Thursday, June 5, 2014

Up Next From Disney: Live Action "Beauty & the Beast" (& some lovely illustrations in the meantime)

Penelope Cruz & Jeff Bridges by Annie Leibovitz for Disney Parks Dream Portraits Series
Note: I wanted to post something different image-wise so all the illustrations shown below are by HILARY KNIGHT except for the stained glass window sequences/images - which are from the Disney animated classic Beauty and the Beast. Please click on images to view full size.

And it's going to be Disney's Beauty and the Beast, they're basing it on, not the fairy tale(s), of course BUT it still means they're going to have to create a Beast (and, if they go the full route, talking dinnerware etc too) so someone has quite the challenge to make it come off well. It's a no-brainer money-maker but has so many risks involved creating the world of the animated feature too.
My cynical side is wondering if this had anything to do with why the Gans film hasn't made it across the English-speaking border but realistically, the Disney movie is so far off it's unlikely to have been considered much of a challenger. You never know though. I have no doubt audiences in the US, UK & Aus would have flocked to see the French film just for the lush visuals and classic fairy tale and then it would remain a comparative project. However, Guillermo Del Toro has had his highly anticipated Beauty and the Beast project with Emma Watson in development for a long time now, getting ever-so-slowly closer to starting production (it was supposed to start this Spring but there's been no word) so perhaps Disney is taking advantage of the gap, or gambling on the marketing from dueling projects. I guess we shall see...

Here's the official word from Variety:
With the recent release of “Maleficent,” which grossed more than $170 million worldwide in its opening weekend, Disney is working fast on its next live-action fairy-tale adaptation. Bill Condon is set to direct a live-action version of “Beauty and the Beast” for Disney. Evan Spiliotopoulos is writing the script with Mandeville Films producing.  
Condon is best known for his hit feature adaptation of the musical “Dreamgirls,” and his experience in helming a film with strong musical elements will help this film, which could very easily go down that path. Condon also penned the script to the widely successful adaptation of musical “Chicago.” He also delivered two of the best reviewed films in the “Twilight” series and most recently adapted the script to Fox’s “The Greatest Showman on Earth.”
So what do you think? Are you interested? 
                   
While I'm not bowled over by the news (and it's no surprise as it's been rumbling around for a while - this is just confirmation that it's actually happening) I'm definitely curious as to what they will do since it can't be exactly the same as the animated classic (it just wouldn't translate to live action). This means there is the possibility that other elements will be included in the movie, whether historical or cultural placement, older tale sources, even other legends that might inform the new script (Cyrano anyone?). I am curious if they're going to include anything from the fairy sequence shown in stained glass images in the animated film (see images below).
Prologue and end scene stained glass windows from Disney's Beauty and the Beast
It happened to Maleficent and the inspiration of Spenser's Faerie Queene informs more of the movie than not, which was surprising but also wonderful. Unfortunately, what didn't translate to the screen for those unfamiliar with older tales, was the ancient sense and respect/fear of Faerie people commonly used to have, (so apparently people were confused as to why the humans had an uneasy relationship with the Fae to start with). One of the novelizations laid it out in the prologue, being part of an earlier shooting script, but it didn't make it to the final cut. Apparently, the idea is something which, (to judge from a large number of "educated critics'" comments), people today are mostly unaware of unless they already love old fae legends and sensibilities. (When exactly did this knowledge go from general to obscure?? Was it when our books of fairy tales - the lesser known, mixed with the popular ones, fell out of circulation?)
                    
The live action Beauty and the Beast is less likely to be a revisionist tale (like Maleficent is) but more of a remake of the Disney classic though, so I'm not holding my breath. Although it will be interesting to see what they do with the Beast in particular, (as many stunning Belle cosplays and photoshoots that they've been, every Beast attempt has... not), I must admit I'd be much more excited if they were tackling something entirely new.
By the way, here is the book those lovely illustrations are from. I definitely recommend it for your personal library.
                      

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Theater: "The Magic Hour" - A Contemporary, Grim(m), One Woman Comedy & Storytelling Show That's Casting It's Spell Over Critics & Audiences Alike

If you follow the AFTS (Australian Fairy Tale Society) on Facebook, you will see I already sent word about this play there but I wanted to highlight it here too, so everyone is aware of it, as it sounds refreshingly different and quite gutsy (what we like to see!).

Not only that, every review I've read gives glowing praise, with only good things to say about both the production and Ms. Yovich, to the point that there are rumors about it being THE theatrical production of 2014.

First, a little intro so you have an idea of what all the raving is about:

From EventFinder:
Starring Helpmann Award-winning actress Ursula Yovich (Capricornia, The Secret River and ABC TV’s Gods of Wheat Street and Redfern Now), this celebrated evening of song and storytelling is a deliciously dark interpretation of classic Grimms’ fairy tales.
The Magic Hour is set in a contemporary urban landscape and tells the stories of fairy tales’ sidelined characters including Rapunzel’s captor, Red Riding Hood’s granny and Cinderella’s ugly stepsister.
A gutsy one-woman comedy, The Magic Hour reveals the rich social commentary embedded in these magical tales and reflects on the gritty lives of the women that inspired the characters with a haunting realism.
Written by award-winning Australian playwright Vanessa Bates (Chipper, Porn. Cake, Every Second), The Magic Hour is the swansong production for Deckchair Theatre and promises an evening of no sugar-coated children’s stories. 
Sounds really interesting, right? (If I were in Oz for the conference , I'd certainly be joining a bunch of AFTS folk to go see this at Riverside Paramatta (oh to be able to see a fairy tale event with fairy tale folk!) Take a look at the promo video:
The one woman who plays all the roles, engages the audience in storytelling and in song, is Ursula Yovich, a talented award winning indigenous actress and a brief interview discussing The Magic Hour can be found HERE.
To give you even more of a picture, here's some of the press release:
Thought you knew Grimm’s fairy tales? Think again.
Once upon a time…. 
Hidden in the crevices, drawn from the gutters and alleyways of life, comes a startling retelling of classic fairy tales. This deliciously wicked and dangerously funny one-woman show stars Helpmann Award winning actor and singer Ursula Yovich (Australia, Jindabyne, The Secret River). 
She expertly takes familiar aspects of Grimm’s tales and characters from stories of Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, Cinderella and others and cleverly manipulates them into more modern versions and settings. Do not expect sugar-coated children’s stories here. The Magic Hour is gritty, with an air of dark comedy and haunting realism.  
From one of Australia’s most original contemporary playwrights, Vanessa Bates, The Magic Hour is a gutsy one-woman comedy told with dark humour and soulful song. 
This is story-telling for grown-ups at its very best. A night of stories told at twilight with werewolves and a touch of magic…

And there's a great summary review courtesy of The Blurb Magazine, which details more of the performance that only makes me want to see it all the more. Here's a taste:
It began with the set, a beautifully lit open space with a corrugated and wood gypsy-style caravan and the trappings of an Aboriginal outback camp site designed by Alicia Clements. Props and costumes were cleverly tucked away in various drawers, and windows and shutters opened and closed to add another dimension to the stories. Joe Lui’s lighting design shone brightly on the caravan and let the edges drift into darkness; a perfect setting for some dark tales. 
Ursula Yovich wandered onto the set, talked to the audience, and checked how her pumpkin soup was cooking on her bush stove. Then she began telling her stories and, with a variety of shawls, fur, wraps and coats, body language and a change of vocal tone she created many different and very real characters. The props were hung out on a washing line at the end of each story, which gave the show a neat continuity. 
She had the sell-out audience enthralled and proved what a brilliant storyteller she is. She weaved a spell as she retold six traditional fairytales penned by Vanessa Bates that were set well away from the original locations. 
... It truly was fairytales like you’ve not heard them before. Why: because they were told from angle of other characters in the story. The essence of the ancient tales remained while the people became modern and fractured; the sick, the dispossessed, druggies, the victims who had slipped through the cracks.
You can read the whole, much longer, review HERE.

And I want a full report from the AFTS conference attendees who are lucky enough to go see this please! (Pretty please..?)

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

"The 7D" Gets a Promo & Premere Date (aka Disney Does Smurfs)

You know Disney's classic Snow White, and how greatly loved those dwarfs have been through generations? Well they're getting their own  "pre-Snow White" TV series spin-off (can a prequel be a spin-off?), full of crazy fun and wacky adventures (you may have seem my previous post from long, long ago HERE). Well that's what we've been told is happening here. In reality the dwarfs and any connection they have with the Disney classic, apart from the names, if pretty much undetectable, let alone any link to a real fairy tale.

Basically, with 7D (which stands, of course, for Seven Dwarfs), Disney are doing their version of The Smurfs.

Am I being too critical? Here's the trailer so you can judge for yourself:
I wouldn't care at all if Disney created their version of Smurfs - not my thing, I don't need to spend time on it, but they're SPECIFICALLY saying these are an updating of the classic Seven Dwarfs (in the style of the guy who did Fish Hooks).

The premise:
Described as a comedic take on the world of Seven Dwarfs in a contemporary storybook world, 7D takes place in Jollywood where Queen Delightful relies on the 7D — Happy, Bashful, Sleepy, Sneezy, Dopey, Grumpy and Doc — to keep the kingdom in order. Standing in their way are two laughably evil villains, Grim and Hildy Gloom, who plot to take over the kingdom by stealing the magical jewels in the 7D’s mine.
It might be funny. People may think it's cute. I've heard positive things from people working there. And hey, to give credit where credit is due, after all the hideous things done to Mickey Mouse, the most recent property of Mickey Mouse shorts, in design, writing and sensibility, are rather brilliant. (Take a look HERE if you don't believe me.)

But why did they have to touch an already beloved (and, to put it in dollars, still highly marketable) set of characters, whom people still love seeing? It's not like these are, for example, the (thankfully) mostly-forgotten terrible Goons of Sleeping Beauty that are both a Disney property and untapped.

The show, standing on it's own legs, is likely to be either awful or pull an Adventure Time and be surprisingly great,  (emphasis on the "surprisingly" here) but, at the risk of sounding like one of those "get off my lawn!" folk, either way the fairy tale connection appears to be pretty much teetering in at the zero mark. (You can see a whole post I wrote a while back on re-imagining Snow White's dwarves, from realism to OUAT to blockbusters and some very different illustrations, HERE.)

 I guess we'll find out for sure on Monday, July 7th when it premieres.

(My sad face is on.)

Monday, June 2, 2014

"Maleficent" Fairy Tale 411 (A Review - Part A - The Non-Spoiler Part & Why I Felt It Was Worth Taking My Kid to the "El Capitan" Presentation)

The OUABlog one-liner review:
Maleficent = perfectly wonderful family movie + #YesAllWomen + better-than-average-but-still-Disney

"Whaa..?" I hear you say.
Note: Before I forget - do click on the images of the props and set to see them full size. :) I'm amazed I got as many photos as I did, considering how packed it was!
Onto the "more than one line review - Part A":
So here's the thing: Maleficent, as a movie standing on it's own, is pretty solid and entertaining, but with some substance too. I didn't even have to rap myself on the knuckles to quiet my inner critic while watching (at least not half as much as I expected to.)
As far as a fairy tale goes it's probably better to think of it as the film equivalent of a novel using the Sleeping Beauty tale but that's actually a good thing for the film, as I'll (eventually) explain. 
What is this? It's a family fantasy film that is built on a fairy tale, as well as an older sense of Faerie. And it's great for kids, but it's also not primarily aimed at kids either, which is another reason it works better than (I) expected.
            
Here's what went right:
- it's far more family friendly than the marketing made it out to be without being a mainly-for-kids movie 
- it's very colorful in a delightful way throughout (yes there are dark scenes but the majority of the film is positive and bright) 
- there's a ton of humor (I had no idea we'd be laughing so often through the movie, especially at and with Maleficent!) 
- the fantasy-faerie world is wonderful and everything you wanted in both magical world building and in Froudian-creatures brought to life (and possibly the best portrayal of Olde Faerie mentality I've seen - with both the light beauty and the dark power) 
- the big issues are dealt with in a manner a 5 or 6 year old could manage (without trauma, yes, even the "big" ones) 
- Angelina Jolie (who is on screen for a huge percentage of the movie) is pretty much flawless in the role and engages the audience for every second she appears  
- the film has enough layers to show this isn't a throw-away money-making production but that someone (probably lots of someones, considering the level of work and attention to detail) cared a lot about this movie on many levels
- it's also, regarding the timing of it's release, serendipitously, on point with all of the hot-button social issues of "right now", from the power of love and the importance of family, to the very real issues brought to light via the #YesAllWomen hashtag in the aftermath of the tragedies in Santa Barbara. (I will discuss the specifics of the film with regard to this in Part B.)
It may be the fortuitous timing of the release against this social backdrop that is the reason it survives beyond initial blockbuster status as well, although, it deserves to for other reasons. No matter that it's not what people expected, or how it has changed the perception of a Disney icon, this film takes many more risks that Frozen did and should be recognized for it... but I'll get to that later.
Although, admittedly, we were in a audience of people highly inclined to love anything Maleficent, it wasn't just this crowd that came out beaming, having very much enjoyed the movie. Almost everyone's (general) immediate experience (including many critics, when they're being honest) has been, at the moments the credits are rising up the screen: "That was fun!" 
 
But it's also clear, while it may be an audience winner, why it's not an overwhelming critical success as well. It's only as you start thinking about things exiting the theater that you begin to have issues. 

Why? How can people enjoy the movie so very much only to have pulled it to shreds by the time they get home?
 
There are two main problems:
1) It's a revising of a classic Disney movie so comparisons will be made and nobody (but nobody) is going to "not compare" and be able to take it as a work all by itself. The problem with this is you will have people who are upset about any revisions and other people upset by not enough revisions. It's a no-win situation from either perspective. If Maleficent were the first film retelling a popular Sleeping Beauty story book, rather than a Disney film, it would likely be received as far more radical, and welcomed by critics as well.  
2) It's live action, and, in reading a lot of criticism the past couple of days of the film, it's been made apparent to me what the biggest downfall of making something as real as possible is: Unlike for animation, stop motion and muppets, (and also live storytelling), audiences do not automatically PARTICIPATE by approaching a viewing with the agreement to suspend disbelief. Instead, with live action, the requirement of believability for every image and execution of a scene is assumed and audiences naturally relegate themselves to witnesses only - passive, distanced, critical and disengaged on a personal level; that is, they don't bring their own imagination to the story, requiring it to have everything - which it rarely can, especially with regard to fantasy. What does that lead to? Nitpickiness, misunderstandings and a general lack of satisfaction because something remains missing: it's "them" or, more specifically "you", the audience, and their/your own contribution to the story. (Be sure to read my first starred point * at the bottom of the article by the way - there are exceptions.)
  
For my part, although I do agree with critics that the film was uneven in places, I've determined that most of the important elements (including those that a number of critics complain are missing) were actually there. While I, personally, might have handled the telling/showing of them differently, they still exist. The fault isn't that they were/are missing, but the the blame is shared somewhere between the Director/Editor/Producer who didn't make it clear and people can't see these elements if they're not literal/obvious to that person. (Note: this is taking into account that the Director and Producers made choices I would not - but that is because it is their film and their prerogative.) The thing is, if this had been animation, (ie not live action and CG doing it's best to look like live action - which, to their credit, it often did) people would be busy having their minds blown about how much was woven into the movie and Tumblr would be a-buzz with "OMG did you realize that Maleficent ABC'd in that scene??!" etc

The reverse is also true. If you took, for example, Disney's most recent animated success Frozen, and made it live action, it would have severely struggled. The story is clunky, unbalanced, badly resolved and has a ton of problems BUT these can be overlooked if the audience participate in the storytelling and bring their own levels of meaning to it, which they clearly have - in spades.
    
Fairy tales suffer the same issue: the more details one adds in a retelling, often the less clear the story becomes. Fairy tales are wonderfully distilled capsules of story and human experience wrapped in wonder cloaks and, the listener willingly suspends disbelief as soon as the words "once upon a time" are uttered, bringing their own flavors and interpretive lenses to them. Because the stories are then "ours" they grow increasingly interesting and, often, personal, so much so that we can't seem to help but retell them in our own way, adding details we initially saw in our mind's eye, flavoring them with our culture and upbringing, and exploring issues our hearts discovered and resonated with. It's not that these things are not there, but rather, that these things are what the individual readers and listeners bring to the stories. That's a large part of what makes them so very powerful. They adapt to the teller and the listener, both. It's when you write down that form or immortalize it in film, that is, capture it in one shape only so that telling becomes static, that it ceases to have as much power and resonance.
                      
Simply put, when fairy tales are put on film, especially in "live form", there is rarely room for us to add our own details, our own flavor, our own emphasis and importance*. We are told: "this is how the story is, looks, goes and if you didn't see it there, it didn't exist/happen" and we are not engaged, except as observers. We have nothing to do with shaping the story. 
       
And this is the main reason I wanted to take my son to see this "fairy tale" (or whatever bit of fairy tale there was) as part of a whole experience, rather then just walking into a theater to watch a big screen. Though we aren't able to see movies regularly enough these days for a theater to seem routine (ka-ching$!) I still knew it would be worth making this "more" if I could. When I found out the El Capitan Theater were having a showing of props and set pieces from the movie at the theater, as well as a magic show and other little extras, my husband and I talked and agreed it was worth splurging for. We dressed up a little, took a huge drive into the city, walked the Hollywood Walk of Fame (and avoided the resident infamous characters), checked out the handprints and stars on the sidewalk, looked at all the fancy lit posters and, when we finally made it into the theater, took our time, despite the crowds (it was sold out) to look over all the details of all the props in the lobby and checked out the Sleeping Beauty Disney Parks model castle from every angle. The magic show beforehand made the theater space itself a "live space" instead of just a movie space and my little guy, already excited by the experience of the outing, was eagerly anticipating the movie by the time the it started. When the Sleeping Beauty castle from the film appeared at the beginning instead of just the usual Disney castle, my son was already engaged - "I know that castle! It's from the movie!"
Afterward, downstairs where the bulk of the props and the set pieces were, my son poured over every costume and pointed out things he recognized (as well as things he didn't) from the movie, reciting bits of the story, speculating on the scenes and musing over details. Although it's what I had hoped for, it worked better than anticipated. He completely enjoyed the movie and my husband, who miraculously avoided knowing almost anything about it (including that Maleficent had wings at all) was just as engaged. They both relived the story, reciting scenes, discussing aspects, musing on what might have been happening elsewhere etc

And it's for this reason that I also suggest considering it as the film equivalent of a novel that's written out of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, rather than a retelling of the fairy tale. Experiencing it like this and discussing it with props in front of us made it clear - this is one version of the story; not the be all and end all.
The opportunity also enabled me to discuss the tale version of Sleeping Beauty with my son as well and he is more interested than ever in the idea of nature beings and faeries but "...not the silly ones - the REAL ones." (More on the "sillies" tomorrow.)

I'll wrap this part of the review before I start talking specifics of story and film but suffice it to say, no matter what my mixed feelings are about Disney, when it comes to experiencing something, this company has it down. The Cast Members treated my son like he was special, like his opinion about the movie and all he saw was important. The made room for him and made sure he got to see everything he came to see, It's the same reason Disneyland and Disney World leave such an impression. It's real in a way that engages you and leaves a lasting impression. While it will help a lot that the film was solid family entertainment with enough fairy tale elements and layering to provide mental stimulation for my son** (and his parents - who he hears discussing all aspects of it), the fact that this experience engaged all his senses leaves me no doubt that Sleeping Beauty and Maleficent will have a lasting impression on him, in the best way. It was the closest we could get to having a personal storytelling for him of this alternate version of Sleeping Beauty and I couldn't be happier that we made it happen for a fairy tale.

Stay tuned for the "will be spoilery Part B" coming tomorrow. (Don't worry. I will mask them so you have a choice to read them or not.)


*This is not true of all film. Good directors who used stylized directing and work with images like poetry - choosing to imply as much as show, are successful in engaging our inner selves in the telling, but it's rare to see that in a mainstream film. It's usually the Indie filmmakers who, often by necessity, have to find a different, less literal way to tell the story, that are the most successful in doing so. They do't try to show everything, so the audience actually sees more.
** Today: conversations about spinning wheels and why it's important in Rumpelstiltskin as well as Sleeping Beauty - his out of the blue question, by the way, not mine.

Maleficent Review On the Way Today (With Bonus Pics of Props)

One great thing about being in LA is the option of making movie going a more-than-average experience if you head downtown.

El Capitan Theater had a special showing, complete with many props and a couple of sets from the movie, as well as a fun live magic show on stage before the film started. For multiple reasons, I'm very glad we made the special effort and spent the extra to be able to do it for a fairy tale film (I'll explain later today).

Stay tuned for my review later this afternoon (fingers crossed I get time to post it as planned) and many more pics from the display...