This isn’t the first and it certainly ain’t the last time I’m gonna talk about The Thief and the Cobbler on this blog. I mean, my grad film (work in progress at this time of writing) is strongly influenced by TTatC’s aesthetics and themes, if that tells you anything.
Most films that feature autistic, or neurodiverse characters at all, are generally problematic or highly offensive. As I type these words the film Music has caused a Twitter shitstorm for it’s deeply troubling portrayal of autistic people. @autisticats made an entire thread about this, starting with this image, which is an actual screenshot from the movie:
If you couldn’t tell already I’m autistic as hell. Not always necessarily proud or happy with it, part of me longs to be ‘normal’ just so that I don’t have an anxiety attack every time I struggle to communicate with somebody or when somebody misunderstands me (happens a lot, go figure.) But I’m not here to talk about my own personal experiences, I’m gonna cut straight to the point.
The Thief and the Cobbler is about two autistic protagonists, and the film itself is an accidental celebration of neurodiversity and quite possibly a film made by NDs for NDs.
So here’s the cobbler (left) and the thief (right.) Neither character has any dialogue throughout the full 90 minutes of the film, except the cobbler technically says three words right at the film’s conclusion.
Nonverbal communication and mutism are not exclusively autistic traits, nor does every single autistic person experience them. But nonverbalism is an important part of the community and something that many of us are trying to normalise and educate people about.
While there’s been a lot of speculation and talk about the cobbler being autistic, there isn’t much talk about the thief being on the spectrum, though this could be because the cobbler is the spitting image of the ‘cute autistic boy’ stereotype – a naive, shy and child-like chap who communicate almost entirely through mime, prefers his own company, is socially awkward, carries himself with an odd posture and plays with string like a cat. The thief seems to share a lot of traits with the cobbler, though to a fairly lesser extent and also seems to exhibit very obsessive behaviour towards obtaining anything shiny and rounded, such as jewels etc.
What’s really important here is that throughout the whole film, there is no push for either character to change. Within their own world, they’re just accepted the way they are and their nonverbalism is never considered a flaw. The Princess still falls in love and protects the cobbler from hostile villains at the start. When the Princess asks the cobbler for his name, the latter simply hands her one of his tacks. There’s no disparaging remark about his silence (remarks that were shoehorned in in the Australian and US versions of the film), since the Princess understands the cobbler perfectly. Throughout the film when the two communicate, the cobbler usually does so through mime, the simple display of an important object, or the shrug of a shoulder. And there’s no real language barrier. The Princess is free to talk, the cobbler free to answer her with a nod, smile, or tear. While the cobbler does finally say ‘I love you’ right at the end to his new wife, the implication is more that he chooses to speak because he feels right for him to do so in this situation, and because he finally feels comfortable speaking to the Princess, not because he’s been magically ‘cured’, not because silence is inherently wrong.
While the thief doesn’t experience any romance, he remains entirely mute throughout the adventure, interacting with other characters (him usually coming off second best), never being pushed to say anything. His communication comes entirely through body language (even when he ‘screams’ he does so through mime, his only true vocalisations being the occassional wheeze or chuckle.) Like with the cobbler, his silence is accepted by other characters and presumably the audience as a valid form of communication.
The important message here is that these characters are never forced to speak like everybody else – they’re accepted for who they are from the start and their methods of nonverbal communication are perfectly normalised and validated. It feels as if characters within TTatC are far more accepting of nonverbal people than real people are. It’s the acceptance I wish was there when I was a kid, and the acceptance I still long for whenever I’m discouraged from typing my explanations and responses to uni sessions in the chat, being pushed and prodded to speak into the microphone and switch on my video when I don’t feel comfortable doing so, but since that’s the way everybody else communicates, the ‘acceptable’ way, fuck me, right?
So both protagonists are nonverbal, check. A point that financial backers as well as some audiences actually criticised back in the 1990s when animated musicals were loud, proud, and when characters could have lengthy two minute expositions about their emotions and motivations, make verbal wisecracks a la Rodney Dangerfield and when award bait singing was seen as a requirement. That some people still insist that TTatC is ’emotionally sterile’ or that the characters are supposedly hard to empathise with because of their lack of dialogue has a sting of ableism to it, as if what these people are trying to say is that nonverbal, non-speaking characters are less worthy of empathy and are less ‘humanised’ than those who can.
But aside from the non-speaking protagonists, as bold and progressive a decision it was then as it is today, if not moreso, there’s also the structure of the film itself – which is not a tightly-bound narrative where every scene serves the bigger story and where things flow quickly from A to B without interuptions, but a film where the narrative is a backdrop and the film functions more as a sensory experience.
The pacing and tone of the film is far slower than its some of its contemporaries, and far more than almost all animated films in this current century. Characters flow from one scene and one shot into the other with the speed of water flowing down a stream in the woods, or can linger in the same shot for more than ten seconds, allowing us to feel every nuance and subtlety in their movement. That there are certain things you only notice on the tenth viewing is what gives this film such rewatchability. Scenes are often completely visual, with a bare minimum of sound effects, without music. This can sometimes give the film an eerie, alien feeling, but I find that’s sometimes far from a bad thing, when the entire point of the movie is to be a visual experiment in how far animation can go.
As the main and simplistic narrative of the film unravels itself in the background, interludes and short ‘mood pieces’ are very common.
After the drama of the thief attempting and failing to snatch the three golden balls from their resting place and unwittingly causing all hell to break loose around him, there is a brief moment where he follows some characters into a chamber and sets his sights on an emerald in a vase. He is apprehended by guards, taken to the stocks and almost has both of his hands cut off for his crime (which he thankfully manages to evade, due to outwitting the guards with backstratchers he stole earlier.) During a sequence where the cobbler and princess consult a witch living in a mountain, the thief attempts to steal a guarded ruby from an idol. And a deleted pencil test reveals a short, almost Shakespearean soliloquy from a Brigand who dreamily talks to his pet snake about a Biblical temptress.
Obviously, these scenes don’t ‘progress’ the narrative, and within the context of the greater film can feel more like filler. But because the flow into and out of these brief moments is so natural it feels right, especially for a film so surreal and dreamlike, a film that was subtitled ‘A Moment in Time‘ by Richard Williams himself. Scenes like this are meditative and allow the audience purely to relax and take in things at their own pace, rather than be impatient for the film to hurry up and get to the next important moment. Scenes like these expand more on the idea of the film, using the animation to explore concepts and experiment with character in ways that seem natural for that character and situation. Given that almost all of these ‘interludes’ involve the thief’s antics trying to get out of sticky situations, perhaps it shows just how charming this little guy can be, even though what we actually love seeing is him not get what he wants, much like Wile E. Coyote (on which Ken Harris, his animator, partially based him on.)
Scenes like this invite us to relax. We don’t have to concentrate on dialogue or tap our feet in anticipation of some big fight scene. In many ways, films and scenes with this tone are helpful to NDs and provide pleasant sensory experiences that allow us to melt into the moment. In the same way that we sometimes watch ‘mindfulness’ videos of scenes from nature, where nothing ‘progresses’, but it enables us to just focus on the sights and sounds in a meditative way. For NDs, we often have an affinity for ‘relaxing’ films like these.
But again, this aspect of TTatC is more often than not, harshly criticised. There tends to be a consensus (probably because we’ve been conditioned by the Pixar method of filmmaking) that ‘story is king’, and that the animation should only ever serve the plot. Characters must be ‘developed’, so they must express themselves verbally, slow moments are discouraged, and storytelling must be a conventional three act structure that doesn’t deviate. It’s as if we’ve come to think of animation itself as so inherently inferior to every other art form that the very idea of the art form being explored and played with for its own intents and purposes is taboo; that the only purpose animation could ever serve is that to entertain audiences with a self-indulgent narrative or sell toys. That we’re never allowed to have animation that explores mood, or explores ideas, or build a world. The Thief and the Cobbler, as well as films like Bambi and The King and the Mockingbird, which are all extremely similar tonally and thematically, defy this dogma.
I don’t know if Richard Williams was ND, or autistic, or what have you. Given his mannerisms and some of the stories his colleagues tell about him, it seems likely, but he will never be able to tell us. People can be autistic without ever being diagnosed and without ever knowing, but it’s far more common than we’re all led to believe, so I’ll bet that a least some of the many hundreds of people who worked on this film were not neurotypical. It’s possible then, that TTatC is ‘accidentally autistic’, that is, Richard Williams and the animators who worked on it were subconsciously channeling that neurodiversity without even knowing.
I don’t always like to make assumptions about real people and project myself onto them, assuming that they were ND when they weren’t, especially when they aren’t here to confirm or deny it. But autism is underdiagnosed, erased and misunderstood. It’s not entirely out of the question that a man who was willing to spend thirty years of his life, often concentrating on minute details of a drawing that would only amount to a single frame on film for hours at a time, having what could be described as meltdowns when his concentration was broken, or when he was misunderstood, was not neurotypical as we might believe. But many people have been diagnosed posthumously, Stanley Kubrick being just one example.
It’s true on the other hand, that there are some things within TTaTC that might go against what I’ve said – the war machine climax and chase scene, with its strong colours and strobe effects, can be a sensory nightmare for some, though this may just be the case with certain prints and versions of the film that have had the colours jacked up. Though interestingly, this bothers neither myself or the many autistic people who also adore this film, of whom I’ve spoken with frequently and consider close friends. Kevin Schreck, a vocal fan of this film, close friend of mine and director of the definitive documentary on the making of TTatC, is open about his ADHD. And of course, TTatC isn’t the first, last or only film to feature silent protagonists who communicate nonverbally. But that being said, it was possibly one of the few animated films in the sound era that featured not one, but two main characters who were nonverbal, and have those characters’ silence be embraced as something positive, even in an age where the unwillingness or inability to ‘speak’ is still seen as something that dehumanises us. Nothing quite annoys me like having somebody say ‘cat got you tongue?’ to me when I’m quiet, or to somebody else when they’re doing something innocuous as watching TV, not joining in on the conversation. And this ‘chatty’ culture is what makes getting up on a Zoom call, or on stage in person, to put on a mask and talk about my work (when I would much prefer for my animation and art to speak for me or for itself, not the other way around) a living nightmare. It’s one of the many reason I dread having to be part of that machine, to try and be a salesman who is able to explain right away what my work is, what it means, speak the same language as everybody else without faltering.
There’s a lot in this movie to unpack, a lot to analyse, and truth be told, it’s probably far more progressive and complex than people give it credit for, but those essays are for another day. For now, perhaps the autistic community should be claiming Tack the cobbler as our icon and championing more nonverbal animated protagonists.