Le mystère des fées - Une histoire vraie

..."I see only joy here." No truer words can be evoked to describe the purpose and effect of this beautiful film.

Charles Sturridge ('Brideshead Revisited' and 'A Handful of Dust') has assembled a cast that would be the envy of many other top flight producers and directors embarking upon a "serious" film. That is not to say this isn't a serious film, it is. It is marketed for children, naturally, but it has deeper levels that challenge the adult mind far beyond what one normally encounters in films directed towards adult audiences.

The quality of this script attracted such great actors as Peter O'Toole (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Harvey Keitel (Harry Houdini), Bill Nighy, Phoebe Nicholls, Paul McGann and a slew of other well-known British actors. You might also take note of Mel Gibson in an uncredited cameo at the very end.

Sturridge and his team of writers has come up with something beguilingly profound, flowing quietly beneath the simple story of two little girls who have managed to photograph fairies at the bottom of the garden. This is based on the famous "scandal" of the early 20th century when a similar event took place, only in the film the photographs are pronounce authentic whereas in the actual event in England the "experts" proved the photographs to be false. But the film does not pretend to represent the actual events but moves beyond them to a more fundamental issue of out times.

There is nothing "twee" about this movie either and it could have easily become mawkish and sugar-sweet in less committed hands.

I am left, after viewing this film, with Shakespeare's words ringing in my head... "there is far more in heaven and earth than meets [our] little philosophy."

In this blighted age of science and money-worship it is good to be reminded that we limit ourselves through our cynical prejudices and need to have everything proved scientifically, usually for profit.

When the condition of our lives and society has got you all blocked up, watch this little gem and weep for everything that has been lost to us. You will feel better afterward.

I will stop this commentary abruptly now by recommending 'Fairy Tale' to one and all. And get out the Kleenex box before you begin.

This venture was beautiful, whimsical, and inspired. This work felt as though it were real, although that is only partially true. I really don't care. The (movie) magick to be found here is awe inspiring and will have you watching your bird feeder much more closely.

Backed up by big names, beautiful photography, a solid screenplay, and natural dialog, this production is almost timeless. As it was a "period" piece (1917), it bears the virtue of not showing its wear. It was filmed as "old" when it was new.

The two girls' performances were nothing short of exemplary. They came off as being honest and true to their roles. That having been said, there was not a single poor performance to be found.

While there are some slow spots, as character development and the story are set up for the duration of the work, they are few and do not interrupt the flow of the production enough to break the wonderful spell.

It rates an 8.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

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.

Maybe on account of the fact that being 2/3 through my alotted span and with a terrible awareness of what this world is really like and having also managed to really never grow up, I found this film to be the most touching and magical experience of my life. I am more than happy to tell you that the last ten minutes of the film brought tears to my eyes as I witnessed what every young child wants to see....and CAN if only they can put aside life's pitiful and distracting reality.

Released the same time as the excellent PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES, both films dwell on the factual events of 1917 when childhood friends Elsie Wright and Florence Griffiths took what they professed to be real photographs of fairies in their immediate neighborhood. The incredible photographs were declared non-hoaxes and even incurred the attention of such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Harry Houdini who visited the girls and examined the phenomenon. Peter O'Toole especially, as Conan Doyle is just superb in his characterisation (why am I NOT surprised?)

Absolutely sumptuous cinematography, a most literate of scripts and some grade A acting, especially from the two girls. The film had a larger budget than PHOTOGRAPHING FAIRIES and it shows. The highlight of course and that which the younger viewers must wait patiently for, is the quite staggering appearance of the fairies at the end. As brilliant a series of special effects as I have ever seen. Several people don't appear to have seen Mel Gibson - you weren't looking to closely!!

The truth or otherwise about the photographs has since been made public although few appear to know. I have no comment to add. If you WANT to know more, contact me.

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?