FairyTale: A True Story

The tale of the Cottingley Fairy hoax is an endearing - and enduring - one that's been passed down over the ages. The nation was entranced by photographs taken by a pair of girls which apparently showed them playing with fairies at the bottom of their garden. Soon, the scientific community was deriding the photographs as a joke, but others, including Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, remained convinced of their veracity. FAIRY TALE: A TRUE STORY is anything but a true story, taking as it does huge liberties with the original story. These range from the minor and rather enjoyable - Harry Houdini plays a significant role here, not that he did in real life, although I appreciated Harvey Keitel's performance nonetheless - to the extreme, i.e. the sight of CGI fairies floating around. I appreciate that the latter scenes were included to pander to the kids, but I think the film would have done a lot better by leaving it up to the viewer to make his or her own mind up rather than being so blatant about it. Otherwise, attention to period detail is good, and the child performers give strong turns. There's an exemplary supporting cast including Peter O'Toole and Paul McGann. The production values are evidently strong and it's hard to dislike a film telling such a vivid and memorable tale. Another, more adult version of the same story came out at the same time, PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, although I haven't had the pleasure of that one yet.

There are two different points of view that FAIRYTALE's difficult story can be told: the children and the adults. Apparently, it looks like the adults will be far more interested than the children because of its long discussions about fairy sightings and its overly dramatic nature; this actually is the kind of audience this movie was shooting for. On the children's side, it is magical in the make-believe universe, but not without a couple of horrifying and sorrowful moments (the scarred-face soldier out of WWI, for instance), and may end up as boredom along the way. The fairies and their surroundings would have looked better on the screen if they appeared larger, but there some things to believe in, just as the opening scene tells you; they do exist as fantasy figures to enlighten a child's imagination. The two young girls pull off some charming performances, and some luscious scenery is vivid all throughout. FAIRYTALE should have been a real "family" fantasy picture in the way it is presented, but stands out its own way as a movie that focuses on a slight examination of sightings that is virtually unexplainable (almost similar to science fiction!). Children will most likely appreciate the fairies more than the movie itself. And where is Mel Gibson???

If! They did one simple thing! DON'T SHOW THE FAIRIES! The filmmakers blew it big time. The premise for this film was the charming story of two young English girls who have found genuine evidence of the existence of fairies. But rather than leave whether or not the fairies existed to the imagination of film audiences the filmmakers instead gave away all the cards by showing bad special effects of the fairies. Didn't these filmmakers see Jaws? That film worked because you didn't see the shark right away. It built up a sense of wonder and dread about the killer unseen shark. The first Alien was also super scary since you only saw glimpses of the alien until the end. These are very different movies than Fairy Tale but the jist of the argument remains the same. In short, films can be MUCH MORE POWERFUL WHEN YOU LEAVE CERTAIN ELEMENTS TO THE VIEWERS IMAGINATION! E.T. also had the same sense of wonder about the main other worldly character because you didn't see it right away either. I heard someone did an unauthorized edit of The Phantom Menace and cut out all of Jar Jar Binks ultra irritating scenes. Good show. Maybe someday they will do the same with this film and leave ALL the fairy footage on the cutting room floor where it belongs. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll be an improved director's cut on DVD of the film and the filmmakers will do just that! But I doubt it. This film's story had some great supporting real life people in it. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Houdini. With a cast like that how could they miss? But sadly, they did. It's not all bad, but it only gets a mediocre rating from yours truly. The Mel Gibson cameo was cool though.

Everyone who's deeply interested in folklore, as I dare to say I am, knows the story of the Fairies of Cottingley, it's one nearly-epic story of the two girls who inadvertently made a half of the world actually believe in magical creatures (I don't count children, for they did, they do and they will believe, and that's wondrous), and the best part of the epic is that they had never straightforwardly confessed that they've forged it just not to ruin people's glimpse of faith in magical. If that's what this movie should have been telling about then it certainly does not the job. Despite the wonderful and believable acting of Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl, the incoherent screenplay and direction ruin everything and only a shadow of the childhood magic remains in the dark corner pushed away by the social-drama clichés (they even managed to insert there a villain and the goddammit comic relief!). And the top-notch CGI doesn't help out. There's more magic even in ghost-story movies, such as 'Lady in White' or 'The Changeling'. Worth watching, but only once. I deeply hope that some day someone will make a movie worthy of this story's spiritual background, so you'd understand why some perfectly sane people believe in fairies, even without the photographs. One of my favorite books is the collection of narrative tales, recorded in the middle of the 20th century among the Siberian villagers, mostly in the Chita region, by V.P. Zinovyev, and the thing I really love and adore in those stories is that those people actually believe all the folklore things they're speaking about! It's grievous that there are less and less such people live in this world, of that kind who believe because of the purity of the heart, not because of fear or passion. Some call those people dark and unenlightened, some laugh at them, but the thing they actually have is the faith, whilst everyone else have only a ghost of it. That who knows cannot believe.

Other reviewers have pointed out that, in real life, the girls admitted their photographs were fake. So why does the movie say they were genuine? Well, actually the movie does not say that. Watch very closely. While some of the characters think the photos were real, there is a scene where it is made clear that the photographs were, in fact, faked. The film merely maintains that the fairies *themselves* were real. Not the photos. Apparently the girls were unable to get photos of the actual fairies so they faked photos instead. That's the movie's point of view. The idea, I suspect, was to tell the true story but without spoiling it for the kids in the audience. Now, of course there are other alterations to historical facts... But that's typical for any movie based on a true story. Still, it's a fantastic tale with fun performances from the likes of Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole to name just a couple. It's also got a great tone, spirit and a really good soundtrack. Fairy Tale was one of my favorite movies of 1997. Watch for a true cameo appearance (uncredited small role) by Mel Gibson.

Fairytale: A True Story is a truly charming and delightful film, that has all the charm of the enchanting Secret Garden and the equally wonderful Little Princess. The screenplay was very solid, and the film does look very, very beautiful, with perfect camera-work and splendid period detail. The simple but well-told story tells of two young girls who find and photograph fairies, and they manage to convince even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (marvellously played by Peter O'Toole) that the fairies are real. The music was really lovely to listen to, and director Charles Sturridge manages to draw spirited (and exemplary) performances from his two leads Florence Hoath and Elizabeth Earl. The supporting cast include Paul McGann, Pheobe Nicolls and Harvey Keital, and all do more than a respectable job. Overall, a very pleasing and charming film, that does certainly leave you wanting fairies at the bottom of your garden, like the back of the video box promised. 10/10 Bethany Cox.

Let me start by saying I liked this movie. It has wonderful cinematography, an interesting story line, and a competent cast which evokes the period in question (WWI England). I probably wouldn't have watched it having seen the title, but while surfing the satellite channels, I came upon a scene with Peter O'Toole and Harvey Keitel, and I was transfixed. It's true that the story was inspired by a true story. I deliberately say "inspired" rather than "based" since the filmmakers did not base much of anything on reality. It's true that two girls (16 and 10, not the younger ages depicted in the movie) revealed photographs they had taken of "fairies" in the woods, and it's also true that Arthur Conan Doyle ate it up like Orson Welles at a smorgasbord. That's where the true part of the movie begins and ends. Really, the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for adding "A True Story" to the title. They graphically and unequivocally showcase the fairies/gnomes/little people flying, scrambling, and cavorting in the woods -- if this is "true," why not come out with their own set of "Cottingley photos"? The movie is very entertaining, it's a well-done fantasy and has a magical air to it, but please! Please don't call it a true story! It's an insult to the movie audience. Leaving out that the girls themselves, in later years, admitted the photos were faked, and leaving out that the poses of the "fairies" are identical to those in an illustration in a book of poems and stories that the girls no doubt possessed, one can tell instantly that the photos are fakes, and in my mind, not even clever ones. Conan Doyle was so gullible that he is on record disbelieving American "psychics" the Fox sisters when they themselves admitted their antics were all a hoax! He maintained that the spirits were acting through the sisters, even if they didn't believe so and were deliberately faking their seances! So let's not attach too much importance to Doyle believing in these fairy pictures. And Houdini is thrown in there for no good reason, simply because the writers discovered that he and Doyle were friends. Still, as I say, it's an engaging movie, well acted and filmed. I would have much preferred the director had left out the fairy scenes. Without those, they could have kept the true story aspect in all honesty, leaving the audience to decide whether the girls were charlatans or not. Leaving "A True Story" in the title is not only dishonest and misleading, it detracts from what otherwise is a very compelling and entertaining tale of two little girls and a wartime public, some of whom were desperate enough to believe in fairies!

This film ostensibly tells the "true story" of the girls who photographed the "Cottingley Fairies" in Yorkshire. But the film takes the point of view that the photographs were genuine and that the fairies were real. In old age, the girls involved admitted it was all a hoax - so why does the film treat what they say as true? There is a scene in which Arthur Conan Doyle tries to convince committed rationalist Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel) that what the girls say must be true - after all how could they, two young girls with apparently no knowledge of photography, fake the photographs and fool some of the greatest minds in the country? Houdini maintains, of course, that they have done so, however unlikely it may seem. It strikes me that what Houdini says is correct and that THIS IS A BETTER STORY TO TELL! It is precisely because it seems so unlikely that makes it such a good story (now that we know the truth). My view is that the two little girls were hoaxers, but that doesn't mean I don't have an enormous amount of respect for their achievement. Surely a better tribute is paid to them by showing fully the extent of their cleverness?

After watching this film I realize that it is not so much about whether it "was really" true or untrue...the essence of the film, made amply clear is the Belief of the two girls in fairies that made them see them in the first place. On a metaphysical level the film says that if you really believe in something, however odd or outlandish, it will come true or be true. There's no sense in being contentious about the basis of this film because that is very much valid as I have pointed out above. To do so, as I see some people have done over here, is to not only misunderstand the message of the film but to downplay its other qualities. The acting of Florence Hoath as Elsie and Elizabeth Earl as Frances is really impressive. Both have done complete justice to their characters. The rest of the cast, Paul McGann as Elsie's father, Peter O'Toole as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harvey Keitel as Houdini are also really good. I also absolutely agree with most of the reviewers here that the early 20th century has been evoked very well. But of course, the best thing about the film is the cinematography. It's gorgeous! The woods where the girls encounter the fairies are evoked beautifully, they're appropriately dreamy and realistic. Praise must definitely be due to the set decorators who have done a brilliant job with the house that the Wrights live in and especially the room which Elsie and Frances share. It's a dream garret room! The music is also quite good. I thoroughly recommend this film, certainly for those who believe in Believing things and also for those who like to watch a really well made period film.

Seems some of the people missed the point of the film when it comes to the fairies. Showing them close-up or having them speak or seeing too much of them would've ruined the magical effect. Fairies are always just out of our direct sight. This movie allowed us a longer glimpse but still.....it's magic.