tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8280650245524507557.post2775190165823853571..comments2023-11-08T01:46:00.346-07:00Comments on Yesterday, Tomorrow and Fantasy: Beaumont's Beauty and the BeastCory Grosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12141983255020503557noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8280650245524507557.post-3984057322196356362015-11-09T08:44:28.855-07:002015-11-09T08:44:28.855-07:00To each their own... I started watching Wreck-It R...To each their own... I started watching Wreck-It Ralph on a flight back from Paris and, a half-hour in, decided that not watching the rest of it was the better use of my time. I found it very obnoxious and unfunny, and it just wasn't worth watching the telegraphed conclusion to catch a few video game references. But what the Hell do I know? I don't like Pixar movies either.<br /><br />My review of the Mary Poppins book will also be a partial review of Saving Mr. Banks, because that movie ended up creating a false impression of the book. It also created a false impression of Travers by making her somewhat sympathetic. She was a horrible human being and I'm kind of glad that Disney wrested Mary Poppins from her. Cory Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141983255020503557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8280650245524507557.post-6950596493728323652015-11-08T20:54:24.628-07:002015-11-08T20:54:24.628-07:00I quite like "Wreck-It Ralph," actually ...I quite like "Wreck-It Ralph," actually - I find it very creative and a fitting tribute to video games as a medium (one whose own storytelling potential has barely been scratched so far). It may be the first time an animated Disney movie has engaged in detailed worldbuilding - presented us with an alternate reality with its own rules, different from either the real world or well-worn conventions like those of fairy tales.<br /><br />"Mary Poppins," of course, is simply sublime. I presume you've seen "Saving Mr. Banks?" I really appreciate that movie for presenting both Walt Disney and P.L. Travers sympathetically, while not pulling any punches about how difficult either could be to work with. And of course Walt had the lion's share of the power in the relationship and got his way through manipulation and throwing his weight around, but as a friend of mine put it, maybe the point of the movie is that a finished product as wonderful as "Poppins" justifies what had to happen in order to create it.Karalorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760419621066274867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8280650245524507557.post-74115676410776226612015-11-08T19:17:56.089-07:002015-11-08T19:17:56.089-07:00Thanks for your observations!
I try to stay prett...Thanks for your observations!<br /><br />I try to stay pretty objective when I'm not writing an editorial, though the odd editorial comment does slip in now and then. I clearly liked Bambi a lot, and a review of Mary Poppins I'm writing will show I really don't think much of Pamela Travers as a person or a writer. But I try to keep that at a minimum ;)<br /><br />Doing this blog and taking it upon myself to read or reread the original stories has given me an appreciation for the art of adaptation. In the cases of the traditional fairy tales, there was really no "original"... The Grimms just happened to commit an old folk tale to writing first, and altered it with each subsequent printing of their book. Storytelling always has been a fluid, dynamic process that adapts a tale to its current audience. Disney is no different: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was just as current and vital in 1937 as it was in 1812. <br /><br />Some Disney adaptations are not as good as the book they're based on... Bambi and Wind in the Willows spring to mind, because they're both such sublime literary masterpieces in their own right. Or more accurately, they're trying to satisfy a certain criteria that misses the heart of the book (like opting for the slapstick stuff in Mr. Toad that misses beautiful chapters like "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn"). Some Disney adaptations are better than the source material for one reason or another, like John Carter, The Incredible Journey or Wreck-It Ralph (in the sense that I could just play Q*Bert or Street Fighter and not have to sit through this dreck). Most are just interesting alternative takes on the story that put emphasis on one or another thread. You could make an entirely different but equally coherent version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea using all the stuff they left out. I'm not even sure what exactly got Travers' knickers in a bunch over Mary Poppins. The notion that a Disney film is automatically inferior is just a holdover of reactionary, angst-ridden adolescence. As you say, it's driven by this kind of egotistical pride that somehow reveling in unhappy ends makes one courageous in the face of the cosmic abyss or something (and if one thinks that, then they did not even remotely understand Andersen's The Little Mermaid).<br /><br />Incidentally, I've also got a review of Pinocchio coming up... It's actually just crazy enough for me to like ;) Cory Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141983255020503557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8280650245524507557.post-56485758645613825792015-11-08T11:27:43.875-07:002015-11-08T11:27:43.875-07:00It's me. :)
I don't generally comment on ...It's me. :)<br /><br />I don't generally comment on your blog posts that are simply about the original stories and inspirations behind Disney's movies or theme park rides. They're so plainly factual - *that* came from *this* - that I don't feel I can add anything meaningful.<br /><br />But "Beauty and the Beast" is probably Disney's single best animated feature film, and it occurred to me to weigh in on something:<br /><br />"In both versions, the Beast is not a bad character who must learn his lesson. He is a victim, and the lesson to be learned is Belle's."<br /><br />You don't seem to be doing this here, which I appreciate, but many people would include such a statement in a post of this type and imply, if not outright state, that the adaptation is inherently *inferior* to the original because it changes things. And of course when the adaptation is Disney's, the changes often render the story a little sweeter, a little more optimistic, a little less gruesome. Cinderella's stepsisters keep their eyes, the Little Mermaid lives, and the Fox and the Hound get to be friends. The cynical pounce like leopards: "You prefer the dumbed-down happy ending? You naive chump, don't you know that life is pain?"<br /><br />But if an adaptation didn't change anything from the source material, there would be no point in making one at all. And let's face it: original works aren't perfect. There is no such thing as perfection in storytelling; every writer has weaknesses which some other writer might be able to shore up, and every era in society has its own foibles and issues which require different themes in storytelling to meaningfully address.<br /><br />And sometimes...the original isn't very good. The original literary "Pinocchio" is a mess--episodic to the point of stuttering, moralizing to the point of tedium, and needlessly violent. Disney's version ties the material together into a continuous narrative and avoids the more gratuitous elements.<br /><br />And I think Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" works much better with the Beast being punished for his sins than being a victim of an evil fairy's whimsy. The situation invites contrast with "Sleeping Beauty," which of course does quite well having all the mischief at the hands of an evil fairy with nothing better to do than curse people. But the difference here is that Maleficent is an active on-screen character in the movie, while Beaumont's wicked fairy is entirely in the background. Maleficent may not have a recognizable reason (by human standards) to be evil,* but because we get to see so much of her, she is at least *believably* evil. Beaumont's fairy seems more like an excuse for the scenario. So the Disney version portrays the setup in a prologue and flips it around to where the Beast is being punished for shallowness and lack of charity...and incidentally gives us an Enchantress who comes across as similar to Pinocchio's Blue Fairy in her modus operandi.<br /><br />I'm rambling a bit, but I wanted to get that out there.<br /><br />*I am not talking about the live-action movie. I refuse.Karalorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760419621066274867noreply@blogger.com