When it comes to all-time great movie entrances, you can’t do
much better than the first appearance of the sorceress Maleficent in Walt
Disney’s 1959 animated masterpiece, “Sleeping Beauty.” With a bolt of
lightning, the witch appears, crashing a royal christening to deliver a promise
of certain death to an infant, seemingly because the king and queen neglected
to send her an invitation to the party. With her flowing black and purple
cloak, pale green skin, and that unforgettable horned headdress, there’s no
mistaking she’s the villain of the piece. One of Disney’s most iconic
characters, Maleficent is a figure of pure malevolence who seems to delight in
her own wickedness.
In Disney’s “Maleficent,” a revisionist fairy tale in the
vein of Gregory Maguire’s “Wicked,” screenwriter Linda Woolverton
and director Robert Stromberg recast the character as a wounded woman out for
revenge against a patriarchal society that has wronged her. The film is an
origin story, though it devotes the majority of its run time to retelling “Sleeping Beauty” from Maleficent’s
point of view. As the film tells it, Maleficent was once a young, horned and
winged orphan living in the peaceful kingdom of the fairies (nevermind that it’s awfully cruel for her parents to have
named their child “Maleficent,” which literally means evil). One day, she
meets, befriends, and eventually falls in love with Stefan, a human boy who
wanders into the realm from the nearby kingdom of men. He continues to make
visits to her as they grow older, but he always leaves to return to the land of
men.
The human king has always coveted the fairy realm, and on his
deathbed vows that whoever can slay Maleficent (now played as an adult by
Angelina Jolie), who acts as its protector, and win the kingdom in the name of
men, will be his successor. Stefan (Sharlto Copley,
in an oddly stiff performance) sets out to do just that, but finds he can’t
bring himself to kill Maleficent. Instead, in a disturbing scene, Stefan drugs
her, lies with her, and cuts off her wings while she sleeps, leaving Maleficent
to wake up the next morning horrified to discover her body has been violated.
It’s a thinly veiled rape metaphor, which is a rather questionable choice for
what’s ostensibly a family film, but Stefan’s betrayal sets the stage for
Maleficent to be reborn as the baby-cursing villain we know and love. But here,
Maleficent continues to watch over Aurora (Elle Fanning) as she grows up under
the care of the three “good” fairies (hideous, miniaturized, CGI versions of
actresses Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Lesley Manville), portrayed here as
negligent caretakers who would have allowed the child to die if Maleficent
wasn’t around to intervene. For years, Maleficent apparently has nothing better
to do than skulk around the forest watching Aurora age, allowing the young girl
to come to think of her as a fairy godmother.
In theory, it makes sense to give
Maleficent a backstory, fleshing out her character to give her motive, but
there’s a reason the bad guys are always more fascinating characters than the
heroes. Turning her into a spurned lover robs her of any mystique she once had,
to say nothing of the fact that after “Oz: The Great and Powerful,” Disney is
apparently operating under the assumption that the only possible explanation
for why a powerful woman might turn evil is to get back at a boy. The source of
Maleficent’s villainy didn’t need explanation, and by
rewriting her character to strip her of those villainous tendencies feels as
though the filmmakers doubted audiences could root for a female antihero. The
way she’s presented, it’s a stretch to even call her an antihero, and by the
time she’s filmed astride her noble steed, rearing up against a golden sunset
as she races to stop her own curse from being carried out, it’s pretty clear
she’s a straight-up hero. Plus, she doesn’t even turn into an effin’ dragon! Becoming a dragon is Maleficent’s
coolest power and she doesn’t even get to do it — instead her shape-shifting
companion Diaval (Sam Riley) gets that ability.
This is Stromberg’s first turn in the director’s chair after
serving as production designer on films like “Alice In
Wonderland” and “Avatar,” and as you might expect, he excels at the visuals,
but seems lost in most other areas. His lack of directing skill is most
egregious during the poorly staged final battle sequence. Thankfully, Angelina
Jolie is perfectly cast. She looks fantastic in the part, and she clearly
relishes playing devious, but she feels constrained much of the time. She only
gets to cut loose during the christening, which is the film’s best scene and
little surprise, it’s the one that’s lifted practically verbatim from the
animated film. With her sweet nature and infectious smile, I had little trouble
buying Fanning as a Disney princess, and her character’s relationship with
Maleficent functions as a sweet, rather potent metaphor for adoptive
motherhood. As Prince Phillip, Brenton Thwaites is
given nothing to do whatsoever, though I did appreciate Woolverton’s
addition of Phillip’s reluctance to kiss Aurora without her consent.
Disney’s “Maleficent” emerges as a fundamentally misguided
interpretation of the title character, one that seems to misunderstand what
drew people to her in the first place. As a fan myself, it’s hard to imagine
another film this summer being as overwhelmingly disappointing a viewing
experience.
This article appears in Jun 4-10, 2014.
” the only possible explanation for why a powerful woman might turn evil is to get back at a boy.”
In the retelling she had already forgave him the first time. Did it not occur to you the the dismembering of her person (regardless of the gender of the person dismembering her) was the cause of her rage. Or perhaps that betrayal for the sake of power gain was a motivator. Apparently you are too narrow minded to see those aspects of her turning evil.
” Instead, in a disturbing scene, Stefan drugs her, lies with her, and cuts off her wings while she sleeps, leaving Maleficent to wake up the next morning horrified to discover her body has been violated. It’s a thinly veiled rape metaphor, which is a rather questionable choice for what’s ostensibly a family film,”
There was no sexuality presented in this scene. and to add in your review that he “lies with her” implies they had sex which they didn’t. It was a scene of him waiting for the drug to take effect. I think your more interested in attempting to sexualize the scene for your readers just to make your point. Bad show friend, bad show
“For years, Maleficent apparently has nothing better to do than skulk around the forest watching Aurora age, allowing the young girl to come to think of her as a fairy godmother.”
What else would she do, she focused her rage and hatred into cursing the girl, so at first naturally she would want to watch her to suffer, to observe her handy work. In the beginning she kept her a live with the knowledge that if she died to soon she would not be able to revel in the misery that she would cause the king (like killing the torture victim too soon)
Aurora thought of her as her fairy godmother because she didn’t know any better, and the scene where she explains it is the beginning of the villain understanding that her rage was misdirected.
” Plus, she doesn’t even turn into an effin’ dragon! Becoming a dragon is Maleficent’s coolest power and she doesn’t even get to do it — instead her shape-shifting companion Diaval (Sam Riley) gets that ability.”
A little fixated are we? He didn’t have the ability she changed him into it. She’s a dragon, He’s a dragon its a minor deviation in what is obviously an alternate telling where deviations are EXPECTED. Are you so much of a traditionalist that your upset about the dragons fire not being green as well?
“Disney’s “Maleficent” emerges as a fundamentally misguided interpretation of the title character, one that seems to misunderstand what drew people to her in the first place. As a fan myself, it’s hard to imagine another film this summer being as overwhelmingly disappointing a viewing experience.”
Piecing together your review its obvious you went into this movie expecting a replay of the original production. Your too fixated on the original telling and too much of a traditionalist to give the movie a fair review. Honestly you should not have reviewed a movie that you went into with specific expectations based on the previous telling.
Is it really that radical to go into a movie like Maleficent with expectations that some esteem for the original story would be upheld? It’s Disney working off it’s own property—it’s not like another studio is making the film where they’d have to carefully toe the line of what’s legally safe to use and what belongs to Disney.
Disney went out to the public with the message “Hey! Remember this thing you loved? We’re going to give you more of it! More! Hold on to your butts, you’re going to get more and it’s going to be awesome!”
Granted, we all should have learned a lesson based on the terrible experience of George Lucas bringing us more Star Wars and then having the steaming pile of the prequels shoveled into our collective laps.
Hi Clark, I appreciate you taking the time to write in and respond to my review. I always appreciate the feedback, However, I have to disagree with your belief that I went into this film with the expectation that I’d be seeing the exact same story told in Disney’s original “Sleeping Beauty.” Of course I didn’t. My only expectations for “Maleficent” were that I’d see a movie that told a compelling story and honored a character who has long been been one of my favorites. Simply put, I felt the film failed to deliver on either account.
As for the idea that I couldn’t accept the “dismembering of her person” or the “betrayal for the sake of power gain” as reason enough for Maleficent’s rage, of course those are perfectly valid reasons. But the point remains (and perhaps I was unclear on this) that her transition was completely reactionary, based on her treatment by the man she loved. If the loss of her wings was to be the ultimate result, why couldn’t it have been in a way that more befitted such a powerful and capable character? Say, losing them in battle? Wouldn’t that have been an equally valid reason for her anger toward those that took them from her?
A simple search of the internet will tell you that I’m hardly the only person that interpreted the scene of Stefan taking Maleficent’s wings as a metaphor for rape. Intentional or not (and I’d argue it is) the fact is that those connotations are there, and the idea that I’m simply trying to sexualize the scene for my readers is insulting.
Regardless, the fundamental reason for my disappointment with the film is that the decision was made to alter one of the most memorable Disney villains of all time in order to make her more likeable. The fact that the film was made in the first place shows that Disney knows how beloved the character of Maleficent is to many people. So why change her most defining characteristic? She’s evil. Giving her a backstory and motivation for her villainy doesn’t have to change that fact. By doing so, it seems to say that audiences won’t accept a film whose protagonist is “bad.” You only have to look at the popularity of television shows like “Breaking Bad” or “The Sopranos,” both centered around male antiheroes, to see that’s not true.
It was my hope that in “Maleficent,” I’d see a film that found imaginative ways to flesh out an already great character in ways that made her even better and more interesting. In my mind, the film failed to do that.
Hopefully that clears things up. Thanks for reading!
OK. We get it more dragons and trolls. This is about a powerful fairy being betrayed by a human. Sex aside. She or it could have been He wanted to to trust that friendship meant just that, friendship. have any of you not been hurt by that? So trusting, so innocent – She is devastated. but she regroups and deepens within the experience. That is her destiny. How amazing in such a jaded world that steals to be or feel valuable. I am shocked that rape is all you see. But I am not. As we rape the earth, the unconscious and yes our own self daily.