Films #102 & #103 - The Rescuers (1977) & The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
In the history of Walt Disney Feature Animation, there has only ever been one film to get a true sequel (that is, a narrative film followed by another narrative film). The Rescuers was a surprisingly successful, quirky, little adventure film. Years later, straight-to-video sequels would be the order of the day, but the step Disney took having their primary animation studio make The Rescuers Down Under was quite a bold move. Too bad it didn’t pay off.
The original film featured two mice; Bernard (Bob Newhart) and Bianca (Eva Gabor), members of the Rescue Aid Society, who take on the task of saving a young girl named Ellie (Jeanette Nolan) from the hands of the wicked Medusa (Geraldine Page) and her henchman Snoops (Joe Flynn).
It played perfectly into Disney’s strengths at the time. It had a cute child and cute anthropomorphic animals, it had an over-the-top villain and plenty of opporunities for thrilling action sequences. It appears to be an attempt to instill new life into an animation department that was feeling stale and had not produced an all-new feature film since 1973’s Robin Hood. It also featured the debuts of several key production people who would go on to provide the backbone of the animation department for many years (including Glen Keane, Ron Clements) and some of the last work by members of the “nine old men” who had steered Disney animation for years (including Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston).
This is truly the pasing of the torch to the new generation and it straddles the line between the two eras. For the most part, Disney aniated features would only get better as time went on, but The Rescuers helped point the way by not sticking striclty to formula. It broke with tradition by having very few songs sung “in character”, instead going for straight action/adventure and had a more natural, less “fairy tale” type love story than most Disney films prior.
Newhart and Gabor are great, with Gabor’s Bianca being the more forceful of the two, yet the filmmakers wisely do not allow Newhart’s Bernard to slip into true comic relief. That is saved for Jim Jordan’s Orville, the wacky seagull. Geraldine Page makes Medusa truly menacing, a woman who puts a child in danger merely for money. A lack of focus on her threat directly has meant that she hasn’t really joined the ranks of classic Disney villains, but she’s every bit their equal in evil.
The art style is that “sketchy” look that was the hallmark of Disney animated films of the 70s and in some ways, watching this film amde me miss it. It gives the animation a warmth that was lost with the advent of CAPS and computer animation. I’m not sure the film would be as endearing and work as well if it was a slicker-looking production.
Which brings us to The Rescuers Down Under. While it was clear that they were trying to bring back as much of the feel of the original as possible, it simply proved to be too difficult a task to recapture the feel of the original film.
First, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor were back as Bernard and Bianca, with Bernard on the verge of proposing. But another emergency (this time involving a lost child in the Australian outback) prevents him and he finds himself vying for Bianca’s attentions with another mouse, Jake (Tristan Rogers) while they all try to help young Cody (Adam Ryan) who is held by an evil poacher, McLeach (George C. Scott).
The main problem with The Rescuers Down Under is its oppressive focus on environmental issues. Nothing ruins a good adventure story like an overbearing message. This is made clear by the sheer amount of screentime wasted on (admittedly beautiful) shots of the scenery. It all very pretty, but bogs the film down.
And the more straightforward parts of the story fall short, as well. The villain is far too over-the-top and despite a solid performance by Scott (sadly, his only Disney appearance) he never comes across as real. The comedy is covered by a new seagull, Wilbur, voiced by John Candy that wastes his talents on a rehash of Orville with far too many uneccesary scenes revolving around the bird. Even the love story doesn’t come across, with Bernard’s unjustified jealosy seeming forced and the very natural relationship between Bernard and Bianca being shaken up just for the sake of it. And, lastly, the kid in this film is not the least bit appealing and is given far too much screentime for his own good.
The film, as stated, is beautiful, with plenty of use of CGI and the CAPS system to make sure everything is sparkling and clean. But this robs the films of its reality, making it seem more like a nature documentary than an adventure film.
The Rescuers introduced a great couple of characters and a world that had tremendous possibilities for addtional storytelling. Perhaps Disney felt that the series was better served by movies than a TV show, but I think the success of the contemporary Chip ‘n Dale Rescue Rangers shows that it may have worked better in that medium. (Wouldn’t it have been great if they had teamed up on a story?) By aiming too high with The Rescuers Down Under while forgetting what made the first film work, they tarnished what could have been a great franchise to this day.