Anstasia (1997)

Director: Don Bluth, Gary Goldman
Studio: Fox Animation Studios

Watched on: 11/09/2023

Review contains ***SPOILERS*** for Anastasia

Ratings:
OVERALL
NB: These are not weighted equally (if at all)
PlotStorytellingAnimationCharacters
74576



Watching Anastasia properly for the first time (I'm sure the VHS got played in the background at my cousin's house many times through my childhood), I realised it's no wonder at all why the film did so well. It's magical, it's pretty and it rode the princess wave of the time incredibly well. I did find it a little bit strange to see an American depiction of Russia but obviously it's based around some real people. Also I don't know enough about history to say why it was nuts but the evil arch-wizard being called Rasputin did feel weird coming out of an American studio as well. Maybe it was just a common name in Russia, historically. Anyway, the film is really lovely and I'd highly recommend it to nostalgic milennials and anyone who likes a gorgeous setting.

That's actually where I have to start: the background art/design for the entire film was absolutely stunning. And I have to say it's the art and the design, because the backgrounds are so beautifully made, but the conception of the grand palace and it's massive halls make up a big part of how good it looks on screen. The filmmakers also did a great job of (what I think was) using contemporary Russian art and stylings in the film; my favourite example of this was the family portrait hanging up in the palace, with little baby Anastasia in it. The fancy balls felt magical and even some of the settings that only appear for a scene or two (like the European countryside, or even the view from under a tablecloth!) are really beautifully done. Even Paris! I loved how they styled everyone in the city and captured the idea of boujie paris so well and even topped it off with a fun little song.



Seriously, look how pretty these backgrounds are






Overall, the animation is really good. Nothing incredibly unique nor innovative but fantastic traditional animation, done the right way. Really great character acting and a great balance of exaggeration and realism (i.e. leaning heavily towards exaggeration) and although they went for a really sparse and simple approach with the line art (especially for faces), they still captured lost of details, like rolled-up sleeves, fur coats etc. One thing that really stood out to me was that they really did not shy away from animating hands. There were loads of complicated hand gestures, characters fiddling with props etc. and it all looked amazing. Also ther was a bit of CG stuff but that looked fine (not sure if it's remastered on Disney Plus or what but no real issues there). So yeah, great animation, as you'd expect from a Don Bluth classic.

The story is a bit odd. It works fine as a vehicle to carry you through the scenes and let the characters get into their songs. But it is a bit of a straight line. They want to do something, they try to do it, then something gets in the way, then they do it anyway. I totally get that this is a kids film though and actually aimed at an audience that had a totally different relationship to the screen to what kids have today but they definitely could have made the story a bit more interesting.

That also ties into the storytelling. And here, I just mean storytelling, so not even just visual storytelling. So firstly, we as the viewer know that 'Ania' is Anastasia, the lost Princess. So there's no curiosity and no tension. But then the film acts like we're all discovering her true identity together. So moments where she 'uncovers' things that suggest she might be the Princess just have no impact. Story-wise, I reckon it would be way more impactful to have us start the film in the orphanage and learn about the lost Princess slowly throughout the story as Ania goes out to find herself, but I actually get why they did it the other way, because it allowed for that amazing opening royal ball sequence. So yeah, odd way to literally tell the story but the visual storytelling was okay. Got the job done, nothing really striking and mostly pretty obvious. But no complaints.

The characters are pretty good. I think all of their designs are really brilliant, especially within that era. They might not all get the screentime they need to talk about the complex lives they'd had to live in post-Tsar Russia but they all had a tiny bit of depth to them. Like it would have been really easy to have Grand Duchess be jumping for joy when they arrived in Paris to meet her but instead, she was emotionally exhausted and combative. Dimitri is principled but also slimy, Anastasia is smart but self-aware and interesting (those two have that classic 'fiery' teen romance but can't hate on that too much). I even liked characters with small parts, like Sophie. Oh and Rasputin himself. Dark bastard he is. Whoever his key animator was did an amazing job. He's got that real sinister streak but also the quite funny dramatic flair. Thought he was excellent.

On a side note, two quick things about Rasputin's white bat sidekick, Bartok: 1.) I think Hank Azaria did pretty badly at his attempted Russian Accent, which came out sounding more like parody Dutch. 2.) The very last shot has a 'female' bat appear and woo Bartok and it was just such a weird unnecessary moment that shows some pretty standard deeply ingrained sexism in animation, with the female bat needing to be shown to be visibly female, so they obviously gave her massive eyelashes but then also pink fur (which is extra bizarre, because Bartok is presumably supposed to be Albino, so she's either also albino with eye shadow all over herself or like... erythristic?).

So overall, the film's pretty much what I expected. Really wonderful and pretty with not the best story but deservedly earned itself a spot as a classic.



One thing I almost forgot: Fuck me, that sleepwalking on the boat scene is insanely morbid! Definitely think that was a bit too far but it was very cool visually at least.