So the curse could only be vanquished via the kiss of true love. Does that mean to say Maleficent was in fact a lesbian who was in love with Aurora, hence why kissing her broke it? Could her initial resentment towards Aurora be interpreted as suppressed homosexual attraction instead that she felt guilty about, only to eventually come to accept it by kissing her?
shareNo, she was not a lesbian. The point was to show that there are many kinds of true love that are not romantic love. She felt a maternal love towards Aurora after watching over her for many years and seeing her grow and interacting with her. She saw that Aurora was so full of light and goodness. So it was not in any way sexual; it was maternal.
"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates
Which unfortunately destroyed the entire POINT behind a kiss of true love. The entire idea behind a kiss of true love is that it's a kind of kiss that simply cannot be replicated by anyone and can only be done with a genuine soul mate.
To put it another way, if THAT was all it took to undo the curse, there wouldn't have even been any need for Prince Philip's involvement in breaking the curse, all that truly would be needed is Queen Leah or King Stefan. Heck, even the dwarves could have broken the curse, without the prince's involvement in Snow White.
I know right. I bet even one of those weird looking forest creatures that were playing with Aurora with the mud could have kissed her back to life.
shareTrue love can be in many different forms. It does not have to be romantic. A mother's love towards her child is the purest form of love. Maleficent was not Aurora's mother, but she watched over her and watched her grow, interacted with her and felt a love towards her. True love is genuine love. It's even more convincing than Sleeping Beauty, where they only met and danced for a few minutes without knowing anything about each other and still it was called "True Love".
"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates
So why is it that in the original Disney films, True Love's First Kiss wasn't caused by, say, the parents, or even the dwarves? If what you said was true, prince charming didn't even NEED to be involved at all, just use one of those characters. They had genuine love for them, yet they didn't think about using THAT to break the spell. Instead, they relied on Prince Charming. Heck, have the three good fairies do so as well. It's pretty clear that true love was indeed supposed to be for romantic love, not simply familial love of platonic love (if they were, they would have actually done something with it).
shareDifferent era, and they wanted to follow the original fairy tales, but in the written fairy tales the word "true love's kiss" was never mentioned. In Sleeping Beauty, a prince's kiss woke her and in Snow White, she spat out the bit of poison apple that made her sleep. Also, they wanted to add the element of romance.
"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates
Actually, the Prince did more than merely "kiss" Sleeping Beauty in the original written tale: He raped her, and she literally woke up when going into labor. You are spot on regarding Snow White.
However, honestly, a different era doesn't cut it. The Little Mermaid was a different era as well, yet even THAT still dealt with true love's first kiss, AND in the way it was generally done. Besides, I'm pretty sure even people back then knew about parents loving their kids, so that's not an excuse anyways.
Technically a different era does cut it, because True Love's Kiss doesn't actually help resolve Ariel's (new) dream to become human & be with her man. They never engage in TLK before the time limit set by the contract & she reverts back to being a mermaid.
True, but it was still a focal point, and it actually WAS meant for an actual romantic partner rather than her best friend or even her parents, unlike with Maleficent, where it required Maleficent herself to kiss Aurora due to "motherly love" when that's NOT what True Love's Kiss is all about.
shareYou are wrong. True Love's Kiss can be whatever the writer wants it to be as long as it is clear to the viewer. There are NO set rules on what is "True Love's Kiss" and what isn't. It was very clear what was meant in this movie to anyone who understands the English language.
The saying didn't even start with Disney. It most likely obtained fame with a play by Shakespeare. And in that case it was used more in terms of someone who barely knows the person whom they desire beyond the royalty (and perhaps sexual desire). That is hardly the same true love as the original Snow White.
King Richard III says "Bear her my true love's kiss; and so farewell" He essentially wants to marry Elizabeth's daughter. This is the same daughter to whom he has killed her brothers and an Aunt and two Uncles.
I know it probably didn't start with Disney (heck, if anything, in the original stories, either the kiss waking them up was coincidental, or the reason they woke up was from far worse things like being raped or the prince literally taking her away as a trophy), but the fact stands that Snow White and Aurora specifically required in their movies that the person who gave them true love's first kiss NOT be a friend of theirs or a family member (otherwise, those dwarves, the three good fairies, even Stefan and Leah would have been candidates instead of JUST the Prince or Philip for breaking the spell.). Even in The Little Mermaid, where it WASN'T successfully practiced, it was made VERY clear that it required Eric to give it to her, not Triton, not Flounder, not Sebastian, not Scuttle, not Loretta, not Grimsby, just Eric.
sharewhen that's NOT what True Love's Kiss is all about.
It also was the case in the 1950s as well, which is ALSO a different era from the 1930s, for example, and besides which, while it ultimately wasn't successfully used, even The Little Mermaid, made and released in the (very) late 1980s and thus during a different era, did still deal with true love as being, you know, between a guy and a girl who is neither a long-standing friend nor is she even a relative. It certainly didn't take Ariel having to be kissed by Triton just to become human, or Flounder, for that matter.
And I'm not the one who's defining True Love, I'm just the messenger, the definition was given in various stories.
And now the definition is expanding thanks to new stories.
shareI get irritated when people mention that we should "expand definitions." That's already enough of a problem as it is with the Supreme Court under the "living Constitution" train of thought thinking they should "expand definitions" to include stuff the Founding Fathers not only never thought of, but explicitly refused under any circumstances. It just comes across as nihilistic. Words have meaning. Remember that.
shareWords have meaning. But abstract ideals like "true love" are only defined by the limitations of one's imagination.
While I am in agreement with you about the "living Constitution" it is more of a legal terminology while this is just a movie or literature (if we expand to written material). The use in Shakespeare's play which predates all of this certainly was not the same as use by Disney either and even had irony about it as the user had killed family members of the person of interest.
But I understand your argument and can respect that opinion where change from the original popular story can be viewed as a bad thing. This subject reminds me of one of my favorite Science Fiction writers Roger Zelazny who died some time ago. Now a different writer is trying to continue his Amber Chronicles and it isn't even the same. People who have high value for the original material are going to be bothered by alterations of the story that are different from the original author's wording or intention.
The entire idea behind a kiss of true love is that it's a kind of kiss that simply cannot be replicated by anyone and can only be done with a genuine soul mate.
_________
I suppose it would depend on how one looks at things and how one perceives male\female relationships and deluded romantic notions about love. But float around the possibility, that a soul mate where men\female relationships are concerned, is not one's sexual partner.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩
I disagree that there wasn't anything sexual in it. You can clearly see that Maleficent is horny throughout the film.
shareI'm sorry to break it to you and all of the other progressives that adore this stupid movie or Frozen for that matter. BUT the reason family can not be your true love is because family - like Maleficent dies before you and you can't actually have kids with your family. It has to be someone you may grow old with and die next to, but also someone you want to share your body with and have kids with. The most intimate and trusted person you've ever known. The fact that you people want to redefine the definitions of beautiful ideas and fantasies like true love shows how fcked up you people are getting.
shareThere are different ways to be intimate & trusting other than being in a romance or being used for the purpose of popping out kids.
shareAt best... Maleficent's odd love for Aurora was a friend's love... from an odd friend.
Someone with maternal love for Aurora would not leave the curse she put on Aurora for ~15 *years* before even trying to remove it. Maternal love doesn't work like that unless it's some sick twisted version like Munchausen Syndrome & most people would call that a mental illness, not "true love". The 3 fairy nannies spent far more time over the 16years raising Aurora while Maleficent watched from a distant like a stalker with a restraining order after harming the victim (which she did).
Maleficent's interactions with Aurora are, at best, like a distant aunt who is awkward with kids. Later after cursing baby Aurora, Maleficent tells baby Aurora she hates her & hisses like a cat at her. Is putting a thunderstorm in the house the baby is living in somehow maternal too (Maleficent's Munchausen Syndrome?)? Maleficent tells toddler Aurora she doesn't like children. When Maleficent awkwardly holds her we see Maleficent doesn't smile & just studies the kid like it's an odd insect then puts down the kid & tells Aurora to "go away"... a child, in a forest, alone... that isn't maternal love. When Maleficent saves Aurora from falling off the cliff it was Maleficent who distracted the 3 nannies that put Aurora's life in danger (Maleficent's Munchausen Syndrome again?). When Aurora finally becomes a teenager & approaches Maleficent even then Maleficent is still as cold as ice to her. Aurora later laughs & plays around Maleficent as a teen, but Maleficent is still just studying her like a like a lab rat & never laughing with her, hugging her, or teaching her like a mother - she's only hanging out with Aurora like, at best, a friend might do. Maleficent doesn't even tell Aurora the truth about the whole curse thing until the last minute like a bad friend might do. Maleficent had 16years to apologize to Aurora & Maleficent only does it after 16years when Aurora is in Maleficent's "death-like" sleep coma & cannot even hear it.
Aurora is portrayed as fical and naive, but given her 3 inept stooge nannies & genes from a crazy idiot dad I guess that's on purpose. Aurora goes from being really upset at Maleficent (quite understandable) for the whole evil "death-like" curse & being the evil fairy Aurora's nannies warned Aurora about & hiding the truth from her... to waking up from the curse & surprisingly cool with Maleficent again (huh?)? Aurora:"I know you broke in here & my nannies said you were the evil fairy & you admitted you were & admitted you put me in that evil "death-like" coma, but we totally had fun a few days ago so do you want to blow this joint & hang out again?" Really? I would have loved to have seen Maleficent's conversation with Aurora later that day regarding her dad... Maleficent:"One more thing & don't tell your nannies because they will just say it's evil again, but... I kinda killed your dad. <awkward pause> But because of my curse you never knew him anyways so no biggie. We still cool? If you're upset now you won't be after wearing this crown, Queen Aurora! Am I right girl?"
Calling Maleficent's actions "maternal love" only cheapens the definition of maternal love.
Yeah, you're right, this was absolutely nothing like maternal love at all, as maternal love would actually do everything in their power to actually try to undo the thing they did to them as soon as possible. This was more the work of a hard-left radical feminist going out of her way to ensure a guy cannot revive Aurora simply for his gender than any instance of promoting maternal love.
Honestly, as overrated as Frozen is, IT did the whole concept of familial love being a form of true love FAR better than Maleficent did. At least with Elsa, not only was her cursing Anna a complete accident, but as soon as she discovered it, she actually DID try to make amends and felt genuinely guilty, not to mention her cursing Anna was far more recent, and the earlier time she accidentally cursed Anna due to her abilities was the reason she was extremely reluctant to even USE her powers at all, bottling up her emotions and feelings immensely before it inevitably exploded.
It is creepy that everyone can so easily forgive Maleficent for CURSING A BABY.
If Maleficent was male, everyone would hate the movie for promoting violence against children or something.
Yeah, no kidding. That is deeply disturbing. Then again, what else is new with Linda Woolverton?
sharePeople seem to have this built in thing to defend and adore mothers regardless of how sh!tty they are to their children. The fact that people can't think for themselves - for the sake of these children is disturbing.
shareQuite honestly, mothers are very rarely very bad to their children, especially deliberately.
Quite frankly, the whole "motherly love" being true love thing seems more like a cynical excuse for what was pretty obviously attempting to avoid *gasp* a MALE kissing and awaking Princess Aurora from her curse than a genuine pushing of motherly love. We all know how much of a misandrist Linda Woolverton truly is. Heck, Beauty and the Beast basically gave quite a few hints to the misandric agenda with the rather deplorable and unflattering portrayal of males in that story. The Federalist even had a field day regarding the Maleficent film as you can see here (and bear in mind, the person who wrote the article was female herself): http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/06/maleficent-once-upon-a-screed/
Since females are the ones who carry the baby for 9 months, I would say that in the minds of many, it gives them more of an out for their attitude and behavior, even if they haven't had children themselves. The intention might be to make out how evil the woman might be, if she has thoughts of harm and ill will towards a child; but it doesn't always appear that way. Many would say she is only wounded and hurt, because of the way she has been treated and doesn't really feel that way deep down. A male who is wicked and vile of course, is that way through and through and has no hope of redemption. He is not seen as caring or loving or nurturing as what a female is supposed to be, as that is not supposed to be an innate and conditioned masculine trait. More people need to watch ORDINARY PEOPLE-80' and see how spoiled, controlling, cold and soulless many females can be.
I find it very amusing and also frustrating, when I see the attitude of many women who patronize men and feel that they are the ones that can help tame them and tell them how they are feeling, when their own love and care is limited and phony and grounded in their own self-centered narcissism and bitterness. It is a manipulation and a feeling of superiority, over thinking they have a special corner in the market over this arena. How very, very wrong!
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩
That is a non sequitur. Just because we understand what the movie is trying to say doesn't mean we are forgiving of the character.
The OP stated he believed that Maleficent's kiss represented lesbian romantic love. Intelligent people can all agree though that no, the movie was going for motherly love. Whether or not that message is muddled by Maleficent cursing a baby is a different argument and ultimately irrelevant to the original topic.
Yeah this film totally moved the goalposts on what true love and maternal love are supposed to be. Maternal love should be unconditional, not something that grows out of fondness after initial dislike and resentment. It would be like, for example, if you were to put Luke Skywalker in the position of Aurora, then a kiss from Darth Vader would awake him. Yep, the guy who has spent the majority of his life being evil, killing people, trying to capture Luke and turning him to the dark side, and cutting off his hand in the process. Not any of the people in Luke's life who have cared and loved him for longer than the last 10 minutes of Return of the Jedi.
shareActually, even Darth Vader doing that to Luke would have been FAR more believable than Maleficent doing it to Aurora (though not quite as believable as Leia, Chewbacca, or Han doing that.). At least with Darth Vader, he actually DID care for his son, and the only reason he didn't spend time as a father to him was because he didn't even KNOW his son was alive until sometime between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back (and who can blame him, when Palpatine basically implied that his kids died with Padme). Not to mention Darth Vader actually DID redeem himself by saving Luke from being killed by Palpatine.
Besides, technically, Vader spent a slight majority of his life doing good rather than evil. He spent half his life in the Light Side, and half in the Dark Side, which, including the last few minutes of his life firmly being on the Light Side, that means, albeit only by a slight amount, the majority of his life was actually on the Light Side, not the Dark Side.
yes, she was a lesbian
the sex scene between her and Aurora got cut out for the children's sake
so many movies, so little time
Yes, I think she was, or is, though we should remember Maleficent is a faerie, and probably the Fae aren't inclined to define themselves in human terms.
shareLike other posters have already pointed out, there are many kinds and forms of love.
That being said though, it's funny the OP should ask about Maleficent being a lesbian, because I wrote a fanfiction where she does turn out to be a lesbian (along with another Disney villainess, Ursula). For anyone who's interested, here's a link to my fanfiction:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12008103/1/Maleficent-and-Ursula-s-Biggest-Secret
[deleted]