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

[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.

 

[Jofe]

Snip

I see your point, but something that I don't see too necessary is the redemption. Why couldn't she go full evil after what happened. I see the whole thing starting for justice and retribution but she loses the way and becomes something even worse than she was fighting at the start. Her motivation is just being purely evil, maybe she enjoys, maybe she doesn't see any other road for her anymore. (Think of it like the way Yathzee resumes Kefka, something along "Here's and evil guy who's trying to destroy the world because he's a dick" if you watch Zero Punctuation) She not only could have gone too far, she did and that leads to the rest of the events that we know.

Maybe I'll go to see it this week and see if I can figure the idea they were aiming for.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

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.

Yeah, it would pretty much be a front. As for what other aspects I'd retool, well that would probably be necessary; but I must admit I hadn't thought that far ahead, haha.

 

[leviadragon99]

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*

Well of course, you can make a good story out of anything if you've got a good enough writer/team on board, but my question is... why? What about those stories would demand they be told? What makes them fresh enough in the concept alone to bother applying that kind of effort?

So a little thought experiment then, what story would you tell about beauty and the beast or the snow queen? Just the broad strokes of it, what kind of take would you like to see that would put a new spin on them?

 

[Iceklimber]

(minor spoiler)

Sorry late for the train but saw the movie just now and can anyone explain the supposed raep subtext?

If I recall correctly, they shared a "true Lover's Kiss" in the Night when they turned sixteen which in my opinion was a mathaphor for consensual sex so I don't see this guy raeping a woman who is already in love with, and already shared sexy times with him. Another notion is that she gets her Wings back later on, does this means she gets Un-raepd or what?

Totally agree that all the Wings-related Scenes were metaphors for something, but not sure for what. Captain, explain.

 

[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*

Well of course, you can make a good story out of anything if you've got a good enough writer/team on board, but my question is... why? What about those stories would demand they be told? What makes them fresh enough in the concept alone to bother applying that kind of effort?

So a little thought experiment then, what story would you tell about beauty and the beast or the snow queen? Just the broad strokes of it, what kind of take would you like to see that would put a new spin on them?

Regarding Gaston, I think a compelling take on the character would be that he used to to a sensitive kid who puts on an attitude of callous machismo as an adult because he came to learn that it's "inappropriate" or "unmanly" for a guy to be be sensitive and/or show vulnerability etc. only for him to learn over the course of the story that such an attitude can be damaging to both him and the relationships he tries to forge. The Beast could exist as what you'd get if the whole "Men should be strong and never show weakness!" attitude were taken to its ultimate extreme.

Just a thought...

 

[leviadragon99]

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*

Well of course, you can make a good story out of anything if you've got a good enough writer/team on board, but my question is... why? What about those stories would demand they be told? What makes them fresh enough in the concept alone to bother applying that kind of effort?

So a little thought experiment then, what story would you tell about beauty and the beast or the snow queen? Just the broad strokes of it, what kind of take would you like to see that would put a new spin on them?

Regarding Gaston, I think a compelling take on the character would be that he used to to a sensitive kid who puts on an attitude of callous machismo as an adult because he came to learn that it's "inappropriate" or "unmanly" for a guy to be be sensitive and/or show vulnerability etc. only for him to learn over the course of the story that such an attitude can be damaging to both him and the relationships he tries to forge. The Beast could exist as what you'd get if the whole "Men should be strong and never show weakness!" attitude were taken to its ultimate extreme.

Just a thought...

Huh... credit where it's due, that could work.

Although execution of that would be quite tricky...

 

[maximara]

Huh. I thought you'd hate this because as you said, Maleficent is the first and only Disney villain to be played completely straight without any redeeming factor or quirkiness to her. To try and create a framework capable of painting the 'mistress of all evil' as good sounds awkward as all hell.

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. I've already read a fairly good fic where Jafar starts out taken on as a palace guard in his youth and murders and backstabs his way up to the top because he feels he would run the kingdom better.

If you want a trip into the dark and frightening inversion Neil Gaiman's "Snow, Glass, Apples? has Snow White as some form of vampire. There is also hints of that old king is tied to the land motif going on. So the supposedly happy ending is in fact beginning of the kingdom's life blood being figuratively and literally drained dry.

Red as Blood by Tanith Lee not only does the vampire thing but throws Satanism on top of it as well.

Another inversion of the Snow White tale is in DC comics' Fables where the dwarves used Snow White as their sex slave until she escaped. She starts takes fencing lessons from Prince Charming and after a while the dwarven bodies start showing up...with sword wounds.

People are well aware of the adage 'winners write the history books' and it is fun to see how you can invert some of the classics.

 

[maximara]

Snip

I see your point, but something that I don't see too necessary is the redemption. Why couldn't she go full evil after what happened. I see the whole thing starting for justice and retribution but she loses the way and becomes something even worse than she was fighting at the start. Her motivation is just being purely evil, maybe she enjoys, maybe she doesn't see any other road for her anymore. (Think of it like the way Yathzee resumes Kefka, something along "Here's and evil guy who's trying to destroy the world because he's a dick" if you watch Zero Punctuation) She not only could have gone too far, she did and that leads to the rest of the events that we know.

Maybe I'll go to see it this week and see if I can figure the idea they were aiming for.

You could view Maleficent's change of heart as Lima syndrome. For those who don't know Lima syndrome is the converse of Stockholm syndrome. It certainly fits.

 

[shiajun]

After reading the comments here I think I'm an odd one. I think looking into the wings cutting scene as a metaphor to rape is because right now people see rape analogies everywhere. I find it kind of disturbing to view a woman's body as an extension of her genitalia and any harm done to any part of it as an agression to her vagina. When Maleficent wakes up she's been freaking mutilated by a person she loved. The gender of the characters involved seems secondary as she has had two of her limbs amputated . If I woke up with both my legs missing you bet your ass I'd scream and come undone just as Jolie plays the scene. Why is it that for male characters they can be mutilated/humilliated/abused/raped/etc and they're all different types of violence, but when it comes to women all those collapse into analogies for rape? I see her whole revenge for betrayal and robbing her of her freedom and part of her power. If I go with the rape analogy, then she was robbed of her power by violating her sexuality, and we're back to "woman's worth is her virginity" thing.