Talkin’ WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT with James Blake Ewing

I’ve been posting this series infrequently for a year and a half now, and it recently occurred to me that in all that time I hadn’t had anybody take a swing at an animated film. In some ways it seemed like a waste, since unlike so many of the mainstream pop films that get produced in a given year, animation is made with an eye on its own legacy.

But then, my friend James Blake Ewing of Cinema Sights brought up a piece of animation that holds a special place within the lexicon: 1988’s WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. Here was the animated film that came with such an edge, Disney had to elbow it over to their Touchstone brand to allow for the violence and occasional mature themes.

It was a pop culture phenomenon the year it was released, raking in more money than BIG, DIE HARD, and BEETLEJUICE…and personally speaking, it was a film that grabbed my attention long before I was actually able to see it (my parents didn’t bring me to many movies back then).

But have the years been kind to Roger, Jessica, and all the inhabitants of Toon Town? Our resident film scholar is here to set us straight.

Ryan McNeil: Let’s start simple – This is the first animated film that’s been tackled in this series. That’s sorta unique in its own right since animation is a genre that gets *shown* to us when we’re young whether we’re into it or not.

How was it that this one never got shown to you as a child?

James Blake Ewing: First, this isn’t a true “animated” film, it’s a blend of animation and live action.

RM: That’s somewhat of an argument in semantics (“true animation”), and perception. Besides what’s on the screen, I can certainly remember the way it was sold – heck, I even happened to go to Walt Disney World a summer or two later and Roger Rabbit was easily the most popular character there. Regardless…

JBE: I remember being aware of this movie as a kid, but the fact it was a hybrid didn’t do much for me as I wasn’t a big live action movie-watcher as a kid. Also, I bet I also didn’t see it because of Jessica Rabbit. That would have not been cool with my mother. In general, this is a seedy film. Sure, most kids are probably not going to pick up on some of the naughtier jokes, but this isn’t the kind of movie I would have been shown as a kid.

RM: Well lucky for me and for this blog series, you choose your own films now…or at least choose when you finally want to watch a film I have chosen for you. Did you have any preconceptions when you sat down to watch it last week?

JBE: I knew it would probably be something I would enjoy. I knew it was a blend of live-action and animation and since I’ve been a lifelong fan of animation, I figured I’d enjoy it. Beyond that, I honestly didn’t know much about the film.

RM: So time for the big question, what did the notoriously picky James Blake Ewing think of WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?

JBE: The world-building in this film is fantastic. The collision of animated and real-life realities lead to some particularly smart ideas. The difference between “toons” and humans centers around the idea that cartoons are far more resilient than humans. They can take all sorts of damage and keep on going. This leads to some great gags, like the scene with Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse.

RM: It’s a little trippy seeing those two iconic characters in the same scene, isn’t it?

JBE: Well speaking of two iconic characters, my favorite scene has to be when Donald Duck and Daffy Duck play a musical duet while fighting. As someone who grew up loving both characters, it’s a delight to see them both together. I’m sure if I saw this as a child, it would have blown my mind. It captures the vibrancy and joy of animation that cannot be contained (quite literally in the animated shoe and band sequences).

RM: Funny that you mention the pairing of Donald and Daffy: the overlap of all the characters is so key to making this film work. If Warner hadn’t let Disney (Touchstone’s parent company) use their properties – and likewise whoever holds the rights for characters like Betty Boop and Droopy Dog, the whole idea of Toon Town caves.

How did the new characters work for ya – Roger, Jessica, Benny, Herman – did they fit into the landscape of Mickey, Bugs, et al or were they jarring?

JBE: That’s a tough one because I feel like Roger Rabbit works as a mix of Goofy’s antics and the anxiety of say Rabbit from Winnie the Pooh, but he doesn’t feel as distinct or memorable as many of the cameo toons. I think he’s too familiar. He’s looks too similar to the Trix Rabbit for me.

RM: Interesting. Two of the things I thought made Roger a bit more distinct than Goofy or Rabbit (nice pull!), was his awareness. He’s the first cartoon character who knows that his place in life is to entertain, and he is always eager to do that. What’s more, he gets down on himself if he can’t. His demeanour might be a bit familiar, but you have to admit, those parts of his character I just mentioned are rather original.

He also makes a pretty good patsy, wouldn’t you say?

JBE: Yes, there’s a bit more to Roger as a character than that. He’s the fall guy and self-aware of his cartoon nature, but I was speaking more to how he fits in with the pre-established toons.

RM: What about Roger’s loving wife Jessica?

JBE: Jessica Rabbit is clearly a character made more with the noir half of the film in mind. She’s supposed to be the dangerous vixen, but I think by the end of the film she makes a drastic character change that didn’t work for me. Also, holy carrots, Batman! Those proportions are insane! The hypersexualized form of her character bugged me on a basic aesthetic level.

RM: Jessica’s measurements are nuts, but in a way I think that works with the sort of pin-up illustrations that came from the era. I also always thought it worked to play up the vamp side of her. What was the character change you didn’t care for?

JBE: My problem with Jessica Rabbit’s character is mainly that she plays the whole film as the femme fatale and then in the last act she becomes doting and I didn’t buy it for a second. There was never anything established that made the shift in character work for me.

RM: As for the humans, how did Bob Hoskins work for you? Again, he’s playing a noir archetype, but how well did you think he pulled it off?

JBE: Bob Hoskins’s performance and character was stellar, the best of all the characters in the film. He’s got the fatal character flaw and the core of who he is and how he relates to the toons makes his journey interesting to watch. I think the reveal of his past is given too early, it would have been a massive payoff and a good catalyst for the rest of the film if it happen when he reluctantly begins to work with Roger. But that’s more a nitpick of the plot because he’s a great noir character.

RM: You raised an interesting point that I want to return to: Does the film’s seediness do it a disservice? Obviously it’s geared at being the sort of film that plays to a wider audience than “most cartoons”, but does it actually lean too far into the world of sex and crime that it cuts off a lot of its younger audience?

JBE: As an adult, I’m not sure I can answer if it cuts off younger audiences. What I will say, is that the seedier elements make me enjoy it a lot more as an adult than I probably would have as a kid. The noir vibe and Eddie’s down on his luck, alcoholic character juxtaposed with the zaniness of the animated world is such an amusing and memorable blend of two things I love. As a child, I probably wouldn’t have liked those noir elements, but I couldn’t say that would be true of all children. And, obviously, there are a lot of jokes that you’re only going to get as an adult.

RM: how did you like the marriage of animation and live action? The film obviously wasn’t the first to combine the two (Mary Poppins, Bedknobs & Broomsticks, etc), but it seemed to raise the bar at the time – even scored an Oscar for its VFX. Have the visuals held up over 25 years? (Cripes I can’t believe the film is THAT old!)

JBE: I figured there might be some noticeable flaws, especially with our strides in animation in the past 25 years, but overall it’s an astounding piece of visual effects and animation. I think a lot of credit must be given to the live actors who do a good job of imagining what they can’t see before them. I think it is their reactions that sell the illusion of animation in reality.

Also, there are a number of practical effects when the animated characters lay havoc to reality that are quite impressive. I’m sure the animators could have fudged the timing a bit in post-production, but still, it’s surprising how seamless and dynamic a lot of those sequences are to watch.

RM: It’s crazy how well those sequences have held up given how poorly a lot of other effects-heavy films of the era are aging. Is there anything that makes the film seem dated?

JBE: The only thing I could think of that makes this film feel dated is the style of animation. Not so much that it’s outdated, but that it’s something we don’t see at all anymore. This style of 2D animation is all but dead thanks to the popularity of Pixar’s Toy Story, which paved the way for 3D animation to reign in the last decade or so. Even now, most 2D animated films are drawn digitally.

RM: Given your film literacy, i’d be remiss if I didn’t ask what you think of it as a neo-noir, or at least an homage to the noir cannon.

JBE: I like how it sets part of the tone of the story. It’s dark, seedy and has that great urban nightmare feel. In that respect, I think you wouldn’t be wrong to call this a straight noir. Yes, there’s a heavy animation influence, but the core of the Eddie Valiant story could be an unproduced screenplay from the 40s or 50s unlike a lot of the neo-noirs which are indelibly influenced by the times (L.A. Confidential, Blade Runner, Chinatown, etc.)

RM: You’re giving me some great ideas for double-features!

JBE: But I think the noir vibe also is part of why I have trouble with the Jessica Rabbit character. She’s introduced as a femme fatale and when she suddenly switches, it doesn’t feel true to that noir homage. In other words, the film as a neo-noir until the final act, which is where I have a lot of problems with the film.

RM: I think part of that hiccup though is that it’s the final act that puts Jessica into harm’s way (a place the femme fatale doesn’t usually land), and that’s where any sort of pretense would drop. Likewise, she claims all along that she loves her husband…so maybe it’s just a different spin on the femme fatale – one that may or may not work.

That said, you’ve led me quite nicely into the bit where I ask what you didn’t like about the film.

JBE: I’ve touched on most of the big ones already: the last act, Jessica Rabbit’s “change of heart” (and her overall body-shape), and Eddie’s past being revealed too fast. The only one I’d add is that the ultimate antagonist is bland and too much of an evil madman for my tastes. Yes, he’s cartoony evil, but he doesn’t have a personality beyond being sadistically evil and he has no motivation with weight.

RM: Interesting, I always liked Judge Doom as “big bad”. The “invincibility” of toons is something we never thought much about as kids, right? In a way that’s what makes Judge Doom such a cold villain – he figures out what it finally takes to kill one.

JBE: If you think about classic animated villains, they’ve at least got a bit more too them than that. Most of them have a past that fuels their vendetta or jealous rampage against the protagonist. Here, it’s just some nebulous evil that vaguely represents a fear of big business. I also hoped the reveal would be interesting, like maybe it was Disney’s Pete behind it all, or something that had a bit more weight than the more generic reveal that the film goes for instead.

RM: Well hold on – is Judge Doom really any less motivated than any of the other classic Disney villains? He’s motivated by money and power. How is that any weaker than Snow White’s Evil Stepmother (motivated by jealousy), Sleeping Beauty’s Malificent (jealousy again and rejection), Jafar (power), Scar (jealousy and power), and so on?

Also, back to the noir angle, aren’t money and power always the motivation for the bad guy? Those and sex, no?

JBE: Perhaps I should phrase it that his plans are a bit more obtuse than they need to be. At least with other villains, their motivation is more immediately identifiable (both in cartoons and most noirs). I get that part of it is that you want the big villain reveal at the end, but even then, I think you could handle it better. The film does drop some hints, but I think they could make them a bit more immediate and clear.

Was this something that a lot of kids would have seen back in the day? Was it perceived as more of a film for kids or did adults enjoy it, too? I know the 80s in general was to be a period in film where children’s entertainment seemed a lot darker than it is today.

RM: The audience for this film was actually rather mixed: It appealed to kids and adults alike. Kids obviously thought it was a fun cartoon (like I mentioned earlier, Roger became a wildly popular entity at Walt Disney World in the summers to follow), and adults liked it both for the nostalgia, and for the fact that they were getting jokes the kids weren’t.

It actually predated the Disney renaissance that would kick off the next year with THE LITTLE MERMAID, and really get in gear three years later with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.

ROGER won the summer box office that year and went on to take the number two slot overall with what would now equal $300M

So now for the moment of truth, what would you rate WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT on a scale of one to ten?

JBE: I don’t usually do scores for my own site, but since this isn’t my site, I’ll give it a seven.

RM: Par for the course. Thanks for sharing so much of your time James.