Why do the new generation of fairy tales hate men? - Maleficent (2014) Discussion

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

Well, for this particular movie, my take is that it was designed for women who had felt used by men. Divorces are at an all time high in the United States, and there's a huge emphasis on sexuality in everything, as well as undercutting the competition to get ahead.

So this film takes all those elements and tries to explain why Maleficent turned out the way she did.

You can take it or leave it. I shrugged at it. It was an okay film. Personally I'm a little tired of CGI, and I think Maleficent being just pure evil from Sleeping Beauty is a better story than this film. But, I don't really knock this film either.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BrotherRat 9 years ago

I completely understand your opinion on the underuse of female heroines in cinema. This movie just seemed intent on making all men evil and all women good. Even when they do unforgivable things like cursing children in their cradles. It contorted itself to make her likeable... or at least empathetic.

I don't mind a good anti-hero. I love a conflicted and human take on heroism. I like the idea of a bad person trying to be better. I like human drives and complex and imperfect characters. I like when even the bad guys can be seen to have drives like mine, though sometimes a simple white hat versus black hat saga can be refreshing. What bugs me about this movie is the blatant sexual stereotyping. Like it was written by my ex when she is trying to get under my skin. As a guy I find it easiest to identify with a guy trying to be GOOD. This movie frustrated me.

I just don't see myself as an evil grasping megalomaniac, a goon of a henchman, a spiteful wronged faerie witch, a sweet and innocent princess, a crow turned human, or a window dressing of a prince. This movie simply wasn't made for men to enjoy... that's ok... just don't expect me to like it for that.

You aren't being a raging feminist... I completely understand your point of view. But tell me... did you like this movie? And who did YOU identify with?

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

Some guys are dicks, and this is a story about a guy who's a dick, and the woman who survives his dickishness

agreed...

and learns to love again through nurturing Aurora.

Huh??? Maleficent didn't nurture Aurora. Let's review. Maleficent put an evil curse on baby Aurora & tells baby Aurora she hates her. When Aurora is a young child Maleficent pranks Aurora's idiot fairy nannies which soon puts Aurora's life in danger. Maleficent only decides to save her at the last second (out of guilt? who knows?). The hug scene is *at best* an awkward situation showing her uncomfortable around children. Aurora grew up & lived most of her life without ever knowing Maleficent other than some stranger far off in the shadows. She even says this. When older Aurora meets her she doesn't even know Maleficent's name & Maleficent is cold to Aurora even then. Stalking Aurora in the shadows for over a decade isn't called nurturing... it's called stalking. When they finally spend a little time together Maleficent is simply hanging out with a naive teenage girl for a few days & they become friends. Ahhh, "there's no truer" love than the love from your stalker.

The 3 CGI stooges/fairies were the ones who raised, nurtured, fed, & taught Aurora.

Also: Have you forgotten about Diaval? He was a fantastic male character, demonstrated as being both insightful and compassionate.

And therefore it is far more likely that Maleficent learned to love again through her many years of friendship & trust with Diaval (the guy willing to die for her and "be her wings"). Unless you're suggesting Maleficent's own curse (having Aurora be "loved by all") forced Maleficent to learn to love again, but that's a depressing message.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

I take you you are not a fan of horror movies? you know in horror movies we got a very popular cliche here where in almost every movie the one surviving in the end is a female heroine. female heroines completely dominate the horror genre. The world isnt as black and white as you want to present it.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] richard.fuller1 9 years ago

This behavior actually goes way back. I always thought it began with feminism approximately forty years ago, but I now suspect there has really been no change and a woman 'being strong and better than the man' is a very old idea that has been part of the human relationship all along.

However these movies (neither of which I have seen, Frozen or Maleficent) portray a man in regards to a woman is supposed to be a counter, which I have seen endless times in old movies, of the woman incapable of doing anything until the man saves her.

In some old movies from the fifties at best, all the woman could do was scream (such as Doris Day in Man Who Knew Too Much, while in the '30s original version, tho I prefer the '50s version, the wife was a marksman).

Likewise, when Harry Houdini began drowning in his final performance, it was said his wife, Belle, grabbed an axe and broke the glass, yet the '50s version with Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh has her simply stand back and scream.

So now we do have strong females, but yes, it seems to have to be at the male's expense. I could suspect the logic then is they are making the man a prop to the woman. Strange idea of equality.

But the sexism was there with things like Saturday Night Live, which was supposed to be risqué and daring, but John Belushi just couldn't believe a woman could be funny, and it was always a male dominated show in the beginning (tho now I find the show just unfunny).

In Towering Inferno, Faye Dunaway, an acclaimed actress, was nothing more than window dressing. She literally did nothing in that movie. Yet from what I understand occurred between Newman and McQueen, if that had been two female leads, it would have been a catfight.

Yet you can also look at character lineups from the past that still go strong today.

The Loony Toons assortment, there is no female characterization. The best they have is Granny or the slobovnia lady rabbit, voiced by June Foray, but of all the Warner Bros. cartoon characters (Bugs, Daffy, Sam, Elmer, Sylvester, Taz, Wile E., etc.) they are all male.

Later attempts have TRIED adding a female rabbit, but truthfully, to no avail.

Then in the muppets, other than Miss Piggy, who began as a showgirl and evolved as the pursuing female to Kermit, there is no other female character. Again, they can create other attempts, even on Sesame Street, but there are no other notable female muppets. Zoe? Abby Kadaby?

Hollywood has a strange reaction to making a male and female character function together without it having to be sexual.

Still I don't understand the idea the woman has to be lesbian to 'not want a man' either. I didn't follow the need to have Julianne Moore strike Vince Vaughn at the end of that Psycho horror at the end, while in truth, all Vera Miles did was scream, but I got to tell ya, that's pretty much all I would have done in that situation as well. No way would I try to kick that thing.

reply

[–] rnl-otto 9 years ago

Some thoughts about the kiss thing.

I think Disney not having girls saved by a true love´s kiss anymore is not an anti-male thing but correcting a mistake from former movies.
In both Arielle and Sleeping Beauty and probably in other Disney movies people met once, fell in love immediately and this love was so strong it could do anything for those people. It´s a very unrealistic idea of love that I honestly think does damage to the ideas young girls can have when they think about love. Prince Phillip was actually okay and returned in the last scene of the movie, implying a real love could develop between him and Aurora. This love just can´t develop in five minutes.
Well of course they could have just let them meet as children or something, so yeah, there´s a we-don´t-need-guys-to-save-ourselves-thing, too, but to me this love-needs-to-develop-thing is important, too.

Anyways I do like Maleficent as a not-just-good female character, because good naive sweet love-obsessed female characters are SO boring and I am SO bored of the representation of females in books and movies (I am one, by the way), so, yeah, i liked that and I think it´s a weird kind of feminism.

I do totally agree though that the movie fails to make King Stephan an understandable, well-drawn character, and it bothered me. The other male characters were alright though, i really liked the raven (does he count as a rather nice male character?)

I´m not a native speaker, hope you get my points though.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

I think Disney not having girls saved by a true love´s kiss anymore is not an anti-male thing but correcting a mistake from former movies.
In both Arielle and Sleeping Beauty and probably in other Disney movies people met once, fell in love immediately and this love was so strong it could do anything for those people. It´s a very unrealistic idea of love that I honestly think does damage to the ideas young girls can have when they think about love. Prince Phillip was actually okay and returned in the last scene of the movie, implying a real love could develop between him and Aurora. This love just can´t develop in five minutes.

So what they're doing now is better for girls? Girls shouldn't grow up feeling comfortable and safe with men - including their fathers? They should grow up feeling fear until those men in their lives prove themselves, making them feel safe and comfortable - whenever the fck that is??

Boys and girls should grow up with hope for relationships. NOT wary of getting to know each other.

reply

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Yeah, and besides, love at first sight that results in a strong marriage is actually realistic, even if rare. I'd know because my parents during a party actually MET a couple who were that, and you would think they were Disney characters. Did I mention this couple, who fell for each other at first sight, had twenty years of a stable marriage? That sounds pretty strong to me.

If anything, gradual love, especially the type where people who hate each other grow to be strongly infatuated with each other, is less realistic. In reality, that would more likely result in the marriage lasting as long as a fruit fly. After all, Hermione and Ron got hitched and had a similar relationship, and based on JK Rowling's recent comments, at the very least, they're going through marriage counseling, if not possibly going as far as filing for divorce. Heck, even Alfonzo Rachel of Zonation made this explicit in his video denouncing Planned Parenthood: http://alfonzorachel.com/2002/zonation-planned-parenthood-planning-kinky-sex 2:40 of the video to be more specific).

And as LukeLovesFilm28 pointed out, their current actions not just with this film and Frozen, but also Big Hero 6 and Zootopia are more likely to have kids grow up maladjusted and possibly even suffer from extreme paranoid delusions thinking literally everyone could be a backstabber. It's coming across less like Disney and more like some nihilistic series like the Metal Gear games, most infamously Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty or to some extent Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

But it certainly suits the longtime feminist agenda to destroy the nuclear family.

It's sad that people today can't appreciate how powerful a family like that can be. Feminists would rather be married to the government, which is the most shaky relationship they could ever get into. Those people in Washington don't give a damn about individuals and their safety. They care about numbers. They'll stab an entire group of people - like women in the back if it helped their numbers. That includes dear old Hilary. When all hell breaks lose and there is no more government or police force to protect everything, it will all go back to the way things were. Men will actually become valuable again. Women will be able to see reality for what it is again and it realize how much it sucks to deal with reality alone.

reply

[–] lomaran-1 9 years ago

I am a 53 year old female and I totally agree. Yes, the men were portrayed negatively.
I, for one, did not like this movie or (gasp) Frozen, either. I could list LOTS of reasons for not liking Frozen, but I won't here. Most people, who love it, wouldn't listen anyway.

reply

[–] chiibiprincess 9 years ago

I thought Diaval's and Phillip's characters were treated WAY better than those stupid excuses for "fairies" so....no, OP, I don't think this movie nor Frozen (Anna still fell in love with Kristoff) "hates men".

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

There's another big flaw. The way they mishandled the fairies, who were actually very helpful and endearing in the original cartoon. These fairies are bumbling idiots and there was no clear reason why, other than the fact that Maleficent needed a chance to shine.

reply

[–] chiibiprincess 9 years ago

Yes, that's one reason why it feels so....fan...ficky. XD

But I don't think Disney is trying to teach girls to be afraid of ALL men. Stefan is a crappy father but there are plenty of good fathers in Disney movies (as long as they stay alive lol) It's hinted that Aurora and Phillip ARE going to get involved with each other.

I think Disney is trying to teach girls that you shouldn't put your trust in total strangers and that love should not happen in five minutes. They are teaching girls to be a little more independent and work hard for what they want instead of wishing for magic or a man to just fix everything for them.

This isn't a bad message. I think it's a good one.

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

I think Disney is trying to teach girls that you shouldn't put your trust in total strangers and that love should not happen in five minutes. They are teaching girls to be a little more independent and work hard for what they want instead of wishing for magic or a man to just fix everything for them.

This isn't a bad message. I think it's a good one.

I didn't see that message in this movie at all.

Aurora goes up to a 40year old stranger (Maleficent) whose name she doesn't know and who has been watching her from the bushes and shadows for years. She decides to hang out with this shadowy stranger with Disney showing that it would be ok & even fun. Later Aurora even tries to sneak out of her parent's home with this home-invader who she knew her dad and nannies said was "evil". I sincerely doubt most parents would prefer that message to a teen girl who waltzed with a teen boy she just met (& who hasn't been stalking them for years) and later saves her life from someone Aurora's parents knew was evil.

Even if someone hates the idea of "love at first sight" we never know how much time Aurora & Phillip in Sleeping Beauty spend together talking & getting to know each other after they danced as the scene fades with them together without saying how much time passes. In Sleeping Beauty, Aurora met someone who shared the same interests as her (dancing, singing) & it implied they found each other attractive. Sleeping Beauty Aurora never expected/wished for magic or a man to fix everything for her nor fix it herself because she never knew about her curse. If Aurora wanted to spend her time singing, dancing & being with animals (animals who wanted to be around her) then that is her independent choice to do that. I never heard anyone complain about her singing or dancing & I don't know anyone who can do the things she did with wild animals in real life so perhaps she did work hard earlier to be able to do all that.

Aurora's magical interaction with animals/creatures was the 1 part the movie Maleficent got right. In the Maleficent movie, Aurora's body language makes it seem she's repulsed when she first meets Phillip. Aurora & Phillip have nothing in common other than both being called royalty and throughout the movie Phillip never does anything that would impress her. Phillip even hesitates to kiss Aurora *to try to save her life*. The end suggests they have a platonic relationship as they aren't even touching each other (Aurora held the hand of the trent, but not Phillip). Aurora smiled at Phillip, but she smiled at everyone even the creatures. Unlike Sleeping Beauty, this Aurora knew she had a curse yet she did nothing about it, much less work hard to combat it. Instead she just ran home & cried only to have someone else magically fix it for her & worse by accident. Even Aurora becoming queen was only because Maleficent killed her dad.

reply

[–] chiibiprincess 9 years ago

I didn't see that message in this movie at all.

Oh sir...

I wasn't talking about THIS movie. I think this is a 'eyecandy' crappy movie with crappy messages and a good actress. XD

I was talking about messages in BETTER Disney movies like Princess and the Frog, Brave, Tangled, and Frozen.

Cause Luke said,

So what they're doing now is better for girls? Girls shouldn't grow up feeling comfortable and safe with men - including their fathers?

I was addressing that quote. Because....come to think of it, I believe Maleficent is the ONLY movie where a girl's father turns into a villain. Ah, wait...there is one in Big Hero 6 but the situation is vastly different.
The professor's daughter was taken from him and he became evil to get revenge on the man responsible for it

Most Disney heroines are Daddy's Girls! And most of them get a husband or a boyfriend in the end.

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

My mistake. I knew you thought the movie was bad, but I misunderstood when you said to Luke that you saw a good message.

reply

[–] chiibiprincess 9 years ago

It's fine. Misunderstandings are bound to happen when a forum has this type of layout. :/

No, the biggest message of value I took from this movie was

"Eagle wings on a human look really cool".

XD

aside from maybe "taking revenge is bad". Big Hero 6 did that much better though.

"But it's a ROCK!"
"I KNOW IT'S A ROCK!"

reply

[–] BrotherRat 9 years ago

I would agree that the "3 stoogettes" were hardly great characters... they were there for comic relief. But the only "message" I got was that Disney contorted themselves to make a villianess sympathetic to the lady viewers... and made the king a villian. OK... fine... every story of good vs evil needs a bad guy. Then they took a wronged woman... who cursed an innocent child in her cradle... and tried to make her a heroine. Sorry... some things make a person irredeemable.

I'm hardly a crusader in the war between the sexes... but let's look at the male characters: the King betrayed love for power and spent the rest of the movie dedicated to protecting his interests (bad guy), Diaval was an animal (literally) and the only male who showed any sign of goodness (ladies... male pets are OK), the Prince was window-dressing (some men might be OK, if they don't play a big part in your life), the thugs employed by the King were mindless and bent on destruction (bad guys).

Now let's look at the female characters: Maleficient was wronged and cursed a child in the cradle to express her rage... then spent her life stalking the growing child from the shadows... till she was won by her innocence and charm (because there is always hope to change to a loving person no matter what evil you have done... for a female), the Princess was a complete innocent (nice), the faerie godmothers were well meaning idiots (it doesn't take intelligence for a lady to be nice).

Message:
Men=Bad
Women=Good no matter what they do or who they are.

That's an oversimplification, but that's about how I saw it.

Also... one important thing in any story is identifying with a character. There simply wasn't a male character for me to identify with here. And the thought that a woman would identify with the lead female character kinda bothers me.

Female wronged by a lover runs amok... but is good no matter what she does... curses baby, destroys kingdom, kills old lover, stalks lover's daughter... all OK. Because she's good at the end.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

Message:
Men=Bad
Women=Good no matter what they do or who they are.

That's an oversimplification, but that's about how I saw it.

Also... one important thing in any story is identifying with a character. There simply wasn't a male character for me to identify with here. And the thought that a woman would identify with the lead female character kinda bothers me.

Female wronged by a lover runs amok... but is good no matter what she does... curses baby, destroys kingdom, kills old lover, stalks lover's daughter... all OK. Because she's good at the end.

Exactly. This man-blaming sh!t is getting out of hand. Why can't we have movies promoting men for all of our good qualities? Do women even see good qualities in men anymore? Is society becoming so damn picky about acceptable behavior that men are just fcked, no matter what??

reply

[–] UnvoicedApollo1 9 years ago

Question: Does a character you can identify with have to have the same gender as you?

reply

[–] BrotherRat 9 years ago

Fair question. And not really one I have considered. I have always looked only at the men... so... I guess so.

Which is not to say that I can't understand or root for a female character (though they often perplex me IRL... lol).

But, I have to say, I don't really find it easy to IDENTIFY with a sweet little princess... or a faerie witch/warrior type. Which is to say that I don't see MYSELF as that type of person. So, I suppose you could say I am hopelessly male in gender and viewpoint.

Is that a bad thing?

reply

[–] UnvoicedApollo1 9 years ago

The purpose of the question was to see if you might be able to or at least be open identify with a female character, though not necessarily one falling into the same tropes you listed. The point though is not that there wasn't simply a male character you couldn't identify with. There was no character you could relate to or identify with, regardless of gender.

reply

[–] BrotherRat 9 years ago

Yes... I understood that and my answer wasn't flippant. I was also thinking of how much I enjoyed the first few seasons of 'House of Cards.' I could identify with Frank... even though I see myself as a good man... because I sometimes feel like doing the wicked things he does.

So it wasn't really that there were no good men... it was that those men were so terribly two dimensional. And I truly do think it's important to identify with at least one character in any film.

Identifying with a character goes way beyond understanding them and their motivations... it really means being able to put yourself in their shoes... casting yourself in their part for the duration of the movie. Maybe I'm spoiled (or too old and set in my ways)... I've never really been able to do it in a woman's role. Foe instance... I used to box... when I watched 'Million Dollar Baby' I identified primarily with Clint, even though I never taught anyone to box.

Can I ask you a question now? Did you identify with anyone in this movie? Who and why?

reply

[–] UnvoicedApollo1 9 years ago

I was able to sympathize for Maleficent up until she cursed Aurora. Beyond that, I identified with 0 people. Which was my other point, I don't think most could identify with any charactee beyond that point.

reply

[–] jeffer23 9 years ago

But this story doesn't even give us a single good male. Even the prince who is Aurora's love interest is mere window dressing. The women are magical, powerful, betrayed by men, and loving to each other. The men are power hungry, love betraying, and hateful.

Diaval is clearly a good male. He is also a bird, but he is able to take the form of a male and is perhaps somewhat of a mate to Maleficent at the end of the movie.

The problem isn't that Hollywood wants to push lesbian ideas or feminism. It is more about the fact that Hollywood movies for the past three quarters of a century have mostly included dominant males with females in meek meaningless or sexually provocative dumb blonde roles. Most ideas of original material now involve women in different roles since it has not been done before. Spice is the life and this is a new flavor.

reply

[–] inframan 9 years ago

Not sure how you can describe Diaval as anything other than Maleficent's straight man. He's certainly not a male human in the context of this film. I agree that the men in this film are portrayed as dopes or fiends but I think that's true of a majority of Hollywood output these days & especially prevalent in the world of TV commercials. I figure it all presages a world in which women run everything, which is all right with me. I'm tired of being on the side that always gets the blame.

reply

[–] jeffer23 9 years ago

Not sure how you can describe Diaval as anything other than Maleficent's straight man.

Huh? Diaval is a very good character in this film. And Stefan is no less developed than any of the evil characters in ninety-nine percent of those Marvel and DC comics turned in to movies. Where is the outrage on those IMDb boards? It doesn't exist because the younger immature males are too busy over-rating those movies.

I find it hilarious that a bunch of men are so competitive on sexuality just like racism or religious biases that they whine and cry over a few role reversals on who is evil or who is the hero/heroine of the movie. As a man I can watch this movie just fine and see good versus evil, but it really doesn't matter who is what sex. It is simply a different variety of a fantasy type movie. Variety is good.

For a huge number of years there were multiple movies with an emphasis on evil female witches but no famous evil Warlocks. And did men whine about bad portrayal of women as dumb blondes in all of the old movies either? No.

reply

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Diaval was well-handled, I'll give you that. Probably the closest we've got to a male character who WAS decently treated. Too bad he spends most of the movie as a bird and very rarely as an actual human(oid). I'd rather they have a male character who actually STAYS human for most if not all of the film treated decently.

reply

[–] jeffer23 9 years ago

What surprises me is that less (if any) complaints occur about the characters in the Moors. Meanwhile there are complaints about the male humans only where we fail to realize that we only get to know the men mostly (except for a few scenes with the Queen). Most of the human scenes are battle scenes or preparations for battle which doesn't involve women. If we compare this to our real world, biases are very common by groups of people in one country or one faith (or lack of), etc. versus another country, faith, etc. This bias tends to make all of them (male and female) appear evil even though it is a lack of understanding, greed, jealousy, etc. that create the hate. These are equal opportunity problems on both sexes.

If anything, the most unrealistic thing in the movie would be the characters in the Moors rather than the men. These creatures can show at least slight anger as displayed during the scenes where some goofing off occurred. They also show they can be intimidated as displayed when Maleficent became overbearing as Queen. But yet they are presented as always being happy with no need for a King versus the humans. How do these creatures eat if they don't eat each other? This has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with species.

I think too many people overthink motives of producers of movies when we know that Hollywood is releasing multiple new movies per week and their primary thought is about how much money it makes.

reply

[–] otness_e 9 years ago

Have to agree there. Besides, if they were anarchistic, they'd be slaughtering themselves with sadistic revel, just like the Jacobins, the Gironquists, the Cordeliers, the Enrages, and the like from the French Revolution. And their way of running things was far closer to anarchy.

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

I don't think that is the reason. I loved that in 'Frozen' it was the love of the younger sister that with the help of a male character, saved the elder, and it is the motherly love (Aurora is motherless) that grows reluctantly at first (but how could any sentient being resist a child who loves her especially when she knows she does not deserve it), in Maleficent for the princess, that saves Aurora and changes Maleficent herself. And there is Diaval who in a way although he is a crow most of the time, is male, and serves as Maleficent's conscience before she acknowledges her love for the child.
It has nothing to do with male bashing, but in showing young girls that it is not only romantic love that can work miracles. There are other kinds that are just as strong. Until lately Disney princess films seemed to raise in girls the expectation that romantic love and marriage are the be-all and end-all of existence.
It was time for a change.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 8 years ago

I loved that in 'Frozen' it was the love of the younger sister that with the help of a male character, saved the elder...
It has nothing to do with male bashing

Agreed.

it is the motherly love (Aurora is motherless) that grows reluctantly at first in Maleficent for the princess....
in showing young girls that it is not only romantic love that can work miracles. There are other kinds that are just as strong. Until lately Disney princess films seemed to raise in girls the expectation that romantic love and marriage are the be-all and end-all of existence.

That might be a real problem if girls today were locked in rooms watching only those few Disney princess films with no books, tv shows, other movies or the internet for reference or expectations. Girls aren't that stupid.

Do young girls need the message that not only romantic love, but the love from a 40year old stalker can work miracles? Yes, Aurora's father was bad and her guardians were inept yet I doubt young girls with bad parents/guardians need to be encouraged to approach 40year old strangers watching them from the bushes/woods/shadows (just like Aurora did) all in the hope for good miracles. Motherly love wouldn't deliberately leave a dangerous object near a child anymore than real motherly love wouldn't leave an evil curse on a child for 15+years (like Maleficent did). Just because Maleficent was female and had flower milk delivered to Aurora once doesn't make it motherly love (or fatherly love if a 40year old tattooed fat guy did it)... it's love from a creepy stalker who attacked Aurora earlier and who was told by Aurora's parents and her guardians to stay away. Real motherly love does not come from a stranger watching from the shadows for 16years.

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

That might be a real problem if girls today were locked in rooms watching only those few Disney princess films with no books, tv shows, other movies or the internet for reference or expectations. Girls aren't that stupid.

I don't know if you have little girls, but that princess stuff us being pushed on them by retailers, and is effective as early exposure to the idea that you need a prince to save you (and also that you have the right to act like a princess). They even have prince dolls. Young children lack the facility to think critically, and many parents do use the TV/DVD player as a babysitter.

Do young girls need the message that not only romantic love, but the love from a 40 year old stalker can work miracles? Yes, Aurora's father was bad and her guardians were inept yet I doubt young girls with bad parents/guardians need to be encouraged to approach 40year old strangers watching them from the bushes/woods/shadows (just like Aurora did) all in the hope for good miracles. Motherly love wouldn't deliberately leave a dangerous object near a child anymore than real motherly love wouldn't leave an evil curse on a child for 15+years (like Maleficent did). Just because Maleficent was female and had flower milk delivered to Aurora once doesn't make it motherly love (or fatherly love if a 40year old tattooed fat guy did it)... it's love from a creepy stalker who attacked Aurora earlier and who was told by Aurora's parents and her guardians to stay away. Real motherly love does not come from a stranger watching from the shadows for 16years.

Maleficent wants to hate the child of Stephan who figuratively raped her, and invoked the curse as a revenge for Stephan's violence against her trust. After the original curse on the baby, placed in revenge against Stephan, she does nothing to harm the child but instead finds that something in her reluctantly rebels against seeing the baby neglected by the airheaded fairies in whose charge she has been placed, so she sees to it that the motherless child is nourished and protected (from wandering off a cliff in one instance). The motherless Aurora recognizes Maleficent, not as a sinister stranger, but as a fairy godmother from whom she has received nourishment and protection, the only person who seems to have cared for her. She has come to love that godmother, and her world,in which she has wandered from infancy. Maleficent does not disabuse her (although at first she does try to repel the child, perhaps in guilt for the curse she has invoked), until she is finally exposed, and Aurora recoils from her at last, at which time she goes into overdrive to try to reverse the curse that she has placed on the girl. Even Maleficent does not recognize that her love can bring Aurora back from the sleep her curse has put upon her, so she lassoes the prince, who has no idea why he has been hijacked, into giving the girl the kiss of true love that fairytales assert can awaken the sleeping princess. Reality intrudes a bit here; the prince and Aurora have only met once. It was not love at first sight, but a bit of wonder that could have grown into more upon further meetings, (and that seems to be how it will go in the end). The kiss Maleficent bestows upon Aurora is her own recognition of her guilt, sorrow, and yes, of the love that has grown in her against her will, that awakens the girl, to the formerly evil fairy's surprise.
The only issue I have is that after her redemption, Maleficent's name should have been changed to reflect that redemption.
I would not allow a young child to watch this film because the mind at that age is not sufficiently developed to understand subtlety, and Maleficent and some of the creatures in her fairyland would be scary.
I also doubt that we are going to see many fairytale films that try to rehabilitate an evil witch or fairy.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 8 years ago

I don't know if you have little girls, but that princess stuff us being pushed on them by retailers, and is effective as early exposure to the idea that you need a prince to save you (and also that you have the right to act like a princess). They even have prince dolls. Young children lack the facility to think critically, and many parents do use the TV/DVD player as a babysitter.

First and foremost, poor parenting is a poor reason to blame a few cherry-picked Disney movies for anything. The bad parent is the problem & at blame here, not a movie or TV show. If a kid is a big fan of the Jungle Book and grows up believing they can have friendships with a bear and wild animals it's likely the parent's fault... not the movie's fault or the bear's fault. There are tons of books, movies and tv shows parents have to choose from today and parents have a lot more influence and responsibility on their kids than retailers. The parent buys the dolls, food, clothes and movies, not the child. Not to mention the parent's ability to say "no".

Second, you give young girls far less credit than you give young boys. You claim girls will somehow think they need a prince/man to save them from ??? which is about as likely as boys thinking they need multiple fairies/women to help them ever accomplish anything and need a horse and need to sing well to be a real prince/man.

Maleficent wants to hate the child of Stephan who figuratively raped her, and invoked the curse as a revenge for Stephan's violence against her trust.

I don't find movies about men severing body parts of other men or women to be figurative rape... that's a big weird leap to make.

After the original curse on the baby, placed in revenge against Stephan, she does nothing to harm the child but instead finds that something in her reluctantly rebels against seeing the baby neglected by the airheaded fairies in whose charge she has been placed, so she sees to it that the motherless child is nourished and protected (from wandering off a cliff in one instance).

First, if Maleficent had not distracted the child's 3 guardians in that scene with her magic then perhaps Aurora wouldn't have wandered off towards a cliff alone? Maleficent set herself up to be the cause and solution to that problem.

Second, Maleficent placed a thunderstorm in the house baby Aurora was in which one of the fairies say they are hurt by it. How is placing a thunderstorm or hurtful magic above Aurora protecting her? Even if you want to pretend the thunderstorm somehow was incapable of randomly hurting Aurora then hurting even airhead guardians only makes things worse for that child.

Third, if Maleficent let the child die at the cliff it would have defeated the whole purpose of her 16year curse. Maleficent cared about seeing her evil curse & misguided revenge be drawn out over 16years... she cared little for Aurora. Nothing implies Maleficent nourished Aurora over 16years as sending milk to Aurora *once* is more like when a stalker sends a single gift to their victim. It's creepy, that's it. After the curse is on Aurora we see Maleficent verbally tell baby Aurora she "hates" her and she hisses at baby Aurora like a cat... that's not how motherly love works & even after ~15years when Aurora 1st warmly approaches Maleficent we see Maleficent still distant, cold and emotionless around her... that's not motherly love. True motherly love wouldn't wait ~15+years to attempt to remove a curse/illness/danger from a child. Only after Aurora became friends with her stalker do we see Maleficent feel guilt and regret for her curse and *finally* after 15+years to *finally* try to remove it. No truer love than the one built from a stalker's guilt and regret?

The motherless Aurora recognizes Maleficent, not as a sinister stranger, but as a fairy godmother from whom she has received nourishment and protection, the only person who seems to have cared for her.

Huh? The 3 fairies were airheads, but they spent 16years of their lives raising Aurora and there was nothing to imply they were doing it for money or power or against their will even if they were inept. Who do you think cared to have Aurora learn to speak well (and possibly read), have manners, teach right/wrong, dress herself, bathe/clean, *regularly* feed/nourish Aurora, etc? Stalkers watching far off in the distant shadows cannot do what mothers/guardians do.

Even Maleficent does not recognize that her love can bring Aurora back from the sleep her curse has put upon her, so she lassoes the prince, who has no idea why he has been hijacked, into giving the girl the kiss of true love that fairytales assert can awaken the sleeping princess.

So Maleficent knew the prince trusted her & liked Aurora, but rather than simply ask the prince to help save Aurora (like a normal thinking individual) Maleficent knocks him out and kidnaps him against his will without any explanation. Maleficent being portrayed as barbaric and crazy throughout the movie doesn't do the film any favors. Seeing Maleficent later take her revenge on King Stefan by stopping to take the time to push/slap him around on the tower before killing him (and not use her telekinesis powers or wings to save him) shows Maleficent always had her revenge in her heart. Her unforeseen stalker love for Aurora was a creepy side-effect.

The only issue I have is that after her redemption, Maleficent's name should have been changed to reflect that redemption.

Redemption??
How would the conversation about Maleficent's redemption gone?

Maleficent, "You never knew your dad much anyways so you won't miss him now that he's dead, right? I will tell you my version of what happened & you will believe it. And before you get upset keep in mind that thanks to me you're now Queen Aurora!"
Aurora, "I could never stay mad at you. You are like sooo much cooler than those 3 airhead fairies who raised me for 16years."
Maleficent, "I'm so glad we became friends because if we didn't have this close connection then I would have totally left you in that evil coma curse until you died. Hahahaa!"
Aurora, "Ha! Let's be friends forever!"

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

It is just a movie, and probably the only one of its kind (rehabilitating a previously evil character) that Disney will ever make, unlike the 'princess' movies little girls are bombarded with by the media and toymakers.
Little boys as a rule don't care for such films; they are bombarded with Transformers, Thomas the Tank Engine,(and yes, sometimes little girls like them, too), etc.which usually do not have girls or love interests in them.
This is not a movie for a young child, although an uninformed or careless parent might allow a young child to watch it.
You are projecting creepy ideas into this particular film, the main message of which is that motherly love, which like it or not grows reluctantly in Maleficent can transform, and is just as powerful as romantic affection.
I would not let a young child see the movie because it is dark: Stephan cutting off Maleficent's wings, betraying her love for and trust in him, and his subsequent descent into madness, Maleficent's original quest for revenge, etc. It is not a young child's movie, but it is a standalone movie not the relentless brainwashing stuff with which the princess movies bombard little girls who are their target audience, although sometimes little boys like these films, too.
I am a grownup and would not have taken a young child to see it. I enjoyed the movie for what it was; you are overthinking it.
Moving on...

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 8 years ago

It is just a movie, and probably the only one of its kind (rehabilitating a previously evil character) that Disney will ever make, unlike the 'princess' movies little girls are bombarded with by the media and toymakers.
...
It is not a young child's movie, but it is a standalone movie not the relentless brainwashing stuff with which the princess movies bombard little girls who are their target audience, although sometimes little boys like these films, too.
...
I enjoyed the movie for what it was; you are overthinking it.

That's ironic for you to say given your relentless brainwashing theories over a few old Disney movies. You are overthinking the old princess movies & desperately trying to twist them into some evil brainwashing stuff while also somehow ignoring the power & responsibility of parents. If a parent doesn't like a movie/doll/toy for their kid then it is up to them not to let the kid have it & lay down the rules, not vice-versa. Blaming a *few* movies for whatever tragedy you see in today's women for watching/playing these old princess movies/dolls/toys over the decades is a poor scapegoat for whatever nightmare you think is out there today.

Little boys as a rule don't care for such films; they are bombarded with Transformers, Thomas the Tank Engine,(and yes, sometimes little girls like them, too), etc.which usually do not have girls or love interests in them.

And yet despite the bombardment, boys never end up thinking robots are trying to destroy all mankind despite constantly seeing that message in Transformers cartoons/movies. Boys don't end up thinking they will need robots to save them from ???, but somehow you think girls are mentally weaker and will somehow be brainwashed to think they need princes to save them from ???.

You are projecting creepy ideas into this particular film, the main message of which is that motherly love, which like it or not grows reluctantly in Maleficent can transform, and is just as powerful as romantic affection.

On the contrary, take away the nice music from the scenes and you will find you are projecting motherly love onto a child's cold faced stalker - a stalker who attacked that child earlier & kills her father in the end. A stalker developing love for their victim isn't rare, but it is creepy. If Maleficent was played by a 40year old guy with horns on his head who watched a young girl from the shadows for years after he had attacked her earlier and later became friends with her and then killed her mother then no one would call that "fatherly love", but instead say it belongs as an episode of Criminal Minds... having a famous dolled up actress do it with nice music doesn't suddenly make it not creepy.

Even the scene of Maleficent picking up baby Aurora for a short time shows Maleficent as emotionless and cold to the child. What kind of motherly love would so quickly tell a child to "go away" after putting them down in a forest alone no less. It's chilling. If anyone had a mother who acted like Maleficent *even after the curse* then I feel deeply sorry for them that they had such a cold distant crazy mother.

I would not let a young child see the movie

Agreed.

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

h,give it a rest! You sound creepy.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] angelosdaughter 8 years ago

Oh,give it a rest! You sound creepy.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 8 years ago

You're the one defending the stalker and killer in the movie. That makes you the creepy one.

reply