Things You're Just Supposed to Know

Most of the time, Long-Forgotten assumes that readers are already familiar with basic facts
about the Haunted Mansion. If you wanna keep up with the big boys, I suggest you check out
first of all the website, Doombuggies.com. After that, the best place to go is Jason Surrell's book,
The Haunted Mansion: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies (NY: Disney Editions, 2003; 2nd ed. 2009)
and Jeff Baham's The Unauthorized Story of Walt Disney's Haunted Mansion (USA: Theme Park Press, 2014).

This site is not affiliated in any way with any Walt Disney company. It is an independent
fan site dedicated to critical examination and historical review of the Haunted Mansions.
All images that are © Disney are posted under commonly understood guidelines of Fair Use.

________
.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Father of the Haunted Mansion, Part Four

.
After the ponderous parade of parallels in the previous posts, possibly you're a little pooped.  I can imagine an objection right about now:

"Sure, there are gobs of individual inspirations and hold-overs from Ken Anderson's two years of labor on the Disneyland Ghost House, but when deciding who (if anyone) deserves the title, 'Father of the Haunted Mansion,' you need to go beyond details and think thematically as well.  Who is most responsible for the over-all personality of the attraction?  Who set its tone?  Surely Marc Davis has to be considered here, and possibly X. Atencio, who wrote the final show script."

Those guys are certainly worthy of consideration, and a case may be made for either of them, but even in this arena there are two BIG reasons to award the palm to Ken Anderson.

Nuptial Doom

First, it was Ken's idea to use a wedding or marriage gone south as the central motif of the Mansion's backstory.  It plays a role in all of his show scripts.  In the oldest, "The Legend of Captain Gore," innocent young Priscilla has recently married a mysterious Captain Gore, who turns out to be a bloodthirsty pirate, much to her horror.  He kills her.  She haunts him.  He kills himself.  Now they both haunt.  Talk about your bad karma; it's doubtful that even Dr. Phil could have salvaged that marriage.


In the second script, "Bloodmere Manor," we hear a lot about the ill-fated, accursed, Blood family.  Their "supreme tragedy" happened on the eve of their daughter's wedding, when an event, "too horrible to mention" prevented the marriage.  On every anniversary of the non-event the spirits attempt to complete the ceremony, trying to lift some curse.  The show climaxes at the Grand Hall, where many famous ghosts from history and literature are assembled for the wedding.  The groom lifts the bride's head off her shoulders and gives it a kiss.  She slaps him.  "All hell breaks loose."  Wedding = epic fail.  Try again next year, I guess.


The third script picks up on the famous ghosts and monsters idea and pushes it to the center, changing the
wedding into a match between Monsieur Bogeyman and Mlle. Vampire, but with no better results, apparently.


Let me be Frank.  Version #3 was a stinkeroo, even though the narration was to be done by Walt himself.

The fourth one centralizes the Headless Horseman character and apparently reintroduces the hapless
wedding ceremony in the form of version #2.  Lots of overlapping with these scripts, it seems.

So a doomed marriage or a wedding gone awry lies at the center of all of Anderson's Ghost House backstories.  Obviously, with the mysterious attic bride now emphasized and centralized more than ever in the Constance saga, we can point to Anderson as the fons et origo of this motif.

In 1992, Ken Anderson sketched his
lady ghost for "E"- Ticket magazine

Scary vs. Silly: So Silly it's Scary

The other reason for regarding Anderson as the Man is that he wrote the recipe for a haunted attraction combining horror and comedy, screams and laughs.  That claim requires some elaboration.  Fortunately (or unfortunately—take your pick), Long-Forgotten is all about elaboration.

In practically every account of the Haunted Mansion's history that you read, the "scary vs. silly" controversy is put forth as THE explanatory paradigm.  In the mighty struggle between kooky and spooky, so the story goes, you've got Marc Davis in this corner and Claude Coats and X. Atencio in that corner.  We're told that the warring parties eventually worked out a compromise, giving Claude the scary first half of the ride and Davis the funny second half.  That has essentially become the official Disney version, and some of the Imagineers (especially X. Atencio) have been happy to affirm it every time they're asked.

I find this explanation a little too pat, and it falls apart the minute you begin to analyze it.  While it is broadly true that the first half of the ride is spooky and the second half is given over to fun, note that you hit sublime silliness right away with Davis's stretchroom portraits, and later on, Davis's light-hearted second half is interrupted by the scary attic.  Davis is, in fact, the main problem for the prevailing theory.  Some people seem to think he always lobbied for the humorous approach, but that kind of pigeon-holing won't do.  Look at his changing portraits, both actual and proposed.  The majority of them are utterly creepy, with no humor to them at all.  Once, when he was asked about the funny/scary controversy, Davis referred immediately to Walt Disney's famous dictum that the outside of the HM should be kept up, but that inside they could do what they wanted.  "I took that to be a very definite instruction to me, and it meant we could be scary inside the ride if we wanted to.  And you know when you're in the ride that you're not in there for some 'sweetness and light' " (E-Ticket 16 [Summer 1993] 26).  That doesn't fit the sultan-of-silly stereotype, does it?  Davis wrote a show script in 1964 that certainly contained its share of whimsical elements, but at its core it featured a character known as "the most dangerous ghost in the mansion," who makes a frightening personal appearance near the end of the attraction.  It turns out that he is both your Ghost Host and the murderer of a young bride and her fiancĂ©.  At that point, guests are expected to flee the scene.

The most dangerous ghost in the Mansion . . . is out to get you!

In the same way, if you peruse the artwork produced by X., who is commonly assigned to the scary camp, you find both humor and horror.


In short, to the degree that there was a tug-of-war, it should probably be regarded as a disagreement between Marc and Claude over the relative balance of fun and fear in the total mix, not some sort of life-and-death struggle for the soul of the Mansion.

Where does Ken Anderson stand with regard to all of this?  When you look through his scripts and artwork, you find generous helpings from both ends of the spectrum, with no sense of tension, no disharmony between the two.  It's perfectly true that he found delight in the gruesome and grim, 'cause he's the magnificent, marvelous Ken Andersim.



It's just as easy to round up goofball artwork, though.



This, from a set of quick sketches he made in '92 for "E"-Ticket, makes the point about as succinctly as it can be
made, I think: In Ken's mind, scary and silly get along just fine together, peacefully co-existing in the same house.


The tone, the blend, the recipe for the Haunted Mansion is essentially Ken Anderson's.

Tribute?

Quick answer:  No, as far as I can see there are no tributes of any kind to Ken Anderson in the Haunted Mansion.  [Edit: but see below for an update on this.]  Most of the main Imagineers (and some second and third tier talents, too) have tributes somewhere, either inside or outside.  In fact, as long as we're on the subject, some lucky guys actually have two tributes.

Robert Sewell:


Cliff Huet:


Fred Joerger:


Claude Coats:


...and X. Atencio:


But Ken Anderson has not been utterly, completely without any kind of tribute.  A panel of Imagineers was put together for the 30th Anniversary program in 1999, celebrating "the Art of the Haunted Mansion."  The flyer for the event was a "Death Certificate."  It may well be that one of our readers knows who designed it.  Whoever you are, I doff my hat to you.  That's an excellent caricature of Anderson at the top.  For the "Father of the Haunted Mansion," it's not much, but it's something. 


Update: Good news.  In April 2011, a tribute to Ken Anderson was added to the WDW queue, one of the only good things about that addition.


Our final segment in this series will be a Halloween present.  Fair warning:  It will be quite different and may be of limited interest to many of you Forgottenistas; but for Disney historians, Imagineers, and the truly hardcore, it may be of intense interest.  Unless I'm badly mistaken, I believe I've discovered a hitherto-unknown "commentary" on Anderson's Ghost House in Anderson's own hand.
.

8 comments:

  1. And now the question is what will we as Forgottenistas do to get Ken Anderson the recognition he so richly deserves at the Haunted Mansion?

    ReplyDelete
  2. A unique headstone added to the graveyard would be the most obvious way to do it, and it seems like the cost would be modest. That's how they've done it in the past. Maybe someone with access to Tony's ear should float the suggestion; I can't imagine he'd be completely disinterested.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow...Thanks Dan for this incredible series. I can't believe, after all these years, that there is still a literal plethora of artwork and information that we have never seen before.

    PS: Though they will attempt, words cannot describe how excited I was to hear you on the Moustalgia podcast. I understand that you're a very busy man and have "real world" pursuits that require your time and attention. But know that if you ever decided to do an audio podcast, I, like many of my Mansionista compatriots, would look forward to each issue. (Which is somewhat of an understatement. But you seem to shy away from excessive adulation.)

    So thanks again for your diligence and your scholarly-yet-humorous blogs. The Mansion community would be threadbare without you.

    -RW

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're welcome, and thank you for the compliments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The pix of "the most dangerous ghost in the mansion" is just a b/w sketch of what were 6 full color paintings by Mr. Davis of: a fat old Miser sitting with treasure, the Devil appearing behind his chair, the chair and Miser going up in flames, and finally, behind the charred chair, the Devil holding a paper that says "Paid In Full" or some such thing. It's yet another of the unused original changing portraits in the Gallery.

    It's unfortunate that Yale's sequenced projection machine didn't work reliably enough to be installed in the Mansion. I know they planned on it. I've seen the 3x5 glass transparencies of at least 8 portraits, each with 6 stages. Six. WED wouldn't have gone to the effort to having all the portraits painted, registered, photographed and made into full color glass plates if someone didn't plan on using them. The waltzing ghosts, the hatbox ghost and the semi-silvered mirror ghosts weren't the only illusions that had major last-minute problems.

    It must have been an exciting install.

    And what the hell is this about Marc HIMSELF paying for an ad in the L.A. times announcing that the Mansion was open. WTF? No wonder d'land hates and has always hated WED/WDI.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exciting indeed. All the evidence suggests a chaotic summer in '69, with many last minute changes and several problems only half-solved by opening day. I would not be surprised to learn that Marc's apparently unilateral decision to open the HM several days earlier than planned inspired some choice words in certain quarters!

    I'm not completely convinced that the "most dangerous ghost" sketch is part of the "Faust" changing portrait set. Readers can compare the six-panel Faust set with the MDG sketch side-by-side here:

    http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/danolson/Blog%20stuff/Lafitte%20Blacksmith%20Shop/?action=view&current=davis2.jpg

    Surrell identifies the sketch as the MDG (The Haunted Mansion, 2009 edition), and there are noticeable differences between it and the Faust set, such as the chair design and the scales on the table vs. a lamp. But the overall design is obviously similar. If I had to guess, I'd say that when the MDG idea was rejected, Davis salvaged the composition and re-used it in a new gag, the Faust changing portrait.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wonderful comparison for the MDG. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I remember reading somewhere (a description of the comic books I think) that Gracey was Gore, therefore bringing Anderson's ideas back again.

    -Mel

    ReplyDelete