It started as a concept album and then transformed into a stage play, which has become one of the most performed plays in the world. In 1985, the musical made its way to TV like classic PEANUTS adaptations via animation. At 49 minutes, the special is like a review of the stage version, giving fans a musical highlight reel to the world that Charles Schulz created.

The production begins with the title tune where the Peanuts gang gives their impression of good ole Charlie Brown (Brad Kesten, voice, Kevin Brando, singing). Next we get a song set to Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” where Lucy (Jessica Lee Smith) laments her love for pianist Schroeder (Jeremy Reinbolt). She says, “My Aunt Marion was right, never try to discuss marriage with a musician.” Charlie Brown gets wrapped up in many of his classic misfortunes involving kite flying, Valentine’s Day cards and losing baseball games.

For fans of the PEANUTS animated specials the most striking element of this edition is that Snoopy not only talks but sings. He sings about being a wild animal and for his supper. Many of the episodes are based on strips created by Schulz, as is most of the musical, but it just does seem right in animation. Robert Towers’ voice just doesn’t seem right for the black and white beagle. Plus the songs he is given are not the most memorable of the show.

One of the highlights is based directly on one of Schulz’s classic strips and shows the various characters dealing with a book report on PETER RABBIT in various ways. It’s smart and funny, especially how Charlie Brown tries to push off the assignment. The special ends with the most famous song in the show, “Happiness.” It captures the simple pleasures in life, as well as the simple pleasure of the PEANUTS.

Because of its short running time the animated production has little time for the connecting elements of the stage production. It’s mainly the songs just strung together. Some of the songs are better than others. The musical doesn’t tell a story so it’s not as engaging as the best of the animated specials. But for fans it’s like visiting old friends and reminiscing. Because many of the songs are based directly on Charles Schulz’s strips, it has a purity at times that is happiness.

Support the Site

Buy “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown” on DVD Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

For those who may be too old or too young, SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK was a series of interstitial shorts during the early part of the 1970s, which aired during Saturday morning cartoon blocks on TV. For the even younger viewers, the major network channels actually aired cartoons all Saturday morning. The SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK shorts were educational lessons on various subjects about the U.S. government or grammar. The most famous and successful of the shorts was I’M JUST A BILL.

A little bill chronicles the long and tiring road to becoming a law. Jack Sheldon lends his wonderful New Orleans-twinged voice to The Bill, who is introduced leaning back on the steps of the Senate. With its simple, appealing design work, the look is uncluttered. A great example of less is better than more. Mixing funny dry asides with an unforgettable song, the short is an exemplary example of how to make an educational film that melds information with entertainment. I still remember how a bill is made from watching this short as a kid. Unlike some of the other SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK shorts, the music isn’t hampered by dated trends, so kids can enjoy it equally today as when it was first produced.

Support the Site

Buy “Schoolhouse Rock! - Election Collection” Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

The fourth installment of Michael Apted’s brilliant documentary series finds it’s subjects, which it has followed every seven years since they were seven, about to move into their 30s. Many have families now and most seem to have truly found themselves. For people who have not seen the series before, entering at this point is not impossible, because the filmmakers give us recaps of the past, however I wouldn’t it. This is the first installment to not feature all of the participants from the previous films, but we do get caught up on the two missing members as well. Sit back and enjoy catching up with old friends.

First, we meet up with Tony, who grew up in the East End of London. His dream at seven was to be a jockey and was able to enter in three races, one of which featured racing legend Lester Piggott. Outside of the birth of his children, he lists this as the best day of his life. Now he’s living well as a cabbie (his fallback position when he was seven). Most of his rough and tough attitude has faded into a more reflective look on life. He seems to have accomplished what he set out to do and doesn’t need to prove himself as much anymore. He’s even taken up acting on the side.

At 21, Bruce was studying mathematics. Since seven, he’s always had a need to help his fellow man. Now at 28, he has given up his job at an insurance firm, put behind his wealthy background and started new work to help the less fortunate in an interesting way. Suzy also came from privilege and always came off as spiritless in the previous entries. However at 28, she has made a surprising turnaround, spurred by something she said she had no faith in when she was 21. Nick lived in the country as a child and was curious about science at an early age. At 28, he has earned a doctorate in physics and married a fellow Oxford grad named Jackie. He’s taken a post at the University of Wisconsin, where he and his wife struggle with the idea of balancing careers and family. At 21, Peter, who came from a middleclass family, was just about to graduate from college. Now he works as a teacher, which doesn’t seem to be something he enjoys. He seems disgruntled with the current political climate in England and in life in general, looking back to the days when he played in a band. His wife Susan can’t even say they married for love on camera.

Next we check in with Paul, who by 14 was living in Australia. He’s now married with kids, and his wife, Susan, comments jokingly about how she gets frustrated with his lack of confidence, which is something he has struggled with since a young age. Three wealthy children from the same pre-prep school were interviewed together for the first three installments. John and Charles declined to be part of this new film. The most conservative subject John is now a barrister, while Charles works as a producer for the BBC. Andrew was the other and now works as a solicitor in the city with a home in the country. He and his wife Jane plan to raise their kids in the country. Andrew clearly recognizes the advantages he has had in life.

As for Neil, who in the last film was living a squatter’s life, his life has not improved like he hoped. He’s been out of work for three years wandering England to make ends meet. At 21, he seemed depressed and angry about his situation, but, at 28, he seems resigned to a miserable fate. Since the last film, he has been treated for mental illness, but has reconciled with his parents, who he spoke harshly of previously. His haggard transformation from a bright-eyed seven-year-old is haunting.

Mirroring John, Charles and Andrew, three girls from working-class backgrounds have been interviewed together. Jackie, Lynn and Susan have all returned for this installment. Lynn is still married and working for the same mobile library. Since the previous film, Susan has gotten married and settled into her role as a mother. Jackie, however, comments that 19 was too young to get married and has decided not to have children, because she is too selfish. When asked about whether they think about their disadvantages coming from a working-class family, Jackie answers — only every seven years when she’s asked for the program. The final subject is Simon, the only mixed race participant. He too is now married with five children. Though he stated at 21 that he’d lose his mind if he had to work at the meat packing plant forever, he is now resigned to remain at what he sees as a stable job. His priorities have shifted to his kids, giving them the father figure he never had.

While this installment doesn’t have the bold changes that the other three films had, many of the participants seem to have settled into themselves. However, Apted does allude to possible trouble on the horizon. Will Jackie, Nick and Peter’s marriages last? Will Neil even survive to the next installment? It’s an addictive series. You want to know what happens next in these people’s lives, because you start to know them better than some of your own acquaintances in real life. This is reality TV for the film fan.

Support the Site

Buy “The Up Series” Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Michael Apted’s brilliant documentary series has checked in with the same group of people every seven years since they were seven. As the title suggests, this installment is the third in the series. Now as young adults, some of the subjects have stronger opinions about the way they are portrayed in the previous two films. Some have stayed the same, while others have taken surprising turns. Being older, the young men and women begin to comment on the others, as well as their pasts.

In the first film, John, Charles and Andrew were attending the same lavish pre-preparatory school. John and Andrew have gone onto the same colleges they said they would attend at seven. However, John, the most conservative of the group, points out that the films make it seem like they’ve had it easy, underplaying the hard work that went into how they got where they are today. Charles didn’t make it into Oxford as he planned at seven, but rather enjoys avoiding the pre-prep to Oxford conveyor belt. Since the first film, both Charles and Andrew’s parents divorced. While Andrew seems reconciled to the split, Charles seems to struggle with how it really has affected him. When asked about their opportunities in life, John believes it’s his duty to give back to England, which has given him so much. Charles agrees, but adds that they have no more opportunities than any of the others in the series.

Charles specifically references the three girls, Jackie, Lynn and Sue, who came from working class families. Jackie and Lynn are now married. Jackie works at a bank and Lynn works as a librarian. Jackie is as outspoken and independent as she was at seven, while Lynn is more reserved. Sue is still close to Jackie and doesn’t know what to think about marriage. When it comes to opportunities, Tony, who grew up in the East End of London, makes his own opportunities. At seven he said he wanted to be a jockey, and by 14, he seemed to be on his way. Now at 21, he has retired after only three races, reconciling himself to the fact that he didn’t have what it took. Now he’s working at the dog tracks, working at getting his cabbie license, which was the same fall back job he had when he was seven.

Simon and Paul went to the same charity boarding school when they were seven. By 14, Paul had moved to Australia and now 21, he is a bricklayer and has a girlfriend. He comes off far more confident then he did in the previous editions. Simon, the only mixed race subject, now works at a meat packing plant. He seems content, but believes that when he gets the spark he could learn a trade. He talks openly about his mother’s bouts with depression and how it affected him, driving him to want to be strong for her. Paul comes back to England to walk the halls of the boarding school to reminisce with Simon.

Nick was raised on a farm where he didn’t have many children his age to play with. He came off painfully shy at 14, but has grown into an opinionated and handsome man at 21. Following his love of science, he is studying nuclear physics at Oxford. Suzy, who came from a wealthy family, seemed to have a growing indifference by 14. At 21, she has dropped out of school and travels the globe. She seems discontent with her life, striving to find something better elsewhere. When asked about her parents’ divorce, she clearly states that when people don’t get along anymore they should split up. Bruce also came from wealth, wanting to be a missionary at seven, but dropping the idea by 14. Now at 21, he seems concerned about how people view his socialist and religious beliefs. When asked about sex, he says that a couple must go into it knowing what the other wants, because if one person wants casual sex and the other is looking for love, the relationship can end painfully.

Attending the same suburban school at seven, Peter and Neil have taken two different paths in life. Peter lives with a couple of flat mates and is about to graduate from college. He doesn’t seem like school is his top priority and doesn’t have any real plans for what he will do after school. Neil is the most surprising of all. At seven, he seemed full of hope, but by 14 his spirit seemed dampened. At 21, he has been homeless, having dropped out of college soon after starting. Now living as a squatter, he works odd jobs when he can get them. He talks about having a sheltered, religious upbringing that didn’t prepare him for the realities of life. When asked about what he wants in the future, he says just to be able to wake up and have something to live for.

As one watches the next episode of this series, one begins to gain the feeling of familiarity. These are people we know and each installment is like a reunion of old friends. Knowing details of the subsequent films, I know this is the last to feature all the original subjects. Only three will appear in all the films, some will drop out and come back later. It’s surprising to see how these people change and grow over time, but even more surprising is to see the same seven year old in the eyes of someone older.

Support the Site

Buy “The Up Series” Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

In 1964 the WORLD IN ACTION TV series followed a group of children in England from different backgrounds. The half-hour program was meant show the potential future leader of the country in 2000. Later a researcher on the project Michael Apted stepped into the director’s chair to see how the children had grown seven years after the first film. Apted has checked in with the subjects for a new film every seven years since, giving the world a filmic time capsule of these individuals and the times in which they lived.

John, Charles and Andrew were young boys at the same pre-preparatory school in the first film. All three in the second film are attending the schools they said they would be attending in the first. While all three came off fairly snobbish in the first installment, only John retains a conservative pretension, while the others seem more progressive, especially Charles who finds the pursuit of wealth to be a road to unhappiness because of all the people you have to ruin to get there. John, on the other hand, wants fame and power, but doesn’t believe he has to be ruthless to get it, only smart. Suzy, a girl from a wealthy, sheltered background, at 14, lives on her family’s Scottish estate. The distance and indifference from the first film has only grown. The other wealthy child in the film was Bruce, who at seven wanted to be a missionary, but by 14, decided that he wouldn’t be good at it because he isn’t good at public speaking.

Jackie, Lynn and Sue were three friends in primary school at 7, since Jackie and Sue went to comprehensive school, while Lynn chose grammar school. Nick still lives in the tiny village he did in at seven, but now attends a boarding school instead of the one-school in the first film. He is certain that he doesn’t want to be a farmer like his father and grandfather. Peter and Neil, who live in a Liverpool suburb, both wanted to be astronauts when they were seven. Neil’s attitude seems the most changed since the first film, changing from a bright-eyed, energetic little boy into a more reserved teen.

The two students that were attending a charity boarding school at seven were Paul and Simon. Paul now lives in Australia with his father and stepmother and seems even more uncertain about his self then the child who asked what was a university at seven. Simon, the only non-white in the series, believes that white and black have to get us to living together or they will both fail. Tony, the plucky seven-year-old from the East End of London, seems to be on track to his goal of becoming a jockey. His frankness hasn’t changed in seven years.

One of the most striking changes from the first film is in the confidence of the children. In SEVEN UP!, all the subjects looked up and made eye contact with the interviewer. In the follow-up, about half the kids look down as they talk and those kids all tend to be the ones that suffer from the most teenage doubt. Interestingly, it’s doesn’t fall down class lines, cutting across the wealthy and the poor. Nick often buries his head in his knees, while Suzy only lifts her eyes to express her disgust with a particular question.

When presented with the question of race relations, all the children express the need for tolerance. Suzy, who stated that she didn’t want to meet black people in the first film, expresses simple indifference at 14. John, the most conservative of the group, doesn’t see the need for mingling with people from other backgrounds, because at boarding school he has the chance to meet other children with varying interests and that’s what really matters. On the topic of labor, John is strongly against striking, however unlike the first film where they all agreed, Andrew and Charles disagree on taking away the workers’ right to strike. Jackie and her friends support the right to strike as well, having parent who were on strike at the time of filming.

Apted was 23 when he was involved in the first of this series. Now at 67, he has dedicated his life to capturing the progression of these people’s lives. Unlike manipulative reality television, which wallows in tawdriness, the UP series is a time capsule of changing eras and attitudes seen through the eyes of children as they mature into adults. It’s a remarkable series worth waiting another seven years to see what happens next.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Taken at face value one might not see the significance of this film. Put in context, as the start of a continuing series, it takes on the status of an epic undertaking that Roger Ebert once called “an inspired, even noble, use of the film medium.” Directed by Paul Almond as part of the WORLD IN ACTION TV series, SEVEN UP! wasn’t intended to be the first chapter in a series. Based on the Jesuit phrase, “give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man,” the half-hour program was supposed to be one-off look at a group of seven year olds from different economic and social backgrounds. Original researcher Michael Apted transformed the first film into what it has become, the chronicling of the same lives every seven years since.

For this film, 21 children were chosen, but only fourteen become central subjects. John, Charles and Andrew attend the same pre-preparatory school and seem to have their lives all planned out. Suzy goes to an all girls’ school and is from a very wealthy family. Her sheltered world hasn’t only left her clueless about the world around her, but seemingly shell shocked. Jackie, Lynn and Sue are good friends from a working class neighborhood, who have no clue that they’d be consider the poor kids by others in the group. Tony is a tough kid from the East End of London, who has a girlfriend named Michelle, who he often disagrees with. Paul goes to a charity-based boarding school and his parents are divorced. Simon also goes to the charity-based boarding school and is the only non-white child in the group. Nick attends a one-room school in Yorkshire Dales and observes that he likes to go to town on holiday while city folk like to come to the country. Peter and Neil go to the same middle-class Liverpool suburban school and both want to be astronauts, but don’t think they need to go to university for that. Bruce attends a prestigious boarding school and feels that the most important thing in life is to serve God.

Even on its own, SEVEN UP! is fascinating at how it shows these young boys and girls forming their opinions of the world. Nicely, the film leaves the opinions up to the kids, not overtly commenting on what they are saying. However, when we see a scene with John, Charles and Andrew speaking about poor kids in the most-snobbish fashion followed by Tony saying he wants to punch the snooty rich kids, we can’t help but think that the filmmakers are siding with Tony. When we hear Andrew state that he reads the Financial Times, we sense that we are hearing the voice of his father. Being that it was filmed in the 1960s, it’s an interesting time capsule to watch the kids comment on the Beatles and race, seeing the differences in opinion between girls and boys, rich and poor and white and black.

The remarkable series arrived at 49 UP in 2005 and the next installment will debut in 2012. Beginning with 1977’s 21 UP, the format expanded to a more traditional feature length. Despite their origins on TV, the films screen in theaters all around the world. Some of the participants have been in all the films and others have dropped out, while some drop outs return for later editions. When it is finally finished, the series will stand as one of the great cinematic accomplishments, lasting the test of time as a unique portrait of growing up.

Support the Site

Buy the entire Up series here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

HORTON HEARS A WHO! was animation legend Chuck Jones’ second collaboration with Ted Geisel aka Dr. Seuss, following 1966’s animated classic HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS! HORTON isn’t as successful as the GRINCH, but this Seussian fable is still entertaining and as relevant as ever.

One day, Horton the elephant (Hans Conried aka Snidely Whiplash) hears a voice coming from a speck of dust. Discovering a whole society of Whos living on the white piece of fluff, Horton dedicates himself to protecting his new tiny friend Dr. Hoovey (Confried). However, the folks of Horton’s world, especially Jane Kangaroo (animation legend June Foray aka Rocky J. Squirrel), think he’s a little nuts, as do the Whos of Dr. Hoovey when he claims their world lies on the trunk of a peaceful pachyderm. Fearing that his radical way of thinking will destroy their way of life, Jane enlists three devious monkeys, the Wickersham Brothers, to steal Horton’s Who haven.

Despite some obvious concessions for TV, including simplified production values and padding the length, the core theme of tolerance holds up well. Geisel adapted the script and also wrote the lyrics to the songs, which are the weakest part of the production. Still, I did enjoy the WILLY WONKA-like tune involving the Wickersham Brothers. Yet, this version of HORTON really works when the rhyme is set to the iconic Seuss design style. It goes to show how difficult it is to adapt Dr. Seuss books into features when half hour TV specials can feel overlong. This even happens when Dr. Seuss adapts the teleplay himself.

With this said, Blue Sky’s attempt at making a feature of the story hits theaters on Friday. Of course interest for the original TV 2D animated version will be at a peak. Having not seen the new CG rendition yet, I can still say with certainty this is the purest version you’ll likely find.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Buy It Now!

This film is featured as bonus material on the deluxe-edition of HORTON HEARS A WHO!

Ralph Bakshi is best known for his adult animation FRITZ THE CAT. But in 1989 for Turner TV, he mixed his sensibilities with those of pre-school icon Ted Geisel aka Dr. Seuss. The result is one of the best Seuss adaptations ever made, and sadly one of the most overlooked. Even Seuss himself felt this was the most faithful adaptation of his work. Considering he adapted the script, he of course had a big part in that.

A grandfather (Charles Durning, TOOTSIE) tells his grandson a tale of the Zooks, who live on the other side of the wall and butter their bread butter side down. Yikes! So as a patriotic Yook, the grandfather in his younger years patrolled the wall keeping an eye out for any upside down buttering behavior. During a patrol, a Zook uses a slingshot to break the grandfather’s tough-tufted prickly snick-berry switch. This begins a race for bigger and bigger weapons to threaten the other race with.

This clear critique of the Cold War was banned from many school libraries. So it’s no surprise that it took until 1989 to be adapted into animation. Supervising director Bakshi brings a great visual flare to the tale. The style is still Seuss, but it’s filtered through Bakshi, which gives the story more uneasiness and rawness. This is Seuss at it’s twisted best. Like other adaptations of his books, Geisel wrote the lyrics to the songs too. In the past those songs didn’t always work, but here they flow with the story nicely, adding to the tone well. As for the narration, Durning’s voice just fits.

Dr. Seuss and Bakshi don’t seem like an obvious team, but for THE BUTTER BATTLE BOOK, the material matches the collaborators. Though we know where the tale is going pretty early on, the ending couldn’t be more poignant. This Seussian fable not only holds up well; it still contains the power from the original book, which is as relevant today as it was then.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Buy It Now!

This film is featured as bonus material on the deluxe-edition of HORTON HEARS A WHO!

This 1995’s adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ book is a fairly straightforward rendition of the story. The brightly colored Emmy-nominated Hanna-Barbera production takes the color palette and design right from the books. It doesn’t have the energy of some of the other Dr. Seuss adaptations, but it also avoids some of their mistakes.

The Cat in the Hat (Henry Gibson, THE ‘BURBS) narrates the tale of Mayzie McGrew, who one day sprouts a daisy from the top of her head. At first her fellow students ridicule her. Her teacher, principal, parents and various other townsfolk are baffled by what has occurred. But when agent Finagle (Tim Curry, ANNIE) shows up, he lures Mayzie to sign a contract, promising fame and fortune. But as these kinds of tales often go, fame and fortune aren’t always fun and fancy-free.

Like other Seuss TV specials, this one includes songs. But the lyrics are based on the words from the book, which combine the music from Philip Appleby well. Many of the tunes are solos introducing supporting characters, which works by not being too intrusive. To stretch the story to a half hour, some uninspired slapstick was added, which is better than disruptive songs any day.

As a faithful adaptation of the book, the special captures the themes of tolerance and proper priorities well. The production doesn’t have any individual flare, relying on the Seussian poetry. For some this will be enough and for me it’s certainly enough to recommend.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network