0 Red As Blood, White As Snow, Black As Ebony... Discussing The Big Three Colors in Fairy Tales

'She bade him leave his horse with her and ride on her own two-winged horse' 
Illustration for The Bold Knight, the Apples of Youth, and the Water of Life.

This was written yesterday in response to the Tales Of Faerie post (Wednesday March 4, 2015), which references tri-color themed fairy tales, but my comment was so long it wouldn't post on the site so I sent it via mail. I've posted itwith encouragement from Kristin, who thought more of you might like to read this. I omitted the part of the comment that responds directly to yesterday's post, just because it makes no sense out of context.

You may want to go read Kristin's Tales Of Faerie post first, HERE, before continuing below or at least have a glance at the academic article/paper she mentions (HERE), that she also posted her thoughts on, in December last year HERE. (The referenced paper is a number of pages long and quite detailed but you'll get the gist of the topics with just a scan.)

Note: generally, when writing comments on someone else's blog I write very informally, conversationally, if you like, sometimes almost like shorthand, so it's even less formal than my usual writing for OUABlog.

'But he could not hold the firebird herself; she tore herself from his grasp and flew away'
Illustration for Prince Ivan, the Firebird, and the Grey Wolf.
************************

The tri-color aspect of many fairy tales (and cultural color recognition order*) is fascinating and one of the things I'm always curious about (my investigations started in my teens with my wondering about Snow White - of course). Vaz da Silva's article/paper has a lot of interesting points, things I've read or heard about quite a bit but it's also missing some basics I think. 

White and black should be obvious just because there is no greater contrast in the world, and this jives with one of the main interpretations too: ultimate good vs ultimate bad - however, true black and true white are almost impossible to create as well, so there's that dichotomy of the color significance. 

'Next morning the seven-year-old girl took off her clothes, donned a net, took the quail in her hand, sat upon the hare, and went to the palace'
Illustration for The Wise Little Girl.

White is interesting because, while Westerners tend to think "purity", it's the color of death in many other cultures. A strong theory of why clowns freak people (especially children) out so much is because of the white face: it's basically a death mask (and if you know anything about the history of clowning, you'll know this was done on purpose - to remove the personal nature of the performer, among other things). 

'The sorceress was waiting for her, seized her, tied a stone around her neck, and cast her into the sea'
Illustration for Sister Alionushka and Brother Ivanushka. 

Black, on the other hand seems like a no-brainer: death, darkness. The dark was always a scary, dangerous time for people pre-electric lights but there's more to that as well. In many cultures the absence of a shadow is an indication of something supernatural - usually something bad - but once a shadow was seen/restored, then the human/natural element was returned and things were back in balance/safe. (Think of the significance of Peter Pan trying to get his shadow back too.) One of the reasons the twilight time of day is considered magical (or one of the dangerous Faerie times of day - and today - one of the worst times to drive because cars are so hard to see) is because shadows are hard to see/define/distinguish too. Gray is 'in-between" - neithernor there - there are no silhouettes, no shadows, no easy proof of life.

'She became a terrible lioness, but when she was about to swallow the good youth, his magic steed came running and took hold of her with his mighty legs'
Illustration for Two Ivans, Soldiers' Sons. 

Red has almost always been related to blood and though we see it as violence as well, more often it means life (when you stop bleeding, you're dead.) Women bleeding monthly is still weird and mysterious to guys! How does one bleed without injury or threat of death? In many ways it's like women have a secret "in" to what life is all about - something further enforced by the ability to create and birth children. I think menstruation and a women's cycles of maturation are a natural connection and a fairly common way of interpreting the appearance of red. Red is blood - blood is life, and blood also rises in passion (of love or violence) - proof of life in many ways.

'She waved her right hand, and lakes and woods appeared; she waved her left hand, and various birds began to fly about'
Illustration for The Frog Princess. 

Black and white are also not technically "colors" - true black is the absence of color and white is all colors together (or, if you want to get more technical - since trying to do this is paint always fails - white is the reflection of every color frequency/wavelength seen together, black is no reflection of any light wavelength). Red is the color that contrasts most against both black or white and especially against black and white together. It could be because we're built to recognize the importance of red (due to blood and the life connection) but I'm guessing there's a scientific reason too. Red is one of the lowest frequency colors - not much light is needed to see "red' at all, whereas other colors can only be distinguished if there's enough light. (Am I boring you yet??)

‘The fox is carrying me away … Cat Cotonaevich, rescue me!’
Illustration for The Cat, the Cock, and the Fox.

For an example of how these interpretations work both ways, think of how vampires are represented almost the world over: black, white and red. Black clothes, white skin, red mouth because they've drunk someone's blood. They're a scary symbol of supernatural-meets-human because they have both - the human element (red lifeblood), the white (death and supernatural) and black (evil but also earthly). Weird, right? But it makes sense too.

Anyway, I think all this has significance with regard to tales across the globe since it works for all interpretations of the how different cultures see black,white and red. 

'She boiled water and poured it into the barrels, thus scalding the six robbers to death'
Illustration for The Wise Maiden and the Seven Robbers.

One fairy tale (**in addition to the ones Kristin and Vaz de Silva mention) that comes to mind from Japan, is The Crane Wife - almost all white feathers but with a distinct black pattern, against the snow, in the dark, wounded, red and bleeding... Again we see the implication of the supernatural mixed with the natural in a single form (the woman), the "real" implication (not a ghost), because of the blood and the almost magnetic attraction to that combination for "man".

****************

If you haven't gone there yet, but want more I suggest going to Tales Of Faerie. There's an Irish tale using the tri-color theme for your reading pleasure as well ("The Snow, the Crow, and the Blood").

All these amazing silhouette illustrations are by Niroot Puttapipat for the Folio Society edition of Aleksandr Afanas'ev's Myths and Legends of Russia (though I cannot find it on the Folio website!). See left for a description of the book.

* Quote from Kristin's post HERE: "Da Silva cites a study in which they found that if a language has only two words for color, it's black and white. If they have three, it's always red, black, and white. "

** Tales mentioned specifically using the red, white & black tri-color theme, listed below:

• Snow White (& variations)
• The Crow - Basile
• Perceval - Conte du Graal
• The Three Citrons - Basile
• The Snow, the Crow and the Blood

Detail: Red As Blood, White As Snow, Black As Ebony... Discussing The Big Three Colors in Fairy Tales

0 "Cymbeline" Trailer

Some of the Snow White-like motifs will be clear. All of Shakespeare's Cymbeline should be obvious, what with the script pretty much following the Bard's (and they do it a LOT better than I expected). Not really my type of movie but I will be watching what people say about it and how it's discussed.

Fairy tales seem to get related to everything these days/weeks (and with no additional help from me!). In Cymbeline they wouldn't be stretching the idea too far, of course, but I'm curious to see just which ones they cite as having parallels. If Snow White doesn't come up you can then assume fairy tales are just the current hot-button-scapegoat for unveiling the darkness in us all... (insert ridiculous evil laugh here). But hey - at least they're open to discussing our favorite subject!

If you're interested in Shakespeare, seeing his work translated into modern  or are curious about the Snow White motifs in the play (which will have to be there in the movie to some extent since they're following the book so closely) then you might want to keep your eye on this film too.

Take a look at the trailer. It looks better than the poster implies and we might even be getting a glimpse of Imogen's death-like sleep. Or is it sleep-like death? Depends on the story you're telling I suppose... :

Detail: "Cymbeline" Trailer

0 Shakespeare's (Modern) "Cymbeline" Heading To Theaters in March

A poster was just revealed for the upcoming movie release Cymbeline. (This movie was originally planned to be released in 2014 so there have been some delays and reworkings.) It's a modern (and very violent, it would seem) adaptation of Shakespeare's Cymbeline (which was also violent but had clearer fairy tale elements).

For those wondering why I'm putting something Shakespeare-related on the blog, Cymbeline is often regarded as "Shakespeare's Snow White" as it has so many of the key motifs and elements of the tale in a specific combination the parallel can easily be made. 

Did Shakespeare know the Snow White story or one of the many variants? Although it seems unlikely that he did, considering the timeline of certain collections with regard to Shakespeare's own dates, the Decameron is listed among his sources when creating the play and may have been one of those texts also seen by the Grimm Brothers in their studies (I haven't looked at this very much in depth but this discussion was started long ago on the SurLaLune boards HERE).

With regard to the upcoming movie, will any Snow White variant be detectable? Beyond the basic set-up of jealous "queen", huntsman and the girl finding her way through grit and wit and possibly a death-like sleep, I'd be surprised if the usual Snow White parallels remain, though you never know. If they stuck closely to Shakespeare's Cymbeline, there will be more classic fairy tale elements there than you'd ever think from the poster above. (You can read a break down of the similarities between Cymbeline, Snow White, Othello and King Lear by Quill and Qwerty HERE.) An interesting note is that the film was titled Anarchy for a short while but is back to being Cymbeline. That should give a few clues about the film right there.

Ethan Hawke (Edit FTNH: who did the modern day New York update of Hamlet with the same director) co-stars with Ed Harris as two players caught up in the middle of a war between dirty cops and an outlaw biker gang which forces a drug kingpin (Harris) to desperate measures. The ensemble cast includes Milla Jovovich (“Resident Evil” films), John Leguizamo, Dakota Johnson (Fifty Shades of Grey), Penn Badgley, Anton Yelchin, Bill Pullman and Delroy Lindo. 

Cymbeline will be released in select cities on March13, 2015, and will be rated R.

Detail: Shakespeare's (Modern) "Cymbeline" Heading To Theaters in March

0 "The 7th Dwarf" Released in UK Theaters

There aren't much in the way of (English) reviews for this film but despite hopes for the production, with some ex-Disney Company names such as the talented (and, sadly, late) Harald Siepermann on the team (you may recognize some of his character design work from Tarzan, Enchanted and more), as well as design work from the amazing Man Arenas, I'm not sure I'd view this any way other than Netflix.

Even The Guardian's review, while generally a "thumbs up", is a bit sparse on details. But apparently there's a very successful franchise that this movie is a part of in Germany, so perhaps there's more to this than is immediately apparent.

The 7th Dwarf is the latest in the Snow White-inspired franchise created by German comedianOtto Waalkes. Two previous live-action versions of the series have together grossed around $75 million in Germany alone.

While it's difficult to truly assess trailers (what with the power of editing being able to transform a movie's story or genre), when I finally did view one I saw why it was initially thought to have a lot of potential.

Here's the trailer:

And the synopsis:

When Bobo, the youngest of the seven dwarves, accidentally pricks Princess Rose (a.k.a. Sleeping Beauty) and sends the kingdom into a century-long slumber, Bobo and the other six dwarves must travel into the future in order to revive Rose... and find that even the smallest dwarf can be a king.  

A hilarious mash-up of the best classic fairy tales for young and old alike, featuring a suicidal dragon, a brave little dwarf, non-stop gags, and toe-tapping songs in Stereo 3-D.

Clearly, "the gang's all here" (ie. all your standard fairy tale characters are here) which, admittedly, isn't my favorite fairy tale genre to begin with. Taking the little reviews have said though, I'm not confident it's as little-kid-friendly as it's supposed to be (think German sensibilities/humor!). There are bound to be some interesting ideas in there but are they worth mining for?

Additional sources: HERE, HERE and  HERE

Detail: "The 7th Dwarf" Released in UK Theaters

0 "Red Shoes and the Seven Dwarfs" Movie Coming

My first reaction was probably like yours: ??

There isn't much information but thought I'd give the heads-up on this anyway, especially as it will be, feature length, made in English and intended for distribution to the US, and likely UK and Australia as well.

From Variety:

South Korean sales agency Finecut has picked up international rights to “Red Shoes & The 7 Dwarfs,” an English-language animated feature that is a twist on the classic “Snow White” tales.

The $12 million family-oriented 3D animated project is now in production at Locus Creative Studio, one of the leading animation and VFX companies in Korea. Delivery is scheduled for summer 2017.

Director Hong Sungho describes the film as “tackling the inconvenient truth” about Snow White, namely that the dwarves are knights under a spell and Snow White is no longer the fairest woman in the land.

The screenplay previously won a 2010 Korean Story Competition and sees the dwarf knights on a quest for red shoes which have magical powers, but which are already on the feet of another woman.

The film will be CG and apparently Red Shoes and the Seven Dwarfs is a working title.

The film is scheduled to be released in the Summer of 2017 in Korea so, with news reaching Variety like this, there's a chance the US will see it in the same calendar year as well. Maybe.

Detail: "Red Shoes and the Seven Dwarfs" Movie Coming

0 Into the New Year By Way Of "The Woods" (Movie Review!)

I was given a very generous gift on New Year's Day: the chance to see Into The Woods on the big screen, when I thought I'd most certainly have to wait for the home viewing release.

I'll admit, the more promos and trailers I've seen, the more excited I became about the movie, despite my initial reaction to the concept being less-than-positive. (Although, I completely agree that I, too, would jump at the chance of having my work be seen by a much-wider-than-usual audience, even if it mean inevitable compromises.) Take a look at these two featurette-trailers and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

But before I share my two cents on the movie, let me give you a little background, first, so you understand where my review (or should it be reflection?) is coming from. (And I will gif-t you with these lovely, subtle-y alive, character posters as you read.)

New Year's Day I decided it had been far too long since seeing the show (and my last viewing was not of the legendary original Broadway cast either), so I dusted off my DVD and managed to watch the entire play over the course of the day. It was a pretty great way to pass a day.

At this point, you need to know that I'm not a huge fan of fairy tale mash-ups in general and Into the Woods has never been one of those favorite fairy tale things of mine. I don't like characters from one fairy tale running into characters from another. To me it flattens them, makes them caricatures of what is the very spare character outline fairy tales generally use - and need - in order to be effective fairy tales. When you caricature them, however, to me it makes them less relatable and the power of the story drains away. I know this isn't everyone's experience, it's mine, but it has affected my view of Into the Woods over the years. My main problem with the play has always been that the division in ideas between the two acts is so extreme, (almost all light versus almost all dark) and that unless you already had an appreciation of fairy tales and understood much of the subtext, most people I knew who saw it completely missed the point of Act II and just wished it had finished at intermission, missing the entire point of seeing it in the first place.

My eventual thoughts on there being a Disney movie (underline the "Disney" part there) was that these two disparate parts would likely be more interwoven, (especially seeing as the movie making business doesn't tend to give a whole lot of credit to modern audiences to pick up on subtleties). The result would (likely) be that the core idea of the play "be careful what you wish for", which has been the key phrase of the marketing campaign, by the way, would be far more clear, as would the key themes of maturation and cycles. Despite the inevitable Disneyfication of some aspects, if they were doing it with Sondheim and Lapine, surely even a watered-down version would be worth making.

So my DVD viewing, which was a far more enjoyable (and hilarious) experience than I ever remember it being before (apart from seeing it in person, which can't be beat, in my opinion), had me very much looking forward to seeing the movie.

And then I was given the opportunity to do exactly that.

So what did I think?

Is it worth seeing on the big screen? 
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: there are definitely some parts of the movie which make the price of the ticket completely worth it, as they used the *very different* media of film extremely well, rather than having it play second fiddle to an excellent live play experience.

Did I like it overall?
Short answer: yes...?
Long answer: some parts almost glowed, they were so wonderful, while many other parts, including the end, felt disjointed. It should have been more consistently funny but wasn't allowed to carry this through as the primary tone. The times the film shone, was when the storytelling was clear or when the "funny" was given center stage. They should have done this more. A lot more. Overall I was left feeling frustrated and a little let down because it felt so uneven.

Will I get the DVD when it comes out?
Short answer: yes!
Long answer: There's a lot I'd love to see again, things I'd like to revisit and other things I'd like to puzzle out, try to understand why on earth they did it "that way". And anything behind-the-scenes will be gold.

Was it "faithful" to the Tony Award winning play?
Short answer: yes, absolutely.
Long answer: But not in all the ways I think mattered most. (See the above long answer to "did I like it" and, below, the long answers to pretty much every other question!) If I had to choose, it would be the play, hands-down, as the sheer fun of the story and the way it's told make all the difference, but I'm very glad they both exist.

What about the music?
Short answer: Excellent.
Long answer: I'm considering investing in the soundtrack. The orchestration is amazing and the best I've ever heard. The singing from everyone is top notch and then absolutely stellar by some who managed both the technicality and the acting-via-song.

What about the music changes?
Short answer: generally fine.
Long answer: Knowing there would be key differences, I tried very hard to let the movie stand on it's own music and songs, rather than looking for what was added or missing. The songs themselves were OK, though I do think the uneven placement of the numbers, including the way they stopped and started, was a detriment at times (eg the movie opened, and continued, with mostly songs telling the stories, with little dialog, which worked pretty well. When they stopped singing for a while and the orchestra's "stings" weren't accenting the lines, it was as if the focus changed and became a different movie, to the point where someone starting to sing would jolt you a bit.)

Visual style - what did I think?
Short answer: Good, almost great.
Long answer: Colleen Atwood's costume design (and the reasons and research behind each) doesn't disappoint (she even made Johnny Depp's personal preference less obnoxious than it might have been, though clearly she had to defer in that case). The overall visual style was a little uneven - sometimes clearly theatrical, sometimes faux-real. Overall the entire film was very blue, (as in literally had a blue cast over everything) which I think was a poor choice. Although colors poppedand there, the whole atmosphere seemed the same and too stagey for a film, especially with regard to the wood. I think they could have served the story and themes better with a lighter, brighter color palette (and this is from someone who loves blue and moody things by the way!)

What about the Disney-factor?
Short answer: both good and bad.
Long answer: The good was that this anti-ever-after fairy tale made it through the Disney machine, keeping it's main thrust intact without sugar-coating everything - or turning into typical Disney - to be seen by a huge audience. That's almost a form of magic in itself! The big budget was a plus for costume, cinematography and casting too. The bad is that almost all the innuendo and subtext present in the play that makes it SO much fun and so layered simply was not there. At. All. It was actually really bizarre in places that people were saying what they were because, without innuendo, there was no reason for them to be talking about that at all! I think this affected the performances as a result and it definitely affected the reason the story took the path it did (that is, the plot points appeared arbitrary as opposed to cause and effect, part of a cycle, part of a larger set of principles in motion).

So what about the (main) cast?
Short answer: better than expected.
Long answer: Although they were all very good in their parts, some were amazing while others were just "good".
I'll break it down by the mains:
Meryl Streep as the Witch: holy crap she can sing - and act while singing! It's hard to review her performance because she's "always excellent" and she was. I did feel her performance was rather neutered, not being allowed to be at all suggestive, but the mother/daughter push-and-pull within her character was clear and heart wrenching. Unfortunately, despite how good she was, many of her scenes felt uneven. [QUASI-SPOILER: The callback to her own mother at the end, was well done and a good way for her to 'exit'.]
Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife: She was pretty much perfect. Wonderful voice, lovely layered acting, theatrical enough in her portrayal to pay homage to history. Her tone was a perfect match for the best parts of the movie and she was consistent in it throughout. If everyone has been of the same tone, it would have been a far better movie.
James Corden as The Baker: Very good. Honestly, he was mostly flawless but he was put in some odd scenes/staging that detracted. His singing was good, not perfect, but it didn't bother me in any either. In the end, the omission of some key resolution points with regard to fatherhood, left him seemingly lost. I felt sorry for him, because it felt like he wasn't allowed to travel his full arc through the woods.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella: Very good. Her singing was excellent. I don't think she matched the best tones of the movie though. It's hard to put my finger on why I didn't love her in it, because she was REALLY good, but I think it was a tonal thing.
Johnny Depp as The Wolf: Good, generally. His performance would have been perfect for stage but he didn't match, or play well off Red Riding Hood. Not entirely his fault, I don't think. It's hard to tell. There was a lot of imbalance in his and Red's scenes together. His costume though seemed a little out of place, from a different story (thank goodness it didn't have the traditional "wolf tackle" though!).
Lilla Crawford: Good. Solid performance but too flat, one note and too "American". (Her accent was garish against everyone else's who used a more affected, traditional tale-style of speech and emphasis. She felt modern.) The fact that she really was a young girl (12 years?) and not a woman playing a young girl, just didn't work. I do think this was because of her performance though, (see notes on Jack below) and I'm fairly certain it was directed to be this way - that she was completely unaware of any layering, let alone innuendo (and she never, ever used any). She came across as brusque, flat and fairly unemotional with no sense of maturation happening through the film. Given that Little Red is one of my favorite characters because you can do so very much with her in the play, I was seriously disappointed they didn't capture even a shadow of the traditional Red.
Daniel Huttlestone as Jack: Overall he was fantastic! After the first few scenes he WAS Jack. And he grew up during the film while still managing to remain a child. His tone was perfect.
Mackenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel: Good and better than expected. She was very good opposite Streep in her Mother/Witch role. My one complaint is there was no lightness/crazy to her role at all. She was just serious and if it had been a straight movie this would have been fine, but being *this* musical, she needed to be "more" to meet the required tone.

Chris Pine as The Prince (Cinderella's): Wow. This was the greatest, most wonderful surprise of the entire movie. Where did he come from?! I had zero expectations for him and expected him to be there for eye-candy only (which usually, in my mind, requires suffering through). I barely know who he is. I'd heard ravings about his performance in this and I can tell you they are all true. He is pitch perfect! His tone is perfect for the movie and play and he walks that line of theatrical-realism to a "t". His delivery and timing are hilarious, yet touching and oh boy can he sing (thank goodness). The standout scene of the whole movie is "Agony" with the two princes. And I kept being surprised that every single scene he was in he was spot on - not too dramatic, not too smart or too smarmy, just "charming'. We rarely see Oscar noms for comedy and certainly not for musicals but I would not be surprised if he was on the list - he really is that good. If everyone else had matched his delivery, tone and performance, this movie would have been leagues better (and it's already not bad).
Billy Magnussen as The Other Prince (Rapunzel's): His performance was good. He was definitely a good foil for The Prince and should be given credit for being a key part of the best part of the movie (ie. Agony), but wasn't quite as good with comedy on his own. His scenes with Rapunzel were a bit on the dramatic side but I noticed that was also helped by how they were staged and filmed (a bit soap-like). Unfortunately, since the innuendo and subtext are largely absent, his character doesn't have a whole lot of reason for being there.

Tracey Ullman as Jack's Mother: Excellent. I think she was perfectly cast in this supporting role and hit almost all the right notes. The interaction between her and Jack at the beginning was a little odd at first but it felt directed to be so - a little rushed through.
Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother: I didn't like this casting at all. The tone was wrong, too hammy and felt cardboard.
Lucy Punch as Lucinda: She matched Baranski's performance but as a result, not the rest of the movie. (Once blinded, though, she was just the right amount of funny.)
Tammy Blanchard as Florinda: She was great. Just the right amount of everything. Her tone worked.
Note: I don't understand what was going on with all three stepmother/sister's wigs/hairstyles though - bizarre stylistic choices stood out in a distracting way in every scene.

Favorite thing/s about the movie?
Short answer: That an a-typical representation of fairy tales is doing REALLY WELL in the mainstream and the wonderful surprise that was Chris Pine.
Long answer: There are lots of little things in addition to the above. Seeing some of the magic be 'real' was fantastic (not all, by the way - some felt like filmic conceit as well). Costume details that illuminated characters (I want Emily Blunt's main 'woods' costume! Kind of Snow White-like, which sort of fit with her character arc), seeing known actors 'perform' and do it well, Milky White (what a lovely cow - I hope she was/is well cared for), the orchestration - wonderfully large and perfect for the film, that they were so faithful in the ways that they were. Extra points for keeping the Grimm's Cinderella aspects intact (mother's grave, the three nights, the pitch on the stairs, blood in the shoe - however ridiculously teeny, the sister's punishment etc)... there are so many good things.

Least favorite things?
Short answer: I think it's mostly been said above.
Long answer: it suffered from lack of innuendo, subtext and was no longer TRULY funny, in the best way that makes you laugh at yourself for doing so many of those same things/mistakes, as those characters. Most of the "magic" was too effect-y, which I expected. The one exception was that  there was NOT a profusion of glitter, for which I am ridiculously grateful (glitter has become a Disney plague!). By the time we made it to the wedding, it suddenly felt like a really long movie and the shift from happily-ever-after to "this isn't quite what I thought it would be like" was almost missing, complete with a timeline that made less and less sense, so it felt like the characters had switched movies all of a sudden. The end was just... uncomfortable, like they couldn't figure out how to resolve it properly. (What the heck happened James Lapine?!) It felt forced and, despite obvious devices inserted to make it more positive, finished on a downer.

Despite all the negative points, it was worth seeing and am glad I saw it on the big screen. I want to see it again and I'm actually looking forward to seeing it again from an enjoyment point of view and not just a pick-it-to-pieces point of view. I would have been exceptionally proud to be on this production if I were in the crew and overall am glad this movie was made.

French poster for Into The Woods

I'm going to notch it up as a good things for fairy tales in general!

Into The Woods Bonus of the Day:

Here's a brand new Into The Woods featurette, just released today (January 2nd), discussing the designing of the Woods, as well as what The Woods mean in fairy tales and to each character. It's a really neat one, worth watching!

Fairy Tale Extra of the Day:

While at the theater I saw TWO very different, fairy tale trailers:

1) Disney's live action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh and

2) A completely revamped Jupiter Ascending trailer, which is, essentially, a sci-fi retelling of Snow White.

Re Cinderella, I hated it. Yes. That's right. I thought it was awful! Everything except Cate Blanchett, whose stepmother is EVERYTHING you want that stepmother to be. She alone may make it worth seeing. The mice are a (very) distant second pro and Cinderella is my reason NOT to see it. Yes, it's just a trailer, but it's the first time I've seen it in total (and so large). It looks more Disney than the animated movie does! (And I don't mean that in a good way.) I'm hoping this is just the marketing tactic, following the current revived perfect-princess-trend but... My skeptic hat is firmly on my head regarding this remake now (and I had such hopes).

Jupiter Ascending's new marketing approach (and greatly delayed release from July LAST year to the end of February) doesn't show much of the Snow White tale at all. But it looks like a better film than we were originally expecting. The big question is, if it holds as much of Snow White as it used to.
I'll guess we'll find out...

Detail: Into the New Year By Way Of "The Woods" (Movie Review!)

0 Aussies 'n' Fairy Tales Week: Debra Phillips, Painter of Stories

You may have seen her work recently in conjunction with the AFTS conference, but not known the name of the creative woman behind this new vision of Snow White. Her name is Debra Phillips and she tells stories. But not just with words. She also tells stories with paint.

While she is a writer and is currently involved with an academic study related to storytelling and fairy tales, she also creates stories using paint and often incorporating other media as well. Be it stitching, photography, old maps or her own brushstrokes, there is always a story woven into the work.

A Grimm View of Life series: Three Little Pigs

From Ms. Phillips:

When I paint I tell myself a story about the people in the scenes, the events leading up to the scenes and the qualities of each person within the painting. For me, a painting is a story. Although it is entire in itself, there is always a story before the image and a story after the image.  Decades ago when I painted the series of saints, I also wrote on the back a short story about the life of the saint (either imagined or real). 

A Grimm View of Life series: Goldilocks and porridge

What you seeare some of her intriguing paintings, exploring familiar fairy tales in a new ways, something, she says, is bring influenced by her current academic research and study, with an emphasis on the notion of time experienced in fairy tales and how they can transform to become a distinct narrative about an imagined future.

But that's not all she does.

A Grimm View of Life series: Snow White and rotten to the core

In the past, Ms. Phillips could often be found writing stories for friends by request, often with the purpose of commemorating a specific and special life event (birth, wedding etc). Over time, she began to include water colors, collages or photographs she had created. At some point she added stitching and the concept of her unique brand of hand crafted books was born.

Detail from a mixed-media collage

Story writing has overtaken my self and my life. There is always a tension between the desire to write and the desire to paint. Sometimes the paintings emerge from writing and sometimes the story comes from seeing a theme running through paintings or collage images. 

Fairy story themes are a constant thread running through all the stories. Some fairy stories are obvious and others are hidden in the other themes of the story. All my stories are about the human condition, especially its frailties and it’s complex relationships.

As you can see at the head of the post, Ms. Phillips had the honor of being the cover artist for the AFTS Inaugural Conference program this year. She also attended and, along with everyone else, has been reported as being both delighted and inspired by the papers and presentations of all kinds.Which can only mean one thing: we should be seeing more from Ms. Philips very soon.  

A Grimm View of Life series: Snow White & Rose Red have the wolf at their feet

In the meantime, she has a small website with a few examples of her work HERE, including a fascinating introduction to her current studies with fairytales. I look forward to seeing what Ms. Phillips does next.

Detail: Aussies 'n' Fairy Tales Week: Debra Phillips, Painter of Stories

0 "Snow White and the Huntsman 2" Gearing Up, Hunting for Different Director

There has been interest in Snow White and the Huntsman 2 ever since the first movie. (You can see a previous post HERE.) There's been at least one script, Kristen Stewart is definitely attached and apparently Chris Helmsworth is also contractually obligated to return to reprise his role as the Huntsman as well (which will help the movie enormously).

The directors rumored to being considered are an interesting bunch, (original director Rupert Sanders is not among them) suggesting that they're working on making this it's own - hopefully decent - movie, rather than (just) a money-spinner sequel.

From Deadline this past week:

 Universal is getting down to finding a helmer for Snow White And The Huntsman 2. I’m hearing the shortlist consists of Frank Darabont,Gavin O’Connor and Andy Muschietti. 

...This is an intriguing group of filmmakers. Darabont, after helming The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, hatched The Walking Dead and helped forge it into cable TV’s top-rated drama before getting fired. He hasn’t helmed a feature since 2007′sThe Mist. Then there is O’Connor, who directed the cult favorite film Warrior as well as Miracle and stepped in and saved the Natalie Portman starrer Jane Got A Gun. Then there is Muschietti, the Mama helmer who was tapped by Universal to reboot its The Mummy franchise, before he fell out of that project. 

I'll admit I'm intrigued by the idea of Frank Darabont helming and what he could bring to the film.

Universal are also pushing for a 2016 release date so we're talking about SWATH2 being on the fast track to see it happen by then (what the reality turns out to be, we shall see).

A sequel has the strong potential to be an interesting exploration of the Snow White character - possibly - but chances are we're in for more faux-medieval intrigue, politics and war rather than Enchanted Forest explorations. Still, with Maleficent doing so well and the forest and faerie being an enormous part of that movie, this may also be the reason SWATH2 has been put on the fast track. ie. want more enchanted forests? We can do that! Also, the similarities between Maleficent and Snow White and the Huntsman are most definitely present and in a way which shouldn't hurt a  SWATH sequel at this point, unless, perhaps, you look at them so specifically, like this:

Ah the power of editing! You might be surprised at just how many films you could "parallel" this way. Still, they're both "sleeper" stories and DO have many things in common, as far as fairy tales go (Heidi of SurLaLune can tell you all about it!), and it doesn't hurt that the two "queens"have been posed in similar ways either (ah Hollywood, we love you, but..!)

It could go so many ways. While I can easily imagine a premise and plot worthy of fairy tale research and exploration, unless Disney's obvious push in that direction is an influencing factor, I can't see that happening (unfortunately. It could really be quite wonderful...)

Hollywood seems a little confused at present: fairy tales = BIG! as are super heroes. Fantasy still dominates the box office when it appears - whether that be a family film or adult, so the property of Snow White and the Huntsman has a lot of options but it doesn't seem great at committing to one thing, (perhaps for fear of alienating potential audiences). I'd be very surprised, though, if they strayed completely away from fairy tale and fantasy and went into the Game Of Thrones/Reign genre (or whatever they're calling that style). That just doesn't seem like good business sense in the current climate. I guess we shall see... #moregirlsinmorearmor?

What are you looking forward to?

Me - I'd love to see more of this guy:

Detail: "Snow White and the Huntsman 2" Gearing Up, Hunting for Different Director