The Hyperfixation Corner

I'm translating this really awesome Princess book (the original stories and art are gorgeous?!), and learning Danish from it!

I find it interesting, when I think of a love story, to determine when exactly did the characters fall in love with each other. When it comes to "Lady and the Tramp" (1955), easily one of the most famous love stories Disney have ever made (really only trumped in iconography by "Beauty and the Beast" (1991), I believe most people would just point at this image, the most famous the movie has created, one that has literally become a trope, invoked, parodied, echoed across time. One of the great cinematic kisses.

Except... I disagree.

Not on it being iconic: You'd be a fool to look at this moment and scoff at its importance. This is obviously a great moment, AND an important one in the story, as the attraction between the two dogs is made most apparent (and attraction is integral when one falls in love, after all).

But to me, this is not the same as falling in LOVE. Love is a word thrown around a lot, but it's not a small term or phase by any means. It's the difference between a crush and devotion. You might LIKE that one nice girl down the street, but would you die for her? Would you kill for her? Would you spend every moment thinking of her? Would you question your own soul if she questioned it?

To me, that's what love truly is, in that context: You don't just fancy someone, you feel almost... Broken. They're not just a pretty face, they're something you're missing, a second half. Someone who can finally mend your jagged self.

So, to me, that moment above? That is NOT when either of them (but specifically Tramp) fell in love.

Oh no... THIS is when Tramp fell in love, right here:

Now, I admit this moment may seem a tad surprising. Why THIS one? For those of you who don't recall the movie (or have just rewatched it like I have), let me set the scene: Lady has just returned from the pound, having learned that Tramp is not only a bit of a scoundrel (especially with the ladies), but also that he just might lose his focus if hitched to one girl, which would cost him his life. After a failed attempt by Jock and Trusty to cheer her up, Lady sees Tramp return with a pitiful apology in the shape of a bone. It feels rather pathetic, and for the first time in the entire movie, Tramp isn't presented as either a cool, debonaire vagabond NOR some great romantic NOR some worldly protector of the less fortunate. Up until this moment, the movie had been firmly on Tramp's side, at least, it seemed, and his words were starting to make sense, both to Lady and to us. Why IS Lady being so devoted to owners that clearly prefer the baby? Why should she care? She's not the baby's mother, nor does she truly have any responsibility for the child, and after what Aunt Sarah did, who could blame her for just abandoning her home to find out what the world could be like beyond the fence?

But see, that's the genius of a well-executed flat arc: The movie was never truly against Lady, it agrees with her. But her arc won't hit as well if it's made abundantly clear that she's right. What makes Lady a great character is that Tramp isn't totally wrong: Yeah, Jim Dear and Darling ARE less attentive. Yes, the Baby IS currently more important than her. Yes, there are humans who AREN'T kind to her, who will mistreat her. No longer is her life that one of comfort and perfection. There is now strife in her love, concern in her homestead. Tramp, for all his tough talk, is ironically presenting a life that he claims Lady has: One of no responsibility, cares, pain. An easy life, because when one doesn't love, one doesn't hurt.

It's why Tramp has a house for every day of the week; it's why he plays with the puppies for a moment but doesn't liberate them from the store; it's why he takes the time to mock those with leashes while sleeping alone in a junkyard; it's why he's had so many lovers, but not a single great love. Tramp chooses not to love. Is it because he once had an owner who mistreated him for a baby? Is it because he's never HAD an owner? Who's to say, the movie chooses to keep that a mystery. What matters is that Tramp has CHOSEN this life, whether he can admit that to himself or not, and so, he has chosen the easy path.

Lady COULD run away with him to the great horizon and live a life of chaos, with no real tether, no real aim. She could reject the love she had for it's prickles sting her paw.

But she instead chooses to remain, to take care of the baby, as she says herself earlier in the movie. That love was given to her through kindness, it was real... Should she not fight for that love, return it, despite it all? Real love isn't perfect, it's messy. There will be times it turns muted, dull, even displeasing.

But real love doesn't run away the moment it turns hard. Real love stays with you, till the bitter end.

When Lady rejects Tramp in that scene, the text indicates it's for his womanizing ways. You can also read it as her protecting him from taking the long walk, as she saw earlier in the pound.

But the truth lies in between the words, in every single moment of the movie: Lady chooses love, Tramp chooses the easy path. Who's to say he won't abandon her the next time he sees a cute looking dog? Who's to say he won't get them into the pound, never to walk the streets again? Who's to say they'll find any happiness out there? There is no love there, simply an empty adrenaline chase.

So when Lady rejects him in that scene, she's telling him in between the words "You don't need me, you don't burn for me, you don't care for me, you just want me.". This isn't love, it's just a hookup. Real love would make sacrifices, take risks, real risks, not the prank risks Tramp takes.

So doesn't it say everything that right after this moment, when the baby's in danger, Tramp returns? The baby's in danger, Lady needs him. The easy solution would be to keep walking away. She doesn't want him. She just told him that. Besides, what's he gonna lose? A baby that's not his? A woman that cares not for him anymore? Tramp can walk away with no consequence.

But if he chooses to go back there, there IS a consequence now. If he goes back there, that baby becomes someone he can never stop protecting. That woman becomes someone he has to change for, to commit to. There is no longer an easy road if he takes this path.

And lest we recall what he did?

He came back.

He fought that rat to the bitter end.

He saved the baby.

He risked his life.

And then he never left again.

So, yes, the spaghetti moment is iconic, cute, romantic, and an important step in the way.

But Lady and The Tramp, Disney's iconic couple, didn't fall in love at their closest...

They fell in love when they were furthest apart.

For at that moment, Tramp realized this lady was his total opposite, the counter to his entire being...

1. Was already into this idea, the Hades show only adds

2. Maleficent DESERVES it

I must emphasise that I don't recall EVERY one I had, but man, those were good times.

My grandma (who I always called Nana) would mail us packages from England full of VHS Tapes. I don't remember getting them, they'd just pop up. But boy, did I love them. There is something about a clamshell that is so appealing... It's a superior packaging device.

Now, anyone who has ever searched up an old VHS tape for some memories will know that UK versions were different to US versions, so some of these won't be remembered as well. I also don't have much to say about EVERY single one.

So instead, I'm picking 10 I particularly liked, in release order:

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (2001 release, part of the Platinum Editions)

One of my favorites, even as a princess hating kid (le sigh, the folly of youth). To this day, this movie just... Feels different, like watching the Mona Lisa be painted. This and Pinocchio always has me feeling chills, but my Pinocchio tape often failed to work (which always disappointed me), so this was the often played classic. I love the purple clamshell, it always made it standout among the others!

My favorite part, however, was the documentary that played after: "Still the Fairest of Them All", narrated by Angela Lansbury! A fascinating watch that I highly recommend, one of the reasons I dream of making Disney movies!

2. Peter Pan (2001 re-release in the UK):

This one is a UK exclusive, I believe, as it's a re-release of a 1993 edition, which isn't based on a US release, I think. This one was often played as Peter Pan was one of my favorites as a kid, especially the opening parts. I think that the instrumentals in the soundtrack are some of the more underrated in Disney history.

Now, of course, my opinion on the movie has soured over time, thanks to many problematic elements, but I still enjoy the good parts, and besides, this VHS had GREAT attachments: a 102 Dalmatians trailer that always stuck with me (Glenn Close truly killed it), a Recess: School's Out trailer that I liked before even seeing the show, and some nostalgic elements in general. I just think this one is neat, at least, I did!

3. Lady and the Tramp (1990 UK release)

This was the one that started with the Sorcerer Mickey logo! Notice how the colors are oddly brighter than the 1987 US release, which is odd. This one doesn't have many highlights (outside of teaching me Donald in Mathmagic Land exists), but as a kid I always liked this more tan most, and I still find it an extremely underappreciated classic. Slower movies, how I miss you.

4. 101 Dalmatians (1996 UK release, sort of based on the US 1992 release but with far more stuff attached):

I miss VHS tapes.

I miss the copyright commercial before one, dumb as it was.

The trailers for other videos and upcoming movies and even games, with that soothing announcer voice.

I miss the sound of a clamshell closing.

I miss the art designs, the unique renders, the descriptions.

I miss hearing the cassette rewind, even though it scared me.

I miss the few trailers after the movie.

I miss "And now, our feature presentation".

I miss ordering my collection alphabetically.

I miss owning a piece of media forever.

I miss physical media.

I miss Disney videos and DVD's.

So I've been thinking for ages on how to handle this blog, including the news idea, and I think that honestly this might be what I want. A post a day, which can be anything (analysis, meme, general thoughts, etc.) on whatever's on my mind. I've watched the Muppet Show special but I wanna give a deep dive of thoughts on that tomorrow, so let's start with something simple that's on my mind:

So, like, can we just acknowledge how OVERHATED and UNDERRATED both Cinderella and the Mice are? Like, seriously?

Look, I'm not gonna say it's the best movie of all time, okay? It's not in my top 10 Disney movies, not in my top 5 Disney princess movies, it's not even my favorite of the 50's Disney animated movies (That's between Alice and Lady and the Tramp, depending on the day).

But, like, seriously, I don't get it??

I'm sure a lot of you know that until the 2010's, the general public's opinion on Cinderella as a character was "Oh she's boring and she never fights back so she's weak" which is just... Victim blaming at the very least, disgusting at the most. I can't imagine being an abuse victim who saw this movie as a comfort and a hope, and then you hear this stuff. She's so strong?? She does all she can to remain hopeful and kind, she never lets her abusers see how they affect her, she has humor, sarcasm, belief, like... Dude I'd be DEAD after a month of that, at best.

And the mice hate, look, I can't pretend I didn't use to not be a big fan of them, okay? I wouldn't rank them TOO high in my sidekick list (at least, not top 10). But... I don't know, I find disney sidekick and animal friend hate SOOOOOOO overdone. It's gotta be a genuinely empty character for me to hate.

High pitched, slightly grating voices? At times, yes. Distracting filler? At times, yes.

But you have to remember how this movie is, for almost 2/3's of the runtime, genuinely depressing. It takes more than 40 minutes to get to the parts everyone knows, and yes, you can argue that it could have been filled up with more plot or character development, but I don't know, guys, I think that we look at this movie as adults and not as kids. Obviously Disney himself always claimed he was making family movies, and he was, but kids ARE part of the family. No kid needs to sit through 40 minutes of just depressing stuff. The mice antics CAN be a little too silly and filler-y, but it's needed reprieve from another sadly realistic act of abuse from Tremaine and the stepsisters.

Plus, all of those "filler antics" end up being important? We see that the mice can outsmart Lucifer, showing how resourceful they are, and we see Cinderella be kind to them. That's why they can and will go to such lengths to make her that dress. That false hope, that "bad" song that's so happy and silly? That's fucking brilliant subversion, that's totally not what the "Old Disney movies are just silly fluff" crowd argues these movies are. Then, later, we again see why the mice could possibly get the key up to Cinderella's room, coupled with the payoff for the "Bruno dreams of chasing Lucifer" setup.