Any potential full featured film adaptation of Rumpelstiltskin (Grimm, J. et al.), particularly by Disney, could be problematic in today’s world if adapted from its literal translation. The original tale of Rumpelstiltskin touches on dark themes that may not resonate well with a modern audience. It follows a miller’s daughter who is coerced into making a deal with a magical imp named Rumpelstiltskin, trading her firstborn child for his assistance in spinning straw into gold. This story highlights the dehumanization and commodification of both the daughter and her child, reflecting the grim realities of trafficking and exploitation. However, if we use the example of the poetry of Ezra Pound, it is possible to transform the tale of Rumpelstiltskin to align with our societal norms with an adaptation that produces an “unfaithful translation” (Bassnett 144).

In our society, this storyline raises ethical concerns about coercion, consent, and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Child protection and women’s rights would be at the forefront of a film adaptation of this story in its current context. A story that centers around a bargain involving a child’s future may not sit well with audiences, especially as it derives from what our culture sees as a wholesome world of fairy tales. Additionally, the act of giving up one’s firstborn (for self gain) is a form of betrayal and abandonment. This topic may cause emotional triggers in those who are victims of such selfish acts.

In our modern American culture, traditional fairy tales are cleverly adapted to align with our societal norms. A great example of this is Disney’s 2015 adaptation of Cinderella, which modernizes Cinderella’s character through the portrayal of mutual respect and equality in her relationship with the Prince (Cinderella). This adaptation adds depth to Cinderella’s character and promotes healthier relationships, aligning more with our evolving cultural norms. In order to make the tale of Rumpelstiltskin appropriate for contemporary audiences, it is necessary to adjust certain elements to reflect our values and beliefs. The story could be rewritten to explore the miller’s daughter’s journey towards independence while overcoming challenges. Instead of relying on Rumpelstiltskin to spin straw into gold for her, she could be a resourceful and clever individual who finds an innovative solution to this problem on her own.

At the heart of the tale lies the villain, Rumpelstiltskin, who embodies outdated and offensive stereotypes. A new adaptation could depict him in a more positive light to reflect our societal norms. Instead of being portrayed solely as a villain, he could be depicted as a misunderstood individual who wants to be recognized and respected. By giving this character more human qualities, the story can encourage empathy and understanding.

But alas, does the tale of Rumpelstiltskin smell of too much controversy for an adaptation that transcends its original narrative? Is the consequence of making a deal with the devil too powerful a lesson to use the character for more than a satirical representation, as seen in the movie Shrek Forever After?  Despite the challenges, I remain optimistic that anything is achievable. As translation plays a crucial role in bridging diverse themes, images, and ideas (Bassnett 141), we have the means to convey the essence of this story across cultural boundaries to create a more impactful tale. It seems that the underlying messages in Rumpelstiltskin might not resonate with today’s society due to its inappropriate undertones, but we can overcome and adapt. In the wise words of Pinocchio, “Nobody needs your deals anymore Rumple-Stinky-Pants” (Shrek Forever After).