Maleficent’s origins can be traced back to Charles Perrault’s “La Belle au bois Dormant” and Brothers Grimm’s “Dornröschen,” where she first emerged as a wicked fairy. In these tales, she epitomised the classic fairy-tale villain—a character who cursed the sleeping princess. The transition to Disney’s animated feature in 1959 introduced a visually striking and malevolent Maleficent, solidifying her status as an iconic villain. However, the live-action film “Maleficent” (2014) marked a paradigm shift, presenting a more complex and sympathetic portrayal of the character.
In his work “Monster Theory: Reading Culture” Jeffrey Jerome Cohen provides a framework for understanding the societal and cultural significance of monsters, which can be applied to analyze the evolution of the character Maleficent. Cohen’s Monster Theory explores the cultural significance of monsters and how they function as embodiments of societal fears and desires through seven theses. I’ll be using five of these to trace Maleficent’s metamorphosis.
The first thesis states that “the monster’s body is a cultural body”, Cohen says that the “monster inhabits the gap between the time of upheaval that created it and the moment which it is to receive to be born again”. In simple terms, Cohen’s first thesis suggests that a monster is not just a scary creature but a reflection of what society fears or desires at a specific moment in time. The monster lives in the space between the time when the upheaval or significant event happened and the time when it is reinterpreted in a new way, considering different historical, social, and cultural perspectives. In “Sleeping Beauty,” she embodies the fears and anxieties of a traditional fairy tale world. Her character aligns with the traditional monstrous image – dark, powerful, and frightening. However, her transformation in “Maleficent” (2014) challenges this perception. In “Maleficent” (2014), she is reinterpreted to reflect a contemporary understanding of complex characters. This transformation reflects the constant cycle of monsters being born, and being reinterpreted to fit new historical, social, and cultural contexts.
The second thesis, “The Monster Always Escapes” states that while the damage caused by the monster remains, the monster itself vanishes only to reappear somewhere else – in another place or time. Maleficent, as a monster, follows the pattern described in the thesis. Even though defeated in one narrative, she reemerges in another form. In “Sleeping Beauty,” she gets killed while in her dragon form when the price throws his ” sword of truth” at her heart. While in “Maleficent” (2014), she reappears as a more nuanced character. In the live action, at the climax of the fight btw Stefan and Maleficent, he tackles her from behind, dragging them both off the tower; she opens her wings to save herself, and he loses hold and falls to his death. With Stefan gone, Maleficent returns the Moors to their former glory and crowns Aurora their new ruler, uniting the two kingdoms.
The third thesis, “The Monster is the Harbinger of Category Crisis,” describes the monster’s very nature to defy categorization. In the animation “Sleeping Beauty,” her character adheres to the standard categories of good and evil. She is cast as the archetypical villain. However, In “Maleficent” (2014), her complex backstory and nuanced motivations further blur the lines between hero and villain. For eg: she calls young Aurora ” beastie” and claims she doesn’t like children- yet we see her becoming Aurora’s guardian. This defiance of categorization prompts a rethink of how we traditionally classify characters, bringing about a crisis in our usual ways of understanding and organizing narratives. The live-action adaption thus, invites us to explore new perspectives, moving away from the black-and-white binary thinking prevalent in fairy tales.
The fourth thesis, “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference,” explains that the monster is difference-made flesh that comes to dwell among us. It represents the “Other,” the “Outside,” from what is culturally, politically, racially, economically, and sexually normative. Maleficent, in both versions, is portrayed as a character who dwells at the gates of difference. In “Sleeping Beauty,” her magical and menacing presence makes her an Other in the fairy tale world where her character represents a difference from the fair and virtuous characters in the story. Her actions, cursing Princess Aurora, are seen as monstrous as they deviate from what is considered socially acceptable- like the other fairies bestowing her with blessings. In “Maleficent” (2014), her physical differences, such as horns and wings, symbolize her status as an outsider and it sets her apart from the human kingdom, marking her as different and, initially, threatening. This aligns with the idea that throughout history, people or groups perceived as different have been labelled as monstrous to justify discrimination, colonization, or exclusion. The betrayal Maleficent experiences at the hands of humans- Stepfan turning against her and cutting her wings(a crucial part for a fairy)- accentuates the theme of societal rejection of those perceived as different.
The seventh thesis “The Monster Stands at the Threshold…of Becoming” brings attention to the fact that we are the creators of monsters. They make us question why we have created them; how we perceive the world, and how we have misinterpreted them so that we can reevaluate cultural assumptions about the differences (race, gender, sexuality. etc.). In both instances, Maleficent is a product of human creation – a character crafted by storytellers and filmmakers. In “Sleeping Beauty,” she is intentionally moulded as a menacing force to fit the fairy tale narrative. The creators use her to embody the concept of evil and create tension in the story. As mentioned in the introduction she appears merely as a supporting character, an evil person presenting a counterpoint to the main heroine. Fauna says, “Maleficent doesn’t know anything about love, or kindness, or the joy of helping others.” In “Maleficent” (2014), the character is reimagined, and her creation is explored in a more nuanced way. The film delves into Maleficent’s backstory, revealing the human emotions and experiences that led to her transformation into a supposed villain. The animation character does not have wings at any point- in the live-action, we get to see that her wings were forcefully cut off from her body by Stefan- after the loss of her wings, she was bitter and revengeful and this not only transformed er nut also the moors, once a lively place to a dark and desolate land. Thus, we get to see how Maleficent as a monster was created.
In conclusion, Maleficent’s evolution from a traditional villain in “Sleeping Beauty” to a complex, sympathetic character in “Maleficent” (2014) reflects society’s changing perceptions and values. Through Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s Monster Theory, we see how she embodies societal fears, challenges categorization, and represents the “Other.” Her transformation underscores the power of storytelling to redefine characters and explore new perspectives, illustrating the dynamic relationship between culture and the portrayal of monsters in media.
Bibliography:
Primary Sources:
- Disney, Walt. Sleeping Beauty. 1959.
- Roth, Joe, and Robert Stromberg. Maleficent.
Secondary sources:
- Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. Monster Theory. U of Minnesota Press, 1996, books.google.ie/booksid=KItstgAACAAJ&dq=monster+theory&hl=&cd=2&source=gbs_api.
- Schlögl, Larissa, and Nelson Zagalo. “From Animation to Live-Action: Reconstructing Maleficent.” Second Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 157–171, 1 Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25189-5_11.