In A Tale About Hair, Disney Finds Its Roots

Long-time readers (sufferers as the case may be) of my critical efforts may have noticed a certain pattern whereby I locate, for purpose of review, animated feature films so obscure that even the individuals responsible for their creation have long forgotten about them.  Usually (but not always), it isn’t very difficult for me to find fault in these works but alas, to insure the accuracy of my whole scale of judgment, I proudly visit the latest, greatest, high-budgeted, much hyped, talk-of-the-town animated pieces as well.

As such I think it’s safe to presume you’ve heard of Tangled prior to indulging in my evaluation but in case you have not, a brief refresher is in order: Tangled is Disney Studios’ computer-generated 2010 big budget retelling of the timeless German fairy tale Rapunzel by the Brothers Grimm.

Tangled starts at the beginning and not just Rapunzel’s beginning but her mother’s.  It turns out the pregnant queen needs a bit of a miracle to overcome illness and that miracle comes in the form of a flower said to have come directly from the sun. 

With a droplet of the flower’s potency, the queen overcomes her affliction and gives birth to the baby Princess Rapunzel.  It turns out the flower’s amazing abilities not only cured the ill queen but found their way into the hair follicles of the yet unborn child.  Because of the young princess’ magical locks, one Mother Gothel kidnaps her from the palace under the veil of darkness.

Mother Gothel just so happens to know a thing or two about the flower's magical abilities and decides that she will stave off the effects of aging by locking Rapunzel in her hidden tower.

Fast-forward to a 17-year-old Rapunzel with hair over ten times longer than her body; tower ridden and utterly bored when a fleeing bandit by the name of Flynn Ryder takes refuge in her hidden crib.

Rapunzel works out a deal with the charming thief to act as her guide to the mysterious and perilous land beyond the tower and the adventure ensues the moment her bare feet feel the green grass of the meadow for the first time.

So now that we’re up to snuff on what Tangled is and how it came to be, the all-important question then centers on entertainment.  Does Tangled deliver in terms of amusement?  Absolutely and perhaps better still, it manages to do so with the first genuine signs of “classic Disney” sensibilities that have been largely absent since the industry started making the move from 2D drawn animation to computer generated 3D in the mid-1990s.

I could be mistaken of course, but it has long since been my assertion that a majority of the CG features thus far have been created by individuals so awed by the medium itself that what resulted were closer to showcases of the technology first and foremost with story-development taking the back seat.  A sort of “because we could doesn’t mean we should” mentality.

Of course there are exceptions to this trend, many of them in fact coming from the geniuses at Pixar (which has since become absorbed by Disney anyway) on account of the fact that they seemed to be oddly in tune with what kind of stories could lend themselves perfectly to the computer-generated world.

Disney, however, hasn’t been so successful.  Anyone who has witnessed earlier solo-efforts like Valliant, The Wild, Chicken Little or Bolt can attest to the fact that while passable, none of these films could even come close to mastering the art ala Pixar.  That brings us back to Tangled.  Rather than create another attempt to cut into the lucrative CG glory shared by Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky and so on, Disney finally seems comfortable (or perhaps confident) enough to get back to telling a tale their way- medium be darned.

What results is the formula that has made countless prior Disney films ultra-successful: A slightly modernized take on a classic fairy tale, a musically laced prose (yes the characters break out into song quite frequently here), personified animals with just enough actuality left in tact to still be considered realistic, dashing heroes, perfectly timed comedic efforts, evil old ladies and just a touch of magic.  It’s all here- the precise recipe that has charmed fans for years across films like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and to an extent even Aladdin.  This time however the clarity and attention to detail that can only be achieved via the technique of computer-generated textures factor in to aid the material rather than try to make-up for a lack thereof.

At 100-minutes, this film hints toward the marquee’s return to longer runtimes and comes feeling as though that is simply how long it takes to weave its tale (rather than rushed to completion or stretched out with filler).

The casting is, as is customary for a major Disney effort, spot-on with Mandy Moore doing a bang-up job as the title character and Zachary Levi is equally captivating as Ryder.  Additional props are due to Donna Murphy as Gothel.

I came into this piece a bit jaded from the onset, feeling as though the classic fairy tale retold through CG has been done to death.  Perhaps four Shreks, two Happily N’ever Afters, three Unstable Fables, one Pinocchio 3K and countless other attempts will do that to a critic.  However, I must confess to having been swept up in the revelry with Tangled right from the onset.  Truly Disney retains its throne in terms of mastery of facial animation techniques and the hair textures here are absolutely astonishing.

By going back to their roots and doing what they do best, Disney has (finally) notched its place in the computer animated feature film hierarchy and has done so without relying upon the Pixar co-brand to make it happen.  Sure John Lasseter’s name finds its way to the credits as Executive Producer, it’s undeniably apparent that this was a Disney piece through and through.  I like to think that had this one been released back in the 2D era it would have gone by the simple title “Rapunzel” but if we have to try to isolate Pixar’s influence on the project in some capacity, surly they had to have come up with the hip title.  Ironic when you stop to consider that from a puritan perspective, this is Disney’s most untangled computer-generated piece to date.