Heralded by Disney as “the ultimate fairy tale,” “Cinderella” is released from the Disney Vault today. I don’t know about the ultimate fairy tale; the rags-to-riches trope is common across the world, and I can agree with that, but my feelings about the Disney version are lukewarm. But fans of the 1950 film should be pleased, because, as always when it’s released, it’s getting a lavish new edition. That is, if you’re willing to buy the Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack. Purchase this for around $25 (that’s the Amazon.com price), and you’ll get the movie on both Blu-Ray and DVD in the … Continue reading →

Charles Perrault’s “Cinderella,” the particular version of the story adapted by Walt Disney, is another fairy-tale-as-morality-lesson. Disney ditches The Brothers Grimm when he makes “Cinderella;” even more strangely the credits cite Perrault’s story as the “original,” when in fact the rags-to-riches trope is an ancient and global motif. Even ignoring that the Brothers’ Grimm version predates Perrault’s. The reason I’m so fixated on the issue of adaptation is because I found Perrault’s “Cinderella” odious. The main moral (which cannot be mistaken; the end of the story is followed by an explanatory poem titled “Moral”) is that it doesn’t really matter … Continue reading →

Charles Perrault’s “La Belle au bois dormant” (literal translation “the Beauty sleeping in the wood”) is a bizarre little tale. Some people might find Walt Disney’s adaptation of the story as soporific as the curse upon Aurora, but at least it has narrative consistency. So many of the things that happen in Perrault’s story leave (modern) readers scratching their heads, and that’s on top of the hefty dose of terrible messages for women, something that didn’t come as a surprise after I read the 17th century Frenchman’s take on Cinderella. Up until the point of the teenage princess’ pricking of … Continue reading →

Charming is one word that we could apply to just about any Disney animated film, and even though 1953’s “Peter Pan” certainly is that, it’s devoid of charm when compared to the play/novel on which it was based. One of Walt Disney’s greatest strengths was his ability to take an older story and reinvent it for modern audiences. Doing so for “Peter Pan,” however, just replaces what is a wry and sweet sense of humor with silly slapstick, which seems cheap in comparison. A primary reason why Barrie’s book, and presumably his play, is so charming is its witty, very … Continue reading →

“Alice in Wonderland” is that rare Disney movie for which the source text is more beloved than the animated adaptation. Today I’m only looking at the 1951 Walt-Disney-overseen animated adaptation of the famous stories by Lewis Carroll, not Tim Burton’s recent live action film; perhaps I’ll return to that another day. Disney did something interesting with this film: it’s an adaptation of both “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” Bringing both stories to the screen is possible because, well, both are just the tales of Alice’s many adventures in Wonderland. Neither have a specific plot; Alice falls … Continue reading →

I went to see “John Carter,” figuring that after my disdainful consideration of how Disney handled marketing the movie, I ought to actually go see it for myself. I’ve not read the book upon which the film was based, but now I wish to, and especially to continue the series. I want to find out what happens; the film concluded on a perfect open-ended note, leaving viewers hanging but in that good, can’t-wait-to-find-out-what-happens-next way. Only now that Disney has to swallow $20 million over “John Carter,” I doubt that any more will be made. And that’s a shame, because “John … Continue reading →