MovieChat Forums > The Black Cauldron (1985) Discussion > Black Cauldron Rant (Spoilers?)

Black Cauldron Rant (Spoilers?)


All right, I saw this a couple of days ago, and just last night I thought of what I would say to explain how I feel about this movie: It just...stank, really, I wish Disney hadn't made this movie, because they made it too much of a caricature of their own past animation movies at a time when this shouldn't have been acceptable, and they messed up on Lloyd Alexander's story in the process.

When the movie began, right after that introduction, I knew immediately that I had made a mistake in renting this because of that music-that terribly idyllic music, 'tra-la-la' and zooming in on Dallben's house, where he just basically said, "that dratted Horned King" and talked to his cat- which happened to remind me of the cat from 'the Rescuers'; that was one of the first repeated images. Then Taran came on-screen, with his soft voice that didn't seem strong enough for a young man, and complaining- that's what he does a lot of in this movie, I don't think he complained or boasted this much in the books. After that, we got to see Hen Wen, which reminded me too much of Wilbur from the animated 'Charlotte's Web'- cuter than a pig should be. (At this point: good things were intro, a little bit of Taran's playing around, and then the oracle scene before we were introduced to the Horned King.)

Again with the idyllic music; Taran going off, all too full of himself, and then he loses Hen- wandering through that dark forest, there's the old familiar tree branch that Wart snapped back in 'The Sword of the Stone', and then here comes Gurgi. Immediately reminded me of Gollum- did Jackson/Andy Serkis get the idea for the voice from this character, or was it just already related to LOTR from the book; other things, like the evil castle, sort of reminded me of those movies/book. I do like Gurgi, but Taran was way too harsh here, threatening to hit him, and then he's the one full of contradictions- if he was truly noble, he would have let Gurgi just take the apple, not accuse him of being a thief and then later of being a coward, even though he was also scared about going to the castle alone and had asked the little creature to go with him. Poor Gurgi gets the rough end when it comes to this kid's frustrations. (Good thing-Hen Wen's abduction)

At the Horned King's castle, still can't believe the kid was able to sneak in like that-but then that was conventional-and then we see Creeper; that little henchman might have been too annoying, I don’t think he was in the series, yet he does have some good parts, including the last bit where he gets all goofy after HK's destruction-popping up with those antlers was a bonus. Anyway, Taran’s reveal and the subsequent confrontation, escape, and finally imprisonment were pulled off nicely with pathos and drama, you started to feel for this kid a little more.

Then Eilonwy shows up; she’s an interesting girl, at times a little more proactive than some of the other Disney princesses in the past, but she’s still got their weaknesses and seems a little more ‘dainty’ and ‘frail’ than a few. After that, we meet Fflewddur Fflam- this is a bit of a sore point, he does have some good parts here and the harp was in the book, but he’s still used too much for comic relief as a bumbling, befuddled old man who runs awkwardly and gets his pants ripped while shouting, “Greet Beelin!”; I don’t think he was like that in the book, seems too much like a poor imitation of Merlin in ‘the Sword in the Stone’. (More in the next post.)

As long as there is space, I'm going to stare off into it.

reply

They escape, with awkward cartoon animation that seems like an 80s trademark, but at least the sword is interesting and then there’s a bit of a nice scene afterward- the arguing between Taran and Eilonwy was true, I believe- before Gurgi returns; at that point, they reach the pond, and after the dramatic whirlpool, they hit a low point with the Fairfolk- were they in the book? And were they like that, these ‘little fairies’ that are all so sweet and cute and almost useless, even the king and the grouchy old janitor- I think Disney had used grouchy and/or befuddled old men too often by this point. After that, they leave for the swamp…and the witches, those horrible witches, especially that Orwen and her attraction to Fflewddur-like the pudgy squirrel had for Merlin in ‘the S in the S’-and then we get what must be the most embarrassing scene in Disney animation; the frog in the bosom. Can you imagine the animator who had to draw that, groaning at the pathetic attempt for humor in what should have been a kids’ movie and above that sort of gag?

The good thing after that was the witches in the clouds, the downhearted scene between the characters, their capture, and then we get back to the Horned King castle and the final climax of this affair; there were some great moments here, the Undead army arising and then Gurgi’s sacrifice- which reminded me, taking place on that stone beam, of the volcano scene in the LOTR movies- before it falls apart. The scene with the boat was a little awkward, but nothing compared to what happened on the shore- Fflewddur stood up to those witches, and Taran had finally learned some humility in admitting that “Gurgi had been the hero,” before the bargain had been made and the seemingly dead creature was returned to them. That moment was a little too long, for the animators to draw sad, sympathetic faces with all of the other characters, before Gurgi came back to life- there was much rejoicing and the kids got to kiss; their ‘attraction’ had been one of the most awkward things about this whole production. So they go off, ‘tra-la-la’, and Dallben briefly appears to smile down on them; the end.

Well, there were some good bits and there were some bad bits, but still it seems a disappointment to the Disney legacy compared to some of the great animated films that came before or since, and also a disservice to Lloyd Alexander’s classic series- they didn’t do a faithful adaptation, they just took the story and used their own elements to make it their own. As a result, it went downhill, and in spite of all the years they spent perfecting this movie, or else just perfecting the technology and ignoring the rest, it failed on so many levels of character, humor, animation and redundancy that it turned into a flop- word of mouth must have gotten around. Part of me wonders what was going on at the studio during this time, I’m pretty sure there must have been some trouble during the making of this, but there certainly must have been a back-lash after this so that Disney had to clean up their act. By the early 90s or so, we’ve got some of their best animated movies with a return to form in their own way-not as a mere caricature- and with some of their most original stories/adaptations, but ‘Black Cauldron’ should be remembered as an example of what can go wrong even when dealing with two classic entities. Rant over, thank you for reading, and please excuse me- I’m not usually the sort that does this.


As long as there is space, I'm going to stare off into it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Plus he was still pretty much in early stages before he matures and learns the true meaning of courage out of fear and having friends in said creature, Eillonwy, and Flewdder.

Also, I highly doubt Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis used Gurgi's voice as an inspiration for Gollum's since Black Cauldron is one of the few films that (practically) nobody knows exists. Although as Jackson does have a bust of the villain from Legend, I kinda wonder.

"HOPSCOTCH!"

reply

I saw this in the theater as a kid and searched for it on VHS for YEARS only to hear video store employees say they never heard of it.

reply

I agree. I wrote my own rant on another forum, but my gripe is mostly with how the characters were treated. Everything about this film was rushed, and considering that is was in production for a decade, that shouldn't be the case.

First of all, Lloyd Alexander wrote some pretty enduring characters, which Disney thoroughly botched. First of all, each character was included for one specific purpose, after which they become totally useless. For starters, while Eilonwy's most basic personality quirks remained in tact, they certainly didn't do much with her. Her introduction is very vague, and for people who have never read the books, they would be left wondering, "What powers does the bauble have that would make the Horned King want it so badly?" and "What kingdom does she hail from anyway?" None of these are answered in the script at all. She exists for the sole purpose of freeing Taran from his cell, and afterwards does pretty much nothing to advance the story, save for that retarded attempt at romance.

Gurgi seems to exist solely for sacrificing himself at the end, since Disney cut out the character was supposed to die at that part. I suppose I could also credit him for leading Taran to the Horned King's castle in the first place, but he still isn't all that valuable as a character.

Don't get me started on Fflewder.

Taran stayed pretty true his book form, though heavily watered down, and the Horned King, while terrifying, was Disney's most shallow villain ever. That's what happens when you mangle perfectly good stories.

Now, I don't dislike the film, either. I spent a good deal of time looking into the behind-the-scenes information, etc. I think it serves its place, and it was one of Disney's more daring films. For that, I give it respect and it has kept its spot on my movie shelf for well over fifteen years now. I just can't stand that it was The Chronicles of Prydain that they decided to mangle. I think these books could make a great translation to the silver screen, if only they had a director who know what he was doing.

Then again, if they tried to convert it to film again, if might end up looking like Ella Enchanted...

reply

First of all, Lloyd Alexander wrote some pretty enduring characters, which Disney thoroughly botched
----------------------------------


Agreed, but it was a rush job that combined elements from the first two books so making it outrightly faithful to the novels with such short film time available would have been a big ask!

reply

Even if it's not faithful, they should at least try and keep the characters interesting, I think. As I said, they each seemed to be written for a single purpose, and once that purpose was fulfilled they just sort of disappeared into the background.

At any rate, they probably should have lengthened the film a bit for just done a seperate film for each book.

Help Support Duke!http://nerdygoodness.blogspot.com/2009/05/help-support-duke.html

reply

I'm with you. I loved the original books. This is my least favorite Disney animated movie. I think they were trying to be Ralph Bakshi?

To achieve harmony in bad taste is the height of elegance.--Jean Genet

reply