Think of every fairy-tale villainess you’ve ever heard of. Think of the wicked witches, the evil queens, the mad enchantresses. Think of the alluring sirens, the hungry ogresses, the savage she-beasts. Think of them and remember that somewhere, sometime, they’ve all been real - Jim Butcher
here’s why I doesn’t upload as much pictures as I used to- character desing and animation practice for my master work: animation short “O Kovladu”(inspiration is from slovakian fairy tale by Božena Němcová
” :) ) I’m going to spend next school year with work on this project so prepare yourself for more Kovlad spaming :3
Maleficent, and why Hollywood doesn't get fairy-tales
Now, before I make my first key point I want to make one thing clear: Maleficent was fun. It was incredibly flawed in almost every respect, but it had good elements (Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning, in particular) and I’m glad I saw it.
However, it made me realize something important: Hollywood needs to stop trying to adapt fairy-tales until it learns to understand them.
There has been a proliferation of fairy tale/whimsical fantasy movies in recent years, including (but not limited to) Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), Mirror Mirror (2012), Red Riding Hood (2011), Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). All of them have been variable shades of bad, and in my opinion there is a clear reason for that: all of them, without exception, over explain.
These films all treat the viewer like a brain-dead child who needs to have their hand held, and they all try to tell a ‘logical’ (I use that word loosely) story that draws superficially from a fairy-tale or a well-established fantasy story. By throwing in numerous superfluous elements (generally battles for a crown, complete with literal LOTR-style warfare etc. etc.), these films have only succeeded in making once powerful and memorable stories bland and forgettable.
Let’s take Maleficent as a case study. The film has been trumpeted as a 'dark’ take on Disney’s Sleeping Beauty which adds depth and complexity to the most famous villain in the House of Mouse’s history. Instead of adding complexity, it creates a painfully simplistic and generic back-story (fairyland = good, men = bad) and suggests that Maleficent is only 'bad’ because she was betrayed by a loser. As it turns out, the film is patently terrified of having Maleficent display any kind of 'evil’ behaviour at all; she curses baby Aurora, sure, but regrets doing so almost instantly. Even worse, she doesn’t curse Aurora to death (as she does in the fairy-tale and even in the 'U’ certificate Disney film) only a positively innocuous “sleep like death”. The character cannot be described as evil in any sense of the word, and is simply 'misunderstood’ (a label Hollywood is extremely fond of applying to female former villains in its fairy tale adaptations/re-imaginings). Ironically, the film’s attempts to make Maleficent complex only succeed in making her bland.
Now, I’m not saying they should have made Maleficent 100% evil ™ and entirely irredeemable - there is a middle-ground, which is perhaps best embodied by Loki from the Thor movies. Loki does many evil things, but he has great fun with his tricks and isn’t repentant or ashamed of what he is. Equally, you understand why he’s malevolent and even feel sympathy for him. By striking this balance, the Thor movies succeed in creating a villainous character that the audience, perhaps despite themselves, can actually root for. If we have to have a 'misunderstood fairy-tale villain’ movie, why can’t the said villain be presented more like that?
Essentially, Maleficent misses the point and fails to understand what made the character memorable in the first place - she was evil, and she revelled in it. The moments in the film where Maleficent tricked characters or meddled with their lives just for the fun of it were, by far, its best.
Now, I’m sure that some people are confused. I’m criticising fairy-tale films for their simplicity, but surely the 'original’ fairy-tales they’re based on are the most simplistic stories you can get, right? Well, yes and no. Fairy-tales are simple, sure, but more importantly they’re evocative. They contain archetypes and follow stiff formulas, and we understand them and their plots primarily because fairy-tales are embedded in the collective consciousness. They are strange and often illogical, but we can accept that because we understand that they don’t take place in our reality; if they have a reality, it’s a psychological one shaped by our most primal fears and desires. This is why most of the Disney fairy-tale films work; they are simple, and they aren’t ashamed of that. But simplicity shouldn’t be confused with childishness or a lack of substance. By leaving gaps and allowing the viewer to imagine, successful fairy-tale films linger in the mind and subsequently remain interesting. The Company of Wolves (1984), Labyrinth (1986) and Blancanieves (2012) (which is, by the way, head and shoulders above all of the afore-mentioned modern fairy-tale films) don’t feature epic wars or warrior princesses, but that’s because they don’t need them; they are confident about what they are and continue to appeal because they are strange and resonant in the manner of the best stories.
To sum up: Maleficent is superficially enjoyable, but is only propped up by the mighty planes of Angelina Jolie’s cheekbones. Next year, it will be forgotten. It’s a sad waste of potential.