Maleficent

Inside the theatre you're welcome to discuss your favorite television shows, musical artists, video games, books, movies, or anything popular culture!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

You’re right, but that’s not exactly what I was trying to say. By ‘Everything that happened still happened’ I meant the original story, as an event, still took place. There’s that one side of it, and now there’s this other ‘version’ as in another description of events, not another ‘occurrence’ or however you want to describe it. It’s a different story about the same event.

Remember that the whole thing is a fairy tale. It’s not a regular story, it’s a narrative recounted by a storyteller. The original movie tells about the events surrounding Sleeping Beauty one way, this one tells them another. The differences are due to the biases or simply innocent misunderstandings or exaggerations of each storyteller as they tell the story from different perspectives.

Now this is all in the context of the world of the movies.
In the real world, as for how the studio did various things, as I said there can certainly be valid criticisms. I give you all the ‘this was too heavy handed’ because that’s a matter of interpretation. I didn’t get that at all, you got it very loudly, to each their own.
The one thing I still must refute however is your attack on the prince. I completely understand what you’re saying, I even agree with a part of it, but I don’t fault it because I understand why it was like that. You keep saying it doesn’t matter if he was there before, he shouldn’t be there now if he’s not going to do anything. I can only repeat myself so it probably won’t do any good, but yes it matters he was in the original. They couldn’t have just left him out - everyone knows there is a prince in the story somewhere. According to this storyteller the first storyteller got his part in the events wrong, but that doesn’t change that he had some part in it. Even if, as this one would have us believe, that part was a nonpart.

You didn’t answer my question from before. Would you have preferred that Maleficent brought him to the castle and then he remained the one to wake Aurora? Then he wouldn’t have been ‘useless’ right?
If so, I agreed that could have been a fine way for the story to go. But as I said they wanted a much more involved Maleficent in the events, thus her being the waker. Your response to this seems to be, and correct me if I’m wrong, ‘Then just have her be the waker in the first place, leave the prince out entirely.’ While I can understand that sentiment, I can only repeat that such a move would be impossible since he’s so central in the original story. It’s a spiral, and it all stands on how you believe the original movie needs to play into this one. You say it doesn’t at all, I say it does very much. Neither is wrong, but I think my position provides a more enthralling view of both movies. Again, you take them both together to make a fuller story out of each.
Image
User avatar
~JCGJ~
Autumn is a Glorious Season
Autumn is a Glorious Season
Posts: 2567
Joined: September 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Gender:

Post by ~JCGJ~ »

I believe the movie works under the impression that the "story we've been told" had been greatly stretched and exaggerated. King Stefan's supporters obviously embellished the story, so as to make the "Witch" appear as evil and uncaring as possible (leaving "Sleeping Beauty" and everyone in the Castle to fall into deep slumber for 100 years), when in reality, she was just reacting (in anger) to the fact that her heart was broken and her wings were stolen in one fell swoop (a fairly natural reaction, I'd say). Or, at least, that's the impression I got from Aurora's narration at the very end of the movie. Maleficent is simply the retelling of the story we've all heard, but from Aurora's perspective, instead of from King Stefan's supporters. I mean, if you ask five different witnesses of a car crash what each of them saw, you'll get five different stories, with congruencies and contradictions throughout each, just as there are with the original "Sleeping Beauty," and this "new story," Maleficent.
Last edited by ~JCGJ~ on Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
They/Them
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Image
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

Exactly what I meant JCGJ. They’re two different perspectives of the story.
And something else to note is that not only the male characters are useless in this story. Really every character is useless. And again, that was the point the movie was making. That Maleficent was the only one who does anything. She was the one watching over Sleeping Beauty, protecting her as she grew, and eventually saving her from the curse that she herself had put upon her.
Remember that if Maleficent had not been watching the three faeries Aurora would have died at least twice under their incompetent care (by falling over the cliff and by starving) and likely several other times we didn’t see as the years passed.

As I said before, the purpose of this movie was to put the events of the original story in a new understanding. We understand now why Maleficent had the spite that caused her to invoke the curse, then watch as despite her initial hatred of Aurora she continues to watch over and protect her, leading to a change of heart in which she actually tries to remove the curse but is unable. This leads her to be even more protective of her, knowing the curse stands and looking for a way to prevent it from being fulfilled, then when it does set in a way for it to be broken. This involves the prince, as we know from the original narrative, as a first attempt, but unseen in the original is that it was not the final, and ultimately successful attempt.

Everything is all about Maleficent, intentionally. That’s why the prince was useless, it wasn’t because he was a man, it was because he wasn’t Maleficent.
Image
Post Reply