Apart from the costumes and the set design, I honestly can't understand the appeal of this film. I realize it's a film most likely made for 6-year-old girls, and what struck me was that it could very well be a launch for a deluxe Mattel Barbie doll set, (lilac Fairy Godmother, chest of gowns, and helicopter sold separately...)
An incestuous King for a father, this princess with her blue skinned servants has nothing better to do than sing the same refrains of a love song on the Castle lawn...
And that hapless little donkey, poor creature that excretes gold and silver coins at the pumping of its tail... This magical animal is slaughtered, its bloody skin, head and even its upper teeth intact, carried by a doting King to his princess/daughter/future bride's bedchamber on her capricious demand. That nobody seemed to find this disturbing puzzles me. My god, the skin was red on the inside and she wears it like a fur coat??? Well, I suppose that's fitting. What vampires these aristocrats are! If this is intended for children, then what are the values being promoted here? The prince she falls in love with - spoiled, indolent, over privileged... Who could care less about this airhead couple? The princess puts a ring in the cake she bakes for him. What a cliché, that the prince practically chokes on it provides one bit of comic relief at least that and the parrot who echoes that sickening, "amour amour..." song that goes on and on through the film in that thin, brittle soprano.
I expected a lot, especially upon reading someone raving about the soundtrack. A good score is important to me. But this music was more grating than any musical I'd ever heard. Such saccharine songs so sickeningly cycled throughout the film must have driven the crew batty by the time the editing was done. But then again, this probably was intended for very young children, so I shouldn't be so harsh.
Then what of the 4 French "talking heads" segment in special features - (2 psychoanalysts, a professor of literature, and a film maker)who make so much of the film and take themselves far too seriously? Is it also intended for adults, then? As an ardent fan of French New Wave cinema, and the films of Jacques Demy's wife, Agnes Varda, and of all the films of Jean Cocteau, I expected the work of art that everyone touted the film as being an homage to Cocteau as promised. All I could see that was savagely reminiscent of Cocteau were the blue skinned servants...slaves... what-have-you... Was the joke that this was a clever sequel to the Emperors new clothes?
Despite the beauty of the sets, the camera work was largely stationary and not very imaginative. The lighting didn't have much mood or variation either. The light outside was pallid and lacking shadow. If there were any artistic merit to this, I'd give all the credit to the costume and set designers.
An incestuous King for a father, this princess with her blue skinned servants has nothing better to do than sing the same refrains of a love song on the Castle lawn...
And that hapless little donkey, poor creature that excretes gold and silver coins at the pumping of its tail... This magical animal is slaughtered, its bloody skin, head and even its upper teeth intact, carried by a doting King to his princess/daughter/future bride's bedchamber on her capricious demand. That nobody seemed to find this disturbing puzzles me. My god, the skin was red on the inside and she wears it like a fur coat??? Well, I suppose that's fitting. What vampires these aristocrats are! If this is intended for children, then what are the values being promoted here? The prince she falls in love with - spoiled, indolent, over privileged... Who could care less about this airhead couple? The princess puts a ring in the cake she bakes for him. What a cliché, that the prince practically chokes on it provides one bit of comic relief at least that and the parrot who echoes that sickening, "amour amour..." song that goes on and on through the film in that thin, brittle soprano.
I expected a lot, especially upon reading someone raving about the soundtrack. A good score is important to me. But this music was more grating than any musical I'd ever heard. Such saccharine songs so sickeningly cycled throughout the film must have driven the crew batty by the time the editing was done. But then again, this probably was intended for very young children, so I shouldn't be so harsh.
Then what of the 4 French "talking heads" segment in special features - (2 psychoanalysts, a professor of literature, and a film maker)who make so much of the film and take themselves far too seriously? Is it also intended for adults, then? As an ardent fan of French New Wave cinema, and the films of Jacques Demy's wife, Agnes Varda, and of all the films of Jean Cocteau, I expected the work of art that everyone touted the film as being an homage to Cocteau as promised. All I could see that was savagely reminiscent of Cocteau were the blue skinned servants...slaves... what-have-you... Was the joke that this was a clever sequel to the Emperors new clothes?
Despite the beauty of the sets, the camera work was largely stationary and not very imaginative. The lighting didn't have much mood or variation either. The light outside was pallid and lacking shadow. If there were any artistic merit to this, I'd give all the credit to the costume and set designers.