Search Results

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.