Never After: a few thoughts
Sunday I saw Never After. It's cute and bouncy. Much of the music is fun; the orchestra was excellent. It pushed at my definition of 'fairy tale' -- I think it isn't quite one, to me, but instead belongs over in whatever one calls the space Gilbert and Sullivan operettas are in
( Read more... )
The first thing Les does as a bandit after the training montage in which she has nominally learned all sorts of combat skills is pretend to be a damsel in distress to bait an unwary traveler.
This is very compressed from the movie script. In that, she fumbles a lot, but ends up taking advantage of the confusion of the aristocrat by making off with two horses. I had not considered how it would come across, to have her playing damsel-in-distress; I was thinking of it as an extension of her glee at deceiving Camembert with her "feminine wiles" - utilizing instead of being entrapped by sexism. I'd like to think it's more balanced and nuanced in the full version (which, by the way, you're welcome to read at http://www.lightsuit.org/Never After2.pdf).
After two scenes in which Les strenuously objects to being kissed without her consent, Les's reaction to reaching Somnia and concluding that this is a "kiss the princess to wake her up" scenario contains no concern for how Somnia, who is in no condition to consent, might feel about being kissed, but reads entirely as "eeewww, kissing!"
(Two scenes? do you mean the kiss and the song as separate scenes?)
Somnia has a servant who goes around soliciting rescuers with a gilt invitation. There is a well-lit side-door to the tower. Somnia lies in a fabulous room, in a fabulous bed. She lies, waiting, to be kissed - in the same way that Les was put in a tower with the expectation that she would thereby attract attention on a "well-traveled princely route". Offensive as it may be in the real world, in the fairytale universe, it is a governing assumption.
Les takes up the gender role that doesn't match her sex, but nobody changes the boundaries of those roles at all.
Could you elaborate? I feel that Mathilde forsaking her noblewoman's life, and women and men learning to fight together against dragons (with Abeline in particular talking and singing about how her boundaries have changed), are both relevant.
Likewise for peasantry and aristocracy. Perhaps the woman who's out leading the revolution would make a better, or at least more thoughtful, ruler than the one who just wants to go adventuring? But no, she's not royalty, and Les is.
I had intended it as a hero's journey: Les goes out, has adventures that mature her, and returns home with new skills and knowledge. I was trying for "nascent democracy", where the peasants decide for themselves that they want Les to continue to lead and guide them. She has done so thus far, giving her time and money to their betterment and fighting on their behalf, completely unlike the royals whom she has renounced.
But if, as this and several comments make clear, it comes off that she's still a princess in the end (even when telling her father to renounce his title), then apparently I shouldn't put her in the role of leader. And there's no particular reason in my mind it needs to be her. I'll think about whether there needs to be someone governing them at all. (Thoughts on that?)
Les doesn't present as a lesbian. She presents as asexual and anti-romance;
This has been well-explained to me now, and I've decided to work on Les's relationship to Abeline, to explore her lesbianism earlier and with more complexity.
Reply
I wasn't fond of her using "feminine wiles" against Camembert, either, but that at least felt desperate, clumsy, and forced by circumstances rather than planned. That sort of manipulation is a learned skill, but she's presented as having spent her childhood dodging lessons in traditional feminine skills (be those embroidery or seduction) in favor of climbing trees and playing at swordsmanship with Hans. That she has those skills or is willing to use them to me undercuts her character as a tomboy and forwards the notion that manipulation of that sort is inherent in being female rather than learned skill used by the sex with less overt power.
Also, she just acquired the combat training she's been wanting her whole life. Why is she not itching to put that to use?
I'd like to think it's more balanced and nuanced in the full version
I will read the movie script when I am back in town. Meanwhile, I can only react to the play as I saw it staged.
Two scenes? do you mean the kiss and the song as separate scenes?
I mean the scene with Camembert, in which she proactively fends off an expected but unwelcome kiss, and the scene with Robinson.
She lies, waiting, to be kissed - in the same way that Les was put in a tower with the expectation that she would thereby attract attention on a "well-traveled princely route".
And Les was put in that situation against her will, and made it quite clear that she did not wish to be kissed. Why does she not at least consider that Somnia might have a similar opinion? The trope requires that she kiss Somnia to wake her up, but Les would, to me, be a more sympathetic character (if a less realistic clueless teenager) if she took a moment to empathize with Somnia and ask herself what the options are and what Somnia-the-person would want, rather than pursuing Somnia, the prize which will prove Les equal to a prince, with a moment for her inner ten-year-old boy to make a face about kissing. Les is a girl who doesn't want to be forced into "girly things" -- it does her no credit to assume the other women she encounters fit the stereotype she rejects.
I feel that Mathilde forsaking her noblewoman's life, and women and men learning to fight together against dragons (with Abeline in particular talking and singing about how her boundaries have changed), are both relevant.
See above various threads above. Mathilde has been waiting patiently at home for her missing love, and does just what he suggests as soon as he suggests it. That's a passive female part -- she's not changing the boundaries of gender roles. She may be challenging class roles in abandoning her life as a noblewoman -- but this is a fairy tale, wherein going into the woods is usually a step along the path rather than the end of the story. Either Robinson has just won his princess, or Mathilde is still in the middle of her (or their) story, and I don't know how that tale ends.
The peasantry learning to fight dragons, and Abeline and Matthew's egalitarian marriage, feel more to me like they're pushing against gender roles, but I saw the push against class roles as higher profile and more important to the story. Idle, protected women are not something the peasantry can afford anyway; armed, trained peasants aren't something the nobility can allow. (Abeline was in a little danger of falling into the stereotype of the ineffective radical protester / screechy female, railing against the dragons for the sake of having protested, which undercut her character a bit in my eyes. That's not likely to be a common read, though. She also appeared to be prepared to bend to the demands she expected from a knight, however distasteful she found them -- or perhaps she had a dagger up her sleeve against that possibility?)
(more)
Reply
I had intended it as a hero's journey: Les goes out, has adventures that mature her, and returns home with new skills and knowledge. I was trying for "nascent democracy", where the peasants decide for themselves that they want Les to continue to lead and guide them. She has done so thus far, giving her time and money to their betterment and fighting on their behalf, completely unlike the royals whom she has renounced.
She does return home with new skills and knowledge, but none that particularly qualify her to rule anything, nor does she seem suited by temperment to rule -- too much sitting still talking, not enough adventuring. (As is mentioned above, how she and Somnia are going to arrange a life that works for both of them is an interesting problem.)
If this is a nascent democracy, perhaps Les could agree to stick around for a limited time until someone else takes over or until a leadership selection process is established? President for life by mob acclaim is not very democratic. Also, she has just returned home from rescuing a princess who is she is about to marry, which by trope makes her the king or heir to the kingdom. If that is not the intent, I think it needs to be more clear what position she is accepting. If nothing else, if she is stepping up to rule indefinitely, Hexasper's curse ends the royal line with her -- maybe a nod to what happens in the next generation?
I'll think about whether there needs to be someone governing them at all. (Thoughts on that?)
Amiable anarchy is difficult to sustain, especially in a quasi-medieval society accustomed to 'might makes right'. Abeline has been leading the peasantry. Robinson has been leading the very merry men (but not dealing with dragons or heading up the revolution). Somnia could step up into the siege negotiations and demonstrate her people skills and the value of a lifetime of training to rule (not supported at all by the play, but see various comments above -- having her demonstrate some practical skills would appeal to some of the audience).
What's the intended message, in the end?
Reply
The intended message was that Les had matured beyond "rejecting men and a constraining life" into "embracing love and responsibility". I'll aim towards more of "sovereign at a stroke/content to share what's now the lot of common folk." Shared responsibility, each knowing and valuing their own gifts.
[scribble scribble scribble]
Thanks for the commentary. It's apparent to me now that I was doing some lazy thinking, mostly about how to spoof and subvert fairytale tropes, without letting some of the character tropes become more of the real people they can be.
Reply
Thanks for giving us this chance to act as a sort of writers' workshop for the piece. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be feeling about this so much if I didn't feel the script was engaging/worthwhile/interesting. :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment