New 'Nutcracker' Inspired by Chicago World's Fair, is Evolution of Tale & Tradition

“Most “Nutcrackers” are about well-off children who already have a whole lot of toys and are about to get even more. I wanted to explore more complex storytelling — holding on to the Tchaikovsky score, which I love, and all the things that audiences expect to have happen in this ballet... And I wanted the central focus to be on how children — without the usual aristocratic manners, and without much in terms of material things — use their imagination.” (Wheeldon - source)

It's Nutcracker season, and while there have been a few interesting adaptations to challenge the tradition, Chicago now has its own unique variation, thanks to the Joffrey Ballet commissioning the work from Christopher Wheeldon, created out out of the history of the city itself. Unlike the usual story of privileged children getting presents and more, the heroine in this story is the child of a single, working-class, immigrant mother and the setting is the wintery Christmas Eve before the World's Fair in the late 1800's - leaving a lot of room to explore the construction of wonder and magic, as well as cultural diversity.

Wonderfully, setting the production during this historical event, means it's apt and relevant that the use of technology, (such as projection art, mechanical set devices and the multi-media presentation of puppetry alongside ever changing visual wonders and 'tesla lighting'), be incorporated as part of the story telling and not just part of the stagecraft and background. The transformations in the scenes and the characters throughout, echo the changing perspective on the world at the time, thanks to the fantastical inventions and wonders being showcased that seemed beyond imagination, wowing and influencing both workers and visitors of the extraordinary expo.

We like to think this is also indicative of the change happening in this Nutcracker's tale telling, but more on that later. First we'll share more about what the production and story are actually like. (Heads-up: watch for the delightful little nuts!)

Take a look at the trailer:

Here's a little on how the concept developed from Chicago Sun Times' interview with Wheeldon:

Wheeldon and the Joffrey’s artistic director, Ashley Wheater... had both read Erik Larson’s 2003 bestseller, “The Devil in the White City,” and they sensed the Exposition (“minus the serial murderer,” as Wheeldon quipped), was exactly the right magical environment against which the ballet could be set, with the construction of the fair seen though a child’s eye. The fact that the Joffrey’s home stage, the landmark Auditorium Theatre, was completed in 1889, made the whole thing seem even more ideal.  (FTNH: Not to mention that historically this takes place a few days after this ballet of Tchaikovsky's premiered in Russia!) 

But there was a dilemma to solve: The fair ran from May 1 to Oct. 30, 1893, while the story had to unfold on a snowy Christmas eve. “We could either ignore history, or set the story in the post-fair ruins, or set it five months before the fair opens, while it was under construction. We chose the latter. We also found a photograph of what looked like a wooden worker’s shack on the fairgrounds, and that became our touchstone. The fair was built by many immigrant laborers, especially Poles, and we envisioned this shack as the place in which one of the many female sculptors for the fair worked. She is a single mother with a young daughter, Marie, and a son, and the ballet is Marie’s dream version of the fair. We also reimagined two of the ballet’s characters to create an element of romance, with the sculptress more or less taking over what is usually the Sugar Plum Fairy role, while Drosselmeyer, the magician, has been renamed The Great Impresario.” (And as Wheeldon describes him, he is “part Daniel Burnham, the visionary urban designer who planned the fair, along with a bit of P.T. Barnum and Nikolai Tesla, that mad scientist of electricity.”) 

Here's an example from See Chicago Dance, which describes some of the delightful differences that still follow the Nutcracker traditions, but in a new form:

We are in theater mode from the get-go, with a clear class divide of Chicago’s rich and poor at holiday time. Tchaikovsky’s traditional living room party scene music illuminates instead an urban environment where rich and poor intersect, street urchins steal what they can from unsuspecting shoppers, and rats lurk behind every corner (Basil Twist’s whimsically diabolical puppets). The resident Rat-Catcher (a wry Rory Hohenstein, with his own pet rodent perched on his hat) contrasts with The Great Impresario of the Fair (Miguel Angel Blanco), a magical and mysterious counterpart to Hoffman’s original Drosselmeyer.

Wheeldon’s Nutcracker magic reaches a pinnacle of wonder in the transformation of the scrawny pine sapling into a friendly version of the Little Shop of Horrors Monster, completely overwhelming the stage, proscenium, and audience with its massive branches and six-foot-tall pinecones. The Rat Catcher becomes the Rat King, the battle between the rats and toy soldiers unspools with predictable humor, and the Nutcracker Prince’s victory transforms the puppet Nutcracker into the handsome Nutcracker Prince who literally sweeps Marie off her feet and into a snowy wonderland. There they dance a luscious Snow Pas de Deux with elegance and charm, exuding the joy of young love. 

And here's some more nuggets excerpted from the NYTimes:

For the new Joffrey production, Brian Selznick’s story, the sets and costumes by Julian Crouch and Basil Twist’s puppetry turn out to be as crucial as the choreography. I loved learning about Chicago history from their work.There are rats, not the usual “Nutcracker” mice, and a menacing Rat Catcher. 

When the Christmas tree (a poor specimen) grows magically huge in Marie’s dream, it fills the stage, as if the action were occurring within its branches. And though the rats are later played by dancers, they’re most memorable when we see them as puppets, running along upper levels of the scenery and across the floor. As usual in “The Nutcracker,” they’re defeated in a battle with the title character and his toy soldiers (some of them cavalry).

From a wide range of reviews, it seems to be an adaptation that delights audiences and brings a new and different appreciation to what can often seem a fairly light and meaningless story (if you're not familiar with E.T.A. Hoffmann's original, at least). While critic reviews are mostly very positive, a few feel the work has yet to fully mature, although delight is clearly an element that frequents throughout.

The success so far, since opening night at the beginning of December, indicates Wheeldon's production will now be a regular part of the repertoire, and possibly a production that other companies may embrace over time as well.

What we're very interested in, is seeing America begin to "own" it's annual tradition of the Christmas production. Though Nutcracker has its origins in story, music and choreography in other lands, it's the United States that fell in love with the ballet as a nation and made it a yearly tradition across the country (something that spread from San Francisco and New York to the rest of the country after Balanchine's production in the 1960's). This may be the first time, however, that the magic and wonder of the story, has been birthed out of the country in which it is celebrated. It's an evolution of the tale and tradition and we're curious to see if America will love it's own magic as much as it has loved the enchantment that tip-toed in (literally) from other lands... even as it acknowledges the magic of many lands settling in the US, making a new home.

Wheeldon's Nutcracker is playing in Chicago until December 30th this year - and if you're able to go, we'd love to hear what you thought. (More information on tickets and times HERE.)

We'll finish with some delighted audience responses and more glimpses of this 'wonder-filled' production.

Movie Review: 'Trolls' Will Brighten Your Day In the Best Way

"Life isn't all cupcakes and rainbows.."

Approaching that strange season of random pupil-free days and the impending holiday chaos, our FTNH (Fairy Tale New Hound) found herself escorting some children to the only G-rated movie currently in the offering, Dreamworks Trolls. Here's her review:

If you don't know anything about this movie, it's quite a ridiculous set-up. Remember those ugly little troll dolls with the bright and colorful hair that kids collected in the eighties? It's based on that toy franchise. No story, no mythology to tap into, just those dolls. The only good thing I could think about it's existence was that a lot of animators and artists were going to be able to feed their families for that coming year, but it turns out they were doing more than most people realized.

I fully expected to plaster an insincere smile on my face and grit my teeth for 90 minutes, enduring an overload of glitter, rainbow colors and ridiculously upbeat songs, and for the first 10 minutes, that's pretty much where I was. Until I realized 5 minutes later that I wasn't gritting my teeth anymore. Instead I was genuinely enjoying myself, along with the kids who were delighted by the mix of textures and creatures and, yes, riotous color. I wasn't even cringing (much) at the remix of Peer Gynt's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" - and believe me, I was primed for outrage. (In the Hall Of the Mountain King, from the Peer Gynt Suite by Edvard Grieg, was one of those brilliant pieces of classical music I listened over and over as a child, sitting rapt in front of my father's speakers, imagining the story sequence of a brave hero invading the mountain fortress of the Goblin King.)

How did this happen? I'm not completely sure but Dreamworks did something right (and sadly underrated) with this movie. They took a serious look at how to be happy, did a great job of explaining how to get there, and they made putting it so simply look deceptively easy.

Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that it followed some fairy tale principles. The peril is real (the trolls are in serious danger of being eaten) and that danger, though never graphic so as not to be suitable for young children, is never dumbed down or downgraded so as to be confusing. Being eaten means dying and never coming back, and that loss is real to the characters - no magical resurrection or going back in time to fix it. It's something kids understand and appreciate, making surviving - and a resolution - very satisfying for them.

The story premise is straightforward: trolls - who are the epitome of happiness, (and teeny, think insect size) are being eaten by the 'Bergens' (think ogres and house sized) every 'trollstice, as that's the only way the Bergen's can experience happiness - to eat the incarnation of it, literally. At the beginning the trolls are prisoners, and the Bergens are greedily looking forward to Trollstice, which happens to be the very next day, and to eating a troll and feeling happy again. The trolls make a run for it and escape into hiding, leaving the Bergens extremely unhappy, kicking out the power-hungry chef in disgrace for losing them all, and leaving the Bergen boy prince who was about to eat his very first troll, completely miserable, never expecting to experience happiness in his entire life... Cut to 20 years later and the Bergen prince is now and unhappy king and the King of the trolls daughter is soon to become queen. Queen-to-be Poppy wants to throw the biggest party of all time, against the advice of the one gloomy troll (called Branch), who believes they're still in danger. She does anyway, betrays their location to the disgraced chef and many trolls are captured and taken to the royal kitchen of Bergen town. Poppy, who managed to escape "by a hair", sets out optimistically, and ridiculously under-prepared, to save her friends and people, and discovers life is not all "cupcakes and rainbows".

I kind of love that the movie takes a real tongue-in-cheek approach to the use of color, glitter, optimism and scrapbooking, while at the same time celebrating those things. Take a look at the trailer:

Along with the undertones of troll and ogre mythology, which were very subtly sprinkled throughout the movie from start to finish, one fairy tale took center stage but in quite a different way. Cinderella motifs were immediately identifiable to the kids with me but the focus wasn't on 'the Cinderella' (who was not the main character by the way) having her dreams come true or being center stage when recognized by her prince. There are bigger, more important issues at stake at that point in the story and the Cinderella character is blessedly free of the 'where's my happy ending' focus. It was refreshing.

All the technical aspects meet today's high standards and, with a world of fabric and doll making materials, it's a pretty wonderful playground for the imagination - something the animators obviously had a lot of fun with. Backstory and occasional narration pops out in little scrapbooking sequences, which could easily be annoying if they weren't so funny. And yes - it's funny - wonderfully, innocently, purely funny, without all that self-referencing studio business that seems to be standard of animation these days.

A note should be made about the music, which was also done far better than I could have predicted. Again, I fully expected to be teeny-bopped to within an inch of my tolerance, (and admittedly the obnoxious party scene - which was supposed to be obnoxious, came close), but, after the first 15 minutes, I stopped cringing with every first bar of a new tune and instead found the pacing and treatment of the music throughout to be sensitively done, to the point that it even made for some extremely touching moments. By itself the soundtrack might be a bit much to take, but in context, it works far better than I could have anticipated.

While clearly aimed at including young children, I keep reading about adults who have been taken by surprise at how much they enjoyed the movie, and blown away by how wonderful the message is. The movie is unashamedly bright, positive and happy (something I can usually only take in small doses) and celebrates the enjoyment of beauty, song and dance, as well as other less obvious things, like the wonder in the world and the power of friendship. Though the 'turnaround' near the end was necessarily simplistic, by that stage I was happy to let it slide and enjoy the characters enjoying their hard won happiness.

If I had known what this movie was truly like, I would have collected every worried child I knew on November 10 and taken them to see this movie. There are a lot of people who could use a dose of this message right now, and its power to restore a little hope and happiness shouldn't be underestimated. Instead, we should be sharing it. (And if you have cupcakes, share those too.)

"The Golden Arrow and Other Tales": Review by Sarah Lawson

"The Golden Arrow and Other Tales"

Review by Sarah Lawson

Editor's Note: The author of The Golden Arrow and Other Tales is also an accomplished musician, recording and performing as a professional violinist. She composed and recorded the soundtrack for the trailer for her book, which I am including below. You can check her Facebook page for her performance schedules, new recordings and for additional updates and details on her book release.

Jacket description: 

A forsaken princess must leave her room for the first time in her life... to rescue her father’s kingdom.

Three knights are bound to protect a city... by satisfying a ravenous dragon’s thirst for blood.

An old widow’s handsome new companion never speaks... but that’s the least mysterious thing about him.

An enchanted weapon bestows unlimited power upon the one who wields it... but at a price.

In this debut collection of short fiction, Samantha Gillogly weaves a quartet of original tales from the threads of classic European fairy story tradition. Freshly imaginative, yet evoking a bygone era, The Golden Arrow and Other Tales enchants with new stories about timeless archetypes that feel as though they’ve always been with us.

Coming May 1st, 2015 from Artistic Media Associates, Inc.

Like most of us here, while I adore classic fairy tales, I’m always curious about new ones. So imagine my excitement when I was given the chance to read The Golden Arrow and Other Tales by Samantha Gillogly--a collection that I can sum up in one word: delightful. Four stories weave together classic motifs and I quickly fell in love with each character, even the dastardly ones, because they were at once both familiar and new.

Gillogly’s anthology cover a wide variety of tones--sometimes enchanting, sometimes ominous, and once or twice they are downright gruesome. However, from the first page, it’s clear she has mastered the fairy tale narrative voice. The first line, “The princess had sight, but she had no eyes”, instantly grabbed my attention. I wanted to read more about this princess who was born with blue flowers where her eyes ought to be and her arduous quest to save the kingdom. Out of all the stories, though, my favorite was Dragonsblood, which includes a monstrous woman (a theme I’m currently studying) and knights straight out of Arthurian tradition. My inner medievalist was thrilled! For other fairy tale scholars, you may be interested to hear I was particularly impressed by the author’s use of the Rule of Threes. It came up multiple times, but always slightly differently so that it never felt boring or repetitive (a tricky thing to do with that particular motif).

Incidentally, the author, who is also a professional musician, wrote and performed the music for the trailer. The track, “Telling Tales” is skillfully done, with a distinctive Celtic feel. I think it accompanied the collection well and was very fantasy-esque, which was perfect. 

If I had to criticize anything about the book, I’d say that the dialogue seemed a bit heavy at times. Since dialogue tends to be sparse in most fairy tales, the amount of discussion Gillogly included in her stories occasionally tripped up the pace. Of course, this is a small criticism and rarely takes the reader out of the action.

It truly was a pleasure to read this collection. Gillogly does more than just play with fairy tale themes; she fully engages with them and creates fleshed-out, compelling stories so rich that it’s hard to believe that they were written in this century.  I wholeheartedly recommend The Golden Arrow and Other Tales to any Once Upon a Blog reader.

NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER HERE

Disclosure: A complimentary copy of the book was provided by the author in exchange for an honest review.

Sarah Lawson is currently earning my Master’s Degree in Literature at the University of Rochester and will be writing her Master’s Thesis on the Brothers Grimm. On a non-academic level, she has been working on a series of fairy-tale retellings for about five years.

"Splintered": Review by Kelly Komm

"Splintered"

Review by Kelly Komm

Editor's Note: The Splintered series is now complete (with three novels and two novellas -the last, Untamed, to be published in January 2016). They all came out in fairly quick succession from January 2013 on, and have been very popular to the point of almost a cult following. Fans post art, write fan fic, hold Splintered parties and events and, of course, cosplay. Once Upon A Blog was asked to review back in 2014 when it was clear the series was a hit, but for multiple reasons I wasn't able to do it. With our new review posse coming together, we decided to revisit the Splintered series and to begin at the beginning, in case you're unfamiliar with it. You've likely seen the gorgeous cover, but there's much more to these books than 'the pretty'. Take it away Kelly!

Jacket description: 

Alyssa Gardner hears the whispers of bugs and flowers—precisely the affliction that landed her mother in a mental hospital years before. This family curse stretches back to her ancestor Alice Liddell, the real-life inspiration for Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alyssa might be crazy, but she manages to keep it together. For now. 

When her mother’s mental health takes a turn for the worse, Alyssa learns that what she thought was fiction is based in terrifying reality. The real Wonderland is a place far darker and more twisted than Lewis Carroll ever let on. There, Alyssa must pass a series of tests, including draining an ocean of Alice’s tears, waking the slumbering tea party, and subduing a vicious bandersnatch, to fix Alice’s mistakes and save her family. She must also decide whom to trust: Jeb, her gorgeous best friend and secret crush, or the sexy but suspicious Morpheus, her guide through Wonderland, who may have dark motives of his own.

Splintered is the first in A.G. Howard’s dark YA fantasy series, featuring a modern, macabre take on Wonderland. While the controversy on whether or not Alice in Wonderland is a fairy tale continues to rage on, it is always worth discussing — as are excellent novels that pay homage to it. 

In this first installment of the Splintered series, we meet skater Alyssa Gardner and her punk-artist BFF/love interest Jeb. Alyssa is a descendant of Alice Liddell, the inspiration for Carroll’s famous story. The women in Alyssa’s family have been cursed since her ancestor began the Wonderland adventures almost one hundred and fifty years earlier. Her mother has been in an asylum for years and Alyssa herself has heard insects and flowers speaking to her since puberty hit. As Alyssa faces a pivotal decision in her mother’s treatment, the reality of Wonderland is revealed to her, plunging her into a world both foreign and familiar. She must face the deceits that have led to her family’s curse and she is forced to choose between those who matter most. 

Splintered pays tribute to Alice by continuously referencing the original and inserting various “Carrollisms”. However, the author is always careful to remind the reader that this isn’t only a story about Wonderland. Just as the reader snuggles into recognizable Wonderland territory, Howard reveals the latest emotional dilemma for transparent Alyssa. This isn’t just a girl going down a rabbit hole story—this is the girl finding the rabbit hole inside her. Alice is told through the eyes of a little girl, whereas Splintered is through the eyes of a girl on the verge of womanhood. 

There are plenty of fairy tale tropes in Splintered for those who are keen of eye—there’s a list of impossible tasks, a terrible family curse, and a Changeling. Characters’ names having meaning (the Greek origin of Alyssa is loosely “not-insane”). Old friends realize they’ve always loved each other and there’s even a Happily Ever After ending. Splintered ultimately gives readers a neon rendition of Wonderland—complete with nightmarish creatures like the skeletal Rabid White (White Rabbit) and the carnivorous Octobenus (Alice’s Walrus). It balances these otherworldly creatures with predictably heroic protagonists and leaves the reader somewhere between Victorian, Carroll-esque familiarity, and post-Twilight teenage rom-angst. Had little Alice grown up in this time, perhaps she would wear blue hair pieces, thick eyeliner, and black taffeta as well. ;)

Disclosure: A complimentary copy of the book was offered in exchange for an honest review, however the reviewer used her own, previously bought, copy.

Kelly Komm is a Canadian fantasy writer. She continues to question her sanity as she holds a day job and a night job, in addition to her life as a busy mom of two. You can follow her occasional ravings online at kellykomm.blogspot.ca/

A Wish for "Cinderella" (A Review of the Disney-Branagh 2015 Reboot)

It's taken me a while to get my personal review posted, I know. I was glad one of our new review posse stepped up and wrote a wonderful review on the opening weekend for you all. Granted, I didn't see it till much later but it's still taken a good couple of weeks for me to consolidate my pages of notes into something you can read at one sitting.
I believe I've finally done it, so here we go:

The biggest issue surrounding the heart of this movie, that reboots a well known and loved, but also greatly criticized movie is: Does this new Cinderella, reinvent the character and film as we believe they (really) need to be, yet stay true to remain the iconic Disney story people love? Does Cinderella stay 'herself', yet show us what we wish she could and should be?

I was surprised to find most of the answer to this was yes.

I'll get to my objections in a little bit, but first I'd like to point out the good stuff, especially since I've been pretty clear previously, that I thought I was going to be bored watching this movie. I wasn't. I liked the movie much better than I thought I would.

Everybody has talked about how stunningly lavish and beautiful it is, and it is. The visuals send a strong message - with almost every scene - that you are watching "a fairy tale". Once you get used to just how much intense color and detail there is (so much color!), it works, very well. You might even say it's got a very fairy tale++ feel, but, somehow, without the glitter (at least to a certain point). Even the narrator, who is the Fairy Godmother (don't worry - that's not a spoiler), didn't bother me. It felt like the right tone for this presentation.

What they got right:

• A lot. The fairy tale feel was mostly spot on with the visuals, directing, framing, mixed-up period feel, the touch of fantasy throughout, the comic moments, the exciting transformations, and it was just a very good looking and luxurious film. It was (mostly) very good movie making and exactly what you want when you pick up a fairy tale film (that is, a fairy tale film you expect to be somewhat fantastic/ escapist/ magical, because there are other kinds too). It's (almost) everything it is supposed to be.

• The Fairy Godmother (played by Helena Bonham Carter), I fully expected to be annoyed by, but her tone was refreshing by the time we got there and hit all the right notes.

• The transformation magic was great. Lily James was a little odd at times and the lizard footmen bothered me but none of that was enough to ruin those scenes. My favorite magic part were the post-midnight chase and transformation scenes, including the lovely walk home in the rain afterward.

• The pacing of having a grown girl-woman (I think she's supposed to be 18), transitioning to a place of servitude in her own house was well done. Initially, I couldn't understand how a grown woman (essentially) would put up with having that done to her for the first time, but the way it started slowly, and with layered dialogue that increased in clarity (and harshness) over time, made it clear that it was done little by little.

• The way the mice were handled, was a nice, not-over-done bit of daily magic. (If you listened closely you could tell they were approximately words when they squeaked.)

• Cinderella's bare-back, rein-free ride was great, and that horse was gorgeous! I wish we'd seen it again. (The only problem was that it felt like it was supposed to foreshadow something in Cinderella but I couldn't solidly relate it to anything else that happened.)

• The Prince had a personality (!), his own challenges, grief and ultimately his own agency outside the expected norm, which was very refreshing.

• They showed how the stepmother's own grief and bad choices (played in a beautifully layered and never-over-the-top manner by Cate Blanchett) were the seeds of why she became so vicious. It didn't excuse her actions at any point, but instead showed how letting bitterness take root, instead of choosing kindness, could result in a monster. My possibly favorite scene in the whole movie, was when the stepmother had been entertaining and the house was full of people. She looked beautiful, happy, and her dress was dark and stunning with a gorgeous flower design. After a win of some kind, she hurries, happily, to share it with her new husband, only to overhear him speaking to Cinderella, about her and her daughters, and not in the most flattering way. You could almost see that late blossoming of joy in this still-recent widow, recoil and begin to wither as she drew back into the shadows to listen and get hurt again. Without turning the movie into a vehicle for sympathizing with the villain, it was made clear how not being courageous and kind can warp you, even when you are beautiful, until you become your worst self.

• The movie made a very good effort at showing different ways of dealing with grief, which is central to the Grimm's version and is reflected somewhat in Disney's version of Perrault as well. Cinderella, her father, the stepmother and the Prince all had to deal with grief, and all went about it differently.

• The mythology of the shoe! This version added a couple of small notes about the glass slipper that helped everything make a lot more sense: a) before she ran away as it was chiming Midnight, one of her shoes slipped off and the Prince put it back on her foot. It showed how easily the shoe could come off in the first place and took the opportunity to provide a moment of particular intimacy between Cinderella and the Prince and b) it was mentioned during the 'right foot' hunt that the shoe was magical and refused to fit 'just anybody', so it was clear that even if the foot was the right size, the shoe still wasn't going to fit - not until it found Cinderella. (And then they added that neat little line with Cinderella saying "I don't know if that glass slipper will fit but..", emphasizing it had to be about more than this superficial aspect.)

• There were nods to other versions of Cinderella too, which is always a big plus for me and shows the writer and producer understand the tale doesn't exist in a vacuum: the branch Cinderella requested of her father is the most obvious one, nodding at the Grimms version, and the sisters were pretty, just not elegant (at all). It was their hearts that were ugly, again a nod to many other versions. The scene with the swing recalled The Slipper and the Rose for me (though other people are seeing this as a Fragonard, Frozen callback), and the stepmother going though Cinderella's things was reminiscent of Ever After, as was the character in general,

What I have issues with:

• If you know Disney's Cinderella, you know this song:

A dream is a wish your heart makes
When you're fast asleep
In dreams you will lose your heartache
Whatever you wish for you keep
Have faith in your dreams and some day
Your rainbow will come smiling through
No matter how your heart is grieving
If you keep on believing
The dream that you wish will come true.

 

Ultimately, it feels like this one song, which is escapist and very passive, is the whole premise of the movie. Indeed - this is the very song that starts playing/being sung as the credits begin, as if it were a summary. All that stuff about heartache, and dreaming and grieving and 'believing" - that's what it boils down to, which is a shame, because they tried very hard for it not to be, for much of the film. Had the film not ended on this note (no pun intended) it might have been a little easier to hang on to the power of kindness, courage and endurance. It feels like they undermined themselves on two accounts without even realizing it.

• The dress transformation scene bothered me a lot. Firstly, Cinderella made such an issue of it being her mother's dress she wanted to wear it seemed odd there was not a hint of the original left in the blue one you see in every promo (I looked on the big screen specifically but if there was I couldn't see it the first time around, apart from approximating the neckline a little). But the FG's delivery in asking if her mother wouldn't mind having her dress spruced up a little sold it enough that I could let that one go - mostly.

• The one thing that pulled me out of the movie big-time was the dress transformation itself. Oh boy - it went on and on and on... It was so over the top it got ridiculous, and more than one audience member (including myself) started looking around the theater, bored. Not only that, Cinderella began to look like a bit of an idiot doing so much continuous twirling.

• There was one scene in which Cinderella looked like a doll the waist was so ridiculously small and her head so large in comparison. It pulled me out of the movie for the second time.
• The pacing was inconsistent at times and dragged at some points but I sort of expected it would. I had just hoped, since they fully expected six-year old girls to go to the theater to see this, that they would have tightened the pacing in the more grow-up world scenes.

• I had problems with Cinderella-the-character - quite a few. I'll deal with those separately below.

My problems with Cinderella-the-character were:

• Her kindness seemed more habit than a conscious (read "active") choice, so she seemed less... aware and intelligent than she should have (and showed less agency because of this). I can't help but think a different actress might have paced her responses slightly differently, showing her kindness wasn't just habit, but an active choice. There were a couple of times it was clear that she was choosing kindness but not with regard to her step-family.

• She was so very... very good and perfect. Really. She was kind, beautiful, she was well read, she could sing, she had household skills, she could speak multiple languages, she was great with animals, she could control a powerful horse, she could dance.. the list goes on. There was nothing wrong with the girl, apart from the fact that she didn't seem quite up to speed with what was really happening at certain times. She was so very sweet, and habitually so, it felt empty-headed at times, and almost flat in character. I didn't like that at all.

• It wasn't until she accidentally meets "Kit" (seriously - "Kit"?? That has to be a reference to something else I don't get yet), in the woods that she has any sort of goal - at all. She has no dream, no wish, even, right up to that point. It's as if, had her parents not died, she would have been content to never leave home, not even to form her own family. At the very least I would have expected her to show her personal care for the house with the dream that she would restore it to the home she knew one day, to bring life and laughter back, but I didn't see a hint of that. There was a line about not leaving the house because it belonged to her mother (and father) but no action supported that, that I could see.

• While I found her reactions for most of the movie to be generally the best they could be (despite the saccharine), and was encouraged when she began to (quietly) stand up for herself (pre-ball), once she got home and her slipper was shattered she seemed to fade away - something which I found bizarre, considering the strength of character she'd shown till then.  It was the one time she became completely passive in the whole movie and resigned herself to her fate, which is especially odd, since, in real life, even those dealing with very bad circumstances at home are likely to rally some courage, should they get a taste of life and freedom like that and take a chance on something - even if it's a very small chance, and a very small something. Cinderella just deflated at that point and remained that way until she was found (thanks to the outside forces of the mice and a determined guard) and taken away from her home. Which brings me to..

• When Cinderella is rescued at the end (because, unfortunately she is), and has no part in her own rescue, she's taken away from this home that apparently was so important to her and doesn't even give it a backward glance. In fact, we never see it again. At the very least it should have been restored to her in some manner, or become their "country retreat" or something! There is a note that the stepmother and sisters are banished, never to return, but it doesn't mention the house, which, I thought was supposed to be representative of her mother at the least.

The problem with all the above in combination is that despite all the work in showing the importance of endurance, the film unfortunately defaults to the "karmic rescue end". Despite all the courage and kindness she showed, had Cinderella not been beautiful, she wouldn't have been looked for and found in the end. I really disliked the idea that being pretty and kind = karmic rescue. That irks. What about those of us who are kind but not pretty enough? 

The reality is, even being gentle and "pretty enough" does not guarantee a happy ending. You need to use your brain, to be active where you can, which includes quietly active. Cinderella doesn't appear to do much more than endure (though that should never be taken lightly either) but more importantly, there's no real change in her despite all that happens. The prince was a better example of resisting his situation in being kind and doing the right thing without violence. He managed to both work within the system while still breaking his mold. Granted, he didn't have abusive guardians but there was a lot of pressure (and the weight of his country's future) within his own story.

About the "have courage, be kind" message:

So this message is one the audience got over and over through the movie. It was relentless but, knowing they were concerned about confronting the popular idea of what a strong female was, I understood why. 

The message itself, I thought was bold overall and in many ways overdue. I think it's a (timely) reaction to the now-standard girl-power show of force that tends to lack in gentility and, frankly, frowns on femininity in general (unless you are kicking butt while wearing pink glitter nail polish, then that's OK, apparently). One of the reasons I have always loved Snow White was that I, especially as a young girl, saw her (as a seven year old in Little Snow White), doing more than I ever expected I'd have the strength for, and, as a result, a character I admired. Similarly, Cinderella, had to deal with daily abuse, which, no matter what age you are, is a horrible and seemingly impossible situation that's all too real for many people. My understanding was always that Cinderella was younger when this began so it would have been even more difficult for her to break out of, and even more amazing that she managed to stay kind and strong. Thankfully, even with Cinderella as an adult, the way this film presented the transition made it clear that this situation wasn't easy to leave or change either. It made it clear that dealing with abuse - no matter what the form, is a very difficult thing.

I will add what I wrote in reply to another review (by Asleep in the Woods): Endurance is underrated and, agreeing with Kristin at Tales Of Faerie too, needs its importance to be understood so that we can fully realize that even the strongest person can still be abused. (Also  see Kristin's really wonderful and important post on 'Mothers Who Kill Their Children'. It's completely relevant to this discussion.) Abuse is NOT EVER the victim's fault. Until this is understood about Cinderella characters, (ie. no matter whether she is active or passive in any versions of the tale - she is STILL abused) those awful cycles will continue. The hope in Cinderella stories isn't really about escape but about how being able to endure, and move beyond those terrible things, you can still have a life - and most importantly - not continue the cycle. 

I understand the concern of so many critics that worry this will encourage passive dreaming in young girls. Most of the movie doesn't have this message but it is the prominent note on which it ends, and, unfortunately, that's the lasting impression. 

I'm glad to see a return to it being OK to be a gentle female who loves beautiful things, and how a female who doesn't eg. know kung fu (or get taught it during the story), can still be strong, that there are feminine strengths that are very underrated yet can do much - like enduring unbelievable suffering and still remaining kind when it's easier to become bitter. That's something most men, for all their toughness, can't manage either.

Sadly it feels like the emphasis on the beauty in every frame of the film (and the insane marketing of clothes, fashion and beauty everywhere you go, currently), works against this idea. The dresses, the magic, the sweet scenes - it's all so very ideal but the sad, dreamy Cinderella near the end is fading, looking like she's given up and is primarily living in dreamland, until she's rescued and her dream is made real by someone else. In the end, what people generally walk away with is "beautiful dresses, pretty, pretty, good girl Cindy got rescued from that horrible situation."

My wish for Cinderella is this: 

I hope that 'karmic rescue for nice (and pretty) people' is not the lasting impression, but that the rest of the movie's message about endurance in hardship, actively choosing kindness, having courage, and believing there is a better future, ultimately resonates more. But not just that - that it is empowering too.

Notes on symbols and metaphors in the film:

• The color blue - blue is Cinderella's color in the film and shows her femininity. It's interesting to note that blue was considered 'the' female color for a long time as it was gentle, quiet and delicate, whereas as pink, being a version of red, was a male color and more aggressive and passionate. In the film (and in current merchandising) blue is once again representative of 'feminine'. Cinderella's mother also sings her the song "Lavender's Blue", alerting the audience to the importance that the color blue is signifying. (I thought bringing that back into the public consciousness was a classic and classy choice.)

• Butterflies - this is a fairly obvious one. Cinderella's glass slippers are adorned with them (if I remember correctly you see real butterflies alight on the shoes and they become part of the design), and Cinderella's ball dress also has butterfly accents. The Fairy Godmother's bodice has teeny blue butterflies all over it too. The metaphors are fairly clear: transformation is one (which this Cinderella story has in spades) and the other is freedom.

• Flowers - this is my favorite symbol in the film, especially because it isn't restricted to Cinderella herself. Apart from the song reference (Lavender Blue), whenever the costumes have flowers on them, it's telling you something about that character. I'd have to see it more than once to be thorough but here's what I picked up with a single viewing: 
• When Cindy is small she and her mother are surrounded by flowers and their clothes show many variations of florals. When Cinderella's mother begins to succumb to 'movie disease' those flower designs fade and Cinderella's larger, childish floral designs are no longer as prominent either. 

• Cinderella's mother wears almost the exact same costume as her daughter does for much of the film, except the mother's dress has flowers whereas Cinderella's is plain blue. It shows, how Cinderella is her mother's daughter, in the best sense, but not blossoming (yet).

             

• The process of the blue ball gown transformation, seemed to echo the same way the pumpkin vines 'grew' into the carriage details until her dress 'bloomed' into one gigantic flower. As over the top as it was, the whole girl was transformed into that 'Lavender Blue' flower, set to become Queen.

• When we first see the stepmother she has black flowers showing through the gold of her dress and her hat is a weaving of black flowers - a subtle way of showing how she's mourning her previous love and life.

• When we first meet the stepsisters their dresses have very childish flower designs, like they are spoilt little girls, which, of course, they are.
• My close-to-favorite scene with the stepmother looking genuinely happy and hopeful at the party, has her in a stunning dark, and partly sheer dress with very beautiful flowers worked into the design. It's like the dress is telling you she's beginning to blossom from a dark place, she's at her most vulnerable and at a place where she could begin again, and as a result her beauty is magnified too. Unfortunately, after she overhears Cinderella and her father talking we never see her dressed in flowers again (as far as I can remember). 

• The stepsisters have quite the riot of color - their designs are bombastic, the flowers are large and childish and almost clash in many ways but, apart from the 'spoiled brat' clues in the flowers of their dresses when we first meet them, their ball gowns are the most obvious reflections of these young women. However ill-refined they are, they are trying to blossom in their own way and find their place. While I would have liked more of a transition in the characters from their horrible taunts and ill-treatment of Cinderella to their (seemingly genuine) apologies at the end, the flower metaphor in most of their costumes suggests that they have a lot of growing up to do and still have potential. We never see it of course, but they're not 100% set to become like their mother - yet.

• Then there's Cinderella's stunning wedding dress. Along with a Grace Kelly vibe, her gown isn't pure white (she's not completely naive at this point) and is adorned with very tasteful, elegantly embroidered flowers that suggest a graceful growing and flourishing, where she is (literally) blooming and coming into her own as an adult and Queen.

 

Noticing this 'language of flowers' subtext throughout the film was one of my favorite things about it. It showed a lot of insight into the various characters and told me there was more to these people under the surface than how they appeared. The clothes and flowers told a different sort of story all on their own.

What? Too long? You want a shorter summary still?

OK, here:

Go see it. It's good.

Just be aware it might send some mixed messages.

You can help by focusing on the good stuff, of which there's a ton. 

The End. 

I feel the need to add this little footnote (forgive the pun!): 
So Cindy and her FG go into the green house, find a giant pumpkin, which the FG makes magically large until the greenhouse explodes and the vegetable is changed into a coach. Honestly, my first thought on seeing this (and Cindy's and the Fairy Godmother's faces being squished against the glass) was: OMG the stepmother is going to have a FIT when she gets home! We're going to see Cindy picking glass shards out of the garden beds like lentils out of the ashes, but with more pain involved, and there's going to be a whole things about vegetables and Cindy ending up living in a hollowed out pumpkin as even more of a punishment! Thankfully, that didn't happen but... what happened to all that glass? Was that the raw material for the slippers? And did the FG clean up the rest? I have more Fairy Godmother questions in general (eg. Why is the night of the ball the first time we ever see this woman? Why is she narrating? What is the implication in Cinderella's understanding of the world that she has an FG? Why do we only see her one?) but that one about the exploding green house is one that has been bothering me ever since Cinderella walked home in the rain IN BARE FEET. ;)