Review of Donkey Skin (1908) by Edith N — 03 Sep 2008

I have to wonder--how is it that a little schmutz on Catherine Deneuve's face is enough to render her ugly in these people's eyes? She's lovely; she will always be lovely. She still has those lovely, delicate features, those eyes, that hair. I can see that she probably wouldn't smell very good, given that she was wearing an untanned donkey skin (a badly faked untanned donkey skin) wrapped around her, but to call her ugly is, frankly, to be [i]blind[/i]. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that's pretty much true, but seriously? There's a certain amount of beauty that practically everyone must acknowledge, and Catherine Deneuve has it.

Once upon a time, there was a handsome king (Jean Marais) and his beautiful queen (either not shown--I don't remember--or uncredited). They loved each other very much, and their daughter (Deneuve) was so lovely and accomplished that they did not worry that she was their only child. And then the queen died of some strange wasting illness, leaving behind her a promise that the king would only marry a woman as beautiful as she. The king despaired at finding such a woman, but then his eyes turned upon his daughter. She conspired with her godmother, the Lilac Fairy (Delphine Seyrig), to escape from her father's evil plan. She was disguised as a scullion, wrapped in a stinking donkey skin. She was the princess of the blue kingdom; she escaped to the red kingdom. There, the prince fell in love with her.

I read this story many years ago in its variant "Thousand-Furs." It, too, was the bowdlerized version--oh, it mentioned the king's incestuous desire, and it included the three lovely dresses, though in that version, instead of the donkey skin, her father also gave her a coat made of pieces of the fur of a thousand animals, and it was that which she hid in. The point is, however, that both versions left out the rape that was in the original version, the thing that really sparked the princess to run away. All the old tales, you see, are about blood, and if you want an unbowdlerized version, try Robin McKinley's [i]Deerskin[/i]. However, most books that include some version of the story are sanitized for children, and in this rare case, I'm kind of okay with that. This version, and "Thousand-Furs," which I read as a child, are indeed [i]for[/i] children; [i]Deerskin[/i] is not.

This is a weird damn production, though, bowdlerized or not. All of the servants of the blue kingdom are actually painted blue. Many of the servants, and even the horses, of the red kingdom are actually painted red. The lilac fairy eventually arrives in a helicopter; fairies, apparently, have access to future technology. It's a wonder that she merely wears lilac and isn't painted it. Then again, the nobles aren't painted, and even the higher servants don't seem to be. (Except heralds, who are indeed painted.) I think, as well, that the sets are recycled; the blue king and queen have this elaborate double throne with a rainbow and such over it, and the red king's throne is, I think, intended to be a stuffed white lion, but it looks like a giant toy cat. At one point, the red king is wearing what I think are daisies in his beard.

You'll note I am only barely recommending this. I thought very seriously about not, but I think it's just marginally worth seeing. The songs aren't bad--I think Sting uses one on one of his albums, but I can't now place it. Certainly the melodies are similar. The sets are . . . okay, weird, but lovely. The acting isn't very good, but it's got Catherine Deneuve, so you can just sit and watch her if you get bored.