PINOCCHIO (1940)

 

PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *good*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *metaphysical, psychological*

I've now watched the Disney PINOCCHIO twice since reading the Carlo Collodi book for the first time and reviewing it here.

Naturally I liked the Disney movie since I first saw it in theaters, though I don't recall re-watching it often once it became available on home video. I have to say that Walt Disney's decision to purge the puppet-boy of all of his undesirable characteristics was a mistake. I'd admit that Collodi's protagonist, as written, would have been much too alienating for adult audiences, who were generally the ones paying for the kids to see the movie. But I find myself troubled by the idea that Pinocchio starts out "life" being told by the Blue Fairy to avoid temptation-- and then he's not really "tempted" in the true sense. Rather, he's deceived twice by the sharpers Honest John and Gideon, who first convince him that he ought to be an actor, and then, that he's suffering from a disease and needs a rest on Pleasure Island. This is not quite the same as doing forbidden things because it feels good-- though after the puppet-boy has been on Pleasure Island for a little while, he FINALLY does take pleasure in boyish crimes like picking fights and smashing windows.

I also disliked all of the "comedy bits" that the Disney animators threw in to keep the audience chortling when the plot got a little slow. I realize that this was just Disney's second feature-length cartoon film, and the animators were in some ways recycling a lot of the routines they used in the shorts. But the injection of tedious slapstick didn't seem so overbearing in SNOW WHITE, while one year later, DUMBO would excel both films in using humor to offset dramatic heaviness.

So even if I'm in a minority as to PINOCCHIO's status among the greatest animated movies, I don't necessarily dispute its status as a myth-movie. In my review I mentioned that Collodi's book doesn't even mention the possibility of the little puppet becoming human until two-thirds of the way through the narrative. But the Disney script defines Pinocchio's central conflict much better than did the book, by holding out the "carrot" of humanity from the very first. The script also makes Pinocchio's existence as a living puppet a unique occurrence, rather than allowing other puppets to be quasi-living creatures as well. And since Disney built much of its image on the idea of fulfilling dreams, the idea of tying Pinocchio's quasi-life to Gepetto "wishing on a star" transports the rustic feel of Collodi's story into something verging on the celestial.

Though Disney's con artists are no better or worse than Collodi's, I'd argue that changing the marionette-master into a pitiless slavedriver is integral to giving Pinocchio a taste of the "real world" outside his little sphere of loving father and faithful "conscience." Having had this negative experience, and getting helped out of it "just this once" by the Blue Fairy's magic, the protagonist's falling for the sharpers' second gambit emphasizes the consequences of his choice to begin emulating Lampwick. The Disney script also builds up the Satanic personality of the Coachman-- who in some ways shares the dominant coloring of Santa Claus-- while the cognate figure in Collodi isn't that memorable. In addition, Collodi's puppet gets out of the donkey curse by dumb luck, while the Disney script ties Pinocchio's emancipation from the curse-- as well as his "death and resurrection"-- to his selfless act in rescuing Gepetto.

The escape from Monstro remains the visual high point of the movie, and the giant whale is many times more impressive than the Giant Shark of the book. I didn't precisely follow what injury Pinocchio suffered that caused his temporary death-- it's certainly not drowning, since he's seen walking around the ocean-floor without ill effect. Further, the image of being swallowed by a whale, rather than a shark, was a resonant trope for anyone who'd been exposed to the story of Jonah. Indeed, the 1940 Pinocchio might even be something of a confluence of influences from both Jonah and Jesus, given that Pinocchio is brought to life in an immaculate conception.

So PINOCCHIO-- only the second full film-adaptation of Collodi-- registers with me as a masterpiece with many flaws, though they evidently don't bother others as they have bothered me.