You are viewing chaz_tales

Next Entry


Arthur Rackham

A tangled Story.

            
Rapunzel is on our minds this month, given Disney’s release of “Tangled”. Let me push beyond the mandatory cry of “They changed it!” and answer, “Of course they did.”

            Here is one of the surprising features of fairy tales; they change. They always have. As they move through time and space they fit themselves into the surroundings they occupy.

            Example: In the Grimm version of “Queen of the Tinkers” the princess, who refuses to marry the suitors her father suggests, is obliged to marry the King of the Tinkers, and does not get to be married to a real king until she relents in her haughty ways. To bend to social norms was the proper role for early 19th century women in the Austrian Empire.

            In the contemporary Irish version, the princess doesn’t get to be married to a real king until she refuses to give up her Tinker King. In both cases the Tinker King is a real king, the reveal not coming until the end after the princess’s rightful nature is established. The story fits itself into its surroundings by adapting to that culture’s norms.

            Let’s review Rapunzel as she travels through time and space from the 19th century Austrian Empire to the 21st century United States. In Grimm’s version, Rapunzel acts at the behest of Dame Gothel, and then of the prince. For her deceit, secretly preferring the prince over Dame Gothel and planning an escape, she is banished to a desert land where she conceives two children, and raises them in hardship and poverty.  She is not released until the blinded prince discovers her. His blindness cured by her tears, he then brings her out of her travail. This Rapunzel can not act directly for her own benefit.

            Disney’s Rapunzel is trapped, but seizes an opportunity when it presents itself, and exercises much more control than her historic counterpart. Try to imagine Grimm’s Rapunzel clunking her uninvited guest on the head with a frying pan (the ‘frying pan’ motif also a modern add-on to the story). In short, she is a plucky female.  Our Disney’s Rapunzel is a more acceptable role model for current audiences than Grimm’s, despite her bent toward violence.

            “Hold on.” You should say. “Disney is a big strong corporation, but does that give them the right to screw up a story?” The simple answer is “Yep.” In Grimm’s time it was the Roman Catholic Church that got to put a Christian gloss on this story (the earlier French version was much bawdier). In our time it’s a corporation that gets to tweak it.

            Here’s my theory. The entity that gets to call the shots is the entity than can come to a consensus within itself.

In Grimm’s time that was the Roman Catholic Church. They had the coherent message. In our time there are many churches, with many messages, and despite the National Council of Churches (have you heard of them?) they do not have one voice. Our national government—well, the word coherent does not apply.  However, a corporation, or more correctly the corporate mind set, has the capacity to come to a consensus, assemble a message, and the wherewithal to get it out. I believe they call it branding. 

            My personal turmoil with the above theory is that my right brain wants to rip out my tongue for having said it. What do you think?



Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
jerrywaxler
Dec. 3rd, 2010 01:40 pm (UTC)
ah! Analysis of fairy tales, this is going to be fun
Hi Charles, I am a fan of storytelling in general, and am totally fascinated by the notion that it runs deep in human experience. (a la Joseph Campbell and the even more analytical book I am reading now by Brian Boyd about how storytelling was a crucial component of human evolution.) So I am looking forward to learning more of your extensive knowledge of the fairy tales we learned as children, and by extension are teaching our children. As for what the content of the story is and whether or not Disney has the right to fiddle with the story, let me get this straight. Are you actually asking me to think about political and economic theory this morning, and then have a clear enough thought to publicly comment? Whew!

Let's see... Well, a movie maker is a culture maker. So as all those leftists used to say, the corporations have lots of power over minds... Oh here's one. The whole world is fascinated by American culture, so it's not just power over us, but cultural power through the world... Maybe the most important bit to dialog about is your final point. Another thing we might have said in the 60's is, "Hey, don't freak yourself out man." If your blog led you to personal turmoil and ripping out your tongue, it might be a good time to step back and breathe deep. :)

Jerry
Memory Writers Network
chaz_tales
Dec. 3rd, 2010 02:48 pm (UTC)
Re: ah! Analysis of fairy tales, this is going to be fun
Hey! My very first comment. I think I'll frame it and hang it on the wall. Good point about our culture's influence over others. As angry as the world might be with our government, our culture still has some sway. My greatest annoyance is that many (in and outside our culture) will come to think the Disney version IS the Rapunzel story.
Lucy Vilankulu
Dec. 4th, 2010 04:25 pm (UTC)
Rapunzel
What you say makes sense, but I can never help being thrown by movie versions (especially Disney versions) of children's books and fairy tales. Although I enjoyed all the LOTR movies, I growled my way through all three at all of the seemingly arbitrary changes, and the changes to the plots and characters in the Narnia movies (also Disney) actually made me angry. I admit to being a purist about books, and the changes distress me because I have trouble getting my mind around the fact that a film is meant to be different from a book.

With all due respect to the filmmaker's vision (after all they are not obligated to do anything but say their film is "based" on a book or story), I suspect these changes are not driven by the filmmaker, but by marketing consultants. The plucky female has become a staple of movies and programs for kids, but are girls and women actually encouraged to be plucky in real life? Looking at our schools and workplaces, I gotta say no.

I've also noticed that while these modern film adaptations of books will remove one troublesome idea (the helpless female) they'll usually just replace it with another. For example in the movie Prince Caspian, Susan Pevensie participates in the battle of Aslan's How, which is a much more "progressive" (if historically accurate for a book written in the 1940s) role than she had in the original version. On the other hand, the Disney version cast the wicked enemy Telmarines to look like Middle Easterners, which C.S. Lewis never seemed to indicate in that book. The Calormenes are a different story, but that comes into a different book.

Don't get me started on what Usrula LeGuin had to say about the changes made in SciFi Channel's version of her legendary Earthsea Trilogy.
jongibbs
Dec. 4th, 2010 04:58 pm (UTC)
Welcome to LJ, Charles :)

As for Tangled, or any other fairy tale, I'm firmly in the 'So long as it turns out good, I don't care what they change' camp ;)
kathryncraft
Dec. 4th, 2010 05:00 pm (UTC)
My first live theater
A trip down memory lane: Rapunzel was the first live theater I ever saw. Adding to the magic: It was in a theater I'd only ever known as a movie theater, so when the screen was raised I was shocked at the hidden space I hadn't known existed! It's where Rapunzel and her amazing long braid were kept locked up!

I guess you won't be covering Pocahontas here, since it's not a fairy tale. I usually defend Disney because the company has entertained me so through the years but please: show me one American Indian whose measurements are 36 (DD no less)-18-34! My six-year-old son asked me for the Disney Pocahontas doll that Christmas, and being the equal opportunity kind of mom I am, I got it for him. He ripped off her buckskin dress to check her out, then tossed her to the bottom of the toy chest.

I look forward to following your blog, Chaz.
Mary Grace Ketner
Dec. 4th, 2010 06:20 pm (UTC)
"Real" versions of fairy tales
Congratulations on a compelling blog post and, especially, on your commitment to do it again next month. I take that very personally, and I love it!

I haven't yet seen TANGLED, but someone has said that the shame is not that Disney changes the story, but that Disney is America's ONLY storyteller. If all of us were telling the stories to our children and to each other, we'd be intrigued by the variations instead of complaining about them. We'd have more to think about than just whether or not the tale is "accurate." We each have the power to change a story, to enrich it for our particular listeners, to make it more meaningful in our time and place. An oral story cannot do otherwise but evolve in our hearts and hands.

Even the Grimm's version evolved. In its first incarnation of 1812, Rapunzel notices that her dress fits tighter, and Mother Gothel realizes that Rapunzzel is pregnant, whereby someone besides herself must have been entering the tower. In true Victorian style, the 1850s Grimm's version does not mention pregnancy; instead, Rapunzel foolishly asks why it is that the prince is so much lighter to pull up than the enchantress!

I am curious to see how TANGLED addresses the "girl in the tower" issue common to teenage girls in Grimm's day as in ours: that their parents won't let them go out into the world, won't let them see boys, don't trust them to run their own lives.
ootwoods
Dec. 4th, 2010 08:31 pm (UTC)
Fairy tales?
They have always, since day one, been morality plays. As the common sense of what equates to "moral behavior" changes, so does the behavior of those operating within those moral confines.

I refuse to jump on the "I hate Disney" bandwagon. Period tales would terrify people. It was "You will do this, or you will die/burn/suffer/whatever". Disney managed to take that and slightly skew it to "If you do the right thing, you will prosper". Leading with the carrot, rather than the switch.

He made moral plays more attainable to people in a more modern age, in a way that totally removed the "actor" (and the roles he/she had previously played) from the story.

That said, the original movies were NOT for a "G rated" audience. Go watch Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. There are some dreadful, terrifying moments in those films. In Bambi you didn't see the fatal shot. In Lion King you did. These movies have both coarsened, from a viewer standpoint, as well as becoming more accessible to younger audiences (see, also, the change in animation styles to less realistic, more children's cartoon appearance.)

That said, these tales must evolve. I suspect most of the "viewing public" does not make the connection to the Church, as you mentioned, in your initial post. So it has to be moved forward to something people can now identify with. Wall-E is a perfect example. It's "the corporations/people" rather than "the evil Queen" who is the bad guy, because few people who are buying/seeing Disney Movies today, have any metric against which to gauge an "evil queen".

Thanks for the article. I really enjoyed it.
e_r_e_n_e_t_a
Dec. 4th, 2010 08:49 pm (UTC)
Charles, I'm certain the Roman Catholic Church had a coherent message and a broad cultural influence on many stories, including this one, but I have to disagree with you on when that happened.

Though earlier versions of Rapunzel may have been bawdier, the addition of Rapunzel's pregnancy and the prince's punishment showed up a century before the Grimm's collected the tale, in the "Persinette" version set down by Madamoiselle La Force in France (a Catholic country).

By the time the Brothers Grimm collected this story, the Protestant Reformation had been going on in Germany for two centuries... and the Grimms themselves came from a Calvinist family (don't recall that they were raised in a religious setting but both their grandfather and great grandfathers were Calvinist pastors). I would suggest that Protestant influences --and their desire to sell more "child-friendly" books would have a greater impact on their choices of how to tone down the story (which they did, if you compare their 1812 and their 1857 version... the first being aimed at scholars, the latter aimed at children).

Looking forward to more posts on fairy tales!

--Tim
joetrinkle
Dec. 5th, 2010 10:35 pm (UTC)
Well Put
Kudos for starting a blog, Chaz. It's well overdue.

Since the beginning of time, the story has been in the mouth of the storyteller, so I don't see why this one should be any different. I've been known to utter many a sigh while watching a Hollywood retelling of one of my favorite stories, but I'm still happy to see them on the big screen.

Perfect example: Beowulf (the 2007 CGI version). I complained inwardly throughout the entire film at the reckless abandon with which the plot was altered. Yet, at the end I thought, "At least Beowulf made it back onto the screen and into the brains of a new generation. The general idea is still there." Sometimes, it would seem, these things are a compromise.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )