Search Results

Welcome back! It's the start of another academic year at Duke -- but this year brings something new to Duke's curriculum.  Launching this semester -- Fall 2025 -- is the Constellation Experience for incoming freshmen.  What does that mean?  Excellent question. According to the website , constellations are: ...year-long, multidisciplinary, first-year experiences designed to build communities among first year students. They comprise interconnected courses that explore a topic from multiple perspectives and feature small group learning.  Personally, I love the inter-disciplinary approach; since each constellation is comprised of multiple courses from a variety of different departments, it means that there's a real potential benefit in understanding how different disciplines not only see each question, but how they approach it. It's the "intention" that I find really helpful -- it's really easy to move through academic life with your disciplinary blinders on, and I'm excited for the possible collaborations.  The constellation I'm a part of is the Innovation and Creativity one ; it initially also had "curiosity" as a part of the description, so I've kept that aspect of it in my course. Our guiding question is: What drives us to Innovate & Create? Decoding Disney is, to me, a logical fit here. After all, innovation & creativity are at the heart of the Disney Company, however you feel about it. And curiosity too. One of my favorite Disney quotes addresses all three of these things in a concise way: The 2007 film Meet the Robinsons  ends with this quote -- and before we fade to complete black, Walt's name appears at the bottom, and the words "We keep moving forward" (the motto of the film) are emphasized as the rest of the quote fades away.  Which part of the quote --if any of it -- is directly attributed to Walt Disney isn't quite clear. That is, "moving forward" was absolutely a part of his philosophy when it came to the parks and films, but this quote is most likely not by Walt himself. According to a Reddit post (not the most verifiably credible of sources, I know), the Disney Archives credit these words to WED Enterprises, aka Disney Imagineering .  What drives us to innovate and create? To Disney, the answer seems to be curiosity.  Is it any more complicated than that? That's what I hope to find out this semester with my students. Come back each Wednesday -- hopefully! 😅 -- for thoughts on Innovation and Creativity!

On July 17th, 1955, Disneyland Park opened in Anaheim, California. And the world got a little bit more magical.  via Get Away Today Sentimental? Definitely. Hyperbolic? Perhaps, but given the impact that Disney Parks has had on a national and international level, I don't really believe that. So, in honor of Disneyland's 65th birthday -- especially since she isn't celebrating with anyone today -- I thought I'd share a few pictures of our last trip there, in November of 2019. My husband had a conference out in California, and, if you have to go all the way to the West Coast, which is a lengthy trip for us East Coasters, why not tack on a few days and make a vacation out of it? And the fact that we could be in the park on my birthday ?  YES PLEASE. Plus, I now have a Bucket List Item crossed off: I was in Magic Kingdom for my birthday in November 2017, and in Disneyland for my birthday in November 2019. 🎉 It was just a short trip, 2.5 days, but we made it count. We got to see Galaxy's Edge (my husband has been to the one in Orlando, and I've never been), had drinks at Oga's Cantina, experienced the Festival of the Holidays in California Adventure, rode the new Guardians of the Galaxy themed Tower of Terror, saw a sneak peek of Frozen II  (which literally give me goosebumps), and had an amazing dinner at the Chef's Counter in Napa Rose.  All of that, and my favorite part was probably Rope Drop on Monday morning. Sidebar: My family has been doing Rope Drop before I even knew that was a thing or that it had a name. In an effort to manage crowds, Disney will let guests inside the parks, up to a certain point. Usually about 10-15 minutes before the park opens, they'll open the gates, and guests can scan their tickets and enter the parks. (This is, of course, usually dependent on crowd volume and independent of Extra Magic Hours, which allow resort guests to get in an hour before everyone else.) In Disneyland/Magic Kingdom, you can go up to the Hub, the area in front of the castle. Shops and some restaurants are open, of course, so you can spend money before the park officially opens. And the name comes from the rope that cast members hold up, preventing you from going further. Then, when the park is just about to open, they'll be a countdown, the cast members will "drop the rope," and guests can make a beeline to whatever attraction they want to go to first. (You're not supposed to run, but people always do.) And, when Something New has opened, cast members will usually walk the rope down to the ride entrance -- to prevent mobs of people running and bumping into each other. I have such vivid memories of doing rope drop with my family down to Tower of Terror...and if you run, the Cast Members will call you out .  Back to 2019. Making it to Rope Drop usually means getting up extremely early , which can be a struggle if you've stayed up to watch fireworks and made it back to your hotel room after 11:00 at night. But my husband gamely got up with me, walked from our hotel to the entrance, and then went to grab coffee at the Downtown Disney Starbucks (which takes mobile orders!) while I waited in line.  And it was so worth it: We were some of the first people into the park that day, and it's just magical. Cast members are outside, waving, saying "Good Morning" and "Happy Birthday" and "Welcome," and it's amazing. The parks are usually so crowded, that it's rare that you get to experience them as "quiet" and "still" places. First thing in the morning, and late at night, are almost surreal experiences. (Also: shoutout to Once Upon Apparel for my "Rope Drop to Fireworks" shirts. Absolutely perfect!) Few more from the day -- obligatory Dole Whips & Minnie Ears: And finally, one of my biggest Disney regrets (and I don't have many): Mickey was hanging out in front of the Main Street Fire Station, taking photos. My husband asked if I wanted to wait (it wasn't that long of a line), but I said "no." It was late, we were exhausted and we had a long-ish walk back to the hotel. I regret that, so much.  You see, the light in the window above the fire station is lit in Walt Disney's apartment (which you can only visit if you take the Walk in Walt's Footsteps Tour , which is 100% worth it for that experience alone). That window is where Walt would watch guests enter the park, full of hope and happiness, to experience a little Disney magic. (I know, I know, I'm getting sentimental again.) But the light is always lit to symbolize that Walt's spirit and memory are still alive and in the park. And to have a photo, with the mouse that started it all, underneath that light? Would have been amazing.  Because, in Walt's immortal words: " I only hope we never lose sight of one thing...that it was all started by a mouse." Happy Birthday, Disneyland.

sigh How many film adaptations have there been of Peter Pan  at this point? Like, I get it, Disney. You're remaking everything. But Peter Pan , more than any other Disney film has just been done before...so. many. times. And it's really hard to (1) do something different -- like Hook , which I don't care how it did at the box office, is an absolute treasure and (2) to be faithful to Barrie's original script/vision for the story. Because then Hook would have to be quasi sympathetic (not an out-and-out villain), and Peter would have to be a bit evil, since Barrie's point was that children can be callous and cruel and selfish.  So...yeah. Variety didn't offer many details on the plot/story, or even if Jude Law would also be playing Mr. Darling -- which if he isn't, is a travesty.  Also...I feel like Jude Law is just casting Jason Isaacs 2.0 ? via storywarren * Like, doesn't Isaacs-as-Mr.-Darling look  like Jude Law?! I haven't seen the 2003 version of Peter Pan   in a while, but I remember really enjoying it... *Sidebar: If you visit the link for the photo credit, the author, Helena Sorenson, seems blown away that the producers decided to cast Jason Isaacs as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, like it was some amazingly inventive idea. Which....Nope. (She also reduces Peter Pan  to a story about "the wonder of childhood and the bittersweet beauty of growing up" so...) There's been some debate over the deeper meaning behind the dual-casting, but Peter Pan was originally a stage play, with Gerald du Maurier (uncle to the boys who partly inspired Peter Pan ) playing both roles. On the one hand, this was purely for financial reasons -- pay one actor to play both parts -- but it also works like the dual casting in Hamilton . Daveed Diggs plays both LaFayette and  Jefferson because (1) they're not on stage at the same time; and (2) the audience has already established a connection with the actor. It might be more akin to Anthony Ramos playing both John Laurens and Philip Hamilton, as the audience is already mourning Laurens at the end of Act I, and that connection spills over (given Philip's ultimate fate). But on the other hand: Peter Pan  is inherently about growing up -- specifically Peter's fear of growing up and being a "man" -- and both Mr. Darling and Hook represent the exact type of adult Peter fears growing into: ineffectual and dishonorable. Whether Barrie realized that or whether it was a subconscious, Freudian decision isn't fully clear...

About three weeks ago, there were several Twitter threads that went viral over petitions to retheme Disney's Splash Mountain, and some concept art that showed how Disney could do it. I've been working on a post responding to that, and I'll hopefully finish it and post it anyway, since we now have a decision about what Disney is doing. Yep, that's right. The Internet won actually won. Well -- maybe. According to the Disney Parks Blog , this retheme is a project " Imagineers have been working on since last year." Okay. Let's pause for a second. Before we go any  further, let's make one thing explicitly clear. There are many  things Disney does well -- their customer service is the industry standard and their animated films have won 13 out of the 19 Academy Awards given to feature-length animated films. They are trailblazers and innovators in many ways -- but not really when it comes to cultural politics. Angharad N. Valdivia says it best: "...to be sure, Disney does not pursue new representational strategies unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience."  " Unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience." Hold on to that thought. Let's go back a bit further. via Etsy Splash Mountain is one of the "three Disney Mountains": Space, Thunder, and Splash. For as far back as my memory goes (which isn't 100% reliable, mind you) -- they were the only three "real" coasters in Disney World, certainly in Magic Kingdom. [There was a push in the late 1990s-early 2000s to open bigger thrill rides as Disney tried to compete with other parks and attract "older" crowds: Rock n' Roller Coaster and Test Track opened in 1999; Tower of Terror opened in 1994, and Expedition Everest in 2006.] But Splash Mountain has been in Magic Kingdom since 1992 (!!!), and even longer in Disneyland, since 1989. It's a testament to my Dad's love for Disney, that I remember when Splash Mountain opened at Disney World. We weren't there for opening day or anything, but I remember that it was still new enough for the lines to be insanely long. Perhaps not Galaxy's Edge long, but long enough for the early '90s. I think we must have waited at least 2 hours in line -- I remember the sticky Florida heat, the fans and misters Disney had set up to cool guests snaking through the queue, and I remember being grateful every time the queue wound around into a shady spot. (I also remember my dad grumbling that no ride could be worth a wait this long, but at least it was better than the Thunder Mountain line, which packs guests in like sardine with little ventilation/air circulation.) The basic premise of Splash Mountain -- as one of the things that sets Disney apart from other amusement parks is that rides, and queues, actually tell a story -- is that Br'er Rabbit, bored at home, leaves the Briar Patch to go on adventures. He's constantly pursued by Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear, who through typical villainous trickery, try to capture him -- but the wily Br'er Rabbit escapes every time. Until the last -- when he's caught in the Laughing Place. Br'er Fox ties him up and makes to roast him -- with Br'er Rabbit desperately trying to escape. Cue the big drop of the log flume ride, and when you make it to the bottom, drenched and giddy, everything ends happily, with "Zip A Dee Do Dah" playing as you coast past a riverboat celebration and Br'er Rabbit content at home. (It is a Disney ride, after all.) At ~10 minutes, it's one of the longest rides/attractions in a Disney park, which usually means it's worth the wait. Disney scholars and aficionados will know, of course, that this isn't an independent, original ride -- like, say, Figment's Journey Into Imagination , which exists outside of any Disney movie or TV show. [Sidebar: Don't you dare touch this ride, Disney! Between Figment and the Sherman Brothers' "One Little Spark," this is pure Disney magic.] It's hard for me to guess at what the average Disney-goes knows about this ride -- that is, if they know that Splash Mountain is   tied to a Disney film; if they know that "Zip A Dee Do Dah" comes from that film and not this ride; if they know that film is 1946's Song of the South ; if they know anything about the controversy and legacy surrounding that film. Suffice it to say, and this is what that other post deals with, Song of the South   is  a controversial film and one of the only films to remain in the Disney Vault after Disney moved their entire catalog to Disney+. The film is set in the Reconstruction Era -- not an antebellum one -- and is loosely  based on the Br'er Rabbit stories of Joel Chandler Harris. On the one hand, the film portrays black people happily working on a plantation, even after they've been freed, echoing Br'er Rabbit's sentiment of, " Home sweet home is the lesson today. Oh, I'm thru with moving on now..."  On the other hand, Walt though the film would be a cornerstone of his legacy, and paints the "outsider" characters -- and the storytellers -- as the positives ones, and implicitly criticizes the upper-class whites and their lifestyle. Like, I said. Controversial. Okay, back to June 2020 -- a firestorm of a year if ever there was one -- and the Black Lives Matter movement has shifted national attention away from the Coronavirus Pandemic. Rightfully so. Change is slowly burning -- like Mississippi changing it's state flag , Quaker Oats is "retiring" Aunt Jemima , and Ben & Jerry's offered us both a powerful statement about dismantling white supremacy AND a new flavor of ice cream, Empower Mint. And while this change is good, long overdue, and sorely needed -- it has to be just the beginning. Which brings us back to Valdivia: Disney will not pursue new representational strategies unless it is certain that profits will increase without alienating the bulk of its audience ." Meaning: Disney isn't going to be progressive unless they know it's a fiscally sound decision. Exhibit A: Disney has been making feature-length animated films since 1937 -- but they didn't feature a black protagonist until 2009's The Princess and the Frog . And I genuinely don't believe that it's a coincidence that Obama was elected POTUS in 2008. It seems a bit reductive to equate being ready for a black Disney Princess with being ready for a black president, but I think they are related. So, yes. I believe that the Very Important People at Disney have been discussing this retheme for at least a year -- I'd even bet that it's been longer than that, as the calls to retheme Splash Mountain certainly aren't new. But the timing....just seems too "perfect." The tweets and concept art went viral around June 9, 2020. The Disney Parks Blog announcement is from June 25th. A little over two weeks is just about the amount of time it seems is needed to draw up concept art and draft the press release. After all, if it had  been in the works, why not release the news immediately after the tweets went viral? I don't doubt that this was in the works -- and it's not like Disney execs haven't been busy with other things like a global pandemic disrupting their billion dollar daily operations -- but now  they have "proof" that they won't alienate the bulk of their audience. As for my personal feelings...well, as far as they matter, there is a part of me that's sad that I won't experience with my kids the Splash Mountain that I first experienced with my family -- and remember so vividly. That being said, (1) there are plenty of other rides that are still the exact same as they were in the 1990s when I first rode them -- again, DON'T TAKE MY FIGMENT, DISNEY. And (2) my kids have no idea who Br'er Rabbit or Br'er Fox are -- but they know and love Tiana. So the ride will probably be more meaningful for them with the new storyline. As a general rule, I'm reluctant to endorse Disney's retheming of classic rides. In particular, I'm thinking of Maelstrom in the Norway pavilion, which was totally revamped to meet the success of and demands for Frozen . Don't get me wrong -- it's a great ride, with amazing animatronics, but...I loved Maelstrom. And I loved that EPCOT was always just a little bit disconnected from the entertainment side. Not everything has to be synergistically connected to a film or TV show -- look at Figment, look at Tower of Terror, look at Expedition Everest. They're all successful and all independent of Intellectual Properties (IPs). And, yes. Expecting a park that was established in 1955 (or, 1971) to remain unchanged is naive and unfeasible -- and even counter to Walt's own dreams for the parks. So I think this change is needed -- and will be a good one. I just hope that it doesn't open the flood gates for unnecessary  changes. (I know there may be other conversations, like this one, about other rides. I don't mean those changes.)

Since Stitch was unaffectionately known as Experiment 626, Disney fans have dubbed June 26th -- 6/26 -- as Stitch Day.

With Summer Term II and a new Disney seminar about to start, I thought it was high time I dipped my toes back into blogging. If I'll be asking my students to write on a semi-regular basis, I should be doing the same. I've got a couple of longer posts in the works, but I thought I'd start with a quick update. Now, disclaimer: I love me some rose gold. After a violent anti-pink phases that lasted through the majority of my childhood and adolescence, I came to the realization that, yes, I actually like the color and I could trounce gender stereotypes and still embrace the color. And what I love about rose gold -- particularly Disney's sparkly version -- is that it's feminine without being too bold: So, objectively speaking, I love the rose gold vibes. What I do not  love, however, is the rose gold look on my iconic Cinderella castle. Now that I've visited both parks, I'm admittedly torn on which is actually my favorite -- but I think Disneyland might have a slight edge, so much so that our first family trip to Disney (now postponed indefinitely) was going to be there, rather than to (the geographically closer) Disney World. But when it comes to castle? Hands down, Cinderella Castle in WDW is my favorite. I mean, LOOK AT HER. She is stunning and turning that corner on Main Street, catching that first glimpse -- never fails to give me goosebumps. Also? That silver/blue color scheme with a hint of gold? Perfectly captures Cinderella -- whose dress I'm never sure if it's actually blue or silver. That's not to say that Sleeping Beauty's Castle in Disneyland isn't  beautiful -- just beautiful in her own way. She's smaller, of course, as is Disneyland (comparatively). She has to be -- she's plopped in the middle of Anaheim. Turning that corner on Main Street, I still get goosebumps, but my initial thought is always, " Gosh, I forgot just how small she actually is ." The color scheme though? The pink and blue refresh works -- it embodies Sleeping Beauty (and Flora and Merrywether) perfectly. The castles -- and their color schemes -- match both their respective parks and  their namesake princesses. So...I am confused by -- and not happy about -- this new makeover Cinderella Castle received for the upcoming 50th anniversary of Walt Disney World. Check it out: WHAT.   What is this?! I get  that 50th anniversaries are symbolized by gold, but this is decidedly rose gold and not, you know, traditional gold, which would have worked given the original color scheme of the castle. It's a bold choice -- and one which makes my iconic castle look she's trying too much to emulate her older sister.  Look, I know it's probably (hopefully?) temporary, and after the 2+ years of anniversary celebrations (because Disney loves to milk a celebration), it will go back to normal. It better.  I know that the Birthday Cake Castle for the 25th Anniversary was loathed by many -- my 12 year old self thought it was fun -- and everything went back to normal. I know people hated the Sorcerer's Hat in MGM, the Mickey Hands on top of Spaceship Earth -- and it was all temporary.  So this had better be temporary too. 🤞

We talk about this a lot in my Disney classes, but so often, it's the female characters who are the focus of at best discussion, at worst criticism in Disney films. (With the exception of Pixar. Because Pixar has this weird obsession with male leads . And just when we think they're making progress with films like Brave and Toy Story 4 , which feature Merida and Bo Peep & Jessie, we get Onward . Don't even get me started on Onward . I am...not impressed by the trailer.) And while the heroines (and, to some extent, the villains) of Disney Princess movies aren't necessarily fully-fleshed out characters, they're at least better than the Disney Princes . After all, Snow White's prince doesn't even have a name ( I refuse to believe it's "Florian" ), and Cinderella's love interest is known simply as "Prince Charming". It's not until we get to Sleeping Beauty  that the prince even has a name and actual dialogue.  This is, of course, something that's changing in more recent films. Speaking of the 2015 live-action Cinderella , screenwriter Chris Weitz says, "Prince Charming is something of a cypher in the animated (1950) version and the Grimm and Perrault talks. I felt that whereas it was acceptable and even useful to have him be essentially symbolic in earlier versions (it was just enough that he was rich and important and handsome), an audience today demands a bit more in terms of identification." Kristoff isn't technically a prince (yet) -- I'm hoping for a Frozen III where Kristoff and Anna get married and Elsa brings Honeymarren as her date -- but the ideas are the same: it's not enough that he's Anna's True Love, we have to know more about him to understand why Anna loves him. (Frankly, his relationship with Sven is enough for me: he's goofy and good with animals.) And, as Kristen Bell points out to Jimmy Fallon, it's equally important to know why he loves her and to see  him loving her. It's not something we get enough of, and can go a long way in changing the narrative that leads to Toxic Masculinity.

When it comes to watching Disney movies, I find it very hard to take off my academic cap and just enjoy the movie. I'm constantly analyzing and looking for little details. While I sometimes wish I could just enjoy them like I do other movies, I actually really enjoy it -- especially when I see some progress and development in the Disney Princess brand. One of the biggest criticisms lobbed against Disney films is their whitewashing of history -- it started, perhaps, with Song of the South , and didn't really get better with Pocahontas  or The Princess and the Frog . Critics point out that relations between two tension-charged groups -- the Native Americans and the English settlers in the former, and whites and blacks in the latter -- were not as simple or positive as they're portrayed in the animated films; defenders retort that that they're children's films and, as such, can't possibly address the complexities of racial dynamics in 90 minutes nor should they.  Both sides are right: Disney isn't  creating a documentary or a historical film; they're producing a fairy-tale film. (Whether Pocahontas -- a real historical figure -- has a fairy-tale story and whether Disney should have set a film in 1920s Louisiana are entirely different questions.) And the defenders are right, too: even if Disney had a moral obligation to accurately represent history, it'd be almost impossible to do in a 90-minute film.  So the question then becomes -- and I love discussing it with my students -- what should Disney do? How can they not sidestep sensitive issues but still do them justice?  And this is where Frozen II  comes in: the basic gist of the plot (and I think this is mostly apparent from the trailer), there's a conflict between the Arendellians and the native people in the film, the Northundra (who, I think, are modeled after the Sami tribe, the native people of Norway/Scandinavia). The story of the conflict is initially filtered through Elsa and Anna's father, who doesn't know what happened because he was outside the forest and knocked unconscious. But the elemental spirits of the forest basically keep people in and "lock" out the outside world. But here's the significant part: the arc of the film is basically Elsa uncovering the truth of what happened, of why the spirits were angered. And the reason, as Elsa learns, is that Elsa's grandfather betrayed the Northundra, building the dam under the guise of peace and unity, but really doing it to gauge the strength and size of the Northundra tribe. His reason? He was pissed off that they were independent and wanted them to swear allegiance to him. The moment he kills the Northundra leader is the moment the spirits "revolt" for lack of a better term, and there's a more complicated, but beautiful, resolution to the story, one which ends with a message of true peace and unity. Why is this so important? Well, aside from the fact that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is basically a symbol of some ye olden days Fragile Toxic Masculinity, he represents that colonial, imperialist mindset of "white is right" and that native people should swear fealty to him simply because of the crown he wears. In the film, the Northundra are portrayed relatively flat, but they're kind people who seem intent on harmony and peace. (I'm thinking of Pocahontas , where each group views the other as "savage," and equally at fault, when, in reality, the English settlers bear the majority of the blame and fault.) While there's a bit of a problem in locating that mindset in just one character -- in Pocahontas , it's Ratcliffe; once he's gone, all the English settlers are totally fine with everything; here, it's the grandfather who seems to be the sole prejudiced one -- what's important is that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is portrayed as wrong, and his beliefs are firmly and clearly denounced by both Elsa and Anna. Both sisters understand why  their grandfather's actions were unforgivable and also understand what they need to do make things right and restore balance. And, in this case, that means appeasing the Elemental spirits and making reparations by destroying the dam. Is it a perfect depiction of complex inter-racial relations? Of course not. It is, after all, an animated film with a target demographic of preschoolers and elementary schoolers. And there are lots of unanswered questions, but... Does it attempt to handle complex issues better than its predecessors did? Yes, I would say so. And, what's more important, is that I think it lays the groundwork for important future discussions. I think it opens the door to have early conversations about imperialism and colonialism and how some people, even people we thought were good and right, did some truly bad things. From there? There are so many places to go.

This afternoon, my husband I were fortunate enough to have a Double-Feature Date Afternoon. We saw Knives Out  first -- which was a fantastic WhoDunIt and just an overall delightful romp -- and then saw Frozen 2 . Disclaimer: I haven't read any reviews and managed to stay largely spoiler-free. I had read some "first reactions" -- those Twitter responses about people's early responses to the film which are largely vague and non-specific and which don't give away any specific details -- and that was all I knew. Most of them were positive -- I feel like there was one lukewarm response which basically said it "was good, but not as good as the first," (important to note that it was written by a man) -- which reassured me . Disney sequel s are, after all, usually things that go straight-to-vide o and aren't very good. (The only sequels I can think of are The Rescuers Down Under  -- because The Rescuers were. my. jam. -- and Ralph Breaks the Internet ...somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I knew that the film was darker, had supposedly matured with its audience, and that a good deal of people believed it was unnecessary. I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts. But here's the gist of them: Frozen II is not  the movie I thought it was going to be, and that's okay, because it turned out to be the Disney Princess Movie I needed. And, more importantly, I think it's the Disney Princess Movie that I needed to see as a young girl, that the brand needs, and that little girls (and boys) need. Spoilery thoughts below. Let me start with an anecdote, from a time that's been on my mind a lot lately: Late 2011 to late 2012: I had met my-now-husband in June of 2011, and after a very random and un-me trip to the Philippines for his best friend's wedding, I was pretty sure he was The One. I spent the early part of 2011 with a broken heart and grieving the loss of something that I thought was It For Me (clearly, it wasn't). When I had to start a PhD program in Columbia SC, I was fraught with anxiety because (1) I had just learned the hard way that Long Distance Relationships end badly more often than not (there were other reasons, of course, but still) and (2) I didn't want to jeopardize the future I was beginning to see as a very real possibility. Long story short -- I left the program and moved back to Cary and in with him. For the record, I have never once regretted that decision. I knew it was the right move, and everything has worked out fine. That was, however, less clear to me, especially over the summer and into the Fall. I had had an adjunct position at Duke, which came with no certainty, so in the summer of 2012, I had no job, no prospects, and I was unsure of what would come next. There was a moment, when I was outside cleaning up dog poop, when I just broke down in tears and started sobbing. After all, this was not the Happily Ever After I had envisaged for myself -- this was not how things were supposed to be. This -- and this is the important bit -- was not what happened to a Disney Princess. One of the universal "truths" that has come out of teaching my Disney class, is that everyone  is affected, in some way, by the Disney movies they watch as kids. The Disney critics and I agree on that. What we don't agree on is what exactly those kids take away from the movies. The critics believe it's all the harmful messages about passive women and ugly villains. And that may be true. But it's not universal. What I took away from The Little Mermaid  for instance is (1) that Eric is A Very Good Guy because he has a dog, and is willing to risk his life for that dog; and (2) that a daughter who has a tempestuous relationship with her over-protective, narrow-minded and arguably prejudiced father can still work things out and end in a happy place. So, yes. I watched a lot of Disney movies as a kid -- and I watched a large amount of those "dangerous" Disney Princess movies with fake-feminist heroines and dashing heroes who vanquish the evil and save the day while the princess does little-to-nothing. And even though I turned out fine  -- I'd like to think I'm an independent woman and not a passive damsel-in-distress, some of the more insidious messages still sunk in -- particularly the ones about Happily Ever Afters. Which brings me back to Frozen II . Because much like Ralph Breaks the Internet , Frozen II  is a movie about what happens after  the supposed Happily Ever After. The former explores the evolving nature of friendships -- how people, and thus relationships, change, and how that's okay. The latter takes a more introspective look, but given that Frozen  is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the Disney princess franchise, I think that that's all the more important. Yes, it's true that Frozen II  is darker, both in tone and content. There are fewer jokes, fewer light-hearted moments, fewer silly interactions. Part of that is a benefit of the film being a sequel: we already know Kristoff is goofy in his voicing Sven; we already know Anna is adorkable and relatable and clumsy. But it's also a result of the characters growing -- and, as the few Tweets I did read pointed out -- the audience is growing too. Kristoff is preoccupied with proposing (more on that in a minute) and Anna is less clumsy, more mature -- but still relatable. The reasoning is that the same little kids who saw Frozen  the first time and endlessly belted out "Let It Go" are older now, but the thing about Disney movies is that they're cyclical: there will always  be new little kids watching Frozen  and then moving on to Frozen II . And they may watch them back to back or in the span of a few days -- they may not wait years in between. But the messages will still be there. As we were leaving, my husband asked me what I thought, asked if it was everything I thought it would be. I replied that, no, it wasn't at all what I thought it would be, but it was better: it was the Disney Princess movie I needed to see as a little girl. The moment that resonated with me the most was, interestingly, an Anna moment. (If you know me at all, you know my love for Elsa, based largely on her character development in the first film when she makes a deeply personal decision that flies in the face of what's expected of her; see the anecdote above for why .) But there's the moment for Anna, when everything seems lost -- Olaf is fading, which has is particularly gut-wrenching for Anna, because if Olaf is fading, it's because Elsa's magic is fading too -- and she has hit -- literally -- rock bottom. She's curled up on the floor, grief-stricken in a way that's much more poignant and mature than the end of "Do You Want To Build A Snowman." Her song -- and Kristen Bell, whom I already adored, emotes this song so. damn. well -- captures a very relatable feeling in much the same way that "Let It Go" did: I've seen dark before / But not like this    This is cold / this is empty / this is numb   The life I knew is over / the lights are out   Hello darkness / I'm ready to succumb  As someone who's struggled with anxiety and some moments of depression, I cannot tell you just how important this moment was: here is a young woman -- a DISNEY PRINCESS -- struggling with something real . Not a fairy-tale obstacle, or a Disney villain, but real loss, real grief, real confusion, real despair. [*Edit: I know full well that fairy tales often deal with very dark and very real emotions/themes. But they're often short, and often abstract -- the power of the visual medium combined with a concrete depiction is what I'm going for here.] I'm not saying that past Disney princesses don't feel, don't suffer -- of course they do. But (1) they're usually presented as the melodramatic, histrionic emotions of a teenage girl -- how many of the Disney princess run away sobbing and then fling themselves down to cry? I can think of at least 6 off the top of my head -- and (2) the short span of a children's film doesn't allow for complex character development. My first thought was Rapunzel: here is a girl who suffers 17 years of emotional abuse from her kidnapper-posing-as-her-mother and, with the exception of her freak-out when she leaves the tower for the first time, seems largely okay. Now, I love Tangled, and I think it's actually a pretty progressive Disney Princess film that does a lot of things well, but you can't spend time accurately reflecting Rapunzel's emotional journey because pacing, because target audience, because because because. But in a sequel? When we already know Anna? We can absolutely give those emotions their due. We can show a Disney princess struggling, grieving, despairing,  feeling. And, yes, it's still a Disney movie, so things are going to resolve rather quickly: it's still a fairy tale with a happy ending. But what does Anna do next? I can't find my direction / I'm all alone    The only star that guided me was you    How to rise from the floor    When it's not you I'm rising for?   Just do the next right thing / Take a step, step again   It is all that I can do / The next right thing   She gets up,  puts one foot in front of the other, and focuses on the "next right thing." The power of that message...of that visual...? I can't know for sure how Little Me would have reacted in the summer of 2012 if she'd had that message repeated for her over and over again in her formative years, but I truly believe that it would have been a powerful touchstone for her to draw on in that moment. Hell, it's a powerful touchstone for me to draw on now . Another thought, a little less coherent than my ones on Anna. One of the other comments I had heard floated around was that the music wasn't as good, wasn't as catchy and was basically musical exposition. Which, for the record, I emphatically disagree with. My concern, after listening to "Into the Unknown" the first few times was that it wouldn't be as "universal" as "Let It Go." That is, "Let It Go" became the phenomenon it did because of the universality of the message: the concept of breaking free of the expectations placed on you by others to be true to yourself was taken up by so many as an anthem of personal empowerment -- rightfully so. And I wasn't sure if "Into The Unknown" would have the same universality... BUT. As I was watching the song within the context of the film, I began to rethink that position. After all, what happens after  that moment of freeing empowerment? What if, after you've changed, your situation, your place needs to change? And what if after such a big upheaval or transformation you stay out of comfort, out of complacency, out of fear? I'm sorry, secret siren / but I'm blocking out your calls I've had my adventure / I don't need something new I'm afraid of what I'm risking if I follow you... Paired with "Show Yourself" -- and I think together  the two songs are the new "Let It Go" if you can even have another "Let It Go" -- I think the two songs tap into something just as deep and universal. I don't think the songs are "exposition" -- I think they're the logical sequel to "Let It Go." I also think that this story -- and the music -- works because of the presence of women. I think Jennifer Lee and Kristen Anderson-Lopez helped this story succeed by ensuring that it was, at the heart of it, a female story. This is a story, to me, that speaks deeply to what it means to find yourself as a young woman and the pressures you face*, both external and internal. And that's a nuanced story that the brand hasn't yet had a chance to tell.** (Logically, I feel that Moana  comes closest -- which makes sense, since it's the newest.) *That's (part of) the reason, I think, why Kristoff is so wonderful. I've seen headlines with his lines about asking Anna what she needs (instead of assuming) and his declaration that "his love is not fragile." It's important for boy viewers as well, but works "better" for me than, say, Flynn's saving Rapunzel at the end of Tangled  (largely because he did An Important Thing With Important Consequences without getting her consent). **Again, I think Tangled  comes pretty close to this -- and definitely tells an equally important story in the TV show about how "happily ever after" doesn't mean perfect. But the feature-films will always  have more power imbued in them, and their messages will be, I think, more far-reaching and have the potential for greater impact. All of this to say: Frozen II   is a movie I will happily show my son and daughter many times, because I think it's one they need  to see. So thank you, Disney. Thank you for telling this story. PS: I have thoughts on a much less significant, but equally important, aspect of this movie that I want to circle back to.

This girl right here? She's an icon: She is not just the OG Disney Princess -- she's the OG Disney Character. Without her, there would probably not be a "Disney." There (probably) would not be a billion-dollar multi-media conglomerate. We (probably) wouldn't be watching cartoons as adults. We might not even have theme parks, of which Disney ones represent the Gold Star. And who else knows what the trickle-down-effect would be.  Because back in 1937, pretty much everyone expected an 80-minute feature-length animated  film to flop. Which is extra problematic considering Disney sunk everything he had into this film -- I think the estimated budget eventually ballooned up to $1.5 million (in the middle of the Great Depression, remember). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs  was known as Disney's Folly.   But maybe it was precisely that historical context -- the Depression -- that made people flock to the theater. For escape, for nostalgia, for air conditioning -- whatever it was, people loved it. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the film made $80 million during its first year: at a time when an adult movie ticket cost a quarter and a child movie ticket a nickel.  And thus, Disney was saved and an empire was born.  Now, she's not perfect . She's gotten a lot of criticism . She certainly makes some questionable life-choices:  But remember: She was born in 1937. I'm not saying that excuses everything, but face it: things were a helluva lot different then.  And it's not all bad: sure, she's only 14 and marries a man she basically just met, but at least that man didn't stumble across the seemingly-dead-body of an 8 year old girl in the middle of a forest and attempt to buy her from some dwarves. (Which is  what happens in the original story by the Grimm Brothers .) Unlike her successors, her eyes are proportionate and normal-sized . Also unlike her successors, she's got a healthy body type with a realistic waist and some actual curves . And, when she stumbles upon the dwarf's cottage, she doesn't ask for a hand-out: she uses the skills she has (yes, they are limited and domestic) to compensate for a roof over her head.  So, yes. I'm defending her . And not just because she was my favorite when I was very little. (We also didn't have a lot of options pre-1989): (My dad would kill me if he saw this photo. Also, remember when Disney characters just wandered the parks?) ANYWAY. All of this is to say that, as the OG Character, she holds a special place in the realm of Movies-You-Just-Don't-Remake. How could you remake The Wizard of Oz  without Judy Garland? Or Gone With The Wind  without Clark Gable or Vivien Leigh? Or Breakfast at Tiffany's  without Audrey Hepburn?  I thought, for the longest time, that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs  was off-limits. Of course  her story has been retold -- I actually even enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman , mainly due to Charlize Theron's Wicked Queen, and Gregory's Maguire's Italian take with Lucrezia Borgia as the villainess -- and Disney went so far as make Snow the heroine of its fairy-tale-version-of- Lost , Once Upon A Time .  But now it seems like the iconic 1937 film has been added to the list of Disney's Remake Machine , having just found a director in Marc Webb . (Yes, the film was announced in 2016, but films are announced all the time--it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get made. We've been waiting on that Wicked film for years now.) Things That Make Me Cautiously Optimistic: Marc Webb was a director/producer on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend  which, largely thanks to Rachel Bloom, did exceptional things with its portrayal of mental illness, female friendships, and romantic relationships.  Pasek and Paul have been brought on to write new songs for the film -- and if "Speechless" is any indication, this bodes extremely well.  Things That Might Be Tricky: Adriana Caselotti -- Disney's original voice actress -- had an incredibly high voice. And while it may have worked in the 1930s, it's one of the things my students comment on the most when asked about things they disliked about the film. (A quibble, I know, but her voice is iconic.) There's not a whole lot of story there, and the source material isn't exactly great by 2019 standards. Most adaptations maintain the element of female jealousy and conflict -- based on appearance/beauty -- and I would love  to see Disney change and update this for 2019.  I'd also hope that this Snow White will have a spine and won't be quite so passive. While Disney's 2015 version of Cinderella  was a beautiful film, and did update some elements of the story, Ella was still "as meek and as mild as a mouse" for  most of the film.  Finally, while there aren't even whispers of a rumor about the plot, several of the articles I read mention that Disney is also considering a "spin-off" featuring Snow White's "sister," Rose Red. Which.... ...is not entirely true. I mean, yes. I used to think this as a kid because " Snow White and Rose Red " was one of my favorite stories. But...just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're the same character. So...yeah. Not sisters.  Hopefully, this is just lazy reporting and not actual information coming from Disney. Because that would not bode well.