RICHARD WILLIAMS QUESTION

Hi,
   I dont keep up with the animation newsgroups and I just found out the whole sorry episode concerning Richard Williams (would
have been) masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler / Arabian Knights. Please tell me if this is available on video (in the UK?
Elsewhere?). I video taped a documentary about the man in 1988 when I was fourteen and have treasured it since.
As I said I dont visit here as often as I would like so could you please e-mail me any replies -Thankyou.

Regards,
             Scott Dun...@digital-animations.co.uk

Any other information about R. Williams who is my hero would be greatly appreaciated.

Scott---

> have been) masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler / Arabian Knights. Please tell me if this is available on video (in the UK?

Well, Here in the USA, I've seen the video (called officially now that
it's on video, The Thief and the Cobbler, released by Miramax) in both
Blockbuster and Walmarts.  I'm thinking you should be able to find it in
similar spots in the UK, if not beg someone in the US, it's pretty easy
to get here.
	I bought it myself and enjoyed it immensely, its a fresh change from
the normal animation fare with tons of visual gags...even op art gags. 
Parts of it are a riot...just wish they'd cut those sappy songs out and
wish I knew which parts besides the songs, miramax added contrary to
William's plan...
	Happy Hunting!
:) Angela
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/2416/

In article <336...@charleston.net>, maj...@charleston.net wrote:
 
> Well, Here in the USA, I've seen the video (called officially now that
> it's on video, The Thief and the Cobbler, released by Miramax) in both
> Blockbuster and Walmarts.  I'm thinking you should be able to find it in
> similar spots in the UK, if not beg someone in the US, it's pretty easy
> to get here.
>         I bought it myself and enjoyed it immensely, its a fresh change from
> the normal animation fare with tons of visual gags...even op art gags. 
> Parts of it are a riot...just wish they'd cut those sappy songs out and
> wish I knew which parts besides the songs, miramax added contrary to
> William's plan...
>         Happy Hunting!
> :) Angela
> http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/2416/

It's pretty easy to tell which parts Miramax added and which parts were
originally in William's version.  The way to tell is that all the new stuff
is shot on 2-3 frames per second while all of William's original stuff was
shot on 1 fps.  IMO, some of that original stuff that had been done at
William's studio far surpasses anything that Disney has ever done or will
do.

-- 
Amid Amidi
jun...@earthlink.net
Animation and Cartoon Heaven
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/1684/

just wish they'd cut those sappy songs out and
> > wish I knew which parts besides the songs, miramax added contrary to
> > William's plan...

I had the unfortunate task of having to animate on the bastardization of
that wonderful film. ( I had to, I was stuck in Ireland with no money after
Bluth shut down; a bunch of us ex-Bluthies got a song to work on. I won't
mention which one for the sheer embarrassment of it all!)
What you might not know is that there was a TON of great material that was
removed from the final release and that the remaining footage was
reshuffled and chopped down. Some amazing animation by Art Babbitt and Bill
Tytla was shamelessly removed. In total, I believe there was something like
65 min removed! Some people have illegal copies of the original story reels
with all of the good stuff still in it!
It's a pity the world will never see it!
Chris

junyer wrote:
 
> It's pretty easy to tell which parts Miramax added and which parts were
> originally in William's version.  The way to tell is that all the new stuff
> is shot on 2-3 frames per second while all of William's original stuff was
> shot on 1 fps.  IMO, some of that original stuff that had been done at
> William's studio far surpasses anything that Disney has ever done or will
> do.

And that's perhaps why Disney fucked up the film so much. Nobody should
make anything better than Disney....
I have seen the original storyreel, and after watching the Miramax
release recently I was shocked. The whole film was ruined. It's basicly
a completely new and different film - and SO MUCH worse.
As mentioned here, there is no problem to see which scenes that has been
added later because of the really bad animation quality.
Very much is changed.
All the annoying songs have been added later.
The cobbler didn't speak in the original. Now he's turned into some cool
guy with Matthew Broderick's voice.
The biggest mistake of all was to make the thief speak. He was mute in
the original too, but now a terribly annoying and STUPID voice-over is
changing his personality completely commenting everything that he does
ALL the time.
Nothing is left to the audience. Even the flies around his head is
mentioned a few times.
Some of the very best scenes and gags are cut; like the one where the
thief is caught for theft and is going to get his hands chopped off.
Instead he sticks out from his robe a couple of armshaped scratching
sticks he has stolen from the princess earlier. A great scene!
As well as gags from inside the huge machine in the end. So much is gone
(and what is left has this TERRIBLE voice-over).
I also have to mention a great (and brilliantly animated) character from
the mountain near the end.... GONE!

I can perfectly well understand that Dick Williams is really
disappointed and angry after a group of braindead people completely
fucked up his film which he had been working on for decades.

--
Olve Askim

Chris Derochie wrote:
> 
> just wish they'd cut those sappy songs out and
> > > wish I knew which parts besides the songs, miramax added contrary to
> > > William's plan...
> 
> I had the unfortunate task of having to animate on the bastardization of
> that wonderful film. ( I had to, I was stuck in Ireland with no money after
> Bluth shut down; a bunch of us ex-Bluthies got a song to work on. I won't
> mention which one for the sheer embarrassment of it all!)
> What you might not know is that there was a TON of great material that was
> removed from the final release and that the remaining footage was
> reshuffled and chopped down. Some amazing animation by Art Babbitt and Bill
> Tytla was shamelessly removed. In total, I believe there was something like
> 65 min removed! Some people have illegal copies of the original story reels
> with all of the good stuff still in it!
> It's a pity the world will never see it!
> Chris
Immediate demand for the lost stuff to be released. 
Whoever has it guard it carefully
mjf

On Sat, 03 May 1997 22:16:04 -0400, mjf <fol...@fast.net> wrote:

 Some amazing animation by Art Babbitt and Bill
[]> Tytla was shamelessly removed. In total, I believe there was something like
[]> 65 min removed! Some people have illegal copies of the original story reels
[]> with all of the good stuff still in it!
[]> It's a pity the world will never see it!
[]> Chris
[]Immediate demand for the lost stuff to be released. 
[]Whoever has it guard it carefully
[]mjf

A bit off topic, but has anyone else seen a late 60's live-ac movie called
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"?  The historical premise concerns the
attack on Sebastapol in Turkey during the Crimean War, but the movie itself
is a sharp socio-political commentary on the "game" of War, and some of the
Victorian gullibilities that still permeate many great nations of the
world.  Aside from all that, what makes it relevant to r.a.a. is the fact
that there are a number of wonderful animation sequences in the thing
created by none other than Richard Williams, which are at turns technically
beautiful, hilarious, and frightening on some subconscious level I wasn't
previously aware of.

I believe you can rent the thing in some of the larger video stores, but
those of us fortunate enough to get either "Showcase" or "Bravo" (like,
there's one of us Canucks that *hasn't* taped "American Pop" or "Heavy
Metal" yet??) should keep an eye on the late-night listings.

The Artist Formerly Known as cha...@unix.infosnooze.com

_______________________________________________________
"Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific.  It is *in* the
 Pacific.  It is a part of the United States that is an island that is 
  right here."   Dan Quayle -- QuayleQWK 1.3
_______________________________________________________



_____________________

> Chris Derochie wrote:
> >
> > just wish they'd cut those sappy songs out and
> > > > wish I knew which parts besides the songs, miramax added contrary to
> > > > William's plan...
> >
> > I had the unfortunate task of having to animate on the bastardization of
> > that wonderful film. ( I had to, I was stuck in Ireland with no money after
> > Bluth shut down; a bunch of us ex-Bluthies got a song to work on. I won't
> > mention which one for the sheer embarrassment of it all!)
> > What you might not know is that there was a TON of great material that was
> > removed from the final release and that the remaining footage was
> > reshuffled and chopped down. Some amazing animation by Art Babbitt and Bill
> > Tytla was shamelessly removed. In total, I believe there was something like
> > 65 min removed! Some people have illegal copies of the original story reels
> > with all of the good stuff still in it!
> > It's a pity the world will never see it!
> > Chris


WEll, I think I'd have to guess the songs with princess yum-yum. Don't
feel too bad about it! I mean the animation on these sequences were
great! (actually noticably a different style... I was thinking bluth-ite
when I saw it, but I had no idea... I was that close to the mark)  I
just couldn't take those songs in that film they were totally the wrong
way to go. (of course its not the animators fault...)
	:) Angela
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/2416/

 > I had the unfortunate task of having to animate on the bastardization of
 > that wonderful film. ( I had to, I was stuck in Ireland with no money after
 > Bluth shut down; a bunch of us ex-Bluthies got a song to work on. I won't
 > mention which one for the sheer embarrassment of it all!)
 > What you might not know is that there was a TON of great material that was
 > removed from the final release and that the remaining footage was
 > reshuffled and chopped down. Some amazing animation by Art Babbitt and Bill
 > Tytla was shamelessly removed. In total, I believe there was something like
 > 65 min removed! Some people have illegal copies of the original story reels
 > with all of the good stuff still in it!
 > It's a pity the world will never see it!
 > Chris

This is interesting! Tell me more about how this prosess were. I can imagine 
there were a couple of 'suits' from the compilation company ordering 'an 
ordinary family franchise'. Anything that tasted like "art" or "psykedelia" 
was ordered to be edited out. What are you doing today, Chris?

-Knut-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knut Sjurseth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> A bit off topic, but has anyone else seen a late 60's live-ac movie 
> called
> "The Charge of the Light Brigade"?  The historical premise concerns 
> the
> attack on Sebastapol in Turkey during the Crimean War, but the movie 
> itself
> is a sharp socio-political commentary on the "game" of War, and some 
> of the
> Victorian gullibilities that still permeate many great nations of the
> world.  Aside from all that, what makes it relevant to r.a.a. is the 
> fact
> that there are a number of wonderful animation sequences in the thing
> created by none other than Richard Williams, which are at turns 
> technically
> beautiful, hilarious, and frightening on some subconscious level I 
> wasn't
> previously aware of.

Do you know any other contributions Williams has done to the wonderful 
world of animation? Apart from "The Theif And The Cobbler", serving as 
animation director on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and his work in this 
film you called "The Charge of the Light Brigade"? Is there a complete 
list of Richard Williams work available anywhere?
 
------------------------------------------------------------
Knut Sjurseth
------------------------------------------------------------

Knut Sjurseth (knu...@pop.stud.ntnu.no) wrote:
: 
: Do you know any other contributions Williams has done to the wonderful 
: world of animation? Apart from "The Theif And The Cobbler", serving as 
: animation director on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and his work in this 
: film you called "The Charge of the Light Brigade"? Is there a complete 
: list of Richard Williams work available anywhere?
:  
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: Knut Sjurseth
: ------------------------------------------------------------
Williams' work has not been well-documented here, primarily because he
spent most of his career based in his London studio.  His studio produced
hundreds of animated commercials, most of which haven't been seen by too
many in the U.S.  During the 60s and 70s, his studio also worked on animated 
title sequences for features like Casino Royale, A Funny Thing Happened on
the Way to the Forum, and two for the Peter Sellers' Pink Panther series.  
Despite receiving acclaim for this work, Williams looked upon it as 
mostly as a means of bringing in revenue and funneling money back into
his project The Thief and the Cobbler, since his main ambition was to be a
director.  He went on to produce the animated Christmas Carol for TV and
direct the feature Raggedy Ann & Andy:  A Musical Adventure, a film
plagued by production problems (many of which were visible on the screen),
but nonetheless featured some great moments of animation by Williams and
some of the legendary animators that also worked on Thief.

It will probably be debated for a long time to come whether or not 
Williams ever possessed directing talent, but his work as an animator is
extensive and undisputed.  His work is proof that great animation is not
always found in the most obvious of places, and worth seeking out.  

In article <5kpn42$a6...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mag...@prairienet.org (Mary A. Giordano) wrote:
>Knut Sjurseth (knu...@pop.stud.ntnu.no) wrote:
>: 
>: Do you know any other contributions Williams has done to the wonderful 
>: world of animation? Apart from "The Theif And The Cobbler", serving as 
>: animation director on "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and his work in this 
>: film you called "The Charge of the Light Brigade"? Is there a complete 
>: list of Richard Williams work available anywhere?

>Williams' work has not been well-documented here, primarily because he
>spent most of his career based in his London studio.  His studio produced
>hundreds of animated commercials, most of which haven't been seen by too
>many in the U.S.  During the 60s and 70s, his studio also worked on animated 
>title sequences for features like Casino Royale, A Funny Thing Happened on
>the Way to the Forum, and two for the Peter Sellers' Pink Panther series.  
>Despite receiving acclaim for this work, Williams looked upon it as 
>mostly as a means of bringing in revenue and funneling money back into
>his project The Thief and the Cobbler, since his main ambition was to be a
>director.  He went on to produce the animated Christmas Carol for TV and
>direct the feature Raggedy Ann & Andy:  A Musical Adventure, a film
>plagued by production problems (many of which were visible on the screen),
>but nonetheless featured some great moments of animation by Williams and
>some of the legendary animators that also worked on Thief.
>
>It will probably be debated for a long time to come whether or not 
>Williams ever possessed directing talent, but his work as an animator is
>extensive and undisputed.  His work is proof that great animation is not
>always found in the most obvious of places, and worth seeking out.  

I know this must have been explained earlier in this newsgroup, but *why* did 
it take Richard Williams more than _two decades_  to make The Theif And The 
Cobbler? I know why and how it ended (the Compilation Bond getting impatient 
etc.), but what made Williams use so many years on it *before* that nasty 
episode occured? Was in "only" to make an elaborate animated feature? Or had 
it something to do with the size of the staff he was working with? Was there 
something unusual about the way The Theif And The Cobbler was produced 
compared to your average animated feature? Or did *budget* have anything to do 
with it? 


And was the film in nonstop production during those two decades?

-Knut-
       

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knut Sjurseth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a long posting, but it may clear up some questions. It was
written before the final decision to release the film on tape was
madeand appeared in Animato! Issue 36. I plan to update it in my new
magazine Animation Planet.

Mike Dobbs

An Arabian Knight-mare

The story of Richard Williams' epic film The Thief and The Cobbler is a
cautionary tale for all creators 

by G. Michael Dobbs
	The recent cancellation of plans to release the 1995 Miramax film
Arabian Knight on home video is the latest sad twist in the history of
Richard Williams' The Thief and The Cobbler.  The award-winning Canadian
animator had been working on his dream project for almost 30 years only
to see the film completed and substantially altered by others. Now
animation fans won't even have the opportunity to see what did remain of
Williams' vision. At a time when almost every G-rated animated film
priced at $20.00 or less is snapped up by parents, the decision to
indefinitely postpone the video release makes no economic sense for
Miramax and its parent company, Disney. But then, much about this
production makes little sense. 
	  The history of live-action motion pictures is filled with examples of
films which have been abandoned before completion (Von Sternberg's I
Claudius, Welles' It's All True) and films that were severely altered by
distributors ( Gilliam's Brazil, Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons).
Animation, though, has seldom had these kind of stories. The nature of
the process of producing commercial animation is one of careful
planning. Commercial animation has seldom ever had the kind of wheeling
and dealing that has characterized live-action film production. The
Thief and The Cobbler is an exception.
	The animated feature Arabian Knight was released with little fanfare by
Miramax Films last summer. There was no mention that the film was the
brainchild of the man who directed the animation for Who Framed Roger
Rabbit, and one easily could conclude the film was some sort of cheap
knock-off of Disney's Aladdin. Hardcore animation fans recognized the
film for what it really was, the much-delayed The Thief and The Cobbler. 
	This is a story with no winners, as the outcome is that Williams' prize
project will never be seen as he intended, the reputation of an
animation professional has been shredded, and another non-Disney
animated feature has died at the box-office.

	Richard Williams is a bit of a conundrum. His work has won an Oscar and
an Emmy, and although he was the animation director for Who Framed Roger
Rabbit, he has little name value to the general public. A Canadian who
went to Great Britain with animation producer George Dunning in the
mid-Fifties, Williams set up his own studio in 1958 and produced
animation for commercials and independent shorts.
	His big break came when he was selected to produce animated titles for
The Charge of The Light Brigade in 1968. His production of A Christmas
Carol received the Academy Award in 1972. Williams became better known
to American audiences through the fantastic shorts that made up the
titles for the revived Pink Panther series in the mid-Seventies.   
	Williams began work on T&C in 1964 when he had planned to do a film
about a children's book character named Mulla Nasruddin. Williams had
already provided the illustrations for the book. An early reference to
the project came in the 1968 International Film Guide. Williams received
great praise that year for his title animation work in films such as A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and The Charge of the Light
Brigade. The book notes that Williams was about to begin work on "the
first of several films based on the stories featuring Mulla Nasruddin."
	Like director Orson Welles, Williams would take on an outside
assignment in order to put money into his own project, so work went
slowly on his film as reflected by subsequent editions of the
International Film Guide. In 1969, the Guide noted that animation legend
Ken Harris was now working on the project which was now entitled Mulla
Nasrudin. The illustrations from the film show impressive and intricate
Indian and Persion designs.
	In 1970, the project was re-titled The Majestic Fool and for the first
time, a distributor for the independent film was mentioned, British
Lion. The International Film Guide noted that due to the increase in
production for the small studio, the staff had increased to 40 people.
	The Academy Award Williams won for A Christmas Carol undoubtedly
strengthened his position in completing his feature which was now being
referred as Nasruddin!. He began recording the dialogue tracks for the
film, and hired Vincent Price to perform the voice of the villain, Anwar
(later re-named Zigzag).
	The whole focus of the film, though, was about to be changed. In a
promotional booklet released in 1973, it was announced that Williams
apparently decided that " 'Nasruddin' was found to be too verbal and not
suitable for animation, therefore Nasruddin as a character and the
Nasruddin stories were dropped as a project. However, the many years
work spent on painstaking research into the beauty of Oriental art has
been retained. Loosely based on elements in the Arabian Nights stories,
an entirely new and original film entitled 'The Thief and The Cobbler'
is now the main project of the Williams Studio. Therefore any publicity
references to the old character of Nasruddin are now obsolete."
	Like many publicity releases, this one didn't tell the whole story. The
writer failed to mention that while Nasruddin was out, "old" footage and
characters were indeed being retained. Price's Anwar/Zigzag, the Thief
himself, and the elderly nurse to the princess were all being carried
over to the "new" film which Williams was promising would be a "100
minute Panavision animated epic feature film with a hand drawn cast of
thousands." Sequences from the old film which made it into Williams' new
film  included the camel laughing at the Thief at the waterhole, the
wounded soldier riding to tell the Golden City of the news of the One
Eyes, and the princess' nanny beating the Thief up when he tried to
steal her bananas.
	For the next several years, Williams continued to work on the film
while completing commercial assignments. He recorded a number of British
actors performing various voices during this period. 
	In an effort to become "bankable" (his word), Williams took on what was
supposed to be the part-time job of supervising a new feature film based
on the Raggedy Ann and Andy stories. Originally Williams' contract
called on him to work two weeks out of every month, an arrangement he
later described to animation historian Milt Gray in Funnyworld as
"silly." 
	The Raggedy Ann film proved to be a nightmare for Williams. While he
was being made responsible for the film, he had little control over the
production which was being bankrolled by the publishers of the original
stories and its parent company ITT. He was later removed from the final
stages of production, but received most of the blame for the film's box
office failure.
	During the production of Raggedy Ann, Williams received a fair amount
of publicity and in an interview with John Canemaker in the Feb. 1976
issue of Millimeter, he gave a hint about his vision for T&C. "The Thief
is not following the Disney route. It's to my knowledge the first
animated film with a real plot that locks together like a detective
story at the end. It has no sentiment and the two main characters don't
speak. It's like a silent movie with a lot of sound."
	A radical approach to be sure, but one must consider the animation
scene at the time. The Disney Studio was still floundering from the loss
of its founder, and the animated films which had stirred the imagination
of the critics and audiences were definitely not Disney. Williams' old
boss George Dunning had directed The Yellow Submarine to acclaim and
Ralph Bakshi's violent, profane and highly personal film Heavy Traffic
hadn't just made money, it was accepted with a fair bit of hoopla into
the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. This indeed was the time for
yet another approach.
	For the time, though, the pattern continued of Williams funding his
film with outside jobs, while he refined his vision of the project.


	A little light was seen at the end of the tunnel when trade ads
appeared announcing that veteran Hollywood producer Gary Kurtz had
teamed up with Williams to complete the film. The ads announced that The
Thief Who Never Gave Up would be released in Christmas 1986, but, of
course, it wasn't.
	Williams did meet the man in 1986, though, who would bring the film to
the screen. Producer Jake Eberts, whose company had financed films such
as Dances With Wolves and City of Joy, met with Williams and began
funding the production. According to an article in the August 30, 1995
edition of The Los Angeles Times, Eberts eventually put in $10 million
of the film's $28 million budget. Ebert wasn't exactly a stranger to
animation as he had co-produced Watership Down.
	Williams continued to work on T&C , and reported in a 1988 interview
with Jerry Beck  that he had 2 1/2 hours of pencil tests for T&C, and
that he hadn't used the storyboard method to make the film. Williams
felt the storyboard method of production was too controlling.
	For a filmmaker who was producing this feature with his own financing,
this approach was certainly daring and allowed animators to push
themselves into creating remarkable scenes. It is not, though, the best
way to estimate costs.
	Williams' bad experience on Raggedy Ann was compounded with his
experience with Ziggy's Gift, a Christmas special featuring the comic
strip character created by Tom Wilson. Williams also told Beck that,
even though the production won an Emmy, he didn't want to be a hired
hand again on a project.
	Of course, he was just that on the film which brought him more
attention than anything else he's done to date, Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
William's supervision on the animation of Roger Rabbit gave him the
chance he needed to complete T&C. Footage of T&C helped secure the job
on the Disney/Spielberg collaboration, and the overwhelming success of
the film certainly reassured people of Williams' abilities. The success
of Roger Rabbit proved that Williams could work within a studio
structure and turn out wonderful animation on time and within budget.
	Following the 1988 release of Roger Rabbit, Williams concentrated on
T&C. Charles Champlin in his April 11, 1991 column in The Los Angeles
Times profiled Eberts and noted that "one of the projects under his wing
is The Thief and The Cobbler...Williams should be able to finish it at
long last."
	With money coming in from Eberts' Allied Filmmakers and a distribution
deal with Warner Brothers, Williams settled back into his London studio
to finish the film.
	It was not to be, though.
	The production of The Thief and The Cobbler had been insured by the
Completion Bond Co. in order to protect the films' investors and
guarantee the film would actually be finished according to a
pre-determined deadline. For today's independent film makers, completion
insurance is a necessity in order to line up outside investors.
	Williams' deal with Warner Brothers was to deliver his film so Warners
could to beat Disney's Aladdin to the box office in 1992. When Williams
missed that deadline, the film was taken from him in May 1992 by the
Completion Bond Co. His part in the project that had occupied nearly
thirty years of his professional life was over.
	The Thief, however, had a life of its own. 

	The Completion Bond Co. now had to finish the film in order to get it
released and make back the company's money. With the announcement that
the insurance company had taken over the film, the distribution deal
previously set up with Warner Brothers fell apart.  
	Enter Fred Calvert.
	Calvert is an animation veteran who had been hired by the Completion
Bond Co. as a consultant. He had started his career on the animation
staff at Disney in 1956, and left the studio after 101 Dalmatians to
work for the legendary animator Bill Tytla. Calvert subsequently had
stints at Format Films and Hanna-Barbera before forming his own company.
Working with the Children's' Television Workshop, Calvert created 300 to
400 animated films for Sesame Street, and later entered the Saturday
morning scene producing several series.
	He traveled to Williams' London studio several times to check on the
progress of the film, and was finally asked by the insurance company to
do a detailed analysis of the production status. His conclusion was that
Williams was "woefully behind schedule and way over budget," he recalled
in an interview for ANIMATO!
	Williams did indeed have a script, according to Calvert, but "he wasn't
following it faithfully." The Completion Bond Co. did insist that
Williams construct a storyboard in order to establish the film's
narrative, but Calvert said Williams resisted this request.
	"He sort of worked spontaneously," said Calvert "It led him down some
futile paths, I think, and he wasn't getting the footage done."
	The Completion Bond Co. wanted Calvert to finish the film, an
assignment he tried to avoid. When the arrangements with another
producer fell through, he took the job "somewhat under protest."
	His job was to take the completed footage and literally fill in the
narrative gaps in order to make it a commercially-viable film.
	"We took it and re-structured it as best we could and brought in a
couple of writers and went back into all of Richard Williams' work, some
that he wasn't using and found it marvelous...we tried to use as much of
his footage as possible."
	Of the footage Williams completed, Calvert was only able to use about
50 percent of it, because of the repetitive nature of the scenes. "We
hated to see of all this beautiful animation hit the cutting room floor,
but that was the only way we could make a story out of it.
	"One of the problems, there were a number of these situations...in the
script, there might be two or three sentences describing the Thief going
up a drain pipe. But what he animated on the screen was five minutes up
and down that pipe which would ordinarily be five pages of
script...These were the kind of imbalances that were happening. He was
kind of Rube Goldberg-ing his way through. I don't think he was able to
step back and look at the whole thing as a story. 
	"[He's] an incredible animator, though. Incredible. One of the biggest
problems we had was trying our desperate best, where we had brand new
footage, to come up to the level of quality that he had set," said
Calvert.
	Inserting several song sequences and giving the film's hero, Tack, a
voice were commercial decisions which flew in the face of Williams'
concept. While having a speaking hero wasn't Calvert's choice, he felt
it was a logical decision in order to tell the story.
	To get the film produced in a timely manner and within  budget, Calvert
sub-contracted certain sequences out to other producers. The first song
sequence was produced by the Don Bluth Studio and the second song was by
the Kroyer Studio. The third song, sung by the desert brigands, was
produced by Calvert. 
	Most of the footage Calvert produced was with animators who had been
working on the film under Williams, and he was finished with the film in
about a year and a half. By the time Calvert had completed the film The
Completion Bond Co. was out of business, largely because of the loss it
had sustained on T&C.
	"I don't know why they [Miramax] did what they did to it domestically ,
but it was a sad mistake. If Richard had been able to finish it with a
strong story, it would have been magnificent. I think we did our best
and delivered a releasable picture."

	Once Calvert finished the film, he went to other projects, and was
surprised when he learned his version of the film had played in two
foreign markets, South Africa and Australia. Known as The Princess and
The Cobbler, the film is a revelation for those who saw the Miramax cut.
	It is radically different in both content and tone from the Miramax
release. It seems clear that Calvert had indeed made an earnest attempt
to preserve as much of Williams' vision, while adding elements which
would heighten the conventional commercial appeal of the film. The
changes Calvert made include a voice for the Cobbler (who has about 10
short lines in the film), three song sequences, and adding a romance for
the Cobbler and Princess. What Calvert maintained is more important to
the film...many of the original voices, has far less narration, more
footage of the film's climax concerning the War Machine, and the Mad
Holy Witch sequence. 

	To show off even more of the Williams' footage, Calvert used out-takes
as the images under the end credits. There is more footage from the War
Machine sequence (the Thief in the air in an accidental airplane); a
scene of the Thief falling from the minaret attempting to steal the
golden balls; more footage of the Thief attempting to steal the gem from
the statue at the base of the Holy Mountain; and a scene in which the
Thief is about to steal something from the Princess' bedroom, but
discovers the "carpet" on which he is walking is actually a pack of
vicious white dog-like beasts. The longest of the end credit sequences
shows the Thief attempting to steal green gems out of a bottle, getting
caught and having his hands cut off in Islamic justice, only to hobble
away to a safe place to reveal his hands hadn't been cut at all!
	As animation fan Luke Menichelli pointed out to this writer, the
Calvert version of the film does have some loose ends. Tack is carrying
a mouse in his pocket after his jail break, but we never see what
happens to it. What character is in the sedan chair that is carried into
the king's court and is seated next to the king during the polo game?
	Even with its additions and cuts, the Williams/Calvert The Princess and
The Cobbler is a dazzling film, but is not for all tastes. It is not a
film that pulls at the heartstrings, or goes for big obvious laughs. It
is an adult film in many ways, and its strengths are not necessarily
commercial.
	 In the thirty years in which Williams worked on the film, theatrical
animation has seen several downturns and rebounds. Twenty years ago when
a director like Ralph Bakshi was making news with Heavy Traffic, the
farthest thing from a the mind of an artist like Williams is whether or
not his film could inspire a line of action figures.
	Today, from the point of view of distributors and theater owners, an
animated feature ideally has elements for children that can be exploited
by a potentially lucrative merchandising campaign, yet have an edge
which adults can enjoy. The Princess and The Cobbler does not fit into
this definition. Williams' idea for his film is one which substitutes
emotional content for visual splendor. Seldom has there been a more
incredible example of non-computer-aided animation.
	There are more than a few instances to suggest that Williams wanted to
do a film more for adults than for children. After all, the chief of the
One-Eyes doesn't sit on a throne, but rather on a group of women who are
forced to pose in the shape of a throne! Later these women kill the
One-Eye chief by throwing him off a cliff. There is a Benny Hill-like
urination joke, and Zigzag will probably go down in cartoon history as
the first villain who is eaten alive on screen. 
	There have been a number of reports on how Williams pushed his
animators to the breaking point by having them constantly revise 
sequences and by editing the story of the film by eliminating completed
animation.
	For instance, in the January/February 1975 edition of Film Comment, a
profile on animator Grim Natwick includes a cel from the Mad Holy Witch
sequence with another character, the Enchanted Prince. This scene isn't
in the completed sequences and neither is a scene in which the witch is
pointing at a castle which was reproduced in a late Seventies edition of
the International Film Guide. Did Williams actually edit out finished
animation by Natwick whom he had lured out of retirement? How much
animation was eliminated because Williams' vision of the story changed?
Interestingly, Natwick (and another animation vet, the late Ken Harris)
aren't included in the credits of the Miramax version. 

	Williams obviously wanted to make a film which was based on a
non-commercial production model; a film that was born more out of
spontaneous creativity than careful planning. His manner truly tested
the limits of hand-drawn animation.
	Williams' designs certainly tested the skill of his staff. For
instance, look at the character design for the film. Zigzag simply
doesn't have hands; he has long fingers which each have three large
rings. What an incredible pain that must have been to animate! Tack
doesn't have a mouth, per se; his mouth is defined by the cobbling nails
he holds by his teeth. The animators must always draw the mouth to
allude to this stylistic joke.
	The background designs are almost hypnotic, and all of the years of
studying Near Eastern art certainly paid off. The palace scenes are
amazing, but the War Machine sequence with its obvious M.C. Escher look
surpasses even those set at the palace.
	The problem with the film, though, lies in its strength. By subjugating
character development and emotion to the animation, the film's moment of
triumph rings a little hollow.
	The War Machine sequence is the climax of the film. The Cobbler
confronts Zigzag who is leading the vanguard of the unstoppable
One-Eyes, a barbarian warrior nation on its way to sack the Golden City.
The Cobbler, following the advice of the Mad Holy Witch, flings a tack
at Zigzag. This tack sets off a chain of events which destroys the War
Machine and defeats the One-Eyes. Erected over the middle of the War
Machine are the three Golden Balls stolen from the Golden City by
Zigzag, and the object of the fanatical efforts of the Thief. In the
middle of the destruction, the Thief goes about attempting to reach the
balls in order to steal them once again.
	Every frame of the sequence is crammed with action and reaction.
Clearly based on the Buster Keaton school of comedy, the Thief is an
"innocent" whose survival is based on simply being in the right place at
the right time as the War Machine falls apart.
	Unlike Keaton, though, whose unsmiling heroes were always sympathetic,
there has been no effort to build any sort of emotional attachment
between the audience and the Thief, and, therefore, the sequence has
surprisingly little suspense. 
	The lack of an emotional bond between the audience and the film is The
Princess and The Cobbler's greatest problem. It is easy to see why
Calvert and the Completion Bond Co. believed that building up the
romance between the leads and the inclusion of the three songs by Robert
Folk and Norman Gimbal were essential in building up the film's
commercial appeal. The songs advance the plot and the relationship of
the characters, and are used in the same way the Disney studio uses
songs in its films. 

	So, if an acceptable version of this film existed, then why
re-structure it?
	In The Los Angeles Times article of August 30, 1995, Eberts is quoted
as saying, "It was significantly enhanced and changed by Miramax after
Miramax stepped in and acquired the domestic [distribution] rights. They
made extremely good changes."  
	Eberts may have struck a brave pose for the press, but Miramax's
treatment of the film didn't translate into respectable receipts at the
box office. The film opened on only 510 screens, and grossed just over
$300,000. In most areas, the film was out of first-run within two weeks. 
	In an effort to make Williams' work more accessible for family
audiences, Miramax made a number of changes. Rather than try to sell the
film as a modern milestone in animation and emphasize the film's
strengths, the powers-to-be at the company tried to sell it as another
kiddie show.
	 The company changed the title to Arabian Knight  which smacks of the
worst of back-room brainstorming. It's not an accurate title (no one in
the film is referred to as an "Arabian knight") and it makes a
self-serving reference to Disney's Aladdin.
	The company re-dubbed the film using "name" actors as an effort to
build the box office appeal of the film. The completely acceptable
performances by Bobbi Page as Princess Yum Yum and Steve Lively as Tack
were replaced by performances by Jennifer Beals and Matthew Broderick.
Additional lines were given to Tack, and, in a move that was decidedly
bone-headed, the Thief was given a "voice."
	Actually the Thief's "voice" is his thoughts, ("The Thief was a man of
few words, but many thoughts," Broderick explained in the film), and
these thoughts are voiced by Jonathan Winters. Designed to sound like ad
libs, Winters' lines come across flat and very unfunny. They detract
from the visuals, instead of adding to them.
	Miramax also made the decision to cut the Mad Holy Witch sequence out
of an apparent commercial concern. The Mad Holy Witch is a wizened old
women with elongated and floppy breasts. One doesn't have to be Einstein
to see the concern of possible ratings problems here. To complicate
matters, at the end of the scene, she breathes in vapors, swoons a bit,
lights a match and explodes! A drug and self-immolation reference may
have also been responsible for killing the scene.

	Miramax eliminated any box office draw that Williams' name might have
by never mentioning in any ad that the film was from the "animation
director of Who Framed Roger Rabbit." 
	
	According to Williams' son, Alexander, who was working on the film,
there was only about four months work left when the Completion Bond Co.
took over the project. The legacy of finger-pointing and mystery
unfortunately overshadow the accomplishments of the film, but at the
heart of the controversy is a very thorny issue. 
	In these kinds of stories, the good guys are always the artists who are
victimized by the villainous money people, and the white and black hats
are easy to see. But what about an artist, working in a very competitive
commercial medium, who can't finish a project that has taken almost 30
years of his life? What responsibilities are assumed when an artist
accepts outside funding in order to complete his project? What Miramax
did to Richard Williams' work is inexcusable, but what about what
Williams did to himself?
	In a perfect world, an artist would be allowed to present his or her
work unedited and untouched. Commercial animation is not a perfect
world. Perhaps one day, someone will release The Princess and The
Cobbler to laser disc and include as much of Williams' out-take
animation as exists.
	After several years of low key activity, Richard Williams once again is
making himself known in animation circles. He is teaching animation in
seminars in Los Angeles and London, and there are reports of his
planning another feature. 
	Fred Calvert, who expressed nothing but admiration for Williams' skill
as an animator, hopes Williams will be very active again.
	"There is a quote from Chekhov, 'Talent forgives all.'," he said.


This article would not have been possible without the assistance of Luke
Menichelli, Fred Calvert, Jerry Beck, James Gilbey, and the publicity
office of Miramax Films. A special tip of the hat to Eric Lurio for
alerting me to this story.

(c) 1996 G. Michael Dobbs