Skip to main content

Disney Sundays: The Sword in the Stone (1963)


         The Sword in the Stone doesn’t feel so much like a Disney movie as a Looney Tunes sketch crossed with an early episode of Doctor Who. Both of which are things I love, so naturally I should love this movie. Well....you know how two things you love may not be very good when put together; sort of that old chocolate pizza or like analogy. Well the same can be said for The Sword in the Stone, especially given it’s also a Disney movie.
          There’s also the fact that this film deals with Arthurian legend which I feel should be played with some seriousness considering the gravitas of the myth. That’s not to say it can’t work when played fully for laughs; Monty Python and the Holy Grail after all is one of the greatest comedies, in part due to how much it overplays the gravitas of the myth. But while this film is mostly a comedy -something Disney doesn't often do well, it’s not all that funny, and it makes the moments that are trying to be serious feel empty.
          The story differs greatly from accepted Arthurian lore but that’s not an issue if the film can overcome that with a good story and characters. The BBC series Merlin differed a lot from the lore but still managed to be decent. So let’s take a look at the story: Merlin is a powerful if eccentric wizard in early medieval England who seems to be a bit of a hermit, over-reliant on magic and using time travel to see into the future and try to recreate technology in his own era (as well as telling everyone what the future holds which will inevitably change history resulting in an alternate universe). He seeks out the boy predestined to be king, a young squire called Arthur (nicknamed “Wart”), and through a series of random trials in which mostly they transform into various animals, prepares him to pull the sword Excalibur out of the stone (technically an anvil) and become king. King of England though because for some reason the film doesn’t include Camelot.
          This version of the story is very unfocussed being episodic in its presentation. If it weren’t for the title and the general background of the King Arthur figure, you wouldn’t know what direction it’s going in or if there’s any point to what you’re being shown. It’s mostly Merlin and Arthur experimenting with magic by transforming into animals, singing songs, and occasionally making a reference to something modern and the gimmick of Arthur not knowing what it is. The episodes don’t connect much, Arthur doesn’t even really learn from his experiences, certainly little that would adequately prepare him for becoming king. Sequences go off on tangents that in no way affect the rest of the film. Like there’s a bit where a wolf follows them trying to eat Arthur that goes nowhere, and extended flights for their lives. If these sequences were funny I wouldn’t mind. But they’re just these kind of pointless excursions to musical numbers, with Merlin and Arthur redesigned as fish or birds or whatever. The film seems to be mostly an excuse to experiment in the animation department. This animation very much like One Hundred and One Dalmatians is simpler and less visually appealing than many of Disney’s earlier works. So in this film, the animators try and show they can still do some interesting stuff with the transformations and the colours. It is somewhat impressive but still nowhere near as good looking as most previous Disney films. And it doesn’t feel very Disney, this episodic comic style and characters. Again it’s much more reminiscent of Warner Brothers shorts where one of the Looney Tunes line-up would be placed in a medieval time period, only less funny. I can easily picture Bugs Bunny in the role of Merlin where the modern references and sense of humour would work (one line at the end alluding to television is particularly painful).
          Merlin’s really nothing more than a befuddled coot, a kind of character we’ve seen many times before and since only in this case he’s a wizard. His modern references and foresight really foreshadow the Genii in Aladdin, but Karl Swenson has the disadvantage of not being Robin Williams. He’s not entertaining and doesn’t leave an impression. And the references aren’t written well either, they’re just brought up. But it’s his relationship with Arthur that really hurts the film. Merlin and Arthur is pretty much the ultimate mentor-student relationship, it’s the pairing on which many similar relationships are based; like Obi-Wan and Luke or Dumbledore and Harry. Even the aforementioned series Merlin took an interesting spin on it by making them about the same age (that series in general was pretty good at being serious while still having some lighter moments). But in this film it’s just not very striking. They don’t have a believable friendship or an interesting student-teacher dynamic. You get the impression that Merlin’s only training Arthur because he’s predestined to. The film’s preoccupation with predestination does get in the way of the drama and the stakes. And there’s also the fact that Arthur really isn’t cut out for being a king. At least not in any way we see. We know he’s going to be king because he’s Arthur and so does Merlin, and that’s problematic because it allows him the luxury of not having to do anything or have any character. And to me it comes off as lazy. Hell there’s even a scene where Merlin admits to his owl Archimedes he’s just going to cheat to get Arthur where he needs to be, which robs Arthur of any importance, essentially making him a tool. Also, neither Merlin nor Arthur is English and that’s not right! I mean come on! King Arthur’s one of the most English figures ever and you make him American? The other characters aren’t much better. A witch called Madam Mim shows up for a brief period where she duels with Merlin; something that’s much cooler in Harry Potter because they do more than just turn into animals and engage in slapstick. Mim winds up being a pretty lame villain. Certainly one of Disney’s worst written ones in her diatribes on hating everything pleasant; I’d have preferred Merlin gone up against a real sorceress like Maleficent. Sebastian Cabot who would go on to voice Bagheera does what he can with the undeveloped Sir Ector character; his son Sir Kay is just a bully. Alan Napier of Batman fame and Thurl Ravenscroft once again have minor voice roles. The only character who’s a little amusing is Archimedes, Merlin’s pet owl voiced by Junius Matthews who would later voice Rabbit in the Winnie the Pooh shorts. He reminds me a little bit of the owl in Bambi, but is more snarky and sometimes makes for a fun commentator. He’s also the only character to teach Arthur anything remotely useful like reading and writing.
          The Sword in the Stone is the first Disney film to feature songs written by the Sherman Brothers. Their distinct style is evident, though the songs aren’t nearly as good or memorable as their later work in The Jungle Book, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and especially Mary Poppins. There is a scene though where Merlin magics all his possessions into one handbag which may have been an easter egg to the already in development Mary Poppins.
          There are a couple things to like though. Some of the artwork is nice and I do think when Arthur finally gets to the sword, the scene is done fine. The squirrel sequence though as pointless as the rest, is pretty cute; and you legitimately feel for the girl squirrel when it ends. Of course it’s never addressed again but because of that I think it makes that scene memorable.
          But the rest of the movie really isn’t. It feels like Disney thought he was obligated to do a movie based on one of the world’s greatest mythological figures and that’s what got The Sword in the Stone into production. I think Disney really could do Arthurian legend well if it took it a little more seriously, gave the characters more personality, and strengthened the plot and comedy. As far as bad Disney movies go this one could be worse, and I’d recommend it if you’re curious. But you’re not going to lose anything by skipping it.

Next: The Jungle Book (1967)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day