Cloaked Critic Reviews the Thief and the Cobbler

!!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!!

Richard William's "The Thief and the Cobbler" tells the tale of a shy cobbler and a mute kleptomaniac who unwittingly help to save the famed Golden City from absolute destruction at the hands of a vicious army of one-eyed invaders. Although the movie was first released in the year 1993 the history of this film is a long and tragic one, and as such the story behind its production is every bit as gripping as the movie itself.

The great irony is that out of the multitude of "Arabian Fantasy" stories there have been "The Thief and the Cobbler" is one of the most original despite being flamed as a Disney knockoff. Nearly every other story about an Arabian prince is an unfaithful reproduction of "Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp", but of course the Disney film is that and more; being pretty much (more or less) a direct rip-off "The Thief of Baghdad" in addition to omitting a lot of crucial details from the original folktale (like the fact that Aladdin was actually Chinese). While elements are still taken from "The Thief of Baghdad" at least Richard Williams' "The Thief and the Cobbler" attempts to tell its own story instead of being an overly derivative unfaithful adaptation of a pre-existing fable. The thing that a lot of the harsh critics of this movie often don't realize is that this movie had underwent a very long, very troubled production life spanning over 30 years. 30 FUCKIN' YEARS!!! That's over 30 years of hard work, toil, sweat, and labor only to eventually be pissed down the drain by corporate pencil-dicked idiots! Due to independent funding and complex animation, "The Thief and the Cobbler" was in and out of production for over two decades until it was eventually taken out of Williams' hands and tossed together by a team of hacks who wound up butchering the final product.

As a result of this and its subsequent failure at the box office events, were set in motion that would ultimately leave this the only animated film on record to ever have three distinctly different cuts. There is the original theatrical release by Allied Filmmakers which has come to be called "The Princess and the Cobbler", then there is the re-release of the film by Miramax which was later re-edited and re-released again under the title, "The Arabian Knight" featuring Matthew Broderick as the narrator and voice of Tack, and then finally come the year 2006 "The Thief and the Cobbler: Recobbled" was released which portrays the story closer to what Richard Williams always intended...but perhaps the varying cuts are better to be referred to as "The Bastardization", "The Rank Parody", and "The Genuine Article". I still hesitate to comment on whether the existence of multiple cuts is a plus or minus for this production, because since I tend to keep an open mind on things I have found elements in all three of the different variations to like however minute or great the changes.

First let's speak of "The Princess and the Cobbler", the first version released in theaters by Allied Filmmakers. One of the first things I can definitely say is that I don't much care for Princess Yum-Yum's voice actress in this one. It sounds like she's literally just reading from the script, and she doesn't emote well at all. Hell, Kristen Stewart could have done better! The Allied Filmmakers cut is considerably different from Williams's original workprint. Four songs were added to the movie where there were originally none...presumably because the new producer, Fred Calvert, was literally trying to copy the damn Disney movie! Several scenes from Williams's workprint were cut from this version including: multiple scenes where the thief attempts to steal various items along with him narrowly evading capital punishment, a minor subplot wherein Zigzag tries to feed Tack to his pet vulture, and any and all references to the maiden from Mombassa whom Zigzag gives to King Nod as a "plaything". Additionally, a couple subplots were added such as Yum-Yum growing tired of a life of "regal splendor" (wonder where they got that idea from) and another wherein Yum-Yum's nurse initially dislikes Tack and scolds Yum-Yum for harboring romantic feelings toward him, but perhaps the biggest disservice they did to Williams's original vision is giving Tack speaking lines where he was supposed to be mute! They also have Tack narrating in past tense throughout the film like he's telling us the story in retrospect. The original workprint had narration, but only at the beginning, and Tack does eventually speak, but it's only at the very end of the damn movie! He and the thief were supposed to be silent protagonists! That's the main thematic element that linked their characters. And on top of everything else several lines of dialogue were either changed or removed from the film entirely.

Once Miramax obtained the rights to this film they made even greater changes to the story, and thus bastardized it even further. In addition to keeping all the changes made by Allied Filmmakers, several mute characters were given voices including the thief who narrates over all his scenes by way of an inner monologue, the Golden City was changed to Baghdad, and the sequence featuring the witch at the Hands of Glory was almost entirely removed...I suspect because somebody at Miramax thought she wasn't PG enough. They also re-wrote the story by changing the dialogue such to explicitly state that the witch and General One-Eye were siblings...which really doesn't make any sense, but then neither do most of the changes. They also cut out nearly all the scenes that showed One-Eye's slave women in detail; which was rather dumb because in doing so they also omitted the villain's death scene where he's murdered by his own harem. The climactic battle scene, which had already been greatly shortened by Allied Filmmakers, was cut down even more destroying any and all sense of tension that had been building during the course of the film. The movie was then re-released in 1995 under the title, "The Arabian Knight".

Now I must confess to this one being a bit of a guilty pleasure for me as I kind of find the performance of Jonathan Winters voicing the thief to actually be fairly amusing...he says some pretty funny shit, but I also must admit that Tack, the thief, and especially Zig-Zag's vulture being able to talk when they clearly were not meant to does come across as extremely tacky and ultimately turns the movie into an absurd parody of itself. The choice to give the thief and the other mute characters of the film speaking lines feels like a pathetic attempt by Miramax to compete with the whimsical humor of Disney's "Aladdin"; a pitiful effort which was completely in vain, and to add insult to injury they got Matthew Broderick to provide the voice for Tack; a choice likely only made due to the success of "The Lion King" the previous year. I mean, I like Matthew Broderick in other films, but he makes for a shitty narrator. Morgan Freeman and James Earl Jones he certainly is not, and the extra useless lines and asides they give him to say just make me want to drive a nail through my forehead! They clearly were just trying to get their money's worth out of him, but in doing so they cheapened an otherwise great movie almost beyond redemption. So I'll watch this version for Johnathan Winters' performance, but that is honestly the only reason. Beyond that this is nothing but a sad satire of an otherwise superb film.

However, as Buddha once said, there are three things which cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth, and so finally after many years of shameful degradation "The Thief and the Cobbler" found some sense of salvation in the form of the Recobbled cut released in 2006. Right off the bat, I have to say the Recobbled cut knocks it out of the park with a kickass opening animation and music score that really just sets the tone for the rest of the story. Restoration of Richard Williams's tarnished masterpiece was made possible by Garrett Gilchrist who closely followed Williams's original workprint incorporating most of its original audio track and editing structure. To present a more complete film, Gilchrist added additional music and sound effects, and also included finished footage that was not completed in the workprint (some of these were either taken from the released versions or from other rare sources). Nearly all changes made by Calvert and Miramax are absent in this version: there are no songs, the cobbler and the thief are both mute, and the added subplots, dialogue, and narration are absent as well. A few minor Calvert-only scenes are included, but mostly just as a side effect of using Calvert's footage as a major video source...for this reason specifically, Gilchrist does not consider his edit to be a "Director's Cut".

Now before I said the only reason I liked the Miramax cut was because of Jonathan Winters vocals for the thief, and while I do find his lines to be thoroughly amusing I still must throw my praise behind Richard Williams's original intention that the thief be completely mute; which I feel gives him a sort of Wile E. Coyote/Pink Panther type of appeal. The thief is the Charlie Chaplin of this movie. His kelptic-driven actions are not only a continual source of visual humor, but they also help to progress the plot at various points making him every bit as essential to this story's final outcome as the cobbler. In a strange way, there's sort of a Yin-Yang relation between them both. On the outside they are vastly different, and yet at their core they are so strikingly similar, and both play equally significant roles in saving the Golden City. This is the thematic element I feel really makes this film the powerful story that it is; for it embodies the idea of destiny working its will through two complete strangers who are both dynamically and morally opposed to one another.

Hands down, without a doubt, I much prefer the old witch from the Recobbled cut over the other two adaptations. Where the other movies tried to make her appear more mysterious and enigmatic, Richard Williams's original take on her is far more cartoonish and definitely more entertaining. Of course what do you expect from the same guy who gave us Roger Rabbit? Where the others spoke in riddles leaving Tack to eventually come to the conclusion that he was suppose to use a tack to defeat the One-Eyes, this version of the witch straight-up tells him that he's suppose to use a tack...she just doesn't explain how.

For all the comparisons people try and make between this film and Disney's "Aladdin" there really are little to no similarities between them; the characters of this movie are far stronger in my opinion, the thematic elements are far more intense, the artwork puts Disney to shame, and the story is just vastly more compelling.

Princess Yum-Yum's strong-willed character I think is largely the main reason why this movie is wrongfully criticized for copying Disney, and although Fred Calvert may have actively tried to superimpose Jasmine's character onto Princess Yum-Yum, I do love how Disney would later rip-off her song, "She Is More" with the direct-to-video movie, "Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams" where Jasmine and Iago sing a song called "More Than A Peacock Princess"; which tells the exact same story of a princess who longs to have more responsibility so she can show she's more than just a royal wallflower. Who's ripping off who now?!

Also, eat your heart out, Aladdin! Tack didn't even need a magic lamp! He took out an entire army and their unstoppable war machine using a freakin' TACK! I truly do love the ironic humor behind that. A massive unstoppable army with a super-advanced complex war machine are all completely destroyed in a series of unfortunate mishaps caused by one stray tack! It's like a massive Rube Goldberg device of convenient ex machina. While at first it may seem overly childish and cliche, the simplicity of which it is presented is such that it just comes across as brilliantly poetic.

Only recently after all these years, have I finally come to understand why the main villain of this story is called Zigzag. I remember I originally used to think that was an odd name for a character in an Arabian Fantasy, but it makes sense when you come to realize that his name is meant to be a play towards the word, "crooked". From his name we are meant to deduce that he is a dishonest, deceitful, and immoral person...but then he is a government official so him being crooked is virtually a requirement. At any rate, although Jafar undoubtedly had more charisma, Zigzag is definitely the better showman. What Jafar lacked in style, Zigzag has in spades...plus he's voiced by Vincent Price, so that's automatically a plus in his favor.

Some people might try to draw comparisons between the Sultan of Agrabah and King Nod, but here's the thing: the Sultan of Agrabah was a childlike naive pushover from start to finish in his movie. King Nod on the other hand might have started off easy-going and laid back, but once he realizes his city is in peril this narcoleptic ninny we see at the start turns into a raging ball of emotions. He's overwhelmed with fear and desperation, he's direly concerned for the welfare of his people, he's actively engaged in planning the city's defenses in preparation for the One-Eyes' attack...this guy goes from barely moving to hardly stopping in the blink of an eye! The Sultan of Agrabah was just an old guy with a weird toy fetish.

Now speaking from a personal perspective, while I do consider Disney's "Aladdin" to be more fun, "The Thief and the Cobbler" is certainly more artistic and sports a vastly more captivating plot. I love both movies, as they appeal to two very different aesthetic palettes. One makes me laugh, the other makes me laugh while simultaneously appealing to my wide-eyed sense of wonder. Sorry Disney, but Richard Williams definitely created the superior story. In fact, let's be really be honest here, the Disney movie wouldn't have been half as good as it was if it wasn't for Robin Williams, and so in the case of both films, a paramount mountain of praise is owed to a very talented Mr. Williams.

Out of all its many adaptations, the Recobbled cut, the true homage to Mr. Williams's original vision, stands alone as being the most artful, the most profound, and the most sincere. It's just a shame it took so long and so much bullshit for it to finally be portrayed the way Williams's rightly envisioned, but hey! I leave it up to you folks. Watch all three cuts and make up your own mind which one was better.