RE: The Beast

Sorry for posting a new post altogether but for some reason I am not able to post a reply in the appropriate thread. I think Allison makes a very good observation when discussing the portrayal of the beast in Cocteau's film. I am reminded of what we talked about in class on Tuesday, when we discussed what actually makes a beast and is the beast really a beast? (besides his physical). In the Beaumont version, when the sisters' husbands are being described, one really can see that the so-called "beast" would be a better spouse than them. However, I feel that when the beast is made into an actual animal, some of the social commentary is lost. Just a thought...

The beast transforms

What I found most interesting is the beast.In the Beaumont story the Beast transforms into an unknown prince. In the Cocteau version is how they transformed the Beast. In the end the Beast has the same appearance as the friend of Beauty's brother. The Beast's true self is not revealed until the friend dies. I think that the friend and the Prince are versions of the same person and that the story suggests that a transformation of both the maid and groom are necessary for a happy marriage. In the Beaumont story only the maid is morally transformed or enlightened and that is all that is required to bring about the happy ending. Unlike the Pig prince Cocteau suggests that the happiness of the marriage lies on both parties willingness to be better people. The maid must get past what makes the groom repulsive and the groom has to learn to not be greedy, macho, conceited, impatient and etc. He must submit to the wife. It is only then that he can break the glass or mirrror(?) to reveal a better self. He can only prosper when he destroys the image of what others want him to be (witty, handsom, courtly). The story suggests that the best marriage is one in which the partners submit themselves to each other.

Cocteau vs Beaumont: Opening statements

When I began to watch Cocteau's version I was very caught off guard by how differing the relationships of characters were in the opening minutes, which set the tone of the whole film.  When reading Beaumont's version I envisioned Beauty as tender and mild, a girl of only seventeen.  As I watched Cocteau's version I was caught off guard by how old the actress playing Beauty was, as well as how sexual her interaction with the first suitor was.  In Beaumont's version I believed Beauty to be somewhat more reserved, and I felt as if she was flirting back with the suitor event though she was rejecting his marriage proposal in the video.

I was also surprised while watching the film that the father acknowledged that his daughters were rude and spoiled. In Beaumont's version, although the two elder daughters were mean and cruel to Beauty, it never came off to me that they were rude to their father.  The brothers also played a larger role in Cocteau's version.  I may be wrong, but I only briefly remember then being mention as present in the story, not as actually ever saying anything.

Cocteau v. Beaumont: The Narrative

The first thing I noticed while watching the Cocteau film was how there was not a narrator (except for the writing in the beginning). The film was presented using first person from each of the different characters' points of view. In Beaumont, the reader ventures through the story through the voice of the 3rd person narrator and is thus given a distinct point of view from which to create images of what the characters look like, namely the beast. The reader is also able to "hear the thoughts" of the characters in the story. While Beaumont provides a brief description of the beast as being "a hideous monster" with no intelligence, Cocteau's beast gives us a full image of what the beast "looks like" (whether we want to use our own imagination or not). But we cannot see (or read) what is actually going on in the characters' minds. The audience sees the beast when he is first introduced to the father and we hear his description only after we have seen him for ourselves. While this may merely be a result of making a film from a tale and thus not under the director's control, I felt as if the difference in narrative changed the way the characters were perceived.

Cocteau vs Beaumont: The First Impression of the Castle

I think it is very interesting how differently the father's interactions are in the castle in the two different versions of this story. In the Beaumont version, the father seems very pleased and satisfied. He thanks what he believes to be a benevolent fairy for saving him. However, the Cocteau version really makes the castle seem darker and more magical. The castle itself is alive! For example, you have the arms holding the candelabras and the busts smoking and watching him. (I find it funny that despite being obviously terrified he continues to travel deeper into the Beast's property. The thing about these two separate setups is that it they both have the same effect on the person viewing/reading the story...they both reinforce the idea that this is a world where magic/magical things are real and there occurrence is not necessarily out of the ordinary. I also really like the Cocteau's representation because it leads very nicely to the Disney version, which is my favorite.

Cocteau vs. Beaumont: The Beast

One thing that I noticed in Cocteau's “Beauty and the Beast” that is different than in Beaumont’s version is the way in which the Beast is presented. In Beaumont's version, the beast is described as having such a frightening appearance that it could cause a person to faint. The only characteristics in Beaumont's version that define a beast are his ugliness and his lack of intelligence/wit. In Cocteau's “Beauty and the Beast”, however, the beast is not only presented as being ugly and described as having no wit, but Cocteau also includes scenes and additional dialogue that are not included in Beaumont's version that suggest that the beast behaves more animal-like than human-like at times. For instance, Cocteau includes the scene in which Belle peers out the fence door and sees the Beast messily drinking from the pond like a parched wolf. Cocteau also includes the scene in which the Beast is distracted by a nearby, darting deer, as if he wants to spring at it and devour it. Lastly, Cocteau includes the scene where the Beast is creepily stationed outside of Belle’s room late at night covered in blood. Thus, Cocteau presents the Beast as more of an animal than Beaumont does. Even though the Beast is ugly and dumb in Beaumont’s version, he still always acts like a kind, civilized human being.

Assignment 6 - 10.March 2009

Hi Alex, Jasmine, Allison, Alexandria and Tim,

Here is your assignment for this week, with deadlines different from the usual.

Pick one scene or element from Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, and compare it or contrast it with de Beaumont's version. You might pick something that interests you, that seems odd, or something that you missed in one version or the other, for example.

For those of you who didn't manage to, you have time to complete the reading and watch the film, which is available on OAK and also on Reserve in the Library.

Deadline for putting up your responses is 09.00 p.m. on Wednesday.

Deadline for comment on at least one post is 10.00 a.m. on Thursday.

Ann

Green Knight

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/greenknight.html

In the green knight the father is trapped by a promise he makes to his wife on her deathbed. He promises to give the daughter whatever she wants if it is within his power. This is similar to the donkeyskin tales in that the mother is a partly the troublemaker. The princess wishes for her father to marry a countess whom the princess loves. The Countess and the countess’s daughter pretend to be loving female companions. The king warned his daughter about the females’ two–faced nature but marries the countess as the princess wishes. The father is again at the mercy of the previous wife but unlike the other stories the young princess is also at fault because she fails to listen to good advice and fails to see the inner being. She deludes herself. Another interesting twist is that the father stays or wants to stay devoted to the old wife. He has no wish to remarry. He wishes to remain pure, chaste and steadfast.
After suffering the princess moves to a castle on an island as her father suggests. The parent child conflict is subdued. The princess is no longer fleeing from the lusty father or unjust law. The conflict is the confined to the biological daughter and step-mother/sister. Meloncholic, the princess tells her father that she wants the green knight when he returns from a voyage. The green knight is the green of the churchyard. In other versions the princess is an active agent. She runs away and puts objects into dishes. She arranges a marriage or new life. This princess is much more passive. She is emo and even suicidal. Weird!
Differing from the other tales the prince and not the biological mother comes to the princess’s aid. The Prince or green knight transforms into a bird and flies to the princess when she reads a passage. The magic is not cute and whimsical as in the Perrault and unlike the Grimms it is not firmly connected to the daughter’s virtue. This tale adds in a heavy dose of romantic relationship as the prince actually gets to know Princess before he falls in love. He knows her woes and sorrows and talks to her for 3 visits. It’s a lengthy courtship (plans to wait 3 months for father’s blessing). It is implied that unlike other princesses she has a voice and the prince does want her because she is an object to be gazed at but someone with whom he has meaningful conversations. Awh! Like the other donkeyskin tales the prince falls ill and he is saved through the princess’s cooking. He also recognizes her in the end and the story completely erases the perfect fit motif. I found it unusual that the story is labeled as a Cinderella type as it is more similar to donkeyskin.

Green Knight

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/greenknight.html

In the green knight the father is trapped by a promise he makes to his wife on her deathbed. He promises to give the daughter whatever she wants if it is within his power. This is similar to the donkeyskin tales in that the mother is a partly the troublemaker. The princess wishes for her father to marry a countess whom the princess loves. The Countess and the countess’s daughter pretend to be loving female companions. The king warned his daughter about the females’ two–faced nature but marries the countess as the princess wishes. The father is again at the mercy of the previous wife but unlike the other stories the young princess is also at fault because she fails to listen to good advice and fails to see the inner being. She deludes herself. Another interesting twist is that the father stays or wants to stay devoted to the old wife. He has no wish to remarry. He wishes to remain pure, chaste and steadfast.
After suffering the princess moves to a castle on an island as her father suggests. The parent child conflict is subdued. The princess is no longer fleeing from the lusty father or unjust law. The conflict is the confined to the biological daughter and step-mother/sister. Meloncholic, the princess tells her father that she wants the green knight when he returns from a voyage. The green knight is the green of the churchyard. In other versions the princess is an active agent. She runs away and puts objects into dishes. She arranges a marriage or new life. This princess is much more passive. She is emo and even suicidal. Weird!
Differing from the other tales the prince and not the biological mother comes to the princess’s aid. The Prince or green knight transforms into a bird and flies to the princess when she reads a passage. The magic is not cute and whimsical as in the Perrault and unlike the Grimms it is not firmly connected to the daughter’s virtue. This tale adds in a heavy dose of romantic relationship as the prince actually gets to know Princess before he falls in love. He knows her woes and sorrows and talks to her for 3 visits. It’s a lengthy courtship (plans to wait 3 months for father’s blessing). It is implied that unlike other princesses she has a voice and the prince does want her because she is an object to be gazed at but someone with whom he has meaningful conversations. Awh! Like the other donkeyskin tales the prince falls ill and he is saved through the princess’s cooking. He also recognizes her in the end and the story completely erases the perfect fit motif. I found it unusual that the story is labeled as a Cinderella type as it is more similar to donkeyskin.

Ella Enchanted

The version on Cinderella I have enjoyed the most over the years is Ella Enchanted.  Before visiting the Sur La Lune sight I did not even realize that Ella Enchanted was a version of the classic Cinderella tale, however the more I thought about it the more they related.

Ella Enchanted approaches CInderella in a new way then most of the versions we have read in class.  Although, the female main in the story is beautiful and gracious, her graciousness is a curse given to her by her fairy godmother when she is born.  Ella cannot say no to anyone, or refuse a command.  The graciousness that is so focused on the other versions of Cinderella as a blessing and what all women should be, is portrayed as the thing Ella struggles most with in the book.

Ella Enchanted still entails the main points of focus of other versions as well.  Ella is locked away as a servant, has evil step sisters and an evil stepmother and in the end is saved by prince charming, when the cure is broken by her "one true love".  

I am amazed that I did not realize the similarities in stories before now.  The slight alteration of graciousness as a curse instead of a blessing is one I find truly interesting.  It address how at a point a woman's graciousness becomes subservient. 

The Story of Tam and Cam

I chose to discuss the Vietnamese version of Cinderella, "The Story of Tam and Cam". This version is very interesting, because of how different it is from the versions of the story most are familiar with. One main difference with this version is that there is only one step-sister (Cam), who is in this case related to Tam (father is present in the beginning of this story). However, the step-mother, like in other versions is wicked and makes Tam do all the chores. One interesting aspect of this story is that Tam's beauty, which she herself must remind herself via a looking glass (pond), is a major reason for the step-mother's hatred of her. Gilbert and Gubar would make arguments similar to the ones they make with in their article about Snow White.
Another thing to be aware of in this version is how nature and animals are really the driving force behind most of the action of this story. Whereas nature plays an important role in both Grimms and Perrault's versions, it is the major focus in the Vietnamese version. In the story, Tam is told by "The Goddess of Mercy" (the fairy godmother figure) that she must take care of a fish. The fish is killed, and a hen (important that it is a bird) helps her find the bones of the fish. She wishes on the bones for gold and a dress. I find it interesting that this character that up until this point has been "pure" and self-sacraficing, would wish for such superficial things. The ball that everyone is attending is The Festival of Autumn (note again nature), and Tam is only able to go to the festival, because the Sparrows help her finish her chores (like the animals in Grimms).
Another very important difference, is the fact that the story does not end after the wedding between the King and Tam. Tam is killed by her sister, but undergoes a transfiguration. She becomes a bird, and sings to the King, who in this case recognizes that Tam's spirit is inside the bird. This singing bird transfiguration is like that of the Juniper Tree, because all who hear it find the song so beautiful. Cam kills the bird, and Tam's spirit transfers to a magnificent piece of fruit. She comes out of the fruit each day to do chores, the King finds her and is happy. After this, Tam again acts in a way that is not expected of her. She is directly responsible for the demise of both her stepmother and stepsister. She tricks Cam into being boiled in a pot of water, and her mother as a result is blinded.
This story is full of supernatural elements, and therefore it was a very enjoyable story to read. Unlike many versions, which have lost a lot of magical elements (except for the fairy godmother figure), this one does not shy into the realistic realm at all. The focus on the magical elements really capitvate the readers attention ( and surprises them), but most importantly help drive the story forward to its conclusion and moral which is essentially that people will get what they deserve.

For those interested the url is: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/tam.html

Cinderella Rabbit

I chose the "Cinderella Rabbit" illustration because it reminded me of my favorite childhood story book: Angelina Ballerina. Angelina was a mouse, and this is clearly not a mouse... but the animals dressed in courtly clothes sparked something in my memory. I like this illustration because it clearly places magic back into the notion of the fairy tale. Joosen argues that many tales are being disenchanted because of society's stress on realism. In choosing to portray Cinderella and her Prince as enchanted rabbits, the illustrator makes the story very unreal, pulling magic to the forefront.
Even the landscape and the colors of the illustration portray a sense of magic. The "man in the moon" looks down on Cinderella and the Prince as they race from the ball. In looking at the other illustrations, not all of them evoke happiness or enchantment. My favorite aspect of fairy tales (at least contemporary-ish ones) is their happy endings. In a world of chaos and disappointment, fairy tales allow children (and apparently college students, such as myself) to escape into a magical world where anything is impossible and the characters always live "happily ever after."

“Rashin-Coatie”

(From http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510a.html)
I chose to discuss “Rashin-Coatie”, the Scottish version of Cinderella because it not only contained some aspects of the Grimm version and the Perrault version discussed, but was also unique in itself. For starters the Scottish version has a (biological) mother, father, and two (biological) daughters, one of whom is the Cinderella character in the story. One thing that I found interesting was that the “bonnie lassie “ (the Cinderella character) does not receive her nickname until after she escaped from her evil family, and it is not given to her by her evil family as a means of degradation, but rather receives the nickname as she makes herself a “coatie” out of rashes with her magical, talking calf friend.

In a way, the magical aspect in “Rashin-Coatie“ combines that of the Grimm version and the Perrault version. For instance, the Perrault version includes the fairy grandmother who creates clothes for Cinderella. The red calf serves a similar purpose in that he says that “he would give her clothes” to go to the kirk. Both, the Grimm and Scottish, versions also contain a magical bird. The bird in “Rashin-Coatie” is the character which tells the prince where he can find his true love, the true fit, Rashin-Coatie, and ultimately stops him from marrying the henwife.

There is a lack of suspense in the Scottish version in that Rashin-Coatie is not in a time crunch to get back (she chooses to so she can “look after the dinner”), yet regains that suspense aspect when the prince almost marries the wrong girl.

Another similiarity between the Grimm version and “Rashin-Coatie” is that the prince recognizes the Cinderella-character’s face, as well as seeing that the shoe fits.

Lastly, one moral or message portrayed in this version that was not portrayed in either the Grimim or Perrault versions was the value of one’s word or keeping a promise. For instance, “He[the prince] knew it was not the lady that he wanted; but, because he had promised to marry whoever the shoe fitted, he had to keep his promise.”

Assignment 5- 24.Feb 2009

Hi Alex, Jasmine, Alexandria, Allison and Tim,

Here is your assignment for this week.

Look through the websites suggested below and find a version of Cinderella or even an illustration of her, that has not been talked about in class as yet.

1. D. L. Ashliman's folktale site:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510a.html

2. the Sur La Lune fairy tale site:
http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/

3. the Cinderella Project at the Univ. of Mississippi:
http://www.usm.edu/english/fairytales/cinderella/cinderella.html

Having selected the story/illustration, you are to elaborate on the reason you picked that particular story/illustration.

You could talk about how the story is different from what you have read so far and how these differences could be interesting in the light of our current discussions in class.

If you have selected an illustration, mention what about it grabbed you, what about it is different from other illustrations known to you and whether it contradicts or proves any of what we have discussed in class so far.

Posts are to be sent in by Midnight on Tuesday and comments to a minimum of two other posts are to be in by Midnight on Wednesday.

Study Break/ Interesting Interpretation - Posted by Tim

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Prince and Cinderella..musical...- Posted by Tim at 11:53 PM

Study Break/ Interesting Interpretation

Prince and Cinderella..musical...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FZXU8WZ2xo

Zipes on disney

The basic arguments that I got from the reading was...
By monopolizing the animation film industry and making fairy tales a flashy spectacle or cheap trick, Disney violated the fairy tale tradition to the extreme. Disney tailors the tales to his specific fit and captivates his audience so much as they don't care that his stories are flat as long as they are aesthetically magnificent or entertaining. Audiences become so blinded by his works that they fail to notice or embrace others mostly because he has put on a good show but sometimes and rarely he appeals to the American spirit.
Zipes goes through great lengths to explain the origin of fairy tales. He states that fairy tales come from an oral tradition and with that tradition comes a sense of community, shared experience and beliefs. The literary tradition, although it destroys fairy tales by making them private and for certain classes, it still has contained in it communal beliefs or ways of behaving. The move to film destroys all communal ties and makes the tale about the individual, that is the illustrator. The image not the the tale or what is encoded in the tale has the most staying power. Disney entirely kills the fairy tales by making them mostly about his experiences and projecting his works as a product of one pair of hands. This is evident in the interpretations of his Puss in Boots and Snow White. Disney further slaughters the fairy tale by not making the focus what audiences can learn from the tale or infer about society. Disney focuses on technology, modernity and aesthetics. Fairy tales are the examples of the advancement of technology. Fairy tales are diversions, images, spectacles or tricks and we are not suppose to read into them. "Everything is one the surface, one-dimesional, and we are to delight in its one-dimensional portrayal and thinking." It comfortable, fun, easy and adorable. Disney has stopped the thinking audience and its imagination. I agree with Zipes argument in that it is difficult today for me to think of films of fairy tales without thinking of Disney. On the first day of class when we were asked to think of other films it took me a couple of hours later to come up with one that was not a disney animation or film. I mostly remember liking disney films especially for its charming qualities and catchy tunes. I don't think I ever learned anything from the disney films I just thought they were great shows.

Zipes Vs Disney

Zipes begin by questioning the "spell" Disney has on modern day options of fairtales.  While Zipes acknowledges that Disney did not completely "divest the meaning of fairytales and replace them with his own." He does state, however that Disney took all meaning out of fairytales.  While fairytales were once tribal folklore to express natural occurrences and communal harmony, Disney turned fairytales into an unobtainable goal of a utopian dreams with false hopes and promises. 

While I acknowledge that Disney changed the American view of fairytales forever; in part by taking away from the original life lessons of fairytales. More importantly i find it extremely fascinating how Disney managed to make fairytales accessible and all and a staple in American culture. I find it exceptional how dedicated he was to fairytales and how he personally related to them so much.  Zipes states that he built the perfect studio for creating fairytales in Los Angeles and put so much of himself into many of the characters.  

What I most agree with Zipes on is how Walt Disney did not give credit where credit was due. Although he did change many aspects of the fairytales he reproduced they were not his original ideas and I think it is unfortunate that he did not reference that. Disney's selfish tactics have now made his version of classic tales the base off which many artists now craft their version of tales. I believe this change in base information takes away many aspects or version of fairytales that could interest audiences for years to come. 

Zipes and Disney

One of the main arguments in the article by Jack Zipes is that Walt Disney sought to impose his image of a perfect society onto the tale that was being animated. He outlines the use of oral tradition and folktales and gives a brief background of Disney's animation history. To support his claim he uses the example of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. In this example Zipes outlines many changes that occurs in Disney's version, that was not present in the version by the Brothers Grimm. One of the biggest arguments that Zipes makes is that the role of the prince is greatly enhanced by Disney and that "the prince, the only one who can save Snow White, and he becomes the focal point by the end of the story."
This argument about the prince is what I would like the focus my response on. Disney wanted all the credit for his animation, taking sole credit for the works that had his name on it. Also, as stated earlier by Zipes the animator wishes to impose the greatness of his ideal world. In this sense I take the emphasis of the prince as a metaphor for the self aggrandizement of Walt Disney. Disney sought to increase the role of the prince, just as he was increasing the role he played in the creation of these fairy tales. However, I have a few problems with some of the assertions that Zipes makes. The main problem is that the role of the prince was already increasing (and deviating from the Grimm's version) before Disney came along. A perfect example of this is the silent film version of Snow White. The prince plays a very important role in this version. He is the reason Snow White is sent to be killed, and he brings her back to the palace where she is revived (although he is not directly responsible for her being revived he is insturmental in the chain of events that cause it to happen.) My point is you can already see that there is some major digression from the Grimm's version well before Disney. Also, to hold judgement on him for trying to display his vision of how society should be is also unfair. As we have read in previous articles, for example the article about the role of children, fairy tales are a way to reflect on a society's values. So, while it is true to say that Disney is trying to paint the world with his utopian image, while accurate, is not a fair assessment, because that is that has always been a major component of fairy tales.

Zipes Response

Zipes argues that Disney created his fairytale films, as a meansd of self-betterment and for the pure entertainment of the American public. Zipes discusses how Disney gave little to no credit to the animators and others involved in the making of his films. He also changes the fairytales to fit his own life story and his own life struggles. He not only imposes himself into the traditional fairytales by introducing his films as “Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and by changing the plots to describe his life, but also by glorifying himself as characters or symbols within the fairytales (for example, the increased presence and influence of the prince in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs).

I have not done any extensive research on Walt Disney and his tendencies as a selfish artist and human being, but as far as I have ever heard, he did seem to be a miserable human being, so as far as I have been informed, I do agree with Zipes' thesis pertaining to Walt Disney. What I do not agree with, though, is Zipes' discrete criticism of American culture, in general, through his criticism of Walt Disney and the fairytale films he created. For instance, Zipes' introduces his arguments in the FIRST paragraph of his essay by writing, “…Disney employed the most up-to-date technological means and used his own “American “ grit and ingenuity to appropriate European fairytales.” Zipes also includes a quote by Richard Schickal which states that, “…It [Disney’s tendency of conquering versus serving] is a trait, as many have observed, that many Americans share when they venture into foreign lands…” Lastly, on page 352, Zipes describes Disney’s fairy tales as the “American” fairy tale. Although there is much truth to the argument that Disney defined what is, today, the “American” fairytale, Zipes infers that the American society created Disney, and thus created these inaccurate, one-dimensional versions of the traditional European fairytale, rather than suggesting that Disney’s versions of the traditional European fairytales helped to shape American culture. I, personally, believe they (Disney and American culture) are products of one another, since culture is a living thing. Zipes makes a lot of good points about Disney, and perhaps the American culture, but I think that generalizing the American culture based on just one American, Walt Disney is very unfair, and inaccurate.