In 1992 they showed us "The King and the Mockingbird" in school, I didn't know it had just been was made into VHS. I was at 4th grade then and I guess we were among the first who saw it on screen, but we didn't embrace that privilege, we liked the film but it was too bizarre. You know, even a child can tell the differences between American, Japanese and European animation, and speaking for the child I used to be, I always found the European ones weird
apart from "Asterix" or "Lucky Luke" of course.
Watching it again as an adult, I can say that I fully enjoyed the film, and yes, it's a French animated masterpiece, I love "Asterix" movies but this one evolves on higher grounds, it is really one of a kind, I can't think of a single achievement that is remotely comparable to Paul Grimault and Jacques Prevért's most fruitful collaboration, even outside the world of drawn celluloid. Of course, movie experts will mention such titles as "Metropolis" and "2001", movies with such a hypnotic poetry and penetrative vision we fatally embrace their mysticism, cynicism sometimes, humanism all the way. But have these films waited for three decades to be released in the version intended by the authors?
Grimault and Prévert, while not newcomers, were no Lang or Kubrick, they were dreamers and poets of their own but not just bards, they were also warriors with guts and visions and a bit of contextualization will also help to understand their mindset: at the end of World War II, anything was possible, life was so full of hopes that no challenge was crazy enough not to be taken, so they decided to make the first French animated movie. Disney was the reference but before "Cinderella", his dominance wasn't yet undeniable and maybe it was time to experiment a new tone, to make animated movies for a more mature audience.
On the simple level of their intentions, they were pioneers, foreshadowing the inevitable evolution of animation, to carry a vision of the world, to provide an escapism freed from any form of convention, where myths from the past overlap with modern inventions, where a Metropolis-like city would become the kingdom governed by a tyrannical and egomaniac king, where a shepherdess would fall in love with a chimney sweep and together they would literally escape from their painting to 'discover the world'. That magical moment is the perfect allegory to the film's power. "The King and the Mockingbird" while based on Christian Andersen's tale and featuring very Disney-like creatures has such a majestic ambition it takes itself away from its influences, to become a major influence and a landmark by itself.
Yet the film was released in 1952 with a totally different title, Grimault was fired from the production, cuts were made on the budget and he disowned the first version, many animators followed him including Prévert. The film met with relative success but watching the original version, I can see why Grimault felt the need to work on it once he got the rights in the 70's. The film had a few edgy qualities but was a rather conventional love story, the 80's version enriches it with many new additions and that includes a wonderful sequence where we have a taste on King Charles XVI (V and III make VIII and VII make sixteen). A painter dares to paint him with his strabismus, the King looks perplex and makes feminine poses, the way he contemplates his portrait is a masterpiece of silent humor. He laugh, gives a medal to the painter and a few steps later, opens a trap door.
We never know where the trap doors lead, the point is that the King can dispose of any undesirable person. In the 1952 version, this part of his character isn't set-up and we only see the rivalry between the King and the Mockingbird who teases him after he killed his wife. In the new version, the king is a fully developed character, much more than the rather 'dull' couple of lovers who are more foil to the poetic and introspective moments, and you can tell from the story that Grimault and Prévert were aware of that. The title establishes the true focus, which is about a megalomaniac king and a cynical bird and their interactions providing a few comments of leaving in a totalitarian society, and culminating with the giant robot climax.
The film is the kind of experiences that provides the perfect trifecta, it challenges your intelligence, please your eyes and has a few moments of true emotionality and poetry conveyed by Prévert's script and Woelch' score. The film borrows from Walt Disney, Fritz Lang, it is also Chaplinesque at time, and there are even a few subtle bits that reminds of Tex Avery is the over-escalation of craziness and violence, the trap-door device used as a running gag. The film was completed in 1980, 3 years after the death of Prévert to which the film is dedicated. It is so complete and new, I felt sorry for Grimault, what if that version came up in the 50's.
Maybe it would have changed the face of animation. Maybe Grimault would have had a more deserving career, but let's not reject the original version which was good enough to inspire Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata. Miyazaki's first feature film featured a few nods to 'The King and the Mockinbird", and yes, there are some element in the film that recalls Miyazaki's universe. Speaking of Miyazaki, Roger Ebert said about "Princess Mononoke": "I want to see wondrous sights not available in the real world, in stories where myth and dreams are set free to play. Animation opens that possibility, because it is freed from gravity and the chains of the possible. Realistic films show the physical world; animation shows its essence.".
My thoughts exactly about "The King and the Mockingbird".
Watching it again as an adult, I can say that I fully enjoyed the film, and yes, it's a French animated masterpiece, I love "Asterix" movies but this one evolves on higher grounds, it is really one of a kind, I can't think of a single achievement that is remotely comparable to Paul Grimault and Jacques Prevért's most fruitful collaboration, even outside the world of drawn celluloid. Of course, movie experts will mention such titles as "Metropolis" and "2001", movies with such a hypnotic poetry and penetrative vision we fatally embrace their mysticism, cynicism sometimes, humanism all the way. But have these films waited for three decades to be released in the version intended by the authors?
Grimault and Prévert, while not newcomers, were no Lang or Kubrick, they were dreamers and poets of their own but not just bards, they were also warriors with guts and visions and a bit of contextualization will also help to understand their mindset: at the end of World War II, anything was possible, life was so full of hopes that no challenge was crazy enough not to be taken, so they decided to make the first French animated movie. Disney was the reference but before "Cinderella", his dominance wasn't yet undeniable and maybe it was time to experiment a new tone, to make animated movies for a more mature audience.
On the simple level of their intentions, they were pioneers, foreshadowing the inevitable evolution of animation, to carry a vision of the world, to provide an escapism freed from any form of convention, where myths from the past overlap with modern inventions, where a Metropolis-like city would become the kingdom governed by a tyrannical and egomaniac king, where a shepherdess would fall in love with a chimney sweep and together they would literally escape from their painting to 'discover the world'. That magical moment is the perfect allegory to the film's power. "The King and the Mockingbird" while based on Christian Andersen's tale and featuring very Disney-like creatures has such a majestic ambition it takes itself away from its influences, to become a major influence and a landmark by itself.
Yet the film was released in 1952 with a totally different title, Grimault was fired from the production, cuts were made on the budget and he disowned the first version, many animators followed him including Prévert. The film met with relative success but watching the original version, I can see why Grimault felt the need to work on it once he got the rights in the 70's. The film had a few edgy qualities but was a rather conventional love story, the 80's version enriches it with many new additions and that includes a wonderful sequence where we have a taste on King Charles XVI (V and III make VIII and VII make sixteen). A painter dares to paint him with his strabismus, the King looks perplex and makes feminine poses, the way he contemplates his portrait is a masterpiece of silent humor. He laugh, gives a medal to the painter and a few steps later, opens a trap door.
We never know where the trap doors lead, the point is that the King can dispose of any undesirable person. In the 1952 version, this part of his character isn't set-up and we only see the rivalry between the King and the Mockingbird who teases him after he killed his wife. In the new version, the king is a fully developed character, much more than the rather 'dull' couple of lovers who are more foil to the poetic and introspective moments, and you can tell from the story that Grimault and Prévert were aware of that. The title establishes the true focus, which is about a megalomaniac king and a cynical bird and their interactions providing a few comments of leaving in a totalitarian society, and culminating with the giant robot climax.
The film is the kind of experiences that provides the perfect trifecta, it challenges your intelligence, please your eyes and has a few moments of true emotionality and poetry conveyed by Prévert's script and Woelch' score. The film borrows from Walt Disney, Fritz Lang, it is also Chaplinesque at time, and there are even a few subtle bits that reminds of Tex Avery is the over-escalation of craziness and violence, the trap-door device used as a running gag. The film was completed in 1980, 3 years after the death of Prévert to which the film is dedicated. It is so complete and new, I felt sorry for Grimault, what if that version came up in the 50's.
Maybe it would have changed the face of animation. Maybe Grimault would have had a more deserving career, but let's not reject the original version which was good enough to inspire Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata. Miyazaki's first feature film featured a few nods to 'The King and the Mockinbird", and yes, there are some element in the film that recalls Miyazaki's universe. Speaking of Miyazaki, Roger Ebert said about "Princess Mononoke": "I want to see wondrous sights not available in the real world, in stories where myth and dreams are set free to play. Animation opens that possibility, because it is freed from gravity and the chains of the possible. Realistic films show the physical world; animation shows its essence.".
My thoughts exactly about "The King and the Mockingbird".