.

There has been some strong criticism of Disney Animation Studios’ latest film. The Times labelled it ‘emotionally inert and personality-free’, The Daily Mail said it had ‘lacklustre animation and forgettable songs’ and The Observer wrote it off as nothing more than ‘a grimly cynical marketing exercise’. All of this is mercilessly unfair and I don’t know if it comes from a failure to appreciate the company’s particular brand of unabashedly unmisanthropic storytelling or a desire to tear them down for some perceived arrogance that people think must come with their success. Either way it seems that the positioning of Wish as a celebration of all that Disney has achieved in a century of making cartoons has subconsciously galvanised these uncharitable sentiments and got film journalists sharpening their knives. A few writers have decried it as being overly derivative as well but that is kind of the point.

To mark the hundred Years since brothers Walt and Roy first signed a contract to produce short animated movies, the studio that bears only one of their names has set out to make something that builds on their eighty six years of making feature length ones. (Can we expect all of this again in 2037, which will be a century after Snow White was released?) This is not an attempt at another reinvention then, which they’ve done a number of times over the decades with films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Chicken Little. Nor is it an effort to modernise the princess or talking animal tropes as they did with Raya and the Last Dragon and Zootropolis. No, Wish properly aims to stick to the mould with obvious nods to what has come before thrown in and with this as a driving objective then this result, open to it or not, was always what we were going to get. All of this also brings with it a certain amount of expectation which probably hasn’t helped it land smoothly in some quarters.

As a rule the references to Disney’s other animated classics aren’t particularly subtle. This isn’t like sneaking Sebastian the Crab or The Beast into Aladdin. In some cases it is in, admittedly slightly laboured, throw away lines of dialogue or visual allusions like with two Peter Pan moments. Elsewhere it is embedded into the story with the plot being built around a wish made upon a star or the female lead having seven friends, one of which it inexplicably grumpy and another randomly sneezy. It is always fun though and whether you begrudge Disney this or not, they’ve earned it. All of this is a particular treat for children and childishly excitable movies geeks alike.

This does give the film a strong sense of novelty that could stop it being a modern classic like Frozen or Moana, but the story is engaging too, and the songs are fine. It is also great that two of the things they have thankfully not brought back from their catalogue is having the girl at the heart of it be a) in love with a prince, and b) white. There is good voice work from Ariana DeBose, Alan Tudyk, Victor Garber, Angelique Cabral, an ‘oh my god, that is definitely him’ Chris Pine and to pick out one of the smaller players – Broadway actor James Monroe Iglehart as John the bear.

Let’s also not gloss over how wonderful it is to have a big Disney movie making a huge fuss about the art of animation, while also pushing the style and boundaries of the medium, at a time when they seems to be ‘replacing’ all of their old animation films with live action versions. Please, if you only go to see this film to let the company know there is still money in what they are doing here, that is reason enough. I am thrilled to hear Disney CEO Bob Iger talking about a Frozen 3 and 4 because I thought they were moving away from the medium. The style they use here takes a little while to get used to; they have added dark lines to the ‘drawing’ which has the same affect as watching movies on your TV on the wrong frame rate in that it makes it appear a little cheap, but I’m all for them experimenting with this. It does seem to find an appropriate balance between it looking CGI and hand drawn which I guess is what they were going for.

So don’t believe the negative buzz, Wish is a fitting continuation of a very long tradition in the medium and something there is definitely room for among Pixar, Mario Bros and the Spider-Verse. It may not compare to the best of what the studio has given us in the last ten years (although it’s better than Strange World) but it fits with what they’ve given us in the last one hundred and that’s what it needed to do.

.

The Ripley Factor:

In discussing the gender politics I’m not going to focus on the female lead. Disney have been consistent in giving audiences great examples here, and ones that effectively counteract their less enlightened studio forbears, for many years now with Tiana, Repunzel, Vanelope, Judy Hopps, Moana, Raya, Mirabel and of course Anna and Elsa. Needless to say Wish continues this.

Alongside all of those characters though we have also had another selection of woman antagonists of sorts in the shape of Alma Madrigal, Callisto, Namaari, Te Kā, Dawn Bellwether and Mother Gothel, to sit along side a big roster of witches, step mothers and madames from the classic era. While we have also had some magnificent male villains over the years with Scar, Hades, Jafar, Shere Khan and Hook, it is good that when they have gone back to the idea of the vain, pseudo parental, magical monarch figure that they have challenged stereotypes by making them a man as well. This has also allowed them to address the cliche of the put upon, ineffectual Queen seen in Disney cartoons with Sarabi and in live action with Maleficent’s Leila and even Xianniang in Mulan, as well as elsewhere in fiction.