| Author |
Comment
|
Kerrie
Registered User
(12/16/01 6:37:50 pm)
|
Dark to Light- tale variants...
Here's a question that came to me yesterday:
What are the tales that have had the greatest variance from original to modern versions? Think of them as if they were on a brightness scale, -5 being very dark, +5 being very light, and 0 being in the center. Some tales (to start) that I can think of that have gone from very dark to very light are Nutcracker and the Mouse King, Cinderella, Snow White, Red Riding Hood, Sleeping Beauty.
Others' thoughts?
Forest frosts and sugarplum dreams,
Kerrie
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(12/16/01 7:01:18 pm)
|
dark to light
Kerrie,
Interesting question. A lot seem to depend upon how you define "modern" version. If you are talking about watered down, Disneyized versions, almost any tale they have used have become pablum. Think about the Little Mermaid - what happened her incredible pain when walking? Or the not so pleasant ending of her sisters? Snow White suffered the same fate. What I would like to see is a discussion of tales not treated by Disney.
Jess
|
Terri
Registered User
(12/17/01 7:51:18 am)
|
Re: dark to light
Sleeping Beauty, even if you ignore the Disney version, is the tale I usually hold up as a prime example when discussing the kinds of changes that can happen to a tale over the centuries. In the Italian 15th century version we have a married prince who stumbles across the sleeping princess, fornicates with her, leaves again, and the princess wakes up after the birth of twins. By the 20th century, the prince -- unmarried and instantly in love with her -- wakes her with a chaste, respectful kiss. Now *that's* a change.
Sometimes it's just as interesting to note what hasn't changed. Perrault, for instance, leaves out the sex and the birth of the twins, but leaves in the cannabilistic mother-in-law in the second half of the story. And both Perrault and Grimms leave in the incest implications in their versions of Donkeyskin/Allerleirauh. (Notice that Disney hasn't tackled that one!)
|
Carrie
Unregistered User
(12/17/01 8:02:47 am)
|
Walt the monster of modernity
There was an article-essay not too long ago on Art and Letters Daily about Walt Disney. I thought about posting the link here, but since it was more of an essay I decided against it. However, now that he has come up I think I'd like to chat about Walt. I know we've brought him up before, but I don't imagine it hurts to readdress the topic. My personal opinion on Disney is one of admiration. Not because of anything other than the fact that his productions brought magic into the lives of people that might have otherwise never have even had a glimpse of fairy tales. I agree that it his work is saccharine, sappy and oblique -- but I have each and every one of the Disney Classic videos. I remember the thrill of seeing theses stories on the silver screen and my children have seen them I think in the same light. As I grew older I started searching out these stories, only to find them different from what I had seen. But it started me on a path of knowledge and anything that does that has to be recognized for that one thing alone. Disney knew what he was doing and he did it well. I'm a lover of all things magical. Wonderland should exist for everyone in my opinion and when I was growing up it was hard to find good fantasy fiction. I'm not saying it wasn't there, but the librarians would have much rather have me read solid, moral stories that "educated" me in the way of the "real" world. Which I think everyone here would agree that fairy tales are just about that. This is how I started writing my own fairy tales -- Reading and studying the basic tales and then following their twisted threads from Carter to Warner to Windling to Yolen to Zipes to the whole host of women and men that have delved into the deep waters of our subconscious to pull out the elemental emotions and trials embedded in these stories to change them into their own. Disney did the same and did it to gain the popularity of the masses. I saw some of the original plates for The Little Mermaid. Walt originally had the tale as a darker story but then he shelved it because he knew it wouldn't appeal to the general public in that form. It took years before that particular tale saw production. Walt really was a lot like Perrault, don't you think? That's the beauty of fairy tales -- they're malleable, they shift to fit the reader and the times -- sort of a one-size fits all magic cloak. Now my children are fascinated with Potter -- what child isn't? And when I catch myself grumbling at the outrageous merchandise and the equally outrageous prices I have to stop myself and remember how glad I should be that Harry Potter popularized those things that most people like to keep hidden in closets. Good for Rowling. And good for all of the blinded children and adults that had forgotten or never heard about magic. Maybe they will look a little harder at fantasy fiction and learn about all of the wonderful and horrible and mediocre stories that are floating around out there. It's about time.
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(12/17/01 2:29:53 pm)
|
Disney and light to dark
Carrie,
Don't get me wrong - I love Disney too. Who but Disney could paint such beautiful moving and often stylized pictures to go along with the fairy tales? True too Disney had to satisfy the audience of small children and adults desperately seeking happy ever after stories during the depression and war years. And, as with all films, the story succumbs somewhat to the necessities of the medium - film often uses less script and more visual information to tell the story. Still, what happens when Disney takes on a story is the Disney version has a life of its own that often becomes the frame of reference for viewers. I pick on Disney mostly as I would pick on almost any film version of written or oral story (what can I say, I am a snob for the written/spoken word). I often find the value of Disney is more in the visual arts than the written one, but I too find Disney enjoyable.
Having said that, I am truly interested in tales other than the ones in which we immediately refer to the Disney version. Terri correctly points out that Sleeping Beauty has lightened even prior to Disney. I have Andrew Lang's version of the Arabian Nights. My guess is that this book, first published in 1898, has "lightened" the stories from the originals. By the way, these stories have also been treated "lightly" by Hollywood. I would love to hear about these (or maybe I could research it). Anyone out there with a comment?
Sorry, Carrie, if I offended you.
Jess
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(12/17/01 2:31:10 pm)
|
re: light to dark
re Carrie's remarks. I have to admit that as a child I loved Disney's fairy tale versions. They were my primary exposure to fairy tales and I adored the look, the songs, the true love endings. They were the introduction that led me into reading myth and fairy tale collections as an older child and later into fantasy literature. Of course now I feel more ambivalent about the Disney fairy tales messages and depictions. I try to expose my children and students to other versions of the stories and to discuss what the changes reflect about our society.
re light to dark: I recently saw Disney's (as in the company obviously, not Walt Disney the person) Beauty and the Beast and, like Jane Yolen has aptly pointed out before, saw changes that were disturbing. de Beaumont's tale, while moralizing and didactic, shows a beast torn apart by the loss of his humanity. While he punishes the father harshly for taking the rose, he often tries to hide his beastiality and almost dies from the loss of love. Disney's version shows a ferocious beast, smashing things, snarling, and shouting for no reason at all. Beauty still has to find the good in him, but the good is not only buried under a monstrous exterior, it is buried under monstrous behavior. It is dealt with lightly - with little emotional depth - but it is hardly a lighter version.
Laura Mc
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(12/17/01 2:55:06 pm)
|
dark and then dark?
Laura,
I think what is rather "light" about the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast is the Beauty character, who is rather thinly painted and not very complex. Unlike in the original, where Beauty appears to be not very demanding, but does indeed demand the most difficult of presents, the new Beauty is merely a bookish, provential girl seeking adventure, who herself who is not happy marrying at her "station", but is perfectly happy being the consort of an aristocrat. Further, her sacrifice seems much less contemplated in the Disney version. Not much character development, and certainly she is fluff.
Still, I agree some truly dark moments in the Disney version where the Beast is concerned. I think the addition of the fear factor by the townspeople also is interesting.
Jess
Jess
|
Carrie
Unregistered User
(12/18/01 8:28:36 am)
|
Disney
Sorry for ranting. I'm not a huge "fan" of Disney, I just appreciate the film for what they are. I actually am not much of a movie watcher. I prefer to read. I didn't even have a TV in my house until I got a roommate. Bot to people flip out when they walk in and see rows of bookcases and no TV in sight. I think I seem rather barbaric to some.
Carrie
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(12/20/01 8:55:27 am)
|
Rapunzel
Kerrie,
Seems that versions I read of this story as a child always left out the second part, with the blind prince seeking Rapunzel. Still, had some dark moments though.
Jess
|
summersinger
Registered User
(12/20/01 12:27:58 pm)
|
Re: Dark to Light- tale variants...
"The Little Mermaid" certainly went light very quickly after the Disney movie came out. I have vague memories of watching other movies of the story when I was little, but it seems that the only two versions anyone can remember are the original and the Disney. My parents bought the complete works of Grimm and the complete works of Anderson when I was very young and would read them to me every night. The Little Mermaid was also the first movie I really loved, and when I was little I would literally watch it every day. So I was exposed to both versions early on, which is maybe why I can't see one of them as being better than the other. There are some stories that are just stupid when sugared up, but I still love both versions of this one. I guess I just see them as two different stories, even though they're just light and dark versions of the same one.
-Julia
|
Karen
Unregistered User
(12/20/01 2:39:40 pm)
|
I don't know...
if I could ascribe any positive influence to Disney, at least as far as my own personal interest in fairy tales is concerned. I never really watched Disney as a child- the only contact I can recall distinctly is when we all had to dress up as mice and do a dance at the annual school fete. Instead, I read the original Alice and Peter Pan and Narnia and The Neverending Story and weirdo Australian things like The Magic Pudding. So perhaps it is all too easy for me to dismiss Disney as valueless mass marketing= because there is no personal resonance for me. Also, coming from a western country other than the US, Disney, as one of the paramount representatives of American consummer culture, was and is always regarded with suspicion- it's the wallpaper we try not to drown in. I remember my friend's absolute horror when an Aunt in Connecticut gave him a Mickey Mouse sports jacket! IT's hard to grin and bear the continual stream of merchandise and spin offs when you feel that your own local culture is being eroded in order to make room for each saccarine addition to the Disney family. As you get older, you view the "invasion" with a more ironic eye, of course. I can appreciate the comments people have made above- that Disney piqued their interest, encouraged them to explore fantasy in greater depth. I think Harry Potter achieves this end even more effectively- at least, I have observed this much from the children of my acquaitance!
There was an article in The Globe and Mail (Toronto based newspaper) a couple of weeks ago which pertained to this very subject. If the good link faeire will assist and anyone is interested:
www.theglobeandmail.com/s...s_start=11
Karen
|
|
