The 1977 film Wizards is a film of contrasts. The story is about twin brothers, the titular Wizards, one good and one evil. Armies of elves and fairies vs the armies of mutants and monsters. Nature vs Science and Technology.
But it's also a film of contrasts not just in it's story and themes, but in it's quality too.And yet for as great to view as the few minutes of film these shots come from are, that contrast is also extremely apparent. Necron 99, that red robot character above and sort of mascot for the film, clashes greatly with the otherwise mostly-realistically drawn background art of the land of Scortch, where the evil wizard Blackwolf reigns. It's dark, harsh, and twisted, but depicted as if trying for photo-realism, or at least pseudo-realism. As Necron 99 and the other assassins venture out of Scortch on their mission of death, the landscape becomes a bit more surreal, almost impressionistic at times.
Necron 99 and the other assassins, and indeed all the characters, look more like they fit in a Saturday morning cartoon. It's hard to portray in stills here, but they squish and stretch like you'd expect a cartoon to look. Yet the world they inhabit is dark, harsh, or sometimes impressionistic, soft, and barely there at all.
But look at this sequence. This is genuinely beautiful.
One will keep watching the film to get more glimpses of scenes like all those I've screenshoted and shown you above. And you will get them. There is beautiful art, but it's interspersed with those bits of still images, and worse, Bakshi's signature bad rotoscoping. More on that in a bit.
I have to mention some of the character art. Neron 99 above is a simple but compelling design, and it works because of the cartoony nature of the characters, his distinct silhouette, and most importantly the hidden face. We never see his face, if there is one deep into that shadow with a yellow glow for eyes.
But some of the character designs are, while maybe no less memorable, kind of off-putting to look at.
Weehawk, the elf, one of our main characters. And below him, the princess Elinore, wizard Avatar, and the President of the Elves.
Sure, you can say I cherry picked a particularly bad frame of Weehawk. Cut him some slack, he's in the middle of a chase sequence through a forest, robo-assassin with a gun at his back. He doesn't look quite so much like a horrible gremlin all the time, right?
Well, he kinda does. And Elinore there, well she doesn't seem to like clothes. Saturday morning cartoon designs, but in a fever dream. Quick note, that fairy in the foreground there was voiced by Mark Hamill, his film debut. He took a break from filming Star Wars to voice his approximately three lines of dialog in Wizards before the character is shot and killed.
I don't mean to say any of this was a shock, by the way. The violence, the skimpy outfit, the dark tone. I knew going into Wizards what it was, who made it. A character wearing mostly skimpy clothing is a step towards modesty compared to the last Bakshi film I watched, Fritz the Cat, the first X-Rated animated film. A film which features full frontal cartoon cat nudity, multiple sex scenes, heavy drug use, and brief but extreme cartoon violence. Fritz was rated X. Wizards was rated PG (in the pre-PG-13 days, of course, but still not even an R). I don't mean to imply that Wizards is or was an entirely shocking movie, nor is it necessarily especially inappropriate. I just want to highlight that contrast. Cute fairy Mark Hamil: He gets blown away almost immediately. Saturday morning cartoon character designs, except for the skimpy clothes.
Ralph Bakshi is an interesting guy. He set out specifically to make art, not products. To make animated films that were aimed at adults, not children. He grew up poor in Brooklyn in the 1940s and 50s. Bakshi had an edge to him. He wanted animation to portray the world he knew, the things he grew up with, the life he and people around him lived, and the things he grew up loving. A lot of that portrayal of the life of a poor Jewish kid came out in his earlier movies like Fritz and Heavy Traffic. Wizards took that independent edge, animation for adults, but turned it back to the fantasy stories that Bakshi grew up reading and watching.
Contrasts. A fairy tale about magic and wizards and the purity of nature. A war film with brutal (cartoon) violence.
A major plot point is that the armies of the evil wizard Blackwolf aren't motivated to do battle, in previous wars they got distracted or bored and give up easily. But Blackwolf found a secret weapon. Ancient film reels showing Nazi propaganda. Then the armies of evil are motivated to keep fighting, and they start to overcome the elves and fairies and other fair creatures.
And yes, the film does actually show clips of the Nazi propaganda. Bakshi doesn't shy away from, well, anything, but definitely not what appears to be one of the major themes he wanted to address. Indeed, the evil Blackwolf's throne is situated in the middle of a giant red swastika.
Yes, that is cartoon mutants and freaks watching footage of Adolf Hitler.
A film of contrasts. A weird film. Almost a trip, or a fever dream. And despite the late 70s weirdness, it's message is more than a bit on the nose. Bakshi was intentionally trying to make a Good vs Evil Saturday morning cartoon type of movie... just with typical Bakshi edge.
Who would I be to deny a Jewish boy a bit of on-the-nose commentary about Hitler and Nazis? But then again, historical context, creator intent, and a (supposed to be) good message don't make up for sub-par film making. Is Wizards sub par? Do the extended narration sequences, janky rotoscoping, weird designs, etc, take away from the good that is there in Wizards? Another pertinent question is what good is there, aside from the aforementioned occasionally very good art.
Is the writing excellent in Wizards? Maybe not. Maybe it lacks subtlety. It's serviceable enough. But it's at it's best when it isn't talking, I think. When it lets you soak in the atmosphere, like those screenshots above.
I gotta talk about the rotoscoping, though. Rotoscoping is when animators take footage that was previously shot, usually live-action footage, and draw or paint over the top of it, basically copying the movement but creating an animated image or video. The technique had been in use for decades by this point, but the way Bakshi does it is strange, though he had reasons for it.
Basically, Bakshi took live action footage from various war movies previous (I've seen Alexander Nevsky cited most, but also Zulu and El Cid, others) and in his rotoscoping seems to have just painted the vague shapes and outlines of characters and objects, as opposed to actually tracing details, as was the usual use.
You end up with stuff like this, where we have blobs moving around on the screen, but at times it's hard to even tell what you're supposed to be looking at.
Wizards now has at least four distinct art styles. The clash, the contrast. This time, not intentional.
Bakshi was deep into production on the film, but he was running out of money. He had a meeting with Fox executives. George Lucas was also in attendance, making Star Wars at the time as previously mentioned. Bakshi and Lucas both asked for fifty thousand dollars. Fox said no to both. Lucas still made Star Wars. Bakshi used a photocopier to copy film from old movies and then painted over it. A lot cheaper than hand animating the final battle.
Here's Bakshi from the audio commentary: "I thought that if we dropped all the detail, it would look very artistic, and very beautiful, and I felt, why bother animating all of this? I'm looking for a way to get realism into my film and get real emotion."
Did it work? Does it add realism? Does seeing blocks of color vaguely shaped like riders on horseback bring real emotion to the film? Of course it doesn't. It was a cheap way to finish the movie, like the still-frames with narration. I don't fault Bakshi for it, I applaud that he went out and found a way. Like Lucas, Bakshi still made his film. But it clashes. It kind of takes away from the charm of the cartoony bits.
The final battle, where the rotoscoping is most heavily featured, does luckily feature hand-drawn parts as well. And it's pretty brutal. It goes on for minutes, elves and mutants fighting, tearing each other apart.
I have to show you at least one sequence.
The elf then picks up the cyclops's gun and blows away another demon.
Both sides suffer heavy casualties, and we see it. Boy do we see it.
There are dozens of quick shots of action like this. Both sides brutally hacking or shooting away at each other. There are almost no backgrounds, it's character animation in front of rotoscoped blobs, or even raw footage of a storm, or pulsing lights.
Shortly after this brutal death of a character that looks like he belongs in a kid's show, the rotoscoping really takes off. Footage of tanks and airplanes come to dominate the battle, and wait. Is that a shot of elves getting blown away on top of real tank footage?
Ah, yes. Yes it is. I'm trying to give Bakshi and the film the benefit of the doubt here. I'm trying to get into the movie, to feel the I believe intended feelings. That is, sadness at the elves getting blown away, horror at the violence and war in general. A hope that the good guys can prevail and beat this sick twisted reincarnation of the Nazi regime. But I keep getting sucked out of it for a second by weird rotoscoping and now seeing live-action footage.
I've skipped so much of the exact whats and whys here, I'm not writing a summary after all, so I don't know if it's worth getting into detail about how the showdown between the two brother wizards goes. There is an element here that's worth preserving for anyone that wants to watch the film themselves, so I don't want to take that away from you. Leave a comment or otherwise message me if you wanna know specifically what I'm talking about, and will never watch the movie yourself.
But suffice it to say, good triumphs over evil. Blackwolf is killed, his projector of propaganda is destroyed. To quote the film "Hitler was dead again."
The forces of darkness fade away.
And then you're left pondering. Hoping that that's true. Wishing that it were as simple as a good Wizard defeating a bad Wizard.
As a film, Wizards is interesting. It's a curiosity. It's not amazing as a film. If you're a fan of animation history it is interesting enough to watch. It's better as a film than Fritz the Cat, IMO. But if you're just a casual movie-goer, should you see Wizards? You don't need to.
But I do keep thinking about it. No one was clamoring for my thoughts, no one is demanding I write this. Nothing compels me, except that I keep thinking about the movie. And so, despite just saying that the movie ultimately isn't that great and you probably don't need to see it... I can't help but think maybe it's better than I seem to want to give it credit for. It is flawed, it is janky, it is a fever dream but not in the best ways. Maybe it's more interesting because of all that.
Whatever the case, it is, occasionally, very nice to look at, and in a way you just don't see in feature films anymore, so that has to be worth something too.

































