Category Archives: Uncategorized

By the Book: Peter Pan

Technically Peter Pan isn’t really based on a book because the first version of the story was a play. But: This play was so successful that Barrie also published a novel based on it. Plus, while the play made the figure Peter Pan well known, he actually turned up first in the novel The Little White Bird. See? Not cheating at all when I discuss the movie as part of this series. But it would be naturally strange to ignore the play – I’m a little bit at disadvantage here, though, because I’ve never seen the play, and in my experience, it makes a big difference if you read a play or actually see it. But I’ll try my best to include the most important aspects of it.

1. The Setting

One of the changes most adaptions, including the Disney version, make is that they draw a clear distinction between Neverland and the real world. In the novel the lines are a little bit more blurred, for example the Lost Boys are still sometimes flying after they come back with Wendy. Personally I think a clear distinction is necessary, because if the “real world” described in the book is already unusual (well, more unusual than having babysitting dogs), it makes it harder for the audience to believe in Neverland, since it then become a fantasy world in a fantasy world instead of a concept which could exist right behind our own reality. peter-pan-disneyscreencaps_com-2264

Disney creates a convincing version of Neverland, basically the land of imagination and childhood plays. It has a secret tree house, Mermaids, Pirates and Indians. Yeah, the Indians. I guess I should address the elephant in the room from the get go: If you see the Indians as Native American stereotypes, they are downright offensive, and the only excuse for them is that those stereotypes are not only en par with what was written by Barrie but also more or less akin to what was shown in the very popular western movies which were made in the 1950s. But I think you should see them as what they are supposed to be, not Native Americans, but the kind of Indians which tend to life in the imagination of children. Don’t blame Disney or even Barrie for this one. Blame Buffalo Bill with his Western show, blame Karl May, blame everyone who ever wrote a story about the “Wild West” without really knowing what he is talking about. I don’t think that the Indians would look or act like that if the movie were made nowadays, they would tone it down a bit. But I also think that realistic Native Americans wouldn’t fit into Neverland. It’s not like the Pirates are anything like the real ones either.

Another difference between the original and the Disney version is that in the novel, Neverland is treated like a real place. The children are gone for months, and when they come back, they bring the lost boys with them, who are all getting adopted by their parents. But in the Disney movie, it’s strongly suggested that Neverland is born out of Wendy’s imagination. Not only does the narrator states from the get go that all children have a Neverland, Wendy also tells stories about Peter Pan before she even meets him (and then notes that he looks exactly like she imagined him). And when she “comes back” (after just one night) she is initially found sleeping at the window by her parents.

2. The Animation

Of all the Disney movie from the Romantic era, Peter Pan is in a lot of ways the least distinctive one, even though Mary Blair did work on the designs. What is still noticeable are her typical colour schemes, with a lot of primary colours creating a bright world. But there is something about the designs which is also very 1950s. With most Disney movies it is easy to forget when they were made, but Peter Pan somehow betrays the era it was made in, especially in the design of the main character.

But what is truly remarkable is the character animation, especially the crocodile. Doesn’t speak one word, has basically the same role every time it turns up (terrifying Hook) and yet it might be the most popular character in the whole movie. Part of it is the score connected to it, but also the expressive gestures it makes. I think my favourite moment in the whole movie is this one:


Do I have to say more?

3. The Characters

Barrie never described Peter Pan, nor did he specify his age. The Disney version has rather elfish features, and he wears green clothes instead of a dress made of leaves. And, like he is supposed to do, he is the embodiment of childhood. He is selfish, convinced of his own invincibility and has no sense for consequences whatsoever. Especially the scene with the mermaids drive this across, when he doesn’t see much harm in them trying to drown Wendy.

I guess this is the right moment to say something about the female characters. We have here a movie from the 1950s based on a story from the 1910s whose secondary main character is mostly praised for her motherly qualities. In this combination the best one would expect a fair for its time portrayal of the females. But when it comes to the novel, it was more than fair. For example the reason there are only Lost Boys and no Lost Girls is because supposedly girls are too smart to get lost. Wendy’s motherly traits are revelled, as are the other females. Aside from Peter Pan himself and naturally Captain Hook, the female character also get way more attention than any of the male characters. This is, after all, mostly Wendy’s story.

And the Disney version isn’t that bad either. It keeps the aspect of honouring the mother role, but it also allows Wendy to draw the line. Looking out for her little brothers? Sure. Getting treated like some sort of servant while the boys are allowed to party? Now you are trying her patience. And when it comes down to it, the female characters in the movie are the truly brave ones. Peter might be the one who fights, but since he is convinced that he will win in every encounter, there isn’t much bravery behind it. Wendy on the other hand would rather go of the plank that betraying her principles. Tiger Lily would rather drown than giving away anything, even though she knows that this way of dying would keep her from reaching her afterlife. And Tinkerbell nearly dies when she rescues Peter from a bomb.

When it comes to the lost boys and Wendy’s brothers – I can take them or leave them. They have just enough character to be not interchangeable, but they are neither particularly memorable nor important in the grand scheme of things. Same for Nana, though it’s certainly fun to watch her react to the situation in the family (and trying to rebuild the castle again and again). This character is just made for a Disney movie (though I never really got the point of a dog which acts like a nanny…it’s just odd…).

Mr. Darling is an example of unintentional symbolic by the writer. In the original play, he and Captain Hook were portrayed by the same actor. The reason for this was simply economic use of resources, since the characters don’t share a scene, they needed one actor less this way. But since there is an undeniable symbolic meaning in this arrangement, it has become tradition. In the Disney version the character designs are different, but the voices are the same. It also lays more emphasis on the father than the mother, by making his role of the “kill-joy” more extreme and his intention to remove Wendy from the play room the central conflict.

In the original story the mother is the more important character. One symbol in the novel I was never really able to figure out is that she has a hidden kiss in the right corner of her mouth which Wendy could never reach. It’s apparently reserved for her husband. But at the end of the novel, Peter Pan takes this kiss with him. 14 Captain Hook

Disney’s version of Captain Hook is easily one of the funniest villains in canon. His whole relationship with Smee and how they constantly play off each other as a comedic duo is entirely Disney (in the novel Smee is mostly notable because he is one of two pirates who survives, telling everyone that he was the only pirate Captain Hook feared). My favourite part is when Smee hammers a “don’t disturb sign” on the door because Hook has a headache (and everything which follows). But Hook is also one of the most threatening villains. Partly because of his design and actions. Causally shooting one of his men, kidnapping and nearly killing Tiger Lily, how he fools Tinkerbell meanwhile pretending that he is all honourable (naturally he isn’t), there is no doubt that Hook is a dangerous man. In the play and the book, Neverland is a dangerous place in general. In the movie though, the source of danger is usually Hook, even if it’s only indirectly.

4. The Plot

When it comes to the broad strokes of the original, the plot is more or less the same. Wendy discovers Peter, attaches his shadow, the children learn to fly (fun fact: the only reason pixy dust was eventually included by Barrie was because originally children got hurt when they tried to fly after seeing the play), they travel to Neverland, experience a few adventures. Wendy nearly dies due to a scheme by Tinkerbell, Peter Pan rescues Tiger Lily, and eventually Wendy and her brothers want to go home again but get captured. Peter survives a murder ploy by Hook thanks to Tinkerbell, and there is a final battle on the pirate ship. After this Peter brings Wendy and her brothers home.

The details though are sometimes fundamentally different, and not just because Disney naturally takes full advantage of the different medium. Memorable scenes in the play include a misunderstanding between Wendy and Peter which makes him believe that a thimble is a kiss (and the other way around), Tinkerbell drinking poison for Peter and surviving if the audience claps in the hands and shows that they believe in fairies and Hook getting eaten by the crocodile in the end because the clock stopped ticking. In the movie, Wendy simply says that she wants to give Peter a kiss instead of a thimble (in both cases Tinkerbell interferes), instead of poison the murder ploy involves a bomb, how Tinkerbell survived isn’t quite clear since the clapping scene is omitted because Walt Disney didn’t think that this would work in a movie, and Hook doesn’t die, instead he is chased away.

The adventures of the children in Neverland have, especially in the novel, a very episodic character. The Disney animators basically picked what they liked and rewrote is in a way that it works as an “it all happened in one night” story. The biggest change is that Wendy and the Lost Boys barely interact with each other in the movie. Peter introduces them to each other after they nearly killed Wendy due to Tinkerbell scheming against her, but then the group immediately splits up. Peter and Wendy explore the island together, while the boys (lost and otherwise) search for their own adventure. The only scene in which there is meaningful interaction is when she later reminds them how great it is to have a real mother.

I already mentioned that the Lost Boys and Wendy’s brothers are not really that important. In the original they are mostly just along for the ride, the focus is on Wendy and Peter. That’s true for the movie too, and to be honest, I never enjoyed the part when the boys go “hunting Indians”. The song is annoying, there doesn’t really happen all that much and while the stereotypes don’t bother me unduly, the very idea that hunting people is an acceptable game (especially since John believes that this is for real) does. Even as a child I always felt uncomfortable watching this part.

14 SmeeThe best scenes are naturally the ones with Hook. No matter if he interacts with Peter, Smee, the Crocodile or Tinkerbell, no matter if he is funny, threatening or both, whenever he turns up he owns the screen. If Disney’s depiction of him has one weakness than that by playing his fear of the crocodile (and by extension the ticking clock) for fun it distracts from him being basically afraid of time.

Disney simply ignores some of the symbolic aspects of the play and the novel, the odd ones as well as the more straightforward ones. In the play and the novel Peter Pan is a somewhat tragic figure. He is trapped in childhood, not being able to move forward, partly because he keeps forgetting his past, because otherwise his mind would grow up. A part of him is constantly searching for some sort of mother figure, and his desire for one is so strong that he initially plans to convince Wendy to stay in Neverland through trickery, and changes his mind only when he sees the grief of Mrs. Darling. The play allows the audience to revisit the perspective of their youth, but it also makes clear that nobody can stay in Neverland forever. The play as well as the novel is very clear that Peter Pan is the only one who will never grow up (it’s also suggested that all the other inhabitants of Neverland eventually die, too – meaning that while Peter remains unchanged, the world around him moves forward).

The Disney version omits this tragic aspect. There the idea that Peter Pan will always be out there is more a comforting one, as if a part of our childhood will always be there, no matter how old we are. Disney also lays more emphasis on the conflict between Wendy and her father, ending it with them both changing their mind by her accepting the need to grow up and him realizing that there is no need to rush it. This leads to his wife and daughter embracing him, a far cry from the way he is treated at the beginning of the movie – yes, he acts a little bit like a dick, but it’s also very hurtful if you fall through the whole room and your family only cares about the dog getting hurt. So while the “growing up” aspect is still there, there seems to be an even stronger message that one should never wholly forget his childhood perspective, no matter how old you are. Well, you are never really too old for Disney movies either, right?

5. The Soundtrack

The songs in Peter Pan are quite a mixed package. The slow paced title song which is typical for the 1950s movies has a nice enough tune, but the other songs have a childish aspect to it, not just in tune, but also in text. It’s not a bad fit for the movie, though, not at all, this is a children’s world after all, epic songs would just overwhelm it, but they sometimes slip too much into triviality.

Ironically the song I consider the best is the controversial “What makes the red man red”. Just hear me out: I think it’s the best partly because it has a drive to it the other songs lack, but mostly because the mind-set behind Neverland is hit spot on in this. The question which are asked in this are typical children’s questions (along the line of “Why is the sky blue?”) and the answers are children’s logic. It’s not unusual for children to make surprising leaps of logic, making connections between things which are not connected at all, and the song transports this perfectly.

Though there is one other song which is even better, but doesn’t really count because it is not quite in the movie. Well, it’s score is. I already mentioned it when I was talking about the crocodile. “Never smile at a crocodile” is one of those songs with a text which doesn’t really make much sense, but has a tune which is a relentless earworm. You can practically hear the ticking of the clock in its rhythm, and it is used to great effect in the movie. We always hear the song before we get to see the crocodile.

All in all the soundtrack is serviceable with flashes of brilliance in it. It doesn’t quite compare to the best of Disney soundtracks and has become a little bit dated at parts, but overall it fits the movie and has its memorable moments.

6. Merchandise14 tinkerbell-the-pixie-with-dust-picture-by-milliesky-520904

Yeah, I normally don’t have this category in my reviews, but I guess I should say something about Tinkerbell. For a classic Disney character she is unusual. Not only is she jealous, she also acts on this jealously two times. In the novel, those actions as well as Peter’s willingness to overlook them are explained with fairies not being able to have conflicted feelings. Since they are so small, they have only place for one feeling, meaning weather they love or hate, they always do it with full force.

The movie omits this explanation, therefore Tinkerbell becomes quite a vindictive character. While her betrayal mostly happens because Hook manipulates her, she is very aware that it’s dangerous to deal with him. That she insist on Peter’s safety being part of the deal, but doesn’t seem to care for anyone else, is a very callous move. Tinkerbell’s willingness to do everything for Peter but also to act against everyone who seems to get between them, makes her unique in the Disney canon. Normally those are character traits you would find in a villain, not in a sidekick. That she oozes sexuality on the other hand is not that uncommon, not really. Disney was never above getting crap past the radar, she is just another example of this.

But one thing for sure: The Tinkerbell in Disney’s fairy franchise has nothing to do with the one in the original movie. Thus said, I don’t think that the franchise hurts anything. I guess it’s enjoyable enough for little (really little) children and easy enough to ignore.

5. The Conclusion

All in all, this is a solid but overly simplified take on the story. From today’s perspective the movie certainly has its problems, the character designs as well as the music are so clearly 1950s that it does look a little bit dated. But the strong point of the movie is the humour, and I’m saying this as someone who is usually not into slapstick at all: The comedic timing is just perfect, it’s impossible, not to laugh, and the best part is that none of the jokes are in any way referential, they are in-universe funny.

The downside of the movie is that it lacks depth, since the message is too anvilious and the plot too simple. It’s the play broken down to its very basic and never ventures out of the safe zone of family friendly entertainment. Therefore it’s more fun for children to watch then for adults, even though they might enjoy the nostalgia, not just the nostalgia of watching something from their childhood, but also experiencing the mind-set of a child again.Bildschirmschoner-TickTock


The Swanpride Award: Top Ten

Well, those are movies still in the competition:

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926) by Lotte Reiniger, Silhouette

Fantasia (1940), Walt Disney, Traditional

Sleeping Beauty (1959), Walt Disney, Traditional

Yellow Submarine (1968), Georg Dunning, Traditional

Watership Down (1978), Martin Rosen, Traditional

The Secret of Nimh (1982), Don Bluth, Traditional

The Great Mouse Detective (1986), Disney, Traditional

Grave of the Fireflies (1988), Studio Ghibli, Traditional

The Little Mermaid (1989), Disney, Tradtional

Beauty and the Beast (1991), Disney, Traditional

The Nighmare before Christmas (1993), Skellington/Disney, Stop Motion

Ghost in the Shell (1995), Mamoro Oshii, Traditional

Princess Mononoke (1997), Studio Ghibli, Traditional

The Iron Giant (1999), Warner Bros, Traditional

Time to narrow the list down to ten. Let’s start with the easy choices: I said that Yellow Submarine wouldn’t have won in any other decade and I stand to my opinion. No matter which movie I would have picked for the 1960s, it would have been fallen out of the competition at this stage for sure.

And speaking of Yellow Submarine, one of the main reasons I consider it inferior is the quality of the animation. I therefore decided to use this as my first criteria and scratch movies off the list which don’t manage to shine through animation. Those which are struggling in this regard, usually because of budget issues, are Watership Down, The Great Mouse Detective, Ghost in the Shell and The Iron Giant. Only one of those four can make it to the next round.   Now, they all have something good about their animation. In the case of Watership Down and Ghost in the Shell, it’s artistic elements, in the case of The Great Mouse Detective and The Iron Giant it’s technical achievements. Technical achievements are impressive, but artistic elements are time-less. So I have to make a decision between Watership Down and Ghost in the Shell.

Mmmm…..I go for Watership Down. Mostly because I think that the gory moments in Watership Down are actually making a point, while the gory ones in Ghost in the Shell often feel a little bit too indulgent. This leaves the following Top Ten:

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926) by Lotte Reiniger, Silhouette

Fantasia (1940), Walt Disney, Traditional

Sleeping Beauty (1959), Walt Disney, Traditional

Watership Down (1978), Martin Rosen, Traditional

The Secret of Nimh (1982), Don Bluth, Traditional

Grave of the Fireflies (1988), Studio Ghibli, Traditional

The Little Mermaid (1989), Disney, Tradtional

Beauty and the Beast (1991), Disney, Traditional

The Nighmare before Christmas (1993), Skellington/Disney, Stop Motion

Princess Mononoke (1997), Studio Ghibli, Traditional


So, let’s take a look at the reader choice…at the moment I am writing this, Snow White, Cinderella, Aladdin and The Jungle book have the most votes and fall out of the competition.

I added a few more to the list (strangle nobody voted for the year 1995, but there was a comment vote for Toy Story, so I added it). Same deal as before: Five possible choices and you have to pick the movies you don’t want to win.


The Swanpride Award: Time for a Recap

Well, we have rushed through decades and have now reached the 1980s. Here is what I learned so far.

  1. This is really difficult. I thought that at least in the beginning the winners would be fairly obvious. To be fair, they would be if I had gone by year, and not by decade. But still, I somehow expected that there would be at least one obvious winner each decade. But so far that has only been true for Fantasia.
  2. I really like the movies which try something different, as well as those which have visually a lot to offer.
  3. Animation was really in the process to kick off big, not just in America. But the war really derailed the process, which resulted mostly in some propaganda productions and then mostly nothing at all. Perhaps also because a lot talents ended up either in the US or behind the Iron curtain. It is a shame.
  4. The 1950s were thoroughly Disney dominated. It is also, artistically speaking, Disney’s strongest era so far. Which wasn’t exactly news to me, but looking at the movies put the point across yet again.
  5. The 1960s were a horrible decade for animation. I am still in shock. No wonder Disney made so much money with rereleasing the old movies to theatres again and again. But it is also the decade in which the list of animated movies released every year started to get long. The quality was just not quite there yet.
  6. The 1970s is the period which finally makes it worth again to look at obscure movies. There is a good chance to find a fairly unknown gem if you take the time to look through the various titles.
  7. It is really worth it to shift through the non-American production. To elaborate, the American movies usually find an audience if they are good, so they land on the best lists sooner or later. But the foreign movies are often only known in their own countries and are therefore automatically less mainstream. And if they get translated, the quality of the dubbing vary.
  8. Surprisingly, the 1980s is the decade I need to catch up on the most. There are still a number of movies on my consideration list I need to watch, just to be sure that I don’t overlook a gem.
  9. Real live can be very inconvenient.
  10. But plans can get adjusted.

To get to the point, my original plan was to cover the early 1980s next. The 1980s is the time during which what I once called the “Multi-Age” starts, meaning that there are suddenly enough high quality movies from various companies that you could put together a proper list of nominees is some years. But not in all of them. I therefore planned to take 1985 as the starting point and then go forward in two year steps. But there are still a number of movies from the 1980s I need to watch (or watch again) in order to write properly about it. And I simply don’t have the time to do so currently. I thought I would be able to do all of it, but first the list ended up longer than I expected and then real life got in the way.

So I’ll do the following. For now I jump forward to the 1990s, because I am further along with those articles. I’ll try to keep up the daily schedule, but I might miss out a day or two. And when I have covered the 1990s, I’ll hopefully have managed to catch up enough to discuss the 1980s.

Sorry that I can’t do this in the way I originally planned, but I promise, I’ll cover the whole century this month.


By the Book: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow

Last time I discussed the first part of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, so let’s discuss the second part this time around. It is after all the fitting topic for Halloween.

1. The Setting

One of the things which always puzzled me about the short was that especially Katrina’s clothing reminded me of tradition Dutch attire. Reading the story it makes much more sense, since it is explicitly set in a Dutch Valley near New York. This knowledge made me see the dynamic in the story and the Disney version with other eyes, because in this setting, Ichabod Crane is pretty much the outsider – and apparently not of Dutch origin. This might sound like a minor point nowadays, but it certainly had a meaning when the story was written.

2. The Animation

What is always noticeable about those package movies is how much the animation can change from segment between segment. Most of the complains I have for the Wind in the Willow segment are no issue here, with the exception of the shaky stills. The style is still somewhat basic, but it deserves a lot of credit for the sequence when the headless horseman attacks, even though the trick used is very simple: Whenever the horseman comes close, the background is tinted red, signalling danger.

3. The Characters

To be frank: Ichabod Crane is an a-hole, in the Disney version even more than in the story, though in both it is pretty clear that he is mainly interested in Katrina because she happens to be a beautiful heiress. But in the Disney version, he even goes so far to dream in great detail about Katrina’s father dying and him taking his place. That is cold. Very cold. He is also portrayed as the kind of character who would help a woman and then turn around in order to steal one of her pies. Though a certain sneakiness is also present in the original story.

Brom van Brunt (better known as Brom Bones according to the story) on the other hand is portrayed as a rough character with a good heart. In the Disney version he often seems to be a bully. But I am honestly not sure how much of the impression is based on values dissonance, and how much is intentional. After all, having mussels and being generous towards everyone is not really a bad thing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he originally was supposed to be more a lovable rogue. And what is the worst Brom actually does in the Disney version? Being jealous and telling a story. Those are only bad things if you see them as the act of someone who thinks he already “owns” the most sought after woman in the valley. But in neither version his motivations are explicitly stated. It is entirely possible that he is honestly in love with Katrina and just wants to protect her from Ichabod Crane. The short story is not really clear about this point, either.

And then there is Katrina van Tassel, whose thoughts are everyone’s guess. Is she really impressed by Ichabod? Or is she playing a little game in order to make Brom jealous? Or does she just feel sorry for Ichabod? It is impossible to tell, especially in the short story. There it is entirely possible that Ichabod was too optimistic all along. But in a way, it doesn’t really matter, she is just the McGuffin of the story.

4. The Plot

This might be the closest adaptation Disney ever did. The narration even contains direct quotes from the source text. And the story is told very faithfully, with the exception of two mayor points. One is the fact that Katrina already refused Ichabod before he leaves the party and meets the headless horseman. The other is the fact that in the short story it is heavily suggested that Ichabod’s cruel fate is an old wife tale (it is practically called that way), and that the true culprit was Brom. In the Disney version, Ichabod looks directly into the costume of the rider and reacts terrified, so it looks like this headless horseman is real after all. Both versions are interesting in their own right. The short story plays with the legend aspect and is practically a commentary on how this kind of stories start in the first place. The Disney segment on the other hand plays perfectly on the horror aspect. The first scenes, when the characters are introduced, are pretty harmless. Then Brom tells the story of the horseman (in a very catchy song) and the mood becomes more sinister. And finally the scene in the forest plays on the fears such a places causes. Even though the chase has some comedic elements, it never stops to keep the viewer on the edge.

5. The Soundtrack

I already discussed the main song of the short when I talked about narrative songs. There are two others of this kind in the segment, both designed to introduce characters. First Ichabod Crane:

Who’s that comin’ down the street
Are they shovels or are they feet
Lean and lanky skin and bone
With clothes a scarecrow would hate to own

You don’t even need to see the animation to immediately have a funny picture in your mind. In addition it emphasises that Ichabod’s look is also in-universe very peculiar.

Yet he has a certain air
Debonair and devil-may-care
It’s the new schoolmaster
What’s his name
Ichabod Crane

Well, at least the perception of the men. The woman apparently see more.

Ichabod, what a name
Kind of odd but nice just the same
Funny pan
Funny frame
Ichabod Crane

Ichabod may be quaint
May be odd and maybe he ain’t
Anyway there’s no complaint
From Ichabod
Ichabod Crane

I especially like the last verse. Ichabod Crane might look odd, but he doesn’t care that he does. And most likely because he doesn’t, and approaches women with confidence, he is considered attractive despite not following the common idea of good looking. This stands in stark contrast to Katrina.

Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah
Once you have met that little coquette Katrina
You won’t forget Katrina
But nobody yet has ever upset Katrina
That cute coquette Katrina
You can do more with Margaret or Helena
Or Ann or Angelina
But Katrina will kiss and run
To her a romance is fun
With always another one to start
And then when you’ve met that little coquette Katrina
You’ve lost your heart

To put it in blunt words, Katrina likes to flirt, but she won’t promise anything. And yet everyone falls in love with her, because she is beautiful. But it is notable how much those line infantilize Katrina, by calling her “little” and “cute”.

6. The Conclusion

When I reviewed the other segment of “Ichabod and Mr. Toad” I bemoaned that it wasn’t a full length feature. This segment on the other hand is perfect the way it is. There is no reason to put more into the story, because there is no more to the story in the first place. Disney did a perfect adaptation of the source text. And now is the perfect time of the year to watch it. But not shortly before you have to take a ride through the woods.

11 Headless Horseman


In Germany (and I guess a lot of other countries), today is the First Advent – meaning the first of the for Sundays before Christmas. Advent is the time we spend in preparation for Christmas , lighting one candle every Sunday.

The sixth of December is a very special day, Nicholas day. The prior evening, everyone in the house is cleaning their largest pair of shoes and putting it in front of the fireplace (or another special place). The next morning, the shoes are filled with sweets – if the children have been good. Supposedly Sankt Nicholas comes during the night to leave his gifts. He is accompanied by Knecht Ruprecht, who punishes bad children with his stick and leaves a piece of coal instead of sweets (some parents like to skip over this part of the legend nowadays).

The poem I decided to translate for you is set at this very special night. I did my best to keep the tone and the rhyme scheme. It is certainly not perfect, but I hope you like it nevertheless:

The night is blue, the stars gleam clear
snowflakes float quietly through the air.
High on the tops of the green pines
a slowly growing cover shines .
And from a window oh so bright
through the woodland flickers light.
The forester’s wife behind the frames
kneels calmly by the candle’s flames
On this peaceful nightly hill
the forester became her kill.

He was while cleaning her domain
for a long time just a pain.
So she chose to find relief
and do the deed on Nicholas Eve.

And when the deer went to rest,
the hare laid silent in his nest,
her husband had to feel the brunt
when she shot him from the front.
The hare awakened from his doze
moves three, four times his little nose
and goes back dreaming in the dark,
under the stars familiar spark.

And behind the wooden door
the forester’s blood still stains the floor.
Now in hurry his wife starts
to cut him into handy parts.
She quickly slices through the bones,
with the skill a hunter owns.
Carefully sorts limb on limb
(which was never done by him) –
the tenderloin she deems ideal
for her own holiday meal.
Finally, it’s nearly two,
she gift-wraps the residue.

Silver bells sound from afar,
village dogs bark where they are.
Who might it be, who late at night
still travels through the snow by sleigh?
Knecht Ruprecht with his golden gear
is coming closer on his deer.
“Milady, will you do your deed
and give some joy to those in need?”
Although the snow still falls thickly,
the holy man is greeted quickly:
“Those packages over there,
are everything I have to spare.”

To the bells clear chiming sound,
Knecht Ruprecht now goes on his round.
Through the house floats candle scent,
a star twinkles, it is Advent.

Okay, I guess you have noticed by now that this (fairly well-known) poem is not entirely serious. It was written by Germany’s most famous and best Comedian, “Loriot”. I hope you had fun with it, and that you will manage to enjoy advent instead of being stressed all the time.