film-reviews.com

Ever After (1998)

Rating: 7 out of 10

This little gem stands as the film that surprised me the most last year. Ever After (1998) represents Hollywood feel-good par-excellence. Certainly, the film is conventional and predictable, but its blatant dismissal of Hollywood’s tendency to reinvent traditional tales with a fast, glossy, modern special effects-filled facade, places this film in a category of its own, for this year, at least. Ever After produced more hearty roars of audience laughter than any I’ve witnessed of late, and substituted both fast-cut comic book representations and hum-drum tradition for genuine humanity exhibited through the performances of the main cast.

Without doubt, the film does push its message to the extreme, and its morality is not shrouded with the subtlety of that presented in the original tale by The Brothers Grimm. But esoteric symbolism and ethereal, insubstantial, metaphorical representations are not the concern of director Andy Tennant’s work. Instead, Ever After represents the contagious effect of one soul’s optimism in making a difference. What saves Ever After from sliding into the barrel of sickening feel-good dramas produced by the major studios this season, though, is both its light-hearted concerns and its postmodern self-reflexivity.

Replacing Disney’s cherished musical perception of the Fairy Godmother figure with the master artist Leonardo da Vinci (Patrick Godfrey) is just one of a selection of references that screenwriters Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant have made to art, and themes of representation, elitism and cinema. From the opening of the film, played as a memory flashback as the Brothers Grimm are corrected in their fantastical interpretation of what a wise old lady assures them was a true event, one imagines last year’s box-office smash Titanic (1997). A painting of Danielle (Drew Barrymore, in good form) is introduced during this prologue, and returns as a motif throughout the film – just as the painting of Rose (Kate Winslet) did in James Cameron’s film. Interestingly, the creator of the painting – Da Vinci in this case, Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) in the case of Titanic - represents the figure who encouraged the lead female to traverse class boundaries, though the direction of the two is reversed.

Amongst the other intertextual references present in this rendering is the inclusion of Hitchcock’s patented dolly-in-zoom-out shot as perfected in Vertigo (1958). Note also that when Gustave (Lee Ingleby) informs Prince Henry (Dougray Scott) that Danielle (under an alias) is at home awaiting his arrival, she is forced to run home through a short cut as the Prince takes a slightly longer route on his horse, drawing comparison to the plight of Archy (Mark Lee) in Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) and Ferris Bueller (Matthew Broderick) in his Day Off (1986). Similarly, the scene in which Danielle strikes Marguerite (Megan Dodds), before being pursued through an intricate labyrinth of hallways and rooms in a one-shot chase sequence recalls the demon’s pursuit of Ash in The Evil Dead Part II (1987). Consider also the parallels between Danielle’s winged angel appearance at the opulent masked ball and that of Claire Danes’ Juliet in William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1997). Another parallel can be drawn in regards to the employment of actor Walter Sparrow, who appeared in this film as an unfortunate peasant and in Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves (1991) as a blind servant. His placement in a similar role instantly conjures memories of his prior performance, conveying that while he is not blind in Ever After, his appearance is to symbolise that the ‘noble’ figures surrounding him are blind to his plight and to the plight of others in his situation.

Now, while cinematic self-reflexivity can, depending on the circumstance, be interpreted as unoriginality, plagiarism or a lack of worldly knowledge on behalf of the film’s creator, Ever After’s references all share one important characteristic that raises them above this criticism. A common theme prevailing in all of the films mentioned above is in regards to a clash of cultures, and the communication difficulties with relating to members of alternative classes or nationalities. This, of course, relates directly to the central theme of Ever After and its literary predecessor; and there lies the film’s well-researched but cautiously presented depth.

To his credit, Tennant allowed his high-artistic and moralistic concerns to take a back seat to sheer fun and fairytale cliches. While the pretentious elite may snub their noses at this latest representation of the timeless Cinderella tale, most people won’t be able to deny its uplifting qualities, and smile for days in its wake. Ever After is a glorious film; not an award contender, but a self-knowing comic drama that succeeds on the few levels that it tackles, and which reinvents Hollywood’s feel-good formula, devoid of its increasingly weak, sentimental qualities.

Review written by Joshua Smith, 1998.

Back to Index