Confession: we have not been keeping close tabs on Frozen II's development. With the Frozen shorts being underwhelming (despite lots of artistic effort evident behind the scenes), we haven't held out much hope for a film for which the biggest hype seems to be "Will Elsa get a girlfriend?", rather than actual story* or any fairy tale associated content (as opposed to just fantasy).
Enter today's teaser release, full of fairy tale feels and allusions. You have our attention again now Disney!
Check it out:
See what we mean?
Have to mention that we are quite tickled that the internet is including this speculation about the two new characters below:
"What if these two are supposed to be Gerda and Kai from the original Snow Queen story?!"
Heh. We would be delighted - but surprised - if they were.
What we'd really like to see is the Little Robber Girl (from Andersen's original story - who, by the way, is representative of the Land of Autumn/Fall in Andersen's multi-part fairy tale) making an entrance. Apart from being a favorite character from The Snow Queen, the Robber Girl would be an interesting character to (eventually) explore for a potential Elsa-love-interest, though please note, in this teaser the new girl character is still a child. Check the original text describing her and you'll see that potential as one way to interpret her.
In the meantime, what do you think of the trailer? Does it capture your fairy tale radar's attention?
We'll remain tuned as updates from Frozen II continue in the remaining nine month countdown till it hits theaters in November...
A new snowflake design with different symbols - lots for fans to speculate over
At this writing, Disney's Frozen has officially opened on Broadway and is in previews. There's no doubt it's going to make a boatload of money - at least initially. (Reports are coming in that it's already made back its production cost of $25-$30 in just two nights). But will it be a good show?
Why is it so daunting to bring Frozen to the Broadway stage?
Michael Grandage - Director of Frozen on Broadway
Frozen has the equally enviable and unenviable issue of continuing to be so ridiculously popular that it's both a guaranteed crowd draw and a great risk to make any deviation from the movie - whether that's costumes, songs, story details or structure.
But Broadway is supposed to be more than 'the movie on stage'. It's supposed to be a true, stand-alone theatrical experience.
You have to try to make something new. You have to start from scratch. The theme parks and the cruises have an obligation, in a sense, to do a beautiful book report of “What is the movie onstage? Let us bring that to life.” But our job at Disney Theatrical is to do something different. That’s not that one is not more valid than the other, but our job is to say, “How does this inspire something that’s purely theatrical? (Schumacher interviewed by Playbill, July 2017)
Everyone wants another Lion King success story, of course. What people forget about The Lion King, is that, at the time, it was Disney's most successful movie to date; bigger than The Little Mermaid, bigger the Beauty and the Beast, at that time. It was a monster hit with audiences and critics and the popular and sought-after merchandising added to the very real pressure to keep everything 'familiar'. (In the years since, Princess Culture and its associated marketing have kept the profile of the other two much higher and contributed to a greater 'long term stock' success.) To say "yes" to Julie Taymor's vision for The Lion King on Broadway was one of the riskiest moves the Disney Company, as a whole, made in a long time. The Lion King on Broadway now exists as a separate entity from the movie, and it's argued that this is part of it's continued staying power. Twenty years on, The Lion King on Broadway remains a sell-out show. But it certainly wasn't guaranteed at the time. The Lion King was a risky experiment gone right, and duplicating that success has never happened.
Disney's Aladdin on Broadway, after false starts, and much criticism and worry, is finally finding its feet and is considered a (decent) hit. The Little Mermaid is considered as "not having translated to success" (to put it in company terms) and 'over-produced'. Beauty and the Beast on Broadway, which stayed closer to its source material in look and execution than Lion King but took a few risks as well, is also a "Broadway keeper" but still doesn't approach the success of The Lion King.
Fresh versus Familiar So where will Frozen ultimately land? From all reports to date, Frozen is leaning more toward Beauty and the Beast than The Lion King, in terms of the Broadway experience, but it is still 'early days' and despite having full production tryouts, it's not unheard of for changes still to happen in the first few months.
Here's a reminder of the Disney Company's stance, when it was being developed and being handed over to a Director (twice), which, in some ways, seems to undermine the statement about Disney Theatrical above:
“ ‘It’s a big property for us,’ they said, ‘And we’d like it to not depart too much from what’s out there. But it’s over to you, how to reimagine it.’”
The biggest criticism of the show is that it is "obviously trying to straddle two worlds": that of including all the familiar and beloved elements audiences expect/want to see and that of trying to create a fresh take on the film and make it, its own experience. The problem seems to be that - at the moment - it isn't completely successful on either front, making the Broadway experience a bit of an inconsistent one.
As you can see from the collected images in this post, the promotional material and photos are emphasizing the familiar, that is, the movie brought to life (though clearly with better quality than either the Once Upon A Time experience or the Disney Parks and cruises Hyperion version). The attention to detail and scale of the costumes, sets and puppet construction and manipulation is excellent and very likely, exactly what the audience are handing over their big bucks to see.
There's an in-depth article from Timeout HERE that wonderfully describes in detail how the costumes were approached. We greatly appreciated this comment:
“The costumes from the film are iconic, and so I approached the reimagining of them with trepidation and respect. I was also very aware that this would likely be the first time that a generation of young fans of the film would set foot in a theater, so it was important to me that they had an experience that was both familiar and at the same time new and exciting. Certain looks translated very easily into real fabric and onto real bodies; others took more revision before they found their balance.” (set and costume designer Christopher Oram)
As well as this attention to their own research (as opposed to merely cribbing off the movie's):
“Bunad is the traditional Norwegian dress, and it’s the recurring theme of all the garments in the show. We were able to research it thoroughly through books and by visiting Norway; it’s still how they dress on festivals and occasions, and there are shops that sell contemporary versions of it and museums that have collections of antique versions of it, so you can see how it’s developed and changed. ...nothing is ultimately more useful to any design process then to experience the world in which the piece is set for real. So our trip to Norway, in the footsteps of the original filmmakers, was both a revelation and a reassurance as it confirmed both what the film and my many reference books had suggested.” ...“To experience the vast scale of the fjords, to feel the extreme cold of the mountains and to walk in the crepuscular half-light of medieval stave churches was the ultimate preparation for embarking on this journey. You get a sense of the scale of the place, the ache of the place, and the smells and the quality of light. On the bridge, Anna wears a mountain ensemble borrowed from Kristoff, based on his own Sami outfit. It’s a look new for her, created for the stage show: men’s clothes that are too big for her. When she realizes she can’t carry on in it, she changes into a skirt and cape, her iconic traveling outfit.”
Olaf and Sven
There are some approaches, since The Lion King, that have become, well, standard, for Disney stage-adaptations, specifically, the puppet-actor-hybrid. It should come as no surprise that this is the approach for Olaf, Elsa's snowman-come-to-life (which his far preferable over the Theme Park-like full-character costume, as far as creating an emotional and comedic stage performance goes), and also for Sven the Reindeer (created by acclaimed puppet maker Michael Curry).
Reports are (so far) unanimous that both Sven is even better than the movie.
Olaf isn't getting quite as warm a reception all round, though critics agree the actor-puppeteer does a fantastic job. (Note: there have been productions that have tried the full-body costume approach and it's come off as creepy, and there have been the Olaf-as-projection-special stage-EFX which have felt too removed, so the tried-and-true hybrid-puppet approach for Broadway was generally expected.)
Stage Not Screen
When asked, during development, about what differences the musical would explore, that couldn't be done within the constraints of a family friendly-length film, Playbill received this answer:
There’s a lot about origin. Animation is haiku. We can put up simple images on screen and you get it; you know what’s going on. And you accept a very brief statement as fact. [There’s] this notion that fairytale, if you will, sort of hangs over the film. What’s interesting about Frozen now is this idea that Anna is living in a fairytale world and Elsa is living in a mythic world. You think about it and you go, “Holy cow!” I’d like to tell you that was my original thought, but Jennifer Lee pointed that out to me at one point. She said, “One of them is in a fairytale and one of them is in a myth, and these two things have to crash together at the end.” It’s a big idea to think about. We also ask, “What is the circumstance of Elsa’s power?” It’s another big idea to think about. Also, who are those creatures that they go see for healing? That’s the real story there: Who’s connected to all of that? How does that exist? But the biggest idea is about love and loyalty, and love versus fear. Can you let go and love? Can you exist without fear? What if your whole life were simply controlled by fear?
With all that in mind, there are some major differences between the movie and the Broadway edition, knowledge that potential audiences may be better off armed with before going, than being 'surprised' by them. (We are indicating any potential-spoiler differences clearly, in case we have readers wishing to avoid them.)
**STILL SPOILER FREE**
The Why and How (Director Michael Grandage's Approach)
“It’s a show that’s very much about a family in trauma,” says Kristen Anderson-Lopez, who with her husband, Robert Lopez, wrote the score for the film and added more than a dozen other songs for the Broadway version, which of course retains the Oscar-winning “Let It Go.” ...And it’s a show in which frostiness itself is almost a character. (via The Washington Post)
Enlisting his partner, theatre designer Christopher Oram, to create the sets and costumes, Grandage travelled to Norway to seek inspiration for the frost-bound kingdom. “There was a guy who showed us 100 different kinds of snow!” he said. (via Telegraph UK)
**SOME SPOILERS**
(You may wish to scroll down to where it says SPOILER FREE)
The Differences (summary)
But what are those differences?
A nod to the movie's rock-trolls
Caissie Levy (playing Elsa) and Patti Murin (playing Anna), the leads for the Broadway show think the appeal will be broader than the movie:
“There is something for everybody,” Levy said. “We have discovered so many more layers to examine within this story that can only happen in the theater. A lot of adult themes are explored. It’s not just for kids. ...With the addition of so much new material, we have the freedom to expand and to go deeper than you are able to in a film.” (Broadway Direct)
The opening is also different:
The show is (now) set to open with a group of creatures referred to as “hidden folk,” similar to the Scandinavian folklore of “huldufólk” but with more animalistic qualities. (Playbill)
These “huldufólk” (basically Icelandic elves) apparently have tails too, though how they are played is unclear. (Reception has been mixed - very positive through to "creepy".) How the tattoo design for them, revealed via Director Michael Grandage's Instagram is used, is also unknown.
So there are now no "rock trolls", as they are replaced by the "hidden folk" or “huldufólk”.
The show now has twenty-one songs, more than double the film, including the original favorites, with the new ones all having been written by the original, Oscar-winning husband and wife team Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez. Those songs include "Dangerous to Dream" and the just-released "Monster".
Tryouts program for Denver - Not Broadway final
"There’s a new duet between Anna and Kristoff called “What Do You Know About Love?,” while Anna and Elsa will both have new solo tunes, with “True Love” and “Dangerous to Dream,” respectively." (Nerdist)
There are also some key staging and chorus details that can be gleaned from the interview with costume designer Chris Oram as well:
“We start the show in summer, with the ensemble in their light summer gear, and end it in the depths of winter. So they have a journey that’s physicalized by what they’re wearing. In the final sequence they are choreographed to function as a blizzard; wearing layered, bunad-inspired winter outfits in shades of white (also by Jennifer Love), they become the storm that engulfs the sisters at the climax.”
So gone, too, is Marshmallow, the giant snow-guardian of Elsa's ice-palace, replaced, essentially, by the "Blizzard chorus'.
The wolves that chase Anna and Kristoff (and Sven) are also out.
**POSSIBLE SPOILERS CONTINUED**
Any Differences From The Tryouts In Denver?
In a word: "yes".
In a review of the tryout run of the show in Denver in September, Jesse Green of the New York Times wrote admiringly about some aspects but came away decidedly mixed about the story, by Jennifer Lee*. “ ‘Frozen,’ ” he observed, “is going to have to figure out how to make the dark character less of a bore and the light character more compelling.” (The Washington Post)
*Jennifer Lee who co-wrote and directed the hit animated feature, also wrote the book for the Broadway version.
Broadway audiences will see a show that’s about 30 percent different from what was seen in Denver, Grandage and the Lopezes say. “A character we created we got rid of, we changed the opening, we changed the closing, we changed four huge numbers of choreography. And the whole reason is to make it more poetic, clearer, more precise,” Grandage explains. “We totally rewrote the finale,” says Kristen Anderson-Lopez. Everyone agreed that “Frozen’s” teary wallop of a conclusion — a surprise final twist in the plot — had to land like a haymaker. It’s a statement about looking past pain, to an understanding of what’s most important in life, and remaining open to the possibilities of reconciliation in ways that you’re not always prepared for. (The Washington Post)
What the Critics Are Saying To Date
Rather than repeat what's wonderfully collated elsewhere,HERE's a "round-up" of the good, the bad, the wows and the indifferent comments from critics so far, (possible spoilers if you've skipped those sections here, so be warned).
Folks will be glad to know the "Let It Go" sequence doesn't disappoint.
The sets, lighting and visual effects throughout the show seem to be getting thumbs up all around.
**DEFINITELY SPOILERS AHEAD**
Audience Criticisms To Date
Hopefully some of these issues will be reworked or reconsidered in the near future, but for now, these are the issues getting the most negative attention:
There is a much-touted addition of a Danish concept (and a song all about it) called 'Hygge', (pronounced HUE-gah) which translates as "enjoying life's simple pleasures", and has a 'burlesque' (!) chorus, which some audiences are finding ingenious while others are just baffled by it. Anna joins Oaken's family in their sauna (all having towels!) and gets into the 'Hygge mood'. (Kristoff does not - he stays on task.) Hygge, acting like the 'Hakuna Matata' of this musical seems to be key to the message and themes of the Broadway show, and while it's getting critical thumbs up for the music, it's not quite working for all audiences, possibly because of the burlesque staging (towels!) and dischord (so to speak) with where the story arc is at, at the time it's sung.
The issues might be more explicit than audiences expect, such as Elsa's exploration of her insecurities being so deep she appears to contemplate suicide during the song 'Monster' (something which the staging and performance apparently indicate).
Elsa's pantsuit (below) has been advertised as making her "more powerful" - that hasn't gone over well.
Elsa has a new - white - dress because, er... oh right: ka-ching!
Anna has climbing leathers, at least for a while, but there are some concerns about consent, in how Anna is (apparently) manhandled into getting out of her party dress and into these travel clothes, then dragged around and treated like a complete klutz and only accidentally competent, all played for laughs and during a great song... hmm. There is concern emerging from audiences so far that Kristoff takes away Anna's agency in many different ways, treating Anna as little more than a spoiled girl, with her being more a match for Olaf (essentially a child) than himself.
It would also seem the biggest 'moment' is more about the Anna and Kristoff kiss at the end than any note belonging to the sisters, which is a shame. There is barely any interaction between Anna and Elsa, post Anna-thawing. To top off this odd emphasis, the closing song reprise/medley is a Love Is An Open Door/True Love (new song) combo. This is one spot where we would have expected a joyful variation or reprise of Do You Want To Build A Snowman. Currently, this seems to be a missed opportunity.
One of the subtle and odd differences is that in exploring Elsa's insecurity in more depth and in beefing up Anna's comedy in the manner they have, the women in the show now seem 'less',, in other words, weak. This might be the biggest and most worrying difference we've heard rumor of to-date - worrying also because the differences are subtly enrobed in what has been a girl-power and sisterhood 'anthem' to many, from the moment the movie hit screens. The sadly insidious and weakening differences may very well slide by unnoticed to the very people who should be planting that flag even more strongly for this 'new generation of theater-goers'.
**SPOILER FREE ONCE MORE**
The Official Trailer
Here's the official trailer for the Broadway Show which gives a nice and non-spoilery overview of the production in rehearsal (please note, this was made before the allegations against the President of the Disney Theatrical Productions [DTP], Thomas Schumacher, so he makes appearances throughout the video):
Would We Go To See It?
YES!
While it doesn't sound perfect (and has some issues that are quite concerning to us), it looks and sounds like an amazing, high-quality show and a different enough experience from the movie to make it, it's own thing. We hope it continues to evolve and refine itself as it begins its run, but there is a lot of beautiful work here in so many ways and on so many levels, we would support it. And then let you know what we truly thought. ;)
(Below are the first offical curtain call photos Disney has released:)
Every year we find ourselves watching feature films based on classic tales throughout the seasons, some of which relate better to winter, others more fitting for summer. It's inevitable we'll discover new fairy tale films as part of our culture.
By the time most people hear about fairy tales, they've been turned into huge cinematic films, but we often forget their humble beginnings. Some of the most popular and loved films that have made their way into most families’ favorite collections all started as lesser-known fairy tales.
Some stories were adapted or loosely based upon original tales and characters from writings, while others stayed truer to the story that not. It's worth paying homage to where these beloved films originated, and to possibly learn some lesser known facts of how they made it to the big screen.
Let's start with one you probably know well, both as film and tale. Will we still be able to surprise true fairy tale fans here with some forgotten facts? Let's find out!
The Little Mermaid
Disney's 'The Little Mermaid' development art
We're all familiar with the feature Disney film The Little Mermaid. Not so many know it started out as a lengthy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen. A master storyteller, Andersen's stories are the source for many of the household fairy tale films we've all come to adore today. The film stays true to the written story in many of the main parts; however, there are some differences between the tale and movie that are startling.
The comedic characters Sebastian, Scuttle and Flounder, while great additions to the film, do not appear in the original, although the little mermaid is described as being so friendly with the fish of the sea that they would eat out of her hand, much like stereotypical land princesses who are friendly with forest creatures. Less well known is that in Andersen's tale the little mermaid ultimately discovers she needs a soul (apparently merpeople aren't gifted with them) so she can avoid a foamy death after living for 300 years in the sea. To win the love of a human is the only way she's able to gain an immortal soul. In the film, she spots Eric, whom she falls for after seeing him for the first time but there's no complication of needing a soul. She'd be happy just to have legs - and Eric, of course. Ursula, who tempts Ariel with this possibility, is portrayed in the film as a witch who has her own agenda and actively wants to make life difficult for the mermaid. In the fairy tale the sea witch is the conduit of fate.
Disney's 'The Little Mermaid', Triton's Kingdom development art
Aladdin
Disney's 'Aladdin' development art
This well-known film and character originate from a lesser-known book of tales entitled One Thousand and One Nights, later referred to as Arabian Nights. Oddly, the story of Aladdin only appeared in the editions after the first European translation was made by Antoine Galland between 1704 and 1717, which has led some to believe he created the character and his story.
In the original works, a woman named Shahrazhad (or Scheherazade) used her wits and creativity to delay her inevitable execution as she told the tale of Aladdin, and many others, to King Shahriyar. Each night, she told him part of the story, and because he wanted to hear more, he kept her alive.
The Disney film uses character traits and ideas from popular movies such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Thief of Baghdad, for their version and, reinforcing these tropes is set in Arabia, while the original was set in China. Whether or not Aladdin was Chinese remains a mystery!
Disney's 'Aladdin' development art
Chicken Little
Disney's Chicken Little (2005) concept art
In the original tale of Henny Penny, the main character, more commonly known in the US as Chicken Little, expresses and justifies her fears. The most popular Disney adaptation of Chicken Little is a science-fiction sequel that came out in 2005. Foxy Loxy becomes a bully instead of a rival and both Chicken Little and Foxy Loxy switched genders. Chicken Little is now a little boy and Foxy Loxy is a girl.
Not many know that before this quirky CG retelling, that there was a 1943 Disney adaptation which was manufactured at the request of the United States government to disgrace, and discourage Nazism and what it stood for.
(If you weren't aware of this before it will make watching Chicken Little again quite a different experience, won't it?)
The Princess and the Frog
Disney's 'The Princess and the Frog' development art
The Princess and the Frog was derived from the book The Frog Princess, a middle school novel written by E.D. Baker, who used ideas from the original Frog King (better known as The Frog Prince) fairy tale. The film caught the attention of many because it was the first Disney movie to include a black princess.
The moral of the story differs between tale and film. The fairy tale can be seen to suggest that you can get what you want in life even if you don't deserve it. The movie altered this to be a more suitable and uplifting for todays viewers, showing you can get what you want if you work for it.
The prince transformation differs greatly too. In the tale, the frog is thrown violently at a wall, which releases him from his enchantment, whereas in the movie, the frog turns into a prince when he is kissed. A nice little nod is given to this story's origins in the form of a fairy tale book that's read aloud in the film, retelling a more modern and familiar version where the frog must be kissed - giving the frog his reason for seeking a princess in the first place.
Disney's 'The Princess and the Frog' development art
Frozen
Disney's 'Frozen' character development and design
Now a part of mainstream Western culture, the film Frozen is a family favorite. But where did it really come from? Most fans know by now that Frozen originates from the Hans Christian Andersen tale The Snow Queen. What's less well known is that The Snow Queen is a segmented story, with seven unique 'episodes', each illustrating problems and solutions the heroine must face on her journey to save her friend. Differing from the movie, the tales' main characters are Gerda and Kay, who are like brother and sister though not blood-related.
It's also worth mentioning that in the original material, there are no trolls. The only similarity is the goblin (also described as the devil) who created the evil mirror that shatters, a sliver of which pierces Kay's eye and freezes his mind and heart. In an interesting parallel between movie and tale, in the fourth section of The Snow Queen, Gerda is told a story of marriage by a raven, about a princess who was fixated on getting hitched. In the film, Anna is very keen to marry Hans, so it's possible to see similarities in morals and lessons of the two versions.
Disney's 'Frozen' development art
Watch or Read?
Has dipping into the details on these classics given you a thirst for binge-watching these films? You can watch them on Netflix or use a U.S. connection if you're outside the country and desperately want access. Keep an eye out for the similarities and differences mentioned in this article; you can see where Hollywood has been creative or strayed from the original works and decide whether you like it or not.
It's also great fun reading the tales to see just how differently you interpret the stories. What your mind creates from the creativity of words will be different to what you see on screen. It also gives you an insight of how film manufacturers would have gone about deciding what to put in their movies and how to take the most entertaining and essential parts out to animate them.
Have knowledge on some differences between original works in fairy tales and movies? Or some cool information on where fairy tales were born? Leave a comment below.
Diamond Grant is a fairy tale enthusiast who enjoys reading original works and watching feature films. She also likes uncovering differences between versions of fairy tales, opening up a discussion as to which are more entertaining.
Thank you for being our guest writer today Diamond!
Would you like to write a fairy tale focused guest post for Once Upon A Blog? We'd love to hear from you!
Contact us at fairytalenews AT gmail DOT com.
While we cannot always guarantee being able to post your writing, and usually schedule our posts well in advance, we are open to ideas and, depending on available time, are happy to work with you.
No doubt you've heard that the prequel/sequel of Snow White & the Huntsman, Huntsman: Winter's War was... not great. The first Huntsman was on fairly shaky ground to begin with (apparently box office takings don't agree with that assessment but it's generally not considered a truly good movie by critics and fairy tale folk, insert many reasons here) and this was supposed to expand the 'mythology'/story, focusing on Ravenna and the Huntsman. How was this supposed to be any good?
Charlize Theron signed on for this second film, which at least promised an excellent rendition of a baddie, (and a baddie dressed again by the Queen of fantasy couture Colleen Atwood). If nothing else there was going to be some lovely things to look at. Box office success of the first film ensured a decent budget for Winter's War and the cast and crew are filled with seasoned pros.
So we were on board to watch it on DVD - for Charlize and the costumes.
Then Emily Blunt signed on.
What the..?
How could an actress of such great repute sign on for such a sequel? With a first time director? We were confused. Perhaps, we thought, she needed a distraction between real projects? Later we saw trailers and thought "well, at least they're making a good go of it". And then the movie faded from view...
Cut to the impending Winter season, and we were looking for new and fresh Winter fantasy and fairy tale images and imagery. Someone mentioned: "Have you seen Winter's War? They put a bit of effort into the Snow Queen/Ice Queen portrayal - it'd be worth a viewing for you at least."
By then it was cheaper to buy it than rent it so it was added to the Once Upon A Blog movie library. We looked up reviews, steeling ourselves for where to fast forward and where to hit the play button again, and found something surprising: while the film still wasn't considered good, people were raving - RAVING - about Theron and Blunt's performances! Colleen Atwood's costume artistry got more than a passing mention too but people were loving the two queens.
Huh.
While we didn't exactly settle in with popcorn (we kept the remote fairly handy), we did dedicate time to review it in one viewing. Before we get into our review, here's the trailer:
If you doubted it was big budget, the trailer should assure you it most certainly is. You're in for a big movie with beautiful photography, amazing costumes, lush sets, lots of 'magic' and big names, but as we all know, that doesn't guarantee anything. Here's our take:
Firstly, all these posters below, emphasize different aspects of the film. The one at the head of the post best reflects our impression of the movie overall. Then there are a few more that focus on:
The sibling rivalry (this is what the movie is best at and shines in)
The lovers versus the powers (this was supposed to be the emphasis but unfortunately it's the least interesting)
The split alliances between the two humans and the two sisters
(this borders on spoilers but it's also an interesting way to watch the film, being aware of this)
This shows the dominance of the Winter story in the movie
This one shows the influence of the original evil queen on everyone
Yes - overall it is not 'great' but there is much about this that we wish we'd paid the price of admission for, just to see on the big screen.
To get the cons out of the way we'll just list them:
The Snow White story and character references were clunky, awkward, mostly ridiculous and largely unnecessary. This should have just been a stand alone story set in the same world.
In fact the Snow White connection was obviously awkward and embarrassing. Mentioning her was a key weakness. Not having Kristen Stewart, while understandable, meant not having the iconic character - however transformed - of Snow White being in her own tale. Being reminded of her mythic significance, and absence thereof, put the film at a disadvantage that all the brilliant acting, writing and wonderful direction had no way of avoiding. We're not sure why they didn't just wipe that part of it clean and ignore it - it would have been neater and made more sense.
It's a prequel and sequel, with that awkward Snow White mention in the middle and as such, feels shackled by it's association with the first movie, rather than inspired by it.
We didn't really care too much about the Huntsman - or the Huntswoman's - story (although we should have - this was largely a writing and filmmaking fault but the chemistry between the couple was erratic at best as well - sometimes it almost worked but mostly we just wished it did)
The Huntsman, Eric, and woman, Sara (husband and wife, referred to in the first film) were clearly supposed to be the main protagonists but they felt like the B-story, with too much time wasted on them.
The lines and dialogue for Sara and Eric in particular, often felt manipulated, too considered
In fact a lot of the writing, particularly that not focused on the queens, wasn't exactly great
Chastain only had one truly memorable acting moment (her shooting at Freya's command) but even that wasn't enough to make her character truly sympathetic to the audience at that point
We could have done without the dwarves, though we understand why they were included. Some sort of levity was very important. This part just wasn't done well and was more embarrassing than funny due to how it was done, exacerbated by not using real little people, except as stunt doubles.
The owl - let's just say we would have urged choosing another direction for this creature as it pulled us out every time
The narrator at the beginning. We will never understand why 'fairy tale films' feel compelled to use them so often - it's a different medium from oral storytelling and doesn't work half so well on screen - and this one doesn't either
The key women - Freya and Ravenna /Mirror, were underutilized, and clearly meant to be the B story. They were, however, far more compelling than the love story that was supposed to be the driving force of the movie. It was very different love that drove the film and the romance felt almost shallow in comparison.
So, some pretty big cons, right?
But here's the good stuff:
Overall beautiful! The vision for this film was solid, tight and artistically stunning - truly. You could pause almost anywhere in the movie and be treated to a lovely still frame. It was hard to believe this was from a first time director.
Some of the imagery was truly unforgettable, particularly with regard to the Ice Queen
The film showcases the power of the feminine, both for good and for ill, and in a variety of forms. As far as the Bechdel test goes, this one passes with flying colors!
Colleen Atwood's costumes for the two queens in particular were just as stunning as the first film's; very fresh takes on ice and mirror imagery and details (if the leads hadn't been so incredibly strong the gowns would have overwhelmed the actresses and stolen each and every scene but they didn't - they worked as perfect props for the characters and actresses).
The Ice Queen's palace and details were lovely
The Ice Queen's powers were unique yet felt very natural (we would have liked to have seen more 'natural force' expansion of them though - it's sort of odd that she used no ice beings/creatures as the next evolution of her power. The bear-creature could have been used for this purpose but we only saw her riding it - powerful imagery, yes, but a lost opportunity)
The concept of Freya becoming who she was, how she built her army and how she ran her kingdom was wonderful storywise
Charlize Theron as Ravenna - she's formidable, even when pushing her performance into camp - and commands the screen (and she wears those dresses without being overshadowed by them in the least! That's quite a feat.)
Emily Blunt as Freya the Ice Queen - she was heartbreaking and completely believable - both in her pain and in her power. Not your average evil, her story was devastating, relate-able, piercing and Blunt was her. And she looked like she made every ice magic effect actually happen, as if there was no CG.
Blunt and Theron together were absolute magic (at least until the 'Mirror Queen' turned on the Ice Queen - the extreme effects unfortunately pulled us out of the scene).
I don’t know why this movie got trashed the way that it did because... this was much more engaging and satisfying than I initially thought it would be. ... I can actually appreciate this movie more than the first because guaranteed action, awesome female representation, and a visually stunning two hours aside, it’s such a fascinating exploration of self love, hatred, love and sacrifice, power and control, trust and loyalty, beauty, selflessness, and the threat of others being greater than we are. We explore these themes and more in various ways through the sibling relationship between Freya and Ravenna and the romantic relationship between The Huntsman aka Eric and Sara. Could all of this have been executed better? Yeah, sure. But to say that it didn’t accomplish at least emotionally engaging the viewer and striking a chord in them is to ignore all of the good parts of the movie.
We found out afterward that much of the film was shot on location too - and that includes that 'Elsa-esque' castle too. Almost every set was an actual place, sometimes enhanced in the background (eg bigger mountains) but the director used the locations extremely well. It explained why we didn't feel as disconcerted in the fantasy scenes as you might expect, as is often the case with CG sets. Most of it was real. (And Iceland clearly has to be seen to be believed!)
If they could just have edited out all the Snow White references and re-edited the Huntsman/woman roles to shift the focus back onto Mirror Versus Ice, it would have been even more powerful. As it was, we kept getting distracted from truly great scenes to follow along on what felt unimportant business, before being allowed back to the main story. While this was continually frustrating, the 'great scenes' quickly drew us in and helped us forget we'd been irritated. The effect was feeling like the movie was really just "off-kilter".
So what about Freya the Ice Queen as compared to the formidable Snow Queen of HCA's tale? She holds up incredibly well. This could largely have been the story of the Snow Queen's rise to power and her iconic fairy tale role, with the Kai and Gerda story happening once she was established. (In fact the Kai and Gerda story could have been easily adapted to the 'hunter children' plot and been a truly interesting and different interpretation.) The only problem with Freya being the Snow Queen of fairy tales is that the time frame of her life was still primarily human and this story didn't allow for any form of her 'force of nature' immortality.
But back to the parallels. The main one, apart from their being a queen of frost, ice and snow, is the juxtaposition of mirror and ice. Again, to our minds, it would have made for a unique and interesting variation on the Snow Queen's mirror, with or without goblins, but from what we can gather the Snow Queen tale wasn't on the radar of the writer/s for Winter's War. Ravenna is actually two characters in this movie: the Ravenna/evil queen we see in the Snow White movie and the Mirror, an inhuman incarnation of herself (not truly alive but all the darkness and magic of the original queen). As Mirror, Ravenna is even more malevolent, if that's possible, and that has its own implications. But even with all that power and presence, it's really Freya's story of love, loss, misguided power and the tragedy of a life of great potential gone wrong, having a damaging ripple effect, that is the heart of the film.
We could explore the relationship and ideas of Eric (the Huntsman) and Sara (the Huntswoman who doesn't need rescuing) but although it should be a compelling and an interesting twist on the Kai and Gerda story it just doesn't inspire interest or investment. This is partly due to the direction of their story but counterbalancing the loss Freya experiences (and the heart wrenching performance Blunt gives in that moment) is nigh impossible with the scenes given to them - not even recognizing true love can compare and failing to recognize that is both a writing and directing failure.
So the outcome is: if you take away half a star or so for every negative point, (all of which are not insignificant) you get an understandably low-star rating. But we'll say it again: even if you have your finger on the fast-forward button to avoid wading through most of the cons, it's still worth watching for the pros. If the scenes and emphasis had been re-worked to acknowledge Freya and Ravenna as the A story, the two performances and their compelling support from costumes to photography and more, could have saved this film from the flop it's generally considered to be. In fact, it may have surpassed the audience popularity (and critic assessment) of the original Snow White and the Huntsman.
Whatever the case, it's great fodder for fairy tale folk - and fantasy film folk - to mull (and perhaps mutter) over during the Winter and holiday season. Chances are good you will find something in there you like.
While you are considering watching, enjoy these motion posters which are just kind of cool. We're amazed they don't make more of these for movies (or to display in newspapers... ;)
Note:Freya is also the name of a Norse goddess, associated with love, magic and death. According to the legend she was married to a god named Odr who vanished one day. Freya searched the entire world to find him, getting a new name in every land she passed by was unable to find him again. The broken hearted goddess cried tears which became gold. This experience made the goddess particularly sympathetic to lovers. (summary by @UselessDaily)
Fairy Tale Bonus of the Day:
The Huntsman Winter's War Costume B-Roll & Colleen Atwood discussing the costumes and how they reflect on the characters and themes of the movie.
As usual, 14 Academy Award winning designer Colleen Atwood put a lot of story into her costumes. It's clear she loves creating fantastic, larger-than-reality costumes for fantasy movies that take place in that nebulous Once Upon a Time Realm. Here, with all the costumes, you can see the details that tell their own tales of mirrors and twisted power, ice and locked/frozen hearts, and order versus potential chaos. Enjoy!(Note: there's no sound or music for the B-roll which just shows the costumes on display with close-ups on the details)
