HOME | DD

Description
!!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!!

"The Sword in the Stone" is the 18th film in the Disney animated classics collection. Released in 1963, this was the last animated film to be released before Disney's death three years later, and it is also one of the first memorable Disney films featuring songs written and composed by the Sherman Brothers who would later go on to write music for future Disney films like "Mary Poppins", "The Jungle Book", and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". The story of this movie is drawn from the 1938 original publication of T.H. White's novel of the same name, but of course like most Disney films, while it is based on the general plot from the original story much of the substance of the story has been considerably altered.

I can't help but feel like this movie may have set precedents for, or at least, influenced future Disney films; particularly the ones made during the Disney Renaissance. For example, Merlin's sentient furniture and books that appear to have the will to move and act on their own; I feel like this might have been possibly the inspiration for the animate household items in "Beauty and the Beast". I also believe this is perhaps the first major Arthurian legend film adaptation to popularize the fantasy trope that Merlin was an extremely powerful wizard with a vast array of powers ranging from teleportation and transformation to time travel and near-immortality; Because throughout the history of medieval fantasy films, you often see or hear some reference to him; be it that the story directly features or mentions him or features a character that was obviously inspired by the legendary wizard. Even Gandalf from "The Lord of the Rings" series appears to share numerous parallels with Merlin in terms of their respective depictions. Merlin is effectively the Jesus Christ of the "Sword and Sorcery" genre of fantasy, and while the character had already become quite legendary in the many decades preceding this film I can't help but feel like this movie might have sky-rocketed and solidified his popularity in modern pop culture; as Disney has long been a major part of every young child's life in the Western world for almost an entire century. However unlike many adaptations, and most unlike the original novel from which this movie is loosely based, this film dishes out a much more comical portrayal of Merlin by offsetting his great power and wisdom with clownish clumsiness and borderline senility. This movie's clumsy accident-prone omnipotent wizard is effectively Disney's early predecessor to the genie from "Aladdin", who also embodied the comedic irony of great power plagued by even greater ineptitude.

In another comparison to "Aladdin", this movie also features the funniest bird sidekick Disney ever had prior to Iago. The characters are practically mirror images of each other; as both birds are highly intelligent, sarcastic, witty avians with super bitchy personalities; the only real difference being that Iago is considerably more self-centered and generally immoral. Even the relationship between Merlin and Archimedes feels like a more light-hearted version of the one which exists between Jafar and Iago. I refer of course to the way they tend to argue and exchange verbal jabs at one another like an old married couple. In the movie, Archimedes is a highly educated owl who serves as Merlin's familiar. For those who are unfamiliar with that term, a familiar is the servant/companion of a witch or sorcerer. According to most Christian-based myths, familiars were demons who took the form of animals and acted as spies for witches, but in reality they were usually just ordinary animals that accused witches kept as pets. As would become Disney's staple of fantasy, nearly every wizardly character is granted such a familiar and nearly all of them are blessed with anthropomorphic characteristics such as humanlike personalities and the gift of speech. It is no accident that Merlin's owl happens to be named Archimedes, as that is a name shared by an ancient Greek mathematician and scientist considered one of the greatest of classical antiquity. This character or rather a similar such character was present in the original novel, as well as Arthurian legend, but I believe he was given a different name and the level of significance to the plot also varied. In this movie however, I find Archimedes' levelheadedness perfectly contrasts with Merlin's over-enthusiasm, and provides for a charming exchange between the two of them as they bicker over the best way to go about educating young Arthur. It's like listening to two super nerdy professors argue about who's teaching methods are more efficient.

This is also one of the few Disney movies not to have a primary evil antagonist. Yes, I know there's Mad Madam Mim, but she plays such a minor role in this film until she's really more of a temporary obstacle than a major antagonist. In truth, the real conflict present throughout the story is the conflict between enlightenment and ignorance in place of good versus evil. This is a story that emphasizes wisdom and reason over brute force and mindless aggression; as well it also embodies the symbolic theme of purity and generosity being the better way to selfish pettiness, for come the film's finale it was Arthur's pure heart and selflessness that made him worthy to pull the sword from the stone. Where all others sought only to pull the sword for themselves, Arthur did so because his stepbrother, Kay, needed a sword. He was thinking of someone other than himself, and thus his selflessness allowed him to pull Excalibur and become king of all England.

I will say though that despite her brief appearance in this story, within the short allotment of time dedicated to her, Madam Mim does present herself as a formidable foe as well as a memorably endearing character; making it rather sad that she's generally among the most underrated and overlooked of the Disney Rogue Gallery. Her power quite possibly rivals that of Maleficent and Ursula, while her overall personality is as quirky and comedic as Cruella DeVil and the Queen of Hearts. She's so cartoonishly evil though until I can't say how well she'd fair as the main antagonist in a full-length feature film, but it would be interesting to see something more done with this character; even if she just gets a cameo in another Kingdom Hearts-esque Disney crossover...as you can possibly imagine, the wizards' duel between Merlin and Mim is my favorite part of this movie.

It's interesting to think how much perspectives have changed over time. There was once a time where an eccentric old man character like Merlin speaking in riddles and referencing future events to come was considered a staple of wisdom and profound insight, but nowadays we would generally associate those characteristics to a senile old geezer who's gone off his medication. As it happens, this movie also takes the award for surprisingly awkward situations. I'll bet when most of you first watched this you never considered just how incredibly awkward it would be for a young man to meet a strange old man in the woods and then bring him home only for that man to effectively hire himself as the boy's teacher. I mean just think about that in real-world terms. How strange would it be if your son came home with some weird old man who claimed he was your son's new tutor? It speaks to the story's credit that we don't really think too much on this bizarre point, but still after you think about it you'll never be able to look at this movie the same way again. It really is odd to a point of near creepiness.

When it comes to education, Merlin seems to favor a similar approach to Miss Frizzle from "The Magic School Bus"; taking Wart out and allowing him to first-hand explore the world through different perspectives with the help of his magic; although one does have to question the risk factor present in most of these lessons; as nearly every one of these outings puts Wart in direct harm from some kind of unexpected danger, and upon this it seems duly worth noting that no matter how unorthodox a teaching technique may be it matters little if your prospective pupil winds up dead before he can learn whatever lesson you were trying to teach. So while I applaud Merlin for his creative educational strategy, I must also condemn his obvious disregard for the personal safety of his students. I can actually see Merlin being a teacher at Hogwarts, but eventually getting fired because one of his students got eaten by a cat after he turned them all into mice.

As a scholar and practitioner of the Occult Arts myself, I rather love the underlying theme that prevails throughout this movie that magic is not the answer to all life's problems, because as Merlin himself states, "Don't you get any foolish ideas that magic will solve all your problems, because it won't." This is a truth that vibrates on multiple levels; for whether we're talking about fantasy films or real-life religious faiths (Pagan, Christian, or otherwise) spells and prayers seldom make your problems disappear in a puff of colored smoke. In fact, after having studied the Occult and the paranormal for several years I can tell you from personal experience that the best way to use magic is not at all. The effort necessary to make a spell or a prayer come true is very often not worth the energy wasted. Often times in life you're better off taking the direct approach and using your common senses than sitting around waiting for divine intervention. Mind you I'm not saying there's no such thing as magic and miracles, it's just best not to rely on them.

While on the subject of magic and the Occult, You gotta love how Disney movies are never very accurate to the time periods they're set in, because with regards to Merlin in this story; if you were a wizard back in the Dark Ages the last thing you'd want to do is broadcast it. If this story was depicted with more historical accuracy Merlin and his talking owl would have been burned at the stake for consorting with the devil. Of course while the movie doesn't go to that extreme, it does touch upon the rampant superstition and ignorance of the times; such as when they scoff at the notion of Wart being educated or regard Merlin's dish-washing spell as "black magic".

Another rather clever little bit of the story is where they subtly equate love to gravity. The part of the story where Merlin turns himself and Wart into squirrels features a very insightful observation whimsically hidden amidst the dialogue and imagery which references love to being akin to the phenomenon that any two particular bodies, if free to move, will be accelerated toward one another (ie gravity), and I suppose if you think about love and gravity do appear to have that in common, for indeed if two people become strongly attracted to one another, by whatever means that such an attraction occurs, they will be irresistibly drawn to each other regardless of danger or opposition. And by the by, I'm just a little curious to know. I'm surely not the only one who felt a little sorry for the girl squirrel at the end of that scene when her heart gets broken after Wart turns back into a human; am I?

I swear, wolf in this movie must be related to Wile E. Coyote, as he seems to have the same streak of bad luck when it comes to hunting. The hungry wolf who is introduced at the beginning and reappears later during the squirrel outing is presented as a minor antagonist and a bit of comic relief. The wolf isn't really crucial to the progression of the plot at all, and seems to have been added in purely for lols, but his seemingly minor contribution to the story helps make it all the more fun and entertaining, and certainly he wins the movie pity points as it's pretty easy to feel sorry for the poor chump.

It is worth stating that even though the characters and events described in Arthurian legend are largely fiction they are nevertheless loosely based on real people who were supposed to have existed. I do recall reading in my research that King Arthur and Merlin were indeed based on people who did exist, but there are great differences between the real people and the fictional characters. King Arthur was actually supposed to have been a warlord or something of the like, while Merlin was not a wizard, but a druid. It's funny how historical events and people can become greatly fictionalized over the procession of history. Kind of reminds me of another controversial theological figure who's exploits were likely greatly exaggerated by myth and rumor.

Description
!!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!!

"The Sword in the Stone" is the 18th film in the Disney animated classics collection. Released in 1963, this was the last animated film to be released before Disney's death three years later, and it is also one of the first memorable Disney films featuring songs written and composed by the Sherman Brothers who would later go on to write music for future Disney films like "Mary Poppins", "The Jungle Book", and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". The story of this movie is drawn from the 1938 original publication of T.H. White's novel of the same name, but of course like most Disney films, while it is based on the general plot from the original story much of the substance of the story has been considerably altered.

I can't help but feel like this movie may have set precedents for, or at least, influenced future Disney films; particularly the ones made during the Disney Renaissance. For example, Merlin's sentient furniture and books that appear to have the will to move and act on their own; I feel like this might have been possibly the inspiration for the animate household items in "Beauty and the Beast". I also believe this is perhaps the first major Arthurian legend film adaptation to popularize the fantasy trope that Merlin was an extremely powerful wizard with a vast array of powers ranging from teleportation and transformation to time travel and near-immortality; Because throughout the history of medieval fantasy films, you often see or hear some reference to him; be it that the story directly features or mentions him or features a character that was obviously inspired by the legendary wizard. Even Gandalf from "The Lord of the Rings" series appears to share numerous parallels with Merlin in terms of their respective depictions. Merlin is effectively the Jesus Christ of the "Sword and Sorcery" genre of fantasy, and while the character had already become quite legendary in the many decades preceding this film I can't help but feel like this movie might have sky-rocketed and solidified his popularity in modern pop culture; as Disney has long been a major part of every young child's life in the Western world for almost an entire century. However unlike many adaptations, and most unlike the original novel from which this movie is loosely based, this film dishes out a much more comical portrayal of Merlin by offsetting his great power and wisdom with clownish clumsiness and borderline senility. This movie's clumsy accident-prone omnipotent wizard is effectively Disney's early predecessor to the genie from "Aladdin", who also embodied the comedic irony of great power plagued by even greater ineptitude.

In another comparison to "Aladdin", this movie also features the funniest bird sidekick Disney ever had prior to Iago. The characters are practically mirror images of each other; as both birds are highly intelligent, sarcastic, witty avians with super bitchy personalities; the only real difference being that Iago is considerably more self-centered and generally immoral. Even the relationship between Merlin and Archimedes feels like a more light-hearted version of the one which exists between Jafar and Iago. I refer of course to the way they tend to argue and exchange verbal jabs at one another like an old married couple. In the movie, Archimedes is a highly educated owl who serves as Merlin's familiar. For those who are unfamiliar with that term, a familiar is the servant/companion of a witch or sorcerer. According to most Christian-based myths, familiars were demons who took the form of animals and acted as spies for witches, but in reality they were usually just ordinary animals that accused witches kept as pets. As would become Disney's staple of fantasy, nearly every wizardly character is granted such a familiar and nearly all of them are blessed with anthropomorphic characteristics such as humanlike personalities and the gift of speech. It is no accident that Merlin's owl happens to be named Archimedes, as that is a name shared by an ancient Greek mathematician and scientist considered one of the greatest of classical antiquity. This character or rather a similar such character was present in the original novel, as well as Arthurian legend, but I believe he was given a different name and the level of significance to the plot also varied. In this movie however, I find Archimedes' levelheadedness perfectly contrasts with Merlin's over-enthusiasm, and provides for a charming exchange between the two of them as they bicker over the best way to go about educating young Arthur. It's like listening to two super nerdy professors argue about who's teaching methods are more efficient.

This is also one of the few Disney movies not to have a primary evil antagonist. Yes, I know there's Mad Madam Mim, but she plays such a minor role in this film until she's really more of a temporary obstacle than a major antagonist. In truth, the real conflict present throughout the story is the conflict between enlightenment and ignorance in place of good versus evil. This is a story that emphasizes wisdom and reason over brute force and mindless aggression; as well it also embodies the symbolic theme of purity and generosity being the better way to selfish pettiness, for come the film's finale it was Arthur's pure heart and selflessness that made him worthy to pull the sword from the stone. Where all others sought only to pull the sword for themselves, Arthur did so because his stepbrother, Kay, needed a sword. He was thinking of someone other than himself, and thus his selflessness allowed him to pull Excalibur and become king of all England.

I will say though that despite her brief appearance in this story, within the short allotment of time dedicated to her, Madam Mim does present herself as a formidable foe as well as a memorably endearing character; making it rather sad that she's generally among the most underrated and overlooked of the Disney Rogue Gallery. Her power quite possibly rivals that of Maleficent and Ursula, while her overall personality is as quirky and comedic as Cruella DeVil and the Queen of Hearts. She's so cartoonishly evil though until I can't say how well she'd fair as the main antagonist in a full-length feature film, but it would be interesting to see something more done with this character; even if she just gets a cameo in another Kingdom Hearts-esque Disney crossover...as you can possibly imagine, the wizards' duel between Merlin and Mim is my favorite part of this movie.

It's interesting to think how much perspectives have changed over time. There was once a time where an eccentric old man character like Merlin speaking in riddles and referencing future events to come was considered a staple of wisdom and profound insight, but nowadays we would generally associate those characteristics to a senile old geezer who's gone off his medication. As it happens, this movie also takes the award for surprisingly awkward situations. I'll bet when most of you first watched this you never considered just how incredibly awkward it would be for a young man to meet a strange old man in the woods and then bring him home only for that man to effectively hire himself as the boy's teacher. I mean just think about that in real-world terms. How strange would it be if your son came home with some weird old man who claimed he was your son's new tutor? It speaks to the story's credit that we don't really think too much on this bizarre point, but still after you think about it you'll never be able to look at this movie the same way again. It really is odd to a point of near creepiness.

When it comes to education, Merlin seems to favor a similar approach to Miss Frizzle from "The Magic School Bus"; taking Wart out and allowing him to first-hand explore the world through different perspectives with the help of his magic; although one does have to question the risk factor present in most of these lessons; as nearly every one of these outings puts Wart in direct harm from some kind of unexpected danger, and upon this it seems duly worth noting that no matter how unorthodox a teaching technique may be it matters little if your prospective pupil winds up dead before he can learn whatever lesson you were trying to teach. So while I applaud Merlin for his creative educational strategy, I must also condemn his obvious disregard for the personal safety of his students. I can actually see Merlin being a teacher at Hogwarts, but eventually getting fired because one of his students got eaten by a cat after he turned them all into mice.

As a scholar and practitioner of the Occult Arts myself, I rather love the underlying theme that prevails throughout this movie that magic is not the answer to all life's problems, because as Merlin himself states, "Don't you get any foolish ideas that magic will solve all your problems, because it won't." This is a truth that vibrates on multiple levels; for whether we're talking about fantasy films or real-life religious faiths (Pagan, Christian, or otherwise) spells and prayers seldom make your problems disappear in a puff of colored smoke. In fact, after having studied the Occult and the paranormal for several years I can tell you from personal experience that the best way to use magic is not at all. The effort necessary to make a spell or a prayer come true is very often not worth the energy wasted. Often times in life you're better off taking the direct approach and using your common senses than sitting around waiting for divine intervention. Mind you I'm not saying there's no such thing as magic and miracles, it's just best not to rely on them.

While on the subject of magic and the Occult, You gotta love how Disney movies are never very accurate to the time periods they're set in, because with regards to Merlin in this story; if you were a wizard back in the Dark Ages the last thing you'd want to do is broadcast it. If this story was depicted with more historical accuracy Merlin and his talking owl would have been burned at the stake for consorting with the devil. Of course while the movie doesn't go to that extreme, it does touch upon the rampant superstition and ignorance of the times; such as when they scoff at the notion of Wart being educated or regard Merlin's dish-washing spell as "black magic".

Another rather clever little bit of the story is where they subtly equate love to gravity. The part of the story where Merlin turns himself and Wart into squirrels features a very insightful observation whimsically hidden amidst the dialogue and imagery which references love to being akin to the phenomenon that any two particular bodies, if free to move, will be accelerated toward one another (ie gravity), and I suppose if you think about love and gravity do appear to have that in common, for indeed if two people become strongly attracted to one another, by whatever means that such an attraction occurs, they will be irresistibly drawn to each other regardless of danger or opposition. And by the by, I'm just a little curious to know. I'm surely not the only one who felt a little sorry for the girl squirrel at the end of that scene when her heart gets broken after Wart turns back into a human; am I?

I swear, wolf in this movie must be related to Wile E. Coyote, as he seems to have the same streak of bad luck when it comes to hunting. The hungry wolf who is introduced at the beginning and reappears later during the squirrel outing is presented as a minor antagonist and a bit of comic relief. The wolf isn't really crucial to the progression of the plot at all, and seems to have been added in purely for lols, but his seemingly minor contribution to the story helps make it all the more fun and entertaining, and certainly he wins the movie pity points as it's pretty easy to feel sorry for the poor chump.

It is worth stating that even though the characters and events described in Arthurian legend are largely fiction they are nevertheless loosely based on real people who were supposed to have existed. I do recall reading in my research that King Arthur and Merlin were indeed based on people who did exist, but there are great differences between the real people and the fictional characters. King Arthur was actually supposed to have been a warlord or something of the like, while Merlin was not a wizard, but a druid. It's funny how historical events and people can become greatly fictionalized over the procession of history. Kind of reminds me of another controversial theological figure who's exploits were likely greatly exaggerated by myth and rumor.