Sunday, April 15, 2012

Disney's "Tangled"

imdb.com

I recently watched Disney's Tangled with my little cousins who absolutely loved it. I have to say, I loved it as well. I went into it with low expectations about their accuracy to the Grimms' tale "Rapunzel", so I wasn't let down when the story was hardly similar to the one that I love so much. As with all Disney films, an avid fan of the "original" story can expect to find only the basic premise in the Disney version. This can be said for Tangled. 


So today, I thought that I would not do a lengthy review, but a brief discussion of the differences between the film and the earlier story, for fun more than anything!

Below is a list of the major differences between the movie and the Grimm version. The normal font represents the movie, the italics represent the story.


  • Rapunzel's parents are royalty.
  • Rapunzel's parents are peasants.

  • Rapunzel's mother eats a sorceress' yellow flower, created by a drop of sunlight, that can cure any illness. The sorceress is using this flower as a source of eternal youth.
  • imdb.com
  • Rapunzel's mother eats a sorceress' rapunzel lettuce out of her garden without permission, hence the name "Rapunzel".


  • The sorceress steals Rapunzel away from her castle at night.
  • imdb.com
  • Rapunzel's father gives her to the sorceress to repay the debt he incurred by stealing her lettuce for his wife.


  • A ruffian finds Rapunzel in the tower and she bribes him in order to get him to take her out of the tower.
  • A prince finds Rapunzel, asks her to marry him, and is building up resources to sneak her out of the tower.


From the point that a man enters the tower, the stories diverge onto two paths. Disney's Rapunzel leaves the tower with Flynn, the before-mentioned ruffian, and follows a path of self-discovery accompanied by a pet chameleon, a handsome guy, and, oh, magical hair.
In the Grimm version of the story, the sorceress discovers that the prince has been in the tower and banishes a PREGNANT Rapunzel to a desolate land. The prince throws himself out of the tower in grief and is blinded by thorns on the way down. He wanders for years before he finds Rapunzel again by chance.
The two stories use the same grand finale: Rapunzel's magical tears. In the movie, her tears save Flynn's life. In the Grimm story, they give her prince back his site... just in time to meet his twin children.

Overall, this story was a successful reinvention of the Grimms' tale. Disney did what they had to do to make the Grimms' racy story appropriate for children. They took the basic characters and premise and entirely changed the tone by adding more likable characters, a stronger female protagonist, sing-a-longs, and animal pals.

Do I think the tone change and predictable additions cheapen the story? Yes, I do. However, the Disney vs. Grimm discussion is best saved for another day. Maybe next time?

Grimms' Girl

Rockin' "Red" Videos


Check out these two videos I found while looking for modern interpretations of "Little Red Riding Hood"! 

The first video depicts the story line of the Grimm Brothers' "Little Red Cap". It follows the story very closely with just minor changes to the ending. The huntsman in this video shoots the wolf, while in the story he just cuts it open while it is asleep to rescue Red and Grandmother and then the three of them sew rocks back into the wolf's stomach which kills it when it wakes up and tries to move.


SlagsmÄlsklubben - Sponsored by destiny from Tomas Nilsson on Vimeo.

This second video has beautiful animation and a fantastic soundtrack. It's approach to the story is much darker and uses a lot of creative license with the retelling. The most interesting part to me is the appearance of the red hood and the way this story suggests that the girl wears it out of honor and respect for her grandmother. It definitely brings out the more sinister nature of the story and the badass version of Red that it creates is really cool.



Are there any more rockin' short film interpretations of fairy tales that I'm missing out on?! 

Saturday, April 7, 2012

NBC's "Grimm" Has a Grim Future Ahead




The following is NBC’s description of its new hit television series Grimm:

Grimm is a new drama series inspired by the classic Grimm's Fairy Tales. Portland homicide Detective Nick Burkhardt (David Giuntoli, "Turn The Beat Around") discovers he is descended from an elite line of criminal profilers known as "Grimms," charged with keeping balance between humanity and the mythological creatures of the world.

From the very first episode, I was disappointed. Essentially, the Grimm brothers are completely out of the picture and their last name is used as a word to describe someone who fights mythological creatures that are very loosely inspired by the original Grimm tales. However, that was the least of my disappointments. I was mostly disgusted with the way the writers chose to incorporate mythological creatures that are part human, part monster.

The Grimms’ story collection is full of stories that had been orally passed down from ancient mythology in which strange creatures abounded, yes. But, they morphed into the tales that the Grimms collected from German mothers and grandmothers. They became morality tales, tales to warn their children about the consequences of misbehaving or not using common sense. When animals were used, they were usually for the purpose of representing an animalistic nature, specific character traits, or suggesting how they looked. It did not mean that the creature in the story was half-human, half-animal, or even fully personified animals. These morality stories had practical aspects back then as they still do today and they could easily have been played out realistically in this cop show and been even more creepy and attention-getting than what they are now.

I watched all twelve of the episodes that had been aired when I looked them up online. Out of these twelve, I sadly only enjoyed three of these episodes: "The Pilot", "Bears Will Be Bears", and "Organ Grinder". Why did I like these and not the others? I liked them because they did a good job of telling a believable story without depending on disgusting mutant creatures. These episodes could have been fantastic had they simply done away with the “creatureness.” 


I am from here onward choosing to discuss the episodes that I did enjoy rather than attempt to dive into the sea of things that I hated about the rest of the episodes which weigh so heavily on lame invention that the small illusions of Grimm stories just don't do enough to give the show any credibility.

nbc.com
For example, in the pilot episode, which covered the story “Little Red Cap”, the “wolf” going after young girls could have just been a pedophile/stalker picking up young girls, raping and killing them. He did not need to actually be part monster (in the show he is called a Blutbaat). The elimination of this monster identity would have benefited the story tremendously. It would have become more realistic and thus creepier, and would have been much closer to having the same purpose of the original version of the story. That is, warning young girls about dangerous men who would be on the lookout to get them. The subtle detail hinting to the fairy tale would have been enough to keep interest; the red jackets, running through the woods, the music used, etc.

nbc.com
"Bears Will Be Bears", the second episode of the season had a very creative premise. Goldilocks, cleverly named Gilda, and her boyfriend break into a nice house in the woods for their sexual thrills, but they choose the wrong people to mess with. The family of “bears” (called Jagerbars in the show) is part of a very ancient Germanic ancestry and has a coming-of-age ceremony called a Roh-Hatz that the son is about to take part in. It involves capturing a victim, letting them run, and then chasing them to their death. Unfortunately, Gilda and her boyfriend are the chosen victims. This story would have been just as believable without the family having to morph into ridiculous looking “Jagerbars”. The amount of references to Germanic ancestry, the German language, and the clever interpretation of Goldilocks’ escapades would have been a strong enough foundation for this fairy-tale interpretation.

nbc.com
My favorite episode, and possibly the most disturbing, is "Organ Grinder". It is a more recent episode and covers the tale “Hansel and Gretel”. The two German fairy-tale children abandoned by their parents who cannot afford to feed them anymore are here turned into homeless teens living on the streets. The witch who cooks and eats children is here turned into a group of creatures called Geiers and their scheme to sell human body parts by pulling homeless children off the street and operating on them. The human body parts are being sold in a black market as aphrodisiacs from the Geiers to all sorts of other creatures. The show twists a perfectly good story into one that incorporates their sci-fi monsters. The plot line would have been just as good without any creatures involved at all. The human body parts could have been sold for transplants; it is as simple as that. The rest of the episode is based solidly in the original Grimm tale.

Overall, I predict this show to end after one season, maybe two. It gained a huge audience at the beginning because of what it claimed to be, a show based on the Grimm brothers and their tales. However, as the show goes along it gets farther and farther from that claim and the foundation of the show gets weaker and weaker. I would hope that the audience could see through the cheap thrills and weak plot-line of this show, but on the other hand, society today seems to love anything that comes easy as long as there is a cute actor in the lead. *sigh*
                                                                                    
Grimms’ Girl