Escape to the Movies: Maleficent - An Unusual Fairy Tale of Revenge

[Keith Fraser]

Just got back from seeing this and boy, Bob wasn't wrong about the veiled rape imagery or about how the movie is a crazy but likeable mess. Overall I really enjoyed it - though thematically it treads similar ground to Frozen, it works well as more than just a deliberately iconoclastic deconstruction of fairy tales. (And it is quite breathtakingly iconoclastic in places.) Acting-wise, Angelina Jolie is quite maleficently magnificent, and Elle Fanning was obviously genetically engineered to be a live-action Disney princess. Sharlto Copley's dodgy Scottish accent unfortunately distracts from his performance, and the two child actors in the opening were...less than brilliant. The main thing I thought would have improved the movie is 30-50% less dialogue, especially the narration - it would pretty much work as a silent film. Visually it's wonderful and creates the right atmosphere - the rather idiot-proof narration and dialogue distract a bit from this.

Also, ironically, I thought that the film made the King into a rather similar figure to what Maleficent was in the original - an antagonist whose backstory and motivations aren't really shown (though they're at least hinted at). (Personally, given the choice between definitely shacking up with Fairy!Angelina Jolie and going back to Medievalland for a very long shot at maybe being king, I know which I'd pick, but maybe that's just me. )

Finally, I perceived some very strong parallels with not Kill Bill, but James Cameron's Avatar (with about 95% less Mighty Whitey). A bunch of harmonious-living nonhuman/magical beings in a pretty land of technicolour vegetation, flying creatures and vertiginous rocky spires get menaced by greedy humans and their metal weapons and machinery...a human with no knowledge of the nonhuman world comes to befriend them and learn about them...a female nonhuman comes to love the human...said female nonhuman saves the human while they're in an unconscious state and beats the shouty human villain in a final battle...?

 

[lukesparow]

Welp, makes you wonder why they didn't just opt to make a completely new film.
That way they could've told the very intriguing story they were obviously going for without, you know, butchering the original film.

 

[maninahat]

So it's like a live action Kirikou and the Sorceress? I could get behind that. But then again I could watch Kirikou and the Sorceress again, because that movie was the tits (quite literally).

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Bob's review convinced me to check it out just for the hell of it. This movie sounds like such a crazy idea that I can't help but want to see it with my own eyes.

Oh, and I don't think Jafar would be the ideal candidate for a revisionist retelling; I think it could work for Scar or the villain from Frozen, though. Maybe Gaston as well.

Neither of those really sound that appealing, though. It works with Maleficent because she is literally just the Evil Queen, and has no expressed motivation. To justify her megalomaniacal swath of destruction would take something pretty interesting, but the other villains already have really transparent motives. The Lion King is just your average, run of the mill power struggle wherein brother kills brother to acquire the throne. Hans outright states his reasons for it (he's too far down the line of succession and marrying into another throne is the fastest way to get what he wants without having to go in and axe all of those who would take the throne before him by law and tradition), and the Duke of Weselton is just looking to upend the trading balance on its end in his favor instead of Arrendale's. Neither of those make for a particularly telling revamp. Gaston is a flat, two-note moron, invested only in how much people love him and in maintaining his vision of the world. Belle didn't love him at first sight like every other man, woman, child, cat, dog, and singing bird, so his entire relationship with her is to break her into admitting she considers him the pinnacle of male fantasy as every one else does, and the Beast fits perfectly into the category of things he feels he needs to kill to show off how much of an incredibly powerful and skilled hunter he is. There's not a lot of depth here, so mining these for materials for a gritty reverse POV movie would be relatively pointless. There's nothing to gain by watching Gaston have a series of unfulfilling, presumably abusive romances with other women, be admired by men, and then say how his need to kill the Beast was to offer self-validation. It works (kinda) in this case because we get to see what it is that lead to the unflinching, unrelenting, unapologetic destruction that Maleficent wanted to inflict, and it offers and attempt of justifying irrational behavior.

 

[daxterx2005]

They should make a movie all about Sid from Toy Story.
You know you'd watch it.

 

[Endocrom]

Next Jafar? nah, gotta do these in order. I'm thinking "Mim" a gritty origin story of how a powerful sorceress became the bitter, sadistic old spinster playing solitaire in a shack in the woods from "The Sword In The Stone".

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I don't think Jafar would be the ideal candidate for a revisionist retelling; I think it could work for Scar or the villain from Frozen, though. Maybe Gaston as well.

[...] Gaston would be a little redundant as he's already a subversion of a heroic archetype to show the uncomfortably regressive and possessive machismo that can come with it

...

Likewise, Frozen was also a revisionist retelling[...]

...

That's the point of these revisionist reversals, to tell new stories because the old ones are getting rather worn out, and indeed, have some unfortunate or downright unpleasant undertones.

I don't see how you can't have subversions of subversions. In fact, I think a skilled enough writer can craft a story that hearkens back to "classics" while ironing out the unfortunate implications instead of going full-on "The nice guy is actually a douchebag"/"The love interest dies"/*insert "darker"/"more subversive" twist here*

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Wow I'm slowed. I didn't realise the wings cut off was a rape subtext which I guess reinforce that I did felt the reinterpret of Sleepy Beauty is kind of like political correction or rather updated with modern society over old fairy tale

Spoiler: The last part of the film

Ok so the Prince kiss did not wake her up thinking he is the "true love kiss". It make sense in today views since while he met and is attracted to her, he does not know her alot.

Spoiler: Also

I felt Melficent affection for Aurora was not genuine thanks to that fairy wish "she will be loved by all" which I guess include Maleficent herself.

Yeah the three faries annoyed me in the film since they were pretty much the three stooges and who ideas was it to let them raise the child thinking they are good carer material just cos they got magic?
Overall I did thought the film was alright and had no expectation (it was the only decent film after Godzilla and X-men and I'm not too keen on Edge of Tomorrow) to it as I had pretty much forgotten the actual story.

I was thinking the same thing with the wish of love by all. But with that ANYone could have woken her up honestly :/

 

[wizzy555]

I find the film makes more sense if you consider Aurora as metaphorically Maleficent's and Stefan's baby.

The story seems to be about coming to terms with an... err unwanted child.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As for Jafar, it's already halfway done. The Sultan is an incompetent buffoon without a clue how to run a kingdom who inherited it by birthright.

Not to mention, the film strongly hints that Jasmine herself can't actually inherit (It's never explicitly stated, but it provides the whole rationale for needing to have her married, and the pseudo-Arabian theme strongly supports it.) This means that when the Sultan dies, his kingdom either passes into the hands of a foreign power (whoever Jasmine marries) or even worse there's a devastating civil war.

Seriously, there are so many spins you could put on that story. I believe there are even some deleted scenes from the film which present Jafar as more of an actual counterpart to Aladdin himself (they both grew up in poverty and used magic to elevate themselves).

 

[Terminal Blue]

Exactly; how do you add depth to an entity whose sole function is as The Antagonist?

Have you heard of a literary tradition called "romantic satanism?"

I guess that's a rhetorical question, so I'll explain. In the medieval period, Satan was never really seen as a particularly interesting figure, which is why so much of the art and storytelling of the period focuses on demons. Heck, even in the Inferno satan is just a big dumb monster trapped in a lake of ice.

Then in the 17th century you start getting things like Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and Milton's Paradise Lost in which Satan is actually a character. He does and says things and has motives, and they're not very nice motives but they exist.

Then the late 18th and early 19th centuries saw enormous conflict as all these new ideas started to come into circulation about liberty and freedom and human dignity and the old regimes and monarchies of Europe fought back aggressively using authoritarian measures, and in this moment some romantic writers started to reappraise the character of Satan in Milton, and in particular the statement of defiance: "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."[footnote]Which I don't think Satan actually says, but never mind[/footnote] Because that kind of applied to where they were at the time, where the backlash against republicanism or popular government for example was being framed as literally a struggle against the forces of evil.

This is basically where the whole "revisionist" genre comes from. This whole thing was originally a way of talking about romantic ideas of liberty and universal humanity at the time when many powerful people were still propagating the notion that these ideas literally came from the devil, that it was literally black and white, good and evil, that opposing the authority of your betters was absolutely morally wrong.

And I think it's great that it's so difficult to think like that any more, I think it's great that our response to being told a character is evil is to ask why. I think that's why revisionist fiction still has power, it's precisely because we recognize (albeit implicitly) that this fairy tale world of good and evil can't be fully separated from politics.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Exactly; how do you add depth to an entity whose sole function is as The Antagonist?

Have you heard of a literary tradition called "romantic satanism?"

I guess that's a rhetorical question, so I'll explain. In the medieval period, Satan was never really seen as a particularly interesting figure, which is why so much of the art and storytelling of the period focuses on demons. Heck, even in the Inferno satan is just a big dumb monster trapped in a lake of ice.

Then in the 17th century you start getting things like Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and Milton's Paradise Lost in which Satan is actually a character. He does and says things and has motives, and they're not very nice motives but they exist.

Then the late 18th and early 19th centuries saw enormous conflict as all these new ideas started to come into circulation about liberty and freedom and human dignity and the old regimes and monarchies of Europe fought back aggressively using authoritarian measures, and in this moment some romantic writers started to reappraise the character of Satan in Milton, and in particular the statement of defiance: "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."[footnote]Which I don't think Satan actually says, but never mind[/footnote] Because that kind of applied to where they were at the time, where the backlash against republicanism or popular government for example was being framed as literally a struggle against the forces of evil.

This is basically where the whole "revisionist" genre comes from. This whole thing was originally a way of talking about romantic ideas of liberty and universal humanity at the time when many powerful people were still propagating the notion that these ideas literally came from the devil, that it was literally black and white, good and evil, that opposing the authority of your betters was absolutely morally wrong.

And I think it's great that it's so difficult to think like that any more, I think it's great that our response to being told a character is evil is to ask why. I think that's why revisionist fiction still has power, it's precisely because we recognize (albeit implicitly) that this fairy tale world of good and evil can't be fully separated from politics.

That's all well and good, but I think my... issue... with Maleficent (and this is just from the previews, trailers and what everyone said) is that they're inventing a backstory and motive whole cloth. There was nothing in the Sleeping Beauty that suggested Maleficent was anything other than a spiteful sorceress with a fixation on green fire. It struck me as trying too hard to make her sympathetic. If the movie was about expanding or spinning events, or god forbid, just telling the story from someone who's evil and knows it, that would be pretty interesting. But no, generic revenge tale/Freudian Excuse it is.

And to actually counter your example; Satan isn't like Maleficent. He has a backstory (resented God's favoritism of humanity, got expelled from Heaven fro rebelling) and has participated in in numerous events in Biblical history (Eve and the Snake, Book of Job, Temptation of Christ). There was stuff Milton and other could build on. Maleficent has jack shit. There's building a personality based on actions taken, and then there's inventing one because "Maleficent is the protagonist of the movie" was as far as you got.

 

[Keith Fraser]

Exactly; how do you add depth to an entity whose sole function is as The Antagonist?

Have you heard of a literary tradition called "romantic satanism?"
(snip)

Very interesting assessment. In modern times, this sometimes manifests as the Draco In Leather Pants trope (which is frequently applied to characters who really are demonstrably evil, as opposed to faceless antagonists we're just told are evil).

Incidentally, it is Satan who delivers that line in Paradise Lost; here's an extract from Book I:

" Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
Said then the lost Arch Angel, this the seat
That we must change for Heav'n, this mournful gloom
For that celestial light? Be it so, since hee
Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
What shall be right: fardest from him is best
Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then hee
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n. "
(Source: Project Gutenberg - http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20/pg20.html )

 

[DementedSheep]

They should make a movie all about Sid from Toy Story.
You know you'd watch it.

They wouldn't even need to change anything to make him sympathetic since as far as I can recall his only 'crimes' where being a bit of an ass to his sister and ripping apart and rebuilding toys which he had no idea where actually alive.

But he isn't and iconic villain, he's a minor character.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Interesting review. We named our daughter Aurora, after Sleeping Beauty, and she wants to see this movie but it may be a tad dark. She's nine years old and probably watched worse though.

 

[Keith Fraser]

Interesting review. We named our daughter Aurora, after Sleeping Beauty, and she wants to see this movie but it may be a tad dark. She's nine years old and probably watched worse though.

9 might be OK if she's watched other scary stuff, but it is pretty dark in places - actually pushing the PG rating in my opinion (probably getting away with it by shooting most of the violence in such a way as not to show much blood, broken bones etc.). Angelina Jolie in her Maleficent getup was apparently so scary in person that they couldn't find a child actress to play 4-5 year old Aurora that didn't run away, so they ended up using her actual daughter. (The scene between them is really cute and sweet, so it was a wise decision.)

Interestingly, I found out that the opening of the film had to be reshot with different actors. It was obviously a problematic bit to do, and as I noted in my review it was a bit weak - the child actors were a bit stilted.

This is definitely a bit of a schizophrenic movie, caught between being a quite dark and 'adult' fairy tale adaptation (like Snow White and the Huntsman was meant to be) and a fairly traditional Disney film that portrays a character who would normally be a straight-up villain sympathetically (like Frozen). As a result, the tone wiggles back and forth a bit.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Interesting review. We named our daughter Aurora, after Sleeping Beauty, and she wants to see this movie but it may be a tad dark. She's nine years old and probably watched worse though.

9 might be OK if she's watched other scary stuff, but it is pretty dark in places - actually pushing the PG rating in my opinion (probably getting away with it by shooting most of the violence in such a way as not to show much blood, broken bones etc.). Angelina Jolie in her Maleficent getup was apparently so scary in person that they couldn't find a child actress to play 4-5 year old Aurora that didn't run away, so they ended up using her actual daughter. (The scene between them is really cute and sweet, so it was a wise decision.)

Interestingly, I found out that the opening of the film had to be reshot with different actors. It was obviously a problematic bit to do, and as I noted in my review it was a bit weak - the child actors were a bit stilted.

This is definitely a bit of a schizophrenic movie, caught between being a quite dark and 'adult' fairy tale adaptation (like Snow White and the Huntsman was meant to be) and a fairly traditional Disney film that portrays a character who would normally be a straight-up villain sympathetically (like Frozen). As a result, the tone wiggles back and forth a bit.

Thanks; good to know. She's seen the trailers, and neither Jolie's angular face or the rampaging forest beasties bother her. She found Frozen too boring and that there were "too many songs". Oddly enough my eldest daughter loved it.

 

[scorptatious]

I have to say...

Spoiler

When Maleficent brought Aurora back from the spell

I didn't know what to feel. At first I felt confusion, then I felt outrage, as this completely contradicts what happened in the original movie, then later, acceptance, as I realized that was the point. And then happiness, because I realize that I love the movie for doing that.

This is definitely a movie I won't forget for a very long time. Just for how insane it was and how it essentially turned everything upside down for me.

I think this song is appropriate for how I'm feeling right now.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Bob's review convinced me to check it out just for the hell of it. This movie sounds like such a crazy idea that I can't help but want to see it with my own eyes.

Oh, and I don't think Jafar would be the ideal candidate for a revisionist retelling; I think it could work for Scar or the villain from Frozen, though. Maybe Gaston as well.

I'm torn regarding the idea of Jafar getting his story rewritten.[footnote] Saw a great idea but I hate the ideas of either Aladdin being the villain or Jasmine falling for Jafar.[/footnote] I do think a Gaston rewrite could be excellent if it turned out that among other things, Beauty gets Stockholm Syndrome during her time with Beast who really is just a dangerous animal, and the 'castle' could either be an abandoned one that the beast moved into or a cave filled with some familiar junk that Beauty decides can talk so that the grim, depressing nature of her situation doesn't drive her insane. Gaston could be someone who has loved her since they were kids, but because of his slight social ineptness he picks on her and comes across as bully because he can't bring himself to admit his feelings.

I actually would enjoy portraying Beast as really just that, seeing as I'm not a fan of the "socially maladjusted guy who actually has a "heart of gold" archetype (it reeks of an idealization of loners) but if it were up to me I wouldn't have a good guy Gaston "picking on" Beauty, but rather hide his sensitive side with superficial machismo in an attempt to impress only to come around to that.

So Gaston in your estimation would be more or less the same as he is in the Disney movie, only its a front? I think that would work, would you retool anything else about the story to fit the reimagining? I was thinking either ramp up the villainy of the witch or make her into the victim of an attack by the beast that prompts Beauty to wander into the woods.