A Feminist's Take On: "Disney's Cinderella"

     I must admit, I was rather surprised by the outcome of this latest Disney reboot. Although the trailers did look promising, this classic fable can often be a mixed bag. This particular "cinder wench" has been making the rounds over the years, appearing in her fair of share or renditions and reboots.
Spoiler Alert. You have been warned.  

     So, what is all the fuss about? Cinderella is, arguably, one of the first true rags-to-riches stories that seems to resonate so easily with the bubbly imaginations of young girls everywhere. As of late, however, Ms. Cinder Soot has received some stiff competition in the form of Katniss Everdeen and Tris Prior among many others. Even Frozen's Elsa insists that girls let go of typical, female stereotypes in favor of embracing who they really are within. In this business, timing is everything, and so it was time to dust off Cinderella's infamous blue gown... it is the 21st century after all.

So onto the question of the hour: Is this a feminist adaptation?

     Yes and no. The film goes through great pains to show that Cinderella's kind manner was just

"One must have courage, and be kind."

another form of courageous inner strength. She is not weak simply because she plasters on a smile and tries her best to run her family estate, all while her stepmother and stepsisters cackle in the background. Even the transformation of her name from Ella into Cinderella was tackled nicely; highlighting the bullying nature of the step sister's mean words and their power to cause some true pain. However, instead of standing up for herself in the face of such verbal abuse, the young woman grabs possibly one of the most beautiful horses I have ever seen on screen and races off towards.... who else but the prince's hunting party. How terribly convenient to the plot, wouldn't you say? I do give Disney brownie points for highlighting a princess story in which the young heroine isn't simply waiting in a lonely bell tower for some man to rescue her. Still, would it have killed them to give her just a touch of a back bone? Just once throughout this film, I found myself hoping she would talk back to the mean girls in her life.

     Otherwise, the prince is charming enough, and the evil stepmother cruel enough. Lady Tremaine is lent just enough of a back story to make her seem almost guilt-worthy. At least they didn't make her blindly evil; but more bitter and cold to life's challenges. Tremaine offers another view on how a woman might tackle the hardships that befall a woman whose greatest expectation in life is to marry well (during the time period in which this movie takes place, at least). Cate Blanchett gave this villainess just enough emotion behind her eyes to make her appear human, while also having a heck of a good time laughing manically in the background. This isn't a performance of Elizabeth-sized proportions, but at least she brought in a few laughs.

Fashionably late. 

      The movie is also beautifully filmed; with some amazing attention to detail and sweeping views of a country that almost seems too good to be true. The costume design has this reviewer turning green with envy (I would wear any number of Lady Tremaine's gowns). Kenneth Branagh has showed, once again, that he is probably an even better director than he is an actor... if such a thing is truly possible. In the process, Disney has also showed that they truly understand how a sweeping film should be tackled. No expense was spared; from Ella's sumptuous gown to the CGI that turned 4 (also CGI) mice into white chargers. A note to viewers: pay attention to the horses' ears as they shrink down to size. It was truly an amazing detail! Cinderella  is as graceful a movie as Ella is herself. And although there is some debate as to it's feminist prowess, or even if it is suitable for young girls at all. I think it is just the right mix of whimsy and fun, especially for those viewers entering their pre-teen/teenage years. Considering it's more adult themes, and the fact that literally every single parent in this movie is killed off... I wouldn't assume to propose taking anyone younger than the age of 10 unless you expect to do some heavy explaining.

     Bottom line: could it have been better? Of course. Although, the same can be said for any movie. Is it good enough? Yes, it is. At the very least, it allows you're somewhat older children to feel ten years old again, as they immerse themselves in this fairytale-style adaptation of a very classic movie. For a unique Cinderella experience, why not introduce your daughters to different versions of this classic fairytale; allowing them to compare and contrast the different heroines and how they manage the trials and tribulations set in their path. It might be a nice bonding experience/learning curve.

A Feminist's Take on: "Into The Woods".

This is not your run-of-the-mill, straight off the conveyor belt, musical. This family reunion of all our favorite Disney fairytales could have easily been another, long drawn out infomercial-- a hit and run of sorts-- that would have inundated one's senses with all the nuances we have come to know and love from the mouse factory. However, Muses be warned, this musical isn't for the faint of heart. And, for that matter, I wouldn't suggest bringing any child under the age of 13 to this film unless you expect to have a lot of explaining to do!

Steven Sondheim's dark retelling of all the Brother's Grimm classics is just that: dark, moody and wrought with humor that would make your fairy godmother cringe. Evil stepsister's chopping off their heels to make the glass slipper fit? Check. Prince Charming hitting on a happily married, and newly-minted mother/baker's wife/main female protagonist? Double check. With those familiar with the real stories the Disney animated films are based off of, all of this is just as it should be... and even provides a few laughs along the way. For your 8-year-old daughter, however, it's the stuff of nightmares and maybe even therapy. Pop in the Frozen DVD instead. Trust me.

Meryl Streep brings a sympathetic glow to what could have easily been another evil witch role: making the greasy-haired and long nailed she-creature both independent and bitingly honest. The witch does what she has to in order to survive... moral compass be damned. Johnny Depp is at his character-actor best; wearing a full-fledged wolf suit complete with matching cuff links. He gnaws at his lines for a demure 15 minutes or so...just long enough to not out stay his welcome.

All in all, I liked this film more than I thought was possible. The singing was actually enjoyable and the off-kilter humor fit right in with my Tim Burton-esque leanings. It showcases the debilitating obsession this society has with beauty. Not to mention the undo pressure this obsession puts on women in general-- even those that exist within this fairytale-esque world-- the effects are clear. We
will do whatever it takes to fit in at the ball, and yet is it worth the risk? Especially if Prince Charming has the IQ of a moss covered rock and a straying eye, Sondheim asks? The answer is clear as the characters struggle to stray from their respective paths in order to defeat the witch, slay the giant-- and then continue on their merry way towards their "happily ever after" ending.

I would highly suggest this musical for anyone who is a fan of Sondheim's original stage play. Or, any adult looking for a modern retelling showcasing all these classic characters at their comic best.

A Feminist's Take On: "Maleficent".

Disney has done it again; managing to re-write a classic fairytale with a modern day twist. Except this time, they change a fundamental part of their animation history. In their latest project, the juggernaut tackles one of the most classic stories from their vault; Sleeping Beauty. But be warned, Disney movie classicists, this is not your grandmother's fairytale. In fact, this is not your grandmother's villain! Maleficent is a wicked woman for the ages; a true, 21st century renaissance woman…with wings to boot! Be Warned, SPOILERS from here. 

From the very first moment she appears, as a young woodland creature we realize one fundamental fact; this is a woman as sharp as her cheekbones. Fine, they may have started her off as a 10 year old cutie with perfect hair; but she isn't to be played for a fool either. She calls out a young Stefan (yes, that Stefan) and reminds him of his place in the strange and darkly beautiful Moors. This is not a place for you, she reminds him, and warns him never to return. Sadly, as we watch the story play out, one realizes that Stefan is not the stuff of kiddy movies. He toys with her heart and her trust. Leading her on for years before finally committing the ultimate act of injustice against the title character. It would have to take a truly wicked act to cause Maleficent to take out her rage on an innocent child. And indeed, the act is both violent and goose bump worthy. With a gut-wrenching cry into the dark, the movie enters it's second act… and the other-worldly fairy becomes the Mistress of Darkness.

I could go on here to say how a very real love story develops as Maleficent watches the young princess grow from afar. How she grows a heart and soul once again… and the re-imagined meaning behind "true love's first kiss" in this version of fairy tale events. However, I'd much rather focus on the merits of Angelina Jolie's performance. Her portrayal is both deliciously wicked and generally aloof. There are  very little scenes of dark scheming and staff-pumping. In fact, other than that one, titular moment in the great hall where she imbues her "gift" upon a young Aurora (a beautiful nod to Sleeping Beauty, by the way) she is basically detached from the events of the original movie that inspired it. She much prefers to remain perched in a tree, her humanoid henchman at her side. Eating fruit and pursing her lips. "I don't like children" she chides like a true diva. She is above it all. Her green eyes aloof but also filled with vulnerability. She battles herself throughout; unsure of her motives but still reeling from her heart breaking loss early on.

"Before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday, she will fall into a sleep-like death!"

This isn't about a woman scorned by a man. No, instead this is about being betrayed and then injured from within. She is no longer the woman she was before; she is unsure if love exists and therefore if she is good or bad by default. This is her movie, and she rules over it with an iron if not slightly disconnected fist. She doesn't need to rant and rave. Or deliver heavy handed monologues. Her eyes tell the story. The subtlety behind Jolie's performance gives it more merit. It helps an ancient story feel modern and real. Maleficent isn't the manifestation of pure evil. She is only human. Or, as human as a fairy can be, I suppose. She is messy and cruel at times, but also capable of realizing the reality behind her decisions. Whether she realizes the error of her ways or not, I'll leave for you to see for yourself as you enjoy the movie on the big screen.

At the end of the day, Jolie looked like she was having a blast. And so did we in the process. As I sat there enjoying the ride; watching her soar through the clouds with complete freedom I found myself wishing that I had wings too. That I could fly away with her and inhabit the Moors. I was transported to a time where magic was real, possibilities were endless; and the lines between fantasy and reality were blurred. Even, if only for an hour and a half.

A Feminist's take On: "Divergent"-- From Book to Movie.

I know what you're thinking; the book is entirely different from the movie. I mean, basically world's apart by adaptation standards. Where does one begin? How about starting here: I actually don't mind the sudden string of book-to-movie adaptations that are taking over the big screen lately. Once a book is written, it's out there. Out there for us to enjoy and live however we choose to; hence the whole theory of having a movie adaptation to begin with! It allows a whole new group of people to experience the story; to meet the characters and join the fandom. There really is enough room for everyone, I promise.

So, let me begin by saying, I didn't totally hate Divergent the movie. I didn't love it either. I could sit here and knit pick what I disliked and, honestly, when I set out to write this post I almost did! Yeah, no one wants to read that! No, instead I'm just going to condense my opinion to 2 issues that I found most frustrating. Because, overall, there were a lot of truly glowing moments. Like when Tris took that literal leap of faith into Dauntless. I held my breath , and then laughed with her when she landed successfully. What a rush! And then that first meeting with Four… sigh. Yes, I'm a huge Tobias Eaton groupie. Don't judge me. At least I don't stalk any real people. SPOILERS!

Point One: They tried to copy The Hunger Games. I'm the first one to point out that, yes, Divergent shares many things in common with this series. Dystopian America, check. Corrupt government, check. Control freak president figure with overall distain for human life, check. Yummy abs, check. But that's all on the surface. Whereas the Hunger Games uses the actual games as a basis for all the unrest, and eventual revolution, Divergent does not. The rigourous training is necessary; it allows the initiates to build up their bodies and minds. To face their perceived fears and to become stronger, inside and out. Tris grows through this experience and very literally becomes a "warrior woman". There is also no love triangle, no side to take on which man is most "deserving" of Tris' heart in the end. In fact, there is a very realistic, messy, emotional and volatile relationship at the heart of this story. They barely gave that relationship a chance to flourish, basically throwing it together during one "show me your tats" moment. What happened to the slow boil?  I'm certainly not saying the entire movie was a loss; I just wish that they had embraced what makes Divergent unique. However,I do have to admit it was amazing to see women in a position of power. There was no separation of gender training within Dauntless faction, each initiate had to train in the same facility while learning the same techniques. It was refreshing, and one of the things that makes this story so strong right from the start.

Point Two: The ending was painful.  I mean, why did they have to rework the ending to begin with? All of you who read the book will, hopefully, agree. They ruined the climatic ending sequence  involving Jeanine for Insurgent!  And, officially, reduced Tobias to a pretty boy. He had a bigger role in that final sequence (rather than flinging his girlfriend around) and it was meant to show his duality. He's not just a good trainer/fighter. He's also a smart guy, who works in INTELLIGENCE!! I think he even says as much, for a split second, at the beginning of the movie. Why didn't he shut down the computers HIMSELF, like he was supposed to?? Why did they have to MIND CONTROL Jeanine? Like she would have been so foolish as to have been standing right there. In Dauntless headquarters. Basically ground zero, the whole time. With dozens of witnesses to her depravity, controlling the simulation herself. I thought she was supposed to be from Erudite, the logical-thinking faction. And, how will this play out for Insurgent,  where Tobias and Tris are blamed for "crimes against humanity", because they are believed to have caused the entire attack on Abnegation. I mean, the writers did realize there was another book, correct? This does have to make sense even in a Sci-Fi universe!

Ok, ok I need to calm down. Deep, cleansing breaths.

Ok. I'm solid again. Sorry, guys, I almost lost my cool there. Anyways, I didn't mean to slam the movie.  Fine, maybe only a little bit. The casting, though, was like a bright light at the end of a dimly lit tunnel. Take Shailene Woodley for example. Although she got started on some ABC Family show, her break out moment finally came in The Descendants, playing George Clooney's troubled daughter, no less. She got the chance to prove that she isn't just another pretty face, out to play the same teen-angsty role over and over again. A fact she got to showcase here  in Divergent. She made Tris real for us. Showing all the facets of her personality; quiet and somewhat shy but  still smart and observant. She's a fighter and you realize, as you do when reading the book, that Tris was born a fighter all along.

And, of course, Theo James. Not only is he a brooding, handsome guy with big pouty lips. But he managed to break away from that stereotype, just enough to show that there is more to Four. His dry sarcasm was just enough to make us chuckle, and let's not forget that final scene. Yes, it made steam come out of my ears just a little bit. But, when Tris turns the gun towards herself, I actually held my breath. You see Four battling with himself, his eyes confused and hard and…vulnerable. That is the essence of Four, to me anyway. He breaks the stereotypes of what a man should be, as much as Tris does for women. A man can wield a gun and yet still be vulnerable and a little lost as well. He proves that walls can be brought down, that a man can be both soft and hard at the same time… that all Tobias really wanted was to be loved in the end.

Ok, now that I've said my piece, what part of the movie did you love, or even hate for that matter? Are you looking forward to Insurgent? Any thoughts on Allegiant?

On another note, I've become recently obsessed with Ellie Goulding's song, Beating Heart. Check it out here! And anyone looking for another interesting read in this same genre, you should really give the Delirium series a look. It's available in Hardcover and for your Kindle.