Maleficent is Disney’s effort to delve deeper into the backstory of their most iconic villain (apparently) from the 1959 classic Sleeping Beauty. The film shows her beginnings as an innocent fairy, the most powerful amongst the Moor people, and their protector. At a young age, she falls in love with a human before ultimately suffering immense betrayal and hurt. This leads to her seeking revenge against the man who becomes ruler of the neighboring human kingdom. Her retribution manifests in the placing of a curse upon his newborn daughter, that upon reaching the age of 16, she shall prick her finger on a spinning wheel and fall into an eternal sleep. Her heart turned to stone, she follows the life of this young girl as she is raised under the protection of her three fairy Godmothers and finds herself regretting her evil actions as the conflict between the human and Moor Kingdom escalates and the King seeks vengeance against Maleficent.
Maleficent is another in the long line of films looking at a classical tale with an alternate spin or perspective. Think Snow White and the Huntsman, a visually darker and more striking rendition of a classic tale muddling the distinction between good and evil. It is also likely prompted by the success of stage musical Wicked, which portrayed the Wicked Witch of the West in a more sympathetic likeness, akin to Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great and Powerful. It is an interesting tactic, perhaps in some cases telling a story people didn’t know they wanted to hear, but more likely the result of an unimaginative cash grab. We have an earlier insight into the childhood of Maleficent, a betrayal (more on that later), sudden turn to evil and then a retelling of the original Sleeping Beauty, but with a lot of poetic license.
Visually, it is a garish overload. Robert Stromberg, in his first directorial work, is better known for his production work on Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and the aforementioned Oz the Great and Powerful. The connection visually is obvious, think the Disneyfication of Avatar. Inspiration from those, throw in a bit of Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean. There are some impressive uses of CGI, but nothing original or memorable. Oh, and again the 3D adds NOTHING to the film.
Angelina Jolie is the centerpiece of the project, though. Yes, even in film, Mrs. Jolie-Pitt just can’t seem to stay away from a child in need. For the most part she is alone and brooding in reflecting on her pain and anger. Her performance has a touch of pantomime and sprinkle of evil menace, perhaps akin to her turn in Beowulf. There are two haunting scenes that remind you what a commanding screen presence she can be. A mention must be made for Sharlto Copley who as King Stefan has crafted a villain with one of the worst accents (Scottish/South African mashup) to ever hit the big screen. He’s certainly unlikeable, as is certainly the point, but his actions early in the film push him from a bad guy into a truly detestable character.
Elle Fanning is bland as Princess Aurora, very undeveloped which is an impressive feat seeing as a huge portion of the film follows her growing up. In fact most of the cast are pretty one dimensional fairy tale-esque characters, and this is somewhat cheekily acknowledged at one point in regards to Prince Charming, but can for the most part be extended to the rest of the cast. The exceptions are Tilda Swinton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville, who understand the project they’re in and playup the slapstick nature with a real warmth and charm. Also, Sam Riley is solid as Diaval, the (now) human form of Maleficent’s Raven companion. Probably the only clever twist on the original tale
What brings us full circle to my original comment about a “cash grab” stands true. What makes a villain great is that you can hate them, unabashedly. Is it wise to undermine that? Do you WANT to sympathize? Quirks, relentlessness, unpredictability, insanity and more are traits that have defined the greatest villains. Does humanizing them actually help? Should they have done it is the first question, second, did they do it the right way. In the case of Maleficent it is more the latter that has stuck with me. The plot device to create a sympathetic side to Maleficent is a shocking one. The rest of this section contains mild spoilers of the first 15 minutes of the film but nothing more.
As a young fairy, Maleficent soars across the Moor land on her wings, obviously full of joy at this ability. She encounters the young Stefan, and over 10 years their friendship grows, deepens and they fall in love. After this time, sensing a opportunity to elevate himself to ruler in his home Kingdom, he betrays her. To remove her as a threat and allow the conquering of the Moors, he drugs her and while she sleeps, cuts off her wings.
Let me recap that for you, 10 years of friendship, trust and love, and he drugs her and physically violates her. Maleficent goes from being just a villain to one who is perhaps defined by a man, his violation changes her path, her focus, her life. Is he worth it? No. He is portrayed as a weak, scheming sniveling type. It demeans her. She even changes the nature of her infamous curse on the child to tie in more with her own betrayal, an ironic twist for the father.
The rest of the film has a frivolous, weird pantomime feel, this is tonally jarring with it being book ended by two egregious acts of violence against a woman. The first her initial violation and the second similarly disturbing, the symbolism of Maleficent being “bound in a ring of iron” and beaten is a tad on the nose. Choosing to “turn” Maleficent this way gives the entire film a weird rape subtext. I am sure there are many younger viewers who will not understand or make such connections, but I could not shake the seriousness of the violation. There is no emotional high or low that follows matching its intensity. The harrowing wail as Maleficent awoke to find her wings removed by the man she loved permeates every act that followed.
Maleficent is an interesting effort but lacks any real enchantment. While somewhat of a spectacle visually, it is overloaded which only serves to highlight the real lack of substance in the film. Jolie is a presence, when allowed to be but the character she has crafted is often at odds with the Disney legacy as well as the new origins portrayed here. The nature of how a once innocent and benevolent creature is turned into something darker carries with it many disturbing tones and themes that most of the younger viewers will unlikely notice let alone comprehend. The film certainly achieves what it sets out to do, casting Maleficent in a more sympathetic light, but I’m not sure it went the right way about it. Many will simply be content to enjoy the ride (in as much as one can when dealing with violence against women), others will find themselves pondering the disturbing subtext, rather than any real cinematic accomplishments.
