The 1970s was a period in which
many filmmakers indulged in the political and social cynicism brought on by
Watergate, in which the lines between “good” and “evil” were blurred. Those who
appeared to be “good” were merely a front for evil intentions, and good people
were vilified as “evil” by those who did not want their evil exposed. Even so,
there was no “confusion” about what was “good” and what was “evil”; evil was
evil and there was no doubt about who and what that was.
Today’s filmmakers often blur the
line between good and evil, but it has nothing to do with truth or cynicism,
but current politically-correct social politics. Disney’s Maleficent films are a perfect example of this. Of course, we
shouldn’t expect too much from Disney these days, although the studio in the
past was less confused about the difference. Some people might not be aware of
this, but Frozen was allegedly based
on the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale “The Snow Queen,” but the film has
almost nothing to do with that story, in fact the screenwriters didn’t even
bother to recreate any of the original characters or even use any of their
names. It goes without saying that the Andersen story also tells a far, far
more interesting story than the film does, but it was apparently believed that
the original was too far advanced for the “kiddies” to understand. Disney, of
course, was banking on the fact that few “kids” read the old classics anymore,
so they wouldn’t have any point of comparison in any case.
Disney’s 1959 animated film Sleeping Beauty film also has only
passing resemblance to the original iterations of a tale that dates back to the
14th century, but at least it wasn’t “confused” about the difference
between good and evil. The character of Maleficent doesn’t exist in any of
those old stories, in fact was originally created for but discarded from the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs film. There
was no doubt about the evil of Maleficent in the film; she placed the curse on
the princess merely because she wasn’t invited to her christening. Period. After
her plans are overturned by the good fairies (she is the “evil” fairy) she
transforms into a dragon and attacks the prince whose kiss will awaken the
princess from her cursed sleep, and his sword, “blessed” by the good fairies,
strikes Maleficent’s heart and she of
course dies. It is interesting to note the decision not to portray Maleficent
in her “human” form when she is killed.
Feminists have complained loudly
about the early Disney animated features; I have said often enough what I think
of feminists and their moral and ethical hypocrisy, so I won’t go into that
now. What they have accomplished, it appears, is to influence Disney into
concocting “revisionist” recreations of their old films to comply with “modern”
politics. There is nothing particular new about this; Seattle’s Paramount
Theater is bringing back for what seems like the 10th straight year
the musical Wicked, a feminist “reimagining”
of the Wizard of Oz, or at least giving the Wicked Witch of the West, who is
even given a name (Elphaba), a “back story” as a poor “misunderstood” and
discriminated against green-skinned witch. That story is fairly absurd, with
the good witch Gilda retelling of their friendship while attending college (good
grief). If you are female, you can’t just be naturally “bad”; you have to have
a backstory “explaining” why you are bad, and it is usually someone else who is
really the “bad” one for making you bad.
Thus it should come as no
surprise that in the “revisionist” version of Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent may still be called the “Mistress of
Evil,” except, well, she isn’t really the evil one. I mean, someone as
self-obsessed as Angelina Jolie agreeing to play a character “evil” enough to
get her comeuppance in a movie? In the first film of this new revisionist
history, it is King Stefan who is the “evil” one, and his daughter Aurora comes
to see Maleficent as her “protector,” not the good fairies, who are called “pixies”
in the film, who are portrayed as neglecting” her. Prince Phillip’s kiss doesn’t
awaken her, but Maleficent’s kiss does, because her love is “true.” What???? Stefan,
who did nothing than could be portrayed as “bad” in the original film, is the
one who dies because, well, he is really the “evil” one; his own daughter even (inadvertently)
provides Maleficent the means to kill him. Phillip and Aurora don’t marry, but
Aurora becomes queen of the two kingdoms (Stefan’s and the Moors) anyways. This
is about as bullshit as feminist “revisionism” gets. Some apologists for this “revision”
claim that the film is really an “allegory”
of environmental destruction and Maleficent is merely acting as its defender.
Ok, you can laugh now.
The sequel, the mistitled Maleficent: Mistress of Evil has done
poorly with critics and has underperformed at the box office, although the
people who have gone to see the film expecting to see a female causing “righteous”
havoc and destruction apparently have been satisfied with what they have seen.
Many critics have wondered what the point of a sequel was; others, however,
wonder why, if Maleficent is supposed to the “mistress of evil,” why is she
once more was portrayed as an “avenger” against the “evil” wiles of humans? I
have to give credit to Michelle Pfeiffer as the queen of another kingdom and
the mother of Phillip, and she is the truly “evil” character in the film; Pfeiffer
has the “courage” to play truly “bad” characters who receive their deserved
comeuppance in the end. But as in the previous film, the alleged “evil” of
Maleficent simply does not exist save in the minds of “humans.” Maleficent is
invited to an “intimate” dinner with the parents of Prince Phillip. What the
hell for??? She is supposed to be “evil,” right? The queen insults Maleficent,
and she responds by putting a sleeping curse on the King. The queen can’t
awaken the king with a kiss because she doesn’t love him, but that’s OK,
because he won’t interfere with her plan to destroy the Moors and kill-off all
the fairy folk who see Maleficent as their protector. Oh, wait a minute—it wasn’t
Maleficent who cursed the king, but the queen who used Maleficent’s own cursed
spindle to prick him with. Yada, yada, yada. Naturally, there is no “evil” for
Maleficent to atone for, and there is of course the “teaser” that there will be
a sequel.
I don’t know what the point of
these two films are. Are they trying to say that what is “evil” is in the eye
of the beholder? If Maleficent is supposed to be “evil,” then why doesn’t that “evil”
have consequences? It can be claimed that the films portray the “consequences”
of trying to fight evil by those who lack the power to do so, but these films
do not even pretend to do that. When you see a film in which the principle
character is supposed to be “evil,” you expect “good” to win out eventually.
Evil characters are usually more interesting than the good characters in a
movie, and part of the satisfaction is seeing that evil eventually being overcome
by the good. But the Maleficent in these films is actually quite boring because
there is nothing inherently “evil” or even “bad,” about her. Like the Wicked
Witch in Wicked, she is just “misunderstood”
and “discriminated” against, and her actions are all reactions to the evil perpetrated on her—thus they are perfectly “understandable”
and politically acceptable. The sequel is actually worse than the first film
because Maleficent never actually
does anything to question her inherent “goodness.”
What conclusions are we to make
of the difference between “good” and “evil” in these films? That just because
someone “looks” evil doesn’t mean they are “evil”? Well, that might work in
today’s world if we examine the negative stereotypes applied to minorities in
this country, especially Hispanic males. But that isn’t what these movies are
attempting to do; they are playing to the kind of gender politics that excuses
things like domestic violence, child abuse or infanticide committed by women.
There is always a perfectly “reasonable” explanation for why they do such “evil”
things, because "evil" was perpetrated on them, so goes the current
narrative. They are as the real “victims.” In the Oliver Stone film Wall Street, greed was “good”; in the Maleficent films, evil is “good” if it
was done by the right demographic, because it was in the name of a “good”
reason. No wonder this generation can’t tell the difference between the two,
and act accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment