Review: Noel Brown, Contemporary Hollywood Animation: Style, Storytelling, Culture and Ideology Since the 1990s (2020)

Noel Brown, Contemporary Hollywood Animation: Style, Storytelling, Culture and Ideology Since the 1990s (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020).

Noel Brown provides an engaging and well-researched account of contemporary Hollywood feature animation, here defined as from the 1990s onwards. Noting the recent significance of animation to both the Hollywood studios, their parent conglomerates, and popular culture more broadly, he aims to outline the “form and poetics of the mainstream animated feature” (Brown 2020, 2), with chapters devoted to their narrative and thematic focus on family and friendship, aesthetic shifts, and changes around their representations of identity. Contemporary Hollywood Animation provides a thorough account of key trends and how animation has changed from the period of classical Disney dominance 1937-89, ambitiously combining attention to aesthetics, the impact of Computer Generated animation and its corresponding disruption of Disney’s dominance of Hollywood animation, with consideration of the industrial or economic contexts of animation, as well as the American socio-cultural context that he argues has underpinned animation, despite its global market (Brown 2020, 2).

Effectively synthesising a range of scholarly accounts of Disney, of historical shifts in animation, as well as other studios or individual films, Brown provides a clear summary of many of the debates and key theoretical frameworks for the period and films he selects. He also analyses the films from a range of perspectives, including Average Shot Lengths, narrative structure and as noted generic and aesthetic elements. Perhaps he could be more critical concerning those academics who have reductively denigrated Disney for its supposed unchanging formula (Sammond 2005; Zipes 1995), or in assuming the studio’s earlier “strongly patriarchal worldview: white, male, heterosexual, and ideologically conservative” (Brown 2020, 31-32 and 109-10). Brown’s own nuanced analyses of The Princess and the Frog (Ron Clements & John Musker, 2009) and Disney Renaissance films more compellingly evaluate and build on existing critiques such as those of Amy Davis (2007) or Rebecca-Anne Do Rozario (2004), and might be of interest to fantasy and fairy tale scholars. Similarly, Brown’s frequent assumption in the book that ideology, and representations, are ‘analysable’ in a straightforward way, with occasional supporting reference to Freud, Lacan or Robin Wood’s thesis of the Restoration of the Father, pale in comparison to his close textual analysis of sequences from Up (Pete Docter, 2009), Inside Out (Pete Docter, 2015) or Brave (Brenda Chapman & Mark Andrews, 2012), or acknowledgement of the disparate potential readings of The Lego Movie (Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, 2014), that better engage with the complexity of popular culture texts (Brown 2020, 64, 74, 130, 93).

Hollywood and animation production

Fig. 1 - Titan A.E. (Don Bluth & Gary Goldman, 2000).

Whilst focusing on the impact of both The Lion King (Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff, 1994) and Toy Story (John Lasseter, 1995) on theatrical animation provides a clear entry to the mid-1990s increased studio competition in the animation market, a slight disregard for the importance of home video, one of its key drivers, as well as for Disney’s increase in production and revival of presold and fairy tale films within the Disney Renaissance (and prior to this the significant growth of the company) limits the economic and industrial account (see Scott 2017). Brown mentions the earlier success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Robert Zemeckis, 1988), which had boosted confidence in the box-office appeal of animation, albeit overstating its influence on the Disney Renaissance, Pixar, and DreamWorks around its allusiveness and comic irony identified with Executive Producer Steven Spielberg and director Robert Zemeckis (Brown 2020, 11). He cites Frederick Wasser on video motivating Jeffery Katzenberg to “make new Disney classics” (Brown 2020, 10), but reduces the burgeoning sector to the impact of CG, downplaying the initial cel animation releases of DreamWorks, the continuing Don Bluth productions distributed by Warner Bros., Thumbelina (Don Bluth and Gary Goldman, 1994)  and then as Fox Animation Studio for  20th Century Fox Anastasia (Don Bluth & Gary Goldman, 1997) and Titan A.E. (Don Bluth & Gary Goldman, 2000) (Fig. 1), or for instance Warner Bros. own Quest for Camelot (Frederik Du Chau, 1998).

Fig. 2 - Epic (Chris Wedge, 2013).

Product differentiation and production trends

Brown provides a rigorous account of product differentiation by both DreamWorks and Laika, as well as Tim Burton. His sophisticated framing of films like The Incredibles (Brad Bird, 2004) or Zootopia (Byron Howard & Rich Moore, 2016) is set against broader generic conventions of the family film, American values, the trends of ‘relatability’, ‘emotional realism’ or authenticity. This book combines attention to the continuities and developing production trends across the period. However, I was less convinced by the key argument: “representations of family, everyday life and modernity have been brought to the forefront, partially superseding the fantastical or fairy tale worlds of most classical Disney animated films” (Brown 2020, 181), which draws together the disparate approaches of Pixar, DreamWorks and recent Disney production, and other examples of social commentary and ‘relatability’, but which ignores other continuities around anthropomorphic animal (and dinosaur) narratives. Part of this problem of selectivity is due to the chapter structure, in which Disney and Pixar films are emphasised for their representations, and DreamWorks for its postmodern authorial intertextuality, while wider production is only acknowledged with leftfield auteurs and Laika. This exacerbates the selective approach, with a focus on those films and studios that fit these chapters and trends, diminishing those other production trends and studios not so privileged. Hence Blue Sky with its Ice Age (2002-2022) and Rio (2011-2014) franchises, and outlier Epic (Chris Wedge, 2013) (Fig. 2), Illumination beyond the first Despicable Me (Chris Renaud & Pierre Coffin, 2010), and Sony (except brief references to the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs [2009-2013] and Hotel Transylvania films [2012-2022]) are underexplored. It is not clear why films based upon a performance capture animation process, especially The Polar Express (Robert Zemeckis, 2004) and The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicron (Steven Spielberg, 2011) are marginalised, whilst even Pixar is reduced to the “cutting edge niche” of CG animation or conflated with Disney, with their shared aesthetic contrasted with DreamWorks (Brown 2020, 13).

Global production and distribution

In terms of broader animation economics and industrial practices, besides a problematic focus on unadjusted box-office success, the book also omits studio outsourcing and runaway production, whether MacGuff (later Illumination Animation) for Despicable Me, the British production of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and by Disney its international outsourcing of Planes (Klay Hall, 2013) animated by India’s Prana or cheaper production of the non-California based DisneyToon (Tinker Bell and Winnie the Pooh films). Although Brown notes Disney’s expansion into India, Russia and China, he does not note the more substantive Oriental DreamWorks joint venture (Brown 2020, 117-8).

Fig. 3 - Kubo and the Two Strings (Travis Knight, 2013).

Furthermore, Brown ignores the initial difference between Pacific Data Images (PDI) and DreamWorks cel animation studio, because films are predominantly identified with their distributor studio, with the exception of the discussion of Laika. He also overstates the key influence of the studio boss, particularly Katzenberg’s impact on ‘modern’, ‘current’, and ‘relatable’ Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks productions (rather than broader product differentiation through updating). Yet, even for the example of the Katzenberg DreamWorks tendency, Brown acknowledges Shrek (Andrew Adamson & Vicky Jenson, 2001) and its hipness “indebted to MTV-era shows like The Simpsons and Beavis and Butt-head (the writers of which co-wrote Shrek’s screenplay)” (Brown 2020, 88). This corresponds to an over-emphasis upon DreamWorks, particularly the notion of the early 2000s as the DreamWorks Decade, following Michael Eisner definition of the 1990s as the Disney Decade (Brown 2020, 92). Although this discussion provides a useful corrective to a frequent focus in both wider and scholarly accounts upon (and conflation of) Pixar and Disney, it exaggerates the impact of Shrek, displaces the critique of ‘Shrekification’ to later, and reduces the DreamWorks studio output to this historically specific production trend. Similarly, Zootopia (and other examples of contemporary Disney) are not related to the impact of Pixarisation, albeit Brown’s analysis of its conclusion and ideological dimensions provides useful insight of this film.

Contemporary Hollywood Animation provides a detailed account of the cultivation and consolidation of ideological conventions, and production trends. However, it is not as comprehensive as its title or thesis would suggest, in part due to the necessity of simplifying, generalising, and balancing selective detail and the broader overview involved in any monograph. At heart is a conceptualisation of genre where shifts or trends can be demonstrated by suggesting the parallels or similarities between selective examples, supported by salient quotes, particularly a tendency to quote executives and elaborating on their ‘truth’ i.e. Zoradi (Brown 2020, 20), but where the broader composition of releasing (and patterns in distribution or marketing) are not comprehensively accounted for. In terms of theorising Hollywood’s shifting animation output, Brown usefully applies Rick Altman’s notions of genre development, and semantic/syntactic distinction (2003), but not too proscriptively, hence distinguishing the semantic evolution with Shrek’s parody, from the syntactic changes involved in Brave, Frozen (Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee, 2013), or Laika’s Kubo and the Two Strings (Travis Knight, 2016) (Fig. 3), and more broadly acceding a potentially cyclical notion of genre, developed within production trends, with revision to ‘resuscitate’ the form (Brown 2020, 133, 180). Overall, Brown provides a clear account of contemporary Hollywood animation that will provide a good foundation for students of animation and may serve as an introduction to the discipline for fantasy scholars wishing to take the plunge into the world of Hollywood animation.

**Article published: October 7, 2022**

References

Altman, Rick. 2003. “A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre.” In Film Genre Reader III, edited by Barry Keith Grant, 26-40. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Davis, Amy M. 2007. Good Girls and Wicked Witches: Women in Disney’s Feature Animation. New Barnet: John Libbey.

Do Rozario, Rebecca-Anne C. 2004. “The Princess and the Magic Kingdom: Beyond Nostalgia, the Function of the Disney Princess,” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 27, no. 1: 34–59.

Sammond, Nicholas. 2005. Babes in Tomorrowland: Walt Disney and the Making of the American Child 1930–1960. Durham: Duke University Press.

Scott, Jason. 2017. “Disneyizing Home Entertainment Distribution.” In DVD, Blu-ray and Beyond: Navigating Formats and Platforms within Media Consumption, edited by Jonathan Wroot and Andy Willis, 15-33. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wood, Robin. 1986. Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zipes, Jack. 1995. “Once Upon a Time Beyond Disney: Contemporary Fairy-Tale Films for Children.” In In Front of the Children: Screen Entertainment and Young Audiences, edited byCary Bazalgette and David Buckingham, 109–126. London: British Film Institute.

Biography

Dr Jason Scott is Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at Leeds Trinity University. His current research focuses on Disney+ and the company’s shifts into streaming, as well as contemporary animation, the Star Wars franchise, and the Iger era Disney company more generally. He has also begun research on contemporary franchise adaptations in film and television. The latter relates to his continuing research on the historical development of the character-oriented franchise in film and related media. His chapter ‘Disney+ Legacy Media Strikes Back’ is forthcoming in Video Streaming Services (McFarland) edited by Christina Adamou and Sotiris Petridis.