It seems these days that a string of comparable reinterpretations have been gaining popularity with mainstream audiences; the adaption of an evil villain into a more complexly grey-zoned character. With the popularity of the musical Wicked and the adaption of The Ice Queen into Disney’s Frozen, audiences are becoming more interested in the concept of adaptational heroism; now Disney has once more dove into such reinterpretation with the main villain from their 1959 film Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent. Often considered one of Disney’s greatest villains (a statement I wholeheartedly support), Maleficent tells the story from its title character’s perspective (playing here by Angelina Jolie), changing her into a misunderstood, three dimensional character whose sympathetic past and “dark is not evil” personality makes her an understandable character for the viewing audience…yet I’m not fond of the change.
Let me explain, the main problem in Maleficent is not that they've changed her character into a sympathetic anti-hero, but that they've removed nearly all traces of her original characterization besides name, powers, and her bestowed “gift” to Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning). What made the 1959 Maleficent such a memorable character was how wicked, sinister, and determined in getting revenge she is over simply being snubbed from a christening party. The only thing 1959 Maleficent loved was the joy of being evil; relishing in even the smallest of torments placed on her victims. One of my favorite scenes in the original is when she goes to “cheer up” the captured prince Phillip after succeeding in putting Aurora into eternal slumber. Being dangerously genre savvy, Maleficent understands Phillip’s the only one that can break Sleeping Beauty’s curse and, in order to test how strong “true love” is, reveals she will release him…in about 100 years as a frail old man; too weak to journey back to Aurora’s castle. Maleficent does all this not for reasons of power, land, or kingship, but simply because she enjoys it. Such simple motives, yet with such energy, personality and delight in being evil it’s hard not to love such a villain.
Most of these qualities are completely removed in Angelia Jolie's version; here she’s a great fairy who’s tragically turned villainous through a heart broken betrayal by her true love King Stefan (Sharlto Copley; who in this version is the true villain thanks to the ever present use of the “men are greedy” cliché). She curses his daughter in revenge but soon finds her cold heart warmed by Aurora’s purity and good will. Now to be fair there’s nothing necessarily bad in this reinterpretation as it works just fine with the version’s story; there’s even a twist near the end that was actually quite clever. The problem here is how they reinterpreted Maleficent; taking a villain who used “all the powers of Hell!” to become a wicked fire-breathing dragon, into a completely different character who gets into mud fights and is adorably awkward with children. If you’re going to reinterpret wicked and malicious into cutesy and loving you need to do so in a way that’s both believable and works with the original character; which I simply felt didn’t happen in the film. Imagine if there was a Batman film called The Joker which took one of the greatest twisted comic book villains of all time and turned him into a “tortured soul, crying out for love and acceptance…trying to make the world laugh at his antics” (kudos to anyone who knows who I’m quoting). I’m fairly certain a lot of people would be upset by this drastic reinterpretation, which is somewhat how I feel about Maleficent’s change; taking a wonderful villain and completely altering everything that made her great into something inferior.
Maleficent is not the only reinterpreted character however, and there are in fact some good interpretations here, such as the three good fairies. I for one am not a fan of the original 1959 good fairies, who I always found to be bumbling fools wielding power they can’t handle. In Sleeping Beauty the fairies cannot perform simple house chores (such as cleaning and cooking) to save their lives, while also screwing up their one job of hiding Princess Aurora (with only several hours to go) through the most immature way possible…a petite disagreement over what color a dress should be! In a brilliant maneuver Maleficent barely changes these features, instead using them to point out how ridiculously idiotic the fairies are; such as trying to feed fresh out of the ground turnips to baby Aurora (and later on spiders. Maleficent points out some very noticeable flaws with the original, such as how such dense creatures could possibly raise a child without having her starve; rewriting the story so that its Maleficent (who in this version is easily able to locate them) and her crow servant who properly raise Aurora, thereby using the original’s features to make Maleficent look better. The filmmakers also clearly had a field day with casting Imelda Staunton (better known for playing the despicable Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter series) as the lead fairy Knotgrass and “caretaker” of young Aurora; in fact my fiancée, I and half the audience (I assume the Harry Potter fans) chuckled gleefully when Knotgrass informs King Stefan that, “We’re great with children!” There’s also the change to Aurora’s character who, while not brimming with characterization, is a far more personable character than that of the 1959 version (who has just as much personality as a block of granite); even ending up helping our title protagonist near the end.
In all honesty Maleficent is not a bad film, just an unpolished one not fully realized of its true potential. Those who can tolerate or enjoy Maleficent’s drastic reinterpretation will most likely find the film satisfying (as all the actors perform quite well in their roles). Those however that found Sleeping Beauty’s main highlight to be its wonderfully wicked villain may find themselves unimpressed by her drastically altered characterization. The film also makes a bunch of strange choices that may raise a few eyebrows, such as using the old superstition of iron be a weakness towards fairies or hammering in the overused concept that men are greedy about every five minutes. The film does try however, and I did find enjoyment in certain aspects (such as the good fairies interpretation); it’s just that with every good scene made, a flat one seems to follow right after. See the film if you believe you’ll enjoy the changes made; if not, then you might just want to wait until Maleficent comes out on DVD or Netflix.
