I had read biography of Disney since the end of May, and I finished it yesterday.
The book I read was Walt Disney An American Original by Bob Thomas.
This book was first published in 1976 and was re-published in 1994 with newly added preface.
The copy I have here is one of the 1994 version, which is easy to procure now.
I had been a Disney fan for decades and had been familiar with a lot of works of various genres: cartoons, comic books, features, magazines and etc.
However, although I had enjoyed so much of Walt Disney's creation, I rarely knew about Disney himself.
So I decided to learn about Disney reading this biography, which seemed to be more reliable than many others.
The greatest feature of this book is that it was written on thorough research on Walt's remarks still remaining from his public speech to his personal letters.
Bob Thomas wrote this book with great support of the Disney family and the Walt Disney Productions, and also he had interviewed Walt himself several times when he was still alive.
Although I had known Disney had a lot of economical hardships in his creation, until I read this book I did not know that every time he created something he was lacking of budget.
Sometimes he had to take his own home in mortgage, but he did not compromise in his creation.
It is insanity in some sense, and that insanity was what attracted the mass so much.
All the works that was created in his lifetime were spirited in some strange way, and that spirit must have come from such a strong desire for creation.
It is astonishing what drove Disney was simply his desire for creation, not money, not social estimation.
In these days Disney works are filled with too much commercialism (I feel), but Walt had not sought for profit simply for its sake.
For Walt Disney, money was only one of the tools for creation.
It was also astonishing that Walt tried to be so good to the public.
Once he said it was good to be commercial and to give the mass what they want, but it did not mean to be profit-oriented.
He tried to take communication with the public by delighting them.
There are so many episodes to show his good will to people, such as sending Christmas gifts to the kids of his staffs and his acquaintances, or writing personally back to the complaint filed by a visitor of Disneyland.
Maybe nowadays there would be no entrepreneur who are so concerned about taking communication with the mass, but Disney did.
As this book gives us deep insight about Disney and his creation, I would highly recommend this book to Disney fans, especially the ones who are so fond of the characters, Disney-associated amusement parks or animation films but rarely know about Disney himself.
It is so interesting to know why and how he created your favorite character or works through his biography, isn't it?
Reference:
Bob Thomas Walt Disney An American Original Disney Editions, 1994
Today I would like to pick up Aladdin as the feature film I introduce here.
This movie was released in 1992 in the US and in 1993 in Japan.
I watched this movie in 1994 in the small theater in my neighborhood, and at that time I was 14 years old (Please do not calculate my age by this figure).
All the more because I could not watch this movie right after its release by some reason, my expectation to it got higher and higher.
Before going to the theater for this work, I had watched Pinocchio (1940) on TV and got totally stunned by this film to be convinced that it was the real masterpiece.
I had been a Disney fan since when I was much younger so I would collect a lot of goods, but I remember Pinocchio was the first feature-length film created by Disney I ever enjoyed.
I was fascinated by all the hues so bright but not flashy, all-hand-drawn animation and the wonder of the character designing and their movement, and shed tears in the unforgettable scene of the reunion of Pinocchio and Geppetto.
Assuming from the fact that Disney had created such a great masterpiece in 1940, I expected that Aladdin would be even more wonderful.
It was so natural that I imagined the Arabian settings Disney would prepare for Aladdin in various ways, to swell my own bosom with excitement and expectation.
However, my expectation that had been swollen to the maximum was totally betrayed at the theater.
As I could not forget the beauty of the Art of Pinocchio, I expected I could see the Arabian Night version of it in Aladdin, but what I saw in the movie was mere a melting pot of the colors that seemed too flashy to my eyes.
Also, although the movement of the characters was so smooth and swift, it looked too hectic compared to that of Pinocchio.
Maybe this difference was something inevitable, as it had been already 50 years since the creation of Pinocchio when Aladdin was released, and there must have been a lot of technical changes in creation of the works.
In Aladdin computer graphics was adopted already, and it was not a beautiful all-hand-drawn animation film any longer.
Also I was disappointed at that the work was far from Arabic or exotic.
Old Hollywood films such as The Thief of Bagdad (1924) or The Arabian Night (1942) were showing such beautiful arts that made the audience feel as if they were really in some exotic country, and watching Aladdin I expected to see the animation version of such artwork.
However what I saw on the screen was far from exotic.
Disney might have made the art not too exotic for political correctness, but the scenery spreading on the screen seemed like that of one of the American towns.
The same was true to the character designing.
Both Aladdin and Jasmine had dark-colored skins and dark hairs, but their countenances and their body movements were nothing but those of Americans.
I felt very strange bewilderment at the atmosphere of this movie, which had been created after the story of the Arabian Nights but so American, so I would contemplate on this odd feeling again and again.
One day, I suddenly noticed the fact of Aladdin: This film should NOT be regarded as the one that was created after the Arabian Nights; it was a movie showing what Americans were or what Americans should be, created by Americans for Americans.
In Aladdin, we can confirm the marks of American sense of value everywhere.
It is the most obvious in the words and the attitude of Jasmine, who is supposed to be the princess of a Islamic nation: she sneaks out from the palace for her enjoyment and inveighs against the old law of her country saying it is wrong.
She is a heroin of the kind that can delight feminists so much, with an Americanized mind that is so progressive and independent.
The absence of a veil on her face seems to verify her American quality.
In the original story in the Arabian Nights, the veil on the face of the princess plays an important role, and I had been looking forward to seeing how Disney would treat this prop in the movie, but it seems that they didn't give any consideration to it at all.
In real Arabic world, the sense of value and the perspective towards women of the common people must be different from those of Americans.
As I was already a junior-high school student when I watched Aladdin, I could notice that this movie was NOT the one created after the Arabian Nights in fact but the one showing the ideal prototype of Americans merely using the setting of the original story.
As I was old enough, I could notice that this entertainment was simply for Americans, and all the protagonists appearing in it are all Americans in fact, not Arabians.
After I found out this fact of Aladdin, I could enjoy this work simply as an entertainment that is neither good or bad.
However I can't help wondering if the situation had been the same had I been a very young kid.
Let's suppose that the audience are 5-year-old girls who are the fans of Disney princesses.
Perhaps they may be imbued with the idea that all the girls must have progressive and independent personality.
That is good itself, but I wonder if they do not think that even people with different cultural backgrounds and sense of values have to share the same idea with them.
Won't they think that whether in Arab or wherever, people generally live with American way of thinking?
Americans may be imbued with American ideology to spread their values throughout the world through such a guileless entertainment as Aladdin.
Of course I do not think the creative staffs of Aladdin shot this movie with any ideological purpose, as this work seems to be simply for entertainment that wouldn't do any good or bad.
However, as a non-American, I feel I can see through childish entertainment the idea of Americans, who believe that people throughout the world must share the same idea with them and seek for the same ideal with them.
About such ideological quality of American entertainment, the book How to Read Donald Duck shows us interesting analysis, but it has been so long that I would write about it in the next article.
This movie was released in 1992 in the US and in 1993 in Japan.
I watched this movie in 1994 in the small theater in my neighborhood, and at that time I was 14 years old (Please do not calculate my age by this figure).
All the more because I could not watch this movie right after its release by some reason, my expectation to it got higher and higher.
Before going to the theater for this work, I had watched Pinocchio (1940) on TV and got totally stunned by this film to be convinced that it was the real masterpiece.
I had been a Disney fan since when I was much younger so I would collect a lot of goods, but I remember Pinocchio was the first feature-length film created by Disney I ever enjoyed.
I was fascinated by all the hues so bright but not flashy, all-hand-drawn animation and the wonder of the character designing and their movement, and shed tears in the unforgettable scene of the reunion of Pinocchio and Geppetto.
Assuming from the fact that Disney had created such a great masterpiece in 1940, I expected that Aladdin would be even more wonderful.
It was so natural that I imagined the Arabian settings Disney would prepare for Aladdin in various ways, to swell my own bosom with excitement and expectation.
However, my expectation that had been swollen to the maximum was totally betrayed at the theater.
As I could not forget the beauty of the Art of Pinocchio, I expected I could see the Arabian Night version of it in Aladdin, but what I saw in the movie was mere a melting pot of the colors that seemed too flashy to my eyes.
Also, although the movement of the characters was so smooth and swift, it looked too hectic compared to that of Pinocchio.
Maybe this difference was something inevitable, as it had been already 50 years since the creation of Pinocchio when Aladdin was released, and there must have been a lot of technical changes in creation of the works.
In Aladdin computer graphics was adopted already, and it was not a beautiful all-hand-drawn animation film any longer.
Also I was disappointed at that the work was far from Arabic or exotic.
Old Hollywood films such as The Thief of Bagdad (1924) or The Arabian Night (1942) were showing such beautiful arts that made the audience feel as if they were really in some exotic country, and watching Aladdin I expected to see the animation version of such artwork.
However what I saw on the screen was far from exotic.
Disney might have made the art not too exotic for political correctness, but the scenery spreading on the screen seemed like that of one of the American towns.
The same was true to the character designing.
Both Aladdin and Jasmine had dark-colored skins and dark hairs, but their countenances and their body movements were nothing but those of Americans.
I felt very strange bewilderment at the atmosphere of this movie, which had been created after the story of the Arabian Nights but so American, so I would contemplate on this odd feeling again and again.
One day, I suddenly noticed the fact of Aladdin: This film should NOT be regarded as the one that was created after the Arabian Nights; it was a movie showing what Americans were or what Americans should be, created by Americans for Americans.
In Aladdin, we can confirm the marks of American sense of value everywhere.
It is the most obvious in the words and the attitude of Jasmine, who is supposed to be the princess of a Islamic nation: she sneaks out from the palace for her enjoyment and inveighs against the old law of her country saying it is wrong.
She is a heroin of the kind that can delight feminists so much, with an Americanized mind that is so progressive and independent.
The absence of a veil on her face seems to verify her American quality.
In the original story in the Arabian Nights, the veil on the face of the princess plays an important role, and I had been looking forward to seeing how Disney would treat this prop in the movie, but it seems that they didn't give any consideration to it at all.
In real Arabic world, the sense of value and the perspective towards women of the common people must be different from those of Americans.
As I was already a junior-high school student when I watched Aladdin, I could notice that this movie was NOT the one created after the Arabian Nights in fact but the one showing the ideal prototype of Americans merely using the setting of the original story.
As I was old enough, I could notice that this entertainment was simply for Americans, and all the protagonists appearing in it are all Americans in fact, not Arabians.
After I found out this fact of Aladdin, I could enjoy this work simply as an entertainment that is neither good or bad.
However I can't help wondering if the situation had been the same had I been a very young kid.
Let's suppose that the audience are 5-year-old girls who are the fans of Disney princesses.
Perhaps they may be imbued with the idea that all the girls must have progressive and independent personality.
That is good itself, but I wonder if they do not think that even people with different cultural backgrounds and sense of values have to share the same idea with them.
Won't they think that whether in Arab or wherever, people generally live with American way of thinking?
Americans may be imbued with American ideology to spread their values throughout the world through such a guileless entertainment as Aladdin.
Of course I do not think the creative staffs of Aladdin shot this movie with any ideological purpose, as this work seems to be simply for entertainment that wouldn't do any good or bad.
However, as a non-American, I feel I can see through childish entertainment the idea of Americans, who believe that people throughout the world must share the same idea with them and seek for the same ideal with them.
About such ideological quality of American entertainment, the book How to Read Donald Duck shows us interesting analysis, but it has been so long that I would write about it in the next article.
For the first Disney feature I introduce on this blog, I would like to choose Tangled (2010).
There are a lot of masterpieces in Disney movies that exceeds this work in quality, but this one is specially impressive on the point that it strictly follows the ancient structure of the folkloric stories, despite that it is largely deviated from the original story of Grimm brothers.
The story of the Disney movie begins from depicting the heroin Rapunzel, who is born to the royal family but is kidnapped by a woman named Gothel for her magical hair that has the power to restore youth.
Rapunzel is confined to a high tower in the deep forest by Gothel, to grow up to be a lithe and beautiful 18-year-old girl.
Gothel keeps teaching her stepdaughter that the outer world is filled with danger, but the young girl cannot suppress her yearning for the wide world spreading out of the tower.
One day a thief called Flynn Rider happens to sneak into the tower on his escape.
As he is the first person Rapunzel sees other than her stepmother, she makes a deal with him to make him usher her out of the tower.
Gradually Flynn and Rapunzel fall in love with each other (what a Disney-like cliche), but Flynn is captured by the royal guards as an outlaw.
Also Rapunzel gets taken back to the tower by her stepmother, with a deep sorrow.
However, Flynn does not give up to get Rapunzel back to him.
With the help of his friends, he breaks the prison and heads to the tower, where Rapunzel is captured.
On the other hand, Rapunzel regains her old memory that had been hidden in the depth of her mind, by which she learns that Gothel is mere a stepmother and she is the evil one who separated her from her own family.
Finally Flynn succeeds to trespass on the tower to find Rapunzel and to face Gothel.
He gets maimed in the battle with Gothel, but he manages to cut the long magical hair of Rapunzel off.
No sooner the hair is cut than it loses the magical power, and Gothel turns into an old hag.
Being dismayed, she falls down from the top of the tower to the ground.
After healing the wound of Flynn with her little remaining magical power, Rapunzel gets out of the tower with him to enjoy the happy reunion with her original family, the royal.
She finally gets wedded to Flynn, and the story welcomes the happy ending.
What is outstanding in the whole story of this film is the existence of Gothel.
She is an evil woman who kidnaps baby Rapunzel only for her egoistic desire to keep her youth.
On the setup of the story of this movie she is an evil stepmother, but when we focus on the structure of the story motifs, Gothel seems to be the real mother of the heroin.
Gothel is a wicked, shrewd and overbearing mother, who desires to rule her daughter all over.
Cunningly, Gothel repeatedly tells Rapunzel that she loves her so much, or all her deed is done for her daughter's sake, to consolidate her domination over her daughter.
Surely Gothel is wicked, but on the other hand, she rares her daughter to become a lithe-bodied healthy girl with such a healthy open mind.
The affection that Gothel shows to Rapunzel seems to be superficial, but it may partly be a true one.
Gothel may love her daughter in her own way.
She even has been out for some days in search for the paints for the birthday of her daughter, and sometimes it seems as if she does not realize the malice she harbors toward her daughter herself.
Also, although she is a witch, Gothel does not look like a typical fairy-tale witch that scares all who see her.
She is a pretty woman with a merry personality with hidden love and malice to her daughter inside of her, and that gives impressive reality to her character.
Throughout the story, 18-year-old Rapunzel always tries to escape from domination of Gothel.
What we have to notice here is that existence of the daughter is indispensable to that of the mother, who is destined to lose her youth and thus to die immediately without her daughter, but the daughter can do without her mother fairly well.
In the end of the story, Rapunzel finally establishes her "matricide" with the help of her own old memory and Flynn, who returned for her rescue, in exchange for losing her own magical hair.
The story welcomes the happy ending there, but what astounds me is that Disney created a come-of-age story that involves parricide in this modern time.
Tangled is very modern in the sense that it described not patricide by a son but matricide by a daughter, but the education told here is a very primitive one that has been repeated from the ancient era of human beings.
The plot of this movie is so much arranged from the original Grimm fairy tale, but it connotes traditional structure of mythical Bildungsroman: children have to grow through parricide.
Disney created this work in 2010, and it is such a great surprise for me to see this work still winning much popularity in my country.
There are a lot of masterpieces in Disney movies that exceeds this work in quality, but this one is specially impressive on the point that it strictly follows the ancient structure of the folkloric stories, despite that it is largely deviated from the original story of Grimm brothers.
The story of the Disney movie begins from depicting the heroin Rapunzel, who is born to the royal family but is kidnapped by a woman named Gothel for her magical hair that has the power to restore youth.
Rapunzel is confined to a high tower in the deep forest by Gothel, to grow up to be a lithe and beautiful 18-year-old girl.
Gothel keeps teaching her stepdaughter that the outer world is filled with danger, but the young girl cannot suppress her yearning for the wide world spreading out of the tower.
One day a thief called Flynn Rider happens to sneak into the tower on his escape.
As he is the first person Rapunzel sees other than her stepmother, she makes a deal with him to make him usher her out of the tower.
Gradually Flynn and Rapunzel fall in love with each other (what a Disney-like cliche), but Flynn is captured by the royal guards as an outlaw.
Also Rapunzel gets taken back to the tower by her stepmother, with a deep sorrow.
However, Flynn does not give up to get Rapunzel back to him.
With the help of his friends, he breaks the prison and heads to the tower, where Rapunzel is captured.
On the other hand, Rapunzel regains her old memory that had been hidden in the depth of her mind, by which she learns that Gothel is mere a stepmother and she is the evil one who separated her from her own family.
Finally Flynn succeeds to trespass on the tower to find Rapunzel and to face Gothel.
He gets maimed in the battle with Gothel, but he manages to cut the long magical hair of Rapunzel off.
No sooner the hair is cut than it loses the magical power, and Gothel turns into an old hag.
Being dismayed, she falls down from the top of the tower to the ground.
After healing the wound of Flynn with her little remaining magical power, Rapunzel gets out of the tower with him to enjoy the happy reunion with her original family, the royal.
She finally gets wedded to Flynn, and the story welcomes the happy ending.
What is outstanding in the whole story of this film is the existence of Gothel.
She is an evil woman who kidnaps baby Rapunzel only for her egoistic desire to keep her youth.
On the setup of the story of this movie she is an evil stepmother, but when we focus on the structure of the story motifs, Gothel seems to be the real mother of the heroin.
Gothel is a wicked, shrewd and overbearing mother, who desires to rule her daughter all over.
Cunningly, Gothel repeatedly tells Rapunzel that she loves her so much, or all her deed is done for her daughter's sake, to consolidate her domination over her daughter.
Surely Gothel is wicked, but on the other hand, she rares her daughter to become a lithe-bodied healthy girl with such a healthy open mind.
The affection that Gothel shows to Rapunzel seems to be superficial, but it may partly be a true one.
Gothel may love her daughter in her own way.
She even has been out for some days in search for the paints for the birthday of her daughter, and sometimes it seems as if she does not realize the malice she harbors toward her daughter herself.
Also, although she is a witch, Gothel does not look like a typical fairy-tale witch that scares all who see her.
She is a pretty woman with a merry personality with hidden love and malice to her daughter inside of her, and that gives impressive reality to her character.
Throughout the story, 18-year-old Rapunzel always tries to escape from domination of Gothel.
What we have to notice here is that existence of the daughter is indispensable to that of the mother, who is destined to lose her youth and thus to die immediately without her daughter, but the daughter can do without her mother fairly well.
In the end of the story, Rapunzel finally establishes her "matricide" with the help of her own old memory and Flynn, who returned for her rescue, in exchange for losing her own magical hair.
The story welcomes the happy ending there, but what astounds me is that Disney created a come-of-age story that involves parricide in this modern time.
Tangled is very modern in the sense that it described not patricide by a son but matricide by a daughter, but the education told here is a very primitive one that has been repeated from the ancient era of human beings.
The plot of this movie is so much arranged from the original Grimm fairy tale, but it connotes traditional structure of mythical Bildungsroman: children have to grow through parricide.
Disney created this work in 2010, and it is such a great surprise for me to see this work still winning much popularity in my country.