Walt avant Mickey

As a Disneyphile of sorts, there was no way I was going to miss watching this film on the big screen even though I had to travel two hours via the Interstate through Kansas to the Kansas City metro area (appropriately enough since that is where Disney started his animation company) to get to the nearest theater showing it. The trip was worth it for me personally, but the film itself may disappoint others. Its quality is uneven; it needs the sort of polish and texture that the Disney organization would be able to give it. Don't expect something like "Savings Mr. Banks," the Disney film that dealt with Disney's struggles to get "Mary Poppins" made toward the end of his life. While the story of "Walt Before Mickey" is itself engaging, and the plotting, pace and dialogue not all that bad, the editing is uneven, the cinematography is uninspired, and the acting is just this side of wooden and amateurish. However, Thomas Ian Nicholas saves the day, practically carrying the entire film on his performance alone. His acting is earnest and sympathetic to the persona of a young and struggling Walt Disney; and the character he creates is believable and likable. In the final analysis, the film will never win any awards, but it has a lot of heart and wins the approval of those, like myself, who wish to see Disney (and the Disney legacy) treated in the sort of fair, even-handed, and yet respectful manner he deserves.

"Walt Before Mickey" (2015 release; 110 min.) is a look at Walt Disney's early years, in particular the decade between 1919 and 1929. As the movie opens, we see a 7 yr. old Walt in rural Missouri, with a stern father. As a 13 yr. old, Walt officially becomes interested in animation, and we swiftly move on to 1919, when Walt moves to Kansas City and starts his first company "Laugh-O-Gram". At this point we are 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: first, this is the movie adaptation of the book of the same name by Timothy Susanin (and a foreword by Diane Disney Miller). I have not read the book and so cannot comment how closely the movie sticks to the book (I'm guessing, very closely). I don't want to overstate this, but at the same time don't want to not mention it, namely that this movie comes with the official Disney stamp of approval. That could be a good thing, although the downside of this is that there isn't the slightest negative thing about Walt Disney in this movie. I mean, to accept this movie as 100% true, Walt Disney had to have been a living saint. It even goes so far that at the end of the movie, when we are informed what would become of many of the characters featured in this,, it states "Walt never held a grudge against Charles Mintz". (You need to see the movie to fully understand how badly Mintz treated Disney...) As to the acting performances, I felt many of them were quite 'wooden', you can tell they are literally 'acting'. Thomas Ian Nicholas (best known from the American Pie franchise) tries to make the most of it, but even he cannot save the movie. Bottom line, I was disappointed with the second rate quality and overall feel of the movie, like this was a TV Movie of the Week, directed by a first time feature-length director (in this case: Khoa Le). Is there a great story to be told? Absolutely! But it won't be found in this movie, unfortunately.

The movie opened this past weekend and the matinée screening where I saw this at was attended very nicely, somewhat to my surprise, since this movie has not gotten much of an advertising push or anything. Seems that people really do want to find out more about the early life of the American icon that is Walt Disney. Surely Walt deserved a better movie than this. "Walt Before Mickey" is strictly for Disney fans, and even then, viewer beware!

While I love the idea about Walt Disney's life before he and Ub Iwerks came up with Mickey Mouse, I am a little apprehensive about wholly endorsing this or any other film. After all, the Disney Corporation has carefully sanitized Walt and created an idealized image of the man over the years. Don't get me wrong...he was a GREAT man...but Disney has had a history of over-idealizing the guy...and, conversely, some jerks have tried to make money saying Walt was practically the Antichrist (I've read two smear books like this)! So exactly how true all the details are...well, that's not an easy thing for me or anyone to say. But it was entertaining and at least mostly true (if not completely true). I know that Walt's father was not the nicest man on Earth and Walt did have a horrible time financing his initial films...so at least these and many other details rang true in the picture.

The movie is a dramatization of Walt's struggles mostly from when he first went to work as an animator. His earlier life is only alluded to very briefly. It's a shame, as I was interested in his life before he became a professional animator. Some of the film was very close to Walt's life (such as his struggles with money and financing as well as his staff and Oswald being stolen by Mintz) and some of it just seemed patently absurd--such as Walt keeping a pet mouse in his pocket as an adult (I sincerely doubt this is true) and Walt not holding a grudge against Mintz for stealing and almost destroying him (this could not be true). As for the second case, Walt was famous for holding grudges and after finally setting a long and costly strike with animators in the early 40s, he promptly fired many of these people and vowed to not rehire them! The film also idealizes his relationship with Iwerks who left Disney for several years in the 1930s to start his own studio...and this isn't mentioned. Still, if you don't mind being given 'the party line' the film is enjoyable and MOSTLY truthful...mostly.

After watching this movie, I have very mixed feelings. A part of me loved the movie for its story and the atmosphere. The other part of me is disappointed because I don't feel like it fulfilled its true potential. Many of the characters felt shallow and without depth, and the actors were just acting. There wasn't too much feeling in their performances, and the dialogue never felt natural or relaxed.

But to be honest, I'd easily watch it again. I don't know why, I just didn't think it was THAT bad. Many people put a lot of hours and hard work behind this movie, the least I can do is try to appreciate it for what it is and see the positive sides of it.

With the Hollywood machine pounding out flesh-eating, filthy, violent, promiscuous stories by the hundreds each year, it's refreshing when anyone comes along and is willing to take on a "politically incorrect" story about ordinary human beings. Walt was not a super-hero, and this earlier look at his life gives us plenty of thoughtful insight into his character (flaws included), and his tough beginnings. If we want, we can tear apart the acting, the writing, the filming. But I don't want to do that. Here's the simple fact. If a movie doesn't have gore and sex a-plenty, then the big studios will NOT even look at it. With the exception of course of the "art" films that toe the Hollywood line of bull, and satisfy the Academy's lust for twisted entertainment.

Sorry, but I like the story. And as a professional musician, I say this. People might like it if they actually shut off their "fast- paced critical mindset" and tried to open their minds up to the fact that not everyone has to buy into what's currently worshiped by the "sheople" in the crowds. That's how music is. I don't have to like every sound in the performance to love the song. Sometimes the song is enough.

In this case, I'd recommend this to any family, any adults, anyone younger, as a true look at an influential man's beginnings, and how he got his start bringing joy to others.