My garden of musings

5 is nowhere near the level of the trilogy, but it feels like they took the corporate mandate and made a story that mattered. It feels like good fanfiction--not necessary, but filling in gaps in the story that are nice to explore. It had a perspective on growing up that was missing from the trilogy, and I'm surprised to find that the series is better for having mentioned this.

The movie Ever After is obviously a "feminist" Cinderella, with Danielle portrayed as a feisty and clever action heroine, and with a contrast between her tomboyish ways and the ladylike refinement of her stepmother and stepsisters. But the conflict Danielle faces revolves much more around social class than around gender.

Then there's Betsy Cornwell's 2015 YA novel Mechanica, a steampunk Cinderella where the heroine is an inventor. This is obviously a feminist retelling too, because Nick excels in a traditionally masculine field, because she uses her inventions to take herself to the ball without the need for a Fairy Godmother, and because she has a concrete goal of freeing herself from her stepfamily by opening her own shop. In this way, she's very much like the "girlboss Cinderella" of the 2021 Sony/Amazon musical. Yet if I remember correctly, her struggles have little to do with gender. She isn't blocked from achieving her business goal because she's a woman; the problem is simply that she's trapped in an abusive home with no money or resources of her own.

Yet the 2021 musical, with its Cinderella who similarly wants to go to the ball to find a patron and start her own business, makes the whole conflict ham-fistedly about sexism. To a slightly ridiculous degree, because this Cinderella isn't an inventor of mechanics, she's a dressmaker! Weren't most 19th century dressmaking shops run by women? Yet the entire conflict is framed as "Ella's goal of a career outside the home is frowned on because she's a woman."

Then there are the two screen versions of Disney's Beauty and the Beast: 1991 vs. 2017. In the original film, apart from Gaston's claim in passing that "It's not right for a woman to read!" Belle's misfit status is framed in a gender-neutral way. Her dreamy, adventurous spirit, of which her love of books is one aspect, sets her apart from the village's simple workaday culture. Of course there's a feminist element, since she wants more from life than what's expected of her and doesn't want to be the "little wife" of a man who doesn't respect her, but the villagers would still consider her odd if she were a man. Yet the 2017 remake had to explicitly add gender issues. Here, the villagers disapprove of women being educated; only boys go to school, Belle's neighbors dislike the fact that she even knows how to read, and they bully her for teaching a little girl to read too.

Like Peter Cook is a comedic legend ,known for his work with Dudley Moore and being a huge deal ........Mostly in the UK

In America...Well I know him for Bedazzled but....We mostly adore him cause he said Marriage in a really funny way in the Princess Bride and to his credit ,hes says it VERY Funny

@countesspetofi @ariel-seagull-wings @the-blue-fairie @maimoncat

@theancientvaleofsoulmaking @princesssarisa @punster-2319

@themousefromfantasyland @alexa-santi-author @amalthea9

The caveat to this is that you can totally have everything be 99% historically accurate in a fantasy film and everyone can understand it fine AND it can contribute towards the understanding of the plot (see the costuming of the Muppets Christmas Carol -changes in dress indicate the passage of time). But for Disney specifically, it's usually specific versions of fairy tales that's been around for centuries. There's not something to be accurate *towards,* just a setting to establish and we can all tell Beauty and the Beast takes place in pre industrial France because they say it's France and there's no machines and that's all we need to know about the setting. Princes exist, and so do Victorian era dresses, and its all very romantic so let's focus on the plot.

In the first place, we don't even know that it takes place before the French Revolution. Yes, some of the clothes are in the style of the late 1700s, but many others are from later dates too. I once reblogged a very interesting post suggesting that actually, the film could take place in the later half of the 19th century, and that the older clothing fashions in Belle's village are just because of course a poor, backwater village would be stylistically out of date.

In the second place, this is a fantasy world where a Prince is turned into a Beast as punishment for being selfish and cruel to the poor. Who says there will be, or ever was, a French Revolution in this world? I think the Enchantress and others of her kind will prevent the need for one.

I have similar feelings when people say "Of course Belle and Maurice must be filthy rich compared to their neighbors, because Belle can read while most peasants were illiterate and books were ultra-expensive, so Belle is a snob." I'm sorry, but no. Poor and backwater though it is, the village has a bookshop – not even a library, a bookshop – and even anti-intellectual Gaston quotes Shakespeare during "Kill the Beast."

Pepe’s wannbe “Latin lover” persona is just right for the Don, he’s just enough of a jerk to pull off the villainy too, and casting the role with a weird little prawn would be hilarious.

Meanwhile, Rizzo would nail Leporello’s sarcasm and cowardliness. He’d basically be playing himself (again).

for one concrete example, the weird sponge or stone comment that uncle monty makes is actually lifted from what zeffirelli. actually told robinson on set.

I had a dream inside this underground palace before I saw this photo.