Enchanted (2007) is a Romantic Comedy created by Bill Kelly and directed by Kevin Lima. This no ordinary Disney film cleverly it combines Classical Disney animation with modern chaotic urban society. The naive Princess Giselle is banished from the animated land by the wicked witch to New York City. Giselle (Amy Adams) blissfully lives in Andalsia (Cartoon world), where magical beings frolic freely and musical interludes punctuate every interaction. At this point Giselle is engaged to be married to handsome Prince Edward (James Marsden), her fate is altered as the villainous Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) banishes her to the hectic merciless streets of New York City. As she begins to warm to her new surroundings and the fairy-tale exterior of the once-carefree princess Giselle soon finds herself falling for a friendly but flawed divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey). His kind compassionate nature helps her to survive in the big bad world.
Source: www.moviefone.com
Originally written by Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide reworded by ME
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Reviews
Times - 4 stars
I haven’t been as delighted and surprised by an old-fashioned Disney tale since I was a child. Enchanted begins between the covers of a book. A fairytale princess warbles about discovering true love’s kiss to a ghastly chorus of twittering forest animals. The evil queen pushes Giselle down a wishing well before she can marry Prince Charming. And all of them, for one greedy reason or another, pop out of a pothole in Times Square, Manhattan. This is bliss.
Amy Adams, the confused princess, can’t understand why people want to rob or rape her. Her naivety about cars, traffic lights, and strangers at 4am in the pouring rain is not just fabulously naive, it’s totally precarious. She is plucked off the mean streets by a hunky divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey), who has a six-year-old daughter and a fiendishly needy girlfriend. Being a Disney princess with good manners, Adams can still muster the local wildlife to do her bidding when she sings. Sewer rats, cockroaches, flies, and pigeons clean up Dempsey’s Fifth Avenue flat and make breakfast the next morning.
At this point I realised that the film could do no wrong. I started crying when Adams waltzed through Central Park with a perfectly stressed Dempsey, who had no inkling why total strangers should start assembling a musical number around him. That kind of magic never knowingly touches real lives. Kevin Lima’s film does just that. Susan Sarandon is terrific as the Evil Queen; Timothy Spall pops up like a well-used wart; and James Marsden is the terrifically thick and handsome Prince.
PG, 107mins
James Christopher
Heart Radio 10/10
It’s absolutely brilliant and like nothing you'll have ever seen before. Both hilarious and heartwarming, it’s a modern Disney classic but the traditional feel of the films like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are heavy influences. It’s not often that family films are laugh out loud funny but it’s packed with genuine deep belly laughs for both kids and adults. It’s the perfect family film for the festive season.
Simon Thompson
Time Out New York- 2 stars
We’ve seen this before: A lovely cartoon maiden, straight from Don Bluth’s sketch pads, sings while friendly animals scurry about. A dashing prince appears on the scene (“We shall be married in the morning!”), then the film’s villainess transports the lass to a place “where there are no happily-ever-afters.” Any Middle American will tell you that means New York, and our formerly animated young lady (Adams) is plunged into a live-action Horror City. When she calls for furry friends to help clean an apartment, it’s CGI rats and roaches that whistle while they work. For a split second, you wonder if someone slipped a Mickey into the House of Mouse’s water supply and made some joyously subversive gem while the brass was asleep.
No such luck. Despite the benign No-Tomorrowland Gotham our goody-two-shoes heroine has been thrust into, it’s still just Disney business as usual. Her pure, romantic demeanor wins over a cynical McDreamy lawyer (Dempsey). The clueless prince (Marsden) attacks midtown buses. Naturally, the movie’s evil stepmom (Sarandon)—apparently auditioning for a Broadway adaptation of Aelita: Queen of Mars—comes brandishing the requisite poison apples. And while no one expects the studio to slaughter its own cash cows by actually deconstructing fairy-tale mythology, this bland bedtime story doesn’t even offer an entertaining post-Shrek take on the original. Even Adams, gamely attacking her archetypal role with glee, can’t fight back the saccharine tide. For a movie filled with magical occurences, Enchanted commits a cardinal sin: It forgets to cast a spell on the audience.
Simon Fear
Rolling stone magazine- 3 stars
You might want to remember the name Amy Adams. It's star-is-born time for the Colorado Mormon, who won a supporting-actress Oscar nomination for 2005's Junebug, which few saw (dumb move). Enchanted has the makings of a supersize sugarcoated hit, and Adams is just the spicy princess you want to take home and PG-love. Not since Julie Andrews rode an umbrella to glory in Mary Poppins has Disney given us such a real-life doll.
Actually, Adams' Giselle starts off as a cartoon, a princess who finds her prince (James Marsden), only to have his bitch-queen mother (Susan Sarandon) banish her to hell. That would be Times Square, where the characters take on flesh and blood. OK, it's corny. Script contrivance, thy name is having Giselle take refuge in the Manhattan apartment of a McDreamy divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey) and his young daughter (Rachel Covey), which really irks — they don't say "pisses off" in family films — his girlfriend (Idina Menzel). But Enchanted makes magic when Giselle, who also looks yummy in just a towel, redecorates his digs with the help of rats, pigeons and roaches. The terrific score is from Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. And X-Man Marsden (so good in Hairspray) is a hoot as the song-and-dance-man prince. Yet Adams is the wish your heart makes when you want a storybook princess for the ages. She's wicked good.
Peter Travers
Enchanted (2007) recieved 93% positive feedback on Rotten tomatoes.
I haven’t been as delighted and surprised by an old-fashioned Disney tale since I was a child. Enchanted begins between the covers of a book. A fairytale princess warbles about discovering true love’s kiss to a ghastly chorus of twittering forest animals. The evil queen pushes Giselle down a wishing well before she can marry Prince Charming. And all of them, for one greedy reason or another, pop out of a pothole in Times Square, Manhattan. This is bliss.
Amy Adams, the confused princess, can’t understand why people want to rob or rape her. Her naivety about cars, traffic lights, and strangers at 4am in the pouring rain is not just fabulously naive, it’s totally precarious. She is plucked off the mean streets by a hunky divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey), who has a six-year-old daughter and a fiendishly needy girlfriend. Being a Disney princess with good manners, Adams can still muster the local wildlife to do her bidding when she sings. Sewer rats, cockroaches, flies, and pigeons clean up Dempsey’s Fifth Avenue flat and make breakfast the next morning.
At this point I realised that the film could do no wrong. I started crying when Adams waltzed through Central Park with a perfectly stressed Dempsey, who had no inkling why total strangers should start assembling a musical number around him. That kind of magic never knowingly touches real lives. Kevin Lima’s film does just that. Susan Sarandon is terrific as the Evil Queen; Timothy Spall pops up like a well-used wart; and James Marsden is the terrifically thick and handsome Prince.
PG, 107mins
James Christopher
Heart Radio 10/10
It’s absolutely brilliant and like nothing you'll have ever seen before. Both hilarious and heartwarming, it’s a modern Disney classic but the traditional feel of the films like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are heavy influences. It’s not often that family films are laugh out loud funny but it’s packed with genuine deep belly laughs for both kids and adults. It’s the perfect family film for the festive season.
Simon Thompson
Time Out New York- 2 stars
We’ve seen this before: A lovely cartoon maiden, straight from Don Bluth’s sketch pads, sings while friendly animals scurry about. A dashing prince appears on the scene (“We shall be married in the morning!”), then the film’s villainess transports the lass to a place “where there are no happily-ever-afters.” Any Middle American will tell you that means New York, and our formerly animated young lady (Adams) is plunged into a live-action Horror City. When she calls for furry friends to help clean an apartment, it’s CGI rats and roaches that whistle while they work. For a split second, you wonder if someone slipped a Mickey into the House of Mouse’s water supply and made some joyously subversive gem while the brass was asleep.
No such luck. Despite the benign No-Tomorrowland Gotham our goody-two-shoes heroine has been thrust into, it’s still just Disney business as usual. Her pure, romantic demeanor wins over a cynical McDreamy lawyer (Dempsey). The clueless prince (Marsden) attacks midtown buses. Naturally, the movie’s evil stepmom (Sarandon)—apparently auditioning for a Broadway adaptation of Aelita: Queen of Mars—comes brandishing the requisite poison apples. And while no one expects the studio to slaughter its own cash cows by actually deconstructing fairy-tale mythology, this bland bedtime story doesn’t even offer an entertaining post-Shrek take on the original. Even Adams, gamely attacking her archetypal role with glee, can’t fight back the saccharine tide. For a movie filled with magical occurences, Enchanted commits a cardinal sin: It forgets to cast a spell on the audience.
Simon Fear
Rolling stone magazine- 3 stars
You might want to remember the name Amy Adams. It's star-is-born time for the Colorado Mormon, who won a supporting-actress Oscar nomination for 2005's Junebug, which few saw (dumb move). Enchanted has the makings of a supersize sugarcoated hit, and Adams is just the spicy princess you want to take home and PG-love. Not since Julie Andrews rode an umbrella to glory in Mary Poppins has Disney given us such a real-life doll.
Actually, Adams' Giselle starts off as a cartoon, a princess who finds her prince (James Marsden), only to have his bitch-queen mother (Susan Sarandon) banish her to hell. That would be Times Square, where the characters take on flesh and blood. OK, it's corny. Script contrivance, thy name is having Giselle take refuge in the Manhattan apartment of a McDreamy divorce lawyer (Patrick Dempsey) and his young daughter (Rachel Covey), which really irks — they don't say "pisses off" in family films — his girlfriend (Idina Menzel). But Enchanted makes magic when Giselle, who also looks yummy in just a towel, redecorates his digs with the help of rats, pigeons and roaches. The terrific score is from Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. And X-Man Marsden (so good in Hairspray) is a hoot as the song-and-dance-man prince. Yet Adams is the wish your heart makes when you want a storybook princess for the ages. She's wicked good.
Peter Travers
Enchanted (2007) recieved 93% positive feedback on Rotten tomatoes.
SHEP analysis
S- Disney’s Enchanted (2007) hardly addresses social issues social issues as the film is based upon fantasy rather than actuality. However, it briefly explores love and the complexity of relationships. Giselle his torn between the prince Edward and Robert but Robert is confused about whether he should pursue a relationship with Giselle or Nancy. It is a realistic portrayal of the difficulty of love; they both have to decide to follow their heart or their head. Indirectly, it also tackles social status with Giselle being rich is opposed with Roberts average status. Their attire reflects their social standing Edward’s and Giselle’s flamboyant clothing is contrasted with Robert’s normal jeans or suit. Firstly Giselle frown upon Robert and says ‘you’re not my prince’ clearly she feels she is socially superior. However, as the film progresses the segregated statuses are no longer prevalent and conflicting love paths are solved.
H- Historically this film corresponds to other Disney films sending out similar messages. The film is a parody of previous Disney film so the message being put forward is identical. However, Enchanted has a twist rather than predictably falling in love with the prince Giselle shockingly ends up with Robert. Yet similar to its Disney predecessors Enchanted depicts separate traditional roles; the woman is the domestic Goddess and beautiful whereas the man is not conventionally attractive and is the labourer. This can be considered as outdated as Dunscombe and Marsden suggested that women face the ‘trifle shift’ which entails housework, a job and emotional burdens.
E- It can be interpreted as the film reinforcing capitalistic ideology shown through glamorised image of New York City. In addition, money problems are not addressed and Robert’s house appeared to be extravagant. On the other hand the film portrays builders and a poor tramp so it includes a variety of people from various backgrounds.
P- The film is not political but does convey nationalism and the American dream. It embraces American ideals which presents America a land of opportunities and ignores the negative aspects of American society.
H- Historically this film corresponds to other Disney films sending out similar messages. The film is a parody of previous Disney film so the message being put forward is identical. However, Enchanted has a twist rather than predictably falling in love with the prince Giselle shockingly ends up with Robert. Yet similar to its Disney predecessors Enchanted depicts separate traditional roles; the woman is the domestic Goddess and beautiful whereas the man is not conventionally attractive and is the labourer. This can be considered as outdated as Dunscombe and Marsden suggested that women face the ‘trifle shift’ which entails housework, a job and emotional burdens.
E- It can be interpreted as the film reinforcing capitalistic ideology shown through glamorised image of New York City. In addition, money problems are not addressed and Robert’s house appeared to be extravagant. On the other hand the film portrays builders and a poor tramp so it includes a variety of people from various backgrounds.
P- The film is not political but does convey nationalism and the American dream. It embraces American ideals which presents America a land of opportunities and ignores the negative aspects of American society.
Continuation of Mulvey's theory
Mulvey points out that cinema had changed during the course of the 1960s and early 1970s in a way which afforded opportunities for other filmmakers outside of the mainstream because of technological developments in filming and also exhibition. It is worth noting that this is even more pertinent now because of the rise of relatively cheap digital video cameras (DV), relatively cheap software and with the growth of the internet the possibility of distributing to a global marketplace. YouTube is the perfect example of that.
Perhaps it is here that Mulvey's arguments will need to be played out all over again in terms of the representation of women. But Mulvey was writing in a pre-digital era:
'The magic of the Hollywood style at its best...arose, not exclusively but in one important aspect from its skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure. Unchallenged, mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order'. (Mulvey in Movies & Methods Vol II, p 306)
It is because this pleasure is already ideologically encoded upon patriarchal society that Mulvey wishes to use analysis to start to destroy that pleasure creating mechanism. This she hope will allow a new language of desire to emerge for humanity.
Source: Laura Mulvey and the Male gaze
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/michaelwalford/entry/laura_mulvey_and/
Perhaps it is here that Mulvey's arguments will need to be played out all over again in terms of the representation of women. But Mulvey was writing in a pre-digital era:
'The magic of the Hollywood style at its best...arose, not exclusively but in one important aspect from its skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure. Unchallenged, mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order'. (Mulvey in Movies & Methods Vol II, p 306)
It is because this pleasure is already ideologically encoded upon patriarchal society that Mulvey wishes to use analysis to start to destroy that pleasure creating mechanism. This she hope will allow a new language of desire to emerge for humanity.
Source: Laura Mulvey and the Male gaze
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/michaelwalford/entry/laura_mulvey_and/
Laura Mulvey's Male Gaze theory
The gaze is a Feminist theory developed to highlight the power imbalance between men and women analysing the way men see women, the way women view themselves and other women. The theory suggests that an audience are forced to view the text from the perspective a heterosexual male, films constantly focus on women’s curves and events that happen to them are portrayed at a male angle. The male gaze denies women human agency, relegating them to the status of objects. Therefore the female viewers experience the text narrative secondarily, by identifying with a man’s perspective (male gaze). In addition she argues that sexism can also occur in the way the text is presented. Moreover, people are encouraged to gaze at women in advertising that sexualizes a woman's body even when the woman's body is unrelated to the advertised product.
Mulvey suggests that the audience view the films in two ways: voyeuristically and fetishistically. As audiences watch films without being watched by the characters they become onlookers of their lives. Therefore they become voyeurs of the people on screen. This can lead to two effects: objectification and narcissistic identification. Voyeurism involves turning the represented figure into a fetish so it becomes increasingly beautiful but more objectified.
It has been contended filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock objectified his female subjects, positioning them to merely arouse the audience.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
Mulvey suggests that the audience view the films in two ways: voyeuristically and fetishistically. As audiences watch films without being watched by the characters they become onlookers of their lives. Therefore they become voyeurs of the people on screen. This can lead to two effects: objectification and narcissistic identification. Voyeurism involves turning the represented figure into a fetish so it becomes increasingly beautiful but more objectified.
It has been contended filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock objectified his female subjects, positioning them to merely arouse the audience.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
Theories/Theorists
An increase in opportunities has created more involvement for women in all aspects of the spectrum from work environment to the filming industry. However, women still appear to have little self-esteem and self image. Today women largely focus on their physical appearance, which they are told by the media is vital. Magazines such as Glamour, Heat and Ok overtly portray the message that beauty is an important aspect of being through their scrutinising of celebrities that look less than ‘perfect’. However, institutions like Disney and Pixar covertly emphasise the idea of ‘perfection’ as the films always represent outstandingly beautiful princesses, maintaining the false idealistic view. The Proppian witch is also conventionally ‘ugly’ usually with a point nose and protruding mole so children associate good with beauty and bad with ugly. Furthermore, the simplistic message being put across carries a deeper meaning subconsciously from a young age we are being taught that beauty equals success.
"The equation of female sexuality with glamour is a major public theme in our own culture. It's there in our fairy stories, the little girl's first lessons in romance: a kitchen girl, she learns, can only win a prince if she has a comprehensive make-over and some glamorous new clothes" (Leroy 262).
Princess Diaries is an ideal example of Leroy’s suggestion. Before Amelia can become a Princess and recognised within the public domain she has to have a drastic make-over; which entailed shaping her eyebrows, wearing make-up and straightening her unruly curly mane. This vigorous beauty regime was simply to correspond to society’s idea of what’s hot and what’s not. It is as though women’s attributes are insignificant if they are inadequate ‘eye-candy’ whereas the majority of leading male roles in film the man are usual not conventionally attractive yet this is acceptable. Clearly in the media there are double standards with the portrayal of men and women.
In a survey conducted by Glamour magazine; three-quarters of women aged 18-35 reported feeling too fat, while only one quarter of them could be so described, and 45% of the underweight women felt they were too fat. Not too be fat has become a life goal for countless women: the Glamour survey also found that nearly half the women, rather than achieving a career ambition or meeting the love of their life, would choose to lose ten pounds (Leroy 64).
With constant reminders of how to look evidently women have lost track of things such as home life and their families, image is their main focus. Whether overt or covert the clear message of beauty being extremely important has lead to a new epidemic of females dissatisfied about their body image. A new breed generation of women now have no confidence as they are being told they are not worthy.
Source: Women's issue Then and Now- A Feminist overview of the past two centuries
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu
"The equation of female sexuality with glamour is a major public theme in our own culture. It's there in our fairy stories, the little girl's first lessons in romance: a kitchen girl, she learns, can only win a prince if she has a comprehensive make-over and some glamorous new clothes" (Leroy 262).
Princess Diaries is an ideal example of Leroy’s suggestion. Before Amelia can become a Princess and recognised within the public domain she has to have a drastic make-over; which entailed shaping her eyebrows, wearing make-up and straightening her unruly curly mane. This vigorous beauty regime was simply to correspond to society’s idea of what’s hot and what’s not. It is as though women’s attributes are insignificant if they are inadequate ‘eye-candy’ whereas the majority of leading male roles in film the man are usual not conventionally attractive yet this is acceptable. Clearly in the media there are double standards with the portrayal of men and women.
In a survey conducted by Glamour magazine; three-quarters of women aged 18-35 reported feeling too fat, while only one quarter of them could be so described, and 45% of the underweight women felt they were too fat. Not too be fat has become a life goal for countless women: the Glamour survey also found that nearly half the women, rather than achieving a career ambition or meeting the love of their life, would choose to lose ten pounds (Leroy 64).
With constant reminders of how to look evidently women have lost track of things such as home life and their families, image is their main focus. Whether overt or covert the clear message of beauty being extremely important has lead to a new epidemic of females dissatisfied about their body image. A new breed generation of women now have no confidence as they are being told they are not worthy.
Source: Women's issue Then and Now- A Feminist overview of the past two centuries
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu
Women in the media
Women have been allocated a range of roles in recent years from being simply housewives and sexual objects to now being headstrong business women. Despite the alteration in roles women are far less visible in the media than men with only eighteen women actual being in the Media Guardian 100. Women have been presented as ideals that appeal to men. Usually men are seen as aggressors whereas women are depicted as victims.
Men play a range of social and occupational roles whereas women are usually housewives, content mothers, eager consumers etc. Tuchman et al (1978) adds that they also play sexual and romantic roles. However, there have been recently stronger female roles within the media i.e. Buffy the vampire slayer, sex and the city and soap operas’. All these women have attributes associated with male characteristics.
In the 1990’s 89% of television voiceovers for television advertisements were males- probably because males represented ‘authority’. However, it clearly shows that patriarchy is covertly still existent as women are simply ignores.
Shockingly, during the 1990’s only 14% of women were main stars of mid- evening programmes on TV. Women may have been considered unsuitable for leading roles as women should not be shown as strong or as the main target audience were women so they might have wanted to watch strong hunky men rather than a beautiful woman.
Haralambos and Holborn (2004) point out, earlier forms of gender representations do not go away. Old programmes are always going to be recycled on cable and satellite TV.
Tuchman implied that women are being marginalised. Newspapers have ‘women’s pages’- they concentrate on beauty and slimming. He uses the term ‘symbolic annihilation’ to refer to women in the media being absent, condemned or trivialised.
Men play a range of social and occupational roles whereas women are usually housewives, content mothers, eager consumers etc. Tuchman et al (1978) adds that they also play sexual and romantic roles. However, there have been recently stronger female roles within the media i.e. Buffy the vampire slayer, sex and the city and soap operas’. All these women have attributes associated with male characteristics.
In the 1990’s 89% of television voiceovers for television advertisements were males- probably because males represented ‘authority’. However, it clearly shows that patriarchy is covertly still existent as women are simply ignores.
Shockingly, during the 1990’s only 14% of women were main stars of mid- evening programmes on TV. Women may have been considered unsuitable for leading roles as women should not be shown as strong or as the main target audience were women so they might have wanted to watch strong hunky men rather than a beautiful woman.
Haralambos and Holborn (2004) point out, earlier forms of gender representations do not go away. Old programmes are always going to be recycled on cable and satellite TV.
Tuchman implied that women are being marginalised. Newspapers have ‘women’s pages’- they concentrate on beauty and slimming. He uses the term ‘symbolic annihilation’ to refer to women in the media being absent, condemned or trivialised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)