Foux_du_Fafa

First of all, this is not a Disney film and should not be viewed as such, at least in the traditional sense. Yes, it was released and produced by the Walt Disney Company, but I think people seem to be forgetting or are unaware that this is an adaptation of a late 80s Broadway musical by Sondheim and not something developed in-house at Disney. Comparing it to any of Disney's animated films (or more recently its live-action remakes of animated films) is perhaps a bit unfair. Moreover, the original stage production was not trying to follow the Disney fairy tale formula. The original Grimm tales, while diverse in range and tone given their number, are generally quite sombre stories. In a way, they are reflections of the world we live in, as brutal as it may be at times. Moreover, many tales from the Grimm collection, and other folk traditions (such as "Jack and the Beanstalk" and "Puss in Boots"), have morally ambiguous protagonists. Was simply being poor or potentially being eaten that good an excuse for Jack to steal from a giant? After decades of Disneyfication, the plot of "Into the Woods" essentially takes the originals in their rustic, plague-ridden glory and adds a second act, probably intentionally written for this generation, reminding us to be careful of wishes, decadence and ambition getting the better of us.

This take on the fairy tale may not be to everyone's liking, just as how some people may not enjoy the classic Disney formula or the practice of turning fairy tales into action movies. What is important is to not confusing the purpose of this film with the purpose of "Frozen", "Maleficent" or many other recent fairy tale films.

As for myself, I really enjoyed "Into the Woods". I hadn't been too familiar with the original stage production so I didn't have high expectations in that regard. In any case, I loved the music and the script. The cast was very good, and the costumes and sets were enchanting (for the critics of Johnny Depp's wolf: use your imagination); overall they caught the spirit of enchantment and the hardship of pre-industrial Europe so present in many classic fairy tales so well. Seeing the Grimms' version of "Cinderella" on screen as opposed to the Perrault/Disney model was also a refreshing change. The infamous final act is admittedly a bit slow but ends on a poignant note.

I really don't know what to think of "Cucumber". It's certainly gripping but it also left me rather uncomfortable and wondering what I was doing to myself. To give you a bit of context: I'm from the Manchester area and it took me until my early-to-mid 20s to buck up the courage to come out. In the past few years since then, I've encountered a variety of gay people. Some are scene- obsessed, others don't have anything to do with the scene. Some are intelligent, some are stupid. Some seek alternative lifestyles, some don't. Some are quite conservative regarding sex and relationships, others far from. The fact is that sexual orientation does not necessarily define one's lifestyle or personal beliefs, nor should anyone try to beg to differ.

Though not as sleazy as the earlier "Queer as Folk", "Cucumber" portrays a stereotypical world of gay people (particularly gay men) who are narcissists, sex-addicts and general sleaze-balls. True, these people exist, and perhaps it's good to see gay people who are broke and on the fringes of society instead of fabulous, perfect- bodied and super-successful people who live in penthouses in LA or Manhattan. For someone who doesn't want to be shoved in a category and only interact with people of my own sexual orientation, it's quite frankly insulting. I understand that it's meant to be an over- the-top comedy-drama series and that it shouldn't be taken as realistic, but the fact of the matter is that some less informed people may watch it and come to see it as how gay people act and live. Feel free to make up your own mind on the programme, but just be warned.