Fairy Tale and Film

Fairy Tale and Film
others) as symbolising the landowning aristocracy and accordingly read 
class affiliations in the story’s table-turning appeal. Lucy Armitt makes 
the same connection:
Evolving from the source text ‘Jack and the Giants’, this is a narra-
tive that acquires its popularity because of its ability to function on 
a socio-political level. The fitting hero of a tale originally read by 
poor common folk with a poor to moderate level of literacy, Jack is 
the fictional embodiment of the peasant farmer who has to sell his 
produce for the equivalent of a handful of beans, hoping against 
hope that his ‘seed’ will produce plenty of food in return. The giant, 
of course, is the wealthy landowner whose physical size is simply a 
metaphor for his financial and social superiority. Jack’s only hope, 
having usurped his place on the hierarchy by climbing up the social 
ladder and gaining entry to the castle and its wealth by unsanctioned 
means, is to outwit this ogre, for cunning and desperation are his 
only weapons. No wonder we take pleasure in the giant’s overthrow-
ing ... Lining both his coffers and his stomach with the blood, sweat 
and tears of his tenants, these people form the bones which the giant 
grinds to make his bread. In addition, as it is not only Jack but all 
Jacks everywhere who will suffer if attempted revolution is detected, 
it is vitally important that ‘magic’ is on the side of the ordinary 
people in order to aid them to evade their oppressors. (1996: 66)
When crimes are committed by poverty-stricken, outcast or down-
trodden figures, it is generally through need, rather than greed, and 
often a hint of satire is apparent, reflecting the ruthless values at work 
in what is seen to be a profoundly unjust system. Few would mourn 
the loss of a cannibalistic giant, or reprove Jack for helping himself to 
his treasure, particularly if we consider the possibility that he is simply 
taking back what is rightfully his. Some have even sought to justify 
Jack’s behaviour on more personal grounds. Maria Tatar references an 
interesting version by Benjamin Tabart, titled 
The History of Jack and the 
Bean-Stalk
(1807), in which Jack’s actions are explained as reclaiming 
possessions originally stolen from his murdered father. As she argues, 
the hero thus undergoes a character change from an ‘indolent careless 
and extravagant’ boy into a ‘dutiful and obedient’ son (a transition 
that recalls 
Pinocchio
) intruding upon and ransacking the giant’s castle, 
and eventually killing its owner, in order to reclaim property originally 
taken from his late father (1992: 197–8). Marina Warner adds an intrigu-
ing detail to this backstory, claiming that it was devised by William 

---

Wealth through Stealth 
79
Godwin to give Jack ‘an honourable motive for killing the giant. At the 
end social wrongs are righted, fortunes justly redistributed in a realign-
ment of power along more egalitarian lines’ (2000: 321).
8
Stealing from 
a more powerful foe thus acquires a sense of both political and personal 
justification, and resorting to crime is presented as evening the odds, 
the implication being that there is no other route to secure justice. 
Given these alluring political allusions it is intensely frustrating that 
the most recent film version, 
Jack the Giant Slayer
(Bryan Singer, 2013), 
is such a shallow enterprise. While Jack employs a degree of stealth to 
triumph, stealing a magic crown to bring a group of giants under his 
command, and eventually becomes the king of England, the film fails to 
give this fascinating folk hero the level of interest he deserves. Indeed, 
its sole point of significance is alluding to Jack’s questionable character. 
This has already been noted here, in questioning why he repeatedly 
returns to the castle (a hen that can lay golden eggs, after all, would pre-
sumably be sufficient to keep Jack and his mother in comfort for the rest 
of their lives, while the singing harp is essentially a bourgeois novelty). 
If this is not understood as reclaiming his ‘inheritance’ (in line with the 
Godwin/Tabart backstory), it suggests insatiable greed, falling victim 
to the same covetousness as the giant. Appealing as it is to perceive 
the story as a quintessential ‘David and Goliath’ tale of the meek over-
coming the powerful, feudal workers defeating their landlords or the 
proletariat gaining precedence, there is no guarantee that a ‘common’ 
hero will keep his virtue – any more than we might assume that any 
of the lowly heroes in the