Skip to main content

What have you done to my beautiful self?

Maleficent
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Probably the most charitable thing one can say about Maleficent is that it’s inoffensive. Except to Sleeping Beauty’s Maleficent that is, who would likely take great exception to being thoroughly debased as a sentimentalist with a warmest of hearts beneath the cruelty and darkness. Whatever next, a cuddly Shere Khan? It might be its bland innocuousness that explains Maleficent’s unlikely success (it’s 2014’s third most popular movie worldwide), that and an evident (hitherto untapped) appetite for female-led fantasy movies. Parents probably didn’t mind taking their kids to a picture that wasn’t especially scary, didn’t last all that long, and had an easily graspable moral wedged in there (and, “It’s a love story between a mother and daughter”). But looking for reasons for its success can’t explain away that this is another empty big budget fantasy among a glut of late. There isn’t an ounce of filmmaking verve or passion, not a jot of storytelling drive, not a mote of genuine drama or conflict, or even any decent comic relief (a Disney failsafe).  The case for the defence? The cinematography is quite nice (if generic) and Angelina Jolie at least looks the part.


Ah yes, the look. I was surprised to hear that Maleficent was in development prior to Jolie’s involvement. Throughout (what seems like) a long period of development hell the one thing that seemed evident more than anything else was this was a classic example of wrong-footed reverse engineering. Some suits saw Jolie’s perfect bone structure, connected it to the Sleeping Beauty villainess, and bingo, there’s a movie. It didn’t matter that there was no story, less still that the character was evil. Maleficent looks cool. So the only option, once you wade into the pool of basing movie-making decisions on iconography alone, is that she becomes a good gal wronged. There’s the lesson to anyone hoping to see a Boba Fett movie. Even when there is back-story, delving into it tends to be doomed to failure. Didn’t anyone see what happened when they tried to explain Darth Vader?


That’s not to say there aren’t strong themes or isn't memorable imagery in the picture, but they fall flat where they aren’t relying on Sleeping Beauty itself. The evil Maleficent is basically sandwich filler, the wherefores and whys usurping what Jolie rightly references as a “deliciously evil” character. If she likes the character that much, she surely wouldn’t have become interested in “What on Earth happened to her that she would be so angry that she would curse an innocent?” 


The clear-cut fairy tale transforms into a rocky yarn about a winged faerie living in an idyllic realm who is cruelly violated by her former human beau, gets thunderous and moody for a bit (but not really all that), and then makes up with everyone. It’s ironic that Jolie wanted to retain the crucial curse dialogue from the 1959 film when its tangent is oppositional to the current telling. After all, therein Maleficent dies when a man (a dashing prince) pierces her heart with his mighty sword (if you’re looking for sexual metaphors).


Here Sharlto Copley makes for a one-note King Stefan (like his District 9 director, he becomes less impressive the more exposure he gets), served with utterly incoherent motivation. Suffice to say he becomes a materialist and the childhood attraction he felt towards Maleficent fizzles. We know this because the narration (Janet McTeer doing a commanding job; she almost makes it feel classical and worthwhile at times, but only almost) keeps stopping us to fill in the gaps. I almost have a grudging admiration for the how overtly the picture relies on telling rather than showing, and how utterly reliant it is on McTeer’s older Aurora to make sense of the story.


 So, to impress his father (to prove he is a man), he cuts off Maleficent’s wings and so inspires her turn to darkness. Metaphorically, as a number of critics have noted, Stefan rapes Maleficent. However, I'm not overly persuaded by arguments for the picture's merits on the basis on of one scene's subtext. Not when the rest of the movie is so lacking. Later, Maleficent's lost wings miraculously reattachment themselves without so much as a roll of double sided sticky tape. If we're looking for unvarnished metaphors, the humans live in a Tolkien-Mordor-esque industrialised and despoiled world, and a patriarchal one to boot, whereas the bounteous land of the Moor is presided over by feminine energy.


Short of getting Neil Jordan in to pep this up thematically and content-wise, I doubt anything could have saved Maleficent. Yet the picture clearly connected with families on some level. I mean to say, I couldn’t even accuse it of being overtly maudlin or sentimental. Jolie occasionally gets behind the menace of her character, and her cut glass English accent matches her cheekbones, but even as she gets behind her character’s regret for her deeds she laudably resists amping up the sympathy. Elle Fanning is irritatingly chirpy throughout as Aurora. She just can’t quit with that nauseating smiling, which may mean she’s playing for wholesomeness or it may mean her character is a metaphor for over-prescription of mood altering pharmaceuticals to teenagers.


The comic relief of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and Juno Temple as feckless fairies falls flat, and their character design, big heads on small bodies, borrows some of the least attractive design characteristics of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. Sam Riley is solid as the well-meaning crow-come-human Diaval. The moment where Maleficent first transforms him, and he swells from bird to man beneath a hunter’s net, is one of the very few moments in the picture that is creepy, imaginative and unsettling; the way a good fairy tale should be (metamorphoses into different creatures - including a dragon - ought to be thrilling, but they're disappointingly flat)


Dean Semler’s cinematography is fine, but this is yet another CGI world of shiny pixels and no substance (like Alice, like Oz). Debut director Robert Stromberg may have made an impression as production designer on Avatar, Alice and Oz, but he has been imbued with none of the craft and energy of those filmmakers. Maleficent maintains a deathly torpor. It has no zest (the laughs aren’t funny) and no excitement (more pixels attacking each other). Stromberg likes his widescreen, but he doesn’t inhabit it; we’re treated to little more than a series of vistas between McTeer informing us what happens next. As for James Newton Howard’s score, it’s forgettable when it isn’t insisting on a sub-Danny Elfman choral ethereality. Rick Baker’s make up for Jolie is fine, but just about everything else is familiar and forgettable.


Linda Woolverton, who slew another great children’s story with Burton’s Alice, repeats the trick here. Hollywood seems to like her though, so she’s sequelising Alice next. Just what was required. Apparently she went through 15 drafts of the Maleficent script, so God knows how bad it was initially. The only memorable dialogue comes from the original Disney animation; how undernourished is a screenplay when the protagonist/antagonist warns, “It’s over” to the villain, straight out of a contemporary action movie? 


The occasional reversal works; for example, having true love’s kiss come from Aurora’s surrogate mother rather than Brendan Thwaites’ sub-boy band prince. But the emotional beats are undeveloped so none of them play; why Stefan is such a bastard, why Maleficent develops affection for Aurora, why Aurora develops affection for Maleficent. It is so because McTeer tells us it is so.


If Maleficent comes across as a truncated and diced-up affair, that may be because it is. Hence the narration. Yet there’s little sense that we’ve lost vital parts of the story, as nothing therein feels vital. Miranda Richardson and Peter Capaldi were excised as the fairy queen and king of the Moors, which on the one hand is a shame as the picture desperately needed some good meaty thesping. On the other it would have extended a lifeless picture’s running time further.


It isn’t difficult to see why Brad Bird, Tim Burton and David Yates all passed on the project. There’s no meat on Maleficent’s bones, no emotional pulse and absolutely nothing that is deliciously cruel. What we have is the latest in a line of sub-par fairy and fantasy retellings, Last year’s Oz and Jack the Giant Slayer were as inert as this is, but didn’t do nearly as well (Jolie at least has presence; the leads in those two were nigh on inconspicuous). Snow White and the Hunstman was as misconceived as Maleficent, but at least benefited from some strong supporting actors and a first time director who, unlike here, came across as if he had something to prove. The worst aspect of Maleficent is that its success rivals Alice in Wonderland in the “That’ll do” stakes. Someone really needs to try harder, but the only place where this is happening is in animated features. At least Disney fairy tales can still be trusted in their natural habitat.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.