Walt Disney was, inarguably, one of the single most influential figures not only in film animation history, but film history period. He was a visionary, an innovator, and a driven workaholic, which at times made him difficult to work with (or for), but it also pushed his animation teams to expand and evolve an artform which the man himself, loved dearly. It can, and should, rightly be said, that without Walt Disney, modern animation as we know it would not be the same. It might not even exist, as we know it today.
I will most certainly have to dedicate an article to the man himself someday, as along with the likes of Jim Henson, Ray Harryhausen, and many others, he is one of my personal heroes. But it goes without saying that when he and his company risked everything in the late 1930s, taking a massive risk in producing the first ever feature-length animated film, he was creating one of the single most important works of cinema in history. When Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs released in 1937, no one, certainly not Walt himself, knew whether it would succeed or fail. If it had failed, his company very well could have been done for good, and full-length animated movies might not be a thing today. But because it was a massive critical and box office success, not only was Disney's future assured, but he paved the way for seemingly countless animated movies to come.
 |
| The Master. |
From Disney themselves, with a dip in the 40s due to World War II, the world received a steady flow of high-class, high quality features, a mix of original tales, and now infamous adaptations of classic stories. Most film and animation historians would agree, that the "Golden Age" of Disney animated theatrical films, lasted from 1937, until probably into the 1960s, before Walt's death in late 1966. Among those "golden" classics, beyond the masterpiece that was Snow White, were Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, and The Sword in The Stone. And in all honesty, while Disney's 60s output was still fantastic, for a variety of reasons, the overall quality of art and animation itself, seemed to start gradually changing (and arguably dipping) after Beauty's release in 1959. From Snow White to Sleeping Beauty, there was a premium by the studio, put on having these animated classics be as technically advanced and beautiful as possible. But starting with 1961's One Hundred and One Dalmatians, there was a very noticeable shift in the look of their movies.
It would not be fair, nor correct, to say that the art or animation became POOR. Not by a long stretch. But comparing Beauty to Dalmatians, there is, however, a stark contrast in style. The biggest factor, as I understand it, was a major shift in animation technology, as while in the previous 16 films, Disney animators had applied ink to each individual cells (or frames) of animation by hand, with Dalmatians they began using Xerox methods to copy drawings to cells instead. This saved them a lot of time, and subsequently a lot of production cost. Apparently Beauty had been so expensive to make, that if they hadn't come up with the Xerox method, they would not have been able to afford to keep making animated films.
So it IS accurate to state that this was a literally cheaper method of animation, though it would still be unfair to state that the animation was now "cheap". It was, however, as previously stated, notably different. The films from Dalmatian onward tended to have a "grainier" look to them, I find. And most noticeable, the films started employing, for whatever reason, very visible black outlines around characters and objects. The background art also, for the most part, started being less "picturesque", and more stylized, less realistic.
 |
| Black outlines, simpler drawings and backgrounds. |
That is not to say, by any means, that the art or animation didn't still have great moments and great beauty. But it would also be dishonest and disingenuous for even the most ardent Disney fan, to not acknowledge that there was a definite drop off, from the 50s to the 60s. 1967's The Jungle Book, was the final animated feature in production before Walt died. Two more features, 1970's The Aristocats and 1973's Robin Hood, would be produced before their animation department essentially took a hiatus. For what it's worth, both Cats and Hood, are still great movies in their own right. Deservedly remembered as classics. But it is also undeniable, again, that the overall quality continued to erode. Most people, of course, are keenly aware of the so-called "Disney Renaissance", which began with 1989's The Little Mermaid, and lasted until, more or less, the early 2000s (before traditionally animated theatrical features sadly faded away in the United States). That era saw a major resurgence in more elaborate and more expensive art and animation. No more black lines, no more "lesser" looking animation or scenery.
But in-BETWEEN that Golden/Silver era, and the 90s "Renaissance", was a whole other era of Disney animation. An era less talked about, less known about, and in some circles, much less highly regarded. Unfairly so, I might interject. And it is that era, and more specifically one film in particular from that era, that I'm here to talk about.
 |
| The Rescuers. |
For the purpose of convenience, if we're going to refer to the 1937-1959, pre-Xerox period of Disney animated films as the "Golden Age", and thus let's call the following 1961-1973 period the "Silver Age", then it only stands to reason, continuing to follow that comic book convention, that we refer to the period I'm here to talk about, as the "Bronze Age". First and foremost, it bears pointing out that there was what I consider one "In-Between" film, a leftover from the "Silver Age", that was released in early 1977, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. This is a splendid film, one of their stronger works in fact. But it is also an anthology release, with a bit of new material made to connect three previously released Winnie the Pooh short films, into one "cohesive" story. The film that I consider to be the true start of the so-called Disney "Bronze Age", also released just a few months later, in the summer of 1977, was film seen above, The Rescuers.
While it absolutely still had some involvement (in some cases brought out of retirement), of some of the original "Nine Old Men" of Disney's animators, Rescuers also was significant for employing many new animators, among them and most influential on this particular project, Gary Goldman and most especially Don Bluth. Those names are, of course, important, because a couple years after the release of Rescuers, dissatisfied with how then-current Disney did things on the animated front, they along with many other animators, walked out and formed their own studio. Bluth films would go on to dominate much of the 1980s, not to mention shaping the animation landscape, but we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves. As far as Rescuers itself goes, while it clearly still made prominent use of "Silver Age" trademarks like black outlines and simpler backgrounds, it was also, I think, quite a bit more stylized and experimental in certain ways, compared to those earlier movies. Looking at Rescuers, and Don Bluth's later directed films (he only animated here), I think his influence is quite clear, and the film was all the better for it.
 |
| The future? |
One thing that Bluth was most passionate about, beyond wanting a return to the higher standards of art and animation practices of those early "Golden Age" days, was, in a way at least, to "treat animation more seriously". Meaning, at least earlier in his career, Don Bluth firmly believed that not only should "cartoon movies" not be made strictly with children in mind, but that (much like Jim Henson believed), children could not only handle more somewhat darker and more serious fare, but that they would even like it! On that token, I think that Walt Disney himself must have had similar feelings once upon a time, as when you look at the early feature-length output in that "Golden" era, the likes of Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia, Alice, etc., those were all actually rather dark in their own way, and at times quite somber and serious in tone. The Rescuers, I feel, hearkened back to this kind of tone, as it is definitely a darker and more somber film than the company's several previous outings.
Bluth, Goldman and company walked out during the production of Disney's next "Bronze Age" picture, which was The Fox and The Hound, a story aimed at children, but also dealing with many harsh and sobering facts of life, and nature. I don't think that Bluth had any issue with the content of Fox, but rather, he strongly disliked Disney's then-current method of doing things, how they went about producing animation. His group would eventually themselves produce the masterpiece you see above, The Secret of NIMH, a decidedly "anti-Disney" style of animated film. It was dark, it had many "scary" moments for children, it had zero song-and-dance scenes, and it tackled some pretty serious, fairly heavy and "grown up" subject matter. Yet it was a modest success, and on a personal note, one of my very favorite childhood films (and still to this day remains one of my top favorite animated films of all time). Ironically, the next project that Disney would tackle after Fox, would be far more like NIMH, far more Bluth-esque and "anti-Disney", than I think anyone would have ever expected.
 |
| The Source. |
 |
| The Heroes. |
All the way back in 1973, the year of the last true "Silver Age" release, in fact, Disney was chasing after the rights to a series of fantasy novels by author Lloyd Alexander, called "The Chronicles of Prydain". Full of stories and characters heavily steeped in Welsh culture and Celtic mythology, these were epic tales of sword and sorcery, seemingly right up Disney's alley. But after taking most of the decade trying to develop the story into a "workable idea" for a feature film, and then after the animator walk-out during production on Fox and Hound, the movie that would come to be known as The Black Cauldron was pushed back to a 1984 release. Many new faces would be working on this epic project, one of whom was named Tim Burton, who had previously done some animation work on Fox and a little flick known as Tron. While his tenure on the production of Cauldron wasn't long, he did do some conceptual character art for the film.
Now it needs to be acknowledged up front, after all of my prattling about animation history, where it concerns Cauldron as a film, that it is widely, and I would personally add QUITE unfairly, considered by many film buffs to be "the film that almost killed Disney". It's also considered by many, again unjustly, to be one of the "worst films Disney ever made". The first claim, I'm sorry to say, is at least PARTIALLY true, but we'll get into that in a moment. The latter, however, I would most strongly argue, could not be any further from the actual truth. The production of Cauldron was a rough and somewhat infamously difficult one. Not so much because of the animators or production crew themselves, but more because of the tumultuous times that Disney as a company was going through. In the early 80s, the Walt Disney Company had, in just a few years, not one, not two, but three different CEOs. It was a time of major uncertainty for the company, and especially its animation division, which was seen at the time as not nearly as profitable as it once was. And to top it all off, with Michael Eisner coming on board in 1984, he brought with him one Jeffrey Katzenberg, who was put in charge of Disney's film production.
 |
| Fearful omens... |
The production of Cauldron had a lot of issues before Katzenberg came on board, with various names either being removed or voluntarily removing themselves. There were also various "cooks in the kitchen" over time, and thus some serious conflict in just what the tone and direction of the film should be. But ultimately, it was Katzenberg, one man, who I think had the most detrimental impact on the movie's possibility for success. After seeing the final print, and feeling it was "too scary for children" etc., he personally edited a whopping 12 minutes from the movie. And it was already finished when he did this, mind you. It was pushed back from its December 1984 release date, all the way to summer of 1985. And while perhaps nothing major was cut in his editing rampage, it still had an adverse effect on the final product, especially the climax.
All that said, I want to be perfectly clear about something. The Black Cauldron, as a movie, is NOT a "bad" film. Not even remotely close. In point of fact, while I'll elaborate more in a bit, I personally consider it one of the best animated features Disney has ever produced, and yes that really is saying something. It is hardly a "perfect" picture. Fans of the books would swiftly point out that while it draws its material from the first two books in the Prydain series, that it is not especially accurate to them, instead telling its own story "inspired by", really. Disney fans would also, somewhat rightly, point out that Cauldron absolutely is the "red-headed step-child" of their animated feature catalogue. As stated before, a very a-typical, in many ways "anti-Disney" Disney film. But none of that, in this man's estimation, makes it a "BAD" movie, at all.
 |
| Eilonwy and her magic Orb. |
The story the movie tells, in a nutshell, is that the land of Prydain has been besieged by war, from the forces of the powerful and mysterious Horned King. He seeks an ancient artifact known as the Black Cauldron, so that he might use it to raise an army of undead called the "Cauldron Born", soldiers who cannot be killed, to finally conquer the kingdom. The enchanter, Dallben, who is responsible among other things for the care of a special pig, Hen Wen, who can produce visions, fears that the Horned King seeks his pig, to use it in finding the Cauldron. Also in Dallben's care, is his assistant, a farm boy named Taran who dreams of being a great and heroic warrior. The old man charges Taran with hiding with Hen Wen in the forest, until he comes for them, hoping that will keep her from the Horned King's clutches. But his dragons find the pig anyway, when Taran was day-dreaming carelessly, and take her away. It is then up to Taran, with new friends he makes along the way, to try and get Hen Wen back before the worst is realized.
I have heard it said that this film, among its other perceived faults, has a "weak story" compared to other Disney classics. A claim that I find to be laughable, considering that, even though it deviates from its source material (as many Disney films do anyway), Cauldron's plot is actually, while straight-forward, pretty unique. You don't often run across stories about undead wizards seeking undead armies, and prophetic pigs and mystic cauldrons. I have also seen it said that this film, unlike many other Disney classics, has "weak characters", which I also find to be rather dubious. Quite frankly, I would contend that The Black Cauldron has stronger and more interesting characters that many of Disney's highly praised masterpieces. Taran himself is a bit of a cliched "well meaning bungler who must grow up and realize his potential" type of hero, yes, but he's still a charming and relatable character. Eilonwy, while indeed an initially kidnapped princess, is hardly a mere "damsel in distress", rather being portrayed as fairly equal to Taran in the story. The goofy bard Fflewddur Fflam, whose lute always seems to bust a string whenever he's being less than honest, is good comic relief, as well as a wizened adult voice to help temper the youthful heroes. The fairy Doli, is an a-typically grumpy and stern, but likeable ally. And last but not least, Gurgi the...creature, is an all at once cowardly wretch of a sneak thief, but also a lovable (and apparently stinky) loyal friend. I actually think of all the characters, Gurgi undergoes the most growth throughout the story.
 |
| The Big Bad. |
 |
| Fearsome Foe. |
 |
| The "loyal" minion. |
Of course no hero can be great, without a great villain, and Black Cauldron provides no exception. I would say, hands down, that the Horned King is the most fearsome, and certainly scariest baddie of the Disney lot. Having never read the books, I have to trust the internet when it tells me that, apparently, The Horned King is not any one direct character from the source material, but rather something of a mishmash of villains. Or if you prefer, more of an original Disney creation, in a very real sense, and in THAT light, I think one of their best. It doesn't get much more intimidating than a dude who is basically an undead, skeletal wraith himself. And voice actor John Hurt, who had previously voiced the heroic Aragorn in the 1978 Lord of the Rings film, does a marvelously sinister job, making the Horned One sound rather otherworldly. And no great villain is complete without a memorable minion, to which the king has Creeper, a pint-sized goblin, who seemingly lives to serve, yet also seems like he'd bolt if only he thought he could get away with it.
The point being, that the movie is full of memorable and charming characters, including the likes of the jovial Fairy King Eidelleg, as well as the sinister yet self-serving three witch sisters straight out of Shakespearean myth, Orddu, Orgoch and Orwen. Not to mention Hen Wen the pig herself, who, while she has no lines, beyond her prophetic abilities, is quite emotive and endearing.
 |
| The Witches. |
 |
| The Bard. |
 |
| Gurgi the Great. |
I did not, thanks to Disney's own idiotic lack of foresight, get to see this film as a child, and I really wish I had been able to. I SHOULD have been able to, and I'm certain I would have adored it, just as I adored other "dark" 80s kids movies like The Dark Crystal, The Secret of NIMH, and The Land Before Time. The reason I didn't get to, is because the film bombed at the box office, in large part I feel, due to Disney's own mismanagement and mis-marketing of it. But also due to some kind of public perception at the time that it was "too dark for a Disney movie". Which is sad, because OTHER "dark" kids or family films did well in theaters, in the 80s. But worse, because of this, and I suppose not yet understanding just how big of business home video could be yet, Disney decided to NOT release the movie on VHS at any point in the 80s, in fact not releasing it on home video at all until 1998. It also was never shown on television, on The Disney Channel, which meant that if you were like me, and didn't get to see it when it was out in 1985, then you were shit out of luck. I literally had to wait until I was around 16, perhaps nearly 17 years old, before I could finally watch this movie.
And it's funny, because at the time it finally released so I could rent it, I really didn't have much idea at all about its apparently "infamous" stature, that it was "the film that almost killed Disney", etc. To elaborate on that a bit, this movie at its time of release, was the single most expensive animated movie ever produced. And if you ask me, it shows, as it is a massive step up from that (still great) "Silver Age" fare, or even from The Rescuers or The Fox and The Hound, in the visual department. The animation in this movie is top notch, and the artwork in general is downright gorgeous. Its one of the best looking animated films ever produced, flat out. It was also the first time Disney used CGI in one of their animated features, though I'm sure the long production time didn't help the inflated budget. Either way, it probably wound up costing way more than it should have, and even though they already had their next animated movie in somewhat concurrent production, this movie losing money like it did, "put the future of Disney's animated division in serious doubt". It isn't that this movie literally would have killed Disney the company. I'm sure they would have soldiered on with live action flicks, their theme parks, The Disney Channel, etc. But I suppose it's possible that they could have been REALLY stupid in overreacting to Cauldron's U.S. box office, and decided to not release The Great Mouse Detective the following year.
For what it's worth, Cauldron did well in certain other markets, such as France, where it apparently did good business. It was mainly the United Stated/North American market that for whatever dumb reasons, didn't go see it in droves. And again, the thing is, I don't believe that Cauldron failed because it was "dark". Not simply on that fact alone. Don Bluth went on to have MASSIVE success with "darker", more serious animated fare, such as An American Tale and The Land Before Time, within the same time frame, from the same audiences. So either Americans really were holding Disney itself to a silly double-standard, or I don't know...maybe Disney really did mismanage the film's release. What I do know, is that I hardly think the content of the movie itself, can truly be blamed for its lack of monetary success. And while not AS much so, Disney's following 80s movies, Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company, had similarly darker tones, but found at least moderate success themselves.
 |
| The Cauldron in Question. |
 |
| Creepy dudes. |
I would hardly go so far as to try and argue that this film doesn't have flaws. In fact with the nature of the production, and the 12 minute hack-job, it was inevitable that it would have some. However, I would argue that the movie does not have any GLARING flaws, and I do feel fairly justified in considering Cauldron to be, in spite of the production, one of Disney's strongest works. I believe it really deserves a second chance by audiences, and a more sincere reconsideration on its merits as a movie. Because it really is a great piece of work, beautiful to look at, interesting story, compelling and likable characters, scary bad guy, dark and creepy atmosphere but genuinely funny moments of levity. It has very solid writing, good acting, with voices by veteran character actors like Freddie Jones, Nigel Hawthorne, John Hurt, and Phil Fondacaro (not to mention narration by the great John Huston). A very nice score by Elmer Bernstein. And in spite of the stupid cuts, good flow, as the story really doesn't drag at any point.
This film really doesn't come up sorely lacking in any area. And I think if more people gave it a genuinely fair shake, public opinion of it would improve dramatically. This film suffers mostly from what I fully consider to be a poor reputation, dating all the way back to 1985, its financial failure, and Disney's stupid decision not to release it on VHS. If they had done just that one thing, I earnestly believe that it would have become a hit on home video (as many movies that didn't initially do well in theaters did), and people would consider it a cult classic. What's more, as an aside, while I like The Lion King, and love Aladdin, overall I like the "Bronze Age" output more than the revered "Renaissance" output that followed it. Rescuers, Fox & Hound, Black Cauldron, Mouse Detective, and Oliver & Company, that's a pretty damn strong lineup if you ask me.
 |
| Magic swords are pretty much always awesome. |
 |
| The most poignant moment in the movie. |
For me personally, to tell the truth, when I did finally first get to see this in my teens, for whatever silly reasons, I seem to vaguely recall not being that into it. I couldn't tell you why, now, though I can say that I did the same thing on initial viewings at that age of several OTHER movies I would go on to absolutely love. But when I gave it another chance myself, years later, in my 20s, I did fall in love with it. My reasons for liking it so much, and coming to regard it so highly, I suppose you could say are varied. For one thing, I'm huge into mythology and folklore in general, especially Celtic stuff. I grew up a massive monster nut, as many of you know, and usually gravitated towards anything that had monsters, or magic, and cool adventures in general. And this movie has all of that. So it definitely appeals to the kid in me, who somehow magically hasn't fully died over my crappy adult lifetime.
But it also has things that appeal to the cerebral adult in me. Such as the relationship between Taran and Eilonwy. I love the fact that she isn't a helpless or airheaded damsel. In fact when he first meets her, she is showing initiative, finding her way out of her captor's dungeon. If it weren't for her, Taran might not have escaped himself. I'm less a sucker for the stereotypical "strong, independent female" (though I do like such characters a lot, when done RIGHT), than I am a total sucker for the kind of relationship between a hero and heroin, that is totally equal, as in they need each other, have to rely on each other, and wind up saving each other. Which Taran and Eilonwy definitely do. In fact, of the four main heroes of the story, all of them get their moments to shine, their times to be brave, and to matter. You don't always get that with stories, let alone movies. And while it's major *SPOILERS*, as the picture above hints, possibly the strongest moment in the entire film, is when Taran is going to sacrifice himself to the Cauldron to stop the Cauldron Born, but previously cowardly Gurgi stops him, insisting that Taran matters more, and opting to himself jump to his doom instead. Naturally, in the end they get Gurgi back, but it is still a super poignant, tear-jerking kind of moment. *END SPOILERS*
So as I often end these pieces by saying, if you have never seen this movie, or haven't seen it in a long time, do me a favor, do yourself a favor...hell, do the MOVIE a favor, and give it a first/second/whatever chance. It really is a great, super underrated work, and I really do believe, in its own way, a bit of a masterpiece. The Black Cauldron is a very good movie, at the least, and I truly feel that it deserves to be recognized as such, after all this time.
