Jim on Film
Page 2 of 6
(c) Disney
The AristoCats does bear some similarities with Lady and the Tramp, which were highlighted by this study, but the similarities seem more coincidental than derivative. The subject of a proper woman who falls in love with a rough-around-the-edges man has been around for centuries, and while the latter film does add the “They’re only humans�? touch of the previous film, this seems too much rooted in the situation to be dismissed as derivative. After all, it is Madame who is coming between Thomas and Duchess.
More importantly, in characterization, tone, humor, plot, music, and style, the two films are vastly different. I would classify Lady and the Tramp as a drama, while The AristoCats is a romantic comedy.
And if similarities between The AristoCats and Lady and the Tramp are coincidental, then any similarities between it and One-Hundred-and-One Dalmatians are just passing. While both films rely heavily on humor, the emphasis in each film is starkly different, since One-Hundred-and-One Dalmatians is an adventure and The AristoCats is a romantic comedy. The basic plot of animals being removed from their happy home is hardly enough to warrant such comparisons, particularly since motives, villains, and means are so different, as are the two journeys home.
Upon watching The AristoCats in sequence, many of its criticisms fall apart. For example, many have claimed that the film relies on formula cuteness. There is no doubt that Marie, Toulouse, and Berlioz are cute. In design, voice, and action, they are adorable; however, so are kittens in real life. And since the kittens are also children characters in feline skin and human children are also cute, these characters seem like a natural step for the film. Furthermore, most people like cute things, such as kittens, so to attack this film for having what people like is ludicrous. A better take is to appreciate the amazing feat of animation that brings these characters to life so richly and vividly instead of criticizing how well done it is.
More importantly, however, is that up to this point, there have been very few cute characters in the Disney canon. The puppies in One-Hundred-and-One Dalmatians are not particularly cute, the dogs in Lady and the Tramp are not cute, and neither are the mice in Cinderella. While the studio certainly had cute elements in their animated shorts, they are not as developed as in The AristoCats, and in the features, the only other film previous to this to feature cute was Bambi.
One of the highlights of this film is the richly developed personalities, again something that brings Pixar to mind. Napoleon and Lafayette are extremely fun, such as Napoleon’s ability to identify anything from sound (such as a one-wheeled haystack). Abigail and Amelia Gabble, as well as their poor marinated Uncle Waldo are highlights of the film. Even Scat Cat and his gang are lots of fun.
Much has also been said about the re-casting of Phil Harris after his role as Baloo in The Jungle Book. O’Malley and Baloo are both carefree and loose-talking, but there are so many things that are different between the two characters that any criticisms against the casting seem futile. The key differences are that while Baloo is fun-loving and dim-witted, O’Malley is casual yet street-smart. While Baloo has a strong relationship with Mowgli, he is more of a buddy whereas O’Malley is definitely more of a father. What is most important is that Baloo could not be O’Malley and O’Malley could not be Baloo.
Unlike most of the other films from this period, however, The AristoCats has a stronger plot. It is also interesting that whereas the two films before it show a refinement to the Xerox line, The AristoCats returns to the sketchier lines. In Madame’s hair, for example, there are flashes of lines, as there also is in the wonderful Georges Hautecourt. Cost-cutting measures become more apparent as well, as there are several cases of animation re-used within the film (such as Toulouse’s hisses and Edgar on his motorcycle) as well as some re-used animation of Thumper. There are even some cels with odd colors that flash by or changes in color tones. But this all bears the marks of its time in Disney history when the department, under concern for elimination, needed to deliver a film that would be economically feasible and financially profitable.
Most interestingly is that The AristoCats is not a particularly beautiful film as is every animated feature before it. While the backgrounds outside of Madame’s Paris home are nicely done, the rest of the film relies heavily on less-stunning colors and sketchy black ink overlays.
The AristoCats, though, is a charming and delightful film that rises above any strong criticisms against it because it is so much fun. Perhaps what is most important to remember is that the fate of Feature Animation rested upon The AristoCats, and since its original release, it has proven itself a hit among families across the world. And though it remains humble and un-ambitious, it is still an extremely well-done film.
Though The Jungle Book used animals to tell its story, those animals moved and functioned as animals. The fact that in Robin Hood the animals move and function as humans is enough of a difference to differentiate the two, and in watching the sequence of films, this use is fresh and shows an attempt, while not a breakthrough, to do something different. Not only that, but it allows for animal-based caricatures. Of course, the selections are obvious (such as making Robin Hood a fox), but this clever use helps define their characters, and because of this, the animals were not selected randomly.
There are some familiar elements at work in the film. Some of the antics of the animal children do seem familiar (or, if not familiar, then based upon child-esque behavior rather than authentic child behavior). There is also some merit to comparisons between Baloo and Little John, though they are not exactly the same. In addition to being a sort of dimwit (loudmouth brawn to Robin Hood’s quiet brains), Little John has the same speech patterns as Baloo, highlighted by speaking a few of Baloo’s lines and further emphasized by some re-use of Baloo’s animation. While one could not imagine Little John taking on the care of a child, as Baloo does with Mowgli, the main difference is that Little John is more of a supporting role whereas Baloo is a co-starring role, meaning that Little John has less time to develop into a Baloo-like character.
Despite these familiar elements, there are some things that could have been borrowed from other films that were not. Little John, for example, is not merely a brown Baloo; he has his own character design. And while Sir Hiss has a resemblance to Kaa from The Jungle Book, he is a vastly different character, and considering that he is a much shorter snake than Kaa, he doesn’t even carry Kaa’s mannerisms.