The Princess and the Frog is the most significant Disney film of the past decade. Not only does it mark the Mouse House’s return to traditional 2D animation some four years after Home on the Range‘s failure saw them abandoning the medium, it also features a multi-racial cast and African American lead – firsts for the studio. Anticipation for this New Orleans-set musical couldn’t have been higher, making it all the more frustrating that it isn’t entirely a triumph. Simply put, this fun frog still has some warts.
Namely, the cramped narrative. It’s not uncommon for Disney scribes to take some liberties when the source material proves too thin (hello Sleeping Beauty!) and Frog is no exception. The heroine Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) turns out not to be a Princess at all, merely a waitress with a plan to open the restaurant her late father always dreamed of. The catch? She has to make a prompt down payment and is low on funds. You’d think this is where her wealthy BFF Charlotte (Jennifer Cody) would step in, but they had to fit the ”frog” angle in there somewhere.
Penniless Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) fills that role, after the scheming voodoo villain Dr Facilier (Gargoyles‘ Keith David) casts a spell on him. Catching sight of Tiana in a Princess costume, Naveen begs her for a smooch, hoping it will restore his humanity. Instead, she shares his fate, and the two froggies head off on a wild adventure to figure the whole mess out.
Naturally, they meet up with plenty of likeable characters, from the jumpin’ and jivin’ Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis) and trumpet-obsessed crocodile Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley), to the hopelessly romantic firefly Ray (Jim Cummings). Nice as they all are, the bayou buddies just eat up screentime without adding much to Tiana’s story. Randy Newman’s Academy Award nominated number ”Almost There” does such a great job of establishing Tiana as an upbeat entrepreneur on a mission that when the film switches gears into a anthropomorphic rom-com, it’s somehow less engaging.
Given Disney’s attempts to break new ground with this feature, you also can’t help but wonder why they insisted upon making Tiana yet another heroine whose happiness is ultimately tied to finding a man (no disrespect intended to Campos’ good-natured Naveen). All the multiple subplots also rob Dr Facilier of a proper climax after a film’s worth of build-up. By the time he’s unceremoniously dispatched, man-hungry Charlotte has a revelation, a cast member is mourned and Tiana and Naveen get to dancing, it’s clear the writers gave themselves a little too much to work with.
That said, while the story won’t wow you, the animation surely will. The opening scenes of a young Charlotte squirming with childlike joy as The Frog Prince is read to her will stretch a smile across your face a mile wide. The wedding sequence features flourishes the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Firebird Suite from Fantasia 2000.
Disney brought back top tier animators like Andreas Deja to work alongside Little Mermaid directors Ron Clements and John Musker for this production and it really shows. Sadly, Frog didn’t come close to delivering the kind of box office success that would ensure the studio’s permanent return to this medium. Even more troubling, rumours now suggest that they’ve changed the title of their upcoming CGI feature Rapunzel to Tangled, hoping to ward off the suggestion that this is another Princess movie. Ouch.
The film is out now on DVD and Blu-ray in several shiny special features-stuffed editions. As always, the most interesting of the extras proves to be the commentary track with directors Clements and Musker, whose love for the medium will leave you hoping that Disney lets them take another turn at the 2D bat. And soon.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I was so looking forward to the new Disney princess film and the disappointment from it is even worst. This film has felt a lot like teen angst to me: confused and all over the place. The studio has obviously forgotten to live up to Disney's "you can do better" standard.
But of all things, the choice they made is the where and when they chose to plant their story. Why would you set your FIRST African American princess in the 1920' segregated New Orleans? There are not enough African tales out there
I just came across a Dr Toon essay today over at Animation World Network that debates the validity of some of the complaints people have voiced towards this film. On the second page, the issue of segregation is discussed, Rosalie. Give it a look and tell us what you think:
http://www.awn.com/articles/2d/dr-toon-wielding-h…
I absolutely loved the film – however i was focused on the sheer beauty of the almost forgotten 2d technique (shoutout to the incredible 9 old men). The film is a true gem amongst the 3d digital world in which we now live.
gorgeous
gorgeous
Walt Disney couldn't have done it better himself
The whole Dr Toon essay is somewhat frustrating to me, but lets stick to the issue discussed earlier : the segregation. While Dr Toon overlook the issue by saying "This is a magical fantasy whose background happens to be New Orleans, not a commentary on racial inequity in 1920s Dixie. Taking historical liberties in this case does nothing to add or detract from the plot." That it is "nit-picking of the highest order" not to overlook the issue as it not as bad as some other Disney features. This then means Disney has a habit of such historical inaccuracies.
I am then being nit picky because the issue, in my poor undereducated film animation student mind, is a little big to be overlooked. I do believe that if you want your plot to be placed in a specific time and place you have to abide by the rules that were then put forth. The 1920's New Orleans was segregated, the writers SHOULD have had set their plot in an imaginary voodoo and jazz world that could have look like New Orleans.
And to keep this discussion alive, this Disney feature is not their first black princess movie, it is their first prince one.
As for the issue of the disappearance of 2D animation from our screen, bex maybe you should start looking broader than only the mainstream American studios as your animation source. Because Europe and Asia are an endless source of beautiful animation of all genre: hand drawn, puppet, claymation and so on. If you go to festivals as well you will find out that 2D animation is alive and well.
It is true that computer 3D (and the difference is important, because claymation and puppet are also in their own way 3D animation) is a new player in animation, but I don't think it will overcome the other genre when you know where to look.