There’s any number of reasons that I’m thrilled to see the return of Disney’s 2-D animation department (God bless you, John Lasseter), not the least of which is that the swan song of that venerable institution should not have been the horrific misfire that was “Home on the Range.” So instead we have “The Princess and the Frog” which initiated controversy when it was first announced that the lead character was named “Maddy” and was a maid. This caused great resentment since “Maddy” apparently sounds like “Mammy” if, I dunno, your ears are clogged. My objection to the name would be that after Aurora, Mulan, Ariel, etc., “Maddy” just doesn’t sound especially exotic. Oh, and people didn’t like that she was a maid, which apparently is, I dunno, demeaning. Personally, if I were a maid, I’d be kind of insulted by that attitude, but that’s probably just me. So instead of being on the social level of Cinderella, she was instead rewritten into being an aspiring cook, thus putting her on par with a Pixar rat. Problem solved.
So with that controversy set aside, was the film worth the extra expense and time involved in our taking Caroline to see it during its limited release at the Ziegfeld?
The answer is, Hëll yes. Because for all that computer animation can accomplish in terms of storytelling, groundedness, and brilliance, the one thing I have never seen is a CGI film that I would characterize as “enchanting.” The title of the Amy Adams film got it exactly right: “Princess and the Frog” is enchanting.





Recent Comments