This whole new world doesn’t feel particularly fresh.
Disney’s animated classic of its 90s renaissance visiting
Arabian lore based on a tale from “One Thousand and One Nights” was one of the
most high profile releases at the height of the direct to video boom, making it
the prime candidate for the inauguration of the sequel plague to come.
“Aladdin” follows the titular character on his journey to
win the heart of the princess that he’s rescued after stumbling upon a magical
Genie granting him 3 wishes. He’s subsequently swept up into a plot to overtake
the throne by the Sultan’s corrupt vizier, Jafar, learning along the way to
value his own self-worth and appreciate the sincerity in himself and others.
Its storytelling is basic yet sincere and well executed
despite the unfortunate racial implications of its art but the film is heralded
as a classic for the gorgeous artistry of its animation, excellent vocal
performances, particularly the late Robin Williams as Genie, and a litany of
music from the days of Alan Menken writing scores in his sleep that has gone on
to become famous.
It holds a classical reputation and not without good reason;
it’s a simple yet solidly crafted and wholesome ride with plenty of humor and
heart.
This makes it all the more fitting that both sequels lack varying
amounts of either of these qualities while being simultaneously overstuffed and
lacking in elegance.
Return of Jafar
“Return of Jafar” picks up immediately after the original
film left off. With Jafar released while retaining his new genie powers, he’s
out for revenge against Aladdin, Princess Jasmine, the Sultan, and his parrot
companion Iago, who has abandoned him in favor of his own self preservation.
What ensues is a glorified television pilot serving as a
redemptions story for Iago while putting the franchise’s titular character to
the side because an hour and 15 minutes of Gilbert Gottfried squawking is
something that everybody is rushing to listen to.
“Return of Jafar” commits many sins from a storytelling
standpoint, however upon viewing it for the first time as an adult a single
early observation stuck out in my mind that easily explained every technical
and creative flaw not only of the “Aladdin ” sequels but for pretty much every
film in Disney’s direct to video sequel library, including some films I won’t
be covering.
That observation in question would be a single production
credit: Disney Television Animation. The precise moment that I laid eyes on
this attribution of “effort,” a great deal of befuddlement that had followed me
for many years suddenly made absolute sense.
Bearing in mind that a large chunk of the direct to video
sequels were conceived and partially produced as failed pilots to shows that
never materialized, the nature of their failings become very clear and almost
perfectly epitomized by “Return of Jafar.”
First and foremost, the animation borderlines on god-awful; perhaps
in 22 minute episodic format the cut corners wouldn’t have been quite as
noticeable but spruced up with mildly cinematic editing, the unpolished
artwork, choppy animation and lacking detail in the setting exacerbate a
production that was obviously pulled together at a fraction of feature film
costs.
“Return of Jafar” is clearly not meant to visually astound
but revisit endearing characters and locales. That, however, is where it fails
miserably.
Serving to launch a well conceived but ultimately underwhelming
Disney Afternoon cartoon series, the movie opts to focus and celebrate the iconography
of “Aladdin” but not provide the associating context that made them noteworthy.
This sadly takes the core cast, who were arguably not the most complex of characters
to begin with, and developmentally regresses them to their basic types to play
out stock conflicts rather than undergo growth through progressive scenarios.
Why doesn’t Aladdin be upfront about Iago saving his life
and possibly shifting allegiances? Why does Jasmine get so angry to the point
of shutting out Aladdin from explaining himself? Why does Genie suddenly have
less power than he did in the first film despite flaunting exponential amounts
of it every chance he gets? Simply because couples need a reason to fight and
make up while the writers need to bring back the most iconic character of the
film without the baggage associated with him (despite Robin Williams not
returning to the role).
This lack of ambition clashes horribly with an animation
team that clearly wants to do more than their money will allow for a film that
is ultimately a downright messy introduction to a TV series that I would not be
sold on.
“Return of Jafar” is only an hour and 20 minutes long, yet
like sitting though several episodes of a television series that you don’t
like, it feels far longer than its short length should. With another sequel on
the way, things could only be looking up.
Aladdin and the King of Thieves
If “Return of Jafar” was the product of an unmotivated team
not carrying to use what little resources that they have properly, “Aladdin and
the King of Thieves” is like watching an ambitious but talented artist unfortunately
biting off a bit more than he can chew.
With Aladdin and Jasmine’s wedding just over the horizon,
Aladdin is left soul searching for what married life will mean for him, guiding
his thoughts to his long lost father, whom he chases after upon learning that
he may be connected to a group of thieves that attempted to raid his wedding.
Unlike its predecessor, “King of Thieves” kicks things off
on the right foot immediately. Whether developing things from a state of
regression through the television series was a factor or if the creative team
merely created a more organic extension of the first film while disregarding
later content, I’m not entirely sure, but the film is not afraid to flaunt itself
as a major step up from “Return of Jafar.”
The opening sequence may go on a tad longer than it needs to
but “There’s a Party Here In Agrabah” is a catchy and underrated tune from
Disney’s musical library. It offers a fun, bombastic and energetic opening to a
film that is subsequently reined in by a surprising level of subtlety that was
absent even in the first film.
Aladdin’s journey on how to deal with problematic family
issues is pretty outside of the box thinking for a studio that practically
wrote the book on an entire style of storytelling.
The whole affair between a man and his obsession with a
certain treasure at the cost of losing his motivation for chasing said
obsession in the first place, which came about because he thought the
motivation in question was permanently lost, is a bit heftier than what Disney
dabbled in at the time theatrically, much less for a direct to video release.
Increased quality in writing alone would have made this one
a breath of fresh air but “King of Thieves” even manages to make a far more
efficient usage of its animation budget. Perhaps it’s a side effect of allowing
character motivation and perspective to drive the plot as opposed to new plot elements
of special effect driven fantasy but whenever set pieces need to be brought
out, they actually manage to be mildly diverting, despite still working within
the tight constraints of the television division.
Where “Return of Jafar” felt like a short slog that couldn’t
have ended soon enough however, “King of Thieves” ironically feels like a far
better idea than its constraints are truly allowed to do justice. By the time
it’s over, you kind of wish it had an extra 10 minutes or so to beef up a few
of the better interactions.
This is the first Disney sequel that I’ve rewatched as an
adult without having properly sat through it in full back when it was new and
this is probably the only one that I’ve found myself penalizing for falling
short of greatness by just being average.
In all fairness though, I should probably just be singing
its praises for being decent period considering how much any given minute of this
film dwarfs some of the dreck over the horizon by comparison.
Despite the ups and downs of both films that land them on
opposite ends of a quality spectrum, “Aladdin” probably got it the easiest of
the entire Animated Cannon. At its worst moments, either film could be
substantially disappointing but at least the dignity of its core film has been
kept intact.
Can the same be said for “Tale as old as Time” that has also
been visited twice?
No comments:
Post a Comment