![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
therealsnapeThis post contains my ideas on Maleficent. It has plenty of spoilers, so please skip this if you want to see the movie unspoilt. And it is a severely edited version from the first, accidental posting.
Disney announced that this would be the true story of The Sleeping Beauty, told from Maleficent's point of view. The pivotal scene from the 1959 version, therefore, is the cursing at the christening. Without that scene, there would be no Sleeping Beauty, and Maleficent focusses on why she does this and the consequences it has. The christening scene is therefore repeated nearly verbatim, but with some interesting varieties.
The 1959 christening scene does explicitly mention ‘true love’s kiss’. Since from a narrative point of view Maleficent must be canon-compliant with at least this pivotal scene, Disney is stuck with the kiss. They do put it to creative and subversive use, though.
Here’s my view on the subversive elements in this movie.
Maleficent
The 1959 Maleficent is evil personified. In this 2014 version, there is still great evil. But it is the evil of men. And I mean ‘men’ as opposed to ‘women’, not ‘humans’ versus ‘magical beings’.
Young Maleficent, a fairy with beautiful, powerful wings, meets a human boy, Stephan. The children become friends, and, as they grow older, this turns into something more. A refreshingly-unspecified something, but adolescent Stephan does give her what he calls ‘the kiss of true love’.
Then evil enters in the shape of a king, who wants to conquer Maleficent’s lands, The Moors. Because he can (or so he thinks), because he wants to enter, to possess.
A now young-adult Maleficent, the most powerful fairy of all, leads the inhabitants of the Moors in battle. She is shown as a young woman with strong agency, not unlike Winged Victory of Samothrace.
The king is defeated and wants revenge. He promises his crown and his daughter to the one who kills the 'winged creature'. Stephan sees the chance to realise his ambitions.
The audience is wrong-footed at first, and it makes the following scene all the more powerful. For we see Stephan go into the woods and call Maleficent - to warn her. All seems well now. Stephan isn’t lost to ambition – he is still a good friend, and they spend an evening happily talking together. Maleficent leans into his shoulder in complete confidence.
Then he gives her a drugged drink, and while she is asleep, he cuts off her wings. This scene has led to a great many internet-discussions on whether this is a metaphorical rape scene. In my opinion, it is, and it makes the issue of non-consent and violence against women a central one in this movie.
On the one hand, the metaphorical aspect does allow some viewers and commenters to deny it completely: "rape has a definition, and this is not rape", writes one.
On the other hand, I think Disney has shown great integrity and common sense. Common sense, because despite all warnings that this is not a children's movie, there will be parents who take their 7- and 8-year-olds 'because it's Disney'. Several commenters did this.
Those young children will now see something that can be explained as 'he was her best friend, and he betrayed her and took away her wings - that was very bad', while those old enough can see it for what it means: a date-rape with drugged drink.
Jolie's performance when she wakes up, realises what has happened, and staggers away, a mutilated woman whose bodily integrity is harmed beyond repair, is gut-wrenching.
We see the rising anger, the hatred of all men, the desire for revenge. And we see her re-inventing herself as an avenging fury. It is striking that up to this point, she wears her beautiful long hair loose. Now she hides it under a severe, close-fitting cap. She does not quite use Lady Macbeth's words, "unsex me", but in this respect, she does 'unsex' herself.
Even while she is broken and violated (it is at this time that she begins to walk with a stick, because she needs it for support), she still manages to make a meaningful connection with someone.
She saves a raven, who was nearly killed by men, and with her magic changes it into a young man, Diaval. Out of gratitude to the woman who saved his life, Diaval pledges to serve her. At first, she uses him merely as the wings she has lost. He can fly where she can not. But as the movie progresses, a friendship develops.
I do wish Disney had explored this theme fuller – both to show Maleficent’s healing and ability to move on, and to make the moment where Diaval choses to follow her into danger more meaningful.
Stephan, meanwhile, becomes king, marries the princess, and begets a daughter. Who must be christened.
The three good fairies bestow their wishes, and then Maleficent enters. In this version, she curses the child as before, but then Stephan begs her to undo this. "I love to see you beg," she says, and beg he does, down on his knees.
It is then that Maleficent herself changes the curse. In this, she has much more agency than in any other version - she herself decides to show some very small degree of mercy. And a high degree of sarcastic revenge - the child shall sleep forever, for she can only be woken by 'love's true kiss'. Said with a telling look at Stephan - he is the one who used those words first, and he should know they mean nothing.
Of course, while the plus side of agency is the freedom to make your decisions, the downside is that it also includes the freedom to make mistakes.
"It is true that this child will be beautiful and loved by all," says Maleficent, "but ..." Follows the curse.
BUT, indeed.
But you've just said this child will be loved by all.
And you're the most powerful fairy around, and you've confirmed that this curse cannot be broken and will last for all eternity.
What do you think will happen when you meet this child?
Ah. Quite.
We now see the child grow up, guarded by the good fairies, who aren't very good at all in this movie. Rightly so, for they know what Stephan has done to their former friend Maleficent, and that makes the way they suck up to him unforgivable. They don't have the agency to reverse part of the curse - that's Maleficent alone - and they are complete and utter idiots. They make Austen's Mrs Bennet look like a model of constraint and excellent parenthood.
My only regret is that they casted a brilliant actress like Imelda Staunton and then gave her nothing better to do than one of these three non-entities. She doesn't even get a fair chance at the creepy aspect of the fairies.
Maleficent observes the child from the background and on several occasions she rescues her. As with the rape scene, there are two sides to this.
On the one hand, one might argue that she gradually starts to love this child because 'good' women love children and she isn't all bad. Her motherly feelings redeem her. Which is a very traditional take on womanhood.
On the other hand, one could argue that she observes the child because she wants to see her curse fulfilled. For that, however, it is operative that the child survives to her 16th birthday, and the three fairies are such idiots that Maleficent must act, or the child would have died in infancy.
We then see a genuine affection grow between the now sixteen-year-old and Maleficent. And at one point Maleficent decides that enough is enough. That she does not wish to take her revenge on this child. She tries to revoke the curse - but even she can't. “For all times”, she has said herself. Agency - it can be a dreadful thing.
And then she is the one who sets out to save the girl - not Prince Charming. She is the one who gallops to the castle, who fights the king, who changes the course of events.
Maleficent is a woman who isn’t all villain, although she does a dreadful thing, and who isn’t all saint, either. She is a strong woman against whom a great crime was committed, but she manages to live on and to move on. She is the one who decides her curse was wrong, and she is the one who changes it. With the obvious exception of the rape scene, she has agency throughout.
Agency and Consent
In the 1959 version, poor Aurora gets neither. In this version, her appearance very much comes under the header of layers and layers of cupcake icing. But once one looks past the vacuous smile – which is rather difficult; did poor Elle Fanning get no direction other than ‘smile like a mad smiling thing’? – there’s an interesting girl.
Take plans for the future. She has them. And they do not involve any princes, charming or otherwise. She plans to go and live in The Moors with her beloved fairy godmother. (Jolie’s face when Aurora first calls her ‘fairy godmother’ is priceless.)
And then she practices the speech in which she will inform her three aunties. Inform – not ask permission. While she does so, a real prince shows up. Not devoid of charm, either.
He approaches her carefully, apologises handsomely for startling her, and asks the road to the castle. He also stares in admiration. A conversation ensues. One of those adolescent things where both know this is important, and neither is quite sure how to handle it.
And then it’s Aurora who takes the initative. “Will you return by this same road?” she asks.
Emboldened by her obvious encouragement, the boy says that he will. “And will you be here?”
“Perhaps,” she says, making it clear that the decision will still be hers. But also that she really wants to see him again.
And then the whole spindle thing happens, despite all of Maleficent’s efforts to prevent it.
The boy arrives at the castle and is spotted by the three fairies. They are overjoyed. Here is the solution to the problem. After all, those two have known each other for all of five minutes; it must be true love. And besides, he's a prince, don't you know. Perfection. Happily ever after.
They drag him to Aurora’s room and force him to kiss her in a scene that may well be meant as a comic interlude, but that I found rather creepy.
And nothing happens.
So in this version Prince Charming is thrown out as the useless article they so often are.
And then, in the end, it's Maleficent’s kiss that is the kiss of true love. She saves the girl.
King Stephan by now has descended into the realms of madness, mad ambition, and paranoia, in a manner not unlike Macbeth’s. Perhaps that’s why they gave him the god-awful phony Scottish accent. He has never managed to make a meaningful connection with anyone – the scene in which he refuses to go to his dying wife is telling.
When he realizes Maleficent is inside the castle, he goes and fights her. She wins – because of her strength, because of her magic, because of her friends (Diaval turns into a dragon) – because of Aurora.
Aurora has found Maleficent’s wings and gives them back to her, thus choosing sides against her father.
The Disney sugar coat, and especially the ‘true love’s kiss’ theme, may lead to the interpretation that this is just another story of a girl who gets dumped by a dude and throws a hysterical revenge, after which she is redeemed by proper, womanly, maternal feelings.
But the use of the words ‘true love’s kiss’ was decided in 1959, not by the writers of Maleficent. I think they have done everything in their power to subvert it in all sorts of ways, and to show two women who have agency and who make their own decisions. As for girls who must wait for Prince Charming …
Give me Angelina Jolie every time.
Or even just once.
Well, a girl does have the right to dream, doesn’t she?
Disney announced that this would be the true story of The Sleeping Beauty, told from Maleficent's point of view. The pivotal scene from the 1959 version, therefore, is the cursing at the christening. Without that scene, there would be no Sleeping Beauty, and Maleficent focusses on why she does this and the consequences it has. The christening scene is therefore repeated nearly verbatim, but with some interesting varieties.
The 1959 christening scene does explicitly mention ‘true love’s kiss’. Since from a narrative point of view Maleficent must be canon-compliant with at least this pivotal scene, Disney is stuck with the kiss. They do put it to creative and subversive use, though.
Here’s my view on the subversive elements in this movie.
Maleficent
The 1959 Maleficent is evil personified. In this 2014 version, there is still great evil. But it is the evil of men. And I mean ‘men’ as opposed to ‘women’, not ‘humans’ versus ‘magical beings’.
Young Maleficent, a fairy with beautiful, powerful wings, meets a human boy, Stephan. The children become friends, and, as they grow older, this turns into something more. A refreshingly-unspecified something, but adolescent Stephan does give her what he calls ‘the kiss of true love’.
Then evil enters in the shape of a king, who wants to conquer Maleficent’s lands, The Moors. Because he can (or so he thinks), because he wants to enter, to possess.
A now young-adult Maleficent, the most powerful fairy of all, leads the inhabitants of the Moors in battle. She is shown as a young woman with strong agency, not unlike Winged Victory of Samothrace.
The king is defeated and wants revenge. He promises his crown and his daughter to the one who kills the 'winged creature'. Stephan sees the chance to realise his ambitions.
The audience is wrong-footed at first, and it makes the following scene all the more powerful. For we see Stephan go into the woods and call Maleficent - to warn her. All seems well now. Stephan isn’t lost to ambition – he is still a good friend, and they spend an evening happily talking together. Maleficent leans into his shoulder in complete confidence.
Then he gives her a drugged drink, and while she is asleep, he cuts off her wings. This scene has led to a great many internet-discussions on whether this is a metaphorical rape scene. In my opinion, it is, and it makes the issue of non-consent and violence against women a central one in this movie.
On the one hand, the metaphorical aspect does allow some viewers and commenters to deny it completely: "rape has a definition, and this is not rape", writes one.
On the other hand, I think Disney has shown great integrity and common sense. Common sense, because despite all warnings that this is not a children's movie, there will be parents who take their 7- and 8-year-olds 'because it's Disney'. Several commenters did this.
Those young children will now see something that can be explained as 'he was her best friend, and he betrayed her and took away her wings - that was very bad', while those old enough can see it for what it means: a date-rape with drugged drink.
Jolie's performance when she wakes up, realises what has happened, and staggers away, a mutilated woman whose bodily integrity is harmed beyond repair, is gut-wrenching.
We see the rising anger, the hatred of all men, the desire for revenge. And we see her re-inventing herself as an avenging fury. It is striking that up to this point, she wears her beautiful long hair loose. Now she hides it under a severe, close-fitting cap. She does not quite use Lady Macbeth's words, "unsex me", but in this respect, she does 'unsex' herself.
Even while she is broken and violated (it is at this time that she begins to walk with a stick, because she needs it for support), she still manages to make a meaningful connection with someone.
She saves a raven, who was nearly killed by men, and with her magic changes it into a young man, Diaval. Out of gratitude to the woman who saved his life, Diaval pledges to serve her. At first, she uses him merely as the wings she has lost. He can fly where she can not. But as the movie progresses, a friendship develops.
I do wish Disney had explored this theme fuller – both to show Maleficent’s healing and ability to move on, and to make the moment where Diaval choses to follow her into danger more meaningful.
Stephan, meanwhile, becomes king, marries the princess, and begets a daughter. Who must be christened.
The three good fairies bestow their wishes, and then Maleficent enters. In this version, she curses the child as before, but then Stephan begs her to undo this. "I love to see you beg," she says, and beg he does, down on his knees.
It is then that Maleficent herself changes the curse. In this, she has much more agency than in any other version - she herself decides to show some very small degree of mercy. And a high degree of sarcastic revenge - the child shall sleep forever, for she can only be woken by 'love's true kiss'. Said with a telling look at Stephan - he is the one who used those words first, and he should know they mean nothing.
Of course, while the plus side of agency is the freedom to make your decisions, the downside is that it also includes the freedom to make mistakes.
"It is true that this child will be beautiful and loved by all," says Maleficent, "but ..." Follows the curse.
BUT, indeed.
But you've just said this child will be loved by all.
And you're the most powerful fairy around, and you've confirmed that this curse cannot be broken and will last for all eternity.
What do you think will happen when you meet this child?
Ah. Quite.
We now see the child grow up, guarded by the good fairies, who aren't very good at all in this movie. Rightly so, for they know what Stephan has done to their former friend Maleficent, and that makes the way they suck up to him unforgivable. They don't have the agency to reverse part of the curse - that's Maleficent alone - and they are complete and utter idiots. They make Austen's Mrs Bennet look like a model of constraint and excellent parenthood.
My only regret is that they casted a brilliant actress like Imelda Staunton and then gave her nothing better to do than one of these three non-entities. She doesn't even get a fair chance at the creepy aspect of the fairies.
Maleficent observes the child from the background and on several occasions she rescues her. As with the rape scene, there are two sides to this.
On the one hand, one might argue that she gradually starts to love this child because 'good' women love children and she isn't all bad. Her motherly feelings redeem her. Which is a very traditional take on womanhood.
On the other hand, one could argue that she observes the child because she wants to see her curse fulfilled. For that, however, it is operative that the child survives to her 16th birthday, and the three fairies are such idiots that Maleficent must act, or the child would have died in infancy.
We then see a genuine affection grow between the now sixteen-year-old and Maleficent. And at one point Maleficent decides that enough is enough. That she does not wish to take her revenge on this child. She tries to revoke the curse - but even she can't. “For all times”, she has said herself. Agency - it can be a dreadful thing.
And then she is the one who sets out to save the girl - not Prince Charming. She is the one who gallops to the castle, who fights the king, who changes the course of events.
Maleficent is a woman who isn’t all villain, although she does a dreadful thing, and who isn’t all saint, either. She is a strong woman against whom a great crime was committed, but she manages to live on and to move on. She is the one who decides her curse was wrong, and she is the one who changes it. With the obvious exception of the rape scene, she has agency throughout.
Agency and Consent
In the 1959 version, poor Aurora gets neither. In this version, her appearance very much comes under the header of layers and layers of cupcake icing. But once one looks past the vacuous smile – which is rather difficult; did poor Elle Fanning get no direction other than ‘smile like a mad smiling thing’? – there’s an interesting girl.
Take plans for the future. She has them. And they do not involve any princes, charming or otherwise. She plans to go and live in The Moors with her beloved fairy godmother. (Jolie’s face when Aurora first calls her ‘fairy godmother’ is priceless.)
And then she practices the speech in which she will inform her three aunties. Inform – not ask permission. While she does so, a real prince shows up. Not devoid of charm, either.
He approaches her carefully, apologises handsomely for startling her, and asks the road to the castle. He also stares in admiration. A conversation ensues. One of those adolescent things where both know this is important, and neither is quite sure how to handle it.
And then it’s Aurora who takes the initative. “Will you return by this same road?” she asks.
Emboldened by her obvious encouragement, the boy says that he will. “And will you be here?”
“Perhaps,” she says, making it clear that the decision will still be hers. But also that she really wants to see him again.
And then the whole spindle thing happens, despite all of Maleficent’s efforts to prevent it.
The boy arrives at the castle and is spotted by the three fairies. They are overjoyed. Here is the solution to the problem. After all, those two have known each other for all of five minutes; it must be true love. And besides, he's a prince, don't you know. Perfection. Happily ever after.
They drag him to Aurora’s room and force him to kiss her in a scene that may well be meant as a comic interlude, but that I found rather creepy.
And nothing happens.
So in this version Prince Charming is thrown out as the useless article they so often are.
And then, in the end, it's Maleficent’s kiss that is the kiss of true love. She saves the girl.
King Stephan by now has descended into the realms of madness, mad ambition, and paranoia, in a manner not unlike Macbeth’s. Perhaps that’s why they gave him the god-awful phony Scottish accent. He has never managed to make a meaningful connection with anyone – the scene in which he refuses to go to his dying wife is telling.
When he realizes Maleficent is inside the castle, he goes and fights her. She wins – because of her strength, because of her magic, because of her friends (Diaval turns into a dragon) – because of Aurora.
Aurora has found Maleficent’s wings and gives them back to her, thus choosing sides against her father.
The Disney sugar coat, and especially the ‘true love’s kiss’ theme, may lead to the interpretation that this is just another story of a girl who gets dumped by a dude and throws a hysterical revenge, after which she is redeemed by proper, womanly, maternal feelings.
But the use of the words ‘true love’s kiss’ was decided in 1959, not by the writers of Maleficent. I think they have done everything in their power to subvert it in all sorts of ways, and to show two women who have agency and who make their own decisions. As for girls who must wait for Prince Charming …
Give me Angelina Jolie every time.
Or even just once.
Well, a girl does have the right to dream, doesn’t she?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 07:14 pm (UTC)I'm so glad Disney makes the explicit statement that Maleficent is the true story, and I hope you'll enjoy it. Give yourself time to get the sugar-overload out of your system, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 07:52 pm (UTC)I've not been to see it.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:40 pm (UTC)I was just amazed they were that subversive. Someone on the script committee played a blinder there
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:15 pm (UTC)Maleficent observes the child from the background and on several occasions she rescues her. As with the rape scene, there are two sides to this.
On the one hand, one might argue that she gradually starts to love this child because 'good' women love children and she isn't all bad. Her motherly feelings redeem her. Which is a very traditional take on womanhood.
On the other hand, one could argue that she observes the child because she wants to see her curse fulfilled. For that, however, it is operative that the child survives to her 16th birthday, and the three fairies are such idiots that Maleficent must act, or the child would have died in infancy.
Or maybe there's an even simpler explanation: she can't not fall in love with the girl, BECAUSE, as you just said above: ...you've just said this child will be loved by all.
And you're the most powerful fairy around, and you've confirmed that this curse cannot be broken and will last for all eternity.
What do you think will happen when you meet this child?
So yeah, she's trapped by her own power. No need to find fancy theories here, IMHO. I like it, though, that Disney managed to avoid the one-sided true lovesick 'reformed' character trope and went instead with an opinionated teenager who loves her back despite gender and status circumstances. This makes it, indeed, a women-respecting piece of (popular) art. I must admit that this type of sugary happy ending does sound appealing to me. I think I can be persuaded to watch it now.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:33 pm (UTC)What I meant, but perhaps didn't express clearly, is that the representation chosen in the movie makes it possible for those who want to do that to ignore the subversive message completely. They will say that this is the story of a wicked woman who is redeemed because she does have 'proper, maternal feelings'.
Just as those who want to ignore the rape theme can do it by saying that 'cutting off wings' is not a definition of rape. I think it's because they refuse to see things.
But Disney does make it very easy for them to refuse to see. They do offer a very clear option to see this as a reinforcement of the traditional role of women.
On the other hand, in many Disney and mainstream movies, the traditional role is the only message there is. This movie does have, imho, a strong subversive message, too. For those who want to see it.
And they especially offer a strong subversive message in the way Aurora sees her future, and in the agency they give her. That is a truly laudable thing.
And thank you so much for commenting again, and for sharing your view! I love that; I do hope others will join this exchange of ideas. Kelly has already said she'll try to go and see it this weekend, and then she will join in, too.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-03 08:49 pm (UTC)And wouldn't it be great if this became a full discussion? I'll keep tabs on this tab... I expect great things. Also, I'm honoured to participate in high-brow discussions; it is not my usual play-field, so thanks for having me.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-08 07:33 pm (UTC)I think they missed the boat there. They had a chance for a truly beautiful and epic ending, and they threw it away on a trope.
Maleficent should have given Aurora wings of her own. Exact copies of her own wings, but white. If she can turn a raven into a dragon, surely she can stick wings on a teenaged girl.
That would have said something indeed, but instead of empowering her and setting her free, the writers gave her a crown and a boy-band reject and stuffed her back in the box.
Right up until then I loved it, and it is still worth seeing. I may go back and see it again in 3d. But I will leave before the very end.
L
(no subject)
Date: 2014-06-09 07:34 am (UTC)They had done so well being truly subversive, and then in the end there's the boy, in a 'see, she's going to marry prince charming after all' sort of way.
The epic moment with Maleficent flying once again against the sunset - after the battle, I mean - would have been a great finish. Or your version would have been even better.
But I'm glad you enjoyed it!
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-15 03:57 am (UTC)Our quibbles --
--We agree with you and Lash about the ending; it erases so much of the interesting power dynamic that the rest of the film explores, not to mention that it returns us to the problematic love-at-first-sight Prince Charming thing. But at least this time, he's the consort, not the star.
--did poor Elle Fanning get no direction other than ‘smile like a mad smiling thing’? My feelings exactly. But you express them better.
--We wanted to see more explanation of why Stephan decided to betray M. We wanted some complexity in the depiction of males, rather than what seems to be a sort of stock "all men are base deceivers" cliche. But the film did at least suggest the moral problems of desires for power.
I think you're spot-on about how the rape issue is used. There's no real question that it's a symbolic rape, and the aftermath scene is horrific, as it should be. Yet the alternative explanation -- "she just lost her wings" -- is there for the children and the willfully-deceived.
She does not quite use Lady Macbeth's words, "unsex me", but in this respect, she does 'unsex' herself.
Yes! Excellent point. It's a well-done visual indication of the damage that sexual crimes inflict, how they end up warping an essential part of the victim's identity. And of course, rape completely ties in with the central theme of agency -- and what it means to be deprived of it, sexually or otherwise.
Like you, I would have liked to have send the moral problems of the fairies explored a bit further, but I love how the typical Disney saccharine-ness of the original Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather is upended here.
My favorite bit, though, has to be the total failure of Prince Charming's kiss and the way it forces us to re-define and reconsider our het-based, romantic-love-based notions of "true love." There can be "true love" that is neither solely sexual nor solely parental.
I also love the way that any "she has proper maternal feelings" interpretation is undermined by the (to me) fairly obvious same-sex subtext (I've already seen some fanfic featuring a Maleficent/Aurora pairing.) It's a rather disturbing subtext in a lot of ways, but it definitely complicates the mother-theory in interesting ways.
Agency - it can be a dreadful thing.
Yes, this! Another perceptive point and one that I was glad the movie did not shirk from showing. Yes, people can make terrible mistakes, but what matters is how they deal with them later. M. does try to make things right and to work within the confines of the problem she's created.
A fine and perceptive essay, TRS.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-15 04:13 pm (UTC)We wanted some complexity in the depiction of males, rather than what seems to be a sort of stock "all men are base deceivers" cliche. You're right here. There is a brief moment in which Stephan tells Maleficent that one day he'll live at the castle - and when she asks him whether he lives at the castle now, he says no, he lives on a small farm. I took that as a hint that the young adult Stephan who is ordered by the old king is basically a self-made man who has worked very hard to get where he is, and sees this as the ultimate chance to realise his burning ambition.
But you're absolutely right that we might have seen something more about Stephan - his struggle to get out of the small farm and up in the world, if that is his great motivation.
And I fully agree with the same-sex subtext - in which respect did you find it disturbing?
(no subject)
Date: 2014-11-06 09:26 am (UTC)It was a great experience to watch it after having read the discussion here!!! I loved it - talked so much about it with Wiebke, that she will surely watch it on her flight before Xmas.
Additional fun was had because I had read somewhere that AJ's real life young daughter playes the young princess because all the other aspiring young actresses started to cry during the test-casting when AJ appeared in costume.... and what they had to say, smiling, was:"I know who you are: my fairy godmother who has protected me all my life..." :-)
I was a bit disappointed about the end, as well. And I did not like that Stephan did go completely mad instead of understanding what he had done...
I loved the three fairies going so completely against their Disney characters :-)) - and it is always such fun to see Imelda S.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-11-07 12:06 pm (UTC)But this one was really fun, I think, even with the disappointing ending. Did I ever tell you that your card arrived while you were still in Japan? Around that time we had an exhibition on Geishas in a local museum, and I went to see it. Beautiful kimonos, all sorts of prints and informations, a little movie on how a geisha gets dressed, and images of the geisha districts of Kyoto. It was as if you were there with me.
Did you know that geisha dressers are often male, because getting the obi in place takes so much strength a woman can't do it? Yes, you probably did know, but I found the dressing movie fascinating.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-11-10 08:39 am (UTC)They really look like something fallen out of time....
A similar fascinating subject is the tea-ceremony: I have read the most wonderful book thanks to a rec on the lgbq-recs-community: "The Teahouse Fire" - I am sure you would love that one, too!
http://www.amazon.de/Teahouse-Fire-Ellis-Avery/dp/1594489300/ref=sr_1_1?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1415608684&sr=1-1&keywords=the+teahouse+fire