Missed It: Mansfield Park

Allo! Welcome back!

From time to time, I will post a quick review of movies and books I either a) miraculously missed, or b) just discovered, and c) definitely think you should not miss. Or, sometimes, d) think you need to miss as hard as possible, because it is e) embarassingly mediocre or f) soul-scarringly, chew-your-own-nuts-off-to-escape awful.

Mediaeval Bestiary Allegedly beavers would bite off their own nuts to evade hunters. That explains a lot about Canadians. And yes, I've used this graphic before, but I love it, so shut up.

Tonight's feature is Mansfield Park (1999), featuring Frances O'Connor as Fanny Price.

Summary: Poor girl Fanny Price is temporarily sent off to her aunt and uncle's, to decrease her mother's burden of multiple children, get some class, and hopefully, get married. She arrives at the Bertrams’ gates to find that the eldest son Tom is a jerk, that his sisters Julia and Maria are bitchy snobs, and that the remaining brother Edmund is a Perfectly Nice Guy. Hilarity ensues.

Flash forward a dozen years, and it is marriage time; one girl, Maria, already has a very stupid fiancé, but Julia and Fanny still need husbands, and Edmund and Tom are equally single. Two siblings, Mary and Henry Crawford, come to visit and more hilarity ensues, including a Very Improper Play that Tom, the eldest Bertram, masterminds. Henry tries to gain the hearts of both Maria and Julia, big brother Tom is a drunken sot, and Mary Crawford (the delightful Embeth Davidz) is wicked, bisexual, and delicious. She is heartless and fun, and arguably, she’s the real heroine of the piece. She and O’Connor have titillating chemistry (no pun intended) as they fight over Edmund’s heart.

It gets complex when Henry decides he genuinely loves Fanny. However, since Fanny has FEMINISM, as shown by her retellings of British history (which, to be fair, are actually derived from Austen’s own writing), she doesn’t put up with his disgusting flirting. However, Henry is rich, and when Fanny’s uncle and aunt find out that she doesn’t want to marry the skeezebag, they throw a tantrum. Of course, because women are only good for marriage, and are silly to think otherwise, she is 'punished'. That is, her (rather rich) aunt and uncle send her to her mother, figuring that spending time with her impoverished family of origin is the worst punishment possible.

It bears mentioning that her uncle has a plantation in Antigua. The movie mucks with the timeline of events a bit, and has Tom and his father...return to Antigua while Fanny is with her impoverished family? I was confused by that bit. Henry Crawford comes to hit on Fanny again, and he is rejected, hardcore. Anyway, this drama is interrupted by Edmund’s convenient dire news. Whether it's from the return trip or hangover from the first trip, Tom goes mad and enters a delirious fever. Fanny discovers his drawings of her uncle and others abusing the slaves on the plantation, and her uncle tries to cover it up. Everything is about as awful as possible, and it gets worse when Fanny catches Maria Bertram knocking bones with Henry. Maria and Henry are thrown into disgrace, and Mary Crawford’s suggestions on how to handle Tom’s fever and Maria’s disgrace cause Edmund to break off their engagement in disgust. Mary and Henry go off to find more liberal partners and do more depraved things, Maria and awful auntie Mrs. Norris live together and hate each other, and everyone else—especially Fanny and Edmund—lives happily ever after.

Source. I just can't be mad at that face. She's too adorable.

Pros: instead of being a rote retelling of the novels plot (which I adore) this is a …different version. Fanny is a feminist, not a mouse; her uncle is oppressive; the social dirt and slavery themes are more viciously underlined; and Fanny's brother is entirely cut from the plot. I was sad to see Lady Bertram’s laziness and Mrs. Norris’ awful shrewishness cut to cast Fanny’s uncle in a darker light. Still, he makes for an interesting antagonist, and it’s nice to see a period piece meeting the slavery issue head-on, rather than dodging around it. The score and the visual set are also very nice and atmospheric, very dark and sinister. Fanny’s monologue letters are a neat addition, and as I’ve implied, Frances O’Connor is delightful. I wanted to just carry her around in my pocket. Edmund, as played by Johnny Lee Miller, is portrayed with appeal and subtlety, but his attraction to strumpetalicious Mary Crawford doesn’t really fit. Still, the mindphuquerie in the plot twists really appealed to me.

Cons: This ain’t your granny’s Austen. I am undecided about the changes. I like faithfulness to material, but I am also willing to watch a movie with gutsy changes. For this reason, the fanfictionish Lost in Austen managed to capture my heart with its interesting retelling of Pride and Prejudice. I adore Frances O'Connor in this, but the point of the story is that soft, quiet, domitable Fanny shows herself to be stronger than social forces, and rebels against the marriage with Henry Crawford. Casting Fanny as a spitfire, non-conventionalist writer just changes the material beyond recognition. I found myself sitting there and thinking, “Sorry! Your Elizabeth is in another castle”. Hardcore traditionalists hated it, and I can see why. The biggest problem is the lack of subtlety and insufficient re-working to accommodate for it.

Final Verdict: 9 out of 10 for being delightful and quite gutsy; 2 out of 10 for poor implementation of the changes--a total retelling would have been better. So...I suppose that averages out to 6 out of 10. Salon.com reviewers sneered at it, as have quite a few others, but…something about it works. I dock a mark for the poorly implemented feminism, which came out of nowhere, and sloppy implementation of changes. And yet...there is so much force and passion in this retelling that I can't help forgiving the charges I just made. I do not know how much sense the plot will make for non-Austen fans. (If you are an Austen fan, expect to shout, “Oh, no, she D’IN’T!” at the screen a lot.) Still, I won't bother lying: this looks as though it will be a new guilty pleasure.

*****

As always, I hope you enjoyed today's batch o' fresh thoughts. There will be more feminism, more funny, more writing updates, some missed-it reviews. Keep an eye on new releases by following on Twitter and on Tumblr. This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Fifty Shades of Derp: An Ongoing Project

Hey, everyone!

Welcome back to the nest. Things have been a little hectic in the last week, but we're back up and running. I just had to let you know that I am, for realz, going to be reviewing Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker, and Fifty Shades of Freedom on Twitter over the next week. Why? Well...I needed to see what the hype was about, and I couldn't bear the opportunity to mock something that derives from that literary abortion, the Twilightseries. I tried to give it a fair shot, but with some of the sentences in the Fifty Shades series, well...I don't think I can live without mocking them.

Based on the experiences I've had with the first book already, it's going to be a doozy of a week. Here's a sample.

Yeahhhhh. This is going to be fun. As a girl who enjoys some of the things that are being written about in this volume--the mild end of the spectrum, anyway--I can't decide whether to be disgusted, aroused, or giggling myself to death.

However it ends up, you don't want to miss this. Follow my adventures in bad romance porn literature porn on SciFiMagpie. And remember kids, fanfiction is bad for your brain. This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out! And hopefully, not out cold...

The Tarantella: An Analysis of Two Spiderman Movies

Oh myyyy, I see you've returned, Captain. Hellooooo, and welcome back.

Now, if I'm doing my job correctly, you read that in George Takei's voice. However, apart from Mr. Takei's audition for the Spiderman musical, he is unconnected with today's theme: analysing and comparing The Amazing Spiderman (2012) to Spiderman (2002).

Incidentally, before we get this show on the road, here's the video, in case you were unfortunate enough to have missed it:

Source.Oh, George Takei, you so silly.

Moving right along, let's do a quick recap of the reason for the reworking of the franchise. Superhero movies have been a pretty regular part of the summer marquis features since forever, but the last three or four years have seen a really strong resurgence of good movies. The first two films came out when patriotism was on the rise in America, and it showed with the tone. People needed a hero, and Marvel gave us a bright, colourful, fun depiction of everyone's favourite witty web-slinger. He won the heart of Mary Jane (instead of Gwen Stacy--a rewrite) and fought his best friend's father, the Green Goblin. Willem Dafoe overacted in the most wonderful way possible, Aunt May and Uncle Ben were cute and funny parental figures, the side characters were cartoonish, and the film was a confection of wholehearted, enthusiastic fun. Tobey McGuire was a decent Peter Parker, though he was a bit wimpy, and fans were fairly satisfied. The second film involved Doctor Octopus and Alfred Molina, as well as some tension with Mary Jane, and it worked out to even more awesomeness. Fans were satisfied once again.

Then came the third film. It was a little late to the party, and promised Venom, the Sandman, and a darker continuation. Fans were nervous, but excited. We hoped for the best, and got...Tobey McGuire's emo phase, complete with bad hairstyle, excessive weeping and grumpiness, and a weak ending. With growing competition from DC and the magnum opus The Dark Knight following close on its heels the next year, the already bad movie looked even worse with the benefit of hindsight. Admittedly, the weepy emotional mess that had once been known as Spiderman was not going to fit into Marvel's Avengers plans.

Source.Really, this describes everything for me. Garfield, our new Spidey, even looks more heroic.

So, how do the two movies stack up? Which movie has more style, and which has more substance? And, since the loyalty to comic origins question has become sort of a moot point...which film is the better experience?

At the risk of inducing fan rage, I'm going to say that...both sets were good, in very different ways; the first films were for kids, and these are for grown-ups. Still, we can't leave it there! Let's talk whys and hows.

Visual Tone: As I said, the 2002 version is lighter-hearted; the 2012 version is not nearly as goofy. The second takes a darker and more subtle approach to visuals, giving us a shadowy city and confining most of the action to night, and to sewers. A few commentators have noticed that it seems to be going for a Nolanish feel, and I find that hard to argue with. I liked it, and it worked well enough, but the gritty feel sometimes felt forced. In comparison, the first film gave us lots of shiny skyscrapers, humour, and bright daylight settings, and frankly, I liked that. It suited the character very well, and gave the film a genuine comic-book vibe, a collection of bright colours and boom! Pow! moments. Still, this was a re-write, and a darker view, so those bright colours wouldn't have worked the second time around.

Hero/Villain Symbolism: The spider theme in the first film was pretty forced, and there was no previous connection between Peter Parker and spiders. The room of masks for the Green Goblin was cool, but for an origin story, we got a lot more information about the villain than our hero. It worked, but it didn't help McGuire when it came to establishing himself in the character. In this one, the connection between Parker and spiders was established, and Andrew Garfield put everything he had into putting the "Spider" in "Spiderman". The villain, Dr. Connors, really seems to care for both his subject matter and his symbol, lizards, but his movements were more Godzilla than blue-tailed skink or monitor lizard. Still, his strategy of underplaying the character works better for the scientist than for the monster.

Science!: One thing about the newest film that I loved--the science props and the labs look a lot more authentic. It was nice to see a few real technologies and bits of information--such as the spiel about dopamine and the use of virtual trials--in a Hollywood science lab. They even touched on the tensile strength of spider webs, and gave us a legit explanation for how the web shooters worked. I was so happy to see a portrayal of a scientist who is reluctant to start human trials, rather than throwing himself under the bus (or under the needle) right away. The self-aware jokes about mad scientists and superfluous spandex were also very pleasing.

Of course, there are the usual bits where the laws of physics are broken, and quite a few moments when the hero should have been a bag of meat and internal bleeding after being chucked around, but this is a superhero movie, and it would be a lot shorter if that rule wasn't ignored. Still, having him actually suffer from a bullet to the thigh (as opposed to an arrow to the knee, I guess?) and get more cut up was a nice touch. He doesn't bother seeking medical treatment for his concussion, bullet wound, or other trauma, but...superheroes.

Source. Because...science!

Themes: The first movie's basic theme can be summarized as follows: comics are awesome! Raimi didn't really bother embedding any subtext; cliches and tropes abound, and the film is a sort of homage to all that is goofy and noble. It didn't try to be a coming-of-age story, although there was some lip-service to the price of being a hero, and the sacrifices it requires. The new film did more work than that, exploring the ethics of science and human testing. Dr. Connor's ideas are portrayed as generally good; his downfall really comes from insufficient research and being rushed by The Man rather than mere stupidity or hubris. Sure, he ends up in the storm drains, going full-bore comic-villain, but until the serious front of the movie starts to crumble, there is a hint of real tragedy in the way his obsession makes him unable to use the research he's laboured over to truly help others.

Morality is a big theme in the comics and the movies, for reasons that will take a post of their own. In the first movie, we had that "with great power comes great responsibility" bit, and in this one, we have a longer spiel about one's duty to protect others. The lines are still forced and shoehorned in this one--it worked a bit better with the goofier setting of the first films, because of greater suspension of disbelief. Still, the community ties Spiderman has here are a big change, and the movie takes the time to show us that heroes don't actually work all that well when they're on their own, giving us intelligent cops and a payoff for the usual 'rescued child on a bridge' bit. The development and plot resolutions for minor characters was unusual for a superhero movie. His aunt and uncle felt far more like real people, partly because the wonderful Sally Field and Martin Sheen were given the screen time they deserved. The set-up for Uncle Ben's death was pretty poor, but the handling on consequences and grieving were excellent, easily one of the best parts of the film.

Source. I think someone showed them their paycheques for the sequel a bit early.

Protagonists: Every commentator on the internets will have tackled this one already, so I'm going to keep it very brief. Tobey McGuire is a wussy Spiderman, but still sort of appealing. However, Andrew Garfield has this one hands down. More subtlety, more spider, more self-awareness, more intelligence, more youth...and, yes, he's preeeeeetty. I'm not usually a cougar, but for this hero, I'd--wait, spider-pun mating metaphors won't really work here. Ahem. Anyway...what was I saying? Oh yeah, he was both attractive and portrayed the role well. He has a youthful enthusiasm and vulnerability that works, but he's clever, determined, and plucky: everything Spiderman should be.

I'd be remiss not to mention one of my favorite parts: Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. The profoundly boring (and, to many, irritating) portrayal of Mary Jane by Kirsten Dunst can finally be forgotten. Stone is comic-picture perfect for looks, but also very smart and very brave. She acts like a teenager--a real teenager, the sort to take herself seriously and work hard for her goals. She tosses things back at Peter and fights off the Lizard with a propane burner: finally, a hero love interest who isn't just rescue-bait! Her legs were distractingly delicious, but her acting was solid and her chemistry with Spiderman was very good. The previous couple had better chemistry over all, but I'll trade that in for a blonde and slightly Zooey Deschanel-esque, competent scientist instead of a squealing cheerleader.

Final Prognosis: Over all, the new rendition of Spiderman may be less of a box office blockbuster, but it's a very solid film. Where the new one is sometimes too timid and awkwardly paced--let's not even talk about some of those weird, awkward edits--it's still a film made with passion and self-respect. It's still in its awkward teenage stage, but it's worth a watch, and sits at a solid 7.5-8 out of ten in my books.

*****

As always, I hope you enjoyed today's batch o' fresh thoughts. There will be more thinky bits, more writing updates, some missed-it reviews, and very probably, both feminism and goofy pictures. Keep an eye on new releases by following on Twitter and on Tumblr. This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out!

A Brief Comment About Mass Effect 3: The Extended Cut

Hello, everyone!

Well, it's virtually unavoidable: time to dig up a metaphorical dead horse and possibly beat it with a stick. You know what I'm talking about: the Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco.

Wait, what? You don't know what I'm talking about? Have you been on the internet since March? If you've avoided it, by intent or accident, this should help: my post about ME3. If that doesn't help explain some things, this post might: a reflection on why heroes die. Go read them and come back, if you're confused.

Okay, enough shameless self-plugging. At this point, our proverbial horse is basically a slowly fossilizing skeleton, already leaving immortal calcium deposits on the history of gaming. The mess Bioware got itself into by providing three very different endings with radically similar animation is now legendary, and will probably be the bete noire of gaming companies completing epic stories for years to come. After all, is there anything worse than slaving over a beloved game and pouring your heart into it, only to discover that fans resent your decisions and consider them an emotionally damaging pile of slapdash phuquerie?

As a writer and a casual artist, I have to sympathise, and say I can't imagine anything much worse than that. However, I'm also not part of a large corporation rushing me to finish something and forcing me to achieve consensus with dozens of other writers. And, for better or for worse, I don't have hundreds of thousands of fans breathing down my neck every time I make a decision they don't like (yet). At the risk of being a hypocrite, much as there are plot holes that the Normandy herself could pilot through with ease, I can see why they wouldn't want to change their own work.

However, I am a fan, and though I enjoyed at least one of the endings, the emotional dissatisfaction with similar animation and similar implications for all three was truly heartbreaking. There have been other games that caught my attention, and made my heart beat faster. There have been other games that made me truly care about the their protagonists, settings, and struggles. And yet, I have not seen a game as richly alive and as soul-captivating as the Mass Effect trilogy. The ending, which was nearly a cliff-hanger in its brevity, seemed to foreshorten the struggle. A whole world of possibilities opened for the ending, but we didn't see them. The only options given were a variety of failures, and nearly all involved possible or implied genocide of various flavours.

Source. Personally, I liked the green apple flavour! Or, as some would have it, the watermelon flavour. Strawberry was also okay, but phuque the blue raspberry flavour. Did anyone choose blue? Didn't think so.

This downloadable content should fix the problem of tying up plot threads and fixing the "oops, we didn't mean to kill the galaxy" issue, but it's not going to change the ending. Our hero will still make the ultimate sacrifice, or kill everyone else trying. This was Bioware's decision, from the sound of things. I won't pretend it's perfect, but when you work hard enough to get either that much-vaunted red or green ending, there is still a certain satisfaction about it. They got their controversy, all right, and then some.

So, final thoughts. Have I seen the DLC yet? No, of course not, though you can bet your shapely blue asses I'll be writing some thoughts up as soon as I do. Am I happy that saving the galaxy (?) will probably require Shepard's death? Not really, because I really was crossing my fingers for a happy ending, or at least something less clichéd. However, if it's a question of whether or not I respect the writers for having the guts to say they weren't going to make everyone happy, that's an easy answer. In spite of all the fire, the dissatisfaction, the endless threats, raging, trolling, and even lawsuits, they're going to be faithful to their own work. And that represents an ethic that deserves no argument.

*****

As always, I hope you enjoyed today's batch o' fresh thoughts. There will be more Humble Bundle, more writing updates, some missed-it reviews. Keep an eye on new releases by following on Twitter and on Tumblr. This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out!

It's One Grimm Popcorn Flick: An Analysis of Snow White and the Huntsman

Welcome back to the nest!

I did promise folklore and mythology on this here blog, and I aim to deliver. And so, with trepidation, hope, and my boyfriend and his baby sister, I found myself in a theatre watching Snow White and the Huntsman. I've lightly touched on my love of fairy tales before. I've also made it clear that I enjoy fantasy settings but have reservations about them. Well, wouldn't you know it, this movie did a fine job of justifying both the love and the...lesser love.

So, first question: should you see this movie? Well, I'd actually recommend it, but with reservations, as I'm about to explain. Do I need to warn you that there will be spoilers? Well, consider yourself warned.

So, without further ado, I'm about to get mediaeval on this movie's ass--settle into a nice milk bath, and enjoy the critique.

Source. It's like this, but also completely different from this.

Main Characters: Or, Why I Wish Hollywood Would Grow Out of Name-Dropping.

As always happens with these sorts of movies, there are three fairly big names and a bunch of mid-level types. The minor actors all do a good enough job, I suppose, but this movie really rests on its trinity of stars, and boy does it show.

Bella Snow White: Kristen Stewart is like rice: you can cover her in sauce, add a variety of stir-fried vegetables, meat or tofu, or serve her as a side-dish, but she is still, irrevocably, a bland and somewhat starchy product. However, rice is actually filling and somewhat nutritious, and has more of a flavour range than Stewart. I'm not saying I hate her. She's too nice to hate. However, I spent virtually every moment she was in the frame wishing she'd close her damn mouth. Even if one has been locked in a tower for the last few years, one shouldn't leave the old gob hanging down slackly. It's just begging for a good slap. She also has a tendency to slouch about and look gormless far more than a princess should.

She isn't as annoying as Bella was, of course, and having the movie write itself around her as some sort of semi-immortal paragon of innocence (or something...it was unclear, and we'll get to that in a minute) only worked half of the time. Sure, in the fairy forest, and a few other times, her delivery really worked--as she paused, a timid, doe-like grace suggested itself in her frame and in her eyes. Those moments of absorption were a pleasure to watch. However, her adorable upturned nose, stick-out ears, and buck teeth sort of clashed with the composition of all the 'fairest in the land' beauty shots. I hate picking on her appearance, here, but I do think it made a difference, especially when she is set beside the queen.

Ravenna: It's no secret that I like girls almost as much as I like men, but damn, Charlize Theron would be enough to make even the most red-blooded straight girl question her preferences. I didn't realise it was her, at first, but the ageless, sculpted beauty and smouldering charisma of the queen left no doubt. Between a truly fabulous wardrobe and some very subtle acting, I was sold. Theron seems to like roles that involve her beauty being compromised, and watching the Queen deal with aging and growing youthful again was certainly interesting. The way she reacted to things and suggestions of her frigidity and victimization (including vaguely implied childhood sexual assault) was marvellous. Oh, sure, Hemsworth and Stewart were pretty, but Ravenna was worth the price of the admission. I would have loved to see a film solely centred on her back-story; not unlike the famous Elphaba of Wicked, she is a fascinating figure. At least one person watching it with me thought her acting could've been better, and I'd agree that the temper tantrum was pretty artificial, but her lonely, self-reliant, wounded character is still a treat to watch.

The Huntsman: Chris Hemsworth does a pretty good job of stepping to the sidelines in his role as Huntsman; he lets Stewart glow with the magic of the film and concentrates on playing a protective, good-natured lunkhead with a few hints of genuine emotional richness. He knows his character has a good heart rather than a strong brain, and he works with it; better still, he doesn't play a mediaeval Thor. The suggestion of questionable morals and a pinch of Han Soloesque actions make him a likeable sort of fellow. He also handles the underplayed romantic encounters with Stewart deftly, which makes one of them, at least. He did seem to be feeling like Pedobear for getting so close to an actress substantially younger than himself, but he handled it well.

Source. Here, you go over there and I'll make a Neanderthal face while your mouth hangs open again!

Visuals: These were what kept me in the theatre and glued to the screen. From the tiny perfect details in the armour construction to the delicious sartorial work in the ladies' and dwarves' costumes to the sweeping beauties of the settings, I was thrilled. The camera work is mostly excellent, with lots of wide-framed shots that really get a story-book feeling across. There was some sloppy editing, unfortunately, and occasionally cases of unintended camera wobbling, but the clean, stark colour choices and use of colour themes was wonderful to see. The Sanctuary's fairy forest was lovely, and the evil forest, equally so; the castle, a joy to explore. There were tonnes of cliches, but the wholehearted embrace of them actually worked in the film's favour. Sometimes the CGI was contrived, but frell it, I didn't care; the atmosphere and composition were spot-on for that fairy-tale feeling. Even if the actors sometimes waver, the designers believed in their vision wholeheartedly.

References: No, not mine, the film's. I just can't let the visual and literary references to other works go unnoticed. There were a few Shrek-like moments with the Huntsman and Snow White, some clear visual references to Lord of The Rings with the whole 'filing in line up a craggy mountain/hilltop edge' bit, and, most surprisingly--and uselessly--a reference to Murakami's masterpiece, Princess Mononoke, when a many-horned white stag in front of a cleft tree 'blesses' Princess Bel Snow White. There were, of course, some very expected Twilight references, such as Ravenna's creepy pale brother, Gollum, WhatsisNuts, explicitly saying that he was watching Be Snow White sleeping. (There is also the beginning of what Bella should've done with Edward, i.e., cut his bitch face open with a rusty nail. I wish that had been a Twilight reference.)

I don't know if I need to mention the 'girl leading the people' scenes and the hint of Hunger Games' Katniss Everdeen about the story; having magpies as Snow White's symbol (yes, I did squee) certainly didn't hurt the suggestion of that, either. I don't even know how to classify the romantic triangle that was suggested--is that even a reference, or just a trope, at this point? There was also a less innocent reference--the Queen wants Snow's heart because it will somehow give her eternal youth. The way Snow White is portrayed and the way Ravenna is portrayed was more than a little reminescent of Neil Gaiman's beautiful Stardust, one of the loveliest fairy tales to be written in the modern age. It's well worth a read, and the eating hearts and entrails of wee cute animals is repeated there as well as in this film, though more tastefully in Gaiman's version. I don't know if I'd call this one intellectual copyright violation, but I'd say that between the darkish feel and that thematic similarity, there was definitely a hint of Gaiman's inspiration for this one.

Source. She's pointing at you, movie, now explain yourself and apologize!

What Does It All Mean?: Now we come to the fun part.

Winter Symbolism:I mentioned that Stardust had a witch looking for an immortal's heart--a star's, in this case, not a princess's--and I should've mentioned the aging-when-magic-is-used thing there, too. This film, however, takes that basic concept, which is not terribly rare, and seems to use it as a subtle commentary on the feminine quest for beauty. Ravenna must literally suck the souls and beauty out of young women to keep herself beautiful, and her makeup is generally cover-model immaculate. In comparison to Snow White's wholesome, dirty-fingered, natural prettiness, which is supposed to come from within (something Steward sort of fails to portray), it is bot spectacular and as artificial as a hothouse orchid. Ravenna also seems to simultaneously love, hate, and fear her condition of imperfect immortality and beauty, a curse forced on her by a mother trying to defend her from the ravages of a predatory king.

Ravenna spends her life destroying men and their kingdoms, but my not-so-inner psychologist noticed some clear suggestions of trauma and replaying her own victimization on others. This makes for a complex villain, and I was actually a bit mad at Snow White for simply stabbing her in the end, rather than shedding a couple drops of her own blood to break the Queen's curse. Sure, Ravenna is evil, but she is still fond of her creepy monkey brother, and even though she is a carrion-creature, personifying death and winter, her loneliness makes her sympathetic. Snow White's verdant themes and spring-toned associations are a bland contrast against Ravenna's solitude, but the message of natural beauty and its triumph over artifice is a subtle one that every review I've seen so far completely missed.

Christian Politics:I also want to touch briefly on the Christianity vs. Paganism thing before I give the perfunctory feminist analysis a go. In one scene, Snow White says the Lord's Prayer, and there are a few quiet references to the Crusades. The Queen, in contrast, is firmly pagan, with her raven association--a callback to celtic goddess Morrigan, goddess of war, associated with the carrion birds. We can't forget her movement through stages of maiden, mother/wife, and crone, and above all, the blood ceremony in her childhood binding her to unnatural life and beauty doesn't really smack of prayer circles, either. The milk baths, too, are an interesting addition to her daily routine of beauty preservation, because milk was supposed to not only soften the skin, but also block magic. Roses, too, responsible for Snow White's colour, are supposed to have anti-magical properties...these are interesting, at least, but the movie never does anything with them, just a couple of unexplored themes to go with all the tiny loose plot threads it leaves.

Dat Feminism:Finally, the feminism thing. The movie passes the Beschdel test--I've mentioned it before, in That Feminist Post, and that's a relief. However, it sends conflicting messages. Ravenna's beauty makes her a victim of male control, but Snow White's mother tells her she will be a good leader, without mentioning a man at all. The romance is nicely underplayed and left to suggestion rather than being a focus (a huge shock for me, but not an unpleasant one). And yet, there are no women in the army apart from Snow White, undercutting that independent idea once again. Add the suggestion that Snow White is somehow immortal, and you have a 'women inevitably ruin everything' situation on your hands. The movie hints at this stuff, but doesn't follow through with it, leaving me hungry for a sequel and/or prequel that is artistically bold enough to do so.

Final Prognosis: It had some huge plot holes and occasionally weak acting, and I'm not even touching the unnecessary cameo dwarves with a standard ten-foot-pole, but the visual feast and subtle themes in Snow White and the Huntsman make it worth a watch. It's good for popcorn viewings, sure, but more intellectual members of the audience will have a few things to play with. And that, at least, counts for something.

*****

Well, I hope you enjoyed the show today. There will be more on folklore, game reviews from the Humble Bundle, science!, and of course, tasty teasers for my fiction writing in posts to come. Don't you dare touch that dial. Follow me on Twitter at SciFiMagpie and on Tumbler at SciFiMagpie. The Tumblr is still under construction, but I hope to see you there! This is your SciFiMagpie, over and out!