I loved this movie

If this posting of yours was not intended for me, ignore this; but if it was, then here is my reply:

1. You misspelled "innocent" (2 "n's" & 1 "c") and "science" (you left out the "c" in the word).

2. "As if" in your sentence introduces a conditional clause; and, as such, it should be followed by the subjunctive form of the verb "be": "as if it WERE..."

3. "Child-like" would be more appropriate than "childish," which is a virtual synonym for "infantile'; and I do not think that that was the adjective which you had in mind.

4. Folklore and the study of folk or fairy tales is a perfectly legitimate social science (and has been since 1812, when the Brothers Grimm first published their collection), and thus my criticism of an obnoxious, politically correct revisioning of a dark story that deserves a legitimate screen treatment is perfectly valid. CrimsonFox79 appreciated the information that I provided. I HAVE retained my innocence. I love Disney cartoons and "The Wizard of Oz"; so don't make assumptions about my psyche.

I am quite glad that I spent enough time in school, which you evidently did not.

P.S. And I am a 40-year-old-man.

Well, if Brian Henson hated the original story because he thought that it was a reflection of the the British Empire's attitude toward other cultures (especially the ones which were basically lost due to colonial expansion), he was dead wrong. The basic premise of the story -- that of a common lad outwitting an ogre and stealing three treasures from him -- goes back hundreds of years (and possibly well over a thousand). Throughout Europe and beyond we find numerous stories of simples youths (or maidens) who outwit either giants, witches, or dragons. If you go to Wikipedia and type in "Jack and the Beanstalk," you will find an exhaustive list of parallel folk tales.

I am certainly no Anglophile. For 800 years or more the English or the Plantagenet kings who sat on the English throne have treated the other inhabitants of Great Britain like human waste. Ask any Welshman, Scot, or Irishman what they think of the English, and I am sure that you will get a vehement denunciation of the English people's ethics. You know, of course, how reprehensibly they treated the natives of Africa, the Aborigines, and even the peoples of advanced civilizations such as those of India. The English have generally thought of themselves as being superior to other Europeans -- for example, the Italians, whose country was the cradle of the Renaissance. Even the Irish monks of the Middle Ages played a great role in copying ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts and thus preserving the tremendously rich culture of the Ancient World. The Greeks, Romans, and Middle Eastern peoples all had advanced cultures while the English were still living in huts and basically barbarians. I should stress that I am not criticizing the Ancient Britons' way of life (because the island was inhabited by Celts before the Germanic Anglo-Saxons arrived); THEIR material culture, in turn, was far more advanced that those possessed by the inhabitants of Equatorial Africa, the Australian Aborigines, and the Polynesians. The areas in which those particular peoples lived were not conducive to the development of sophisticated cultures, but that in no way means that they were any less intelligent. In a tropical climate and isolated, as many of them were, there was simply no need for them to develop the technologies which would enable them to have all the "creature comforts."

I have gone on at length about anthropological matters because, though the British Empire made life hell for people whose cultures should have been preserved and treated with respect, a thousand-year-old folk tale has nothing to do with the mindset of the British Empire at the height of its power. The Giant was simply an evil ogre and not a symbol of inferior cultures. I am no genius, but I have a Master's degree in Languages and Ancient History (and one of my areas of expertise is the study of comparative mythology and folk tales), and that makes me FAR more qualified than Mr. Henson to determine the meaning behind a centuries-old fairy tale. Just because the earliest literary version of the story dates back to 1807 does not mean that the man who retold the tale had anything else in mind other than pointing out that what the Giant did was wrong, because, as I have mentioned in my other posting, the Giant was evil and a murderer, and the treasures which Jack stole from him were his by right, as they had belonged to his father. The earliest surviving text of the story is, in fact, a lesson in morality.

I should point out that I have English, Welsh, AND Southern Italian blood and have felt in my own family the tension between one side of my family and the other, and bristled with rage at the words "wop" and "d*go" I also have relatives with Middle Eastern blood, and am thus in a position to champion the cause of Mediterranean peoples and denounce the attitude of the British Empire and its colonists toward them. On a final note, there are obviously many English people today who are ashamed of their previous monarchs' actions -- and rightfully so.

I suppose, aqib4, that my dislike of this version stems from the fact that I have always dreamed of a more or less faithful transfer to the screen of the version of the story to which I, as a very precocious child (being sickly can lead to bookishness), was exposed. I can see in my mind's eye the tremendous visuals and the quasi-dark atmosphere which could make this story a marvellous fantasy film that would appeal to adults as much as to (older) children. I see the wizened old fairy meeting Jack at the top of the cliff up which the beanstalk magically grows and telling him the terrible story of what happened to his parents when he was an infant -- in a flashback: the Giant insidiously creeping into their lives and gaining their trust, then stabbing Jack's father; Jack's mother escaping with her child in her arms as their home burns to the ground behind her. Then, I can picture Jack reaching the Giant's castle at sunset and looking aghast at the sight of vultures picking the flesh off the human bones which litter the ground in front of the building. And then the slow descent into the dungeon; the claw-like hands of those confined below desperately reaching out to Jack through iron bars as he is led by the Giant's wife into the kitchen where he will be given a crust of bread; then the ominous thud of the monster's feet...and so on, until the climactic chase, with the harp, slung over Jack's shoulder, screaming: "Master! Master!" I DREAM of such a treatment of the story. I have written an epyllion (in verse), which is inspired by the 1807 version, as well as the Andrew Lang version, found in The Red Fairy Book (1890). The latter is lighter in tone, but has some memorable elements, and retains the vengeance motif.

Well, Emma, first of all, I enjoyed reading your reply to my post. Since I have never heard of your favorite bands, I am guessing that I am substantially older than you (I just turned 44). Nonetheless, I see that you have good taste. I LOVE the original “Twilight Zone,” and have the first two seasons on DVD. I am also a great fan of “The Master” (i.e., Hitchcock) and currently own almost all my favorite films that he directed: “Rebecca,” “Strangers on a Train,” “Dial M for Murder,” “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (the 1956 version), “Vertigo,” “North by Northwest,” and “Psycho.” Seven down, and two more to go/buy: “Rear Window” and “The Birds.” While I have seen many of his other films, those are the ones that I can watch over and over again. I have always had a great fondness for Dorothy McGuire as well (she exudes a great warmth), and own three films in which she appeared: “Old Yeller,” “A Summer Place,” and “Swiss Family Robinson.” If you have not seen “A Summer Place,” I strongly urge you to see it. The producer and the other people involved behind the scenes were REALLY pushing the envelope for 1959, with adultery and premarital sex quite frankly depicted. The Catholic League of America condemned it when it was released, as I recall. Anyway, on to “Jack”...

While I am not fond of the “Harry Potter” franchise (too light in tone for my taste), I very much like “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and own the Extended Edition; and, having seen that (with Saruman’s scenes restored in “The Return of the King”), I would never watch the original theatrical versions again. Because of the very nature of that trilogy and the brutality in it, I am somewhat surprised that the earlier version(s) of “Jack and the Beanstalk” do not appeal to you more. However, being younger than I, you would no doubt have grown up reading “the watered-down version.”

You are absolutely correct in stating that fairy tales evolve and change over time; but as late as the 1940’s, the “original” version was still competing with the one in which Jack had no motive for stealing the Giant’s treasures (the first of which was a hen, not a goose, by the way – lots of people confuse the hen in “Jack” with the goose in the fable attributed to Aesop). In fact, the one containing a motive was, I would say, still somewhat more popular. I know this because I have three retellings of the story (all in books that my mother had as a little girl in the 1940’s), and they are all closer to the Lang version; in fact, the one in a treasury of nursery rhymes and fairy tales is an abbreviated version of the earliest surviving text from 1807. Also, in 1890, the year in which The Red Fairy Book was published, Joseph Jacobs published English Fairy Tales, in which the fairy is absent. Jacobs based his retelling on a version told him by his nurse in the 1860’s. So, the competition had already begun! I will concede that the fairy and subplot were probably created in 1807 by Benjamin Tabart, since traditional folk tales invariably have the hero (or heroine) stealing treasures from giants and witches without any motive.

As for the upcoming version of “Jack the Giant Killer,” I will undoubtedly end up watching it; but I was rather baffled to see Jack (in one still from the film) wearing what appears to be a modern jacket while climbing the beanstalk. Also, being a fan of Ray Harryhausen’s films and the 1962 version of “Jack the Giant Killer” (the last of which was crippled by generally poorly sculpted puppets but elevated by EXTREMELY impressive effects animation and great art direction and costumes), I will naturally be prejudiced. The fact that Kerwin Mathews (Jack in the film, and also the star of “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” and “The 3 Worlds of Gulliver”) and I kept up a correspondence for almost 20 years and also exchanged Christmas cards makes me even more inclined (in addition to my age) to favor the older, classic fantasy films (except for “Dragonslayer” and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy).

Since I am a writer, I have, in fact, written my own version of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” heavily relying on the 1807 version, as well as Lang’s, and have also begun transforming it into a screenplay. I have even toyed with the idea of submitting PART of it to Peter Jackson’s manager, whose address I managed to find.

Have a nice day,


Stephen