Bluebeard Critics

Reading the introductory article to Bluebeard left me with a thought: Why is it always the woman who is the victim? I'm not trying to be sexist or anything like that, I just think that pretty much every story we've read, it just feels like these commentators set out to make every fairy tale some story about how men want to control women, and how fundamentally sexist every fairy tale is. Granted, there are not nice things that these stories say about women, but the same can be applied to men.

Bluebeard is a good example. Am I, as a man, supposed to be highly controlling and sadistic? Am I supposed to feel the joy of killing another person, just because I told them not to go into a room? What does this say about men? We are all just primal, insensitive pigs, out to rule the world? But all the article seems to talk about is how the woman is the victim, because she let curiosity get the better of her. It could happen to anyone. I think it prejudices men alot more.

All I know, is that if these readers go into a story with a notion in their mind, if they are reading it to discover something they want to discover, they'll find it. Someone can bend the facts to their own liking, and then say it's the truth. I just think that with stories like Bluebeard, it's more obvious about the authors opinions about the man is, rather than the female.

Bluebeard and the American Movie Industry

While reading the story of Bluebeard I was struck with a very interesting view of how the plot of this story is in so many ways directly related to many of the movies we know of today. First off, the fact that this is called a fairy tale is really loose. When I think of fairy tales, I think of the stories that we've been reading this whole time, up until now. This story, however, seems more like a thriller. The plot centers around this relationship between the man and his wife, with hardly and magic or other stereotypical fairy tale type additions.It's a new and different way to analyze and define the term Fairy Tale, because term can be used to describe a story about a wolf trying to eat a child, or a man killing his wife for no real apparent reason, other than she entered a room she was forbidden to enter.

This can correlate excellently well to many of the movies we see out there now. One that comes most to mind is "The Skeleton Key," in which a girl is given a job to care for a sick old man in rural Louisiana. One of the only things that the wife instructs her, after giving her a key which can open any and every room in the house (hence the title), is to not enter into this one particular room. Of course she does enter. While she doesn't die, she does discover something very unpleasant, and that something eventually ends up capturing her soul. Another variant, and this is quite a variant, can be seen in Willa Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Throughout the entire movie, while Willa Wonka is giving this tour, in which he is always instructing the children to not touch anything, or something bad will happen. It does. Even the hero, Charlie, succumbs to temptation, but eventually learns the wrongs of his ways and ends the story happily ever afer.

The plot to Bluebeard seems so movie inspired, and it makes for a really imaginative and exciting read, albeit rather morbid. Still, though, it was meant to have all the action, excitement, danger, and everything, and I think this rendition captures that well.

Who knew?

We started analyzing Cinderella this past week. Growing up I don't think I had ever watched the Disney version more than once, let alone read the original fairy tale. So I took Disney at their word, and that this was the way it was. Of course later into life I began to realize that Disney worked the story into what he wanted, similar to Perrault and Grimm a few hundred years earlier. Nevertheless, it was beyond comprehension that the original tales could be so gruesome, and something to be seen as whole lot more than a 'simple fairy tale.'

The fact that a whole story can be hidden behind the original story is quite astounding, and mainly I'm talking about the Grimm version. The whole story of good vs. evil, karma, and divine justice could be taken from a story about a little girl and a prince? A mother tells her daughter to be good, behave, and pray, and everything will work itself out. A part from her mother, Cinderella had noone within her 'family' who treated her with any basic dignity. So she did her duty assigned to her by her mother, and the result is what was promised: she was married to a rich prince, and lived 'happily ever after.' the The gruesome part happens to her step-sisters. One eye is plucked from each of their heads at the wedding, so as to give them pain, but still give them the ability to see the girl they abused for so long, get married. Even more painful. As they leave the wedding , the remaining eye is plucked out, leaving them with the last image of Cinderella happy. Wow. A little too heavy for Disney. And a very strong statement to those who cause harm and pain.

So who was the tale really for? Was if for kids, or was it for the adults? One could assume both. Maybe the Brothers Grimm were hoping this heavy lesson will seep into kid's minds subliminally, while the adults got the message out right. It was, for the kids, an entertaining tale to go to sleep to, to waste time, or whatever, but they would get the message, that if you are evil, this will happen to you, and if you are good, see what rewards you can get. Were as for the adults, it could just confirm or challenge the ideals that they had.

Is this story the authentic version? Of course not. Grimm, Perrault, Disney, etc. recorded these stories with an intent and purpose. But, the stories that we've read from all over the world, this idea remains. It might not appear with the severity that Grimm has, but they're still there. And maybe that is what keeps this story alive, that the unjust and evil will get whats coming to them. And that if we just, metaphorically, be good, behave, and pray, everything will work itself out.

Looney Tunes knows Best

As I continued my search through my childhood for fairy tales, I happened to come upon this Looney Tunes clip. It's titled "Little Red Riding Rabbit," and makes a complete mockery of the Fairy Tale with the not to distant title. There appears in the cartoon a Little Red Riding Hood, but she is loud mouthed and slightly stupid. Also, she doesn't contribute much to the rest of the story. So I assume that the role of Little Red Riding Hood is adopted by Bugs Bunny. Plus, the Wolf (who appears here in a masculine light) wants to eat Bugs Bunny, and not LLRH. Therefore, one can assume that LLRH is represented in this story by Bugs, and not the actual LLRH, who is there for comedic relief to the cartoon (a feat which sounds paradoxical). Bugs aka LLRH is true to one of the original forms of LLRH, that is a trickster who gets the best of the bad ol' Wolf. The entire cartoon runs as if Bugs knows all, and is just waiting for the Wolf to catch up.

The appearances that the actual LLRH have, seem to confirm the other standard idea that she is a defenseless moron. So the viewer gets the best of both fairy tale worlds, and it's up to them to decide who to take favor in more (but we all know the answer). As far as anything gender related, one could make an argument that Bugs, the Wolf, Looney Tunes and their male agenda like to stick to the woman. She's the dumbest one, and in the end, the one the Wolf and Bugs turn against collectively. I, however, see it that, like I said before, LLRH is just there to be a running gag, and she comes off a little like Elmer Fudd, the huntsman.

The cartoon works really well in their adaptation of the story, and then the complete destruction it takes to it. The fact that LLRH acts as if she has memorized her "Grandma, what big feet you have" lines, is waiting for the oportune time to say it. Or the fact that the long distance to Grandma's house is over treacherous mountain terrain, while the short path is merely 10 feet to the doorstep.

Throughout the cartoon Looney Tunes does an excellent job of taking the fairy tale we all know, and turning it completely on it's head, all the while giving us all a good laugh.


P.S. here is the link to view the Cartoon. If that doesn't work, just go to youtube.com and search for "Little Red Riding Rabbit."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-m5N4-x3wc&feature=related

Fairly Stupid Tale from the Past

As I take in all these discussions in class, especially the one we had Wed. about the varying versions we have found of Red Riding Hood, I began to notice a couple of verisons I seem to remember from my childhood. The one that sticks out most in my mind is a book I recieved at some point called "The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales." Basically it takes a bunch of famous fairy tales (Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, The Frog Prince, etc.) and, mainly through parody, reconstructs them in a new and different way. A Version of Little Red Riding Hood also appears in the book. She is not Little Red Riding Hood, though, she is called Little Red Running Shorts. Basically she got this name because she recieved running shorts from her mother. The interpretation goes as follows:



Jack (of Jack and the Beanstalk) acts as the narrator of the entire book. He ends up telling the entire story of "Little Red Running Shorts" as his lead-in to the story turns out to become the entire story. He tells that Little Red Running Shorts is going through the woods, and runs into a wolf, who tricks her into taking the long way to Grandmother's House, while he takes the short way. When the wolf arrives to Grandmothers, Little Red Running Shorts answers the door and says, "My, what slow feet you have." THE END.



The rest of the humor comes from the fact that Red Running Shorts and The Wolf have been waiting this whole time to reenact it, but become angry because Jack told the whole story, and now they basically have to tell it AGAIN. They walk away from the story frustrated.

At first it just seems like a parody, but looking a little deeper one can see alot more. It becomes apart of those 20th century authors, such as Roald Dahl, who totally reconstruct Little Red Riding Hood. The telling of this fairly stupid tale is similar to the 20th century versions of this fairy tale in the fact that something unexpected ends up happening to the wolf. Little Red Running Shorts beats the Wolf to the House, and rubs it in his face, parodying the lines "My what big ____ you have." With that, Little Red Running Shorts in painted as the hero and the superior to the Wolf, as in the other 20th century versions. There is, however, no violence in the storty because it is directed spcifically towards Kids. The unexpected ending, showing Little Red Running Shorts and the Wolf as merely actors working together, further breaks down the original storyline.