Persuasion (2022) or MadsenCreations and I Watched the New Persuasion So You Don’t Have To

I have to be honest, when I heard Netflix was making a new Persuasion I immediately had a bad feeling about it. I decided to reserve judgement and hope that it wouldn’t be terrible, but I didn’t really believe we would get a miracle.

Then I saw the trailer and I knew it was going to be bad. I could see in those few clips they has completely misunderstood the character of Anne and that this was going to be another Mansfield Park (1999).

It was worse.

MadsenCreations and I watched it together, she did Instagram live while I live tweeted. You can read my tweets but more terrible and horrible moments happened that I actually couldn’t tweet as fast as the film went. It was a hot mess.

But before I go into what I didn’t like, let’s start off with what I did like

Set & Costume Design

The set was beautiful and the director knew how to utilize the home, forest, seaside, country and city. Unlike some other Austen novels these characters do spend a fair amount of time indoors and outdoors, the weather and scenery tying into the story and the emotions of the characters. This was probably the best thing about the film was how well the director understood to use the set.

The costumes are also well done, as MadsenCreations pointed out there are no large glaring zippers (Netflix has learned since Bridgerton). Although, I am sad that there weren’t any ones from previous Austen adaptions, or if there were any I didn’t catch it. I really love seeing the same gown pop up in adaption after adaption.

Visually the film was good, it was the other choices that were terrible.

Diversity

As with Bridgerton they chose to do a rainbow cast (for those who have never heard the term before rainbow cast means that you cast people for characters regardless of the color of their skin, hence having a “rainbow” cast). While other productions that have done this have either made the character’s skin tone their only character trait (I hate when they do that), this production didn’t go that route. In fact it reminded me a lot of Cinderella (1997), the one that stars Brandy, where they had a family unit that contains a white father, African-American mother, and Filipino son; but nothing is made to explain it and being those races are not the characters only personality; instead they are just people. I really enjoyed it, and feel that of other films and TV shows want to that they should definitely go this route. Although I have noticed that like in Bridgerton, Persuasion has no one of Latin descent. As someone who is Latina. I do find that offensive that they promote how inclusive they are yet there is no one of Latino descent. And if someone wants to say that perhaps they couldn’t find a British-Latino person, while I find that to false. First of all Dakota Johnson isn’t even British and they gave her the main character, and secondly I googled it and found 24 right away. Netflix I’m expecting the next adaption to have someone!

Dialogue

The dialogue in this was horrendous. I’m not sure who was paid for this because it was beyond terrible. If I was Netflix, I’d demand that money back. First we have all these modern sayings, phrases, and slang that just do not fit right with the atmosphere. I think if that’s the route they wanted to take they should have just made a modern Persuasion. Or if they wanted to make this a cross between modern + Regency they should have done it Romeo + Juliet (1996) style with her in the Regency clothes and all modern language; or modern clothes and regency language. But this mishmash, some Regency and some Modern did not work out well at all.

There is a lot of truly terrible dialogue but the biggest offenders to be was when Henrietta tells Anne that to win a guy she should pretend she didn’t know how to use cutlery. Not only is that the dumbest thing I have ever heard, but now a whole generation are going to think that Jane Austen wrote that.

I asked a friend if that would be attractive to him and this was his response was “no” and that he would wonder about her mental capacities. The reason I find this particular scene so offensive is first of all Jane Austen wrote very strong and intelligent characters, there are silly ones but these women were not. And not only are we perpetuating this idea that women need to be dumb and have a man help them in order to be attractive, they are making it sound as if Jane Austen herself agrees with that and promoted it as well!

But that was just the beginning. So much of it is terrible that even the good dialogue is lost in the cesspool of words. And let’s not even begin on the octopus line.

The other truly terrible parts of this dialogue is that there is no subtlety or secrets. Everything is out in the open. In the book no one besides Lady Russell knew that Anne and Captain Wentworth had been engaged; in this everyone knows. In the book, no one is certain of Mr. Eliot’s intentions-he saying that he just wants to fix the rift; but Anne suspecting more. However, in this Mr. Eliot tells Anne right away he wants to keep her father from having a male heir. It’s like did anyone read this book?!!

Where are the Austen things and characters I love??!!

They completely destroyed my two favorite parts: 1) when they discuss the loyalty of women and Anne points out that all the “proof” of men loving more are written by men; 2) the letter scene. It really felt like someone took the bare, bare, almost nonexistent bones of the story to write this production.

Mary Musgrove (Mia McKenna-Bruce), Sir Walter Elliot (Richard E. Grant), Charles Musgrove (Ben Bailey Smith), Elizabeth Elliot (Yolanda Kettle), & the Musgrove Children (Jake Siame and Hardy Yusuf)

So some of the characters and the decisions made about the characters were not good, but I’ll save my complaints for a little later. The ones I did enjoy were the above few. Sir Walter and Elizabeth were so horrible and rude, just as they should be, although I think it would have been better to include a bit more of them as they are hardly in there, but they did good.

Charles Musgrove although he too wasn’t in the film that much. The little Musgrove boys were adorable and they stole the scene every time they were on screen.

The one they blew me away though was Mia McKenna-Bruce as Mary Musgrove. You liked her and hated her, she was extremely awful but at the same time she also said a lot of things I agreed with when it came to Anne. Anne was such a mess that Mary (yes Mary), seemed to be the only adjusted character. She was a narcissist, that didn’t change, but she was more together than Anne (which is not how it should be). Out of everyone, I think she did the best.

Henry Golding as Mr. Elliot

Henry Golding was charming but too charming. He’s supposed to be somewhat suspect from Anne’s pov as he hasn’t done anything outwardly wrong, but she is questioning his interest and sudden appearance with her family. When Anne’s friend warns her against him and tells her she spotted Mrs. Clay and Mr. Elliot together, Anne immediately believes her and thinks something is up (which of course we later discover later that he ran off with Mrs. Clay to keep Sir Walter from siring a male heir [although he should be more afraid that Sir Walter will lose all his inheritance]).

However, someone in their great wisdom (read that sarcastically please) decides to reveal Mr. Elliot’s intentions in the first meeting. That’s supposed to be a big plot point! That’d be like if in Great Expectations when Pip goes to school if Magwitch sent him a letter saying that hey I’m your benefactor! By the way I also have a little girl that was adopted named Estella, do you know anyone by that name?

In this adaption Mr. Elliot also asks Anne to marry him (something not in the book), is messing around with Mrs Clay (which Anne catches instead of everyone finding out later), and they also change his character when he marries Mrs. Clay instead of just putting her up as his mistress. They completely changed the character and while it fit for Henry Golding; I this role was not the right one for him. He would have been better as a Frank Churchill, Mr. Tilney, or as Captain Wentworth as as Golding and a lot more chemistry with Dakota Johnson/Anne than Cosmo Jarvis.

Captain Harville (Edward Bluemel) and Captain Benwick (Afolabi Alli)

These actors did well in their parts but the problem was that there wasn’t a lot of them in the film. Benwick and Anne are supposed to spend quite a bit of time together, that’s why when he is engaged to Louisa all are surprised. In this he and Anne have one conversation and didn’t even use the amazing dialogue that Jane Austen wrote. Harville was also just used as a piece of the scenery.

Louisa (Nia Towle) and Henrietta Musgrove (Izuka Hoyle)

Most adaptions hardly use Henrietta but this one does it the least, blink, and you’ll miss her.

Louisa was not very well done in this either. She is made to be so silly, such as that line about how to get a guy. She also doesn’t make sense as a character. In the original book, she and Anne are close but she doesn’t know about their previous engagement, so when she meets Captain Wentworth it makes sense that she goes after this nice, rich, single man. However, in this production they show Louisa and Anne as best friends; Louisa knowing about the engagement and encouraging Anne to go after him. However, after dinner she then reverses that and tells Anne she is making a play for him. Seriously, what a jerk move to do.

The other thing that didn’t make any sense was that there was hardly any flirting and time spent between her and Captain Wentworth for us to even believe they were interested in each othe. In the book the two flirt a lot as Louisa is interested and Captain Wentworth appreciates having her attention in front of the woman who rejected him. The two do several jump and catch me little scenes, that later caused the accident as Louisa does it in an unsafe area. In this they cut out the previous scenes so when she does the jump it doesn’t make any sense and looks like she just decided to yeet herself.

Cosmo Jarvis as Captain Wentworth

I really didn’t care for Cosmo Jarvis as Captain Wentworth. I felt this version of the character was pretty boring and seemed to have no substance or relation to what was going on in the scenes. He never seemed upset or at all like the book character. And of course a big chunk is off because there are no secrets in this adaption like in the book.

I also didn’t feel as if Jarvis really fit in the regnecy times. He seemed out of place to me, as if he was not really apart of his surroundings.

Dakota Johnson as Anne Elliot

I haven’t really seen Dakota Johnson in that many things so I can’t really attest to her acting but in this it was deplorable. A major portion of it has to do with her being the main character and pushing the film forward, but the script was terrible. Like Jarvis, I feel the bigger problem was that she never seemed to really inhabit the scenery as well.

Also her character is terrible. She’s trying so hard to be the “quirky” girl but it feels so out of place. They also made a majority of her character like little wine memes; basically this was her in a nutshell “It’s always wine o’clock”, “don’t give a carafe”, “wine not”, etc. She drank way too much, that is basically all she does-drink and fall down. She looks and acts like she needs to get help as she can barely function and cannot without alcohol.

In conclusion, I don’t care how much Netflix is trying to convince me this movie was “good”, I feel this is one of the worst Austen adaptations I have ever seen.

For more Austen adaptations, go to I Watched Austenland (2013) With My 14 Year Old Niece

For more on Persuasion, go to Recipe for Persuasion Audiobook Narrated by Soneela Nankani

For more Jane Austen retellings, go to Lean on Me: Austentatious (2015)

Darcy’s Story: Pride and Prejudice Told From a Whole New Perspective

Darcy’s Story: Pride and Prejudice Told From a Whole New Perspective by Janet Aylmer

So the cover says a “whole new perspective”, but it’s not that new. Other authors were doing it before her, like Pamela Aidan in An Assembly Such as This.

But as I have promised to review all Jane Austen inspired novels, I will review this.

So Mr. Darcy.

We all love him. But, in the original novel, he’s actually not a major player, in the sense of being in a majority of the book. We see him in the beginning, some in the middle, and then at the end. As a whole, the book is more about Elizabeth.

So we know how Elizabeth feels about everything, as we are in her head. But what about Mr. Darcy? What made him change from:

To:

So anytime you rewrite Austen it can be difficult. How do you retell the story so that it stays true to Austen, but at the same time giving it your own flavor so it isn’t a boring rehash.

Let’s see how Aylmer does.

So of course the book is Pride and Prejudice, and we all know the story, (or at least I imagine most of us do), so I’m only going to hit on the parts that I liked or didn’t like. Ready?

So one thing Aylmer does differently with her work, is that instead of starting with Darcy heading to Netherfield or starting at the ball, it begins with Georgiana Darcy almost running away with Mr. Wickham.

I thought this was a good opening as it set it apart from other retellings, and showed the great relationship Mr. Darcy has with his sister.

So what’s nice about this version, is that Aylmer goes farther than Aidan went. She gets into Darcy’s head and actually tries to create a fuller character. It isn’t as big a release as I would like, but I understand that it must be hard writing when you have the ghost of Jane Austen lurking over you.

So one thing we see in Darcy, is that he is not a true romantic, willing to marry whoever he loves. He needs someone in his position of wealth and class, but he won’t settle for just anyone. He wants a relationship like his father and mother, who earnestly cared for one another. And as his cousin Fitzwilliam points out, it might be time to start looking, after all he’s not getting any younger.

For Darcy he has yet to find a woman that captures him wholeheartedly. There are young ladies of means, beauty, etc. but he cannot connect to their intelligence or wit. So until then, he’s content with being single and enjoying his hobbies and managing the estates.

In this version Darcy hates balls, not just because he hates to dance, of which Aylmer states it in such perfection I am now forever going to say this when people try to get me to dance:

“I cannot recall how many times I have tried to impress upon you that my knowledge of the exercise is not matched by any enthusiasm…”

But him being single and wealthy, he has to spend all his time with overzealous mothers trying to push their daughters on him. It can be extremely annoying.

I like that addition. When I read Pride & Prejudice for the first time, I always imagined that someone as single, rich, and attractive as Mr. Darcy probably had women constantly trying to get him for his money and title. Like in Cinderella when the prince wants a girl who wants him for himself, not because he’s a prince.

So Darcy is going to visit his Aunt as usual, but he can’t get Elizabeth out of his mind.

So when he hears that she will be visiting the Collins, he writes to Col. Fitzwilliam and moves their trip up to coincide.

There he makes conversation as best he can, as we all know he is really shy under that exterior.

He starts to believe that her comments, manners, everything she does means that she likes him too. For someone who has always had to make it clear to women that he is not interested, the thought never comes to mind that she might not like him. He assumes she understood how much he cared about her in their shallow, little, talks they had.

It is easy to throw stones, but on some level this must have been what he was thinking. I mean at this point in Pride & Prejudice, Elizabeth has heard the lies of Wickham and that Darcy was the one who took Bingley away from Jane, so we know that Elizabeth hates his guts.

But Darcy must have seen something that he thought was encouraging, or else he never would have proposed.

And then when he hears all that Elizabeth thinks of him he decides he must correct it. Now this is what I always thought of Darcy as well. I always thought that he never realized what image he was giving off to others, his reserved nature coming off as snobbery and jerkiness. Bingley is so nice and thinks Darcy is awesome, while any other people around him are always brown-nosing, trying to win his favor. He’s never had anyone be brutally honest with him.

So he decides to write a letter, partly because he is angry, but mostly to fix his character in her eyes. He then starts to really think about what portrayal he is giving off.

I agree with Aylmer in this, as I always believed that this shock of seeing how others viewed him was part of the reason why his reserve breaks down.

But while all is settled in that sense, he still can’t stop thinking about what she said.

We also have some great scenes with Darcy and Georgiana, which deeply cement how great an older brother he is.

And of course we get to see Darcy track down Wickham. While it doesn’t go like this:

Darcy still comes out on top.

For more books from a Jane Austen Hero’s perspective, go to Mr. Knightley’s Diary

For more Pride & Prejudice, go to Be It Ever So Humble

For more works based on Jane Austen, go to Pride & Prescience (Or a Truth Universally Acknowledged)

 

If the Shoe Fits: Why Cinderella is Actually Awesome

So with Disney’s Cinderella (2015) set to release in theaters today, there is a lot of angry backlash on the previous Disney films (don’t forget Cinderella (1997); along with the whole story of Cinderella. This doesn’t surprise me as Cinderella has been hated on for years, and to be honest, Cinderella may not be my favorite character, but she and her story really do not deserve they kind of abuse they have received over the years. So I decided to dedicate this post on why the tale is not as bad as we make it out to be. So let’s deal with the “issues” of Cinderella one by one.

1) Staying in an Abusive Home

Everyone I know always asks the question, “if her life was so awful, why would she stay in the house?” Many feel that she is too passive and should have left striking it off on her own. Well there is one big problem with that scenario of leaving, Cinderella didn’t live in 2015, she lived in the 1600s (earliest version) or 1800s (Brothers Grimm). In those time periods there was only three occupations open to a woman; governess, servant, and prostitute.

Governesses were typically well-bred women from poor families, sent to live a life of educating children, moving on to a new family when the old one grew up. For most of these women, by choosing the life of a governess they were signing themselves off as spinsters, doomed to never marry (as one does not marry a governess) and care for others’ children instead of having their own. For Jane Austen fans, think of Jane Fairfax in Emma. Everyone pities Jane as she was educated and raised well, but the only path for her is as a governess, dooming her to a very low class and as mentioned before a life of singlehood and low pay. Even if Cinderella was extremely well-educated (we know she came from an upper class family but are unaware of whether or not she was taught), this field was not something she could do as no self-respecting family would hire a governess without a letter of reference, which her stepmother would never give her. Besides the fact that governesses were often paid poorly, they could be abused by the the patrons- whether the father or son- and dimissed for “wanton behavior” if the patrons attention, i.e. rape, lead to the governess becoming with child. They then would be forced into no other employment but prostitution.

Servants mean domestic and those that served in taverns, pubs, and other eateries. Now I am not including those of trade in this list, such as seamstresses, cobblers, millners, etc.; as these professions weren’t open to the average women but were run by guilds or families, with the same family carrying on the occupation. It wasn’t like today where you can work in retail or food services; go to college and get a degree to work in another field; switching your employment. In those days your father was a tailor, making you (if a son) a tailor, and your son a tailor. People couldn’t just come by and bring a resume plus an example of their work and expect to get hired. Women would typically work in those fields only if their family controlled the business, of course quitting work when they get married.

Instead most women were servants or serving-wenches. Life of a servant was very, very hard and extremely back-breaking work. The servant awoke typically at dawn, before the rest of the family, and worked until way after sundown. Theyprepared the fires in the rooms, collected the eggs, fed the animals, prepared breakfast, did laundry, swept, washed dishes, cleaned the floors, cleaned the windows, cleaned the walls, prepared lunch, dressed the ladies of the house, prepared their toilette, etc. It was extremely hard work and extremely low pay. To make matters worse, servants were seen as property of their employers and were to be at their whim. Those that were pretty were typically raped, and if they became with child (and were unmarried) they would be dismissed without a reference and forever besmirched. Now shows like Downtown Abbey make all those with servants seem really nice and caring, but most people with servants weren’t as involved and didn’t care about them. And rape happened a lot. If you really want to get a view of life as a servant, read Alias Grace.

Then we have prostitutes. This is where most women found themselves when they needed to make money as it was more lucrative than the above places, and was always a way to make money. This was the hardest of all professions as diseases ran rampant, people mistreated you, Madams or pimps could keep all your money or abuse you, you could be raped instead of procured, if you became with child you better hope you had money to take care of the months you couldn’t “work”, and most of all you were treated with disdain, never helped or seen as important to society. Unlike today, where prostitutes are still people and can go to the police if beaten, threatened, or harmed in any way. Back then, if you were a proustitute, people could do anything to you and no one would care. The police would ignore you as you were the “dregs” of society. It was a hard life.

So when you look at it that way, what Cinderella had wasn’t all that bad. She was able to remain in her home, where she recieved food, water, and most of all didn’t have to worry about being raped or dismissed in a moment’s notice. She was protected and well treated in the fact that she was treated better than most servants. Was this what the daughter of the house deserved or anyone deserves? NO. Was it better than most women of her time? YES.

Of course there was always the fourth option of marrying, but with the way the stepmother treats her, she most likely will be recieving no dowry which means marriage choices are limited to zero.

2) Only Cares About Shallow Things Like Boys and Pretty Clothes

Now this statement really irks me. Everyone I know who hates Cinderella always says that they dislike that she only stands for shallow things like being boy-crazy and wanting to wear nice clothes. Now hold up everyone, nowhere in the book or the original film is she only all about looking good and liking guys. In the original story all she wants to do is go to a ball. With a life of servitude, of course she wants to go out and have a fun time. Don’t tell me that during the middle of the week when you are at school or work you don’t dream of having a fun time Friday or Saturday night. Going out with your friends to a party, club, movies, etc. Well the same for Cinderella. Back in that time servants only had certain days off. They would get typically every other Sunday or so, weddings of their masters and lords, and of course Christmas and Easter holidays. This ball was a big thing, and Cinderella dreamed like to have the opportunity to visit it. She didn’t care about the guys she would meet, never thinking of them; she didn’t think of the fine dress she would wear, as she didn’t own one; all she was thinking of was the fun she would have there-dancing and feasting. Now don’t tell me you have never looked forward to a night of fun-eating, drinking, and dancing.

3) They Hardly Know Each Other and are in “Love”

This is also something people always complain about the message it is sending to children. Cinderella and the prince know each other for one night and think they are in love. Well…not exactly. It is true that in the Disney film they only know each other for one night, but in the actual fairy tale they know each other for three days. Now I know some of you are thinking, three days pshahh; but that is actually a long time. Remember, once again that this film takes place in the past and things were done much differently then. Most princes were in arranged marriages at children or teenhood. Each marriage was planned for land, money, and power-love had nothing to do with it. Often times they would never see their bride or groom, but just be sent a portrait, meeting only after the ceremony is completed. Most of the time they wouldn’t even be in the same marriage ceremony, but had it done by proxy-that is having a stand in for the bride or groom. For instance when Marie Antoinette was married to King Louis XVI, her brother played the part of the groom in the Austrian ceremony. So once again, three days is a lot when you would often have zero contact.

And let me point out that if you watch the film again you realize that the “love” Cinderella is feeling is more of a wonderful memory to keep her going. She doesn’t expect to run into the prince again, let alone have him send his advisor with her lost shoe.

4) Foot Fetish or Incredibly Stupid Male

Which brings us to the shoe. The part of the movie everyone likes to hate on. “Why does he need a shoe to find her?” “How stupid must he be not to recognize her face?” “Does he have a foot fetish or something?” “Like that shoe isn’t going to fit a thousand other women.”

Well this is actually a more ingenious trick to find someone than you would think.

Give me a minute and I will explain. So a lot of the time we think he should have recognized her right away by hair color, face, etc. There is two problems with that, first of all the way the aristocrats and courtiers dressed was all very similar. They often had wigs, hats, head-coverings, and loads of makeup. After the prince seeing so many women in one night, it is easy for him to mistake someone else for his true love, such as with her stepsisters. If they were close in height and build (corsets) had the same color hair, he could easily be confused. Remember this was back when everything had to lighted with candles and chandeliers, it’s not like he saw her in fluorescent lighting.

Besides some people have a hard time recognizing someone in full makeup, hair, and dress when they are used to seeing plain, and vice-a-versa. When I was in high school I wore very little makeup, t-shirts, and jeans. I always left my hair down and naturally straight. For junior prom I went in a gown, had my hair curled and styled, make up done, wore heels and NO ONE I mean NO ONE recognized me in the dim hall. And these were people who encountered my voice everyday. If in that case they couldn’t recognize me, well…I could see the reverse for the Prince.

But that does not cover the shoe debacle. “No,” you still say. “That shoe could fit thousands of other women.” Except it couldn’t. That shoe was designed to fit one person and one only. Now you have to remove yourself from a present state of mind. Today you can go to Payless, Marshalls, Wal-Mart, or whatever and find a shoe you like, purchasing it and you are not the only one as thousands of others all over the country are buying the same thing. Back then it was different. Everything was custom made. You don’t go down to the Payless and buy a shoe or Forever 21 and get a dress. Everything was ordered and made to fit you exactly. Depending on your economic status you either bought the material and made your dress at home, or hired a seamstress to create an outfit for you. The same goes for shoes. Each one was handmade by a cobbler to fit the client’s foot. Feet are actually very unique so the shoe would be designed to fit that client and that client only. Now, would someone else who has the same size feet not be able to wear your shoes, no they probably would, but it won’t fit like it would the client, therefore clearly showing it does not belong to that person.

In fact, as Cinderella does not have a coach in the original tale and runs past the prince home, this is an extremely logical approach. If the girl is running, that means she must live by. If she lives by, than she must have had her shoes made at one of the local cobblers. Thanks to guilds and family businesses, there would only be a few and the prince would only have to approach each cobbler who would recognize their own handiwork and be able to tell him who the shoe goes to. I mean it is a glass slipper only one cobbler probably could make it. It is an ingenious plan and would have worked, if not for that fact that the show wasn’t made by a cobbler, but gifted by Cinderella’s mother in the tale, and a fairy in the film. This of course causes the Prince to have to try and approach every house to find his lady love.

5)Waiting Around and a Prince Will Save You

Now this one always gets my rankles up. People complain about Cinderella just waiting around to have a prince save her. Yes it is bad to be waiting around for some guy to come along. But read the story! Watch the film! Cinderella is not expecting some guy to come around and save her, she is living her life and when a nice guy comes around is open to having a relationship with him. There is a big difference in hoping to catch some rich guy who will take care of you (Cinderella’s stepsisters) and having a rich, nice guy come into your life and you being open to being with him. As I said, if you read the story or watch the film, Cinderella doesn’t care about the prince she only wanted to go to a ball. She doesn’t want to catch the prince, but just have fun. She doesn’t try to go after him, he comes after her. It’s him that does the pursuing, not Cinderella. And is it really so bad to be open to love and open to possibilities? No. And let’s be honest, you saw her life, how could she say no? Not to mention he is the future king, it’s kind of hard to say no (unless you are Anne Boleyn)

And let’s give some props to the Prince. Now I’ve said this multiple times when I talk about the Darcy/Lizzie relationship, but the fact that the prince is willing to marry a girl who has been living as a servant for the past few years and most likely isn’t royal…that’s huge! HUGE. It was not done as this was scandal on the household, was a major diss to royal families everywhere that he would rather have a pauper than their highbred daughters, it brought no new money, it brought no new land; in essence it was a bad deal but the prince didn’t care as he loved her. We as Americans, especially those of us living in the west, do not comprehend “old money” vs. “new money”, and are used to two people from different social-economical worlds marrying. But back then, this did not happen. So props to you Prince.

So Cinderella may not be as forward thinking or as modern as many out there wish, but for her time period Cinderella and the Prince are pretty awesome. And instead of hating on them you should all hate on the dad. Yep, the dad. If you read the original story, the mom dies, dad remarries, the stepmom is evil, but then we never hear of the dad again. Now in the film they give him a pass by making him dead, but just because he isn’t mentioned again doesn’t mean he died. I think he was a selfish loser and that he cared more about making money, the pleasures of his wife, etc; than he cared about his daughter. That needs more exploring, analyzing, and hating than Cinderella

Well I hope you enjoyed this post. Comment below on your thoughts and views on what I wrote, and let me know if you want another post like this. If you are anti-Cinderella 2015 I wish you a very happy unwatching. If you are going to see it, I am as my niece wants me to take her, I hope it is as good as Disney wishes it to be with their massive merchandising (it’s everywhere). Otherwise happy friday.

For more on Cinderella, go to Cinderelly, Cinderelly

For more Brothers’ Grimm, go to Happily Ever Aftermath: Grimm (2012)

For more Disney, go to Well I Feel Sheepish: Chinese New Year

For more fairy tales, go to Heaven on Earth