.
Kid you not, within days of the debut of the New Constance (Jan 18, 2025), I began getting inquiries as to why I hadn't said anything yet. "Well? Where's the post??" *sigh* That's how things go these days. Everyone wants instant analysis. But I say it's better to let the first wave of excitement/outrage run its course before taking to the keyboard. Otherwise, you end up saying things that look embarrassingly knee-jerky and outdated within a very short time.
We'll deal with all the other new stuff—the stuff outside the attic—in the next post. That will include not only the new queue and the execrable Somewhere Beyond, but all the other items as well. There are quite a lot of them, actually. Some are good, some are bad. You'll see.
What's New?
We had better begin with what was actually done and who did it. According to my sources, the new attic and all the rest of the new changes to the Mansion were done locally, at Anaheim, rather than by Walt Disney Imagineering. So don't blame WDI (at least not directly) if there's anything there you don't like, or praise WDI if there are things you do. I'm told this was done by Disneyland, and for good or ill, responsibility for the whole thing goes ultimately to DL's art director, Kim Irvine.
The New Connie is an odd combination of Pepper's Ghost and mapped projection onto a blank white mannequin. If the latter sounds a lot like the old Connie, you hear correctly. They put in a huge piece of glass at a 45º angle, tilting toward you. The reflected image in it is projected from a very shallow hollow in the floor. They evidently wanted a blowing fabric effect for the dress, which wouldn't have been very easy to accomplish if the reflected image were laying horizontally, so we've got this mannequin along with Pepper, which is strange, because it seems to defeat the whole genius and raison d'être of Pepper's Ghost: its magical transparency. The face is totally Pepper's, so there's no real reason why it couldn't be animated to some degree, and perhaps it will be in future.
You can see the new diagonal beams on either side of her, put there to support and hide the edges of the sheet of glass, which is well-done, but in some videos, you can glimpse part of the figure in the floor.
One problem with Pepper's is that the large sheet of glass in use can inadvertently pick up reflections of irrelevant objects that happen to be in the wrong spot and are too brightly lit. Ever since Connie debuted in 2006, this has been an irritant, because the Ambrose portrait and other items in that attic tableau can be seen reflected in the ballroom glass as you scoot along. Alas, the same issue is found here, as a pile of brightly lit packages and dishware on the floor next to the Connie & George portrait can be seen floating upside down in the air near the attic ceiling while you're looking at the new bride.
Maybe they'll fix that. I'm told that they were still tweaking the thing until the last minute, and it shows. The bride's nose is all wonky in the early photography. (See the pic they released to the LA Times at the top.) Hopefully they will fix it. Of course, I kept saying that about the old Constance too. I'm also struck by the fact that the new figure is totally static. The older brides swayed back and forth and moved their candle arm. This one just stands there, stock-still.
They haven't changed the bride's name. "Constance" is still attested numerous places in the hubby-portrait tableaux, so we haven't got a new bride so much as a complete overhaul and reinvention of the old one. One has to wonder whether "Hatchaway" is still supposed to be her maiden name, since the pun is now inappropriate. It has been canonical these last 20 years, since it's on the marriage certificates that have been on public display in the attic (albeit a little irregularly), even though riders can't possibly read them.
But if those are gone now (yet to be confirmed as of this writing), "Hatchaway" may be considered gone as well.
So . . . why the change?
Technological Advances?
If you check out the Tom Martens article about the new bride in the LA Times, you will be told that it involved, among other things, an updating of the technology.
According to the Times, the new bride utilizes "the latest in projection technology," and you're looking at a technological "advance." He got this rubbish from Kim Irvine, who told him the "projection technology on the prior figure had become so outdated as to necessitate regular maintenance," which is an odd thing to say since everything needs "regular maintenance."
What I'm told is that the projector in the floor is exactly the same projector used for the old Constance. So much for technological advance. Someone might point out here the gee-whiz magical effects that come with the new bride, those ghostly little orbs floating around her in three-dimensional space. Whatever else you might say, no one can deny that the effect looks very cool . . .
. . . just like it did in 1957:
Matter of fact, if you check out the current incarnation of the Sleeping Beauty walk-thru, you'll see an array of impressive Pepper's effects beyond which the new Connie advances not a single millimeter.
Sensitivity Issues?
Kim sez: "The bride that used to be in there was an ax murderer, and in this day and age we have to be really careful about the sensitivities of people. We were celebrating someone chopping off her husband's heads, and it was a weird story." Not surprisingly, these kinds of comments have sparked a lot of mockery and indignation, but at the same time there's a kernel of truth in all that. As I argued years ago, the Connie story doesn't jibe well with the artistic statements of the HM, which are two: (1) the afterlife may be joyful rather than horrifying. However, (2) justice must be served. It was the attic's job to temper the Mansion's otherwise universal message by adding a detective story, brilliantly told in about one minute of actual time. The essence of all detective stories is that evil exists and the demands of justice must be met. That stern claim cannot simply be wished away. (It may be washed away by an act of atonement, but at that point we're talking about Christianity.) Anyway, as I pointed out, the Constance story does not fit either message: it was a story in which the devil wins, which is a common horror theme but foreign to the Mansion until 2006. So yes, however much wicked fun people got out of her, there was always something out of place with the Constance saga. Talking about "sensitivity" may not the best approach to the problem, but it does recognize that something smelt funny about her.
The Boring Truth?
It's possible I'm wrong about this, but if I am, there's an extraordinary coincidence that wants explaining. The original Constance character was brought to (after)life by two talented ladies, Kat Kressida and Julia Lee.
Kat provided the voice and Julia the look (although it's never been absolutely clear whether Kat as well as Julia contributed something to the heavily-doctored and digitized visual projection of Connie). Anyway, Connie debuted in May of 2006, so these gals most likely contracted with Disney in 2005.
That "next twenty years" business is VERY strange. Disney normally owns outright the performances for which they contract, and yet it's hard to account for these comments unless they represent something or other in the contract. Can you think of any other way to explain them? Okay, well, do the math, people. 2025 is 20 years after the original contract with Julia (and presumably Kat?). Of course, Julia's visage still appears in the hubby portraits, but perhaps this "twenty years" business pertains only to the video imagery. Whatever. Until I learn otherwise, this will be my answer to the "why" question: Expiration date reached.
These are from one of the Julia Lee photoshoots:
Why the Why? What About the What?
Yes, let's do the real Long-Forgotten stuff. What is supposed to be going on with the new bride? Irvine has given out some blather about bringing back the sorrowful figure that the original Imagineers imagined, a bewildered bride searching for her lost husbands. A story of lost love. So sad.
Ugh. You can read the whole "Here Comes the Bride" series here at LF if you want to know what the original Imagineers were up to. It's true that in many ways the new Connie is a throwback to the old Beating Heart bride, but the original figure was the Corpse Bride, and she was scary.
Not only that, but the Hatbox Ghost made it pretty clear that she was a murderer who beheaded her victim. It's true that after Hattie was gone and Beating Heart continued to evolve (the Black-Faced bride, the Blue-faced bride), she became more ambiguous. I myself used the word forlorn in those discussions, so if Kim wants to claim that bride was sad, I can't say she's crazy to think so. Once the Hatbox Ghost was gone, the murder mystery was destroyed anyway, and people were free to read the bride in multiple ways.
However, Connie 2.0 is not the only new character in the attic. There is also a black cat at her side.
But artistic intention only counts for so much if you're trafficking in cultural symbols and stereotypes. "Spooky woman with a black cat at her side" = she's a witch. I feel a little stupid defending that reading, because we are talking here about a pretty firmly embedded symbol in the collective (sub)consciousness of our culture, many centuries old. And besides, what was that One-Eyed Black Cat, anyway? The Atencio character was unambiguously a demonic figure who only appears as a cat. Look up "witch's familiar" if you really need help here.
Some have argued that since she doesn't LOOK like a witch (pointy hat, broom, etc), the assumption is shaky. A ghost with a black cat is not automatically witchy. Neither is a bride with a black cat. So I guess it's every interpreter to their keyboard, and we still have ourselves an open mystery. Fair enough. WITCHever you decide, one must allow that there is BROOM for more than one view. What the HEX, I don't need to SPELL it out any further.
By the witchy reading, though, the interpretation of the new attic is fairly straightforward. The successive husbands of this woman, all of whom mysteriously disappeared, did so because she was an evil witch who probably did them in. That also neatly explains why husbands two through five were increasingly imbecilic in that they did not suspect anything was wrong. It's simple: they were bewitched! Of course, if Connie 2.0 is still a baddie, it means that the attic still gives us an anomaly, a yet-unpunished and yet-unredeemed villain, that all they've done is replace an axe with a hex. (Hmm . . . no wonder they thought a tribute to X fit here.) Finally, I will point out that a sinister interpretation is encouraged by retaining the name "Constance" and her hubby portraits, in continuity with the previous 20 years of history, which unavoidably bring with them certain expectations about her that will continue to hang over the whole place. We have not been given a clean break. (This will be taken up further in the next post, so stay tuned.)
The Hatbox Ghost Disappears Again
The worst thing about this addition, in my admittedly subjective opinion? With the total expunging of the beheading theme, there is no longer any organic connection between the Hatbox Ghost and the attic. He's been standing outside the attic proper for ten years anyway, but now he really is outside; that is, he can no longer be considered an "attic character." I suppose he's become so famous that he's no longer seen as requiring some particular reason for fitting him into the Mansion, no more than, say, the Opera singers or the Royals. But the fact that henceforth he does not tie in with any known narrative with regard to the Mansion's imaginative history feels to me like the unkindest cut of all.
The Candelabra Floats
I don't mind in principle their attempt to expand the character's presence in the Mansion by matching her candelabra not only to the one in the Endless Hallway but also to a new candelabra in the graveyard, which replaces the purplish wraith in the crypt by the Opera Pair.
Like others, I think the ghost was much more interesting than the new candelabra, and I always hate it when a 1969 original effect is scrapped. But the idea itself is agreeable in that it deliberately raises questions which it doesn't answer, like any good haunted house should.
Influences
Since we're in the awkward position of denying what the Imagineering team claims they intended to do, there is no point in pulling up examples of stuff that may have influenced the new figure as a concept, but we can at least say a few things about visual influence. First of all, the new Connie looks a lot like some of the concept art for the old Connie:
The eerie flowing effect on her gown reminds me a little of the Falls of the Bride in Peru. It's possibly an influence, but I wouldn't press it. Otherwise, see the previous brides for visual influences.
One Last Mystery
I am reliably informed that there is a new coffin in the attic, across from the bride in the old, pre-Constance corner (also the original HBG spot). So far I've seen no photos of it or heard any comments on it. I'll hold a spot here for a future insertion.
Conclusions
The consensus to date is that the new Connie is visually an improvement over the old Connie, but that's a pretty low bar. The amount of money and effort that went into this new version hasn't produced anything like the hoped-for results. "Underwhelmed" is a word that keeps appearing, and I've encountered exactly that same reaction from die-hard Mansion freaks and casual park goers alike. Overall, an improvement, but it feels like a missed opportunity. Maybe more is coming?
**************
