DVDizzy.com
https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/

Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!
https://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=32232
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Disney Duster [ Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

I like how the stepfamily look and act in that trailer.

Author:  UmbrellaFish [ Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

I always meant to reply to this thread, Cinderella is... if not exactly my favorite fairy tale, it is the one I consider most quintessential. I’ve always wanted to find the perfect adaptation of it, if it exists. What follows is my review of Brandy’s Cinderella and then a ranking of all the Cinderella’s I’ve seen.

After many years of languishing in my wishlist, I finally purchased the Brandy Cinderella on DVD. This is of course the version I grew up with and which introduced me to the Rodgers and Hammerstein take on the tale, but I haven’t watched it all the way through since I discovered the Julie Andrews television film, maybe 10 years ago.

Going in, this movie has an immediate advantage because the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical is my favorite adaptation of the story, top to bottom. No other musical adaptation has songs as satisfying or as memorable, and the added songs from R&H’s back catalogue are good choices which flesh out the score.

Brandy may be the definitive R&H Cinderella on television. Her role is expanded and ever so slightly more empowered than the role as written for Julie Andrews or Lesley Anne Warren. She plays a sweetness and innocence which reads genuine whereas in Warren it read as simpleness (seriously, it makes the Prince’s interest in her come off as creepy). She sings the score well, maybe not as well as the lady who originated the role, but she has amazing chemistry with Whitney Houston who is unquestionably the greatest R&H Fairy Godmother to assail the role on screen. I mean, just wow.

Paolo Montalban is handsome and sings beautifully, easily a Prince Charming anyone could dream about. I think the R&H musical does a great job of humanizing the character (in which the Disney version fails) while not dwelling too much time on him and his problems (one of the reasons I hate “The Slipper and the Rose”). His parents are true Broadway royalty with an underused Victor Garber and a splendid Whoopi Goldberg in a role which was initially tapped for Julie Andrews (this movie coincided with her disastrous throat operation leading her to decline the role. It’s a wonderful what-if— what if she had played the role as written for Goldberg? Julie is very funny and has only been given rare opportunities to showcase those talents). Here, too, I must note Jason Alexander’s contribution to the movie— the accent is a little off-putting (reminiscent of future citizens of Genovia) but he does a wonderful job as the singing, dancing, and put upon courtier.

Bernadette Peters is a magnificent Wicked Stepmother. She’s sinister and vengeful, humorous and sexy. I like other versions of the character, too, Eleanor Audley, Cate Blanchett, Anjelica Huston— but I can’t think of another Stepmother I’d want to watch more. And my God, that voice! The sisters are very funny, which is how I prefer my stepsisters rather than cruel— Cinderella is a light romantic fairy tale and when the characters are too mean to Cinderella without enough levity and comic relief it bogs down the whole affair, in my opinion. I particularly like the choreography and movement Rob Marshall gave the number in this version, although 1957’s Alice Ghostley and Kaye Ballard remain my favorite R&H Stepsisters.

The production design leaves much to be desired. Cinderella’s family home in particular looks like a 90’s coffeehouse threw up on a Klimt. Money was clearly spent, but draws attention to itself in a distracting way which the more barebones design of the 1957 Cinderella does not. I have a soft spot for the 1965 Cinderella because a medieval fairy tale design is a little uncommon for the story, pared with some of those 1960’s aesthetics like Cindy’s burnt orange working dress.

Speaking of dresses, Brandy’s ballgown is a major disappointment. It is far too derivative of Disney’s 1950 gown (or at least the way it was depicted in 90’s merchandising) and is a letdown for this otherwise unique Cinderella. It’s also a strange choice to go with a blue gown and then to costume the other dancers in shades of blue and purple— imagine instead, Cinderella wearing a beautiful yellow gown to distinguish her from the crowd.

Those quibbles aside, returning to the 1997 Cinderella after all these years was a revelation. In so many ways, this movie informed my vision of the ideal Cinderella adaptation with its variations on the character archetypes. The overall quality of the cast is unmatched by the other R&H adaptations, the songs and music are treated with respect, and the whole affair is a delightful romp from rags to riches. A lovely Cinderella.

Here’s my ranking

1. Cinderella 1950- This Cinderella dominates because it is the only one which truly nails the title character. Cinderella is always sweet and kind, but Disney’s 1950 Cinderella has spunk. If her movie had been produced in a more progressive period, she might have been more proactive, too. Her ballgown is the dress by which all other Cinderella’s are judged. Most of the songs are forgettable, but “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo” is a classic and “So This is Love” is a personal favorite. The movie is held back by too much mouse footage. One wishes we might have gotten to know the Prince a little better, too. But otherwise, 1950’s Cinderella is justifiably iconic— it is the promise of the American Dream come to life.

2. Cinderella 1997- See above.

3. Cinderella 1957- There’s something cozy about this 1950’s take that introduced the world to R&H’s Cinderella. Julie Andrews sings her role better than any other Cindy put to film or videotape and the supporting turns from the aforementioned Alice Ghostley and Kaye Ballard, and husband and wife team Howard Lindsay and Dorothy Stickney are funny and charming. The production budget appears minuscule, and the story is better fleshed out in the 1997 version. Television was still fairly new in 1957 so this movie feels like a time machine back to bygone days when a simple story buoyed with charming music and performances, and not so much special effects, was just enough.

4. Cinderella 2015- With the exception of the most important one (Cinderella’s ballgown which suffers from the same issues as Brandy’s), the costumes in this movie are an incredible delight— as if we’re seeing the “Cinderella” MGM would have made in the 1930’s had Louis B. Mayer any sense. The performances are mostly understated, but Cate Blanchett shines. I like Lily James but her Cinderella is much less interesting than 1950’s Cindy, and I agree with Alan Menken that this adaptation was screaming out to be a musical— I mean, could you imagine if this had been a musical with new music and songs provided by Alan Menken? I like Helena Bonham Carter’s Fairy Godmother, but mostly this Cinderella is typified by what could have been.

5. Cinderella 1965- I love the choice to set the story in a time further back, in an even more magical world where the Prince fights dragons— who is one of the cutest Princes, I must say. But again, I just hate the way Lesley Anne Warren plays the character. As I said before, she is childlike to a point that it makes the Prince’s interest in her almost unseemly.

6. The Slipper and the Rose- Who wants to watch a Cinderella movie that’s mostly about the Prince? The costumes and wigs are atrocious (it’s period accurate... but it’s also not...) and a mostly second-rate Sherman Brothers score is supported by mostly second-rate singers.

I have seen The Glass Slipper and Ever After but it’s been so long that I don’t want to rank them without refreshing my memory. The Glass Slipper seemed like a strange film with an even stranger Cinderella- Leslie Caron (who is a lovely actor) played her like a dirty urchin which was unappealing and I don’t remember much else.

I loved Ever After as a child, but the last time I saw it I was embarrassed by the bad history. I need to rewatch it soon, though, and I hope I will be more forgiving since I remember really loving it as a kid.

I think I have seen the Faerie Tale Theatre and The Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales For Every Child (a series I loved once upon a time) versions— and I know I’ve seen Hillary Duff’s A Cinderella Story— but I remember even less of them. And I don’t consider Ella Enchanted a true Cinderella adaptation— it diverges too much from the traditional story.

Author:  blackcauldron85 [ Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

I wonder if Disney wanted Brandy's dress to be reminiscent of animated Cinderella's so they'd sell more dolls (I don't believe they made dolls of the Brandy version), but kids would want a Cinderella doll as close to the version(s) they saw...?

Author:  UmbrellaFish [ Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

blackcauldron85 wrote:
I wonder if Disney wanted Brandy's dress to be reminiscent of animated Cinderella's so they'd sell more dolls (I don't believe they made dolls of the Brandy version), but kids would want a Cinderella doll as close to the version(s) they saw...?


There is an oral history of this Cinderella which I had hoped might hold the answer, but alas, I didn’t find any mention of outside meddling of the gown. Without rereading it, I searched “dress,” “gown,” and “Disney” but this was the most relevant piece of information I found:

Quote:
Ellen Mirojnick: We did the sketch for that blue dress first. I knew that I wanted a peplum. I knew I wanted the shape of the shoulder and the bodice to be particular, and I knew I wanted the shape of the big, beautiful skirt. Those were the musts when I started draping it. I remember when she came in and tried it on for the first time, and it was heaven before me. I remember her swirling around, like you’d imagine Cinderella would. It was just a magic moment.

https://www.shondaland.com/inspire/a131 ... inderella/

Although many subsequent Cinderella’s ball gowns owe a debt to Disney’s Cindy, it’s hard to imagine Brandy’s Cinderella gown being such a Disney doppelgänger had this movie been broadcast on a different network.

Author:  blackcauldron85 [ Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Although many subsequent Cinderella’s ball gowns owe a debt to Disney’s Cindy, it’s hard to imagine Brandy’s Cinderella gown being such a Disney doppelgänger had this movie been broadcast on a different network.


I agree, but I also think of Snow White's dress: So many non-Disney versions, whether a doll, book, I suppose movie, use designs so similar to Disney's.

Author:  Disney's Divinity [ Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

I remember the 1997 version being ripped to shreds on this forum so often over the years, to the point I was always a bit embarrassed to say I liked it. It has its flaws, but I love the music, the prince, the stepmother, the stepsisters, Jason Alexander as assistant / counsel or whatever he's supposed to be. I don't think Whitney's a great actress, but her voice is phenomenal, particularly on the final note of "Impossible (It's Possible)." The image of the carriage rolling through the forest with Whitney floating beside it and the castle in the distance is the image that's always stuck with me from this. Yes, the special effects are no doubt dated, but I loved it as a child. I agree that the blue dress is a letdown. The only real criticisms I would make of it are Brandy herself and overall gaudiness of the costumes / sets.

I looked back to my last post. I said what my favorite stepmothers and fairy godmothers were, so I'll finish the rest of the characters that generally appear in all versions:
- Cinderella: Ilene Woods > Leslie Ann Warren (I don't like anything about that version other than LAW herself, although I like seeing Pat Carroll.) > Drew Barrymore.
- Prince: Richard Madden is my favorite (both in his performance and looks), the 1997 R&H's prince is probably second. The Ever After prince, who later appeared on Desperate Housewives as a love interest where I strangely didn't like him at all, would be my third. Lord, that codpiece always distracted me growing up.
- Stepsisters: I like both in Ever After. In the 1997 version they're both hilarious and give great performances, but I think the tall one is the funnier one of the two. Edie McClurg in the Faerie Tale Theatre version makes me laugh, too, partly because of how old she was. :lol:
- King and/or Queen: Ever After (lovelovelove Judy Parfitt especially), then the 1950 film's King.

It's been quite a while since I've seen The Slipper and the Rose. I wish I could see it again.

Author:  Disney Duster [ Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

There is a looooot for me to talk about here, guys. I'll get to you tomorrow!

Author:  UmbrellaFish [ Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

blackcauldron85 wrote:
UmbrellaFish wrote:
I agree, but I also think of Snow White's dress: So many non-Disney versions, whether a doll, book, I suppose movie, use designs so similar to Disney's.

That’s true. I always liked looking at mermaid illustrations as a kid because they’d often color her like Ariel, but change one element of the red-purple-green scheme. I had both these books as a kid:
https://images.app.goo.gl/WAVNbduYCyQ7Ejjd8
https://images.app.goo.gl/Zvtrm2Y4PBVYYcaN6

Disney's Divinity wrote:
I remember the 1997 version being ripped to shreds on this forum so often over the years, to the point I was always a bit embarrassed to say I liked it. It has its flaws, but I love the music, the prince, the stepmother, the stepsisters, Jason Alexander as assistant / counsel or whatever he's supposed to be. I don't think Whitney's a great actress, but her voice is phenomenal, particularly on the final note of "Impossible (It's Possible)." The image of the carriage rolling through the forest with Whitney floating beside it and the castle in the distance is the image that's always stuck with me from this. Yes, the special effects are no doubt dated, but I loved it as a child. I agree that the blue dress is a letdown. The only real criticisms I would make of it are Brandy herself and overall gaudiness of the costumes / sets.

I think the movie was popularly re-evaluated around its 20th anniversary. So many of us grew up with this movie, because (and maybe still does?) it aired almost every weekend on ABC Family/Freeform. Speaking of the Whitney floating bit- I forgot that happened and when I watched it, I thought it was a really delightful moment.

Disney's Divinity wrote:
It's been quite a while since I've seen The Slipper and the Rose. I wish I could see it again.

It’s streaming on Amazon Prime if you have a subscription.

EDIT: I guess the coding is messed up because it will not allow me to properly quote here. Every time I take out the extra “[/quote]” it puts it back in by itself...

Author:  Disney's Divinity [ Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
It’s streaming on Amazon Prime if you have a subscription.
Oh, thank you! I have a friend whose house I visit occasionally who's able to stream Netflix, hulu, Prime (not Disney+ though, although I offered to pay for them to stream it for just one month if they allowed me. :lol: ). I'll try to watch it next time I'm up there. :)

Author:  Disney Duster [ Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

Thank you for coming in and discussing my favorite thing in the world, UmbrellaFish! Forgive me for writing a lot, you gave me a lot to write about. It's ok if you don't write much back, if anything, I just like that you wrote in here!

Cinderella to me is the quintessential fairy tale. There is certainly some bias because it's my favorite story ever, but it's known by everyone in countless versions all over the world and it's basic plot is rather perfect. An abused slave living the lowest of life by the hands of an evil step-parent has a magical helper get her to meet and fall in love with the ruling monarch which leads her to live the highest in life. I am writing my own version of the story. A long time ago, before my depression, I even came up with some songs. So I'll be trying to publish a book with a CD or itunes downoad or something of like three or four songs with it. It was originally going to be a graphic novel, but my depression and the sheer amount I'd have to draw ended that. My dream is to get my version so much attention people like Alan Menken or Pasek and Paul would write additional songs and it would become a full blown musical. I doubt my version would be the perfect one. I think 1950's Cinderella is the closest we will ever get, but hey, maybe I really will get it right someday. I'm open to hearing what critics say of my work and republishing my version. Even the Brothers Grimm republished their fairy tales with changes.

I need to update my rankings of the films in here someday. My last ranking is now outdated.

When did you discover the Julie Andrews one, UmbrellaFish? I swear only 5 years ago you had yet to watch it. I am so surprised it is the Rodgers and Hammerstein version which is your favorite Cinderella. When I was little, I always thought Disney’s songs were more magical, and R&H’s songs were too…dry? Less emotional I guess. However, I always thought “Do I Love You Because You’re Beautiful?” was a haunting kind of love song, and now it is my favorite written-for-Cinderella song. The score is actually really, really great, there is just one thing I don’t like – “In My Own Little Corner”. And it’s not even so much the song, it’s just that that song is not right for Cinderella to sing, in my opinion. Cinderella’s wish is to be free, and I bet she wants to explore the world and be whatever she wants, sure. But she specifically wants to be a princess, or some fine noblewoman who gets respect and doesn’t have to work like a dog, as well as find love. At least, that is what is probably best assumed from the fairy tale, since that is what she gets. Her wish has always been to go to a ball, not be “a huntress on an African safari”, of all things! So, I just wish R&H’s song reflected that. That is why Disney’s score is more definitive for the story of Cinderella, to me. Walt’s Cinderella sings about always having faith her wish for a better life will come true, and by the end of the movie, it does. That’s how you do it.

I will never, ever like that they take non-written-for-Cinderella songs from R&H and sticking them in Cinderella. I didn’t even like that they did that when Rodgers was alive in the 1965 version. All the songs they have added over the years are lovely (except some of the ones in the 2013 Broadway version), but I hate that they didn’t just have some other people write new songs for it like Candide or Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Wizard of Oz!

I am very surprised you think Brandy is definitive R&H Cinderella. I don’t think she is bad, don’t get me wrong. I just find her the least good. I just found her acting to be kind of fake and limited, like she couldn’t really emote, at least, not convincingly. Julie was great, she was sophisticated and princessy as well as playful. Brandy was written as kind of playful when she’s with the Prince in the garden, and I like that part, but her acting wasn’t really that playful. I am almost ashamed to say this now, after reading what you said, but I find Lesley Ann Warren to be the best live-action Cinderella ever to grace a screen. Reading what you said, yes, she was childlike, and yes, she was kind of simpleton. But that’s just it. I found it endearing. Childlike innocence. Wide eyes. And somehow, excitedness and exuberance but with grace. Like Ariel, but demure and princessy. I just find her the most adorable live-action Cinderella. The only flaw I see with Lesley’s performance was it was kind of too much like a play, like you could tell she was acting a lot of the time. But that’s kind of the way all the characters in the 1965 version were.

Whitney Houston is the best R&H Fairy Godmother unquestionably, like you said. She can act pretty good, but it was just about how great her personality was along with her phenomenal singing. Brandy sung the score well in my opinion, too.

Paolo Montalban is handsome, and does sing beautifully! I just wish he had been more interesting. I found Brandy to be more interesting than him, but maybe it’s just princes, and even men in general, can be less lovable than the women when they’re pure good archetypes. The Walt Disney version really should have gone the route of having us know Prince Charming and explore his love with Cinderella, it’s true, so any R&H version does have the 1950 version beat there. Thank God they didn’t go too far with it like The Slipper and the Rose, which I do dislike for subtitling it The Story of Cinderella, but then making it more about the Prince than the character who’s name is mentioned in that subtitle, as well as just in general, because the story should always be more about Cinderella than anyone else. I must have forgotten Julie Andrew was asked to be the Queen in the Brandy version! That may have made it seem like the ultimate one (even more so, to you UmbrellaFish!) and almost so final they couldn’t do another. So in a way I’m glad they didn’t use her, but I don’t think it would have ruined anything, so why not her. Hey, maybe in another remake down the line? :p But I love, absolutely love Whoopi as the Queen. In my opinion, Whoopi was the best fit and gave the best performance out of any of the other actors. Maybe it’s just because she always make me laugh with, “Then this ball will never end!” Victor Garber is so adorable and I liked him as the King, good fit as well. I also thought Jason Alexander did a really good job as Lionel. Really added a funny touch to the story and my favorite running joke in the film is the King and Queen always treating him horribly, lol! And he can really dance, too!

Bernadette Peters is a great Stepmother, but like…she wasn’t as amazing as I know she can be! I think it’s because the character was written too comedic. But I also love her “...except some princess something or other, I never did quite catch her name.” And her fitting the glass slipper is also hilarious. Plus I love when she finally tells Cinderella she thinks she’s common. It’s rather dramatic. So, I don’t know, she’s good, I guess the character was just written not as amazing as some of her best, past performances have matched. Now, I’m also surprised you prefer the stepsisters comedic. I always preferred the stepsisters cruel, or perhaps cruel and comedic, which they often are, which is why I like the 1965 R&H Cinderella. The stepmother is cruel and scary, much like the 1950 one. The stepsisters aren’t nearly as cruel as the stepmother in that one though. It is only in the 1950 Cinderella and Ever After that the stepsisters truly are cruel to Cinderella, and that’s how I like them best. I know the fairy tale is light and happy, but there’s a lot of good in levity, gravitas, pathos, and dramatic weight, isn’t there? That’s how I’m doing my book. Lots of drama. And that’s why maybe it wouldn’t be the version you consider the perfect version.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I particularly like the choreography and movement Rob Marshall gave the number in this version, although 1957’s Alice Ghostley and Kaye Ballard remain my favorite R&H Stepsisters.

Which number? “Stepsisters’ Lament”? Yes, Rob Marshall did an excellent job with their choreography, making it the best one in my opinion.

OMG lol about your “Klimt” description! That’s funny! But you know, I actually love a lot of the design choices. I love the stepfamily house (those beautiful peacocks!), the palace, and the village. Not all of it, but a lot of it. I don’t like the pumpkin coach very much, I kind of just like the wheels. I hate all the designs of the 1957 version. Ew. Just ew. The 1965 version is oddly the best looking version to me because there is nothing in it I think is designed badly except the Fairy Godmother’s cape and wand. But it stole the design of the pumpkin coach from the 1950 version! Plus, it all looks too cheap. Budget was clearly not there. If all the designs had money behind them, the 1965 version would probably be better regarded.

I like Brandy’s Cinderella ballgown. I like every ball outfit actually. But I must admit that just like the sets, not every costume is good. I know the other ladies at the ball wore blue, purple, pink, and green and that’s why you think Cinderella’s blue dress is the wrong color, but I think a white would stand out spectacularly. Yellow is ok for Cinderella since she’s like sunshine and gold is part of the original fairy tale and looking like a very rich princess, but I always will think she needs a prettier and more cool color like a blue or a white or a silver, and even a very soft pink. But I like the blue used in the 1997 version because there was a kind of a color code for the ball attire and Cinderella fit in, but still stood out (well, I think she stood out).

I am however very happy you love the 1997 Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella!

I was surprised you ranked the 1950 Cinderella as first because I thought your favorite was the 1997 one. I guess you mean it may not be your favorite, but you see it subjectively as the best? I pretty much completely agree with what you said about it, except I find the song “Cinderella” memorable and lovely, the song “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes” lovely and an iconic classic, and the song “Sing Sweet Nightingale” just plain beautiful. But, yeah, the songs are not as good as they really should be for such a classic.

Julie Andrews does sing he R&H score the best, as does her prince in my opinion, I just like his voice. I, too, like how the 1957 version is like a time machine to the past. I didn’t like the King and Queen part, except when the King does that sweet thing for the mother and she cries and they kiss, I actually do really like that part.

I love and hate the 2015 Cinderella. I love it because it is so definitive in its scope. I hate how boring it actually is. I watch it for the sets, costumes, and special effects. Plus, Ella and Kit’s romance. That’s all I feel the film has going for it, but that actually is a lot. Did Alan Menken really say somewhere that he wanted the film to be a musical?!!! If he had done the music for the film and replaced the less good 1950 songs with better songs, I would have peed my pants!

I’m not a fan of a Cinderella where dragons and such fantasy things are normal, just because I feel that makes what happens to Cinderella less amazing. So I’m not big on medieval Cinderella’s. I like 17th-19th century ones the best, where the clothes started to get really beautiful.

I wish The Slipper and the Rose had a bigger budget to fix the costumes and wigs. Frock Flicks says a lot of it actually is period accurate, but yes, alas some is not, and the stuff that is not sucks. I wonder, if there hadn’t been a Rodgers and Hammerstein Cinderella, would the Sherman Brothers had made a better score? Even though I like a few of the songs.

The Glass Slipper is a strange movie. I actually like how Leslie Caron was a more fighting Cinderella, who even was going to run away (probably because this was written by a woman), but I thought the character was too stupid. Like, something mentally wrong with her. Maybe that’s how you felt about Lesley Ann Warren’s Cinderella? LOL I also hated the cheapness of the costumes, and the ballet scenes that really did not have anything to do with the story.

Ever After is the best live-action Cinderella in my opinion. It just is. The writing is too good. The Faerie Tale Theatre version is actually really, really good. Lots of personality in all the characters, and with great costumes and music.
I agree, I don’t count Ella Enchanted. If it had been like the book, then it would count.
blackcauldron85 wrote:
I wonder if Disney wanted Brandy's dress to be reminiscent of animated Cinderella's so they'd sell more dolls (I don't believe they made dolls of the Brandy version), but kids would want a Cinderella doll as close to the version(s) they saw...?

They did make a doll of Brandy as Cinderella, but I think for some reason it was never sold. I don't know why!
Image

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Although many subsequent Cinderella’s ball gowns owe a debt to Disney’s Cindy, it’s hard to imagine Brandy’s Cinderella gown being such a Disney doppelgänger had this movie been broadcast on a different network.

You are probably completely right.

blackcauldron85 wrote:
I agree, but I also think of Snow White's dress: So many non-Disney versions, whether a doll, book, I suppose movie, use designs so similar to Disney's.

You are absolutely right.

Author:  blackcauldron85 [ Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

^ That doll is pretty!!

My interpretation of "In My Own Little Corner" is that anything she dreams is better than her reality. So her main wish may not be to go on safari, but she never gets to do anything fun, so...it's like watching TV, I guess. "Today let's go on safari and try to forget about real life for a while," I think.

Author:  Disney Duster [ Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

Yes, you are right Amy. It is like that. It's just that for a musical to be good in my opinion, if something good happens to a character and it's how they wanted their life to turn out, that good thing being what they have dreamed about and wished for in the beginning of the musical makes for a much better work of art.

Author:  UmbrellaFish [ Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

Quote:
I am writing my own version of the story. A long time ago, before my depression, I even came up with some songs. So I'll be trying to publish a book with a CD or itunes downoad or something of like three or four songs with it.


Best of luck to you!!

Quote:
When did you discover the Julie Andrews one, UmbrellaFish? I swear only 5 years ago you had yet to watch it.


5 years ago I would have been a freshman/sophomore in college and I was well acquainted with Julie’s Cinderella at that point— I think I even loaned the DVD out to my theatre arts teacher. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Lesley Ann Warren version which I only saw for the first time last year. I bought the 1957 one many years ago at Barnes and Noble (before I had my own card to use on Amazon) with birthday money. I took it on a camping trip (I hated camping) and watched it on a portable DVD player for the first time. I haven’t gone camping since the summer before I entered high school, which was 2010 so I had to have watched the movie by that point at the latest.


Quote:
But she specifically wants to be a princess, or some fine noblewoman who gets respect and doesn’t have to work like a dog, as well as find love.


Oh I’ve never interpreted her motivation that way. I’ve always viewed her wish to go to the ball as a wish to escape her horrible life, if only for one night. She seems resigned to her life of drudgery, both before and after going to the ball and thus uses her daydreams as a form of escapism. I’m not sure Cinderella ever really wanted to be a Princess... in so many adaptations, she doesn’t even realize she danced with the Prince— including the 1950 version. I mean, I don’t think she didn’t want to be a princess... but I think what she really wanted was an escape. Any escape. Cinderella could just as easily end like Bluth’s Anastasia, don’t you think?

Quote:
I am almost ashamed to say this now, after reading what you said, but I find Lesley Ann Warren to be the best live-action Cinderella ever to grace a screen.


Eh, you shouldn’t feel any shame. Lots of people love Lesley Ann Warren’s Cinderella. Her interpretation just did not work for me.

Quote:
But I love, absolutely love Whoopi as the Queen. In my opinion, Whoopi was the best fit and gave the best performance out of any of the other actors.


Oh, of course I do love Whoopi, she was wonderful. I would watch Julie in anything, but I don’t particularly mourn the loss of the part in this Cinderella.

Quote:
Now, I’m also surprised you prefer the stepsisters comedic. I always preferred the stepsisters cruel, or perhaps cruel and comedic, which they often are, which is why I like the 1965 R&H Cinderella.


I’d actually categorize all the R&H stepsisters and Disney’s 1950 stepsisters as falling on the comedic side. Specifically regarding Walt’s sisters: Yes, they can be monstrously cruel (see: the pink dress ripping scene) but everywhere else those sisters are just pure comic relief. Even their design says “these are characters not to be taken seriously,” unlike Lady Tremaine. The Walt’s sisters almost go too far into the comedic side for my liking, becoming at times slapstick.

When I think of stepsisters who were less funny and more often cruel, I think of the 2015 sisters (although they could be very funny) and the sisters from Ever After.

Quote:
Which number? “Stepsisters’ Lament”?


Yes, that one. I just love all the movement— it’s so much more interesting to watch than the very static shot from the 1957 version (although, again I love both those ladies). I cannot recall how the song was filmed in the 1965 version.

Quote:
but I think a white would stand out spectacularly. Yellow is ok for Cinderella since she’s like sunshine and gold is part of the original fairy tale and looking like a very rich princess, but I always will think she needs a prettier and more cool color like a blue or a white or a silver, and even a very soft pink.


I just threw out yellow because it is a pretty color and I think it would have suited Brandy well. I considered a pale pink, too, but there’s an awful lot of fuchsia in the ballroom, too, which I think is like a dark pink and thus causes the same problems as the light blue gown. I like my Cinderella to really stand out, and I think a yellow gown (in a style not so Disney-esque) could have been lovely. But oh well.

Quote:
I was surprised you ranked the 1950 Cinderella as first because I thought your favorite was the 1997 one. I guess you mean it may not be your favorite, but you see it subjectively as the best?


Eh, I wrote so much because I’d just seen it— I’m sure I could have written some rhapsodic praise of the 1950 version had it been the one fresh in my memory. I will say, I noticed after ranking the Cinderella’s that their placement corresponded to how much I liked the portrayal of the title character— from the way the script handled them to the performance of the actor. For example, I’d rather watch Julie Andrews but Brandy is good in her own right and her role is better written so she wins out. I like Gemma Craven better than Lesley Ann Warren, but The Slipper and the Rose does such an injustice to the character of Cinderella that the movie slips back a placement.

Quote:
I didn’t like the King and Queen part, except when the King does that sweet thing for the mother and she cries and they kiss, I actually do really like that part.


Oh I love them to death. They are such a cute old couple. I love the moment Dorothy Stickney dusts the camera. Julie Andrews wrote some wonderful stuff about working with them in her autobiography, Home, as well.

Quote:
Did Alan Menken really say somewhere that he wanted the film to be a musical?!!! If he had done the music for the film and replaced the less good 1950 songs with better songs, I would have peed my pants!


I think I read it on here at some point. I’ll try and dig it up. But it’s always stuck in my mind, because once he said that I totally agreed— it would have been marvelous! Interesting, come to think of it, that they are keeping Snow White a musical but chose not to go that route with Cinderella... what a shame.

Quote:
I’m not a fan of a Cinderella where dragons and such fantasy things are normal, just because I feel that makes what happens to Cinderella less amazing. So I’m not big on medieval Cinderella’s. I like 17th-19th century ones the best, where the clothes started to get really beautiful.


I agree. I typically like my Cinderella’s set in the 18th and 19th centuries, but a medieval design is so rare that it’s a fun breath of fresh air which was a saving grace of the 1965 version for me. I can’t think of any other medieval Cinderella I’ve ever seen, maybe beyond picture books.

Plus the detail about the Prince fighting the dragon just makes him a little more interesting than the boring perpetual bachelor he’s usually portrayed as.

Quote:
I wonder, if there hadn’t been a Rodgers and Hammerstein Cinderella, would the Sherman Brothers had made a better score?


I don’t think that has any bearing on it. I think the problem is that, instead of being a fairy tale romance, The Slipper and the Rose is largely a film about the politics of monarchy. Politics and political history can sometimes yield great results in the musical theatre, but the Sherman Brothers certainly were not the ones for the job. And even their love songs aren’t very good in The Slipper and the Rose, at least lyrically! It’s just such a disappointing soundtrack to me.

One kind thing I will say about The Slipper and the Rose: I love the snowscapes. I love a Christmasy Cinderella. Speaking of which, do you know of any Cinderella adaptations set at Christmastime, Duster? Every time I search “Cinderella Christmas” it’s just pictures of Disney’s Cinderella in winter wear or modern day adaptations which don’t interest me very much. I remember reading on here about... maybe a Russian Cinderella, which was either set at Christmas or was just a tradition to watch at Christmas time. “Three Wishes For Cinderella”?

I agree with Amy, that Brandy Cinderella doll is very pretty!

Author:  Disney Duster [ Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Rate the Cinderellas You've Seen!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Best of luck to you!!

Thank you very much! I'm gonna need it lol.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
5 years ago I would have been a freshman/sophomore in college and I was well acquainted with Julie’s Cinderella at that point— I think I even loaned the DVD out to my theatre arts teacher. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Lesley Ann Warren version which I only saw for the first time last year. I bought the 1957 one many years ago at Barnes and Noble (before I had my own card to use on Amazon) with birthday money. I took it on a camping trip (I hated camping) and watched it on a portable DVD player for the first time. I haven’t gone camping since the summer before I entered high school, which was 2010 so I had to have watched the movie by that point at the latest.

Oh. It was in the Cinderella live-action 2015 movie thread that I thought I read you had not yet seen Julie's version. I must have been mistaken. Well, now you told me when you did really first see it! Glad you had something to make you happy while camping!


UmbrellaFish wrote:
Oh I’ve never interpreted her motivation that way. I’ve always viewed her wish to go to the ball as a wish to escape her horrible life, if only for one night. She seems resigned to her life of drudgery, both before and after going to the ball and thus uses her daydreams as a form of escapism. I’m not sure Cinderella ever really wanted to be a Princess... in so many adaptations, she doesn’t even realize she danced with the Prince— including the 1950 version. I mean, I don’t think she didn’t want to be a princess... but I think what she really wanted was an escape. Any escape. Cinderella could just as easily end like Bluth’s Anastasia, don’t you think?

Oh, wow, yes you're right, I was presumptive that she wants to be a princess, even in the original fairy tale. How it really is is she would love to be a princess, but what she really wants is to just have any wonderful escape from her horrible life. I have always thought she wanted to not work so much, too, and have people who love her. I think those are also what she really wants. She could indeed have been like Anastasia! As long as Dimitri shared in the work and she didn't have to do any jobs, household or career-wise, that were too much work!


UmbrellaFish wrote:
Eh, you shouldn’t feel any shame. Lots of people love Lesley Ann Warren’s Cinderella. Her interpretation just did not work for me.

Oh, ok. Thank you.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Oh, of course I do love Whoopi, she was wonderful. I would watch Julie in anything, but I don’t particularly mourn the loss of the part in this Cinderella.

Ah, well I'm glad you liked Whoopi that much!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I’d actually categorize all the R&H stepsisters and Disney’s 1950 stepsisters as falling on the comedic side. Specifically regarding Walt’s sisters: Yes, they can be monstrously cruel (see: the pink dress ripping scene) but everywhere else those sisters are just pure comic relief. Even their design says “these are characters not to be taken seriously,” unlike Lady Tremaine. The Walt’s sisters almost go too far into the comedic side for my liking, becoming at times slapstick.

When I think of stepsisters who were less funny and more often cruel, I think of the 2015 sisters (although they could be very funny) and the sisters from Ever After.

Hm. The stepsisters always scared me a little in the 1950 and 1965 versions. Because in the 1950 version they practically beat up Cinderella, and in the 1965 one they say they could break her arm and pull her out her hair and at the end they bark at her with their mother to get away from the prince. But I have always found the 1950 versions funny, too. I personally love that they can be so cartoony in the 1950 one and still a threat, because I feel that is proof Walt was so good in storytelling, but now I know how you feel about them, and I guess I like the slapstick as long as they are still a threat. I agree with you about the 2015 and Ever After stepsisters.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Yes, that one. I just love all the movement— it’s so much more interesting to watch than the very static shot from the 1957 version (although, again I love both those ladies). I cannot recall how the song was filmed in the 1965 version.

It is almost static in the 1965 version. They just walk around a little watching the couple, lol. That’s probably why you don’t remember it. What was done in 1997 was the best of them.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I just threw out yellow because it is a pretty color and I think it would have suited Brandy well. I considered a pale pink, too, but there’s an awful lot of fuchsia in the ballroom, too, which I think is like a dark pink and thus causes the same problems as the light blue gown. I like my Cinderella to really stand out, and I think a yellow gown (in a style not so Disney-esque) could have been lovely. But oh well.

We disagree. Lol. I just don’t like Cinderella in yellow. Gold, sure. But not yellow. But, I will admit, it could have been a really great choice, I just don’t know.

But, there is a picture where her dress looks kind of silvery white that gives you a look at the kind of color I would have loved it to be:

Image

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Eh, I wrote so much because I’d just seen it— I’m sure I could have written some rhapsodic praise of the 1950 version had it been the one fresh in my memory. I will say, I noticed after ranking the Cinderella’s that their placement corresponded to how much I liked the portrayal of the title character— from the way the script handled them to the performance of the actor. For example, I’d rather watch Julie Andrews but Brandy is good in her own right and her role is better written so she wins out. I like Gemma Craven better than Lesley Ann Warren, but The Slipper and the Rose does such an injustice to the character of Cinderella that the movie slips back a placement.

Ohhh, ok. That’s cool! You know, I thought how they wrote Gemma Craven started out great. She tells her stepmother she tricked her father into loving her, practically yelling it, says she hates her stepfamily, and when they say she will serve them, she says, “Never” before they say she would have to go to the orphanage if she doesn’t stay with them. Then…she wilts. Now, I actually love me a wilting flower. I love me some passive princess types. I really do. I find them nice. I find them sweet. If that makes me sexist, maybe, I don’t know. I like passive, innocent guys, too. As well as strong guys. As well as strong women. But it’s kind of weird for a Cinderella to start so strong and then have, perhaps, an “arc” where she becomes really passive for the rest of the film. I dunno, all I do know is I thought she started out rather interesting and then turned out mediocre.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
Oh I love them to death. They are such a cute old couple. I love the moment Dorothy Stickney dusts the camera. Julie Andrews wrote some wonderful stuff about working with them in her autobiography, Home, as well.

I certainly loved their onscreen love. When she dusts the camera that’s kind of genius, I didn’t even realize that. I’m glad Julie really loved working with them!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I think I read it on here at some point. I’ll try and dig it up. But it’s always stuck in my mind, because once he said that I totally agreed— it would have been marvelous! Interesting, come to think of it, that they are keeping Snow White a musical but chose not to go that route with Cinderella... what a shame.

If you do find the time, and still want to, please do look it up! I’m so jealous Snow White gets his attention and Cinderella didn’t. Cinderella needs better songs, and Snow White already has perfect ones! That film really does! I wonder why it was The Jungle Book, of all films, to start turning the remakes into musicals. Is it because Cinderella was the first time they kept the story straight, and they didn’t think of keeping the films even closer to the original source material until Jungle Book rolled around?

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I agree. I typically like my Cinderella’s set in the 18th and 19th centuries, but a medieval design is so rare that it’s a fun breath of fresh air which was a saving grace of the 1965 version for me. I can’t think of any other medieval Cinderella I’ve ever seen, maybe beyond picture books.

Plus the detail about the Prince fighting the dragon just makes him a little more interesting than the boring perpetual bachelor he’s usually portrayed as.

Ah, right you are, medieval is more rare and the prince fighting dragons makes him slightly more interesting.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I don’t think that has any bearing on it. I think the problem is that, instead of being a fairy tale romance, The Slipper and the Rose is largely a film about the politics of monarchy. Politics and political history can sometimes yield great results in the musical theatre, but the Sherman Brothers certainly were not the ones for the job. And even their love songs aren’t very good in The Slipper and the Rose, at least lyrically! It’s just such a disappointing soundtrack to me.

On the Blu-ray, they had a bonus feature that revealed they first said, “No” to doing a Cinderella movie with their music because they felt Disney and Rodgers and Hammerstein had made the definitive versions of it. It was when they realized they could put more focus on and show the prince’s story, which they felt had never been done before, that they agreed to do it. That’s why I wonder if Rodgers and Hammerstein had not made the “definitive” live-action version first, would they have tried harder? But you know, I think genius is more a matter of the heart, than of just working harder, so their heart would have to be in it. Of course Alan Menken is genius in just about anything he does, but he’s a rarity, lol!

UmbrellaFish wrote:
One kind thing I will say about The Slipper and the Rose: I love the snowscapes. I love a Christmasy Cinderella. Speaking of which, do you know of any Cinderella adaptations set at Christmastime, Duster? Every time I search “Cinderella Christmas” it’s just pictures of Disney’s Cinderella in winter wear or modern day adaptations which don’t interest me very much. I remember reading on here about... maybe a Russian Cinderella, which was either set at Christmas or was just a tradition to watch at Christmas time. “Three Wishes For Cinderella”?

I love the snow in the beginning of The Slipper and the Rose, too. I never liked the idea of putting the holiday of someone I believe to be God’s son being born with a fairy tale, but I must admit a Christmas ball is kind of romantic.

You are onto something with Three Wishes for Cinderella, although the English translation is really Three Nuts for Cinderella, not that it matters because I believe it’s called Three Wishes for Cinderella in English everywhere people know the film. Also, it is Czechoslovakian/East German, not Russian. It is not set during Christmas (from what I remember!), but it is set during winter. I own a restored version in a region my Blu-ray player can’t play, but I also own a less good-looking and less-spelling-and-grammarly-well-subtitled version that I can play. It is a very good film. In many European countries, it is actually as revered, and played, as the US’s A Christmas Story.

There is also this really bizarre and, from what I can tell without knowing a lick of Russian and seeing no version of it with subtitles, crappy, pop musical version of Cinderella that is just called золушка, which is Russian for Cinderella, that was a joint production between Russia and the Ukraine in 2003. It is set during winter, so maybe it’s during Christmas? I have not watched the whole thing, but the one stepsister is played by a man, the stepsisters look at sexual pictures, the Fairy Godmother accidentally makes Cinderella nude for a moment, and the King licks the stepmother’s chest. There’s probably even more, um, in my opinion, bad qualities. Click here for the video of the whole thing, if you dare.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
I agree with Amy, that Brandy Cinderella doll is very pretty!

That doll certainly is pretty! It’s a shame they never sold it, even as a limited edition.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/