“One cannot combine naturalism with cartoon fantasy,” claimed the New York Times. Some critics didn’t take to it back then. But for this production, reflecting nature was key, and by studying the movements and anatomy of animals closely, the animators pushed realism and personification closer together. Before Bambi, animals took on more of a cartoonish look, evident in Disney’s previous features where critters would bend and twist like rubber. We’re grossly inundated with films and shows featuring realistic talking animals, so it’s easy to forget how novel it was for an audience in 1942 to see an anatomically correct rabbit behaving so much like a human boy. Disney did such a fine job of it, children naturally attached themselves to him. Thumper wasn’t created for a child audience. One moment-when he goes to eat a blossom, only to be told by his mother “What did your father tell you,”-sees him deliver a head sway / eye roll combo followed by a sarcastic, “’bout what?” It’s subtle but perfect, an infectiously on-point replication of how a cheeky child reacts to being lectured for the 200th time. To this day, Thumper’s mannerisms read with compelling purity. Master animator Ollie Johnston observed Behn’s delivery closely and would then melt this authenticity into the character. Voiced by an actual child, non-actor Peter Behn, his likeability and relatability came from his genuineness, often reading lines in unintended ways. The film invites the audience, regardless of age, to (re)experience the majesty of life and the world around them for the first time. Straying far away from Jewish author Felix Salten’s original allegorical book, Disney’s Bambi hones in on the essence of nature and growth, and rarely does such a thing conform neatly to a convenient fairy tale format.
The titular fawn enters the world, befriends other animals, observes flowers, hears thunder, experiences rain, slips on ice, learns grief, discovers buckhood, feels love, understands danger, and finds bravery. Written as a response to claims that Bambi was “a cutesy schmaltzfest for kids,” Prof Christie’s argument aligns more with the idea that the film-and all the early Disney features, for that matter-weren’t specifically made for kids.Ī subtle difference but an important one, especially when recognising Bambi as one of cinemas biggest miracles-an ageless film.Ĭontrary to how you may remember it, Bambi doesn’t have a typical three-act structure. “The idea of a separate children’s audience didn’t exist in 1942,” Prof Ian Christie wrote in an article titled Why Bambi isn’t for kids, “like its predecessors Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio and Dumbo – terrified many youngsters accompanying their parents.”Īlthough it’s a much-needed reminder of the vastly different attitudes between old Disney and new Disney, I find the headline of the article misleading. However, some may also argue the Disney classic is only great for kids or, stranger still, isn’t for kids at all. This column is dedicated to kids films that deserve wider recognition, so Bambi might seem like an odd one to cover, given it’s already well regarded as a great piece of cinema.
0 kommentar(er)
