By the early 1960s, Disney had kicked into high gear, with a popular television show running every week on ABC (in the days before Disney owned ABC), and several successful live action films. Its popular theme park, Disneyland, was finally turning solid profits after the first couple of shaky years, with merchandise flying off shelves. These successful ventures turned animation—both for full length and shorts—into a decided sideline, especially after just a few too many disasters. But Walt Disney was reluctant to completely abandon the company’s roots—and One Hundred and One Dalmatians had shown that at least some Disney animated films could make money. And least on the surface, The Sword in the Stone seemed to offer several elements associated with Disney’s full length animated successes: British (Peter Pan; One Hundred and One Dalmatians), talking animals (One Hundred and One Dalmatians again; Lady in the Tramp), and a touch of magic (Cinderella; Peter Pan.) It seemed a surefire bet.
If Disney had learned anything from its previous films, however, it should have been this: surefire bets are not, alas, always surefire.
Part of the problem stemmed from a simple lack of money. Despite the success of One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Disney did not want to risk that much money on the film, and severely trimmed the film’s budget. It shows. If, for instance, you’re watching the film in a casual sort of way and just happen to think, huh, that shot of Kay eating a big leg of meat looks suspiciously familiar, that’s because it is suspiciously familiar: it appears in the film three times. Other bits were traced from earlier animation work, setting an unfortunate precedent that was to be continued all the way until The Rescuers Down Under, then repeated again in Beauty and the Beast, before computer technology finally allowed Disney to return to completely new animation in every film from Aladdin on.
The budget cuts also show in the voicing. This is arguably the weakest vocal film of any of the Disney films done under Walt Disney’s direct supervision (we will encounter a couple of upcoming films that are worse), a particular disappointment after the spectacular voice work for Cruella de Vil in the previous films. Most notable: the voicing of the film’s supposed protagonist, Wart, who was voiced by three different child actors. Two were brothers, and sound somewhat similar; the third was not, and sounds distinctly different. Given that the film is about growing up, this problem might have been overcome—except that the director inexplicably chose to leave all three voices in for some scenes, drawing attention to the problem that they were not the same actor. Adding to the issue: all three had distinctly American accents, in a film set in Britain, otherwise voiced by Brits. The only positive: the vocal issues with Wart do help distract attention from the fact that the Brits aren’t particularly good here either.
But the real problem with the film isn’t any of this, but rather the plot, or, more specifically, the lack of one, along with the lack of a real villain. Wart, after all, is destined to pull the sword out of the stone and become King Arthur, somewhat robbing the film of any real suspense. This did not necessarily need to be a problem—T. H. White had dealt with this issue by creating a meandering fantasy that focused more on education, philosophy, satire and magic that used its lack of suspense to its advantage. And Disney had managed, with the help of some mice, to add at least some suspense to Cinderella, a film whose ending could only have surprised very very small viewers indeed.
In this film, however, it is a problem, because The Sword in the Stone never really seems to have much of a point. As in the book, we meet Wart, who seems nice enough, if very American and rather bland, and the easily distracted, rather ditzy, and occasionally deeply irresponsible Merlin and his owl Archimedes. As not in the book, his foster brother Kay is downright brutal and mean here, with few if any redeeming qualities. Well, he’s not too bad at hitting things, and he seems to be somewhat fond of his father, but that’s about it. Merlin decides that Arthur needs to be educated—but not at all clear why. This presents a few problems: Arthur has a number of other duties as a scullery boy and Kay’s squire in training, and his foster father Sir Ector is considerably less enthusiastic about education in this film than he was in the book, leading to a few shenanigans where Arthur is late for washing dishes or says he has to wash dishes instead of going off with Merlin to be education which leads to Merlin doing magic which is all very nice, but not in the least bit suspenseful, or interesting. There’s also a slight side plot where in Arthur might be able to go to London, as long as he behaves, or might not, but again, it’s not all that interesting.
Again, this is a place where knowing the film’s ending does present a problem—but a problem that could have been solved. In Cinderella, for instance, we know that Cinderella will eventually get to that ball. Which means that the scene with her stepmother is not particularly suspenseful. It’s compelling, however, because it focuses on the deep injustice of Cinderella’s position: she worked her butt off to get to that ball, doing everything she could—and was attacked by her stepsisters as a result. It turns Cinderella into someone we want to root for.
In the similar scene in The Sword of the Stone, Arthur doesn’t initially get to go to London (something that only pops up in the middle of the film in any case) because he actually and genuinely screwed up. Knowing that he’s already somewhat in disgrace for skipping out on chores, scaring his foster parent, and showing up late, he agrees to go off with Merlin anyway and skip out on his chores again. To be fair, the wizard sets up an automated cleaning spell to ensure that the dishes will get cleaned—it’s kinda cool—but then the two of them trot off without bothering to tell anyone about this. Naturally, when a scullery maid enters the kitchen and sees dishes, pots, pans and brooms flying around without human assistance, she panics, calling for Sir Ector and Kay for help. They hurry to the kitchen, where both get injured. Also, several plates get broken, in a time period where all pottery was still hand-thrown. It’s supposed to be a funny scene, and it sorta is, but the end result was to make me feel very sorry for the scullery maid and slightly sorry for Kay and Sir Ector, and feeling that Sir Ector’s decision not to let Arthur go to London is pretty justified.
It doesn’t help that Arthur, of course, does eventually go to London—not because of his own efforts, but because the other available squire is sick. It’s all very nice, and does lead to Arthur finally explaining—in the last ten minutes—why becoming a squire is a good deal for him, under the circumstances. Had that explanation come earlier (it does in the novel), it might have generated sympathy for Arthur. As it is—well, it’s a bit difficult to feel much sympathy for a character who has just found out that, despite his screw-ups, he’s about to get his one stated wish because someone else got sick.
Which leads to yet another problem, this one from the original novel: Wart has absolutely no desire to become king. The only one who does, sorta, is Kay, and even Kay doesn’t seem all that enthusiastic about it—his reaction is more along the lines of, oh, there’s a tournament that will be picking the king? Ok, whatever, I’m in. Wart is even less enthusiastic about everything except for going to London, making him about the only Disney protagonist, so far, to (a) not have a clear, desirable goal to begin with, whatever that goal is (stay alive, turn into a real boy, escape bullies/learn to fly, stay alive, get married, get home, have adventures, stay alive, save a number of adorable little puppies, and so on) and (b) to only sort of get his goal. He does find a place in the world, something we learned he wanted in the last ten minutes of the film, but it’s not the place he wanted, something the film could have explored, but didn’t.
Instead, what the film dwells on, often to the point of tediousness, is education. As in the book, Merlin’s idea of education is to transform Arthur into various animals—a fish, a squirrel, and a bird. As not in the book, it’s not entirely clear what Arthur learns from any of this other than education/thinking, good; violence, less good. For all the emphasis on education, for instance, Arthur only finally starts learning to read and write two thirds of the way through the film.
The first transformation, into a fish, does at least provide a bit of entertainment when Wart finds himself attracting the attention of a curious frog and a vicious pike. The second transformation, into a squirrel, has not dated well at all, leading to a sequence where Wart and Merlin have to fend off the desperate overtures of a little girl squirrel and a large, fat, horny older woman squirrel. It’s fairly misogynistic—something not helped by the fact that dishes are attacking the denizens of the castle during all of this squirrel pursuit, like thanks again, Merlin, THAT WENT WELL FOR EVERYONE. You left a little girl squirrel IN TEARS.
The third transformation is just dull.
And then there’s the long sequence between Merlin and Madame Mim who decide to have a wizard duel because…well, they need to fill another five to eight minutes of the film. On the one hand, this is arguably the best sequence of the film as far as animation is concerned, as Merlin and Mim transform into various animals while still managing to look more or less like Merlin and Mim after each transformation. It’s clever, occasionally funny, and pointless. It might have worked had Mim been the film’s major villain, but she isn’t: she’s basically filler.
Above all, perhaps, The Sword in the Stone showcases how much the Disney films, with very few exceptions, depend upon their villains. The Sword in the Stone has three: the pike, Mim, and Kay, but two of these are only bit villains, and Kay can’t, and indeed doesn’t, do all that much to Wart. He’s not kind, and he’s certainly not helpful, and he calls Wart all kinds of names and isn’t particularly concerned when the younger boy heads off into a dangerous forest. But he’s ultimately not responsible for making the major decisions about Wart—should Wart become a squire, do dishes, go to London, and so on, or cause Wart the major sorts of problems Disney villains usually create (death, taking over a country, more death). Kay does set the final bit of the plot in motion, when he realizes that Wart forgot to bring his sword, and sends Wart off to go get it, but that’s another thing on Wart, not Kay—well, really, on the magic that wants Wart to be king, but whatever.
This means that the film as a whole lacks urgency and suspense. As an adaptation, it also lacks White’s satire on contemporary political systems and deep set concern about war. It’s a film that doesn’t really know what it is: a comedy, perhaps (it does have its amusing moments); a coming of age story, not exactly. It’s just a meandering film, with a few comedic moments, and its biggest problem is that so much of it is forgettable or boring.
Walt Disney himself did not think much of the final result. The film enjoyed an initial financial success, but nothing close to the previous One Hundred and One Dalmatians or the following year’s blockbuster success, Mary Poppins. Nor did it offer the same sorts of merchandising opportunities.
Slowly, The Sword in the Stone faded into obscurity. Madame Mim did escape into the Disney Comics and the later Kingdom Hearts video game. Merlin occasionally appeared at the Disney Parks. A merry-go-round at Disneyland was named for King Arthur. (The equivalent one at Walt Disney World was originally named after Cinderella and now is named after Prince Charming.) But that was it: a minor, forgettable film in Disney’s more storied animation history, noted, if anything, for being the first in a long line of largely forgettable Disney films.
But the failure, or near failure, of The Sword in the Stone did not quite discourage Disney from eyeing yet another British property. The Jungle Book, coming up next.
Mari Ness lives in central Florida
I missed this one growing up, and saw it later in life when rounding out my collection. I had about the same reaction – it’s dull and the characters are flat/uninteresting, and Wart isn’t particularly compelling or likeable (not unlikable either, but many of his problems ARE of his own making). There are some enjoyable vignettes here and there but otherwise, meh.
I kind of love that Merlin defeats Madame Mim by becoming a germ, because yay, microbiology. (I also loved the midichlorians in Star Wars so…).
Interesting how tastes change. I remember reading that at the time, and for years after, the movie got a lot of criticism for the anachronistic and topical humor involving Merlin. A few decades later, in ALADDIN, that same kind of humor and gags with the Genie were singled out for special praise.
For me, what I most remember is that scene where everyone’s trying to pull the sword from the stone. Mind you, the reason for this is because, as a child, I got The Sword in the Stone from a used bookstore and that one still of some guy in stylized blue armor trying to pull the sword from the stone while everyone watches him fail is what was used as a cover. (I didn’t see the film for many years after that, and was shocked, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU to find out that they’d used what was basically a throwaway still from the movie as the cover.)
Sometimes, I like a movie because it gets me to read a book, (The Black Cauldron, anyone?) but in this one, it didn’t even do that, since I didn’t see it until later. But I always felt AWFUL for that little girl squirrel.
The parks also have a sword in the stone that you can try to pull out, but as far as I know, there’s someone watching the stone and will only let a kid lift it every once in a while.
This movie was probably my earliest introduction to the King Arthur legendarium. To this day, I’m a little surprised when I encounter a Sir Kay and Sir (H)Ector who aren’t jerks to wee Arthur.
I’d seen clips of this before ever seeing the movie. To this day, there are clips I like. It just never seemed to hold together on its own. I like Madam Mim. I like magic that does the cleaning. But, yeah, I never really root for Wart because I don’t know what I’m rooting for.
I think there should be a point to Arthur’s lessons. There’s supposed to be a contrast going on, here between a violent, might-makes-right world and a king who will someday rule with justice for everyone, including the little guy. The tournament is a bad thing because it’s a big slug fest meant to put the biggest slugger in charge. Arthur initially thinks the tournament is a great idea before Learning Better.
Trite, but it would have a point.
@Lisamarie – The germ bit is – ok, I guess? It’s clever, but unfortunately, my main reaction was, sigh, so, we’re losing the only interesting character in the film so far.
@Russell H – We’ll get more into this when we reach Aladdin, but I think the vocal difference is that the major vocal performances in Aladdin came from two veteran comedians, Gilbert Gottfried and the great Robin Williams (and with Williams, largely improvised), which meant that in Aladdin, the animators were visualizing their jokes. Sword in the Stone, in contrast, doesn’t feature comedians: instead, the voice actors are trying to put words to the visual jokes, and none of the vocal performances are memorable – except for Wart, which is memorable only because it isn’t very good.
Aladdin also had the advantage of a considerably larger budget, and of appearing after The Jungle Book, the film where Disney first realized that they could create animated caricatures of their voice actors, and thus encouraged voice actors to inject their personalities, or in Gilbert Gottfried’s case, stage personalities they had developed, into their vocal performances – something that ended up enriching The Rescuers, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, and to a lesser extent, Hercules.
@beast of Man – I may be wrong about this, since Magic Kingdom is the park I visit the least often for any number of reasons, but I don’t think the Magic Kingdom is doing the Sword in the Stone magic show anymore, although Merlin still makes occasional appearances. It seems to have been more or less replaced by Star Wars stuff over at Hollywood Studios, where little kids can grab light sabers instead of swords.
In any case, not to spoil the magic for everyone, but it was a stage trick – the sword was “released” from the stone when an offstage technician hit a button, something I found out after meeting one of the Merlins, who I think was also one of Bayushi’s acquaintances.
@cythraul – There’s a fairly extensive literary tradition of Kay being, well, not very bright, rather nasty, and sometimes downright incompetent – I’m thinking Chretien de Troyes, for instance, as far back as the 12th century. Some more recent adaptations have treated the character more kindly – possibly in reaction to the Disney portrayal here, although I have no proof of that. But, like you, I’m always surprised by those kinder portrayals.
@ellynne – Trite isn’t always bad, especially in animated films, and I think your suggestion would have been a major improvement.
it’s not entirely clear what Arthur learns from any of this other than education/thinking, good; violence, less good.
Yes. That was exactly what he was supposed to learn. It also ties in to how Madam Mim and, to a lesser extent, Kay, are villains. The enemy in this one isn’t a character, it is aggression, violence, and the idea that might makes right.
Merlin beats Mim through surrender – becoming a germ, rather than any climactic showdown like we get with usual Disney fare. Rather than being filler it is an important scene that goes to the heart of it.
Arthur doesn’t voice how being a squire is good for him until the end because the point is it wouldn’t be good for him. He is participating in a system of unthinking aggression just because, and Merlin is trying to break him out of it. At the end he tries to explain how it is good after all, and is shown to lose the argument. And his throwing in with the system of violence doesn’t aid him – he still only gets his shot because the system has no use for someone else, not on merit.
This is the whole thing he is supposed to reject. And in the end, in reconciling with Merlin and admitting he doesn’t know what to do, but that he wants to be a peaceful king and not a great warrior, that’s how he triumphs.
minor nitpick: Merlin appeared in the Kingdom Hearts game(s), not Mim, to my knowledge. I haven’t played all of the handhelds, but Merlin is definitely the one who is Sora’s magic teacher in KH.
I agree with most of what you say about the movie, and with Ellynne @6 that it would have helped if the lessons had had a clearer point. And not left the girl squirrel in tears.
To my mind, the greatest thing this movie gave to the world was the Magnificent, Marvelous, Mad Madam Mim. It’s her life in the Disney comics that became important to me in childhood (mid-1960’s) and beyond. She is not really a villain in the comics–she’s an eccentric oldish woman who looks to be of negligible importance but has immense power, who doesn’t care what anyone else thinks of her and doesn’t want fancy stuff and doesn’t understand the point of money because magic. She’s a bit like Granny Weatherwax. In those years long before the grand old magical ladies of Terry Pratchett and Eva Ibbotson, Mim was a breath of fresh air. Maybe it would be OK to be an old woman some day? Maybe even an old woman living alone, an old woman without grandchildren? Maybe it could be fun! As long as you had some sort of power, and knew you were Marvelous….
(Message edited by moderator to remove formatting code)
I remember some mild enjoyment of the film that I watched in my mid-teens after reading the book, and as often is the case the book was so incredibly much more alive, intelligent and provocative the comparison was very unfortunate for the film. The misogyny was probably always there in Disney film but it really hit me on this one and the Black Cauldron, sort of trashed my appreciation of Disney. In the book Merlin was perplexed as he moved backward in time as everyone moves forward, but their were deep meanings to the trainings, which were resonant of Druidic traditions and folklore. They were all intended by Merlin to make him a self-aware and creation aware better king. Of course, that was the one book in that series of The Once and Future King that was hilarious. Disney at that time seemed to be using the same tired jokes, characters and pratfalls over and over. I was disappointed in the Sword in the Stone but I was furious at The Black Cauldron.
I agree that this film had some quality issues, and kind of a meandering plot, but disagree that a villain would have helped things. There are many compelling stories that can be told without being driven by a villain. And unlike villain driven stories, they don’t have to dwell on conflict, or fighting, or warfare. Our movies, and even our movies made for children, spend far too much time on these topics, at the expense of showing things like compassion, problem solving and cooperation.
@1, Same here, and Spawn developed the same love and attachment to it as a child that I did. My love of Arthurian legends(now come to life in the form of Charlie Hunnam, yum!) all stems from this film. My car, a Mazda, which has a logo that looks like an owl(Mazda is the Persian word for wisdom*random fact*) is named Archimedes.
And I was JUST arguing about the midichlorians the other day!
@5 Me too! When I read Mists of Avalon, I was all “whut? A Cay that loves and respects Arthur? What foul sorcery is this?”
@mister_dk, Great points!
The animation quality really dropped, not just with the reused scenes(which I kinda laugh at) but also the static scratchy backgrounds, the terrible crowd shots, unrealistic looking animals(the squirrels are about as good as they get).
And yes that poor girl squirrel
The fight with Madame Mim was actually in the original version of the book, with the same ending as in the movie. Of course it’s one of the sections that White later cut out, and it’s probably the clumsiest excision – IIRC there’s a chapter in later versions that just ends with a bird flying by and taking Kay’s arrow and Kay saying “It was a witch,” and then it just ends and nothing ever comes of it. Originally that chapter was much longer.
I never cared much about this film, the only thing I remember is the fight with Mim (I loved how Merlin defeated her, with wits, not strength) and that Wart was not happy about being a king, which I found rather strange. After all in so many fairy tales the happy ending includes the orphan becoming king I kind of took it for granted.
Funny enough, I never saw the whole film – I just saw the contest between Merlin and Mim since there was a time when it was featured on SuperRTL (German channel showing mostly cartoons in the 90ies when I grew up) on Halloween. Actually, it was featured every Halloween for some years, so yes, I know that bit and it’s lovely as a standalone.
As with many other Disney classics, I’m extremely interested in the strongly different reactions they garner in different corners of the world. In Italy The sword in the stone is definitely not considered “forgettable and boring”, and it’s actually among the most beloved, at least for my generation. It might help that the localized voice acting is substantially better than what you tell of the original, but I think there might be cultural components at play too.
I rewatched this recently (and read The Once and Future King for the first time) and it really struck me that this movie needs a third act. Wart has his coronation, Merlin is gone – now what? This is what the whole film is building toward, yes? He has to rule without his mentor. And then a villain, or a proper challenge, should occur, and Wart should apply the lessons he’s learned. It’s baffling that Disney couldn’t solve that very simple problem.
@MariCats @7 – Oh, absolutely. Kay has a history of all of those things. I suspect I’m thinking mostly of Malory (where Kay is still a jerk to, say, Sir Gareth, but where the Ector-Kay-Arthur household seems perfectly loving), and about Boorman’s “Excalibur”, which drew heavily from it.
@Aeryl @14 – Alas, I’ve still not gotten around to Mists of Avalon. I saw the miniseries (TV movie?) a few years back, but it didn’t stick with me at all.
@20, I loved the miniseries and the book, but it’s divisive among people who like Arthurian legends from what I can tell. I’m not an extensive scholar, but I recognize a lot of the legends she pulls the events from. She removes Arthur’s story from the realm of the Romantic, and makes it explicitly about the death of the old ways(Avalon) and the rise of the new ones(Christianity), and how that conflict heavily influenced the decisions Arthur makes and how they led to his eventual downfall. I really love that it’s told from the perspective of the women characters, Morgaine, Gwenwyfar, Morgause, Igraine, Vivian, Nimue.
There is a lot the movie doesn’t deal with from the book, I can’t recall that the second man to hold the title of Merlin makes much an impact on the movie, but his character is hugely important in the book. The beginnings of the Grail legend are established in the book, but I don’t recall them from the movie either. It starts a bit slow, because the story deals a lot more with Igraine is manipulated into betraying her husband willingly before really taking off with Morgaine’s departure to be trained as a priestess of the old faith in Avalon.
Check out the book. It’s a brilliant novel that makes you forget all about school exams and angry parents.
@MariCats I wish I could remember this guy! I don’t. (The one that sticks in my head isn’t one you knew, it’s one whose name I can’t remember. But he worked at the Haunted Mansion, which sounded like the best ride to work on: no smiling unless it was a little scary and the occasional darkly funny reminders to stay in the Doombuggies or you might get carried away by ghosts!) Heck, I don’t even remember where at Disney that Sword in the Stone is, I don’t think I ever saw it. I’m counting this as one of the great tragedies of my life, being something of an Arthurian freak.
@20 through 22: Mists of Avalon was amazing when I first read it. For me, it didn’t wear so well: finding out too much about MZB made the entire book far, far too…creepy for me in ways that make me want to bury the book and hope the slime doesn’t find its way out of the ground.
One of my friends was really into Mists of Avalon although I haven’t read it (at some point I probably will read it despite learning about some of the really vile things MZB was involved in).
But as an aside, the way you describe the plot about old ways vs new ways (Christianity) makes me think of a lot of Juliet Marillier’s books, which are very good and also fairly even handed with good and bad characters on both sides.
Also, add me to the list of people who think the squirrel scene is heartwrenching :(
@7, @20 It’s been a while since I’ve read THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING, but I remember my impression of Kay was that of one of those muscular upper-class lunkheads that P.G. Wodehouse would occasionally cast as a rival or antagonist of Bertie Wooster.
My reaction was similar to that of some other commenters in that I remembered liking the film as a kid, but could really only recall bits and pieces of it. It doesn’t really hold together cohesively. I might say the wolf that keeps showing up counts as another villain, albeit a slapstick one and not particularly memorable. When I watched this again a few years ago, I realized I had totally forgotten about the wolf, yet it appears in more of the movie than some of the more interesting characters.
If I recall correctly, Merlin actually KILLED Mim when he turned into a germ into the earlier versions of the book, while in the movie she just gets sick. And while the bit about Merlin living backwards might have been deemed too complicated for a children’s movie, the movie doesn’t even bother explaining how he sometimes remembers the future. It also makes him a less likable character, because in the book his bumbling is explained by experiencing time in a different way, while in the movie he’s just kind of an idiot sometimes for no real reason.
@8: “The enemy in this one isn’t a character, it is aggression, violence, and the idea that might makes right. “
The alternative offered by the film is not really better.
I just went to Disney World this past winter and there is a sword in the stone next to Prince Charming’s Carousel. Like other points of interest, they occasionally have a couple of cast members there to do a brief entertainment. Visitors are encouraged to volunteer to try to pull it out-when we happened to be there, they recruited a reasonably solid dad and a couple of older kids before a scrawny five year old succeeded.
The Sword in the Stone is still at Disneyland, too–or it was as recently as last year, 2015, and I have no reason to believe it’s been removed. Next to the carousel.