"A Mysterious Melody; or, How Mickey Met Minnie"

This one's long overdue, innit? This is the second in the Disney by Glenat series, where the French publisher got non-Disney artists and had them go nuts with the characters and the form, to absolutely enthralling effect (actually, I believe the first and second in the series were released on the same day; whatever). I absolutely fucking LOVE the ground-breaking innovation on display here, and the stories are none too shabby neither. Leastways, not the first two. We've looked at Mickey's Craziest Adventures, so now it's time for A Mysterious Melody. This is by Cosey, a prolific Swiss cartoonist who generally does much more serious work. According to that link, he had applied to work for Disney in 1978. It's interesting to imagine how his work there would have been. Presumably, we would've had to rein in his impulses to conform with the general house style (which he certainly doesn't here), but what would that have looked like? Would he have broken new ground? An intriguing counterfactual.

Anyway. There's a lot to say about this, starting (and, more than likely, continuing) with HOLY GOD IS IT EVER BEAUTIFUL. My GOODNESS. The style that Cosey brings to the project is just ever so warm and wonderful, evocative of early Gottfredson and vintage Disney cartoons in the best possible way, while also bringing his own sensibilities into the mix. Just great, truly.

Why "Rover?" Because that's what he's referred to as in this cartoon. As a sidenote, I really truly love how incredibly dopey these old MM cartoons are, but I absolutely understand why people who only know the respective characters from the cartoons would mostly prefer Warner Bros. Anyway.

Our hero is a screenwriter here, a role he plays well. Why 1927, before the character officially debuted? Well, because it's before he met Minnie, OBVIOUSLY. This whole thing is pitched very, very old-school, which I like a lot.

Ha! You may remember how excited Mickey was about cheese in "Death Valley" (though of course, in that story he also wished he had beer, so I dunno). I think it's funny. It's not really something you think much about, but the characters are so utterly dissociated from their animal roots that when they display traits that are supposed to be related to those roots, it's disorienting. But in a fun way!

This whole business about narratives strikes me as interesting and suggestive in a way I don't quite grasp. Obviously, Disney comics narratives are far from Shakespearean (or at least, far from Shakespearean tragedy--and to the extent that you can make a case for them, it would have to be more about Donald than Mickey, and in any case this is a rabbit hole I'm not going down at this time), but it seems like the story's kind of wondering what the limits are of this kind of thing. Mickey's confusion about what to do in this situation seems to reflect this.

I'm putting this here mainly because it's just so durned pretty, but you may also note another characteristic thing here: the inclusion of anthropomorphic and semi-anthropomorphic animals that don't follow the normal Disney-comic conventions that have come to predominate. Of course, these are all the heck over the place in old MM cartoons, as well as early Gottfredson strips.

Question that I truly cannot answer: was calling him Goofy instead of Dippy a conscious decision, or just something that happened by default, either on the part of the original or the localization? Seems like "Dippy" would be only natural, given the vintage the story is aiming at. Then again, it might also be seen as a bit confusing: we see why "Rover" changes his name, but to just give Goofy a different name that would be confusing to many people, with no punchline or anything? Maybe a bit doubtful. I can understand that. Still. Woulda been cool.

The way Minnie remains cloaked in shadow like this is very well-done. Or so I think. It is true: she doesn't feature as much as you might think she would in a story called "How Mickey Met Minnie," and this may be a disappointment to some. But the way she sort of floats around half in Mickey's consciousness really works.

Can't avoid noting our favorite duck's cameo. It kinda makes sense that we'd see him in this context, since at first he really was nothing more than a mass of enraged neuroses.

Not that I mind, but it IS notable that all these albums are Mickey-centric. Okay okay, "Mickey's Craziest Adventures" is more or less a co-starring situation, but it's still called what it's called. Let's have some Donald ones too, eh? The more the merrier.

Time out for dancing vegetation.

It's just! So! Pretty! There's also something contemplative about this story, as Mickey meanders about, which resontates very strongly with me.

Note that even though--spoilers!--the story Mickey writes isn't ultimately a tragedy, we get this concession that Shakespeare "had somethin.'" Even if it's not necessarily the somethin' you want in your Disney stories.

The way the tune filters through the story...great stuff. GREAT. STUFF.

So artful, the way it switches from the "real" world to the story world. La!

I could bask in this all day, and I JUST MIGHT. And yet...

OH MY GOD GET IT AWAY FROM ME HELP. Okay, granted, including Oswald here is highly appropriate under the circumstances, but he's still kind of terrifying-looking with his dead black eyes. Perhaps the one artistic thing here that fails to fill me with glee.

Oh boy, some Cold Equations stuff. Fun? Maybe. It must be noted, though, that that story can very easily be read as nothing more than an opportunity to get the audience to cheer for a dumb gurl getting killed. Which is kind of relevant for what's coming up...

It has been noted that cartoon characters often look disconcerting in front-views. Well...here's that. One thing that this story doesn't really acknowledge is that poor Fifi is owned by this...not very nice person, alas.

It's gotta be! It's just gotta! Great work, ladies and gents.

What to do what to do?

I like the feminist twist (which we wouldn't likely have seen in an actual story of the time), and I like the way it manages to make things work: no one has to die, but it also avoids being patriarchal. Great balance.

Oh GOD this reveal is so gorgeous. OH MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS SAKES ALIVE.

Still...I do have to concede that this is a little...well, the only reason she's allegedly so heart-breakingly shy is so her elusiveness would make sense. It doesn't really have much if any justification in other stories. I can forgive this, and it probably isn't even really a sin, but I definitely find it hard not to notice.

Even if it had spent fifty years in a basement, the manuscript wouldn't--SHUT UP THIS IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE STORY. Fair enough. Fair. Enough.

WHOA THERE. That ain't canon! Are we meant to assume that they're in a perpetual engagement in every other story? Or is it more like the Clarabelle/Horace marriage that Gottfredson teased and then let go? Well, that's okay. It still makes an appropriate ending to the story.

So I'm a big fan of "Mickey's Craziest Adventures;" I love the high concept, and it too looks great. But I'm forced to concede that this is substantially more satisfying. It's really one of my favorite things ever. Glenat really hit a home run with this concept, and I hope they keep it up.