Disney’s original “Dumbo,” released in 1941, was a deliberate attempt at doing something lean, mean and emotionally resonant. It followed “Fantasia,” Walt’s wildly ambitious concert film, one that didn’t do what the studio had hoped on either a critical or commercial level. “Dumbo” was seen, in many ways, as a course correction; it was based on something inherently populist (a roll-a-book aimed at children) and clocked in at just over an hour (“Fantasia” had a runtime of a whopping 126 minutes). This was a movie that aimed to tug at your heartstrings, with messages that were simple and relatable. It was a far cry from the knotty intellectualism that tripped up “Fantasia.” And in some ways, Tim Burton’s new “Dumbo” can been seen as a similar attempt to recapture authenticity, after his earlier Disney live action remake “Alice in Wonderland” (a blockbuster, for sure, but one that was awash in computerized sets and imagery). Visiting the set of “Dumbo” back in 2017, it was easy to understand what the film would become because so much of it was physically there.
Burton’s “Dumbo” (out March 29th everywhere) takes its inspiration from the animated classic but doesn’t adhere much to the narrative. This movie is much bigger and more complicated, as everyone on set (from costume designer Colleen Atwood to production designer Rick Heinrichs, both longtime Burton collaborators) stressed how important it was for Burton to have actual sets, costumes, and props this time around. (“Alice in Wonderland” was groundbreaking in a number of ways, not least of which because of its status as a “virtual production,” wherein almost everything was created inside the computer.) The new film follows the small traveling Medici circus, run by Danny DeVito, as it is absorbed, following the arrival of Dumbo (a computer-generated character dreamed up by the geniuses at visual effects house MPC), by Dreamland, a corporate, stationary “destination circus” ruled over by Michael Keaton.
Disney
That meant that everyone had to work extra hard, creating custom, period-specific looks for not just a single circus, but several circuses, including Dreamland, a kind of proto-Disneyland whose stages were so large they were housed in a facility that used to build blimps for World War II. We were visiting some stages at Pinewood, outside of London, that were plenty huge, so you can imagine how immersive and complex those stages were.
Among the sets that we got to meander through were Valdevere’s apartment, which Heinrichs pointed out anachronistically embraced some art deco design (the movie is set in 1919), festooned with images of Eva Green’s trapeze artist (an element that isn’t lingered on in the final film); a trapeze area where Green’s character was practicing; and a large circus set that is integral to the final moments of the film so we will just keep mum about it besides to say that it was beautiful and enchanting and full of the kind of life and energy that Burton’s key collaborators kept reinforcing was integral to this project.
Disney
Atwood stressed how much more colorful the film was compared to some of Burton’s other, more monochromatic productions and said it was “very full of life, color, and joy.” She also stressed how important the original animated film was to this production, and touring the costumes, it was easy to see why, with nods to not only the circus and general atmosphere of the original movie, but specifics like the firefighter scene. (Producers Justin Springer and Derek Frey also promised a nod to the famous “pink elephants” sequence of the original in this new film. Hiccup.) Heinrichs promised a “storybook” feeling to the material, which is very promising given his background as a Disney animator, alongside Burton, in the early 1980s (a time when many of the fabled animators who worked on the original “Dumbo” were still at the studio).
And while Dumbo wasn’t there, for obvious reasons, there was tons of reference photos all over what we saw, to help everyone recognize what he would look like and just how central a role he would play. Springer and Frey teased that Burton had come up with a visual language that would make the audience feel like they were looking out through the pachyderm’s eyes. There was also a small stunt performer, who would act as a stand-in for eyelines for the actors. So even though Dumbo wasn’t really there, he was always represented.
Besides the movie’s missing star, though, it was staggering to see how little other visual effects work there would be; mostly set extensions and digital skies (inspired by Edward Hopper) courtesy of some very large green screens that were draped behind all of the sets we visited. But it was a far cry from the everything-but-Johnny-Depp-is-digitally-created ethos of “Alice in Wonderland,” in which actors wandered through a sea of green. Again, that worked and was a huge success, but it seems to have generally stressed out Burton to the point that his next animated-to-live-action-adaptation had to be done his way. Even the sawdust underneath the trapeze was real and very dusty. Heinrichs says that the stages were decided on early on: “Being on stage allows you to focus more, and to light expressively and focus the audience’s attention much more specifically.”
And what he brings up is a very good point, in regards to being able to draw out of an audience a very specific emotional response, which seems both easy (Dumbo is so cute) and incredibly difficult (especially as we’re expected to invest in an all new family, led by Colin Farrell, whose story runs parallel to the main narrative). We got the sense from everyone on set that they were taking this project very seriously even though, as he rushed in between set-ups, Burton joked that he didn’t know if he was making a comedy or a drama. Maybe, just maybe, he’s making a new classic.
Colin Farrell has starred in his fair share of remakes. Some of these have been good (like the underrated “Fright Night”), some of them bad (the less said about “Total Recall,” the better), but none of them have had the weight of expectation like the upcoming, reimagined version of Walt Disney’s immortal classic “Dumbo.” As directed by Tim Burton, himself no stranger to the art of the remake (including his live-action riff on “Alice in Wonderland” that brought in more than $1 billion worldwide), this new “Dumbo” promises to be an entirely new take on the material — and not just because it’s live-action. In the film, Farrell plays Holt Farrier, a circus stunt performer who returns from World War I a changed man, and finds himself the guardian of a small, very special elephant with giant ears …
We were on the London set of “Dumbo” a couple of years ago, and while most of that visit has to be kept under wraps, we can say that Farrell’s enthusiasm and passion about the project was absolutely infectious. He was clearly relishing the opportunity to bring this beloved property to an entirely new audience, working alongside a bona fide genius and a murderer’s row of creative talent both in front of and behind the camera. Behold, here is everything (that we’re allowed to talk about) that we learned from Farrell on the set of “Dumbo:”
1. It Was His “Dream Gig”
When Farrell found out that Tim Burton was doing a new take on “Dumbo,” his reaction, he said, was, “Honestly, please can I do it? Can I? Can I be any part of it?” Farrell explained: “I’ve just been such a fan of Tim’s work for the longest time. I think “Edward Scissorhands” is probably the first thing of his I saw, and it’s still one of my favorite films of all time, probably. And everything since then. So yeah, just the idea of something as sweet and fantastical and almost otherworldly while being grounded in some recognizable world that we can relate to under the directorship of him was, yeah, kind of a dream.” Even doing this type of movie held special appeal to the actor. “There’s things I’ve read through the years that are somewhat fantastical or supernatural and have kind of a fairytale element to them, and some things that I read that never got made. So I’ve always been looking for something of that ilk,” Farrell said. And keep in mind all of this excitement is building before he read the script: “Then I read the script and it’s so sweet. Tim is really good at figuring out the balancing act between honoring the sweetness of the original story or the intent of the kind of allegorical element of what a baby flying elephant represents with kind of real world emotional concerns of families and friendships and damages of war without getting into it too much and stuff like that.” Sounds like the dream gig became a dream come true.
2. The Physicality of the Production Was Part of the Allure
While we can’t talk about the sets that we saw (yet), they were huge and immaculately detailed. And you can tell that Farrell didn’t take any of it for granted. “I come to work every day and I see all this sh*t, you know? It’s amazing, really. It really, really is,” Farrell said. “In 20 years of doing this job, it’s one of the greatest pleasures I’ve had, to arrive on the set every day and just see the kind of beauty of the craftsmanship.” Farrell continued: “Sometimes, you go to work on things that are just so kind of bewitching in how you see the imagination of some very talented, very imaginative people made manifest in a physical sense. And that’s what this is. I mean, you just see the imagination of the production designer. You see the imagination of Colleen Atwood. You see the imagination obviously of Tim at every turn, and it’s extraordinary to be around.” It really was a thrill to be around, even for a few hours on a grey London day.
3. It’s Not ‘The Lion King’
“They didn’t have time to get their hands on a flying elephant. They couldn’t seem to locate some of those, so there is the old look at the tennis ball as it flies through the tent thing, and which is fine,” Farrell said, as a way of beginning the conversation of visual effects on the film. Again, the actor stressed how much was actually built for “Dumbo,” going so far as to compare the movie to another high-profile Disney redo out this year. “I was talking to somebody and they said they were on the set of ‘The Lion King,’ and there’s no human character in ‘The Lion King.’ I’m sure the film, Favreau’s directing, and he’s so clever, he’s so bright, and I’m sure the film will be extraordinary and I’m sure it will look beautiful,” Farrell said. “But there’s nothing on the set. There’s nothing. There’s a f*cking cameraman. I don’t even know if there’s a cameraman. And just blue or green, whatever their color of choice is.” Not so with “Dumbo.” Farrell continued: “We arrive on the set, and as you can see, it’s all practically built. But I feel like I’m existing in a practical world, that it’s not asking me too imagine too many things that aren’t there, save that flying pachyderm.” And what a flying pachyderm it is!
4. Working With Burton Exceeded Expectations
Back to Burton, the topic of whether or not the experience of working with the filmmaker exceeded Farrell’s expectations. “Honestly, I didn’t expect anything. There have been times where I’ve expected things to work and they didn’t work and you learn over time that expectation are not really your ally. Hope is your ally, but yeah, expectation’s tricky,” Farrell said, in a very matter-of-fact way. He then sounded genuinely inspired. “He’s just really wonderful to work with. He’s so invested, so like, emotionally and intellectually, obviously, but physically invested in the making of the film. To watch him on the set and how engaged he is and how frenetic at times his energy can be, and how he moves and it’s just a joy and he’s just really kind to everyone,” Farrell said. “I think any of the crew would jump through hoops for him. I certainly know I would, and the cast would.” And after a moment, Farrell returned to his original thought. “As I say, expectations are to stay outside in the cold and in the wind.”
5. There’s a Childhood Photo of Burton That Speaks to Farrell
At one point, while discussing Burton and his brilliance, he asked the journalists gathered on set if they’d seen a photo of the director as a little kid. This photo seemed to really speak to Farrell, and to the artist Burton would one day become. “There’s a picture online. I don’t know what age he is because he’s hidden underneath this thing, this creation that he and his mother made. He must be about 10, I would say,” Farrell said. “I assume it’s in Burbank, where he was raised. And it’s a prototype for the character in ‘Nightmare Before Christmas,’ Jack Skellington. It’s such a testament to what happens in childhood and the freedom your imagination either is given or is compelled to exist within, how that manifests itself later in life. It’s so touching, that as a kid, it’s a big, long thing and it has the ribs and the head. And the idea that 20, 30 years later, that child was still trying to figure out stuff and creating a story that would enter the world and affected so many people.” You could tell that the creative infectiousness Farrell was so in awe of is all over this new “Dumbo.” And that is really exciting.
6. Meet Holt Ferrier
While we didn’t get any huge secrets out of Farrell (and even if we did, we wouldn’t be allowed to spill them here), Farrell did go into some detail about his character, the rugged Holt Ferrier. (You can see him briefly in the trailer.) “He’s a dad of two young children that he loves, but he’s been on the front lines for years. He’s seen men die to his left and to his right in some horrific things. And he comes back to a world that he knew a certain way, and that world has changed. His family dynamic has changed,” Farrell said. In the time that he was away, his wife and horse-riding partner has passed away. “You know, he’s gotten to, as we do, adapt to an environment that was very violent and very different and very harsh, and maybe he’s become a little bit cynical. But I mean, it’s all treated gently. We don’t get into it. It’s not like he has PTSD. It’s not that kind of gig.” (It should be noted that Farrell is very real and very funny.) One aspect of his character that hasn’t been touched on in any of the marketing is that he’s an amputee – he lost his arm in the war. A fact that the actor had to be reminded of (“Yeah, yeah, excellent. I forgot,” he admitted). “So even that, just the loss of a limb alone and the kind of awkwardness or that or the embarrassment of that is something that he carries with him. And also, obviously being a horseman and being someone who was involved in roping a lot and that that was a part of his show,” Farrell explained. He noted that Danny DeVito’s character ”sold all my horses while I was away, because the circus has been struggling.” Farrell then summed up his character (and his character’s experiences) thusly: “You know, the world is changing. It’s a struggle. It’s a struggle just to try and figure out his place, mostly his struggle is to try and figure out his place in the lives of his children, you know?” Oh we know.
Disney
7. Not the Biggest Fan of the Original
Somewhat surprisingly, Farrell admitted that he wasn’t the biggest fan of the original animated classic. Instead, he said that “The Jungle Book” and “Lady and the Tramp” were “the two films that I kind of remembered being incredibly affected by, and films that I still, as a grown man, take a peep at every now and then.” But “Dumbo” the flying elephant? “I don’t remember much of,” he said, rather honestly.
8. What it Shares with the Original Film Might Surprise You
Sure, “Dumbo” is a live action version of an animated film, but Farrell was quick to point out that “it’s a completely new narrative.” But where the two movies mirror one another is in their thematic core. “The one central thing that holds true in both the original animation and this is the flying elephant and the story of believing in yourself and finding something inside you that allows you to become the best version of what you never thought you could even be.” Farrell, quite warmly, went on: “We’re all, regardless of the things that sometimes society says should arrive us at being outcasts, they are the things that make us all individual and special and beautiful, regardless of how crippling a certain thing may be or how polarizing a certain physical attribute even may be. But they wrote a really gorgeous narrative, a really beautiful story that’s very kind of archetypical.” If that doesn’t make your heart melt just as much as that adorable, floppy-eared elephant, I’m not sure what will.
Tim Burton’s live-action reimagining of Walt Disney’s animated classic “Dumbo” gives the story new dimensions and lots of brand new characters. Considering the original film ran little more than an hour, that’s not much of a surprise, but the story of the flying elephant certainly has added scope and scale. This became very apparently when we visited the London set of Burton’s “Dumbo” back in the fall of 2017. While most of what we saw has to remain secret (for now), one element that was revealed was the role of Joseph Gatt, the statuesque former model, who spoke candidly about his place in this new, expanded “Dumbo” universe.
In “Dumbo,” the elephant is born into the care of a small circus owner (Danny DeVito) and specifically to a father (Colin Farrell) who has come back from World War I a very different man (he’s lost his wife in the process as well as a limb). Through the course of the movie, Dumbo becomes a sensation and draws the attention of a visionary (and villainous) large circus owner named V.A. Vandervere (Michael Keaton). It’s in Vandervere’s orbit that we meet Gatt’s character, Skellig.
After we asked Gatt what he could tell us about his character, and he joked, “Nothing at all,” he went into a great analogy. “The way I like to describe Skellig is if you imagine that Vandervere, Michael Keaton’s character is the emperor, I’m Darth Vader,” Gatt said. “So basically, he’s the more powerful, he’s in charge of everything and I just do his bidding and go around just being evil. I’m his head of security and I’m a hunter. I don’t like animals very much. So as you can imagine, I get on really well with Dumbo and Mrs. Jumbo. And we have a lot of interesting interactions that don’t end very well, generally for me.”
When asked to describe his character’s relationship with Dumbo, Gatt said, “Most people see Dumbo as this cute, big-eared pachyderm. And you know, he’s very cute, has these big eyes and the lashes. And I see him as a, you know, something that would look nice on my wall, perhaps, or maybe a new jacket, perhaps, something along those lines. So we don’t really see eye to eye, me and Dumbo.” It should be noted that Gatt said all of this with a straight face … and that he was absolutely lovely in real life.
Gatt, who seemed to know the original animated “Dumbo” quite well (maybe because, he admitted, “I only just saw the original animated movie about four weeks before I flew out”), points to two specific moments in this new version that were lifted directly from the first film: in one, Gatt said, “Mrs. Jumbo has a bit of a fit. You know, she goes a little nuts and then she’s taken away and put in her little railcar by herself.” And then in another, Mrs. Jumbo is in Keaton’s modernist Dreamland circus, in disguise, “There’s a moment that’s really very cute in the story, where Dumbo hears or Mrs. Jumbo hears Dumbo in pain and she starts calling out to him from the other side of the park and they start trying to get together. And he escapes from the tent and then starts flying through the park to find his mom.” Of course, given that Gatt’s Skellig is a heavy, “It’s my job to ruin all of that.”
Later, Gatt said that his character isn’t wholly “subservient” to Keaton’s Vandervere, again comparing him to Darth Vader. “[Darth Vader is] his own powerful character, makes his own decisions. And Skellig is exactly the same,” Gatt said. “I mean, left to his own devices, who knows what Skellig would do, probably rid the whole world of elephants.”
And while the self-professed “animal lover” fully admitted that, “Everyone’s going to love this movie,” Gatt also is ready to be the stuff of little kids’ nightmares. He sounded giddy to be the face of “evil scum and villainy.” Maybe a little too giddy. “I cannot wait,” Gatt said. “I love showing people that diversity, that difference. And that stopped so far, people wanting to spit on me in the street and slap me or swear at me for no reason and stuff.” We’ll see if that changes once “Dumbo” opens.
Way back in 2017 we visited the set of Tim Burton‘s live action remake of the beloved Walt Disney animated classic “Dumbo.” Now, what we saw there and what we did must remain, for now, under a circus tent of secrecy, but we can say that we were lucky enough to talk to Danny DeVito, a fairly regular Burton collaborator who in the new movie plays Max Medici, a smalltime circus owner who cares for the very special young elephant born into his care … Dumbo. Since I’m pretty sure the scene we saw DeVito shooting was towards the end of the movie, we’ll just rundown everything else DeVito told us while on the London set of the absolutely gorgeous-looking reimagining of “Dumbo.”
1. It’s The Completion of the Burton/DeVito “Circus Trilogy”
Keep in mind that this is the third time DeVito has played a circus ringleader (of one form or another) for Burton — first in “Batman Returns” and then in “Big Fish.” (DeVito also appeared, fleetingly, in Burton’s underrated disaster movie send-up “Mars Attacks!”) In fact, DeVito admitted that it was the completion of a trilogy and that was how Burton pitched the character to him. “When he called, he said, ‘We’ve got to complete the circus trilogy.’” DeVito, who admitted to being a “big fan” of the original film, went on: “I would do anything to be in a movie with him.” Although, after a beat, he guessed that the next project he and Burton collaborate on will have to be “really weird.”
2. His Character Exemplifies the Differences Between the Original and the Remake
When someone asked if Burton gave him any specific character notes that stood out, DeVito went on a fairly detailed about how his character typifies the differences between the original and this updated version. “Medici, my character, or if you’re from England you say Medici, or from New Jersey, probably, but I call it Medici,” DeVito began by saying. (The Medici are a powerful Italian family that date back to the 15th century.) DeVito continued: “The thing is that he has a big pressure in the beginning to keep the circus afoot, alive, because it was a very, very tough time. It was 1919. And contrary to what it was in the movie, where the mouse gives the head of the circus all the ideas, this is kind of like life itself, in a kind of a modern world puts us in a spot, where for some reason, we’re having a very difficult time getting people in the seats.” Of course, things change. “We get a windfall when I buy Mrs. Jumbo,” DeVito said. “So to try to answer your question, it’s more of a guy who’s under a lot of pressure and makes a couple of decisions during the movie that are kind of like, obvious for a guy whose back is up against the wall. But then, thank goodness everything works out okay.” Hey, it is a Disney movie, after all.
3. Burton Hasn’t Changed At All
Someone asked whether nor not Burton has changed since DeVito began working with him, and DeVito paused and said “not a bit.” “I’ll get emotional thinking about how much I care about him,” DeVito said. “Always spirited, always an artist, always thinking about the craft, always just painting with his mind.” DeVito then told a story about first meeting Burton for the role of The Penguin in “Batman Returns.” “He had a painting of circus stripes, red and white, just beautiful, just a big canvas,” DeVito explained. “And on a circus ball was this creature. And there was a caption that said, My name is Jimmy, but they call me the hideous penguin boy.” DeVito then did some quick fire remembrances, saying that he was “in Vegas for four nights” for his role in “Mars Attacks” (“What’s about about that? You know what I mean?”) He also said that Burton has a cameo in DeVito’s “Hoffa,” which was very much news to me. “People didn’t know that in the beginning, when he was in the coffin, so it’s really a cool moment,” DeVito said. Most touchingly, he said that, with Burton, “it’s always the same.” “It feels like we don’t see each other for a really long time, and then you just pick up,” the actor explained, in the most heartwarming way possible.
4. He Was Glad to Reunite With Keaton, Too
“Dumbo” also sees Burton reuniting with another high profile past collaborator: Michael Keaton, who starred in “Beetlejuice” and, of course, two Batman outings for Burton. Keaton plays V.A. Vandervere, a kind of evil Walt Disney type who has a futuristic theme park called Dreamland (as well as villainous designs on our favorite flying pachyderm). When the team-up was brought up, DeVito laughed, saying, “He was playing the good guy in that movie. I’m the good guy in this movie. So it’s a little bit of an evolution here.”
5. DeVito’s Relationship with ‘Dumbo’ Is Longer Than an Elephant’s Trunk
At one point, DeVito described his “very emotional” connection to the original animated Disney classic. He suspects that he first saw the movie on television and then he showed his children, 30+ years ago. “I just watched it again, of course, before we started,” DeVito said. He solidified his fandom by describing a deleted scene he had watched on the Blu-ray. “They took it out because it was really dark, because what it was was Timothy explaining to people why elephants are afraid of mice. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but you should check it out,” DeVito suggested. The sequence, dubbed “A Mouse’s Tale” in the original draft of the screenplay, has Timothy outlining how, in prehistoric times (“There was no circuses and no big building and no automobiles”), elephants were smaller than mice, and they would hang tiny elephants on a string and wear them as necklaces. It’s one of the few story elements that was actually removed from the svelte narrative. DeVito’s conclusion? “Disney was really whacked, man. You know?”
6. There Is A Nude Scene (!)
When DeVito said that there was “no difference” between his character in “Dumbo” and his character in “Big Fish,” he said, “I do have a nude scene.” He quickly pointed out, though, that, “You don’t see it. But in ‘Big Fish’ I get up and you got to see my tush.” But even the possibility of nudity was a draw for DeVito. “[Burton] told me, he said, ‘There’s a scene in a bathtub.’ I said, ‘I’m in, baby.’” It’s here that we pause and remind everyone that “Dumbo” is, of course, a family film.
Disney
7. Filming Without Actual Elephants Was Tough
DeVito admitted that working with computer-generated creatures was something that he’d “never done before,” and that aspect was “cool.” “We have a couple of people with green suits with these big aluminum outlines of how big an elephant would be, with eyes,” DeVito said. One of his favorite things was a mechanism that was trotted out when the elephants were supposed to be exiting the side of a boxcar. So how’d they pull it off? “Oh there’s a guy with a big rig coming down the ramp and the ramp has got a hydraulic thingy that like, pulls it down. Man, it was deep. I thought that was the coolest thing.” He also said that when they were filming sequences with Dumbo and his mother, “one of the elephants was purple and one of the elephants was green,” the actor guesses, because, “when they wind up drawing it, you know how you separate, they separate the colors.” Later, he talked about a scene where he shows the other characters Mrs. Jumbo, Dumbo’s mother. “She’s not there,” DeVito said. “And then, the special effects people do things like they have little filaments that move the hay. And it’s really cool, to watch all of that.” The technical complexity, with the visual effects people having to shoot multiple plates, added to the workload. “So you do the scene like, they shoot the scene like at least four or five times over again,” DeVito said, before joking, ” And then people don’t remember their lines and added, makes it 10 or 12 times.” Zing!
8. For DeVito, ‘Dumbo’ Has a Fairly Deep Message
Sure, “Dumbo” is a lavish, big budget live-action remake of a beloved animated classic, the kind of thing that Disney has gotten very good at over the past few years. But for DeVito, it’s much more than that. “Well, I think it’s a very positive, hopeful, almost never give up kind of thing. There’s that kind of theme. I mean, I think that in life, you see all of the different things that infiltrate the good things in life,” DeVito explained. “And things that surprise you come out of nowhere, like when you think you’re making a move with somebody, maybe somebody’s duplicitous or whatever. And I think in terms of a younger person or an older person looking at it, I mean, by now, you guys must’ve learned this lesson already, I hope, but the idea is that you can’t always believe what somebody tells you. And sometimes, it messes up all of your dreams and your hopes and dreams. But if you all stick together, possibly you can get out of it and there’ll be a happy ending. And dreams do come true.” Sounds like a message we could really use these days.
“Dumbo” flies into theaters everywhere on March 29.
Disney released a new trailer for the Tim Burton-directed live-action remake of its 1941 animated classic. Colin Farrell stars as a single dad who works at a traveling circus. His two kids bond with an adorable young elephant with huge ears named Dumbo, who demonstrates the amazing ability to fly — taking their small circus to new heights.
But that unique skill bring him to the attention of a greedy entrepreneur named V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who wants to exploit Dumbo — by putting him in harm’s way.
The trailer provides much more detail about the plot than previously known, and much of it aligns with the original film, though there appear to be new characters. Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Alan Arkin, Finley Hobbins, and Nico Parker also star.
“Dumbo” is the latest Disney animated classic to get the live-action treatment. It will be followed by the more high-profile remakes of “The Lion King” and “Mulan.”
The stop-motion marvel, directed by the great Henry Selick, remains the crown jewel of Burton’s stop-motion output (and he didn’t even direct it), full of the kind of darkly humorous personality and rococo visual grandeur that we’ve come to expect from the director of “Batman,” “Beetlejuice,” and “Edward Scissorhands.” And while since it’s become a staple of not one but two holidays, it’s easy to take its masterfulness for granted.
But here are nine things you probably didn’t know about “The Nightmare Before Christmas,” which will probably make it even more special (again). The following is best enjoyed with either a cup of eggnog or a giant mound of Halloween candy. It’s up to you.
Touchstone
1. Tim Burton Originally Developed the Idea While Working As an Animator for Disney
It’s very hard to imagine Tim Burton toiling away at Walt Disney Animation, in the pre-comeback days of the early 1980s. But that’s exactly what he did, providing largely unused concept art and animation for forgettable fare like “The Fox and the Hound” and “The Black Cauldron.” (He also contributed, even more bafflingly, to “TRON.”)
Not that all of his work was middling. His time at Disney also allowed him to experiment — it’s where he made “Vincent,” a charming stop-motion short film narrated by Vincent Price, a Japanese-themed fairy tale that aired on the Disney Channel and a half-hour live-action short called “Frankenweenie.”
During his time at Disney, he also wrote a three-page poem called “The Nightmare Before Christmas” and worked with frequent collaborator Rick Heinrichs on concept art and storyboards. He also sought insight from fellow Disney animator Henry Selick, who would eventually direct the feature version. In 1982, Disney decided to develop the story into either a short film (like “Vincent”) or a holiday special (in a 1993 interview with the LA Times, Burton suggested that Vincent Price would provide narration). But in 1984, Burton was fired from Disney (admittedly, his singular style didn’t really fit in amongst all the cheery animated fables) and — for many years — the project was largely forgotten.
2. It Unexpectedly Rose from the Grave
The project had stayed on Burton’s mind, even after leaving Disney and becoming one of the most successful and sought-after filmmakers in the world. In 1990, he found out that Disney still owned the rights, so he contacted them. Co-producer Kathleen Gavin, in a documentary released around the same time as the movie, said: “When Tim Burton went back to Disney a couple of years ago and said, ‘You have a project of mine I’m still interested in doing,’ they dug out not only his treatment, but they dug out a lot of his artwork.” In the video, you can see a distinctly Tim Burton sketch of Jack, with the words “It was Zero, Jack’s ethereal friend, the best friend he had / But Jack didn’t even notice him, which made Zero very sad,” written in cursive behind Jack’s slumped figure.
Disney wanted Burton, but he was already committed to other projects; Burton wanted the creative freedom to do what he wanted.
The answer to both problems was the involvement of Selick, Burton’s old animator chum from Disney, who was brought on by Heinrichs (“I’m from the same planet, if not the same neighborhood, as Tim,” Selick says in the promotional making-of doc). Selick set up an animation studio (Skellington Productions) in San Francisco and stocked a 40,000-square-foot studio space with 120 specialized animators, artists and technicians. (According to Gavin, the team moved in July of 1991 and they had to be in production by October 1.)
“It was important to me to stay away from Los Angeles,” Selick told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. “I think that if Disney and even Tim had too much access to us, they would have gotten too nervous and gummed up the works.”
Touchstone
3. It Took a L-O-N-G Time to Make
According to Disney, they “assembled 13 of the most brilliant animators” for “The Nightmare Before Christmas” which, if you hadn’t noticed, isn’t that many animators. Disney’s official numbers are that, over a three-year period, they filled 19 soundstages with 230 sets, and “hundreds” of individual puppet characters (there are 60 characters in the movie but duplicates of most were needed). Supervising animator Eric Leighton explained in that same promotional doc that, “We’re shooting at 24 frames-per-second, which means that we have to pose the character 24 times for every second of completed film.”
The sets were constructed so that the animators wouldn’t have to reach more than two feet to adjust a puppet, and if they did have to reach further, special trap doors were built into the set. (Many of the scenes required 20-30 specialized lights to create the exaggerated, German expressionist look.)
And that’s not counting all of the work that went into the film before they even started animating, which included storyboarding the entire movie several times (Joe Ranft, a legendary Pixar contributor who died tragically in a car accident before the release of “Cars,” was the head of story.)
4. There Really Wasn’t a Script
“We didn’t really have a script, but there was a storyline that Tim had much earlier,” Danny Elfman said at the time. “We were running out of time, so I said, ‘I’ll just write some of the songs based on what we’d talked about.’ He’d come over and listen and then I’d say, ‘Let’s just talk about the next section of the movie.’ And as soon as he left, I’d write the next song. He had pictures of all these characters, so I had a really good visual stimulus to get going.”
So, yes, they had all of Burton’s original drawings, the poem, and some songs. And while the final screenplay is credited to Caroline Thompson, there was additional work by Michael McDowell, a horror novelist and “Beetlejuice” screenwriter, who helped initially move Burton’s poem into movie-form.
Since the script was finished after the songs, the animators initially worked on the musical numbers, starting with the first song, “This Is Halloween.” Selick has stated that they really didn’t know what they were doing initially, and that sequences that they animated earlier look cruder than ones they did at the end of production. This is definitely true of the “This Is Halloween” sequence, which is visually stunning but also a little rough around the edges.
Interestingly, ahead of the film’s release, Elfman cited that “Nightmare Before Christmas” was “the greatest collaboration I’d ever been involved with,” even though disagreements on the film led to a very public falling out with Burton. Elfman, who provides Jack with his singing voice, had also laid down vocal tracks for his speaking role, too. Selick and Burton found his dialogue delivery unsatisfactory and replaced him with “Fright Night” actor Chris Sarandon. (Elfman also does the speaking voice for Barrel, one of Oogie Boogie’s henchmen.)
But Elfman, who had grown quite attached to Jack, felt slighted, which led to him parting ways with Burton. “Ed Wood,” released by Disney the following year, would be the first Burton movie to not be scored by Elfman. They wouldn’t work together again until 1996.
Touchstone
5. At One Point, There Was More to Oogie Boogie
One of the movie’s best, grossest gags is the reveal of Oogie Boogie’s true self — a mass of wiggling worms.
This was one of the most difficult sequences in the entire film, consisting of four incredibly detailed shots that each took a full month to create and animate (see #3). But there was even more to this sequence originally. Early storyboards revealed “a surprisingly different storyline that ultimately wasn’t pursued” (according to Selick on the Blu-ray special features), one in which, when Oogie Boogie is split open, Dr. Finklestein is revealed inside. “Yes, Jack Skellington, it’s me!” Finklestein crows. “Me! The man who created Sally from bits of flesh and scraps of cloth! As Oogie Boogie, I wanted to teach her a lesson she’d never forget!” (Yeah, this doesn’t make a lot of sense.)
There was one additional surprise as a trap door on Boogie’s roulette table opens up to reveal the doctor’s hunch-backed assistant Igor. Even in rough form, it’s clear that the sequence didn’t really work and was wisely cut. Bye bye, Boogie.
6. Pixar Helped Out
If you have watched the credits for “The Nightmare Before Christmas” as much as I have, you’ll notice that a small team from Pixar is given a credit. It’s still, all these years later, unclear as to what exactly Pixar contributed to the film. (Selick and Pixar godhead John Lasseter went to Cal Arts together and Lasseter worked alongside Burton at Disney Animation.)
Most likely, it had to do with some post-production coloring, as Pixar had recently developed and introduced the CAPS system to Walt Disney Feature Animation, which replaced the traditional ink-and-paint model (a staple since Walt’s time) with a new digital coloring system. There were other minor CGI fixes/augmentation that the studio could have provided, since at the time they were a similar independent animation outfit located in the greater San Francisco area. Pixar and “The Nightmare Before Christmas” would continue to be connected for years to come (see #8).
7. It’s Technically Not a Disney Movie
During the lead-up to “The Nightmare Before Christmas’” release, then-head of Disney Michael Eisner got a look at early footage from the film and deemed it too dark and scary. (He also requested a moment when Tim Burton’s severed head is being passed around like a hockey puck be deleted from the movie; it was replaced by a Jack-o-lantern in the final film.) He would still allow for the “What’s This?” sequence to be included in Disney animated home videos from around that time (it was the full sequence, uninterrupted) but he also wanted some distance placed between the Disney brand and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”
So, as it was, the Disney name was removed from the film and it was replaced with a card for the Touchstone Pictures shingle that would note that the film was slightly more adult and sophisticated. In an interview with IGN in 2006, Selick said that the company worried that it would “too dark and scary for kids.” He continued: “Their biggest fear, and why it was kind of a stepchild project, was they were afraid of their core audience hating the movie and not coming.”
And, to be honest, there was some merit to this apprehension. The film wasn’t a breakaway box office success, instead growing in stature over the years, to the point that it is now a yearly seasonal overlay to the Haunted Mansion and countless pieces of merchandise are sold each and every year. When the film was released, though, all of the toys (housed in nifty, coffin-shaped boxes) sat unsold at Disney Stores around the country.
Interestingly, if you watch the film today, either on Blu-ray or digitally, the iconic Disney castle greets you when the movie begins. It is no longer a stowed-away Touchstone Picture; it’s now, firmly, a Disney classic.
8. Without It, There Would Be No ‘Toy Story’
It’s hard to explain how, exactly, “Nightmare Before Christmas” paved the way for Pixar’s “Toy Story,” a film that would end up revolutionizing the entire film industry and serving as the bedrock for another Disney animation renaissance. But maybe John Lasseter can explain.
In a 2011 interview with Entertainment Weekly, he said: “Disney kept trying to hire me back after each of the short films I had made. I kept saying, ‘Let me make a film for you up here [at Pixar].” They always said, ‘No, a Disney animated film will always be made at Disney.’ They had no interest in doing an outside project.” Lasseter continued: “What changed their mind was Tim Burton. Tim and I went to college together, and he had developed a feature idea called ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas.’ He went on to become a successful live-action director and was trying to buy ‘Nightmare’ back from Disney. And they said, ‘Why don’t you just make it for us?’ That opened the door for Disney to think of these niche animated films that could be done. They said, ‘Okay, we’re willing to talk with you. We’ve got puppet animation going [with Tim Burton] and now we’ll be willing to develop the computer animation.’ They said to come back when we had an idea. So we started thinking…”
And, of course, their thinking led to “Toy Story,” another project that started as a holiday special before morphing into a bona fide feature film.
To make an interesting history even more interesting was the announcement in 2010 that Selick would set up a brand new stop-motion studio at Pixar. The new outfit, called Cinderbiter Productions, was already hard at work on a feature called “ShadeMaker” and, according to the press release, would serve as “a new stop motion company whose mandate is to make great, scary films for young ‘uns with a small, tight-knit crew who watch each other’s backs.”
Unfortunately, in 2012 the studio was shut down after Disney and Pixar management found the development of the current film to be unsatisfactory. After spending more than $50 million on the film itself, the company announced a write-down north of $100 million, given the amount of employees and real estate the new shingle occupied. Gone was Selick’s relationship with Lasseter, along with a potentially lucrative deal with Disney (after completing work on “ShadeMaker,” he was set to direct a live action/animated adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s deeply brilliant “The Graveyard Book”). Sigh.
Touchstone
9. Jack Had Cameos in Selick’s Subsequent Films
This is more of the Easter Egg-y variety, but Jack Skellington would appear in two of Selick’s other films.
In 1996, he would reteam with Disney and Burton for the considerably drabber “James and the Giant Peach” adaptation. While a largely joyless affair (those live action sequences are terrible), there is a bright spot when Jack and his insect pals visit a sunken pirate ship manned by a pirate-y Jack Skellington. (Richard Dreyfuss’ Mr. Centipede even refers to the character, in his broken New Yawk accent, as “Skellington.”)
Additionally, there’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance by the Pumpkin King in Selick’s animated feature for Laika, “Coraline.” There’s a moment when Coraline is in the kitchen and the Other Mother is making her food; the Other Mother cracks open an egg and, in the yolk, is the face of Jack. It’s very subtle and tiny and hard to spot, most likely because they were navigating some very choppy legal waters with the insertion, but he’s still there, epitomizing the Halloween spirit in a very literal Easter egg.
One of the most coveted positions in Hollywood, the director is in charge of all of the creative elements of a movie. It is a position that is both creative and technical, as he or she guides the crew and cast in the making of a film—from script to screen.
What a director does: Working off a screenplay, the director figures out each shot and helps the actors and actresses to bring their characters to life.
Who the director relies on: The producers and studios have ultimate responsibility for a movie’s budget, of which the director must adhere to and work with its constraints.
Who relies on the director: The director collaborates with every important creative player, from the cinematographer to the editor to the costume designer and the lighting and sound people.
How to become a director: Many study at film schools, directing student projects. TV shows and commercials are common early professional steps, though some prominent film directors have begun their careers in small-budget features.
Networking: Nearly all Hollywood directors are members of the Directors Guild of America, which represents more than 15,000 directors and members of directorial teams. To join the Guild, aside from paying a fee that varies depending on the position within the directorial team, hopeful members must be approved by a council of current Guild members.
Directors you should know: Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg and Tim Burton.
