Malibu morning picture of the day - Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Dear Family, Friends, and Gentle Readers,

It's Tuesday, and here's what it looks like on the coast.

If you're thinkin' I just reposted yesterday's photo (the second one), nope. We may be in for a 5-day pattern here folks. Let's take bets. This is a day when there is not point to showing a second photo, it's exactly the same.

While we are on the subject of blue pictures, here's one for you. You can still find this playing in a few theatres in L.A. remarkably enough (to still be out in 8 weeks of release is quite a feat).

I went to go see it this weekend on the advice of a relative.

My first impulse of course is to ask "Why? What is the reason to make yet another film version of the Cinderella story?" There are MANY.

The cynical answer here is that Disney could always just enhance, re-release, and market its existing animated property. For you youngsters out there, that's what they used to do before there were streaming services, DVDs, and VHS and Betamax tapes. (If you wanted to see a film like Pinocchio again, you had to wait til it came around again in the re-release rotation cycle.) Sometimes they would have a long special and air it on network TV.

Ah! Latino and African faces here! And they're NOT EVIL.
I like that more and more movies of this sort are being
set in "Neo-Mid-Atlantamerica," the mythical,
inclusive and multicultural precursor society to
the modern liberal U.S.A.

But hey, why not just take the same plot elements and characters that we own, update them, and re-sell them in a cheaper-to-produce, live-action knockoff?

Any writer or filmmaker who created anything resembling Lucifer the cat or Gus the mouse or the pumpkin-shaped coach would get his or her ass handed back to them by a Disney intellectual property attorney. I'm also thinking it might be pretty good way to renew the copyright on something that's about to expire.



But of course, my granddaughters Hattie and Nora and grandson Julius deserve a quality film version of the Cinderella story for them to enjoy, which is an artifact of the era in which they are growing up. This certainly does that. The Disney Cinderella that I saw as a child is older than me by eight years. It was made 65 years ago!


It's a fine film on its own and the classic story is retained in there, minus the stepsisters cutting off their toes or heels to fit into the slipper in the final "test" scene. But it's sure dated.  "Cindy" looks to me like someone's sensible big sister who not only knows how to cook, but can fix leaky roofs and plumbing and tune-up the engine on the truck. She also looks like the girl Don Draper would chase around his desk after she brought him his martini lunch, but could put him in chokehold when things got too far, but not make him feel emasculated.

When Fairy Godmother shows up, it's not rescue of a helpless person to me. It's relief for a hard-working, capable person who gets no appreciation. "FINALLY, somebody shows up and takes care of me for a change." All she has to do is sit back, go to the party, dance with the cute guy, and enjoy the night off. That's all she expects.

Cate Blanchett as the
evil stepmother ...
God, do I know why Ella's
Dad married this woman,
wouldn't you?
badump badump

So, should this last version of Cinderella have been made? Yep. Every generation gets to have its interpretation told by its elders to them, and they will in turn reinterpret and pass it on.

Who doesn't want to hear the story about working hard for people who don't appreciate you, but one day, things change and your perseverance pays off. Maybe not because of your work, but because of your ethics and your virtue. I think it's somewhat remarkable that I've lived long enough to see a film company (Disney) last this long to be able to put out two versions and they are coherently in the same line of interpretation.

Now that I've said all these nice things, did I like the movie for itself? No. It did seem like a cheap knockoff of the 1950 version dressed up with young actors. But for those kids aged 6-12, it's fine, it does the job well. The acting is fine, the music is good, the special effects great, yada yada yada. Worth $14 to see on a big screen? well ...

This Cinderella's "fairy godmother" is
Leonardo da Vinci! How great is that?

If you really want the best reinterpretation of Cinderella, go no farther than Drew Barrymore's Ever After, historical French Renaissance riff on the tale. It's too complicated for young-un's but it's the version that I wanted my kids to see. The subplot, the psychological motivations, the development of secondary characters, the wit, the accuracy to period costume is superior in production value by far.


So, I say if you've got little ones, first TELL THEM STORY AS YOU REMEMBER IT, using all the detail that you recall from your own tellings. Your children deserve to hear your take on it at least once. If you sit down the next night and do it again, it's probably not going to be exactly the same.

Then READ TO THEM the story from a book. The movie they make in their head is better than any other.  And definitely let them see the 2015 version, after they've gotten tired of it, show them the 1950 version, and then when they turn 11, get them a copy of Ever After.


Love,
Pops

PS: And as a re-interpreter of Cinderella myself, I would be remiss if I did NOT send you to read my very own version (probably why my relative wanted my viewpoint on this film) which appears as a series of posts in this very blog. Look for all posts indicated as "Cinderella and the Great Prince of Southern China." They start here. This story is getting close to being rewritten and self-published if you don't want to be bothered finding all the posts. Watch this space for details.