Aurora also wanted a prince. She even said when talking to the animal she dream of a prince and when the animal played dress up, she goes "Why it's my dream Prince!".Ariel'sprince wrote:Yeah,i know,by Someday My Prince Will Come,maybe just Aurora and Giselle want love.Super Aurora wrote: She did want a prince as her one song indicated.
Aurora wanted love (listen to I Wonder) and she dreamed of a prince she wanted to be with him,but she does want love.Super Aurora wrote:Aurora also wanted a prince. She even said when talking to the animal she dream of a prince and when the animal played dress up, she goes "Why it's my dream Prince!".Ariel'sprince wrote: Yeah,i know,by Someday My Prince Will Come,maybe just Aurora and Giselle want love.
Giselle only one wants love.
and Belle ofcourseAriel'sprince wrote:becouse exept Pocahontas and Mulan-acorrding to this all the Princesses wanted a prince
she wanted "adventure in the great wide somewhere" she just inadvertantly found her prince and experienced true love unlike other disney princess 
!!!
Nah,i think she wanted love (and she allready met Philip in a dream).Beast_enchantment wrote:i think Aurora just wanted soemthing to do. she wanted a prince to wisk her away. she wanted a life. but i dont think she wanted love. if she did, she didnt find it in Phillip, she barely new him.
and Belle ofcourseAriel'sprince wrote:becouse exept Pocahontas and Mulan-acorrding to this all the Princesses wanted a prince
p.s. your avator and siggy are absolutely gorgeous!
i"m so glad you liked it .. Disney Duster is mistaken. she never wanted the prince initially. she despised him for imprisoning her but she grew to love the beast's inner beauty. she saw past his exterior and encountered true love! Snow White is officially the only Disney princess who wanted a prince. she wanted a fairytale! and by heck she got one, lolAriel'sprince wrote:No,acorrding to Disney Duster she wanted a prince too (she wants the Beast) but no,Snow White is the only one who wanted a prince (and unlike other Disney Princess-what about Pocahontas,Mulan,Jasmine and Giselle?).
Thanks i"m so glad you liked it .
I have a Belle one,to you want to use it? .
!!! thats very kind and sweet! That's my point,only Snow White officialy wanted prince and Aurora and Giselle wanted love,for everyone exept Snow White-a prince was just a side need.Beast_enchantment wrote:Disney Duster is mistaken. she never wanted the prince initially. she despised him for imprisoning her but she grew to love the beast's inner beauty. she saw past his exterior and encountered true love! Snow White is officially the only Disney princess who wanted a prince. she wanted a fairytale! and by heck she got one, lolAriel'sprince wrote:No,acorrding to Disney Duster she wanted a prince too (she wants the Beast) but no,Snow White is the only one who wanted a prince (and unlike other Disney Princess-what about Pocahontas,Mulan,Jasmine and Giselle?).
Thanks i"m so glad you liked it .
I have a Belle one,to you want to use it? .
it would be an honour to use it, Ariel'sprince
x
i"m glad you think so ,here,it's a gift from me :
Oh really, now?Beast_enchantment wrote:Disney Duster is mistaken. she never wanted the prince initially. she despised him for imprisoning her but she grew to love the beast's inner beauty. she saw past his exterior and encountered true love!
Not quite - I tend to rank it above most Disney films except for the first five ('Snow White' through to 'Bambi'; I still put 'Pinocchio' at the top of the list, probably with 'Fantasia' second). I was never that fond of it (though I did like it) when I was young, but liked it more and more as I got older (sort of the opposite to what happened with 'Sleeping Beauty'!). But I do think animated Cruella is still the number one villain, with the Queen/Witch a very close second and the brilliant Lady Tremaine third.Disney Duster wrote:Thanks for replying, Magic Mirror! In this post I'll be talking a lot about the fairy tale films so, sorry, I know this isn't what you like as much as 101 Dalmations (is that your favorite?).
Yes, one book refers to it as 'the third, and most ambitious, of Disney's fairy tales', or something along those lines. The 50s were generally quite successful, I think - only 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Sleeping Beauty' lost money, and of course now they've more than made their money back - so it wasn't needed to revive the studio in the same way 'Cinderella' did.I'm glad you also remember it being said that Disney only made three fairy tales. "Fantasy films" is a good way of including all the films with fairies and magic. As for Disney trying to get a certain audience with the fairy tale hype, perhaps it's a precursor to what is now thought of as the princess genre now, or Walt was trying to make people think of this like his other fairy tales because they were hits. However, "Sleeping Beauty" wasn't made to revitalize the studio or be a huge money-maker, it was made because, as I remember, Walt wanted it to be his masterpiece, or perhaps just his most ambitious fairy tale. Do you recall anything like that?
The backgrounds in 'Cinderella III' do look pretty good, with a distinct Mary Blair-ness about them. Better than the 'Bambi II' backgrounds, which aren't quite a match for the original. I agree that the 'alternate reality' nature of the sequel is a good way of making it optional whether or not it actually follows the same continuity. The thing I don't think I like about the film - from a clip I saw - is Lady Tremaine's (temporary) transformation into a toad at the end. It weakens her in the same way that live-action Cruella is dumped in manure and molasses - to me it's rather sacriligious, like throwing a custard pie at Darth Vader or shooting a water-pistol at Hannibal Lecter.I'm glad you liked what you saw of "Cinderella III". In my love for anything related to the original and it's characters, I favor it over many theatrical Disney films. But I also feel it is the best sequel. The backgrounds almost perfectly match the original's, and while that isn't the case with the animation, it's the best work of the direct-to-videos (when it comes to humans, "Bambi II" was only better because animals are easier to animate than humans). And because the film alters time and thus alters the original "Cinderella", it can be thought of as an alternate reality instead of a real continuation.
Good observation - I hadn't thought of that.In pointing out that Aurora has both benevolent and malevolent godmothers, that reminds me that I read that the godmothers in fairy tales before they became what they are today would do good and bad things. This had to do with them being like fates, I think, and the godmothers in "Sleeping Beauty" are definately like fates in their control over nature, people's lives, and destiny.
Again, never thought of that about Cinderella. I knew of the cutting off toes and so forth from the Grimm version, but never quite understood the symbolism of it. The thing about femme fatales needing penises is a little sexist, because the idea of the femme fatale was the product of a male-dominated society fearing the emergence of women, who were believed at the time to be destructive and reckless but also decadent and manipulative (think of all those paintings of characters like Circe, Judith, Morgan Le Fay etc).I never knew that they actually did have phalluses to represent powerful woman having a man's power, but I'm sure I heard something like that to get me thinking about how all the fairies, who are powerful, have magic wands. However, in Perrault's Cinderella, which the film was based on, the fairy does have a magic wand. Since the phalluses could suggest that women need a penis to be powerful and it's very sexist, I am glad to say that my in my favorite film, if a magic wand and a key are penises that help Cinderella out, she is ultimately saved by a vagina. Yes, you read that right.
In the Grimm's version, which Disney's version does seem to acknowledge with the stepmother letting Cinderella go to the ball if she gets chores done and two doves helping her, among other references, but anyway, the stepsisters cut parts of their feet off to fit into this version's golden slipper. When the prince sees the blood and pours it out of the shoe, it represents a girl's period. Also, shoes are meant to have feet inserted into them, and they could be said to be shaped like vaginas, exlcuding the heel. So, the stepmother breaks the glass slipper with her phallic cane, and all seems lost until Cinderella brings out her vaginal shoe to save the day! So that has power in this case.
Yes, I love that one of Philip and the shadow - reminds me of UPA's adaptation of 'The Raven', and I would have loved to see a more design-y approach like that. I don't have the quote at hand (I'll probably have access to the book this week-end) but one of the Disney artists recalled being excited at Eyvind Earle's arrival at the studio, but later felt that Earle's style was ruined by excessive detail.I always thought those early designs for "Sleeping Beauty''s backgrounds were just detailess because they were in the design stage, and they didn't need to detail them until they decided on what overall concepts they were going to use. But if you know they considered making them that flat and limited, okay. Maybe they would work more with the animation, I don't know, but I definately wouldn't think "Sleeping Beauty" was as amazing without the depth and details I'm used to. However, I wish I had seen more of the concept presented in that picture with Phillip's shadow against the wall in what looks like Maleficent's domain envisioned as a barren wasteland. It's striking and cool-feeling!
I actually find earlier films - 'Snow White', 'Bambi' and particularly 'Fantasia' and 'Pinocchio' - much more eerie and creepy. 'Sleeping Beauty' does have one or two moments of terror (nothing to match the rat in 'Lady and the Tramp'), but 'Night on Bald Mountain' and Pleasure Island really are the stuff of nightmares. Interesting that, what one may interpret as a weakness in the film, another interprets as a strength. The hollowness of the film - that is, the lack of depth under all the surface glamour - never seemed to me to be creepy or even intentional.Lazario wrote:Sleeping Beauty is a masterpiece, through and through. No one can take anything this movie has away from it.
Of course, I love it because, and I know I've said this several times before, it's Walt Disney's scariest / eeriest / spookiest film. It's haunting, gorgeous, achingly romantic in design, breath-takingly stylish, atmospheric, creepy... A truly extraordinary work of art. For what it lacks in any area several of you have whined about, it allows the viewer's imagination to go absolutely wild. I still respond to this film as though I was a child and my mind plays when I watch this film.
Okay... Now, here's my take:MagicMirror wrote:I actually find earlier films - 'Snow White', 'Bambi' and particularly 'Fantasia' and 'Pinocchio' - much more eerie and creepy.
Well, one might say that glamour always appeals to youth. The youth inside us all. Because it's an illusion and children enjoy illusions because they're usually harmless if enjoyed at a distance. Like a show of illusion, and not a life of illusion. I would say Sleeping Beauty still remains classic. In almost every aspect. Its history alone gives it more substance than your description is giving it credit for. But it's also very untraditional. I think many people underestimate it, just because its main characters are the three fairies. It would not necessarily have been a more interesting film if they had made it more about the Prince and Princess. In a way, you get more character, because separately, the three fairies each represent their individual characteristics stronger than these characteristics would be were they contained within one character.MagicMirror wrote:Interesting that, what one may interpret as a weakness in the film, another interprets as a strength. The hollowness of the film - that is, the lack of depth under all the surface glamour - never seemed to me to be creepy or even intentional.
I think I've mentioned it before, but I've always considered Lady Tremaine to be Disney's greatest villain. Because in my opinion, nothing can ever top that scene when the Duke arrives. No other villain will ever be as inhumanly and frighteningly cruel as she is in both that shot where her eyes make the entire shot turn darker, then she follows Cinderella quietly upstairs and locks her in that room. It's the smallest act, yet had it succeeded, it would have been the most horrifying thing any villain has attempted. And for the simple fact that every last person watching that film can relate to it. We haven't all been stalked in the wildest jungles by feriocious tigers or... well, you all know the rest. But every last one of us has had someone sabotage us at some point in our lives.MagicMirror wrote:I still say that, for a better done and creepier fairy tale, look at 'Cinderella' and, particularly, 'Snow White'. Both have villains who are, despite their mortal status, more powerful and frightening in the context of their film.
Thank you.MagicMirror wrote:(Oh, and Lazario, I love your avatar!)
For suspense, perhaps no scene is better than when the Witch is offering the apple to Snow White, and as far as mystery is concerned, the Queen's laboratory and dungeon, while perhaps not as OTT as Maleficent's domain, is to me more successful at creating a sinister atmosphere. You don't see the Witch transformation in all stages - her face is not revealed until the very end. What we do see are a series of expressionistic shadows and backgrounds, suggesting what is happening inside her, and reflecting her madness. Maleficent's transformation is shown in more detail, and nothing Maleficent does (or threatens to do) is actually very frightening. The Queen wants the heart of her unwitting rival cut out, and later relishes the moment as she watches it stop. That's chilling.Lazario wrote:Snow White - you see everything, every step of the way. You see the Queen at every point. You see her plotting, you hear her entire plan, you see her transform only in front of her pet raven, you even see her creeping up on Snow White. It's like a map is drawn, like a haunted house where you know in exactly what room the scary thing will pop out at you. And since you see her in all her stages, you know what she's going to look like and exactly what she's got planned. There's no mystery. And less suspense than in Sleeping Beauty, for which there is infinitely more mystery.
I bring up 'Pinocchio' in particular because it's world is far more bleak and sinister than 'Sleeping Beauty''s. Absolutely no one Pinocchio meets outside of Gepetto's workshop does him any good, so in my mind it's a far better example of darkness lurking around every corner.Pinocchio - they sure do a big build-up on meeting Monstro. I guess most of the suspense starts from there. And they even build up his temper, his fury. But literally, to me, even that is too much foreshadowing. It's too blunt. After that, I think the only way Monstro can be considered that scary is if you go with the Jaws theory. That any creature, any animal that is physically so much bigger than you is scary because subconsciously, we're always afraid of the wrath of nature and things more powerful than we are. However, that Lampwick transformation sure comes out of pretty much nowhere. So, if that's what you meant... That, when mixed with the character foreshadowing - the evil sides of both the Coachman and Stromboli in showing us the true dark human forces at work in the world the young boys are playing hookey in... I guess that is scarier than Sleeping Beauty. But I still say, it's at least a light stretch. Because it requires a lot of after thought. While I think the fright factor in Sleeping Beauty is all right there in any initial viewing.
'Night on Bald Mountain' was one of the sequences I was referring to, but the general 'mise en scene' of at least half of the film is very sinister, like a Murnau film. In 'Rite of Spring', the real world is a merciless one, where there is no justice but simply survival of the fittest. That scene where the dinosaurs walk to their death, gradually thinning in numbers as they drop dead one by one, is a very chilling moment. There's also a wonderful sense of mystery - perhaps more than in any other Disney animation - in 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', with it's vaulted, cavernous chambers and high shadows. Though I suppose 'Night on Bald Mountain' isn't as conceptually frightening I brought it up because a chilling atmosphere was one of your main arguments in favour of 'Sleeping Beauty' and I think 'Bald Mountain' is a better example, with all those weird camera movents and that art-nouveau pattern in the way the smoke swirls and the damned writhe, and, of course, Tytla's Chernabog.Fantasia - might you be refering to the famous "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence? I found that to be more playful than anything else. More fun than frightening. It's a vision of the side of life in hell or in "the dark place" where in a way, the damned have been tormented so much, they have long lost their sanity, and have almost learned to enjoy their eternal, fiery torture. It was like a dance of the doomed. They weren't exactly dancing to scare us, I think.
There's also a considerably 'sappy birth celebration' in 'Sleeping Beauty', but I think I agree with most of what you've said here; the scene that always sticks in my mind is, of course, the one in the snow, and I think the falling snow works particularly well as a device there.Bambi is simply intense. And I think it really puts you right in the characters' hooves. I think this is the only film that actively fights Sleeping Beauty for the role of #1 scariest Walt Disney movie. I'll give you that one. And, I've also sort of counted this against the film in the past, but perhaps it actually serves the movie, it takes place in a world so different than ours. At the same time that it is brutally every-living-creature fear, it's sort of pure animal instinct and rules of the wild. Hard stuff to understand. And perhaps ultimately, it panders to people who aren't uncomfortable with the sappy birth celebration angle. I think that will forever sour the film's scare quotient. It's hardly a film about the devastation of forests and wildlife, that's only shown I think to make the movie's "life carries on" message at the end more uplifting.
She's only a threat in the scenes where she is actually physically present - one of my main complaints about her. The only scene where Maleficent is a little frightening is when she appears in the fireplace and, yes, it is the eyes, but even they are rather tame as far as Disney Villain eyes go. But I certainly don't sense any of her minions' presence, for example, in the scenes where Aurora's dancing in the forest or when the kings are getting drunk - and I don't think we're meant to anyway.But Sleeping Beauty will always be about something always lurking nearby - danger and darkness always out there. Until Maleficent's death at the end, name one scene where it's not at least 98% likely that some branch of Maleficent's force is around - watching... waiting...
I'm afraid to say that I never got a feeling of Maleficent's shadow hovering over the film. I think Sleeping Beauty creates a terrifying atmosphere where there is always a chance some minion is listening or watching. We don't have to see her doing evil things to know she is more than capable. Not only that, but if imagination's not your thing - just look into her eyes. Tell me those eyes don't chill you right to the bone!
People have commented time and time again about how the threat of Maleficent isn't as concrete as Snow White's evil/black Queen or Ursula or blahblahblah. But I've always said you don't even really need motivation to find a great threat in a character. For instance, why should we believe Snow White's evil/black Queen's jealousy makes her a scarier villain? Maleficent doesn't even say she's jealous of Aurora. You don't even need any motivation to find something frightening. It's almost always creepier / scarier when the motivation is unclear. Especially in a fairy tale. With an atmosphere like that in Sleeping Beauty, you can't trust anything around you. Not even your own intuition.
Very untraditional, yes, and I applaud it for that, but not a success in my opinion. The fact that they don't make the prince and princess the main characters isn't really the trouble - they do that to an extent in 'Snow White' and 'Cinderella' as well. It's just that the three fairies are all too nice, by their nature. There's no Grumpy equivalent to spice them up and they can't really carry the film by themselves, which is what they are nevertheless delegated to do. Even in 'Cinderella' the Mice weren't asked to carry the whole film.Well, one might say that glamour always appeals to youth. The youth inside us all. Because it's an illusion and children enjoy illusions because they're usually harmless if enjoyed at a distance. Like a show of illusion, and not a life of illusion. I would say Sleeping Beauty still remains classic. In almost every aspect. Its history alone gives it more substance than your description is giving it credit for. But it's also very untraditional. I think many people underestimate it, just because its main characters are the three fairies. It would not necessarily have been a more interesting film if they had made it more about the Prince and Princess. In a way, you get more character, because separately, the three fairies each represent their individual characteristics stronger than these characteristics would be were they contained within one character.
I definitely agree with you about Lady Tremaine - one of the most powerful Disney Villains of all. The shot in 'Sleeping Beauty' with the fireplace is really the only part I find creepy - the rest of it is more adventure than terror - so I have to disagree on the latter point. To be honest, none of Maleficent's moves are calculated - she tries to scheme but at the end of the day is forced to act on the moment, perhaps one of the reasons for her popularity.I think I've mentioned it before, but I've always considered Lady Tremaine to be Disney's greatest villain. Because in my opinion, nothing can ever top that scene when the Duke arrives. No other villain will ever be as inhumanly and frighteningly cruel as she is in both that shot where her eyes make the entire shot turn darker, then she follows Cinderella quietly upstairs and locks her in that room. It's the smallest act, yet had it succeeded, it would have been the most horrifying thing any villain has attempted. And for the simple fact that every last person watching that film can relate to it. We haven't all been stalked in the wildest jungles by feriocious tigers or... well, you all know the rest. But every last one of us has had someone sabotage us at some point in our lives.
But compared to Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella's scariest moment is shorter, and compared to Snow White, Sleeping Beauty has more mystery to Maleficent's plot and her coldly, calculated moves.
I suppose there has never been (that I've seen) any pure terror in any of Disney's films. But don't think for a second that Pinocchio or Fantasia are more terror than adventure.MagicMirror wrote:The shot in 'Sleeping Beauty' with the fireplace is really the only part I find creepy - the rest of it is more adventure than terror
Well, sure. I guess there is a sort of Hitchcockian thing about us the audience knowing something terrifying that the character who is in danger does not. But don't you agree with anything I said? That knowing too much diminishes scare factor? It's much better to have a place where your imagination goes off on its own. Snow White showed you everything and then, told you how you were supposed to react.MagicMirror wrote:For suspense, perhaps no scene is better than when the Witch is offering the apple to Snow White
Actually, when I was refering to atmosphere - I was talking about the entire movie. I was saying, everywhere you turn, everywhere, there is the mood of darkness. That's not true of Snow White. The point is not that when you get to Maleficent's forbidden domain, that you find it more sinister or mysterious. In fact, it's scarier that it is just as sinister and mysterious as every location in the movie. In almost every scene, the characters, the three good fairies (who are in a sense on-the-run), keep reminding us that they have to hide because nowhere is safe. Didn't you pick up on any of that?MagicMirror wrote:as far as mystery is concerned, the Queen's laboratory and dungeon, while perhaps not as OTT as Maleficent's domain, is to me more successful at creating a sinister atmosphere.
Well what I meant is that you still see the transformation. But, I'm also saying that you see everything she is and does and her behavioral changes. You see everything that Snow White is threatened by. So, where's the surprise? Only one shot in the movie, and that is where the Old Peddlar Woman casts a shadow over the pies. That's the only thing that isn't completely telegraphed before we see it.MagicMirror wrote:You don't see the Witch transformation in all stages - her face is not revealed until the very end. What we do see are a series of expressionistic shadows and backgrounds, suggesting what is happening inside her, and reflecting her madness.
Well, there's another funny detail about Snow White's Queen. And that is, the moment after she announces she wants the Huntman to cut out the heart... the movie cuts right to Snow White happy, singing, picking flowers... Through the entirety of Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent's presence is felt after she goes away. People actually react to her. The music doesn't pick up on a completely divergent note. That's how much of an impact she makes in her own movie. Snow White is hilariously bi-polar in that way.MagicMirror wrote:Maleficent's transformation is shown in more detail, and nothing Maleficent does (or threatens to do) is actually very frightening. The Queen wants the heart of her unwitting rival cut out, and later relishes the moment as she watches it stop. That's chilling.
Very good point. What I was saying though, and it certainly makes the two movies very different, is- Sleeping Beauty is a supernatural film compared to Pinocchio, if we're accepting that the evil is people (and an animal, who doesn't talk). That the world is evil. It's a realistic evil. I think Sleeping Beauty works on a more eternal, naive level. And by that I mean, it reaches more people. Anyone can be naive or become or reduce themselves to that. You don't have to know to fear the unknown. Pinocchio is a movie where if you've met one villain, you know what to expect from everyone. But still I think, with Sleeping Beauty- you never know what to expect.MagicMirror wrote:I bring up 'Pinocchio' in particular because it's world is far more bleak and sinister than 'Sleeping Beauty's. Absolutely no one Pinocchio meets outside of Gepetto's workshop does him any good, so in my mind it's a far better example of darkness lurking around every corner.
Yeah, but how scary are action scenes? Generally speaking... Action scenes, and the one in Pinocchio as well, is about reacting to what you see as you see it. It's more about excitement than fear.MagicMirror wrote:The Monstro sequence is in my mind the best action sequence/climax Disney has ever done.
Again, you're making perfect sense. But do you think Aurora is the only person in the film we should be afraid for? The only person who finds themself in a scary situation? The only person who takes on any danger? If you stick to the story idea, than you're...stuck. But are you in the habit of tying yourself down as a viewer? Saying, there's only one way to respond to something? Nothing that happens as the movie progresses will change your mind?MagicMirror wrote:the Blue Fairy specifies that she can't help him later, and, unlike the fairies in 'Sleeping Beauty', she keeps that promise.
I think you meant to tell me that in Pinocchio, the good guys were never given a guarantee that they would make it. And if you had said that, you'd be right on the money. But I think again, that's a bit of an afterthought. If I may be so bold, another example of responding to the source material - the fairytale, a classic story - a book, rather than the film itself. Taking characteristics out of the film and saying, as long as Disney tries, the idea will always trump this other idea (Sleeping Beauty). But again, Sleeping Beauty brilliantly used all the tools at its disposal to make everything sinister. Not just a few situations, events. Everything.MagicMirror wrote:It's a young wooden boy, an old man and an insect versus the biggest, loudest monster ever animated. Monstro's not a thinking villain like Maleficent, he's a sheer force of nature and the heroes clearly have no hope of defeating him. 'Sleeping Beauty' has a world where good will always prevail over evil, while the world of 'Pinocchio' is a vast complex of merciless crooks, villains and monsters.
Intense, yes. But, I think only if we take them out of fantasy and put them in another kind of movie.MagicMirror wrote:I think the donkey sequence is more scary, and the Monstro sequence more intense, than anything 'Sleeping Beauty' can come up with.
I can't say you haven't presented an excellent argument. You have. But I swear we're both on different wavelengths.MagicMirror wrote:Children watch 'Sleeping Beauty' and, though they may be caught up in the excitement of the climax, they can watch it again because they know good will destroy evil in the end. They watch 'Pinocchio' and are often so disturbed by it that they refuse to watch it again for years - which is the more powerful film? That 'Pinocchio' may have more terror in it's subtext seems to me rather a weak argument for it not being as chilling. 'Pinocchio' gets the title of scariest Disney film from me, without any question.
Oh, the Rite of Spring scene (the entire epic thing) is no competition for Sleeping Beauty in the scary department. These are two entirely different things. There is no mystery to that scene at all. In fact, its intensity comes from trying to give us a somewhat realistic document of the - as you said - survival of the fittest aspect. Worlds away from Sleeping Beauty.MagicMirror wrote:'Night on Bald Mountain' was one of the sequences I was referring to, but the general 'mise en scene' of at least half of the film is very sinister, like a Murnau film. In 'Rite of Spring', the real world is a merciless one, where there is no justice but simply survival of the fittest. That scene where the dinosaurs walk to their death, gradually thinning in numbers as they drop dead one by one, is a very chilling moment.
I'm going to stop you there. Please, go no further. Because Fun and Fancy Free's entire Giant sequence, from where we meet Willy to where he crashes to his demise, is much scarier than The Sorcerer's Apprentice scene from Fantasia. Though I must say I'm impressed with your visual reference in Fantasia, you then have to connect a threat. Which, there is none. I agree with the mystery element, though. The Sorcerer himself is a scary-looking guy but he never does anything scary. And, though the mops/brooms getting out of control is a decent bit at inducing some dread, it's aim is merely to enchant in the end. It's a short piece anyway, where there is much more focus on Mickey's sense of wonder and his exciting dreams than on anything scary. Which of course is why it's so great. I love that moment where he flies to the sort of mountain cliff and summons the oceans...MagicMirror wrote:There's also a wonderful sense of mystery - perhaps more than in any other Disney animation - in 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', with it's vaulted, cavernous chambers and high shadows.
A better example? Not really. And there would really be no argument if I thought you seemed to respect the film more than you do. I think you're really underestimating it. Night on Bald Mountain is too brief to have as much impact as Sleeping Beauty did. It's a more fun sequence than Sleeping Beauty is, for its shortness they made it a good party. But Sleeping Beauty had a little more going for it as a frightening work of art.MagicMirror wrote:Though I suppose 'Night on Bald Mountain' isn't as conceptually frightening I brought it up because a chilling atmosphere was one of your main arguments in favour of 'Sleeping Beauty' and I think 'Bald Mountain' is a better example, with all those weird camera movents and that art-nouveau pattern in the way the smoke swirls and the damned writhe, and, of course, Tytla's Chernabog.
I hope you get as much of a kick out of what I'm about to say as I do: you remember the birth scenes in Bambi, right? What would you say made them different from Sleeping Beauty? The gatherers, well-wishers; what was different about them?MagicMirror wrote:There's also a considerably 'sappy birth celebration' in 'Sleeping Beauty'
Do you have any imagination...at all?MagicMirror wrote:She's only a threat in the scenes where she is actually physically present - one of my main complaints about her.
Name one villain with scarier eyes. (I'm fully prepared that you might actually do that)MagicMirror wrote:The only scene where Maleficent is a little frightening is when she appears in the fireplace and, yes, it is the eyes, but even they are rather tame as far as Disney Villain eyes go.
) One of the things that makes Maleficent's eyes so scary is that they work fully in conjuction with her spine-chilling voice. (And no, I won't consider Lady Tremaine - the reason is clear: Maleficent's scary eyes and voice work with her aura, where she is, something dangerous happens, but Lady Tremaine goes everywhere and her scenes are always supposed to be scary, just select ones).I don't think that's a very good point. Because I have an answer for it. Though it does seem somewhat out of line with what I said before, I agree those scenes aren't meant to be scary. What they are supposed to do is show you what Maleficent wants to take away from these characters. You have to feel for these fleeting moments (because they are fleeting, which again goes to support my argument that Sleeping Beauty is in fact a very scary movie if you think about it) that there is innocence and good in this world. So you're somewhat excited to see the battle Phillip embarks on when he's freed. I don't think the dragon scene is very scary. A little bit...not very. Though it does serve to show us that Maleficent was always more dangerous than people like you assumed she was.MagicMirror wrote:I certainly don't sense any of her minions' presence, for example, in the scenes where Aurora's dancing in the forest or when the kings are getting drunk - and I don't think we're meant to anyway.
Grumpy was silly. The whole way through. He wasn't exactly what I'd call spice. In fact, I would have to give Sleeping Beauty the edge, because it got the message that you can't create 7 completely different individual characters. Half of them blend together and have no distinctive personalities. For a lot of people, it's even a chore to remember all of the names correctly. I don't think you're making a quality comparison (or contrast). In Cinderella, only two mice stood out. And they were Cinderella's cheering section. But the fairies had their own identities and even their own duties. You felt the weight of their struggle to keep order and you felt their humanity too. I'm not saying their going down in the history books as amazing characters. But no more or less should they, than should the seven dwarfs. For the very reason I mentioned- they'll always be more famous for a quote or one facial expression than for a well-developed character.MagicMirror wrote:The fact that they don't make the prince and princess the main characters isn't really the trouble - they do that to an extent in 'Snow White' and 'Cinderella' as well. It's just that the three fairies are all too nice, by their nature. There's no Grumpy equivalent to spice them up and they can't really carry the film by themselves, which is what they are nevertheless delegated to do. Even in 'Cinderella' the Mice weren't asked to carry the whole film.
Depending on how you want to see her, I'll agree with you. Yes she isn't a very well-developed character, sure. But, why does she have to be? I don't agree that this movie has to fall in line with Disney's other princess films. If you do, that's like sentencing the film to in some way do things the same way as those other films. And I hope you're listening very closely - there's no way on earth this film would be as beloved as it is with the people who love it now, if it were the slightest bit different. This is a true individual among Disney's filmbase.MagicMirror wrote:I think another problem is that we aren't really given enough time to get to know Aurora, the character everyone is trying to protect from Maleficent. Snow White and Cinderella were both developed sufficiently to inspire their friends with their intrinsic goodness; Aurora really just comes off as a blonde bimbo with a nice voice.
The point of the kiss is not to match Snow White's kiss. And if it had, that would not make the movie any better.MagicMirror wrote:She's not a powerful enough force for us to care about her being saved all that much, which makes the kiss at the end of the film ultimately hollow.
Well, I can understand that. You have your loyalties. I have mine.MagicMirror wrote:I'm not denying that the film has it's individual merits, but I don't think it's successful as a whole.
Well, do you think you understand her popularity?MagicMirror wrote:To be honest, none of Maleficent's moves are calculated - she tries to scheme but at the end of the day is forced to act on the moment, perhaps one of the reasons for her popularity.
I can definitely see where you're coming from; I just can't see how 'Sleeping Beauty' is any better than 'Snow White' in this respect.Well, sure. I guess there is a sort of Hitchcockian thing about us the audience knowing something terrifying that the character who is in danger does not. But don't you agree with anything I said? That knowing too much diminishes scare factor? It's much better to have a place where your imagination goes off on its own. Snow White showed you everything and then, told you how you were supposed to react.
Well what I meant is that you still see the transformation. But, I'm also saying that you see everything she is and does and her behavioral changes. You see everything that Snow White is threatened by. So, where's the surprise? Only one shot in the movie, and that is where the Old Peddlar Woman casts a shadow over the pies. That's the only thing that isn't completely telegraphed before we see it.
Only from the dialogue - I can honestly say that I didn't see what the enlightened few are able to find here. The backgrounds are definitely cold, but not sinister. And I honestly don't think they were intended to be sinister (or, indeed, cold).Actually, when I was refering to atmosphere - I was talking about the entire movie. I was saying, everywhere you turn, everywhere, there is the mood of darkness. That's not true of Snow White. The point is not that when you get to Maleficent's forbidden domain, that you find it more sinister or mysterious. In fact, it's scarier that it is just as sinister and mysterious as every location in the movie. In almost every scene, the characters, the three good fairies (who are in a sense on-the-run), keep reminding us that they have to hide because nowhere is safe. Didn't you pick up on any of that?
Reactions on the character's faces can be seen at the end of the film (but can be forgiven, since it is after all a happy ending), but it's actually at the scene where the fairies grant wishes that I find myself cringing a little bit, with the choir chiming in and so forth - for some reason whenever I watch this scene I think of really naff collectible plates.Let me kill-the-suspence here and just say it- they had no faces. Do you remember seeing any? Any faces of characters that didn't become main characters? And, that weren't guards- whose faces were shown to evoke the terror that Maleficent had on other people... Eh? You can't have a true "sappy celebration" scene without reactions on other characters' faces. Unless of course, you know a great deal more about contemporary European art films than I do (though I don't consider that to be imperative here).
I... think... I can see where you're coming from here. I think I agree with you, but as you say it does rather defeat the argument that a sinister shadow pervades the entire film.I don't think that's a very good point. Because I have an answer for it. Though it does seem somewhat out of line with what I said before, I agree those scenes aren't meant to be scary. What they are supposed to do is show you what Maleficent wants to take away from these characters. You have to feel for these fleeting moments (because they are fleeting, which again goes to support my argument that Sleeping Beauty is in fact a very scary movie if you think about it) that there is innocence and good in this world.
Yes, she has minions who search the land, but why is this any different from any other film with a lot of dark forces in it? 'Pinocchio', (again, sorry), as I've already said, has evil lurking around every corner - and not just literally. I just don't see how a film where the villain has a lot of spies is somehow unique. I'm trying to see what you're saying the backgrounds and atmosphere but I myself am unable to see it (see next comment).But you say that you don't sense her minions' presence. Did you forget all about the scenes where you see that Maleficent's minions have been searching everywhere trying to find Aurora and the fairies?? Her ghouls / demons make look oafish and indeed that's something of a flaw for the movie. But its proof that Maleficent is always out there somewhere. And just before that sequence, Flora clearly says that "even walls have ears." What do you think she meant? A servant might hear and tell the King and Queen (which is silly, since they told them anyway before running off into the night)? Now- it means that Maleficent's power is greater than you're giving it credit for, and she always has something out there to hear and see what others are doing. Then, you know she's sent her crow (or raven) out after Aurora. More proof that she's always around somehow. And when she's found something out... Are you going to tell me you knew exactly what would happen?
Again, I don't think it's that I'm a grumpy old fart so much that I'm still not convinced that this lingering shadow stuff was actually intended. I'm all for vague hints and suggestions in films but I still strongly suspect that the coldness in much of the film is simply a side-effect of Eyvind Earle getting a little carried away with design and the animators conforming to it.Do you have to be beaten over the head with everything to see it / feel it / know it's there? I don't.
Do you have any imagination...at all?
We disagree a little on the dwarfs (I agree that casual viewers forget some of the names, but the characters work wonderfully in the film). The fairies do end up carrying the weight of the film effectively because they are the only characters on the side of good who aren't bland.Grumpy was silly. The whole way through. He wasn't exactly what I'd call spice. In fact, I would have to give Sleeping Beauty the edge, because it got the message that you can't create 7 completely different individual characters. Half of them blend together and have no distinctive personalities. For a lot of people, it's even a chore to remember all of the names correctly. I don't think you're making a quality comparison (or contrast). In Cinderella, only two mice stood out. And they were Cinderella's cheering section. But the fairies had their own identities and even their own duties. You felt the weight of their struggle to keep order and you felt their humanity too. I'm not saying their going down in the history books as amazing characters. But no more or less should they, than should the seven dwarfs. For the very reason I mentioned- they'll always be more famous for a quote or one facial expression than for a well-developed character.
The fairies aren't supposed to carry the whole film, only their section of it. Which they do, masterfully. Everyone in the film gets a different section. And each has a different purpose. And all fit perfectly into the film. The film is a near-perfect picture of a magical animated masterpiece. A film, different than its story. And I don't care what element bothered anyone. They can only argue that it didn't do the fairy tale justice or that it's not the same as the other Disney animated films. And the latter is exactly what makes it so great.
Depending on how you want to see her (Aurora), I'll agree with you. Yes she isn't a very well-developed character, sure. But, why does she have to be?
The film never had to fall in line with the other princess films; but it's clear that it's desperately trying to be. There are even one or two points in the film where lines are nearly identical to those in 'Snow White'. Maleficent is the Queen after a shopping spree at Hot Topic; the animals are angular versions of Snow White's woodland friends; even Philip and Aurora's first meeting is extremely similar to that of Snow White and the Prince. If they'd tried a different story structure from the beginning (they fairy tale is flexible enough not to be limiting; the only 'Snow White' scene that is needed is the final kiss) they may have fared better.I don't agree that this movie has to fall in line with Disney's other princess films. If you do, that's like sentencing the film to in some way do things the same way as those other films.
The point of the kiss is not to match Snow White's kiss. And if it had, that would not make the movie any better.
I think even the film's strongest fans, who are completely at one with the design aesthetic and atmosphere, will admit that there are at least a few problems in the story, which have been discussed earlier on in this thread.And I hope you're listening very closely - there's no way on earth this film would be as beloved as it is with the people who love it now, if it were the slightest bit different. This is a true individual among Disney's filmbase.
