Maleficent, a Subversive Must-See - part 1
Jun. 3rd, 2014 08:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
therealsnapeMaleficent was brought to my attention by the local rag, who said in their review that it's a remake of the 1959 Disney classic The Sleeping Beauty. This remake, also by Disney, gives the story from Maleficent's point of view, explaining why she acts like she did.
The reviewer strongly recommended Angelina Jolie's magnificent performance as Maleficent, but thought it an otherwise boring, sugary Disney movie. But with great special effects.
The reviewer is more than right about the sugar. Disney has put such an overdose of the most appalingly-sweet cupcake icing on the movie that it took me the better part of an hour before I could appreciate anything other than Jolie's truly great performance, and I needed a good night's sleep to get the sugar sufficiently out of my system for a rational appreciation.
My view now is that this is an amazingly subversive movie. It has a strong feminist message, in which the elements agency and consent are very present.
It is all the more interesting because this version explicitly mentions that Maleficent is the true story. Thus Disney distances themselves from the 1959 representation of events.
In short, it's a fascinating must-see for anyone who is interested in ways in which stories can be subverted in re-telling, and for anyone who likes kick-ass older women. And I think it makes a fascinating discussion topic; a discussion I'd love to happen.
The long version will be put in two posts for the benefit of those who want to watch the movie unspoiled. In this post I'll give my analysis of Charles Perrault's original story and the 1959 Disney. You may find it interesting to see what is in these stories before you watch the subversion of Maleficent. There will be no spoilers but I will focus on the consent and agency topics.
In a separate post I'll give my ideas on Maleficent. And for some reason LJ puts everything under the cut in bold; I can't see the code responsible for it. Truly, LJ and I aren't friends, today.
The question of the 'true' story of The Sleeping Beauty is an interesting one, for Perrault has been retold and adapted endlessly for more than three centuries. Especially when it became a children's fairy tale, each generation put in their own message about men and women, about expected and desirable behavior.
The elements one commonly sees in most versions of the story are:
1- King and queen have baby girl and organize festive christening.
2- Fairies bestow gifts of 'beauty' and 'being loved by everyone'.
3- There's also a fairy who is insulted because she wasn't invited.
4- The angry fairy says the child will die at age 16 because of an injury from a spindle.
5- One of the good fairies modifies this into: shall fall asleep and sleep for 100 years when a prince will awake her
6- (optionally) with a kiss.
Everything then happens as outlined above; the castle is surrounded by thorny roses, the prince whacks his way through, kisses the princess and they live happily ever after.
I've mentioned the topic of 'consent'. As a result of this common interpretation of the story, many people on Maleficent discussion posts pointed out that Perrault's original story is one in which a young man who never met the girl just kisses her without consent; this lack of consent is never addressed. The idea is that the girl is overjoyed that a young man, any young man, kisses her / gives her a life by choosing her as his wife. And also that the girl remains asleep / pure, unspoilt until she marries, which is seen as a good thing.
There is the conundrum of how the prince is to ask this consent: he can only do that when the girl is awake, and she can only wake up if he kisses her first.
But the people who make this point have a valid one in underlining the messages that are sent in the 'wakes her with a kiss' version - except where they blame Perrault, for he never wrote this.
What, then, did Perrault write?
His good fairy says, "but instead of dying, she shall only fall into a profound sleep, which shall last a hundred years; at the expiration of which a king's son shall come and awake her."
Note that no mention is made of the means by which he wakes her.
The story then unfolds as we expect it, and the young man sees a Princess, who appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen years of age, and whose bright, and in a manner resplendent beauty, had somewhat in it divine. He approached with trembling and admiration, and fell down before her upon his knees.
And now, as the inchantment was at an end, the Princess awaked, and looking on him with eyes more tender than the first view might seem to admit of: "Is it you, my Prince," said she to him, "you have tarried long."
Then the prince expresses his love. Clumsily, but the princess is clever enough to value true love above smooth talk. They then join the court downstairs, also woken up from their slumber. The young man tells her how beautiful she looks, but, while he notices that she's also dressed like his grandmother would be, with a totally out-moded high collar, he is intelligent enough not to say that. Also, he thinks she looks beautiful regardless of her clothes. An excellent young man, in my opinion, and one who fully understands and respects the need for consent.
And then Perrault has a long post-marriage story, for they do not live happily ever after due to a dreadful mother-in-law (Perrault is very crone-unfriendly). But he is most modern (especially for a 17th century writer) in that the princess does not get kissed without consent, and that the prince pleads his cause with her; she has agency when she accepts his suit.
As you can see from the episode of the Princess's clothes, Perrault's tale is full of gentle wit, and an excellent read. You will find the original French version here and a translation here.
All quotes above are from this translation, which is a factually correct one and as close to the original as you can get. There are a great many versions which claim to render Perrault's words, but who do mention the kiss, which he didn't write at all.
Maleficent is meant as a retelling of this 1959 movie, which means there are elements of the story they cannot change, either because they are an integral part of the 1959 version or because they are essential to the universal Sleeping Beauty (meaning there must be fairies, and a spindle, and a curse, or it wouldn't be the Sleeping Beauty at all).
I'm not going to mention which elements change in Maleficent, but I will describe Maleficent's character and the elements of agency and consent.
Maleficent
1959 Maleficent is pure evil. Perrault gives some small reason for why she curses the baby - a perceived insult by the infants' parents - but 1959 Maleficent acts as she does for no other reason than that she enjoys inflicting pain.
Her curse is that the child will die. It takes one of the good fairies to modify this curse into "and from the slumber you shall wake when true love's kiss the spell shall break." So whatever mercy is offered, it does not come from Maleficent herself.
There is a second long Maleficent scene, the plot of which is entirely Disney's invention, and which shows her pure evil.
She has captured the young prince Philip and locked him in her dungeons. She then visits him, making it clear to the audience that she means to torture him. And she does this by showing him the Sleeping Princess, who is none other than the girl he loves. She then tells him that she'll hold him captive for 100 years before she will release him. And she shows him how he, an old, frail, grey-bearded man, will totter out - his life is over at the point where it should begin.
There is no indication whatsoever that Philip has ever slighted her in any way- she does this just because she can, because she loves inflicting pain.
In looks, she is a woman who is strongly sexual, as opposed to the 'good' women in the story, who are clear representations of virtue and motherhood. Maleficent wears visible eye-shadow, eye-liner, startling-red lipstick, and nail polish.
The Queen has no make-up (or what might be called a 'natural' one). She is beautiful, but in a madonna-like style. Also, throughout the movie the Queen only speaks twice, "No!" as reaction on the curse, and "you're not offended, I hope?" to the uninvited Maleficent. King Stephan has all the agency.
The three fairies are shown as non-sexual women in that they are past the age of child-bearing, and in their dress, which is modest and matronly. They are short, plump, and while they look friendly and motherly, they are not conventionally attractive in a sense of sexual attraction.
agency and consent
While Perrault's 17th century heroine does get to express consent and has some agency, Disney's 1959 version is, in my opinion, positively creepy in the message it sends to girls.
In this version, Aurora is betrothed to prince Philip from birth. (Six=year-old Philip's face when he is shown the baby is priceless.)
The story leaps from the christening to Aurora's 16th birthday. She is sent into the woods to pick berries (the fairies want her out of the house to prepare birthday surprises) and there she tells her little animal friends how she dreams of a young man with whom she'll find true love. Her only idea for her future is this: that she'll be allowed to meet a man and live happily ever after.
Meanwhile prince Philip has heard her sing, has fallen in love with her voice, and has fallen into a brook in his hurry to reach her. He takes off his hat, cape, and boots to dry, and the little woodland friends pick them up to please Aurora.
Aurora loves their surprise and dances with the 'Prince' (made of a squirrel with the hat, sitting on top of an owl in the cape, with two bunnies hopping in the boots. That's Disney for you).
Philip happens upon the scene, comes from behind the trees and takes the place of the animal-prince, and this scene is truly creepy. He doesn't ask consent, he just grabs the girl, holds her intimately, and starts to dance.
Aurora, shocked, removes herself from his grip, and then there is a long sequence in which she walks away from him several times and keeps removing herself from his grip, while he ignores this completely and keeps touching her. It's an incredibly outspoken version of "when a girl says 'no', she means 'yes'". Philip not only doesn't ask for consent - he actively disregards non-con on the girl's part.
But the story will have it that at the end of the scene they well and truly love each other. They have agreed to meet again that evening.
Now Prince Philip rides off to the castle, and informs his father that he has no intention of marrying a princess; he'll marry his woodland maiden. "For after all, Father, this is the 14th century."
This shows him as a prince who singularly lacks any Zeitgeisty feeling, for if there was one thing 14th century princes didn't have, it was the right to marry for love. But it also shows him as someone with strong agency. He decides about his life, and his father will have to give in.
Aurora, meanwhile, has learned that she's a princess, betrothed to Philip, and must marry him. While she does cry her heart out, she shows no agency whatsoever and does not protest even for a second against this fate. She is brought to the castle, walking with her head down, the very image of submission.
And then he rescues her, he gives her the 'true love's kiss' that brings her back to life, and all ends 'well'. It is interesting to note, however, that the good fairy's original words were 'true love's kiss, and towards the end of the movie this is changed in 'first love's kiss. But true love is what is said in the christening scene.
The reviewer strongly recommended Angelina Jolie's magnificent performance as Maleficent, but thought it an otherwise boring, sugary Disney movie. But with great special effects.
The reviewer is more than right about the sugar. Disney has put such an overdose of the most appalingly-sweet cupcake icing on the movie that it took me the better part of an hour before I could appreciate anything other than Jolie's truly great performance, and I needed a good night's sleep to get the sugar sufficiently out of my system for a rational appreciation.
My view now is that this is an amazingly subversive movie. It has a strong feminist message, in which the elements agency and consent are very present.
It is all the more interesting because this version explicitly mentions that Maleficent is the true story. Thus Disney distances themselves from the 1959 representation of events.
In short, it's a fascinating must-see for anyone who is interested in ways in which stories can be subverted in re-telling, and for anyone who likes kick-ass older women. And I think it makes a fascinating discussion topic; a discussion I'd love to happen.
The long version will be put in two posts for the benefit of those who want to watch the movie unspoiled. In this post I'll give my analysis of Charles Perrault's original story and the 1959 Disney. You may find it interesting to see what is in these stories before you watch the subversion of Maleficent. There will be no spoilers but I will focus on the consent and agency topics.
In a separate post I'll give my ideas on Maleficent. And for some reason LJ puts everything under the cut in bold; I can't see the code responsible for it. Truly, LJ and I aren't friends, today.
The question of the 'true' story of The Sleeping Beauty is an interesting one, for Perrault has been retold and adapted endlessly for more than three centuries. Especially when it became a children's fairy tale, each generation put in their own message about men and women, about expected and desirable behavior.
The elements one commonly sees in most versions of the story are:
1- King and queen have baby girl and organize festive christening.
2- Fairies bestow gifts of 'beauty' and 'being loved by everyone'.
3- There's also a fairy who is insulted because she wasn't invited.
4- The angry fairy says the child will die at age 16 because of an injury from a spindle.
5- One of the good fairies modifies this into: shall fall asleep and sleep for 100 years when a prince will awake her
6- (optionally) with a kiss.
Everything then happens as outlined above; the castle is surrounded by thorny roses, the prince whacks his way through, kisses the princess and they live happily ever after.
I've mentioned the topic of 'consent'. As a result of this common interpretation of the story, many people on Maleficent discussion posts pointed out that Perrault's original story is one in which a young man who never met the girl just kisses her without consent; this lack of consent is never addressed. The idea is that the girl is overjoyed that a young man, any young man, kisses her / gives her a life by choosing her as his wife. And also that the girl remains asleep / pure, unspoilt until she marries, which is seen as a good thing.
There is the conundrum of how the prince is to ask this consent: he can only do that when the girl is awake, and she can only wake up if he kisses her first.
But the people who make this point have a valid one in underlining the messages that are sent in the 'wakes her with a kiss' version - except where they blame Perrault, for he never wrote this.
What, then, did Perrault write?
His good fairy says, "but instead of dying, she shall only fall into a profound sleep, which shall last a hundred years; at the expiration of which a king's son shall come and awake her."
Note that no mention is made of the means by which he wakes her.
The story then unfolds as we expect it, and the young man sees a Princess, who appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen years of age, and whose bright, and in a manner resplendent beauty, had somewhat in it divine. He approached with trembling and admiration, and fell down before her upon his knees.
And now, as the inchantment was at an end, the Princess awaked, and looking on him with eyes more tender than the first view might seem to admit of: "Is it you, my Prince," said she to him, "you have tarried long."
Then the prince expresses his love. Clumsily, but the princess is clever enough to value true love above smooth talk. They then join the court downstairs, also woken up from their slumber. The young man tells her how beautiful she looks, but, while he notices that she's also dressed like his grandmother would be, with a totally out-moded high collar, he is intelligent enough not to say that. Also, he thinks she looks beautiful regardless of her clothes. An excellent young man, in my opinion, and one who fully understands and respects the need for consent.
And then Perrault has a long post-marriage story, for they do not live happily ever after due to a dreadful mother-in-law (Perrault is very crone-unfriendly). But he is most modern (especially for a 17th century writer) in that the princess does not get kissed without consent, and that the prince pleads his cause with her; she has agency when she accepts his suit.
As you can see from the episode of the Princess's clothes, Perrault's tale is full of gentle wit, and an excellent read. You will find the original French version here and a translation here.
All quotes above are from this translation, which is a factually correct one and as close to the original as you can get. There are a great many versions which claim to render Perrault's words, but who do mention the kiss, which he didn't write at all.
Maleficent is meant as a retelling of this 1959 movie, which means there are elements of the story they cannot change, either because they are an integral part of the 1959 version or because they are essential to the universal Sleeping Beauty (meaning there must be fairies, and a spindle, and a curse, or it wouldn't be the Sleeping Beauty at all).
I'm not going to mention which elements change in Maleficent, but I will describe Maleficent's character and the elements of agency and consent.
Maleficent
1959 Maleficent is pure evil. Perrault gives some small reason for why she curses the baby - a perceived insult by the infants' parents - but 1959 Maleficent acts as she does for no other reason than that she enjoys inflicting pain.
Her curse is that the child will die. It takes one of the good fairies to modify this curse into "and from the slumber you shall wake when true love's kiss the spell shall break." So whatever mercy is offered, it does not come from Maleficent herself.
There is a second long Maleficent scene, the plot of which is entirely Disney's invention, and which shows her pure evil.
She has captured the young prince Philip and locked him in her dungeons. She then visits him, making it clear to the audience that she means to torture him. And she does this by showing him the Sleeping Princess, who is none other than the girl he loves. She then tells him that she'll hold him captive for 100 years before she will release him. And she shows him how he, an old, frail, grey-bearded man, will totter out - his life is over at the point where it should begin.
There is no indication whatsoever that Philip has ever slighted her in any way- she does this just because she can, because she loves inflicting pain.
In looks, she is a woman who is strongly sexual, as opposed to the 'good' women in the story, who are clear representations of virtue and motherhood. Maleficent wears visible eye-shadow, eye-liner, startling-red lipstick, and nail polish.
The Queen has no make-up (or what might be called a 'natural' one). She is beautiful, but in a madonna-like style. Also, throughout the movie the Queen only speaks twice, "No!" as reaction on the curse, and "you're not offended, I hope?" to the uninvited Maleficent. King Stephan has all the agency.
The three fairies are shown as non-sexual women in that they are past the age of child-bearing, and in their dress, which is modest and matronly. They are short, plump, and while they look friendly and motherly, they are not conventionally attractive in a sense of sexual attraction.
agency and consent
While Perrault's 17th century heroine does get to express consent and has some agency, Disney's 1959 version is, in my opinion, positively creepy in the message it sends to girls.
In this version, Aurora is betrothed to prince Philip from birth. (Six=year-old Philip's face when he is shown the baby is priceless.)
The story leaps from the christening to Aurora's 16th birthday. She is sent into the woods to pick berries (the fairies want her out of the house to prepare birthday surprises) and there she tells her little animal friends how she dreams of a young man with whom she'll find true love. Her only idea for her future is this: that she'll be allowed to meet a man and live happily ever after.
Meanwhile prince Philip has heard her sing, has fallen in love with her voice, and has fallen into a brook in his hurry to reach her. He takes off his hat, cape, and boots to dry, and the little woodland friends pick them up to please Aurora.
Aurora loves their surprise and dances with the 'Prince' (made of a squirrel with the hat, sitting on top of an owl in the cape, with two bunnies hopping in the boots. That's Disney for you).
Philip happens upon the scene, comes from behind the trees and takes the place of the animal-prince, and this scene is truly creepy. He doesn't ask consent, he just grabs the girl, holds her intimately, and starts to dance.
Aurora, shocked, removes herself from his grip, and then there is a long sequence in which she walks away from him several times and keeps removing herself from his grip, while he ignores this completely and keeps touching her. It's an incredibly outspoken version of "when a girl says 'no', she means 'yes'". Philip not only doesn't ask for consent - he actively disregards non-con on the girl's part.
But the story will have it that at the end of the scene they well and truly love each other. They have agreed to meet again that evening.
Now Prince Philip rides off to the castle, and informs his father that he has no intention of marrying a princess; he'll marry his woodland maiden. "For after all, Father, this is the 14th century."
This shows him as a prince who singularly lacks any Zeitgeisty feeling, for if there was one thing 14th century princes didn't have, it was the right to marry for love. But it also shows him as someone with strong agency. He decides about his life, and his father will have to give in.
Aurora, meanwhile, has learned that she's a princess, betrothed to Philip, and must marry him. While she does cry her heart out, she shows no agency whatsoever and does not protest even for a second against this fate. She is brought to the castle, walking with her head down, the very image of submission.
And then he rescues her, he gives her the 'true love's kiss' that brings her back to life, and all ends 'well'. It is interesting to note, however, that the good fairy's original words were 'true love's kiss, and towards the end of the movie this is changed in 'first love's kiss. But true love is what is said in the christening scene.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 07:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:27 pm (UTC)The 1959 Disney-movie I know oh too well!!!.... I got such an overdose of Disney when rearing three small children in the US, that I have developed an allergy to Disneys (maybe it will pass) which A. laments: she still loves all the new Disney movies but now has to watch the DVDs with her father when at home :-)), he appreciates the jokes at least... ;-)
So I am positive I will not watch this one either; even Emma Thompson could not make me really like "Saving Mr. Banks", when A. brought the DVD to watch with me last week: and Emma had an impressive crying-scene... ;-) which made A. cry along and shake her head at my not being moved to tears.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:46 pm (UTC)But on this occasion, I truly do think they have managed a story that is, for them, ground-breaking in its subversiveness. And they made it their big summer box-office thing. There may be hope for Disney yet.
I'm glad you enjoyed the original Perrault!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-11 11:20 am (UTC)That prince is rather creepy. Interesting that no one ever picked that up, though of course, the whole idea of the princess only being awoken by a prince is, well, rather machist...
Anyway, it's always very enlightening to look up the original of anything. ( Talking about Perrault, have you noticed the mistake in translation that was at the origin of Cinderella's glass slippers: 'souliers de vair' (and not 'verre')?)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-12 07:28 pm (UTC)I hadn't seen the souliers de vair one yet, but it does make more sense for dancing shoes. Verre must have been horribly uncomfortable.