Cinderella, What's It All About?

My wife and I recently went to see the new Disney Movie,"Enchanted". It was a passably good movie, "cute" as my wife said. It basically paid homage to Walt Disney's past efforts to bring classic fairy tales to the big screen. Modern retelling of fairy tales have allways interested me. There seems to always be an agenda by the producers of such films, subtle or overt. I was reminded of a paper I wrote in college on the very subject.

Cinderella, What’s It All About?

You may be surprised to learn that a seemingly harmless fairy tale such as Cinderella can be the source of heated debate. To some, it is just a simple story that teaches that being good is more desirable than being bad, without much else to be concerned with. To others, who are predisposed to notice, even Walt Disney’s “Cinderella” contains important social, political, or psychological material. As a fairy tale, is Cinderella subversive? Does it have the power to corrupt young minds? Does it expose the workings of the unconscious mind? Some critics, with compelling arguments to support them, say yes to one or more of those questions. Although it seems clear that some elements of social, political and even psychological import can be found in Cinderella, I reject the notion that they are of equal importance to the basic theme of the story; that it is more desirable to be good than to be bad.

Of course, we have many versions of the story to choose from, but the Walt Disney version of Cinderella is the one that we, here in the United States, are most familiar with. It seems to be a blending and an editing of the two most popular renderings from 17th and 18th century Europe, Cinderella by Frenchman, Charles Perrault, and Ashputtle by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. It is Disney’s version of the fairytale that bothers children’s storywriter Jane Yolen. She seems to embrace earlier versions of the story, including Perrault’s. “Perrault’s ‘Cendrillon,” says Yolen, “demonstrates the well-bred seventeenth-century female traits of gentility, grace, and selflessness, even to the point of graciously forgiving her wicked stepsisters and finding them noble husbands” (pp.539). The American version (partially Perrault’s) does not reach Yolen's standards, “America’s Cinderella has been a coy, helpless dreamer, a ‘nice’ girl who awaits her rescue with patience and a song” (pp.539). “She is a sorry excuse for a heroine…” says Yolen, “She can not perform even a simple action to save herself…”(pp.544). Yolen of course does have a point; Disney’s Cinderella is not, if I may be as bold as Ms. Yolen, Clint Eastwood in a ball gown and glass slippers. But why is a “nice” patient girl who likes to sing necessarily a bad role model? Patience is considered by many to be a virtue and I have seen action hero Clint Eastwood sing in at least two movies.

With the possible exception of one of the newest Hollywood versions, "Ever After" (where Danielle-Cinderella knocks the prince off his high horse), feminists, like Madonna Kolbenschlag, tend not to like any of the Cinderella versions. From the earliest Chinese version to those of more recent times, feminists see Cinderella as a political attack on women. Kolbenschlag sees Cinderella, as the epitome of bad role models for young girls: The personality of the heroine is one that, above all, accepts abasement as a prelude to and precondition of affiliation. That abasement is characteristically expressed by Cinderella’s servitude to menial tasks, work that diminishes her. This willing acceptance of a condition of worthlessness and her expectation of rescue (as a reward for her virtuous suffering) is a recognizable paradigm of traditional feminine socialization. Cinderella is deliberately and systematically excluded from meaningful achievements. Her stepmother assigns her to menial tasks; her father fails her as a helpful mentor. Her sisters, inferior in quality of soul, are preferred before her…. Like many of the Jews, who went to the gas chambers in World War II, she has internalized the consciousness of the victim (pp.535).

Sex is also an issue for Kolbenschlag. The warning to Cinderella, to come home before midnight, translates to “Too much time spent ‘abroad’ may result in indiscrete sex or unseemly hubris, or both. ‘No excelling’ and ‘no excess’” (pp.537). Granted, Cinderella came from a less enlightened time and would probably not be written in today’s world. But does it go unnoticed, to the feminists, that in virtually every version of the story, the bad people are the self-important women who dominate poor Cinderella. Cinderella’s father is often depicted as dead (as in the Disney movie) or entirely under her stepmother’s thumb (Perrault’s version) in these stories. And as for the sexual repression issue of the midnight curfew, would a Murphy Brown, single-mother type Cinderella be more to their liking?

It is not only modern feminist critics that have had problems with Cinderella. The late-eighteenth-century author and educational authority Sarah Tanner also warned parents against immoral fairy tales. Cinderella, Tanner said, “paints some of the worst passions that can enter into the human breast, and which little children should, if possible, be totally ignorant; such as envy, jealously, a dislike of step-mothers and half- sisters, vanity, a love of dress, etc” (Lurie, pp.16, 17). Tanner is, of course, right that these passions that she lists are “some of the worst,” but are they not presented as such in the story? These unseemly passions are also exposed to young readers in many stories from the Bible. It does not seem possible to me to appreciate good behavior without recognizing bad or to judge morality without witnessing immorality. I know that I am quoting Ms. Tanner out of context, but being “totally ignorant” does not seem like such a good idea either. Content should be judged by context.

Then we have those who seem bent on analyzing everything that they come into contact with. Freudian psychologist Bruno Bettelheim likes Cinderella and sees the fairy tale as being replete with therapeutically valuable messages to the unconscious. In Bettelheim’s mind, sibling rivalry and oedipal conflicts are the main issues that Cinderella can help young people sort out. “On the surface,” says Bettelheim, “Cinderella’ is as deceptively simple as the story of Little Red Riding Hood…But under this overt content is concealed a welter of complex and largely unconscious material, which details of the story allude to just enough to set our unconscious associations going…. Which arouses deep interest in the story and explains its appeal to the millions over the centuries” (pp.528). As might be expected, Bettelheim has some thing to say about repressed guilt as it pertains to Cinderella’s popularity: Every child believes at some period of his life—and this is not only at rare moments—that because of his secret wishes, if not also his clandestine actions, he deserves to be degraded, banned from the presence of others, relegated to a netherworld of smut. He fears this may be so, irrespective of how fortunate his situation may be in reality. He hates and fears those others—such as his siblings—whom he believes to be entirely free of similar evilness, and fears that they or his parents will discover what he is really like, and then demean him as Cinderella was by her family. Because he wants others—most of all, his parents—to believe in his innocence, he is delighted that ‘everybody’ believes in Cinderella’s. This is one of the great attractions of this fairy tale. Since people give credence to Cinderella’s goodness, they will also believe in his, so the child hopes. And ‘Cinderella’ nourishes this hope, which is one reason it is such a delightful story. (pp.529)

Bettelheim believes that redemption for the guilty conscience is the good message that this fairy tale holds for the young unconscious mind. It is likely that Bettelheim is also correct with much that he says. Freud would surely be proud of his disciple’s thoughtful insight. But is it not an injustice, to the simple overt theme of the story (goodness is better than badness), to give so much power to possible covert messages that were not, in all likely hood, even thought of by the fairy tales originators. An unintentional covert message may have psychological impact, but it should not be allowed to overshadow the intentional overt message.

Given all of the social, political and psychological dimensions that Cinderella may possess, it is still only a fairy tale, and a good one at that. Even the simplistic Disney version has much to offer us in today’s society. He may not have included, as Jane Yolen rightly criticizes, the mercy and forgiveness that Perrault’s Cinderella exhibited, but to his credit, he chose to leave out the blood and vengeance of the Grimms’ version. This would have at least pleased Sarah Trimmer, had she lived to see it. The common thread through all of the various Cinderellas is the nice sweet little girl who treats others (including little birds and mice) the way she would like to be treated. The fact that she is treated shabbily by those who should have treated her better never alters her kind nature. She repeatedly turns the other cheek. Perhaps it should be no surprise that, in Christian Europe at least, these personality traits should be looked upon as desirable. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ teaches his followers:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they, which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they, which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven… (Mathew 5:3-10, K.J.V.)

Clearly, if we judge Cinderella’s actions by Christ’s Beatitudes, we should call them anything but weak. In fact, they are exemplary. In her book, Don’t Tell the Grownups, Allison Lurie suggests that feminists believe that Cinderella “is a kind of brainwashing, intended to convince them that all little girls must be gentle, obedient, passive, and domestic while they wait for their prince to come”(pp.18). And again Kolbenschlag remarks, “…in most of the tales Cinderella disappears into the vague region known as the ‘happily ever after.’ She changes her name, no doubt, and—like so many women—is never heard of again”(pp.537). I am not sure why it would be unreasonable to expect a happy unselfish girl to ultimately live happily ever after. Surely, we would not expect that her wicked stepsisters could pull it off.

Though I have tried to argue with a bit of humor, it is not my intention to ridicule or demean, but to defend a fine old fairy tale that should be valued for what it was intended to be. Cinderella, in all of its cultural variations through the ages, is a story about living the golden rule and being rewarded for a good life with happiness ever after. I guess, by some people’s standards, we have been brainwashed, but my daughters and I like Walt Disney’s Cinderella just fine. In fact, I expect to watch it again and again, “happily ever after.”




References:
Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum.
6th. Ed. New York: Longman, 1997
Bettelheim, Bruno, “Cinderella”: A story of Sibling Rivalry and Oedipal Conflicts. From
The Uses of Enchantments. New York. 1976. Rpt. In Behrens and Rosen 524-31
Perrault, Charles. “Cinderella. “ Behrens and Rosen 486-91.
Grant, Campbell, Walt Disney’s “Cinderella.” Behrens and Rosen 516-18
Grimm, Jakob, and Wilhelm Grimm, “Ashputtel.” Behrens and Rosen 491-96
Kolbenschlag, Madonna, “A Feminist’s View of ‘Cinderella.’” From “Kiss Sleeping
Beauty Good-bye.” New York. 1979. Rpt. Behrens and Rosen 533-38
Yolen, Jane, “America’s ‘Cinderella.’” Children’s Literature in Education.
Vol. 8. New York: Curtis Brown, 1997 21-29. Rpt. In Behrens and Rosen 538-45

Alison Lurie, “Don’t Tell the Grown-ups; Subversive Children’s Literature” Little,
Brown, 1990.