A couple of days ago, Duke University's Facebook page posted a link to the following: an interview with Assistant Professor of Sociology (at Duke) Jessi Streib, titled "What Happens When Rich People Marry Poor People."
The article is an interesting read -- and it comments a lot on class divisions and gender roles, something I'm always fascinated by.
But I'm not blogging about the content -- I'm not a sociologist, and, regardless, I don't disagree with her conclusions; on the contrary, I find them really interesting.
But I am a children's literature/Disney scholar, and so what piqued my interest was the decision to put the disney photo of Cinderella and Prince Charming underneath the article title. As far as I can tell -- since there's no mention of Disney or Cinderella in the interview -- the implication is that the "rich people" are represented by Prince Charming and the "poor people" are represented by Cinderella. After all, the story of Cinderella is often referred to as a rags-to-riches story wherein the penniless scullery maid rises through the ranks to marry the eligible and charming prince.
But...here's the thing that gets me: Cinderella may be penniless, she may be a maid, and she may sleep in the attic and sit in the ashes but she's not from the lower class.
The "original" version by Perrault is a little vague on the subject -- depending on the translation, her father is either a "gentleman" or a "worthy man." Her stepmother is described as a proud and haughty woman and the family is obviously well-enough off to afford rich clothes and jewel suitable for balls at the palace. Similarly, in the Grimms' version, the father is described as a "rich man."
Then, in the 1950 Disney version, the film opens while Cinderella's father is still alive: the storybook narrator tells us that, "Here, in a stately chateau, there lived a widowed gentleman and his little daughter, Cinderella. Although he was a kind and devoted father, and gave his beloved child every luxury and comfort, still he felt she needed a mother's care. "
So, here's the thing -- and one of the things that always bothers me about adaptations of Cinderella -- if Cinderella's father is rich and is a gentleman, then Cinderella is the daughter of a rich man and a gentleman. Until her father remarries, she grows up in a pretty luxurious atmosphere -- she's not royalty, but she's most likely a member of the nobility or the upper-class.
But that fact seems to get lost in adaptation -- and it's always bugged me.
Take Ever After (1998) for instance. I loved this movie when it came out -- heck, I still do: Drew Barrymore as a feistier, hard-working Cinderella who reads? Da Vinci as her fairy godmother? Yes, please. The plot hinges on the fact that Danielle (as Cinderella is called here) poses as a noblewoman to get her servant back (long story). She gives her mother's name -- and her mother was a countess. But somehow, even though her mother was a countess, Danielle is still considered to be a serving girl -- and hijinks straight out of Pride & Prejudice ensue, resulting, of course, in a happily ever after. It's true that her father isn't really referred to as a count -- just her mother as a countess. And it's true that her stepmother (played by the incomparable Anjelica Houston) seems to be a Baroness in her own right. So maybe Danielle's parents were of different classes -- the countess married someone well beneath here and was hence stripped of her title. But the chateau that Danielle lives in -- her family home and estate -- doesn't really reflect that.
So maybe I'm missing some integral part of French class divisions -- that a daughter is stripped of her titles and status when her father dies. But...that seems odd.
In all of these versions, Cinderella is born into the upper-class -- and so, to me, her marriage to the Prince can't represent an inter-class marriage. Yes, her evil step-family treats her horribly: they psychologically abuse her; they degrade her and relegate her to the position of servant; they ostracize her from the family dynamic. Does that mean she's not still a member of the upper-class? Technically, perhaps. But in spirit? No.
And isn't that the point of Cinderella? Especially of the 1950 version? That even though she's fallen from her position of privilege, even though she's serving the people who are supposed to be her family, even though life has thrown her some horrible curveballs, Cinderella's kindness and sweetness and goodness triumph over all. She's defined by her heritage and her birth and her parents' -- particularly her mother's -- legacy, not through current circumstances. And when the Prince falls in love with her and they get married, it makes sense: they are both good, kind, upper-class people so of course they should end up together.
Disney's Cinderella has got a lot going on -- particularly with regards to heteronormative gender roles and the stoic passivity with which Cinderella accepts horrible treatment. But, it was released in 1950, and things were different. But introducing class into the movie...I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. After all, Disney's narrator explicitly states that Cinderella's father, for his second wife, chooses a "woman of good family" -- which I take to mean "good breeding" which in turn implies "upper class." So class doesn't really come into play here: our heroine's a member of the upper-class as is our villain.
If Cinderella had been an actual servant who rose through the ranks -- if she hadn't been a step-daughter -- then we might have a rags-to-riches story. Given the title of the article, there are a couple other Disney movies that would have been more appropriate.
Like, for instance, Beauty and the Beast: Belle grows up in a small provincial town (we're hit over the head with that, aren't we?) but she eventually marries the Beast, who is, in fact, a prince. Inter-class marriage.
In Aladdin, Aladdin is literally a street rat, the diamond in the rough. But he eventually marries Princess Jasmine. Inter-class marriage.
In Tangled, Flynn is literally a thief. But he eventually marries Princess Rapunzel. Inter-class marriage.
And in The Princess and the Frog, Tiana works not one, but two, jobs to raise enough money to open her own restaurant. But she marries Prince Naveen in a -- you guessed it -- inter-class marriage.
If you want to include a picture from a Disney movie in an article about marriages between rich people and poor people, I'm not sure Cinderella was the best choice here. Yes, it's the quintessential rags-to-riches story, but, if you think about, it's actually more of a riches-to-rags-to-riches story. I have a feeling that Cinderella and Prince Charming would probably not have the same fights and discussions in their marriage that Aladdin and Jasmine or that Tiana and Naveen would have.
But, of course, they all lived happily ever after so class differences probably don't matter for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment