The Sword in the Stone

I hadn't seen this since I was very, very young, forty years ago, likely. I had no memories of it other than liking it, so watching it now was like watching it for the first time again. I can't even recall the memories 6 year old me had when he saw it or what he liked about it. All I can do here is report what 46 year old me thinks. Sword is a rather daring movie for Disney's animation studio back then, in a number of ways. It eschews the musical format almost entirely. Yes, there's the intro song number, and Merlin "sings" one, but it feels more like spur-of-the-moment whimsy than adhering to a template. Beyond that, Sword also breaks tradition by veering away from the more romance and/or fairy tale-driven stories before. Though based on a book, that book is heavily based on Arthurian legend. Sword feels like a movie aimed at young boys, not kids as a whole. And yet, because it is based on a story about young Arthur being coached up by Merlin to be ready for becoming king, the movie lacks what you'd expect from a movie dealing with Arthurian legend. Swordfights, medieval combat, palace intrigue, none of that is here. Instead, Merlin teaches young Arthur about power and responsibility by way of rather weird and oblique lessons that involve turning him into animals. So we see Arthur as a fish, and then a squirrel, and then a bird. It's a weird concept, one that instead of providing a strong through-line for the movie, breaks it up into episodic chunks. This has a few effects on the movie as a whole. Without that strong A-to-B plotting, the movie never feels like it has much in the way of stakes. There is no way to build up an arch-nemesis like the Queen in Snow White or Cruella in 101 Dalmatians. Yes, there's Madam Mim, but she's only around a short slice of the movie. This lack of stakes leaves the movie just kind of floating along, a series of amusing vignettes. Fun vignettes, sure, but I never felt the movie was conveying how these were supposed to be lessons to help Arthur become ready for the throne. But on the other hand, one of my biggest complaints about classic Disney movies is the pacing and how many feel stretched out and padded. Sword's format keeps that from happening. It's hard to feel like the movie is spinning its wheels when it is broken up into chunks so cleanly. And each section does do something different; as a fish, Arthur has to contend with a barracuda. As a bird, a bird of prey. As a squirrel, he has to not get molested by a VERY thirsty girl squirrel (what were the writers on?). And then the Madam Mim section, which is more for Merlin to actually do something. There's a variety in the visuals and presentation that, even if the movie never delivers on tension and just ambles along, helps it to never drag. It may not have the memorable songs or memorable villains, but it also shows Disney didn't need to have those elements to make a good movie. It was a bold swing, probably the most since Ichabod & Mr. Toad, and I respect it for that. I can see why it doesn't stand alongside the Peter Pans and Cinderellas of Disney Animation's pantheon, but I never got the feeling it was trying either. It was happy to be what it was, and I'm okay with that.