Disclaimer: This is a review, and as such will contain opinions, spoilers and (often) general shit talking. (If you talk about what you don’t like about a work, you learn a lot. When you think through a work with the stakes presented to you by the creator, by the context of the work, you learn a lot. I review things, not because I love to dislike things, but because dislike contains rich and vital information for the process of experiencing something, but I cannot access it without interrogating it.) So, if you don’t want to have this thing spoiled for you, or don’t know how to behave when a person on the internet, that you don’t know, has opinions that don’t line up with yours, this review is not for you. It’s also not for the author/creator of the work. Please and thank you.
Okay, I’ve recently (re)watched both Maleficent (2014) and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) so now’s a good time to write down some thoughts about this whole reworking the original story.
Based on Sleeping Beauty from 1959 (as opposed to its animated counterpart), Maleficent the remakes (so far we’ve got #1 and #2, while #3 has been teased) is on the live action remake bus Disney has been running in recent years.
Some of it good, some of it bad, and a lot of it downright boring.
The problem with Disney these days, is that they don’t seem to trust themselves as storytellers or their audience, and has a tendency to over-simplify (to the point of idiotic) and then over-explain (which is pointless when it’s already dumbed down).
This often, especially with fairytales or re-tellings, includes a bloated prologue where a Narrator introduces a world and setting we’re by-and-large already familiar with – not that the fairytales based on medieval Europe need that much explaining as they’ve become the default backdrop in the fantasy genre.
And to enable this, the story usually starts way too early, meaning we get to sit through a good 10-20 minutes of Being Handheld Through The Obvious.
Yes, I accept that even the remakes are made for a young audience that does requires some hand-holding through both plot and emotional beats, but if we never challenge them, they’ll never learn to catch on by themselves.
On some level I fear that Disney is falling prey to the same context collapse the rest of us are, but as storytellers we should resist that at all costs.
Giving in to the context collapse and dumbing everything down so no one ever even gets a chance to use their brain is only detrimental.
Audiences today, with modern technology, are already a lot less literate than audiences of the past.
Let me explain.
If we took out colour and sound from modern films, they’d largely be very difficult to interpret, because we rely on narration, dialogue and music to tell us a lot about what we’re watching.
If we look at old silent films, you can immediately see how much the medium itself relies on a clear performance from the actors for it to make any sense – and even then we’ve got the scene descriptions that pop up in between and music to interpret what’s going on.
If we go back even further, and I’m talking Shakespearean plays and to the court of the Sun King aka Louis XIV of France where ballet was born, audiences were a lot more literate in reading body language and theatrical gestures.
In silent art, miming has long been a critical skill, and audiences used to be a lot better versed in reading what actors or dancers were saying on stage than we are today.
Miming is a whole language unto itself and can be used as a parallel form of storytelling to immerse the viewer even deeper into the story (sometimes even to contradict for comedic relief).
If you’d like to get a better understanding of the purpose of mime, this breakdown from The Australian Ballet covers the basics.
And if you want to see pantomime in ballet in action, The Royal Opera House has this brilliant demonstration from Swan Lake.
But I don’t think that audiences have lost the widespread understanding of these more subtle and nuanced forms of storytelling because they wanted to.
They’ve simply fallen out of general use as we’ve moved ever closer to the action with films being able to put us almost on the scene of the action.
What I’m saying is, the audience’s capacity for understanding hasn’t decreased, we’ve simply made less use of it as storytelling technology has evolved.
I’m sure someone will also argue that the human attention spans are less than a goldfish’s these days, and that no one has the patience to sit through challenging material because of it.
But as I’ve said before, your focus is what you train it to be, and while grabbing attention on social media is an enormous challenge, people don’t sit down to watch a movie or crack open a book with the intent of walking away from it in the first three seconds.
But I’m straying really far off the path here.
I can’t talk about the remakes without touching on the magnificent villainy of Maleficent herself.
Maleficent, named so because the adjective means “to do evil or harm”, was animated by Marc Davis, who also animated Aurora in Sleeping Beauty.
In the character design, the standard depictions of hags and witches were summarily dismissed in favour of creating a sinister and elegant beauty, a vain femme fatale.
According to Davis himself, Maleficent “was designed like a giant vampire bat to create a feeling of menace”.
Maleficent is a malevolent faerie and self-proclaimed Mistress Of All Evil, an incarnation of pure evil, which is fuelled by two things: ego and a power trip.
I’m not overstating it when I say that Maleficent is one of the most iconic Disney villains ever.
I adore her.
She has evil creatures at her beck and call, she curses a baby simply because she wasn’t invited to the christening, she can turn into a dragon and call on the powers of hell to aid her.
And she’s charismatic as hell. Plus, she has a pet raven, Diaval, as an accomplice.
Maleficent originally had no backstory, she was a force of evil that humanity simply had to live with. In the context of Sleeping Beauty, this is all she needs to be, because it’s a classic tale of good against evil.
But, as Disney has been inclined in recent years, villains need a Tragic BackstoryTM which aims to elicit sympathy and explain why they’re evil.
As someone who absolutely loves villains, I’ve written before about why I don’t think that’s always necessary (or necessarily even interesting), so I won’t get into it here.
I do think that in the case of Maleficent the remakes, we’ve got a bit of a mix bag. A lot of it’s good though.
Really good.
Let me run through this awesome female-first-but-less-talked-about history of the character.
Maila Nurmi was a camp icon of the 1950s, and best known for her character Vampira, who was the first horror host on telly.
And Nurmi wanted to bring Morticia Addams to television.
As Nurmi describes it: “I kept the the black dress, and I kept the black hair, and the pale skin. I became a vampire. I was a vampire, all right, but I added the bondage and discipline thing to it. I thought sex and death, that’s a good combination”.
In 2014, Nurmi’s journals turned up entries describing sessions with Walt Disney in November of 1956, and when Disney produced archival documents corroborating Nurmi’s participation as a live-action reference model, the long-standing rumours of Nurmi’s involvement in creating Maleficent were finally confirmed.
And, as if that wasn’t cool enough, the most current rendition of Maleficent pulls stylistically from Lady Gaga’s Born This Way music video.
The album of the same name, played with everything from prosthetics and blunt bangs to BDSM-esque leather and denim, and it was all about liberation and self-empowerment as translated through religion, sexuality and feminism.
So, do I love Maleficent even more because of all this history? Fuck yes.
And Angelina Jolie does not disappoint.
As a woman in this long matrilineal line, she serves.
I especially love it that she takes her time with action and dialogue, imbuing Maleficent with this observant, mother-sees-all aura that quietly (but not silently) radiates menace and female rage and a broken heart and wary love all in one.
And that toothy grin has me on the floor every time, it’s so good.
The Maleficent remakes draw more from old faerie beliefs.
And I really appreciate this, because this film has a strong respect for this history.
The world and premise draw heavily from old world beliefs about fae folk.
In many ancient cultures, including those of Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, and Celtic regions, there was a widespread belief in supernatural beings that inhabited the natural world alongside humans.
Faeries were often seen as nature spirits, closely associated with natural landscapes such as forests, meadows, and bodies of water.
They were believed to dwell in these places and have the ability to manipulate related natural phenomena.
Many cultures believed in the existence of parallel realms or dimensions where fairies lived.
These realms were often described as invisible or hidden to human perception but accessible through certain means such as fairy rings, ancient burial mounds, enchanted doorways, or at times during the year when the veil between the human and faerie world thinned.
Sometimes fae folk interacted with humans, in mischievous or benevolent ways.
They were believed to play tricks on humans, steal food or household items, or even kidnap humans and replace them with changelings.
In some traditions, fairies were closely associated with seasonal celebrations and rituals, particularly those marking the changing of the seasons or agricultural cycles.
Offerings and rituals were performed to appease the fairies and ensure good fortune.
Due to the belief in fairies’ potential for mischief, various protective measures were taken to ward off their influence.
These measures included leaving out offerings such as milk or honey, wearing protective charms or amulets, or avoiding certain places or activities associated with fairy activity.
In ancient cultures, people lacked scientific understanding of natural phenomena and sought to explain the world around them through mythology, folklore, and religious beliefs.
The faerie mythology is no different.
And the faerie folk served as explanations for many aspects of the natural world, such as…
- Unexplained natural events – storms, floods, or earthquakes – were sometimes attributed to the actions of supernatural beings like fairies. For example, a particularly fierce storm might be seen as the result of fairies expressing their anger or displeasure.
- Crop failures or poor harvests were often seen as the work of fairies or other nature spirits. Offerings and rituals were performed to appease these beings and ensure a successful harvest. And a share of a successful harvest was often presented to the fae folk in hope of continued good harvests.
- In that same vein, seasonal changes and weather patterns were often also associated with nature spirits or fairies, and offerings were performed to ensure good weather for planting or harvesting, or to end poor bouts of weather.
- In some cultures, fairies were believed to have influence over fertility and childbirth. Women would sometimes leave offerings or charms to fairies in the hopes of ensuring a healthy pregnancy and safe delivery.
- In some cultures, illness and disease has been attributed to the actions of malevolent fairies or spirits. Folk remedies and protective measures were often employed to ward off these supernatural influences.
- When objects went missing or were lost, it was common to attribute their disappearance to fairies or other mischievous spirits. Rituals or offerings might be made to persuade the fairies to return the lost items. This could also be applied to lost people, as in The Last Forest when a hunter goes missing.
- Generally, any unexplained or mysterious occurrences in the natural world were often attributed to the actions of supernatural beings. Fairies, in particular, (when one of the three major religions’ mythologies weren’t applied) were seen as beings with magical powers capable of influencing the world around them.
Beliefs in faerie folk and other nature spirits has provided explanations and interpretations for the uncertainties and mysteries of the natural world in ancient cultures.
These beliefs gave people comfort, meaning, and a sense of control in the face of a life that was harsh and unpredictable.
A lot of modern fae fantasy draws from Celtic folklore.
In Celtic folklore, fairies were sometimes depicted as belonging to hierarchical societies with kings, queens, and courts.
These fairy courts were believed to hold sway over the affairs of the fairy realm and occasionally interact with human affairs.
These fairy courts were believed to mirror human societies in some ways, with their own laws, customs, and hierarchies.
In Scottish mythology, the Realm of Faerie is inhabited by two types of fae: the “good” and the “wicked”.
The good faeries are members of the Seelie Court, and generally get along with humans. They play pranks but also act in a helpful fashion when they cross paths with humans. The Seelie behave in a fun-loving or “silly” way (the word silly is derived from the same root as Seelie).
But the Unseelie Court is made up of malevolent fae who are also known as the sluagh, or the Host. The Unseelie fae are cruel, and at their worst they steal the souls of unwary humans. Humans are cautioned against speaking their true name (sluagh) aloud, especially in the dark, lest the creatures think they are being summoned.
In most D&D lore, when fae are introduced, they tend to stick with the simple dichotomy of Seelie and Unseelie courts.
The division of the faeries into seasonal courts is a more modern fantasy development.
We could see Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1600) as having introduced the idea of seasonal courts, even though it doesn’t explicitly divide the fairies into seasonal courts. Instead, it depicts fairy king Oberon and queen Titania presiding over a realm where the natural world is influenced by the changing of the seasons.
The modern concept of seasonal courts of fae gained popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries with the revival of interest in folklore and the rise of fantasy literature.
Think authors like J.R.R. Tolkien, George MacDonald, and Lord Dunsany as further developing the idea of fairy realms divided into courts associated with different seasons or natural elements.
Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene (1590) is also a foundational text in the genre of English literature that helped to establish a larger literary tradition in fantasy.
The Faerie Queene is divided into several books that each examine different virtues – holiness, chastity, friendship etc. – embodying these in a corresponding knight, and was Spenser praising (and later, according to some, criticising) Queen Elizabeth I.
Anyway, I digress. Again.
My point was that the world in the live action Maleficent films draws more from this Celtic tradition and understanding of faeries, rather than leaning on the pared-down story of good vs evil of Sleeping Beauty.
The basic premise of the world in the live action Maleficent films is that the human and faerie kingdoms exist next to each other, and the conflicts in the film arise from differences and disagreements between the two.
There’s a lot of room to layer in your own interpretation of this tension – human vs faeries, men vs women or even colonisers vs the colonised.
From the very beginning of the film, we’re introduced to Maleficent as someone who just wants to live her life, without hurting anyone, but the humans (or the patriarchy in the form of Stefan) have other ideas.
Here I have to note that for her actual name to be Maleficent in the live action films is a bit of a cock-up.
I’ve seen nothing about the character that would suggest she’d see herself in such a way, or wish to be named that.
If I were to be generous, I might say that no one in the film actually speaks English (it’s simply what we, as the audience hear, for the sake of convenience) and that ‘Maleficent’ is a name in the fae tongue, which then gets applied to something in the human tongue with certain connotations that have nothing to do with the original meaning.
However, nothing in the film suggests this is the case, and it irks me that a film which tells such a strong female story, overlooked this (mostly because I love the story so much otherwise).
The films even make it clear that she is, in fact, not malevolent herself, rather that’s how the humans see her, and that she’s a woman driven to grief and extreme anguish by a man, this was a missed opportunity by the storytellers to make a stronger case for these prequels.
Anyhoo, Maleficent becomes the embodiment of the every woman ever when she falls in love with the embodiment of patriarchal ambition, and is subsequently betrayed and used.
The screaming scene. Aahh, the screaming scene.
I read somewhere that Angelina Jolie drew on the experiences of women who’ve been betrayed by those they showed kindness to, being drugged and raped in return, even by trusted friends, and it shows.
Maleficent’s pain is visceral, her screams cut right through to the pain and terror of discovering you’ve been betrayed.
This scene specifically gets at the theme of the film, which is about how that there is evil and ugliness in the world as much as there is hope and beauty.
The subversion to the original story is that the evil isn’t just Maleficent this time – in fact, both Stefan and Maleficent make poor choices, but only King Stefan refuses to turn away from them and find an alternate path.
For Maleficent finding a new way forward is the big turn for her, showing that she can turn away from choices made in pain and anger.
Diaval plays a crucial role in humanising Maleficent, saying a lot in only a few words.
Though he starts out as a willing slave for Maleficent, he has a significant amount of freedom in how he speaks to her, in how he is with her.
This shows the respect and friendship Maleficent has for Diaval, as he acts as lancer to her leader.
In Maleficent’s ultimate face-off with King Stefan, when she releases Diaval from his status as bonded servant to her, he says, “You idiot, don’t you know by now you’re not alone anymore?”
It’s subtle, but humanises Maleficent a lot.
Not to mention that it gives us a male/female relationship that develops without any sexual tension whatsoever.
The scene where they fly together, unbound by anything, would have made a great ending shot for the film.
For all its faults, this new venture into storytelling around Maleficent isn’t as bad as it could have been, yet it’s better than it should have been.
What’s clear is that what makes the film shine is Jolie’s interpretation of Maleficent, her commanding presence on screen absolutely makes you carry an interest in the rest of the story.
The film takes a lot of risks with content and themes, which helped elevate it, yet it falls short in many aspects.
Relying heavily on an audience to already be familiar with the characters and the story from before can go either way, and will often alienate those that don’t know the existing context.
You shouldn’t have to go looking elsewhere for extra notes just to understand the point the film is attempting to get across.
Maybe it would have done better with a more seasoned director, someone with a better handle on subtext, I don’t know.
I certainly wouldn’t be mad if it relied less on narration, but may just be more indicative of the targeted audience than lack of skill in storytelling.
I say this because it’s more like a YA film made for telly than a cinematic release. And that’s okay.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we need more films like this, but just done better.
But also just more of them, because even when they’re not great (think Damsel), more of them are getting made. And chances are that if there are more, more of them will turn out to be absolute gems.
Want to get more out of reading books?
Grab this FREE guide on how to start a reading journal, complete with review templates, reading trackers and bingo sheets.
Understand yourself better as a reader, engage more with the books you read & make space for creative self-expression. Get it now!
“When Sasha Barrett gets bitten by a snake on a mission, her squad captain’s quick actions not only save her life, but also make her realise something she may have known all along…“