Hello readers!
We’ve all heard of the story of Sleeping Beauty or seen the Disney adaptation of the film, many of us having known of it from childhood. It is considered a tale as old as time, in this context, one that dates back to the medieval period. Told from oral traditions then documented in works known by different names. The earliest known story comes from the medieval, through to a story found during the Renaissance through to the Early Modern period, next comes the Grimm Brothers tales and the latest being Disney’s famous film adaptation.
All these tales contain the premise of the original story with a few differences, some minor and others of major re-workings, hence the term Disneyfication, which turns a dark story into a ‘happily ever after’ sanitizing the original narrative making it a child-safe and friendly one. The question to keep in mind while reading this post is the impact that Disney plays in re-working texts and stories of cultural significance and history, the transmission and reception of today’s audience. The argument that that I would like to make is that Disney, to a certain extent ruins the childhood that we grew up with. In this post I will explain why I think this and it is important to note for the reader of this blog that the term “ruin” is not to be taken too seriously, as this is only a form of slang when something from childhood that has made someone happy, turns out to be something totally different as an adult, but due to that childhood innocence the things that provided happiness now makes us sad. This might sound a little confusing at first, but I will explain throughout this post.
“Since the very beginning, Walt Disney had an incredible talent in adapting folktales and fables from history to entertain modern audiences” (Becker, pg. 1). The tale of Sleeping Beauty is a perfect example of this, which was originally written in the 14th century, found in the book Le roman de Perceforest, an anonymous chivalric prose romance, titled Troylus and Zellandine.
I will briefly summarise the tale of Troylus and Zellandine, which begins with Princess Zellandine pricking her finger on a spinning wheel and falling into a deep coma. Troylus finds her and sleeps with her in a non-consensual act, and she is only awakened after she gives birth while unconscious (very traumatising). The stories after this, throughout different eras follow a similar storyline, but I think this one is by far the most dark and disturbing. Could this get any worse? Well, it can. Troylus and Zellandine get married in the end, yep, at least Disney kept their happy ending.
Let us discuss the impact of this. This story is part of a wider tradition of chivalric prose and it has a very long and complex narrative structure. When learning of the true stories, the question is raised as to whether it is still okay to like what Disney has done. They have taken a tale rooted in culture and folkloric tradition, made it their own and gave no credit to the original source. I am not saying that they have to, considering this is an old tale, but modern critical scholars have started studying the theories of adaptations and appropriation, which I have also studied in class and I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to address this. I will quote Julie Sanders in her brilliant explanation on the difference between adaptations and appropriation:
“An adaptation signals a relationship with an informing source text or original; a cinematic version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, for example, although clearly reinterpreted by the collaborative efforts of director, scriptwriter, actors, and the generic demands of the movement from stage drama to film, remains ostensibly Hamlet, a specific version, albeit achieved in alternative temporal and generic modes, of that seminal cultural text” (Sanders, pg. 3)
“Appropriation frequently affects a more decisive journey away from the informing source into a wholly new cultural product and domain. This may or may not involve a generic shift, and it may still require the intellectual juxtaposition of (at least) one text against another that we have suggested is central to the reading and spectating experience of adaptations. But the appropriated text or texts are not always as clearly signalled or acknowledged as in the adaptive process” (Sanders, pg.3).
After studying this in class, I began to think about the different films that claim they are adaptations, but in reality, they would fall under the theory of appropriation. I have also learnt that there are many sub-genres, with adaptation being the main one and everything else falls into this category, but when it comes to accuracy, I believe we should learn the difference between the two terms and use them appropriately. We did a few adaptations in my middle English classes and some of those films do not credit their original source, and if this is not done, I would argue that authorship is lost. Of course, Disney is unable to do this because it is an animated kids’ film, but I do not necessarily agree with their Disneyfication of this particular medieval text. The Disney franchise is marketed as magic, and their films are meant to feel magical and romantic, but they lose their magic when these kids grow up (such as myself) and discover the real stories behind Disney’s superficial and simplified narratives. I promise I am not hating right now. I love these Disney films, but due to my interest in film adaptations and the difference between this and appropriation, I have made this post as my little ranting corner.
I hope this does not deter anyone from watching Disney, but my aim is to spread and share awareness, especially to those who love cinema on what and what should not be considered an adaptation. To keep in mind that there might be an original source rooted in a culture and folklore that is being used and appropriated.
Works Cited:
Sanders Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation, Routledge, London. 2006.
Becker C. Christina. “Disneyfication in Children’s literature.” Dec 15, 2017.
Lewis E M 42:22 Le Roman de Perceforest (The Romance of Perceforest).
