I was eager to see the new re-telling of the Sleeping Beauty story from a different angle. Disney’s “Maleficent” was released this past year. And with a stunning Angelina Jolie in the lead role it was hard to resist.
But for this reporter who remembers very well the original 1959 animated feature, “Maleficent” was a disappointment. In terms of special effects and live-action, the movie was pretty good. In that aspect to me it was along the production quality of “Lord of The Rings,” type of movie. But in terms of a convincing and solid story line, I was not swayed. Keep in mind, I majored in philosophy in college, so I was looking at the story line in “Maleficent” very closely, comparing it to the 1959 original.
In the original there was a definite theme, the classic struggle of good versus evil and in the end, “true love conquers all.” But in this re-telling, the theme is hard to pinpoint because even as Maleficent herself narrates the story, there are contradictions, which make little sense. I was curious to find some reviews and critiques. And, I found them. Most of them agree the storyline got messed up.
Yet as authors Jack Heckel and John Peck point out, all fairy tales are really grown up inventions. They are really not for kids, especially little kids. Heckel has written a book “Happily Never After” and Peck composed “Once Upon a Rhyme.” Both have a lot to say about what fairy tales really mean in contemporary terms. And, as Peck points out, when tracing the origins of Sleeping Beauty, several versions or adaptations emerge. There is the Grimm’s version, called “Briar Rose,” there is Perrault’s version, Basaile’s version dating back to 1634 and there is even an earlier version traced back to the 14th Century called “Perceforest.”
Peck wanted to explain that over time all fairy tales, legends, etc. change. “I am convinced, he said, that to try and tell that same story or to stick to Disney’s 1959 adaptation would not have gone over well in 2014.” He said too that it is important to note that “Disney’s 1959 adaptation is itself another version of the tale.” “I am not a huge fan of the values behind Disney’s original animated version,” said Peck. “Yet I do like the song ‘Once Upon a Dream,’ he added. (Disney can thank the classic work of Tchaikovsky for that) which, interestingly is played at the very end of the “Maleficent” film.
Peck noted that in the original animated Disney feature the princess Aurora is rather passive and for today’s audiences that does not work. “I was also not a fan of what was done with ‘Maleficent’, said Peck, I think there is a fantastic story in the question of Maleficent’s backstory. And, the 2014 movie just does not do it justice.”
The philosopher in this reporter wanted a clearer explanation as to why? Or better yet, how did Maleficent find the power to become good after being “The Mistress of all Evil” in the original animated feature? In the original, the three good fairies discuss and ponder the question of why is Maleficent so bad?
And, if taking the re-telling simply at its angle and not comparing it to the original, how could Maleficent love after such a horrible wrong was done to her by King Stephen?
One of the things I found most disturbing in the film was the depiction of King Stephen. This version of the tale has him as a very greedy and selfish person, obsessed with power. In ‘Maleficent’ he is ‘the evil.’ And, Maleficent (which the name itself translates as ‘evil doer’) becomes evil as she seeks revenge upon King Stephen and all those who wish to invade the Moors where she lives.
“To me, said Peck, the real problem with the movie is in the story the producers/scriptwriters chose to tell and the type of movie they chose to make. And, not so much in how they tied it in more closely with the original animated version.”
I mentioned to Peck that I thought the link between Maleficent and King Stephen in this retelling is very convoluted and unlikely. Also, I saw no genuine love bonds between anyone in the Maleficent film. In the original animated feature, clearly Stephen and his queen love one another and are willing to let the three good fairies raise their new born daughter in secret away from the castle. The good fairies, Flora, Fawna and Meriweather, love the little princess and it is they who wish to help fight the curse that befalls the new born princess and her kingdom. In this re-telling the good fairies are merely fumbling and bickering pixies. No challenge to anyone.
“This was my largest problem with the film, Peck said. But I think it arises from the nearly impossible task the movie maker undertakes. If you think about the project of Maleficent, it is to explain why someone would curse a newborn to death. It is impossible to justify this action except to posit that the person is a sociopath.”
“But Disney wanted to make Maleficent human and sympathetic (probably because it was a vehicle for Angelina Jolie). So, they made up this relationship between Maleficent and King Stephen and this cruel betrayal. It did seem to me to be forced. Then they (the scriptwriters) toned down the nature of the curse, he said. And, made it so Maleficent only curses Aurora to sleep until she receives ‘true love’s kiss.'”
But wasn’t that one of the gifts bestowed by one of the good fairies? Yes, in other versions of the tale. Yet, here again, Peck noted that as a re-telling the scriptwriters can adjust things so a more contemporary understanding can be expressed.
And from a contemporary point of view, if Maleficent is the ‘star’ of this retelling then perhaps it is she who must reconcile the situation and as the saying goes, ‘save the day.”
But, here is what this reporter saw and that made little sense. The lack of equality and a clear indication where the love or power to love and forgive came from. No where in the movie ‘Maleficent’ does it indicate how or where Maleficent as “protector of the Moors” gets her power to love and do good. In the storyline she has no parents and it seems no one, not even the good fairies can be considered an equal or even a rival for that matter. In all her friendships – acquaintanceships with the other creatures of The Moors she is superior. No one is of the truly “significant other” quality. Which then leads to the question of why would she get involved with a young King Stephen in the first place? There first meeting as youngsters indicates no special bond. Young Stephen is caught trespassing in the Moors and even tries to steal. A young Maleficent, forgives him. But it is clear there is very little there between them that would foster a significant relationship.
Why I point this out is because if Maleficent is from the enchanted realm and Stephen is from the human world, what can either of them offer one another? Naturally, Stephen is curious and becomes greedy for power later on. But if Maleficent knows this why does she remain friendly? The unevenness of their relationship stands out and causes more confusion than clarity.
From a philosopher’s point of view with logic as a guide, Maleficent’s love and forgiveness for Aurora seemed to happen by default. At least that is how it appeared to this reporter. All the characters in the movie are weak, ineffective, corrupted or simply incompetent. And, as a vehicle for Maleficent as the main character, that’s great. She is the strong one, the powerful one, the only one who can do what must be done.
But again, I ask, where does she get the power, the strength? Even her pet and sidekick the raven is not equal to her. And, what about true love at least in that romantic sense, especially between princess Aurora and prince Phillip? In the original animated 1959 version, the love between Philip and Aurora was “love at first sight.” From a contemporary point of view at age 16, that type of love is not possible.
And, in the movie, that is made clear by the fact that the two young royals from neighboring kingdoms are not ready for such a union. Maleficent is the one to bring the match about, not some predestined plan or bestowing of fairy dust. To me she seemed more like a wronged single parent who somehow finds the strength, will and knowledge to do the right thing.
Peck noted that in many cases fairy tales reflect the times or whoever is telling the tale.
So from a contemporary perspective I found the unequal and uneven aspect of Maleficent rather reflective of our times. Disney’s 1959 version was a product of the 1950’s, where family values and marriage were highlighted. This is the world that the Baby-boomer generation was born into.
But since that time (now 60 years later) much has happened and changed. So, the Sleeping Beauty story needed to be retold, updated by another generation’s perspective.
To describe the character of Maleficent in this retelling, ‘Narcissism’ perhaps is a better word. Yet for me it begs the question of, how can anyone go from such extremes and be able to love properly and completely, especially as a mom? To who or to what can Maleficent turn to gather the strength, the courage, etc.? This is not clarified by the writers of the film.
Maleficent by default steps in as parent, matchmaker and restorer of justice. This makes no sense to me. Yet, if I follow Peck and his train of thought I can see why this retelling turned out the way it did.
After about 15 minutes into the movie, I started to see a particular type of villain/hero. Yes, at times reluctant but still a determined force to be reckoned with. Maleficent is strong-willed, self-made, independent, and a sharp, self-reliant individual.
In today’s contemporary world, there are lots of those around, many are the single parents, the super mom’s. But in terms of a larger than life person playing such contrasting roles someone like Joan Crawford was evident to me immediately. Okay all you film historians out there, think of Crawford’s movies like “Strait Jacket” and then “Mildred Pierce.” Angelina Jolie’s performance in Maleficent is epic and sweeping on that level and what better way to tell it than in a fairy tale written for grown ups.
Peck mentioned that one of the great aspects to a familiar fairy tale is the fact that just about everyone is familiar with it. And, so a fairy tale can be told and retold easily because everyone knows it.
“Why retell the same story if you aren’t going to change it, said Peck. That is why I’m not troubled by the changes they made in Maleficient. The animated 1959 version told that version (Walt Disney’s) of the story to perfection.” “It would be madness to take the same plot and try and do it better,” said Peck.
“For better or worse we got the movie we got, he added. I applaud them for trying something different, but I think they failed.” I didn’t buy King Stephen or his madness, Peck said. And, I didn’t buy how quickly Maleficient went from hating King Stephen to loving his daughter (even though I think Jolie did a great job trying to sell it). I didn’t buy the resolution. However, I am really glad they didn’t try and retell the original, because that would have been a pale shadow to the animated version, said Peck, and might have impacted how I viewed and enjoyed the original. That would have been a tragedy.”
