![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotand just a great movie in general
1) The stepfamily have carefully drawn characters - they aren't just stock stereotypes. Do they still fit within some pretty obvious tropes? Yes, but each one has their own motivations. The stepsisters are also intelligent, which is often not the case in more recent Cinderella movies. Marguerite is clever and her well-planned flirting would work on someone less jaded; Jacqueline is obviously presented as the less-pretty and less-clever sister, but she's never stupid. The old family retainers don't get much to do, but they have their own strength and resilience, and their own moments of emotion.
2) Danielle is set up from the start as tomboyish, fighting with Gustave in the mud, and she's never shown doing anything "girly" - most of her work on the estate is physical - but there's no dialogue pontificating on how she's not like other girls. It's clear enough from what we see that she's scrappy and that she does things (whether out of inclination or because she's ordered to) that ladies in general and her stepsisters wouldn't. Likewise, she's both intellectual (reading and internalizing Utopia) and clever (taking Henri as "anything [she] can carry"*), but she's never set up to knock down a cardboard sexist who thinks women are dumb. Essentially, the filmmakers put her strength and unconventionality into the story, rather than coming up with ways for people to announce and signpost it, apart from one line of dialogue from Henri, where he's admiring her many abilities.
3) Danielle's best friend is Gustave, who is physically less strong, generally averse to conflict, and an artist - not traditionally masculine. At the same time, he never resents her and also isn't a Nice Guy. Solidarity!
4) The costuming is top-notch. No, it's not an accurate representation of sixteenth-century French dress (it's more like fifteenth-century Florentine), but everything fits and is well-made. The details are excellent and the fabric looks real; worn clothing looks tired out from actual wear. Nothing stands out to my eyes as chintzy or cheap, or like a dozen were made from the same pattern.
5) It sticks to the Cinderella framework enough to feel familiar, but only uses it as a framework, rather than a stencil that must be filled in. Probably the biggest divergence is to make the ball the scene of Danielle being found out and rejected, the opposite of its function in the fairy tale, but using Leonardo da Vinci as the godmother and then working the godmother into the story as a mentor for both Cinderella and the prince is inspired.
I just ... really love Ever After, okay. It holds up!
* Okay, if there's one way it's not a great movie it's the use of the Roma as plot element and threat, and then a way to show how enlightened Danielle is
1) The stepfamily have carefully drawn characters - they aren't just stock stereotypes. Do they still fit within some pretty obvious tropes? Yes, but each one has their own motivations. The stepsisters are also intelligent, which is often not the case in more recent Cinderella movies. Marguerite is clever and her well-planned flirting would work on someone less jaded; Jacqueline is obviously presented as the less-pretty and less-clever sister, but she's never stupid. The old family retainers don't get much to do, but they have their own strength and resilience, and their own moments of emotion.
2) Danielle is set up from the start as tomboyish, fighting with Gustave in the mud, and she's never shown doing anything "girly" - most of her work on the estate is physical - but there's no dialogue pontificating on how she's not like other girls. It's clear enough from what we see that she's scrappy and that she does things (whether out of inclination or because she's ordered to) that ladies in general and her stepsisters wouldn't. Likewise, she's both intellectual (reading and internalizing Utopia) and clever (taking Henri as "anything [she] can carry"*), but she's never set up to knock down a cardboard sexist who thinks women are dumb. Essentially, the filmmakers put her strength and unconventionality into the story, rather than coming up with ways for people to announce and signpost it, apart from one line of dialogue from Henri, where he's admiring her many abilities.
3) Danielle's best friend is Gustave, who is physically less strong, generally averse to conflict, and an artist - not traditionally masculine. At the same time, he never resents her and also isn't a Nice Guy. Solidarity!
4) The costuming is top-notch. No, it's not an accurate representation of sixteenth-century French dress (it's more like fifteenth-century Florentine), but everything fits and is well-made. The details are excellent and the fabric looks real; worn clothing looks tired out from actual wear. Nothing stands out to my eyes as chintzy or cheap, or like a dozen were made from the same pattern.
5) It sticks to the Cinderella framework enough to feel familiar, but only uses it as a framework, rather than a stencil that must be filled in. Probably the biggest divergence is to make the ball the scene of Danielle being found out and rejected, the opposite of its function in the fairy tale, but using Leonardo da Vinci as the godmother and then working the godmother into the story as a mentor for both Cinderella and the prince is inspired.
I just ... really love Ever After, okay. It holds up!
* Okay, if there's one way it's not a great movie it's the use of the Roma as plot element and threat, and then a way to show how enlightened Danielle is
no subject
Date: 2019-08-25 03:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-25 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-08-27 12:33 am (UTC)(Saw it on DVD at the thrift store last week and didn't buy it...I KNEW THAT WAS A MISTAKE.)