Ella Enchanted & Why “Updating” Fairytales Doesn’t Always Make Them Better
Disney; Miramax; Disney.
In the past several years, many of our revered traditions and stories have come under sharp and, arguably, often unfair criticism. Celebrities and others have thrown classic princesses like Snow White and Cinderella under the proverbial bus in the name of feminism and empowerment.
Forget princes and true love, they seem to declare. Why would an independent, modern woman need any of that? (Though if you’d ask any woman in a solid relationship or marriage, I think she may beg to differ.)
Moreover, there’s been an intensified emphasis on female “fierceness” and “toughness” and a woman’s ability to “save herself,” all traits the classic princesses supposedly lack. “No damsel in distress, don’t need to save me,” sings Ava Max in her popular song “Kings and Queens.”
Let’s pretend, for argument’s sake, that Cinderella and Snow White were real people being held and abused by cruel family members — would the critics still tell them to “toughen up” and “save themselves”? I don’t think so. No one, male or female, no matter how independent or self-sufficient is capable of saving himself or herself from every situation.
While it’s true that sometimes we must “pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps,” we often need others’ help. Even more importantly in a spiritual sense, people of faith know that it’s only God’s redeeming grace that can save us eternally.
There’s nothing wrong with being or aiming to be daring, tough, or even unconventional at times, but it is wrong to do this by unnecessarily belittling men’s strength or by implying that these conspicuous modes of might are somehow better or more praiseworthy than a gentle, quiet strength.
Yet, this rather short-sighted definition of empowerment keeps popping up.
A 2019 HarperCollins Publishers’ “Remember Reading” podcast episode, highlighting Gail Carson Levine’s 1997 book, Ella Enchanted, is an excellent illustration of this dismissive attitude to traditional female characters.
Carson describes how she wrote the character of Ella to be more relatable to modern girls than she believed the original Cinderella to be. Ella is clumsy, spunky, and rebellious. She’s a natural with foreign languages, and she develops a true friendship with Prince Char (short for Charming) before marrying him. These elements are meant to contrast with the traditional Cinderella’s alleged passivity and attention-grabbing beauty.
Okay, cool. Finding relatable characters in books and deriving encouragement and direction from their stories is one of the glorious functions of literature. These literary friends and guides can help us to understand ourselves and the world around us.
According to the podcast, Levine’s goal of reaching young girls was a success as the show offers multiple testimonials of readers who found Ella endearing and emboldening. I would surmise that many of you reading this article are fans of this book, too. It’s a creative, fun story, no doubt.
What’s potentially troublesome is Levine’s emphasis on and celebration of Ella’s disobedience. If you are unfamiliar with Ella Enchanted, the main action of the plot and its various conflicts arise from Ella’s internal struggle with her “curse of obedience,” which an unthinking, well-meaning fairy gave to her on the day of her birth.
Due to this “curse,” Ella is forced to obey any direct order from anyone, no matter how absurd or how dangerous. Naturally, the unscrupulous and self-serving, such as her stepsisters, use Ella’s condition to their own advantage. Ella desperately tries to resist commands but begins to feel physically sick if she holds out for too long. Moreover, Ella muses that in spite of the “curse” making her strive to be noncompliant, she may naturally have been rebellious. And that’s where we run into a potential problem.
Levine asserts in the podcast that Ella is empowering for girls and that she is a “disobedient heroine.” Explicitly connecting disobedience with empowerment is a bit questionable, especially in a children’s story.
It seems we should be cautious in walking the line between celebrating disobedience as such and disobedience in the face of injustice, particularly in helping children and youth to understand the nuances of the difference.
In an effort to “update” stories, we are in danger of losing many timeless and necessary viewpoints, such as the value of obedience. These yarns of yore may very well merit critique but the notion that traditional fables and fairy tales are simply outdated and therefore obsolete is worrisome. We are imposing modern sensibilities onto these stories of the past and judging them with a twenty-first century lens of morality instead of understanding the era from which they emerged.
The original fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm were not meant to portray realistic or relatable characters. Instead their purpose was to impart a moral lesson. G.K. Chesterton says of Cinderella, “Cinderella seems a piece of very ordinary nursery gossip that surely might be called simple Bible teaching: ‘He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and meek.’”
While it is helpful and comforting to find literary characters with whom we can relate, the heroines in books, arguably, should to a certain degree be aspirational. They can and should inspire us to improve ourselves by the example of their characteristics and through the lessons and growth they undergo.
Cinderella’s long-suffering, kindness, and patience in the face of adversity are virtuous, and these virtues are ultimately rewarded by a supernatural being: her fairy godmother.
Perhaps our increasingly secular society is losing its grasp on the religious sense of supernatural reward for virtue and punishment for vice, so “turning the other cheek” is seen as passive or weak.
Levine and others complain that it’s only Cinderella’s physical beauty that attracts the prince. Far be it from me to agree with icky Meredith Blake from The Parent Trap, but her sassy line to Hallie/Annie comes to mind: “Being young and beautiful is not a crime, you know.”
Truly, since when is comeliness a defect? Yes, Cinderella is blessed with beauty, but her outward beauty stems from and is enhanced by her inward goodness. Conversely, the step-sisters appear unattractive because their attitudes are ugly. As Roald Dahl wrote, “You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”
Disney’s 2015 live-action Cinderella, with its emphasis on courage and kindness, was notably and pleasantly close to the spirit of an old fairy tale. Cinderella is not petty or vindictive toward her enemies, another common element in contemporary stories where characters “get even” with those who have wronged them.
In fact, we see this numerous times in Ella Enchanted. Ella seeks revenge on her stepsisters in any way she can. Though Ella’s desire for revenge is completely understandable given her stepsisters’ nasty actions, the book never shows Ella maturing to the point where she realizes she’s lowering herself to her stepsisters’ level by her own vindictive reactions. Ella is sympathetic, yet sometimes she herself is a brat.
In contrast, the live-action Cinderella forgives her step-family and is charitable in her description of them. But that doesn’t mean that she’s a doormat. In every Cinderella adaptation, Cinderella attends the prince’s ball despite her stepmother’s attempts to thwart her. Pretty plucky if you ask me.
In the 2015 adaptation, we also see her bravely confront her stepmother over the abusive treatment she’s received. She’s told that it is because she is “good and pure” that she is mistreated. Even after this horrid response, Cinderella is not embittered. She shows that forgiveness and respectful confrontation take more strength than lashing out or getting even. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10)
Of course, we want young girls (and boys) to be confident, smart, and courageous. They should be brave and daring to fight for what’s right and to go against conventions if they are unjust or oppressive, but disobedience and rebellion for their own sake or resorting to disrespect and spiteful revenge is demeaning, the exact opposite of empowerment.
I would also contrast Ella with another young literary heroine: L. M. Montgomery’s Anne Shirley from Anne of Green Gables. Though she’s not a princess, Anne possesses many of the bold qualities that Levine seems to want Ella to embody.
Anne is talkative, high-spirited, imaginative, competitive, curious, stubborn, impulsive, and temperamental. She is prone to accidents, but she’s also smart and academic-minded. She attends college, wins scholarships, and becomes a teacher and a writer. She does not immediately agree to marry her childhood friend Gilbert but keeps him waiting until she understands her own heart and desires. Anne is also humble and honest about her shortcomings. She grows and learns from them. She is loyal and caring, willing to sacrifice for those she loves and to seek out the lonely to befriend them. Even in her worst moments, Anne can hardly be called a brat.
Long before Ella came to be, Anne was a friend and an inspiration to girls in all these many ways.
Circling back to the main conflict of Ella Enchanted, Ella’s curse, arguably, is less about a mandate to obey and more about her loss of free will. She no longer has the power to choose for herself. Free will is integral to human nature — it allows us to make moral choices, to develop specific tastes and interests, to be human. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God imbued humans with free will so that we could freely choose to love Him. Love without freedom is enslavement — it’s not true love.
Prince Char correctly states, “Love should not be dictated.” Ultimately, it’s Ella’s selfless love for Prince Char and for her land of Kyrria (both noble, powerful motivations for “disobedience”) that enables her to break “the curse.” Prince Char and Ella are in love, and he wants to marry her. However, she knows that if she becomes his wife, her “curse of obedience” could potentially put his life and the well-being of the kingdom in jeopardy if it’s discovered and abused by his enemies. Through a torturous, valiant effort, Ella refuses his proposal as well as her stepsisters’ insistence that she marry Prince Char (so they will gain). Consequently, she liberates herself and actually can marry Prince Char in freedom.
In the end, Ella Enchanted is a bit of a mixed bag and like any book, each reader will glean something slightly different from its pages according to individual taste and focus. Personally, I prefer the 2004 movie version of Ella Enchanted, starring Anne Hathaway. It is genuinely funny.
In short…
We should not overly-romanticize the past or say that all traditions and old stories are fault-free, but neither should we dismiss them out-of-hand. We need to look for their deeper meanings and messages.
Let’s make sure we encourage young girls to stand up for themselves and for the weak and voiceless but also teach them to respect and understand tradition (even if justice requires challenging it). Let’s celebrate humility, self-control, forgiveness, acceptance of one’s self while striving to overcome faults, and above all, love. These are the ingredients of true empowerment.
