Michael May's Blog, page 63

Keeping Fairy Tales Fluid

I've started reading The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales, edited by Maria Tatar, and something jumped out at me in her Introduction. It has to do with the advantages of oral storytelling and the dangers of canonizing specific versions in an archive.

It's great that people like Charles Perrault and the Grimm Brothers recorded versions of fairy tales for posterity, but we lose something when we sit down alone to read a story that way. Hans Christian Andersen was famous for crafting his own fairy tales, but he also loved to read existing fairy tales to children and he was quite animated about it. He put his own personality into the telling and kids loved to listen to him.

Tatar writes, "Reading these stories (in the way Andersen did) is a way of reclaiming them, turning them into our cultural stories by inflecting them in new ways and in some cases rescripting what happened." She goes on to say, "The fairy tales in (The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales) did not require editorial intervention in an earlier age, precisely because they were brought up to date by their tellers and tailored to the cultural context in which they were told."

In other words, the reason that so many earlier versions existed is because oral storytellers kept changing them based on the needs and interests of a) them as storytellers and b) their audiences. That's a "no duh" kind of statement, but the implication of it hit me in a new way. If I only know one version of "Little Red Riding Hood" from a specific book and I only tell my child that one version of the story, then I'm limiting the kind of experience he can have. Knowing other variations helps parents adapt the stories for - and more importantly, with - their kids. For instance, the fates of Cinderella's stepsisters and Little Red Riding Hood are very different from version to version, even just from Perrault to Grimm. Which is the "correct" or "true" version is up to the teller, but also the hearer.

Different hearers focus on different things from the same story. According to Tatar, Angela Carter heard "Little Red Riding Hood" and giggled when her grandmother pretended to gobble her up while telling it. Luciano Pavarotti connected to the horror of it, saying, "I identified with Little Red Riding Hood. I had the same fears as she. I didn't want her to die." Charles Dickens wrote that Red was his "first love" and that "I felt that if I could have married Little Red Riding Hood, I should have known perfect bliss." Is "Little Red Riding Hood" a thrilling adventure, a horror story, or a romance? It can be all three and more, especially if the teller is observant enough to know what the listener wants to take away from it and is willing to modify it accordingly.

When I think about this as a writer, I get a little uncomfortable with it, because it gets very close to the attitude of fan entitlement. But collaboration between teller and hearer in an oral story is different from a reader (or viewer) demanding specific details in a piece of finished art. For one thing, the collaboration in oral fairy tales is traditionally between an adult and a child. And the adult did not create the story from whole cloth to begin with. There's no sense of ownership by the teller, so when they give the story to the child, the act is all about giving the child what she wants to receive. It's a selfless act, as is so much of good parenting. It's a very different thing when a storyteller presents her story to an adult audience as a finished piece of art and the audience childishly demands something other than what they've been given. The teller/hearer agreement is not the same in both situations.

Back to fairy tales, the very act of writing them down changes the teller/hearer relationship. With a written version, the teller is no longer the parent, but the person who wrote it down. The hearer is still the hearer, but there's no way to literally change the story as it's being told. That kind of action is done internally by the hearer as she develops her own head canon. Which is the same kind of thing we do with Star Wars and Game of Thrones. It's a valid activity (within limits), but it's not the same as interacting directly with the storyteller as the story is being told.

Fourth Chair Army Invasion | Magnum PI, Season 1

Evan Hanson, Rob Graham, and I are joined by Nerd Lunch's Jeeg to talk about the original Thomas Magnum, TC, Rick, and of course Higgie Baby. We noodle over noir influences, gab about guest stars, and figure out favorite episodes. Does the show hold up? How does it compare to the new reboot? Finding out won't even cost you your tennis court privileges.

Snow White: The Fairest of Them All (2001)

Who's in it?: Miranda Richardson (Sleepy Hollow, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air, The Conjuring, Bates Motel, Godzilla: King of the Monsters), Kristin Kreuk (Smallville), Clancy Brown (Highlander, Shoot to Kill, Carnivàle), Vincent Schiavelli (The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Better Off Dead...), Michael J Anderson (Twin Peaks, Carnivàle), Warwick Davis (Return of the Jedi, Willow), and Martin Klebba (Corky Romano, Pirates of the Caribbean, Scrubs, Mirror Mirror).

What's it about?: An Everything But the Kitchen Sink version of the fairy tale.

How is it?: I almost gave up a couple of times, but finished the film out of sheer stubbornness. Miranda Richardson is pretty great as the Queen and so is Vera Farmiga as one of her disguises, but Kristin Kreuk, while heart-breakingly beautiful, is also heart-breakingly empty as Snow White. She gives nothing to the performance and there's no way for me to connect to the character.

And even though she's fun, I don't connect to the Queen either, because unlike other versions and the original fairy tale, she's not trying to hold onto what her culture values about women. There's no social commentary, she's just evil and greedy. She doesn't actually care about what the King thinks of her; she's just trying to take over the kingdom. Boring.

I guess someone could argue that that's a more feminist take, but I'd argue back that it's not, because it doesn't actually address feminist issues. And that's not even considering that the power the Queen uses in her attempted coup comes from her older brother (Clancy Brown) who I guess is a genie or something?

The genie is indicative of my biggest problem with the film, which is that it just keeps layering on random elements for no reason. Like how the prince gets turned into a bear and then shrunk and put into a snow globe. Or how the dwarfs are named after days of the week, given the corresponding personalities from the "Monday's Child" song, then color-coded so that together they make a rainbow, but then they can actually turn into a rainbow and use it to travel long distances. Any one of these things could be interesting if there was a point to it, but it's all just thrown on top of the story without any consideration for what the story becomes.

I disliked the movie, but I'd have hated it more if not for Richardson and Farmiga's clearly having fun as their versions of the Queen. And the dwarf casting was pretty great, too. In an instance where a random, unexpected detail actually worked, Vincent Schiavelli is thrown in as one of the dwarfs alongside favorites Martin Klebba, Warwick Davis, and Michael J Anderson.

Rating: Two out of five Evil Farmigas.

Filthy Horrors | Filthy Horrors... Lite

Darla's not feeling well, but there are donuts and there is coffee, so Jess and I have an informal chat about... well, about a lot of stuff. We begin and end with Horror, but there are lots of other rooms to explore in this old, dark house and some of them are filled with Magnum PI and Star Trek.

Topics Covered:
Evil Dead (2013)The Golem (2018)The Wind (2018)Making comics and attending conventionsDisney+ and CBS All AccessMagnum PI and ‘80s TVStar TrekEditors and the creative processGodzilla moviesGhost Stories (2017)The Beast of Wolfe’s Bay by Erik EvensenMarrying Mr. Darcy card gameRachel Rising by Terry MooreRevival by Tim Seeley and Mike NortonHack/Slash by Tim Seeley and Emily StoneRelic by Douglas Preston and Lincoln ChildThe Necromancer; or, The Tale of the Black Forest by Ludwig FlammenbergThe Ring (2002) score by Hans ZimmerAmbient music on YouTube

Shrek (2001)

Who's in it?: Mike Myers (Wayne's World, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery), Eddie Murphy (Beverly Hills Cop, The Golden Child), Cameron Diaz (The Mask, My Best Friend's Wedding, Charlie's Angels), and John Lithgow (The Manhattan Project, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Daddy's Home Two).

What's it about?: When a self-absorbed noble (Lithgow) forcefully relocates all the fairy tale creatures to a remote swamp, the ogre (Myers) who inhabits the swamp strikes a deal to rescue a princess (Diaz) in exchange for getting his privacy back.

How is it?: I always groan a little at the thought of watching a Shrek movie. My immediate associations are that the films are funny, but full of dated pop culture references and unattractive character designs (especially of the human characters). But then I watch one and remember why they're so popular.

I'll focus just on the first one for this entry, because I do plan to watch and write about the others, but while I still don't like the design of the human characters, the humor is much more personality-based and enduring than I ever remember and there's a lot of heart. There are a lot less fairy tale references in the first one, too. The fairy tale characters are used to kickstart the plot, but the film is really all about Shrek, his unwelcome sidekick Donkey (Murphy), and Princess Fiona. Also Lord Farquaad, who doesn't end up being much of a threat, but mostly it's about Shrek and Fiona's overcoming prejudices, expectations, and insecurities, with Donkey cheering them on.

There are some great fairy tale gags in the beginning though. I love Pinocchio's falsetto voice and his untrue insistence that he's a real boy. He's humorously annoying enough that I also love that Geppetto turns him over to Farquaad's men without a word. There's also a fun comparison between Snow White, Cinderella, and Fiona, with Fiona being the most desirable choice between the three (at least for the selfish, unfeeling Farquaad). The best gag though is undoubtedly the interrogation of the Gingerbread Man with the whole Muffin Man conversation.

But again, the whole movie is very funny to me, including the anachronistic references, but especially MVP Eddie Murphy's being funnier than he's been since the '80s. I still don't love the whole movie, but it ends up being super rewatchable.

Rating: 4 out of 5 gingerbread men.

Hellbent for Letterbox | The Man from Snowy River (1982)

Pax and I jaw about George Miller's (not that George Miller, though) Australian Western. One of us remembered loving it; the other remembered hating it. Have we changed our minds? Do we agree? What happened to Cookie's leg? A couple of those questions actually get answered.

Also: DC Comics discussion as Pax reads the early adventures of Bat Lash and I check out the beginning of the 2006 Jonah Hex series.

Nerd Lunch | Tim Burton Batman Movies

Four years ago, the Nerd Lunch gang invited me and Batman fan extraordinaire Jay Ryan to talk about all things Batman for the Caped Crusader's 75th anniversary. This week, the band got back together to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Batman '89 by focusing specifically on the two Tim Burton movies.

That's always a fun group to talk with and I had a great time revisiting both movies. Especially Batman Returns which I traditionally haven't liked, but found some new things to enjoy about it this time.

Mystery Movie Night | Robin Hood (1973), Daffy Duck's Movie: Fantastic Island (1983), and Return to Oz (1985)

Paxton Holley doesn't just join Dave, David, Evan, and I on the panel, he also picks the movies in this special episode about rogues, reruns, and rock monsters.

00:03:20 - Review of Robin Hood (1973)
00:16:17 - Review of Daffy Duck's Movie: Fantastic Island (1983)
00:30:08 - Review of Return to Oz (1985)
00:50:54 - Guessing the Connection

The 10th Kingdom (2000)

Who's in it?: Kimberly Williams-Paisley (Father of the Bride), Dianne Wiest (The Lost Boys, Bullets Over Broadway, Practical Magic), John Larroquette (Night Court, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock), Ed O'Neill (Married... with Children, Modern Family), Rutger Hauer (Nighthawks, Blade Runner, Ladyhawke, The Hitcher, Wanted: Dead or Alive, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sin City), Dawnn Lewis (A Different World), Ann-Margret (The Flintstones, Stagecoach, The Train Robbers, The Villain, Grumpy Old Men), and Warwick Davis (Return of the Jedi, Willow).

What's it about?: An evil queen (Wiest) turns a prince into a dog so that she can take over his kingdom, but he escapes through a portal to modern day New York City (aka the 10th Kingdom) where he meets a young woman (Williams-Paisley) and her shiftless father (Larroquette).

How is it?: This TV miniseries has been recommended to me for a while by friends and family who know my fondness for fairy tales. And I was super excited by the cast, especially Williams-Paisley because I love the '90s Father of the Bride movies and she's great in them. I was also curious about its being an early example of fairy tale mashups before that became a popular thing to do. It predates Shrek by a year, the Fables comic by two, and Once Upon a Time by over a decade.

Sadly, I couldn't finish the first episode. It's not really a mashup of known characters. The evil queen is generic and the prince she's fighting is Snow White's grandson. The "wolf" (Scott Cohen) she sends to New York in pursuit of the escaped prince is also generic. I see from the cast list that characters named Snow White and Cinderella (Ann-Margret) eventually show up, but I didn't get that far. The lack of specific fairy tale characters was a minor issue though compared to the overall tone of the story.

It's very silly and full of slapstick. The Queen sends two parties to New York: first a group of trolls (one of whom is Dawnn Lewis) and then the wolf (changed into human form) that I mentioned before. The trolls are bumbling; no threat at all. The wolf is more persistent and successful, but he quickly "falls in love" with Williams-Paisley's character, by which I mean that his desire to eat her conflicts with his desire to have sex with her. That could make some fascinating drama and commentary on the Red Riding Hood story if it was at all taken seriously, but it's not and the wolf is just ridiculous. Reading ahead, I see that Williams-Paisley later falls in love with him, which is a development I'm not curious to see. Even if he weren't super creepy, he's still dumb and weird. I couldn't get into any of these characters or their story.

Rating: Two out of five Annie Banks.



Addendum: I've been hammering hard on these entries to get ready for the next Filthy Horrors recording, but a couple of things have happened to make me slow down. One is that we're recording the fairy tale episode earlier than I originally thought, so I don't have as much time as I thought I would. The other thing though is that the next thing I'm planning to watch is Shrek, which has its charms, but is more silliness right on the heels of The 10th Kingdom. Frankly, my enthusiasm is a bit deflated. There's still some stuff in the queue that I'm super curious and excited about, so I'm going to keep this project going, but I'm not going to try to get it all done before we record the FH episode. So this is the last entry probably for a week or so until I get past some other deadlines.

Fourth Chair Army Invasion | The Men in Black Trilogy

Are they excellent scifi comedies, disposable popcorn flicks, or a threat to all life on this planet? Annaliese Trammel, Chris Bailey, and I drill deep into the first three Men in Black movies as well as the comics (thanks to Chris!). We talk about what works, what doesn't, and what it all could mean for Men in Black: International.