A guest blog on Aladdin

[It's my site, and I'll print what I want to. Today, that means a 4,700 word essay by Mr. GK of San Diego, CA, about Disney's Aladdin. I thought it insightful, scholarly, and generally worth reading, so here you have it.]

The only real experience I have with Disney movies is from way back in my childhood. We went to see a bunch of live-action Disney movies that were re-released around 1980. These were titles like "Mary Poppins" and "Escape from Witch Mountain." I also have a vague memory of seeing "Alice in Wonderland," which was originally released sometime in the fifties. Then, of course, there was the weekly "Wonderful World of Disney," which has only recently come back to TV. In its original incarnation, which I remember us watching almost every Sunday, they ran through a ton of old movies. Most of them were live action, like that annoying VW with the eye-like headlights, but there were a few cartoons. I particularly remember the one where Mickey and the gang act out Jack and the Bean Stalk. They must have shown that one half a dozen times over the course of a couple of years. Somehow I also come away with the impression that I've seen "Pinoccio", "Dumbo", "Snow White", "Peter Pan" and maybe others, since while I don't have any recollections of the actual viewing, I'm very familiar with the songs, images, and stories from those movies. Did I see them? I don't know for sure. Maybe I picked up the snippets in my memory from clips and short recordings encountered here and there around elementary school age. Whatever may have happened, "the Wonderful World of Disney" was off the air by the time I was in middle school and I forgot about it. During high school I came to like old children's stories and fairy tales and got around to reading the original versions of many of those movies, and the difference between what I read and what appeared in the Disney version was jarring. In the type of righteous indignation that only strikes someone who is convinced of his superiority, and I was since I had actually read the books, I condemned Disney animated movies as being tools of the leftist bourgeois class made to subdue the population. Or perhaps I though that they were implanted into our culture by the Beta Reticulli to make our planet ripe for conquest. I'm not sure what my objection was, but I skipped the revival of Disney animation that began about ten years ago.

I recently got a chance to watch "Hercules". As it turned out, "Hercules" had all the elements that I had dreaded, and yet it wasn't that bad. All of the disagreeable or immoral aspects had been excised from the story, so that the one presented had almost no bearing on the original story, other than the famous names and the most basic story elements. Despite this, the movie really tried hard to please and accomplished its goal. The bad feelings I had expected to feel while watching never materialized and so the experience was something I would rate on the plus side. Later that week, "Pocahontas" was on the tube, and I caught a few minutes of it (it was opposite the Simpsons, precluding a full viewing). Again, the story bore almost no resemblance to the original, which this time was based on historical incidents. But, once again, the movie was an overall positive. So I've decided that I do like Disney animated movies after all.

Admittedly, my revelation of lack of dislike for these movies is based largely on nostalgia. Some of the old feelings of wonder come back, if only in pieces. Watching a Disney movie used to be a mind-blowing type of aweing ordeal. The quality of the production and the complexity of the stories, combined with the experience of being in a big, crowded theater before a large screen and big speakers was overwhelming. The complexity of the stories was a big part since these movies move along rapidly with lots of short scenes and quickly-passing imagery. As an eight-year old, I couldn't possibly remember more than a couple of scenes back, so I would lose myself into the movie. They seemed like massive epics to me. The quality was also obviously above the usual television fare, so I really thought that these Disney cartoons were special; I was under the impression that these movies were delivered from on high in a state of perfection. As I watch them now, they seem much shorter than I remember, although I can still tell that they progress quickly and have complex stories. I'm also not as overwhelmed by the movie-going experience, and watching on TV or video is not quite awe-inspiring. So I've outgrown the causes of those old emotions, but I still have the desire to feel them again. That's what nostalgia's all about, and these movies are a convenient trigger that the nostalgia portion of my mind can use to take over the rest of my thoughts. There is, however, more to it than a few old feelings.

These movies do have a genuine merit of their own. The temptation to always compare the movie with the older story is overwhelming, but not necessarily valid. An attitude that the original work is definitive is the natural accompaniment, so any deviation from the old storyline is bad. This particular viewpoint has no real validity that I can see. These stories were made up to begin with, so nothing is changed but thin air. As an example, in the case of Hercules' parents, it's not as if the people who made the movie physically took Hercules from his mother and made him a son of Hera. He never actually existed, so saying he was the son of a mortal is no more valid than the Disney version. I think that the idea of movies being bad for changing written works around is a manifestation of the arrogance I described earlier and has no basis in reality. So they change a few points, who gets hurt?

Having discovered, or perhaps rediscovered, these cartoons, I've set out to catch up a little on what I missed. This weekend I got "Aladdin" and the made-for-video sequel "The Return of Jafar" to have a look-see at what the big deal is.

As a general evaluation, "Aladdin" is the best movie I've seen since I saw "Jackie Brown" a few months ago, and ROJ was, at the least, a decent follow-up. Despite the temptation, identical to the one described two paragraphs earlier, to dismiss ROJ from our insider-type knowledge that it's a commercial knock-off, it does have definite merits of its own and is not so bad. So let's take a closer look at these movies and note what we see.

The first element that greets our eyes is, not surprisingly, the visual aspects; these are amazingly elaborate in "Aladdin". The full force of the Disney studios was behind this project and it shows. We can see the individual particles in every flutter of sand. The usual shortcuts involved in TV animation are absent. Rather than simple and repetitive motions executed in front of a flat background, we have a varying perspective that moves in and out of the surroundings. Each movement has been considered and individually painted, and every elaborate detail meshes well into the overall tableaux. This means that enough thoughtful art direction went into the production that the movie could be stopped at any instant and we would see a pleasing, well-balanced image. This doesn't mean, though, that this was necessarily the best animation ever.

I would say the animation in "Snow White" and perhaps some other features was superior due to the flowing motions of the characters. The dwarves in particular have a certain fluidity about their movements that shows up for even the slightest of movements. A bit of clothing may shift around and a flap of flesh may resettle. Beards move and ears twitch. Watching a show like this gives the impression that every single second of the movie was carefully considered by the animators, who tried to see if they could add more or make further improvements over the basic and necessary movements. The only character that made this type of impression was the thief Kazim, who makes a brief appearance at the start of the movie and does physically resemble one of the dwarves of "Snow White." The other characters are generally solid, so if an arm moves to pick something up, for example, that's about all we see. In some cases we see a careful complexity in the motions that makes it clear that this bit of animation was based on a film of a real person doing this. These moments are brief, and the animation is in general a little more economical than what would make it comparable to the best ever.

The overall look is also a simplification over previous works, although this fits the style that the movie adopts. "Snow White" attempted to evoke a gothic feel through its art, and some other feature cartoons, such as "Pinoccio" followed that example. "Hercules" utilized a style evocative of ancient Greece, and "Aladdin" does the same with medieval Arabia. This doesn't mean that the style is authentic, of course, it means instead that modern audiences will make the association. For "Aladdin," the combination of long, clean lines combined with elaborate details looked familiar and strangely appropriate for the setting. At first I considered that the style was art neuveau, but that didn't seem to be quite the perfect fit. The works of Alphonse Mucha, the spring of art neuveau are similarly elaborate, but without the sweeping lines and simple elements. In "Aladdin," the complex and organic elements are mixed with majestic, almost lonely buildings and settings, and all is bathed in a golden or reddish hue that brings forth a sense of human comfort and exotic warmth. Jasmine's balcony was especially notable for these qualities. After a while, and after seeing a few images that couldn't be shaken from my fevered mind's eye, I at last hit upon where I had last seen this style. As it happens, the answer was lying in my bookshelf the entire time. It's "The Rubbayat of Omar Kayam," with illustrations by Rene Bull. He drew and painted the illustrations not only for this work set in old Arabia, but also did an influential version of the Arabian Nights published in 1912. The match is, in my untrained opinion, close. The look of the stars and the clouds over the city seems particularly unique when compared with other styles and similar when compared to each other. There is, furthermore, an unmistakable art neavau streak in Bull's work, and it complements the exotica well. This is the type of style that I as a modern slob off the street would see and make associations with warm deserts, spices and riches. The overall appearance of "Aladdin" is therefore simpler than some other movies, but with a purpose, and that purpose fits the story extraordinarily well.

The music of "Aladdin" add a lot to the movie, and they become an indispensable element. As a basic test for the quality of the songs in the movie, consider them as you would a doctor; i.e, they must at least do no harm. The songs are, indeed, well integrated into the story, and the narrative flow is uninterrupted by their addition. They serve as economical ways to introduce characters and let us know what is going on inside their drawn little heads. Furthermore, as in an opera, "Aladdin" uses music, which is a shortcut to the emotions, to intensify the experience that the movie is intended to cause. Also like an opera, if the elements of the story, the visuals and the music combine in just the right way, the effect can be almost overwhelming. When Jafar sings a snippet from the Genie's song glorifying Aladdin, but changes the words to do the opposite, and combined with the exact place in the story when this occurs, his total victory at that moment is really transmitted to the audience. Another example of this type of usage of music is the Genie's song about Aladdin, the same one that Jafar later satires. At another level from these operatic effects is the accentuation of the setting and the characters by the music. The Genie's introductory song in the cave is a good example of this, since it uses brash instrumentation and more elaboration than Aladdin's simple introductory song. Actually, from start to finish, the music is good in "Aladdin," and not only complements the story but would stand alone as an independent work. This can be attributed to the work of Alan Menken, who also did the music for the other recent Disney cartoon features. Since he died last year, though, "Hercules" and ROJ were not his works and are not nearly as good.

Before looking at the narrative content of "Aladdin" and ROJ, it is necessary to first dispense with the original story that they may be based upon. Actually, there are more than one version of the story of Aladdin, and some are unrecognizably different. The one I have, for example, and consider to be definitive is called "The Tale of Ala al-Din Abu al-Shamat." Ala al-Din means "Glory of the Faithful", and Abu al-Shamat means "Father of Shamat", whatever "Shamat" means. The "al" is not actually pronounced, but the sound after it is doubled, so that when read aloud the name sounds like "Aladdin Abushshamat." The story is set in Baghdad and features Aladdin, Caliph Haroun al-Rashid, the Vizier Ja'afar, and a slave that Aladdin buys and then marries named Jasmine. In this version, Aladdin endures various hardships in Baghdad, Alexandria and other places, and there is no mention made of a lamp, a Genie or a cave. I'm not clear on where the standard Aladdin story originated, and suspect that it was written by a European writer who in the nineteenth century who combined elements found throughout the Arabian Nights. In the movie, the Caliph is now a Sultan, which is a more recognizable title to modern audiences. Technically, a caliph would be an Arabian king and a sultan would be a Turkish king, but that detail is unimportant. Jasmine becomes the daughter of the sultan, which is a detail that has appeared before, so Disney didn't make that up. Jafar, however, doesn't do so well since he is relegated to the role of the villain in the movie. That would be in complete opposition to the his place as a wise and trusted advisor who appears in many places throughout the Arabian Nights, sometimes as the hero of the story. Some of the characters are well-created in "Aladdin" and some are without depth.

Aladdin is the most developed character in "Aladdin". The movie is about his growth into adulthood through the adventure that he undergoes. This follows the basic outline for these types of stories outlined in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell, which informs us that the hero will begin the story as a child. He, or sometimes she, has great potential that is unrealized until an adventure comes into his life. He may try to reject the adventure, but it won't be turned away and soon destroys or disrupts his life to the point where he must embark on the quest. Although he may be fighting an evil presence, the real battle is with his undeveloped self. In the end he defeats the evil entity by mastering himself, and attains maturity. As an example, think of the story of Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars". Aladdin has this crucial role in the movie, and is therefore allowed to have the flaws and doubts, and the successes that give a character breadth. He is also the one with whom we are forming a connection, since he is living our stories. We may not all have to face evil sorcerers, but we do all need to overcome our immaturities. Aladdin has plenty of these at the start of the movie. He is, for some reason, a thief. This is what he sings: "gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat." As he does so, he is running away from the shopkeepers and the guards, easily defeating them since he is younger, stronger and smarter. The question may arise as to why Aladdin doesn't work for a living. Why does he have to steal? This shows a great waste of potential, and an audience doesn't have any problems identifying with that. Although it may not have scientific backing, I believe that all people feel they deserve more than what they are currently receiving in life, even if they don't do anything for it. Aladdin has good qualities, exemplified by the time he gives his bread to the scavenging children. This is an important element in drawing the audience in because I also think that we believe ourselves to be basically good people, even if we are jerks most of the time. So we step into the story with Aladdin. At other places within the story he encounters a full range of emotions, and is not always predictable. His flaws, particularly his lying, make us wonder what he will do next. The climax is slightly imbalanced because it does not follow this narrative thrust. Aladdin defeats Jafar with a trick that had no basis in any of the qualities that he had been developing throughout the story. The victory is achieved through a clever plan that came out of nowhere, since Aladdin did not work to develop any cleverness in the story. In this one instance, like a deus ex machinas type of climax, Aladdin delivers a tricky statement that ensnares Jafar. There was no build-up or foreshadowing of this talent. As a counter-example, when Jafar orders Iago to lure Aladdin away from the lamp, Iago's ability to imitate Jasmine had already been established in an earlier sequence when Iago mocked Jasmine with a perfect imitation of her voice. The climax also has nothing to do with his development and mastery over his own flaws. Actually, the Aladdin of the very start of the movie would have been able to do everything he does in the final battle with Jafar, including his victory. The real climax of the movie, when considered from the perspective of Aladdin's development, occurs when he grants the Genie his freedom. To do this, he has mastered his selfishness, his dishonesty, and his egotism. The cycle complete, he is free to marry Jasmine at the end of the movie.

Jasmine's character is totally obvious in her linear behavior. Despite the obvious advantages in the pairing of a male lead with a female lead, there is no symmetry in the characters, since Jasmine has absolutely no depth. Her actions are set in advance and she is bound to follow them. After the situation at the start of "Aladdin" is introduced, in which we learn that she has never left the palace and will be made to marry, we know that she will give a short speech saying that she is in control of her life and will escape. Despite this brief assurance, she has no control over her actions and exists only to follow simplistic romantic motivations. We also know for an indisputable fact that she must decide to marry Aladdin because he is nice to her and he is handsome. When she is given her freedom at the end, she chooses to marry Aladdin, rather than marry someone else or no one at all. Every other action she performs is linked to the romantic motivation, whether it is to help Aladdin or to reject him in anger. [...] Like a one-celled amoeba, her response to this stimulus is set. Jasmine is not a full character; she is instead a piece of Aladdin's adventure and exists to help him develop.

The character of Jafar is best summarized by the words he uses to describe Iago in ROJ: "you're so predictable, a villain through and through." Jafar is no Darth Vader. He has no background, no hidden motivations, no spectrum of qualities. He is just bad and wants to be above others. In "Aladdin" he at least has some range of communication styles, though. In ROJ, Jafar is stuck in gloat mode, perpetually shouting and laughing ominously. This lack of depth is not automatically bad, though. For the purpose of Aladdin's development, Jafar fulfills the role of the external evil that he must battle. Many fairy tales feature simple evil villains. Mixing good qualities into the evil presence can be confusing, and detracts from the simplicity of the symbolism. The villain represents the simple evil that exists in the world, and the hero may totally destroy the villain without any negative repercussions ever emerging. Jafar's friendship with Iago is the only exception to this rule, and is what saves him from complete annihilation at the end. In ROJ, the friendship is broken, so Jafar is killed at the end. In general, the character of Jafar was put through a filter and only the evil qualities remained. Anything else was excised as being unnecessary. These characters, Aladdin, Jasmine and Jafar were the main characters, and the rest were backup in "Aladdin".

The sultan is a complete zero of a character. He does nothing to advance the story. He has no clear motivations. He does not even have any clear character traits other than a bland good-nature. This character fulfills the role of a prop.

Even though the Genie gets plenty of screen time, he is also not a real character. His role in the story is like a force of nature. Others utilize him but he does not move the story himself. He could have been replaced by a magic ring or a robotic suit that grants the wearer fantastic powers and the story would have been unaffected. Like the Force in "Star Wars" or Jiminy Cricket in "Pinoccio," the Genie has a crucial role to fulfill in the development story. Like the sultan, however, he still only a prop, although he is an entertaining prop.

Then there are the category of cutesy characters that take up screen space and act as companions. These include Abu, the magic carpet, Rajah, and Iago, although Iago is a special case. These characters were probably added for the benefit of what Mel Brooks called "moichendising" in "Spaceballs." They have clear personalities but those personas are of infants. They are in a perpetual state of over-expressing an emotion and over-reacting to minuscule stimuli. They are cheerful and then petulant, like the personalities that small children may project onto dolls. Besides their marketability, these characters do have a small role to play in the story. By conversing with Abu and Rajah, Aladdin and Jasmine can reveal their thoughts without having to resort to the artifice of the monologue.

Iago is the break-out character from the fluff characters. In "Aladdin," Iago is the co-villain, who is, in personality, the equal of Jafar. He takes orders although we sense his dissatisfaction, and at the end he rebels. This character is therefore not completely revealed on the surface and is not entirely static. In ROJ, he takes the place of Aladdin as the focus of the development story. In the second movie, though, Iago is not developing into maturity by defeating flaws, but is redeeming himself by developing strengths. This is built up slowly, and is well foreshadowed throughout the story. The Genie says: "you do have a heart, an itty bitty one, but it's there." This development story is actually more dramatic than the one in "Aladdin." We see Iago being really put through the ringer on an emotional level by the situations he is forced into, and we see the loyalty and good qualities gradually emerge. Unlike "Aladdin," the climax of ROJ is well placed in the development story. Jafar is defeated by the qualities that emerged in Iago throughout the movie. Why was this story so much better balanced, in this respect, than in "Aladdin"? I think that it's because the other characters were subsumed into the background and therefore Iago had the center stage basically all to himself as the sole independent entity in the movie. By being simpler and less ambitious than "Aladdin," ROJ succeeded in presenting this character's story well.

The story has more aspects than just the development of characters, however; since this is a children's story, the matter of the themes and lessons learned also arises. The themes in "Aladdin" are unfocused and basically all over the map. We have lessons in honesty, in keeping promises, in loyalty, in following the law, and we have an undercurrent of capriciousness and unegalitarianism. The movie instills the notion that the roles of people in life are immutable. So although Aladdin is a thief and adds nothing to society, he must achieve greatness because he is greater than everybody else. The people in the market who do work for a living are shown to be ugly buffoons who deserve their lowly positions. The only good action we see Aladdin perform is to give a piece of bread to two children. Whether this action merits riches, the sultan's daughter and a position of high power is debatable. He is, however, instilled with a goodness that entitles him to succeed in life. Without doing any work and without contributing to the people in the markets of Baghdad, he rises above them simply because he is better than them. Being better than others, furthermore, can be seen with a glance.

Physical beauty is simply equivalent to goodness and worthiness in the world of these movies. Aladdin looks better than the market people, Jafar, and even the Sultan, so he deserves to rise above all of them. Jasmine is also attractive and therefore good. The principle of beauty being a signal for good is well established in romantic stories. A more extreme example would be Puccini's "Madama Butterfly," in which the character of Madame Butterfly is repugnant, and even evil, yet because she is beautiful, people fight to redeem her and finally succeed in the end. One of the problems with this idea is its lack of portability from one culture to another. The Arabian Nights, for example, mentions in numerous places the qualities of an attractive woman. These include a gap between the two front teeth and a bridge of hair connecting the eyebrows. Jasmine does not have these qualities and would therefore not be considered a perfect beauty in the story. Her physical appearance has been translated into modern terms, which suggests a conflict with the principle of an immutable worth attached to all people. If Jasmine were to travel to a culture that did not consider her to be the most attractive woman around, would she still be the Sultan's daughter? In a strict sense, the answer is yes, since "Aladdin" and ROJ are self-contained, which means that what you see is all there is. Questions about what would happen if something occurred completely outside these movies are moot. They are like asking if these characters go to the bathroom, when, of course, they do not because they are fictional characters and do not do anything outside of the story.

Yes, it can be seen from what I've written here that I liked "Aladdin" and ROJ. "Aladdin" was particularly pleasing since it was a full studio production. There seems to be a flood of animation on the TV and sometimes in the theaters and little of it is of quality. What I like to see is what I mentioned earlier, namely, every second of filmtime is examined and made better. The whole point of animation is that the pictures move, so they should really move a lot. The music was also way better than I expected. It fit into the story perfectly and was decent in its own right. The good animation and the good music made me pay attention long enough for characters to develop, even if Aladdin was the only real character to emerge. Then there is the quick pace and complex story. The scenes are usually short and they lead from one to another at high speed. Even as a grownup I have trouble keeping it all in my mind at one time. So while watching the movie I become lost in it just as I did fifteen years ago, although perhaps not quite as much. The old emotions of awe are definitely there.