Contribute to Our Research
|
By Michael - April 15th, 2010 Have you ever looked at a picture that you’ve seen a million times before, only to note something random that you have to have seen before but had never noticed? Check out this picture from 1980 of Imagineer John Hench, and see if you notice anything:
 John Hench with an Imagineering model of EPCOT Center’s France Pavilion, 1980
By the time this picture was taken, EPCOT was already under construction but far from completion. And, as the model behind Hench shows, some elements had yet to take their final shape. As I said, I’ve seen this picture many times, but for the first time it actually occurred to me that the shape of the theater for Impressions de France in this picture is, well, round. Round in a way that the actual show building isn’t. In fact, one might say that the building as pictures is a circle.
 The France pavilion today, as seen in Google Earth
As you can see, the actual Impressions de France theater is not round. So this raises the question – was the film attraction in the French pavilion originally supposed to be in CircleVision 360, like the films in China and Canada? At this time, China wasn’t locked in as part of the opening-day pavilion lineup. Perhaps Disney wanted to bank on having two CircleVision films; perhaps this is just one of a million random iterations of the always-changing EPCOT model. But it does seem that the circular theater indicated that in 1980 Imagineers were planning something different for this pavilion.
If you look closely at the model, you might notice another way in which it differs from the actual building:

Around the top of the circular theater, there’s a small facade that seems to create an extra skyline for the French pavilion. This could be the same extra layer of detail that can be seen in this picture, from Richard Beard’s 1982 book, Walt Disney’s EPCOT: Creating the New World of Tomorrow:
 Imagineering model of EPCOT Center’s France pavilion
Above the entrance to Impressions de France, but before the forced-perspective Eiffel Tower, you’ll note an extra layer of detail that doesn’t exist in the final pavilion. Most notable is the spinning windmill of Paris’s Moulin Rouge, which would eventually appear as a lighting effect in the original Illuminations show. As Beard’s text states:
With the best will in the world, there was still not complete agreement among the EPCOT team during the planning of the France pavilion. One of the first concept sketches was of the Place du Tertre, the artists’ colony up near the catherdral of Sacré-Coeur. Then the Moulin Rouge and the Place Pigalle were considered, but the French advisers thought that was “tacky.” (It is; but tourists still love it.)
Sacré-Coeur itself, when they tried to build it to scale, looked rather Muscovite to a lot of people, with its onion-type domes. But the Eiffel Tower is unmistakable; it is one of a kind.
 Detail of the Imagineering model, with the Moulin Rouge clearly showing above the theater entrance
So, out went the Moulin Rouge. So, also, did “a cancan show typical of the Folies Bergère or the Lido.” And somewhere along the line the building went from its mysterious circular form, to the final rectangular design that would open in 1982. But aside from the differing abandoned concepts for the pavilion, there was one small element that was promised but left out. Again, from Beard, a discussion of was intended for the Les Halles area of the pavilion:
Envisioned for a future time is an animated map of France: by pushing a button, you will be able to learn what’s going on in various regions – the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, the skiing areas, the Riviera, the wine country.
So, what do you say France – time to plus the pavilion?
UPDATE:

From the great Martin Smith comes this better view of the pavilion model which, quite clearly, shows the circular show building.
Related Posts...
By Michael - April 15th, 2010  Stay classy!
Spotted between Big Thunder Mountain and Splash Mountain on March 14th, 2010.
Related Posts...
By Michael - April 13th, 2010 
Waking Sleeping Beauty is a film that, by all rights, shouldn’t exist.
After all, at its core it’s the story of massive egos maneuvering for control and credit in the wake of one of the Disney company’s most successful artistic and financial periods since Walt’s death in 1966. Getting any of the parties involved to reflect on those events with even a modicum of honesty or introspection would seem beyond the reach of even the most determined filmmaker – especially when two of those parties are named Michael Eisner and Jeffery Katzenberg. Yet that’s exactly what former Disney animation producer Don Hahn has done, combining archival footage with new interviews to craft a look at the rise of Disney feature animation from 1984 to 1994 that feels remarkably honest, authentic, and even-handed.
The arc of the story itself is well-known to fans: the fortunes of Walt Disney Productions’ animation unit were at their lowest ebb in 1984 when new management arrived at the company. Ten years later, Disney released the most successful animated picture ever to that point – The Lion King – and was on top of the film world. Waking Sleeping Beauty shows what happened in between, and how the moribund animation division went from teetering on the edge of closure to lavish bonuses, parking lots full of sports cars, and worldwide fame.
 The CalArts graduating class of 1975 included many prominent future animators. Back row: Joe Lanzisero, Darrell Van Citters, Brett Thompson, John Lasseter, Leslie Margolin, Mike Cedeno, Paul Nowak, and Nancy Beiman. Center row: Jerry Rees, Bruce Morris, instructor Elmer Plummer, Brad Bird, and Doug Lefler. Front row: Harry Sabin & John Musker.
The film begins in the early 1980s, with a look at the sleepy Disney lot where young animators seemed to be desperately looking for a creative outlet while the animation division spun its wheels in the morass of The Black Cauldron. The clips are downright eerie – animator Randy Cartwright’s home movies document the young faces of artists who would later become a “who’s who” of famous talent in the animation and filmmaking worlds. A very young Tim Burton appears, as do John Lasseter and Joe Ranft. A lot of the talent in that building would soon leave or be laid off; others would remain, working to keep the Disney legacy alive until someone gave them a chance to unleash their talents on something fresh.
One of the more interesting aspects of this film is how it presents the opposing sides of various conflicts, and actually helps the viewer at least understand the viewpoints of parties that are typically portrayed as antagonists. We witness the inevitable culture clash as Hollywood outsiders arrive to run the company, but in many ways the changes they made were necessary to give the production side of the company some sense of direction and control. A lot of disputes still fall into the grey area of history – The Black Cauldron is said to have been a shambles when the new management arrived, but Katzenberg’s first move was to cut out some of the darker moments from the film. This is depicted as a rather common-sense decision, but it would also seem to contradict any ideas about letting the young animators stretch themselves in new directions. In other instances, notably the decision to kick the animation division off the lot to clear up offices for celebrities with new production deals, management clearly went too far.
In many of these cases, whether they were tone-deaf memos or meetings gone wrong, there’s a remarkable amount of candid perspective from the executives themselves – former studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg, in particular, seems to have mellowed considerably over the years.
The film’s arc follows these threads – the desires of the animators to keep topping themselves and to produce art clash with the constraints of corporate leadership and the new-to-Disney management styles of Katzenberg and Peter Schneider, who was brought in to act as President of Feature Animation. The film also shows the rise of marketing’s influence and some of the unfortunate effects thereof – notably the much-opposed title change from Basil of Baker Street to The Great Mouse Detective.
 Better days: Peter Schneider, Roy E. Disney, and Jeffrey Katzenberg in the early 1990s
The film doesn’t necessarily dwell on the “artists versus the Man” aspects of the story; there’s a lot of conflict at the executive level as well. The tensions between Disney CEO Michael Eisner, Katzenberg, and animation Chairman and champion Roy E. Disney shaped the era in many ways, and what’s interesting is not necessarily the conflicts themselves but what they say about the parties involved and how they viewed the purpose of Disney animation. In the end, even if you disagree with their actions, I think one can see where the various factions were coming from. There’s a particularly fascinating bit where Hahn transposes archival footage from various interviews filmed in support of The Lion King’s 1994 release. As each executive tries to describe the film, they relate very different stories – each individual has projected the film’s plot through the lens of their own perception. It’s so telling, and serves as a wonderful summation of the story; as one animator is quoted as saying about The Lion King, the film they were making was about themselves.
I could talk forever about the fascinating insights of the film – for instance, the contributions that Howard Ashman made during his all-too-brief career at Disney, which are illustrated in wonderful excerpts from filmed story meetings and presentations. Ashman was no mere lyricist, but is shown to be a valuable contributor to the entire creative process behind the films on which he worked. Thankfully, the film also gives a great deal of credit and screen time to Disney President and COO Frank Wells, and it confirms what many have long expected – that it was his stable hand and disinterest in the spotlight that kept the potboiler of talent and ego at the studio at least somewhat in check until during this Golden Age. Wells was the buffer, and it was after his 1994 death in a helicopter crash that things really unraveled and began the long, downward slide that would follow. The footage from Wells’s memorial is quite touching, and one really does feel for Eisner who is obviously shaken and rather at a loss about what to do.
In the end, I suppose the best compliment I could pay to a film like Waking Sleeping Beauty is that I’d happily and gladly sit through ten more films just like it. It strikes the perfect balance between answering questions one might have had, and raising so many more that one can only hope that more tales from this period will eventually emerge. Each of the films covered in the span of this story, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, The Little Mermaid, The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King, could merit a documentary of their own showing the tortured creative process that led them from concept to screen. The true story behind the making of The Black Cauldron would be especially fascinating.
I’d also be glad to see more about the periods both before and after the events depicted in Waking Sleeping Beauty; the reasons behind the studio’s decline after Walt’s death have never been fully explored, and there are many, many tales to be told of the second great decline leading to the death of traditional animation at Disney in 2004.
Of course, the true stars of the show are the animators themselves and the seemingly endless amount of filmed material documenting their shenanigans gives a wonderful sense of what life was like at the studio in those days. I hope to see more of this material in the future; these behind the scenes glimpses of alternately bored and overworked animators and frustrated story artists tell us more about the films that resulted from their efforts than a thousand glossy DVD featurettes. The artists deserve to have their stories told, too, and of course there remains a great deal to be told about Roy E. Disney himself.
Waking Sleeping Beauty hits the sweet spot that I think will manage to please Disney fans, fans of animation in general, those who enjoy tales of corporate intrigue, and just about everyone who simply likes a good story, told well. Hahn and his co-producer Peter Schneider have done an excellent job in putting this film together, and I would love to see more from them in the future. If you can find this film playing near you, I highly recommend that you check it out; it’s also playing at a number of film festivals so watch the film’s official website for scheduling information.
Related Posts...
By Michael - April 6th, 2010 When last we met, we watched a lavish trip planning video from 1993. Today we’re going to stop by Walt Disney World merely one year later, but it’s pretty obvious that by 1994 things have really changed.
For one thing, there’s the length of the video. The 1993 edition is almost fifty minutes long; by 1994 it had been pared down to twenty. You can tell how this affected the flow of the segments – it took nearly twenty minutes in the 1993 video to look at the Magic Kingdom and Disney-MGM Studios alone. In this video, we breeze through those parks in about eight minutes. The result is that many of the older attractions, even some classics, get no mention at all. Watch how the video skips around the Magic Kingdom, and think about how many key elements have been completely left out.
There have been some changes in the parks, too. A new Tomorrowland arrived in the Magic Kingdom, and Sunset Boulevard opened at the Disney-MGM Studios. A number of changes were underway at Epcot – not longer EPCOT Center, please note, and soon to be the ridiculously titled “Epcot ’94”.
Other things to note in this video, aside from the massively sped up pace, indicate the slow creep towards blatantly deceptive advertising. This can be seen in the promos for new attractions Alien Encounter and the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, which have been used and reused so many times over the years that I guarantee you’ve seen at least elements of them before. These highly “dramatic” depictions of the attractions bear little resemblance to the actual rides whatsoever, and are obviously attempts to be “edgy” and appealing to teenagers. What’s funny is that I was a teenager when they emerged, and I was mostly annoyed that they indicated that Disney thought I was an idiot. The production values of these newly-filmed segments are notable, as they employ many tactics and gimmicks that Disney still uses today
.
If you’ve watched the 1993 video, you can also catch Disney in a lie here and there, as they re-use guest interviews from the earlier video to describe completely different attractions. Of the guests offering “testimonial” for Alien Encounter in this video, one group was actually describing the Sorcery in the Sky fireworks show and another was talking about her ride on Splash Mountain.
Towards the end of the video things get really insidious, as we begin to see actors start to appear as fake families talking about their Disney experiences. This really starts the narrative of Disney as a place only for families or kids, and it indicated the dream/wish/magic saturation that would emerge in years to come.
But check it out for yourself! 1994, Disney propaganda style:
Related Posts...
By Michael - April 5th, 2010
Might there be a reason that construction has not begun in earnest on the new Fantasyland? Perhaps…
Related Posts...
|
The Progress City Primer
 From the Progress City archives comes this collection of 33 tall tales and true from Disney history. Available in paperback, hardback, and ebook formats.
|
Recent Comments