Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Maleficent Doesn't Get Her Due

In one my previous posts, Maleficent ranked number four. My interest in the movie fluctuated as May 30th approached. Disney villains are generally very flat or one dimensional, but Maleficent has great potential for additional depth. The basic narrative archetype allows for more complexity. Sadly, like Godzilla, this film didn’t meet my expectations. IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genre(s): Fantasy, Action

Concept:
Maleficent is a retelling of a retelling. Disney’s reconstruction of the French fairy tale works for kids, but simplicity doesn't satisfy for adults. Not all re-creations are successful. The 1996 film adaptation of Will Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet was disastrous. That film should be ground up into dust and forgotten. Other films fall into the same category; however, I remain excited about the reinvention of stories. Maleficent and her world offers significant expansion potential. Humanity’s kingdom has a companion, a land filled with magic creatures called the Moors. A fragile peace keeps creatures and people in separate lands, stemming from a history of bloody conflicts. We see moments in Maleficent’s life that shape and mold her villainous actions. A meaningful relationship with princess Aurora as her “fairy god mother” adds narrative complexity unexplored by Disney’s animated adaption. This film had potential to being a truly fascinating story. Characters:
Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), the ever familiar villain. I was expected her to fill the traditional role and nothing else. However, Maleficent’s complexity emerges through two distinct paths. A Hero who defends the Moors from the greed of humans, betrayed by a close friend causing her hatred grow unhindered. Lack of motivation was Maleficent’s greatest character weakness, evil for evil’s sake is not compelling. Revenge and Betrayal aren’t original, but they work well enough. Yet, Maleficent’s being is never completely evil. She grows attached to Aurora, spending most of her time watching over the child. It’s a refreshing redesign, but she never steps out of “new” and into engaging.

Stefan (Sharlto Copley) is the only human Maleficent ever trusted and the future king. Unfortunately, that’s where the character description stops. Stefan resembles a maguffin rather than a character. His motivations make sense, but his purpose culminates in moving the plot forward.

Aurora/Sleeping Beauty (Elle Fanning) is Stefan’s only daughter. Due to the blessings of the three other fairies, her natural beauty, intelligence and grace could melt the hardest of hearts. Aurora’s character develops almost as much as Maleficent. The girl brings her back from hatred, reigniting hope for human and Moor coexistence. Innocence embodies itself in Aurora. She provides a stark contrast to Maleficent’s dour mood. Scenes with the two together are enjoyable. Author’s note: Dakota’s younger sister being in a movie at all makes me feel very old.

Diaval (Sam Riley), a crow who owes his life to Maleficent. Through her powers, he takes on the form of many creatures; my favorite being a dragon. While remaining loyal, Diaval does provide a moral voice of restraint. I liked this because Diaval keeps the spirit of his character in Disney’s adaptation.
Story:
Concept and certain characters are strong, but story is the weakest link. I hoped Maleficent would give one of the most renowned Disney villains a deserved background and character depth. Sadly, that didn’t happen. It’s a struggle to find positive elements of the plot because there are so few of them. Conical events are included—certain characters are slide-lined while others take a paramount role—but nothing radically different. I blame the screen writer Linda Woolverton. She wrote the Lion King and it shows.
World building and a plot without loose ends are two elements of a successful story. On both fronts, this films falls short. Compared to Disney’s version, this adaptation presents an expanded universe; however, not a well-constructed universe. The previous King tried to invade the Moors to take their “riches.” Maleficent and friends defend their kingdom, furthering division between each race. Humans are greedy and magic creatures are innocent, that’s too one-sided. Besides Aurora and prince Philip—who barely makes an appearance at all—no humans are good. This situation makes Maleficent an extra sympathetic character; her wickedness derives from their hatred, a reactionary revenge. World design to build up a character portrayal is poor writing and lacking in the necessary complexity for conflict to be believable. Stefan’s betrayal and character progression are predictable.
The second problem manifests at the end, a complaint I make far too often. Aurora can bridge the Moors and humans together through an unexplained method. Unfortunately, events unroll in a fashion that leaves Maleficent’s solution with many loose ends. For a kids movie like Frozen or Tangled, these over-sights aren’t a problem. However, Maleficent should be a movie for adults, but the story isn’t written that way.
Despite my vast description of the film’s failings, there are positives. Similar again to Frozen, True Love’s Kiss appears in an unexpected way. The fairies who take care of Aurora are amusing to watch. Angelina does an excellent of portraying Maleficent which sells the show. Lands of the Moors looks fantastic and creature design is rather unique.
Score: 6/10
What a wasted opportunity. Maleficent suffers more from what it lacks rather than it’s current flaws. If you’re looking for kid friendly movie, go forth and conquer. The rest of us will hold our breathe for truly great adaptation.
Find me on Facebook or on Twitter

No comments:

Post a Comment

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.