A Few Words About A few words about...™ Fantasia -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

For a film that is supposedly Disney's masterpiece, it sure has suffered enough tampering: removal of imagery and now removal of the entire original narrative track. Some "masterpiece".

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

For a film that is supposedly Disney's masterpiece, it sure has suffered enough tampering: removal of imagery and now removal of the entire original narrative track. Some "masterpiece".

Lawrence of Arabia, King Kong, Metropolis.... need I go on?

 

[Edwin-S]

Were those edited for censorship purposes or for length? Did any of your examples have the original soundtrack completely removed or have anyone's voice completely overdubbed by another actor or narrator? Elucidate.

 

[Brian Kidd]

For a film that is supposedly Disney's masterpiece, it sure has suffered enough tampering: removal of imagery and now removal of the entire original narrative track. Some "masterpiece".

How a work of Art is treated has nothing to do with its status as a masterpiece. Disney and every person who worked on FANTASIA put their all into creating Art in the hopes that the general public would appreciate and embrace the film. Sadly, Walt overestimated the tastes of the general public. The picture was re-edited over the years in order to try and shape it into a format that would be more palatable to the average filmgoer; not because the company wasn't proud of their achievement. They needed to make their money back, especially during the 1940s when production was all-but-halted because of the war. In the end, FANTASIA will never appeal to a mass audience. It's too high-brow for some and too low-brow for others. It's a popular failure, but an artistic triumph. Disney still tries their best to market it to a general audience in order to make what money from it they can. That's why they focus on Mickey in the advertisements. That's also why they removed the racial stereotypes. Smart people might be able to overlook them if they're aware of the social and historical context in which the film was created. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public aren't smart. It isn't worth it to Disney to please the film-loving minority when the less-intelligent majority are known to be the louder of the two groups. Look, we're lucky to even have the version of the film that we do. It's never going to be a popular classic, even if all of the narration were removed and they digitally added Snookie as a dancing hippo..

 

[Richard--W]

Brian Kidd makes valid points, but let it be understood that Deems Taylor's voice survived all the little adjustments made to the film over the years. His voice survived until 2000, by which time the adjustments had become cemented, and the need to make adjustments was no longer necessary. The decision to replace Deems Taylor's voice was not based on social acceptance, political correctness, timing, creative issues, or technical issues. It is purely a subjective, personal decision made by some insensitive jerk who doesn't care about the film or respect the integrity of the art. Did they take Walt Disney's name off the film because it has been changed since he died? Of course not. So why discard Deems Taylor's voice? Walt Disney relied on Taylor, depended on him, collaborated with him, and then some jerk comes along 60-70 years later to impose his own creative decisions. The Blu-ray offered Disney an opportunity to correct the error and restore the original actor's voice, if only as an option. Instead, they did this. The suits in the front office are asleep at the wheel over there at Disney.

 

I know that a line here and a line there are probably beyond restoration, but how much back and forth would it have been to have the original narration. I don't ask this in a sarcastic way. I really would like to do a comparison. It seems that an awful lot of the original narration was included in the 1990 version. It's running time is not that much shorter. So would the patchwork have been that distracting if only bits and pieces were missing? Oh, and I don't think that Fantasia is still considered a film for the elite few. With adjustments, it is one of the highest grossing films of all time. The general public has embraced it.

 

[Richard--W]

Eric Scott Richard, there is no narration in any version of Fantasia.

Deems Taylor steps up to the camera in person to introduce the film and introduce the segments.

Watch the 1990 VHS or laser disc.

98% or more of Deems Taylor's voice is intact and in excellent quality.


Frankly, the decision to revoice him makes no sense.

 

Richard, I know that. I'm sorry that my wording confused you. However, I'm not changing it because of all of the problems I have been having with the edit function.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Eric Scott Richard, there is no narration in any version of Fantasia.

Deems Taylor steps up to the camera in person to introduce the film and introduce the segments.

Watch the 1990 VHS or laser disc.

98% or more of Deems Taylor's voice is intact and in excellent quality.


Frankly, the decision to revoice him makes no sense.

So why do you think it was done? Just because some "jerk" (as you call it) at Disney felt like it? Just like that?

 

[MatthewA]

Were any of the lines in the old VHS and laserdisc different from the ones in the Roadshow version? Was that just a shorter version of what was there originally or were new lines recorded?

 

[Douglas Monce]

So what I'm reading is that you now consider both Mozart and Beethoven's works not art of the highest level (as I said), but commerce - like you do films. Interesting...Or that they could have produced better work if they didn't compromise? But the reality is they could not have. We would never have heard any of it! Also, what I said is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Who are these uncompromising composers of Mozart's time (or Bach's, Beethoven, etc.) that produced better music and more "art" according to you, but were somehow squashed by these "rock stars" who compromised themselves and had better "marketing skills"? Was Bach also just commerce? He did the same. I guess the pure artists (or just plain artists according to you) are not known to the masses and lived in caves....A funny notion. The cream rises to the top for a reason - not just marketing as you imply. Beethoven had no peers because they simply were not at his level. Bach at best had Handel, but was he not also just an employed composer according to you? The notion that the real artists are somehow underground is indeed funny to me and something I don't subscribe to. As I said, the cream rises and stays at the top for a reason. We are not talking about "one hit wonders" here. You think Lean, Scorsese, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc., etc., etc. just made films to sell? That they compromised so much of themselves in the process that no art came out of it? That there were others more talented we don't know of because they didn't have the skills to market themselves as well? If so, then they were NOT more talented I say. An artist is always at the mercy of the public that consumes his art in one way or another. A talented artist is both skilled in his art and shrewd enough to make it see the light of day. After all, what good is art if it lives in a cave, never to be see or heard? What is the point of that?


So to me Fantasia IS art - doesn't matter what Disney alters. And Disney is doing its best to bring it to the consumer in the best possible way.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn’t say that the works of Mozart and Beethoven were not art. What I was saying is that they were for the most part not created with “art” in mind. Certainly art was not on the minds of those who commissioned the work. Their intent was to fill concert halls and make money.

Very few creative people sit down and create, with the intention to make art. Most of the time they are just hoping that people like what they do. More often than not there is a pay check involved. Those who THINK they are creating art from the beginning are usually self important and their work is boring.

I didn’t say Mozart would have created better work, simply that he may have created MORE work had not died at a young age. Had he been able to work more he might have avoided the illnesses that killed him.


In addition to that working with in limitations often brings out the best in creative people. Edward Dmytryk was quoted as saying that production code of the golden age of Hollywood was in fact a good thing, because it forced them to tell stories in a creative way rather than hitting people over the head. Creative people don’t always produce their best work when given free rein. See Heaven’s Gate. I think David Lynch produced his best work on Twin Peaks, when he was forced to work with in the television production code.


I know several people who are gifted beyond words, but have no idea how to market themselves. So they work for insurance companies or build computers for a living and create in their spare time. You can be the most amazing genius in the world but if no one promotes you, only your parents will know about it. Mozart became famous at the age of 4 because he had stage parents who pushed him in to the public eye.

The composer Salieri, who is unfortunately depicted in Amadeus as being something of a hack, was actually a brilliant composer. Why do we not hear his music played all the time to day as we do Mozart. I suspect it has more to do with the whims of public taste than anything else.

My point is I don’t believe that art is created, it becomes art over the test of time. Fantasia was a rather high minded experiment that has become art. But the only reason that it is around today for us to enjoy, is because with the persistence of Disney, it eventually found its audience.

Sorry this was so long winded.

Doug

 

[RoyWilbury]

Originally Posted by Richard--W
Frankly, the decision to revoice him makes no sense.

I totally understand disagreeing with dubbing his voice, and/or not including the original version in some form. But for better or worse, it's very clear *why* they revoiced him. They sacrificed his voice to include a longer cut. Whatever their motivations, I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't have left it intact if they could have, meaning if they had had his voice for the full-length version.

 

[Brian Kidd]

...and then some jerk comes along 60-70 years later to impose his own creative decisions.

"Some jerk" refers to Scott MacQueen, who was in charge of the initial Roadshow Version restoration. I can assure you that he is not some talentless hack who takes a pair of scissors to a film on a whim. I don't know him personally, but I have a very good friend who does and speaks quite highly of him. The explanation I was given at the time of the DVD release was that a combination track simply would not work. It was not a decision that was made lightly or on the spur-of-the-moment. I don't know if anyone here knows Mr. MacQueen and can ask him for any more clarification, but, to be honest, I don't know what anyone would want him to say. The decision was made in order that the viewing audience, many of whom would be seeing FANTASIA for the first time, wouldn't be drawn out of the film by audible and awkward edits during the narration. People on this site are great at armchair quarterbacking, but, save for a very small number of individuals, have no actual firsthand knowledge of how or why editorial decisions are made. In this case, the change in narration was explained by Disney. It was a valid, if unfortunate, decision. All of us would unquestionably want a complete version of FANTASIA with the narration intact. Save for some miracle whereby the complete narration is found, it isn't going to happen. Folks can feel free to rend their garments and shout their displeasure to the mountaintops, but, in the case of Deems Taylor's narration, it serves no constructive purpose.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce I love classical music (as both "art" and entertainment) and animation (more as entertainment than "art") for the most part, but for me, Fantasia is sorta less than the sum of its parts -- I actually prefer Fantasia 2000 because I find it more entertaining these days.


_Man_


PS: Despite my somewhat tepid feelings for Fantasia these days, I should add that I agree it deserves better treatment than it's gotten all these years, if at all feasible. And yes, like most(?), I do have a bit of nostalgic feeling for it from seeing (most of) it during my childhood years...

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Brian Kidd 

 

 

"Some jerk" refers to Scott MacQueen, who was in charge of the initial Roadshow Version restoration.  I can assure you that he is not some talentless hack who takes a pair of scissors to a film on a whim.  I don't know him personally, but I have a very good friend who does and speaks quite highly of him.  The explanation I was given at the time of the DVD release was that a combination track simply would not work.  It was not a decision that was made lightly or on the spur-of-the-moment.  I don't know if anyone here knows Mr. MacQueen and can ask him for any more clarification, but, to be honest, I don't know what anyone would want him to say.  The decision was made in order that the viewing audience, many of whom would be seeing FANTASIA for the first time, wouldn't be drawn out of the film by audible and awkward edits during the narration.  People on this site are great at armchair quarterbacking, but, save for a very small number of individuals, have no actual firsthand knowledge of how or why editorial decisions are made.  In this case, the change in narration was explained by Disney.  It was a valid, if unfortunate, decision.  All of us would unquestionably want a complete version of FANTASIA with the narration intact.  Save for some miracle whereby the complete narration is found, it isn't going to happen.  Folks can feel free to rend their garments and shout their displeasure to the mountaintops, but, in the case of Deems Taylor's narration, it serves no constructive purpose.

As someone very familiar with Mr. MacQueen's work and mindset, I can tell you that he would not have taken the situation with anything less than total seriousness, and with the best interests of the project at heart. A modern audience does not desire to hear a track cobbled together with different voices. Could the surviving Taylor footage have been used as an alternate? Possibly. But these are decisions that usually make thier way down from the corporate stratosphere and for varying reasons. There is a huge difference between restorative efforts, in this case for a film that was a distibution failure in its intial run, based upon a desire to offer a cohesive final product to the public, as opposed to a more scholarly effort, possibly for a silent film that could easily be inclusive of "shot missing" cards RAH

 

[RoyWilbury]

It’s an interesting question in terms of the different ways to integrate the new voice work. Would the “masses” find it more noticeable that the entire thing has been dubbed, or would they notice it more if the audio jumped between original and dubbed work? I dunno. I can say that the entire thing being dubbed is noticeable to me, and the other option of jumping back and forth would probably be equally noticeable to me. Maybe the masses watching it notice that it has been dubbed, but perhaps assume it was dubbed back in 1940.



Perhaps they aren’t trying to hide that the thing has been dubbed, but if they offered an “original” audio track, it would draw more attention to the dubbing.



But this all does seem to be a calculated decision to pick the best of several far-from-perfect options. The evidence suggests they have attempted to move closer to getting the film to its original state, as evidenced by reverting back to the original score and reinstating some cut roadshow footage and putting the title card back where it belongs, and so on. That tells me they didn’t want to redub the whole thing. They didn’t relish having all of the narration dubbed 50 or so years after the fact.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Were those edited for censorship purposes or for length? Did any of your examples have the original soundtrack completely removed or have anyone's voice completely overdubbed by another actor or narrator? Elucidate.

King Kong was edited for censorship purposes, yes. As for everything else - I didn't realize we were now qualifying by degree. I thought the proposition was that Fantasia was unique in the actions, and that was clearly incorrect.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Were those edited for censorship purposes or for length? Did any of your examples have the original soundtrack completely removed or have anyone's voice completely overdubbed by another actor or narrator? Elucidate.

Both Lawrence and Metropolis were edited for length. If memory serves, Spartacus was edited for censorship purposes re: the "eating oysters" and "eating snails" scene, where the original dialogue was lost and Sir Anthony Hopkins was brought in to dub Sir Laurence Olivier's lines.


All of this is academic though. Restoration decisions are often painful ones, and for us to armchair quarterback those decisions without knowing what the circumstances were in each case just highlights how little we know as a fanbase.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

Both Lawrence and Metropolis were edited for length. If memory serves, Spartacus was edited for censorship purposes re: the "eating oysters" and "eating snails" scene, where the original dialogue was lost and Sir Anthony Hopkins was brought in to dub Sir Laurence Olivier's lines.


All of this is academic though. Restoration decisions are often painful ones, and for us to armchair quarterback those decisions without knowing what the circumstances were in each case just highlights how little we know as a fanbase.

Actually, Lawrence was edited twice for length. Spartacus once for censorship, and later for also for length.


RAH

 

[Patrick H.]

It's been interesting, reading the back-and-forth over the redubbing argument here. Rather surprised at the intensity, considering the film has been presented this way for a decade now. However, I too remember my confusion over the reasoning behind the new voice when I first got my Anthology set in 2000. But I also remember the realization I ultimately came to, which was that Disney had, at that point, already tried to restore 'Fantasia' once in 1990, and had clearly been confronted with the same challenges. At that juncture, it's evident they decided to rebuild the film with the "what do we have left" mentality, while also keeping it in a format best-suited for a theatrical rerelease (which is, indeed, when I first saw it). So the title card was left up front, the shorter Deems Taylor segments were used since they were all that fully survived, and the intermission footage was moved to the end as a backdrop for credits the film had never had before. All valid decisions, and I will actually go so far as to say that I think this version works the best as a film experience (and I'll also say that I'm probably biased as that's the only version I saw for many years). However, the 1990 reissue was also NOT the 'Fantasia' that was originally released. So when the film was restored further in 2000 for a format more conducive to the film's original, unconventional presentation, the thinking was clearly no longer "what do we have left," but rather "what can we do to get this as close as possible to what audiences first saw" (and I'm not gonna get into the censorship). From that line of thinking, I've come to accept the decisions that they made in that process are equally valid, and that includes the dub. And it's not like Disney tried to pull a fast one...the extras on the Anthology set clearly explained the dub and why it was done. The trade-off is that you get to see what 'Fantasia' really looked (and more-or-less sounded) like when it first premiered, and to me, it heightened my appreciation of what a strange and truly unique film this was (and still is). I suppose, though, if Disney REALLY wants to please everyone next time they release this, they can put an alternate audio track on there with Taylor's original voice (and subtitles for the missing bits), coupled with the 80s digital rerecording of the music by Irwin Kostal. That'd be wild...