rotten kid, it just means he’s a kid.
(39 seconds later...)
I was always waiting for Pinocchio to step on him.
And this is where we swing into the inconsistency within Doug’s reviews in Disneycember and trust me when I say that this is not going to be the only time we get to see this in action.
Let me point something out with this: if you like Jiminy Cricket, that’s great! More power to you! If you don’t like Jiminy, that’s okay too. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, what is not okay is stating shit like this after praising the characteristics of the character that you desire to see end the life of a character you don’t like. That is seriously disgusting and I don’t understand why anyone would actually agree with that statement. And for those of you wondering where I stand regarding Jiminy Cricket, I’m in the mindset where he’s not one of my favorite Disney characters, but I don’t have a problem with him.
And it’s not just that, but also consider this as well: it’s also wildly out of character for (the Disney version of) Pinocchio to straight-up kill someone who had been tasked to be his conscience. Sure, the original novel version of Pinocchio did kill the Talking Cricket (and then the Talking Cricket comes back to life- it’s complicated), but that was because that version of Pinocchio started off as being a misbehaving jerk. But with the Disney version of Pinocchio, he’s meant to be more endearing to the audience members- even when he’s doing wrong, it’s not on purpose. So him straight up killing Jiminy Cricket just because that one guy doesn’t like Jiminy would not only make no sense, but it would also drive people away from the character entirely. They would ask the question “Why should I follow Pinocchio’s journey if he is going to do something like this?” (Keep in mind that this is the Disney version of the character that we’re talking about here. Not the original novel version of the character, but the Disney version of the character.)
Consider it food for thought. And yes, I will be discussing the song later.
Moving on from that, Doug at least brings this up:
Again, the creepy imagery is sort of upped in this movie, much like it was in Snow White, except this time, instead of everything always turning out okay, this time, it wasn't always okay. A bunch of misbehaving boys are brought to an amusement park and then turned into donkeys where they’re gonna be used in mining shafts, and that’s it. You never see them again. The guy running the place is never defeated, the boys can’t talk anymore, God knows what they’re doing with the ones who can. It’s pretty friggin' grim as kids’ films go.
Remember when I mentioned that I’d argue that this version is darker than the original novel that it was based off of? This is where I am going to explain it. The main reason why is because with the original novel, Carlo Collodi at least made it intentionally dark since it’s meant to be a morality story. But with this film, it’s been noted by its Nightmare Fuel entry on TV Tropes that this is, and I quote, “perhaps one of Disney's scariest pictures ever, especially since none of the villains are actually punished for their crimes, thus leaving children with the horrifying realization that not all evil can be beaten and that the world will always remain a dangerous place for them”.
Bear in mind, this is Disney’s second film and with the Hays Code in full swing back in the days of yonder in Hollywood, well before the MPAA was established!
Of course, just when you think Doug is saying something that is correct…
Doug (vo): The rest, however, does come back to the typical Disney formula. After a relatively exciting climax, Pinocchio gets smashed into a bunch of rocks and loses his life. Again, he can spin his head around, but some rocks kills...I don’t know.
And yet again, Doug seems to miss the point. Time to pull the rug out from underneath this detail.
While Pinocchio can rotate his head and limbs around and at least has a sense of invulnerability, that doesn’t mean that he is invincible. Also, it wasn’t just some rocks that killed, but in fact a combination of both the impact of hitting the large rocks by Monstro slamming both his body weight and the waters on the sea cave and that heavy force from the whale himself. Considering that Pinocchio, while a puppet, is still a child and therefore has the body height and weight of one, his chances of survival were unlikely even if he was able to prove himself as being unselfish in saving his father. Bear in mind that Monstro is a HUGE. SEA. WHALE. Make of that what you will.
I would have made the classic excuse of “I’m over-analyzing it” as Doug had noted at least three times so far in the first two reviews, except I’m using thinking power as a means of examining the situation rather than brush it off.
But the Blue Fairy comes back and sees his sacrifice and brings him back. Everybody in the audience is filled with joy, and, of course, Jiminy Cricket sings that song that, nowadays, is almost causing some controversy.
“What kind of controversy?” The viewer asks in a monotone voice.
Okay, not major controversy, but people have been debating whether or not this is a good message. This is the song that Disney used all the time, it’s practically their biggest trademark. But some people think that it just promotes laziness, or a lying belief that everything will be okay if you just believe hard enough. While you could make that argument, I have yet to see a kid that totally fell for this, or even more depressing, an adult.
To that, I have to ask… Where is this controversy coming from?
No, really. I have yet to find any sources on where this claim is coming from. The only actual controversy that I could find was actually on the lawsuit that Fox, Cartoon Network, and Seth Macfarlene was slapped with by Bourne Co. Music Publishers (who own the rights to the song) for the parody song “I Need a Jew” from the episode “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein” (Bourne Co. Music Publishers lost the case, by the way). But other than that, I don’t think I’ve come across anyone that’s ever actually said something like this.
Alright, let’s say that, for the sake of clarity, there is such a controversy. Let’s say that people are saying that this song promotes a bad message, the message that it promotes laziness/the belief that everything would magically be okay. We’ll make that as a starting point and then let’s try and go over that. The thing is with this song is that… it doesn't promote laziness or that lying belief. As Mat Brunet, aka Animat, explained in his video from his Top 10 Favorite Disney Animated Films list, the lyrics “Fate is kind/ She brings to those who love/ The sweet fulfillment of/ Their secret longing” provide the meaning that those who do good in this world for others are rewarded. Basically, do good for others and something good will happen to you in return, overall good karma.
But then again, to his credit, Doug does bring this up to go along with it:
I think kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Kids are always gonna be aware that there’s bad things in the world. There’s things they’re gonna be afraid of, and that closing their eyes and wishing isn't always gonna solve their problem. I think most people connect to it because it’s a symbol of hope rather than realistic planning, that sometimes, unexpected good things can happen, and they can come out of nowhere. They can come when you least suspect it, so never give up the idea that all hope is gone. I don’t know. That’s what I got out of it and I think that’s what most people get out of it.
And with this, Doug wraps up his review with his final thoughts on the movie:
Doug (vo): And I think that’s what most people get out of the film as well. It runs the Disney gambit that most of us enjoy, at times bright and colorful, but at other times dark and scary, threatening and doubtful, but always with that ray of hope that sees us through. It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, but they create a world where it doesn't need to. It’s a world where anything can happen, even when you least suspect it.
I would repeat myself on what I have said before, but I don’t want to sound like a broken record at this point. So to make it short: fairy-tale world. Should have been a no-brainer there. Let’s just wrap this up.
What do I think of this review? Like before, this is a mixed bag, though this time the odds are not in Doug’s favor. On the one hand, he gets the tone of the movie and Pinocchio’s characteristics right. However, I cannot brush away his inability to understand character arcs and how storytelling works. And I cannot for the life of me excuse what he says about Jiminy Cricket- I’m not saying that he should go to Hell over that, but I am saying that this is where he should have his own conscience.
Let’s see if Doug can redeem himself with the next one. Until then, time to listen to some classical music on Spotify.
Rating: 4/10
Part 1.1 | Table of Contents | Part 1.3
(*Due to budget constraints, we had to go with a dramatic recreation of her instead. We apologize for the inconvenience.)
Though we remain in Part 1 of this series, we now leave the test run that is “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” behind and enter into new territory for Disney. Backdrop: it had been three years since Walt Disney helped pave the way for full-length animated films to be reality. In 1940, he would return with his second animated film: Pinocchio.
I would like to preface this one by stating that, when Pinocchio first came out in 1940, it was considered to be a bomb at the box office because of World War II since it had a limited release in North and South America. But don’t let it make you think it that it was harshly received at the American box office or by critics- in fact, it was critically successful and it actually did well at the American box office. It was because of World War II that it couldn’t get an international release and it had a higher budget compared to “Snow White” that the film would be written off as a box office bomb. But thankfully, this film had an ace up its sleeve in the form of rereleases at the movie theaters and on home video, allowing it to more than make up for these losses.
Now what do I think of this film? I really enjoy it, considering that- for those that might not know this- I partially have Italian in my heritage. Either on my mom’s side, my dad’s side, or both sides of the family, but regardless I’ve got a fascination with my Italian side. Not just that, but this film is truly innovative in a way in terms of animation. Like… everything about this film was before computers were even a thing with not just the details, but also the effects animation as well. If Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the test run, then Pinocchio is the experiment that tried something new. Plus, there's also the fact that this film is considered to be a masterpiece and now part of the National Film Registry. Which hey, not too bad.
Now the question remains: what does Doug think of this film? We’ve discussed what he thought of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, so let’s take a look.
And yes, I should get this detail out of the way real quick- Doug himself was born in Naples, Italy as his father was in the Navy, and thusly has American and Italian citizenship. That technically makes him Italian-American. Whether or not he actually read the novel the film is based off of, however, I won’t say.
Doug opens up his video on Pinocchio with this:
Doug (vo): Much like how Snow White was mostly fueled on emotions, Pinocchio was very similar. It’s not even really based on a fairy tale, it’s based on a book, and a very odd, deranged, dark book as well. Yeah, the movie’s dark, too, but, good God! The book’s downright sadistic.
Okay, this one is debatable. On the one hand, the film is a little lighter than the original novel it was based off of as a good majority of the characters (save for a few) are more enjoyable than their literary counterparts and some of the events in the movie are easier to digest. But on the other hand, I’d argue that the film is darker than the original book- the original novel wasn’t so much a deranged and sadistic one as it was more of a more satirical in a dark manner- because it’s placed hand in hand with the lighter moments. I’ll get into why I think this later, but for now, let’s go ahead and move forward.
He also brings up this:
Where in a fairy tale, you just know it’s sort of a magical world where magical things can happen, this world treats it a little differently. I mean, there are magical things like the Blue Fairy that brings the puppet to life, but then how about the fact that there’s just a fox and a cat walking around like normal people. I remember how blown away they were that they saw a puppet boy walking around, and all I could think to myself is, “Why isn’t anybody blown away that there’s a giant fox and a giant cat just walking around?” Well, it’s just that kind of world where things like that can happen.
It’s funny how he brought up the original novel that this movie is based off of when Doug should have realized something: the story in the book is technically a fairy tale, though with an Italian edge to it. In fact, this is Italy’s most beloved fairy tale and the only one of Carlo Collodi’s works that is translated internationally. Not too shabby.
But whatever, I think we should begin with Doug’s explanation of the plot.
Doug (vo): Geppetto makes a puppet boy, wishes one night that he were real, and the Blue Fairy comes and makes it happen. It’s ironic because probably, the film should be centered around Geppetto. He’s the one that has a past, he’s the one that actually has some character.
Ironic how Doug brings this up because there’s already a retelling of this story out since 2002 that stars Drew Carrey as Geppetto and features a score by Stephen Schwartz. It was also the subject for one of Diva’s cases in Musical Hell as well.
But let’s bring up something that’s going to be a pattern with this series: Doug expressing a want about how a film should have centered around this character, that character, these characters or those characters instead of the main character. A lesser extent is Doug expressing a similar about how a film should have centered around one particular concept instead of what it’s supposed to be about. I understand that the above stand out to Doug more than one would expect, except it does highlight a problem: ever heard of the saying “wanting something is better than having”? This definitely applies here. And not just that, but a good majority of the desires and wants that Doug expresses regarding the films… they don’t make any sense at all, especially when you actually watch the movies.
(There are also moments where he will mention a detail before following it up with a “...Wait, what?!” And believe me, the details where he says this- they will be addressed.)
In this case, his statement of how “the film should be centered around Geppetto. He’s the one that has a past, he’s the one that actually has some character”. The thing is with Geppetto is that we actually don’t know anything about his past other than the fact that he never had a family until he was well into his old age. Likewise, his main characteristics are “woodcarver, toymaker, Pinocchio’s father, old guy with a kitten and a goldfish”, so there’s really not much in the way for a character arc. And this is the Disney version of the character as the original novel version was…
How do I put it? *sighs* Book!Geppetto is so poor, he painted wood in his fireplace. Not even making that up.
Anyway, I’ve gone on long enough, let’s take a look at the next thing.
Pinocchio is just sort of born with his personality, so the fact that he has to learn lessons and be given a conscience is kind of strange because the Blue Fairy just sort of made him up, didn't she? If you want him to learn lessons, why didn't you just have it where the lessons were already learned? But again, I’m totally over-analyzing this.
And once again, Doug misses the point (and slightly going off topic because this should have been saved for the review portion, but whatever) and brushes it off as over-analyzing it. But this time, it’s in regards to Pinocchio’s personality. First off, the Blue Fairy only gave him life since Geppetto made the wish for Pinocchio to be a real boy- it’s only when Pinocchio comes alive that his character arc for his story is kicked off. There is a reason why that the Blue Fairy didn’t automatically give Pinocchio the lessons that were already learned: she needed him to prove himself to be “brave, truthful, and unselfish” for him to become a real boy. That is Pinocchio’s character arc since characters are supposed to go through character arcs. He starts off as being childlike (because y’know, he’s a child) but has to learn from his experiences- because if you start off as already knowing the lessons right from the get-go, then that doesn’t make for a very good story. In fact, that just makes it all the more boring.
The irony of all this is that Doug acknowledges this detail in his assessment of Pinocchio himself:
Doug (vo): Pinocchio is a pretty likeable character, and I like the fact that they do make him, for lack of a better term, a real boy. He isn't just pitch perfect, he is gullible, he does want to do bad things sometimes. It doesn't mean he’s a rotten kid, it just means he’s a kid. What sets him apart, though, is that he does learn his lesson and he does try to do better.
At least he’s a little understanding of Pinocchio even if the concept of character arcs seemed to fly by him. His assessment of Jiminy Cricket, on the other hand…
He has a conscience named Jiminy Cricket, who, I’m just gonna say out there, I never enjoyed, even as a kid. Yeah, I know, that means I have no heart and I’m going to Hell or whatever you want to say, but I just don’t like this guy. [...] I just didn't find him that charming, I didn't find him that funny, his voice sort of grated on me, but he sings that one song and everybody’s putty in his hands. I don’t know. I was always waiting for Pinocchio to step on him.
...Let’s read that last bit and then compare that with what Doug said earlier regarding Pinocchio, shall we?
Pinocchio is a pretty likeable character, and I like the fact that they do make him, for lack of a better term, a real boy. He isn't just pitch perfect, he is gullible, he does want to do bad things sometimes. It doesn't mean he’s a rotten kid, it just means he’s a kid.
(39 seconds later...)
I was always waiting for Pinocchio to step on him.
And this is where we swing into the inconsistency within Doug’s reviews in Disneycember and trust me when I say that this is not going to be the only time we get to see this in action.
Let me point something out with this: if you like Jiminy Cricket, that’s great! More power to you! If you don’t like Jiminy, that’s okay too. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, what is not okay is stating shit like this after praising the characteristics of the character that you desire to see end the life of a character you don’t like. That is seriously disgusting and I don’t understand why anyone would actually agree with that statement. And for those of you wondering where I stand regarding Jiminy Cricket, I’m in the mindset where he’s not one of my favorite Disney characters, but I don’t have a problem with him.
And it’s not just that, but also consider this as well: it’s also wildly out of character for (the Disney version of) Pinocchio to straight-up kill someone who had been tasked to be his conscience. Sure, the original novel version of Pinocchio did kill the Talking Cricket (and then the Talking Cricket comes back to life- it’s complicated), but that was because that version of Pinocchio started off as being a misbehaving jerk. But with the Disney version of Pinocchio, he’s meant to be more endearing to the audience members- even when he’s doing wrong, it’s not on purpose. So him straight up killing Jiminy Cricket just because that one guy doesn’t like Jiminy would not only make no sense, but it would also drive people away from the character entirely. They would ask the question “Why should I follow Pinocchio’s journey if he is going to do something like this?” (Keep in mind that this is the Disney version of the character that we’re talking about here. Not the original novel version of the character, but the Disney version of the character.)
Consider it food for thought. And yes, I will be discussing the song later.
Moving on from that, Doug at least brings this up:
Again, the creepy imagery is sort of upped in this movie, much like it was in Snow White, except this time, instead of everything always turning out okay, this time, it wasn't always okay. A bunch of misbehaving boys are brought to an amusement park and then turned into donkeys where they’re gonna be used in mining shafts, and that’s it. You never see them again. The guy running the place is never defeated, the boys can’t talk anymore, God knows what they’re doing with the ones who can. It’s pretty friggin' grim as kids’ films go.
Remember when I mentioned that I’d argue that this version is darker than the original novel that it was based off of? This is where I am going to explain it. The main reason why is because with the original novel, Carlo Collodi at least made it intentionally dark since it’s meant to be a morality story. But with this film, it’s been noted by its Nightmare Fuel entry on TV Tropes that this is, and I quote, “perhaps one of Disney's scariest pictures ever, especially since none of the villains are actually punished for their crimes, thus leaving children with the horrifying realization that not all evil can be beaten and that the world will always remain a dangerous place for them”.
Bear in mind, this is Disney’s second film and with the Hays Code in full swing back in the days of yonder in Hollywood, well before the MPAA was established!
Of course, just when you think Doug is saying something that is correct…
Doug (vo): The rest, however, does come back to the typical Disney formula. After a relatively exciting climax, Pinocchio gets smashed into a bunch of rocks and loses his life. Again, he can spin his head around, but some rocks kills...I don’t know.
And yet again, Doug seems to miss the point. Time to pull the rug out from underneath this detail.
While Pinocchio can rotate his head and limbs around and at least has a sense of invulnerability, that doesn’t mean that he is invincible. Also, it wasn’t just some rocks that killed, but in fact a combination of both the impact of hitting the large rocks by Monstro slamming both his body weight and the waters on the sea cave and that heavy force from the whale himself. Considering that Pinocchio, while a puppet, is still a child and therefore has the body height and weight of one, his chances of survival were unlikely even if he was able to prove himself as being unselfish in saving his father. Bear in mind that Monstro is a HUGE. SEA. WHALE. Make of that what you will.
I would have made the classic excuse of “I’m over-analyzing it” as Doug had noted at least three times so far in the first two reviews, except I’m using thinking power as a means of examining the situation rather than brush it off.
But the Blue Fairy comes back and sees his sacrifice and brings him back. Everybody in the audience is filled with joy, and, of course, Jiminy Cricket sings that song that, nowadays, is almost causing some controversy.
“What kind of controversy?” The viewer asks in a monotone voice.
Okay, not major controversy, but people have been debating whether or not this is a good message. This is the song that Disney used all the time, it’s practically their biggest trademark. But some people think that it just promotes laziness, or a lying belief that everything will be okay if you just believe hard enough. While you could make that argument, I have yet to see a kid that totally fell for this, or even more depressing, an adult.
To that, I have to ask… Where is this controversy coming from?
No, really. I have yet to find any sources on where this claim is coming from. The only actual controversy that I could find was actually on the lawsuit that Fox, Cartoon Network, and Seth Macfarlene was slapped with by Bourne Co. Music Publishers (who own the rights to the song) for the parody song “I Need a Jew” from the episode “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein” (Bourne Co. Music Publishers lost the case, by the way). But other than that, I don’t think I’ve come across anyone that’s ever actually said something like this.
Alright, let’s say that, for the sake of clarity, there is such a controversy. Let’s say that people are saying that this song promotes a bad message, the message that it promotes laziness/the belief that everything would magically be okay. We’ll make that as a starting point and then let’s try and go over that. The thing is with this song is that… it doesn't promote laziness or that lying belief. As Mat Brunet, aka Animat, explained in his video from his Top 10 Favorite Disney Animated Films list, the lyrics “Fate is kind/ She brings to those who love/ The sweet fulfillment of/ Their secret longing” provide the meaning that those who do good in this world for others are rewarded. Basically, do good for others and something good will happen to you in return, overall good karma.
But then again, to his credit, Doug does bring this up to go along with it:
I think kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Kids are always gonna be aware that there’s bad things in the world. There’s things they’re gonna be afraid of, and that closing their eyes and wishing isn't always gonna solve their problem. I think most people connect to it because it’s a symbol of hope rather than realistic planning, that sometimes, unexpected good things can happen, and they can come out of nowhere. They can come when you least suspect it, so never give up the idea that all hope is gone. I don’t know. That’s what I got out of it and I think that’s what most people get out of it.
And with this, Doug wraps up his review with his final thoughts on the movie:
Doug (vo): And I think that’s what most people get out of the film as well. It runs the Disney gambit that most of us enjoy, at times bright and colorful, but at other times dark and scary, threatening and doubtful, but always with that ray of hope that sees us through. It doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, but they create a world where it doesn't need to. It’s a world where anything can happen, even when you least suspect it.
I would repeat myself on what I have said before, but I don’t want to sound like a broken record at this point. So to make it short: fairy-tale world. Should have been a no-brainer there. Let’s just wrap this up.
What do I think of this review? Like before, this is a mixed bag, though this time the odds are not in Doug’s favor. On the one hand, he gets the tone of the movie and Pinocchio’s characteristics right. However, I cannot brush away his inability to understand character arcs and how storytelling works. And I cannot for the life of me excuse what he says about Jiminy Cricket- I’m not saying that he should go to Hell over that, but I am saying that this is where he should have his own conscience.
Let’s see if Doug can redeem himself with the next one. Until then, time to listen to some classical music on Spotify.
Rating: 4/10
Part 1.1 | Table of Contents | Part 1.3
