Disney's Frog Prince
So... Many years ago I scoffed at Disney's versions of fairy tales, and how they've ruined them by sanitizing them. Just a couple of years back when I really started making a study of fairy tales, however, I came to appreciate Disney's versions as legitimate permutations of the tales. I still think it's a complete travesty that most people grow up and never know what a horrible, bloody, violent mess stories like Cinderella really are... but I can't really place the blame for that solely on Disney.
In any case, Disney's newest stab at a fairy tale is coming out in theaters soon:
"Every one thinks they know the story of the Princess & The Frog." Okay, the story is traditionally titled "The Frog Prince" but basically I'm with them there. Most people do think they know this story. My experience is that most people are dead wrong, and if pressed to tell the story wouldn't know more than, "There was this prince who got turned into a frog, and only the kiss of a princess would return him to his human form." Okay... So that's it? Princess finds a talking frog in a pond somewhere and, for no real reason at all decides it'd be good idea to kiss him? That's interesting.
"But no one knows what happened after the kiss." About that kiss? It never happened. Not in the original story. In the original story the Princess drops her favorite toy (a golden ball) into a pond or fountain and the frog gets it out for her, on the basis that--after doing so--she will take him back to the palace and share the food on her plate and her warm, snuggly bed. But as soon as she has her ball back the Princess ditches the frog and goes home.
That night at dinner there's a knocking at the palace door an it's the frog, demanding that the princess fulfill her half of the bargain. The princess admits to striking this deal, but is appalled when her father, the king actually makes her sit the frog on the table next to her plate and share her meal with the frog. When daddy-dearest makes her take the frog to her room that night she puts the frog in a corner, unwilling to put the slimy thing in her nice clean sheets. The frog insists and the princess gets so angry that she picks him up and hurls him against the wall. He lands in her bed and is no longer a frog, but a prince. They are immediately "married."
Now the part of me that still hates how Disney (and other children's companies) keep mangling perfectly good stories, rails against Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" and feels the need to post on LJ about the total lack of actual kissing in the original story. But the other part of me is curious about this new movie. They've taken a popular (if frustratingly sanitized) version of the story, and given it a couple of interesting twists.
Now, the idea that the bestial husband does not transform, but, in fact, the heroine does is not exactly a new concept. Has anyone read any Angela Carter or seen my show? Or hell, seen Shrek? As "twists" go it's not very original. Besides, I have the feeling that they're going to give the story an even less thought-provoking, "And they're both returned to their human forms" kind of ending.
What interests me is that they appear to have left vaguely-medieval Europe behind and are instead telling the story in New Orleans*. Possibly they've done this to be "hip & edgy" and won't do anything interesting with it. In fact, I rather suspect this is the case. But hope springs eternal, and my fingers are crossed.
*An idea which they may very well have stolen from Terry Pratchett's Witches Abroad.
In any case, Disney's newest stab at a fairy tale is coming out in theaters soon:
Click to view"Every one thinks they know the story of the Princess & The Frog." Okay, the story is traditionally titled "The Frog Prince" but basically I'm with them there. Most people do think they know this story. My experience is that most people are dead wrong, and if pressed to tell the story wouldn't know more than, "There was this prince who got turned into a frog, and only the kiss of a princess would return him to his human form." Okay... So that's it? Princess finds a talking frog in a pond somewhere and, for no real reason at all decides it'd be good idea to kiss him? That's interesting.
"But no one knows what happened after the kiss." About that kiss? It never happened. Not in the original story. In the original story the Princess drops her favorite toy (a golden ball) into a pond or fountain and the frog gets it out for her, on the basis that--after doing so--she will take him back to the palace and share the food on her plate and her warm, snuggly bed. But as soon as she has her ball back the Princess ditches the frog and goes home.
That night at dinner there's a knocking at the palace door an it's the frog, demanding that the princess fulfill her half of the bargain. The princess admits to striking this deal, but is appalled when her father, the king actually makes her sit the frog on the table next to her plate and share her meal with the frog. When daddy-dearest makes her take the frog to her room that night she puts the frog in a corner, unwilling to put the slimy thing in her nice clean sheets. The frog insists and the princess gets so angry that she picks him up and hurls him against the wall. He lands in her bed and is no longer a frog, but a prince. They are immediately "married."
Now the part of me that still hates how Disney (and other children's companies) keep mangling perfectly good stories, rails against Disney's "The Princess and the Frog" and feels the need to post on LJ about the total lack of actual kissing in the original story. But the other part of me is curious about this new movie. They've taken a popular (if frustratingly sanitized) version of the story, and given it a couple of interesting twists.
Now, the idea that the bestial husband does not transform, but, in fact, the heroine does is not exactly a new concept. Has anyone read any Angela Carter or seen my show? Or hell, seen Shrek? As "twists" go it's not very original. Besides, I have the feeling that they're going to give the story an even less thought-provoking, "And they're both returned to their human forms" kind of ending.
What interests me is that they appear to have left vaguely-medieval Europe behind and are instead telling the story in New Orleans*. Possibly they've done this to be "hip & edgy" and won't do anything interesting with it. In fact, I rather suspect this is the case. But hope springs eternal, and my fingers are crossed.
*An idea which they may very well have stolen from Terry Pratchett's Witches Abroad.