Search Results

It's Monday, November 10 -- and, aside from my birthday, it's also: Reputation 's birthday and the day Duke freshmen registered for Spring semester classes. Wierd thing to pair together, I know but hear me out: in my other professional life, I teach a Taylor Swift focused writing course, which I'll be offering in the Spring ( VERY much looking forward to teaching this new album). So as we're wrapping up all things Disney in the Fall, I've got half an eye on the Spring and Taylor on the brain. AND because it's my birthday, as I was out getting my birthday coffee, I may or may not have been blasting Reputation in the car. It's my birthday, it's Rep's birthday, Rep is my favorite album -- it just made sense. It also makes perfect sense that Rep and I share a birthday because Rep is absolutely, 100% a Scorpio. Sidebar -- some things about me: I fully believe in science. All the way. Full stop. I also kinda believe in astrology and the zodiac. Not so much the "daily horoscope is always accurate so absolutely use to guide all of your life decisions" kind of way, but more the "some things about celestial alignment ARE eerily accurate." I also very much believe that we don't know everything about the connection between this world and ourselves. It's really not that long ago that we didn't know what "bacteria" and "germs" were, or that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system -- so who am I to say that the full moon doesn't have an effect on our behavior or that Mercury being in retrograde doesn't make technology go wonky? 2nd Sidebar: I wasn't always a Swiftie. Pre-2022: I knew her radio hits, liked most of 1989 , was busy with a newborn in the NICU during Rep , liked a few of the songs on Lover , wrinkled my nose up at folkmore (I KNOW.) My internalized misogyny and I bought into the media narrative about her "serial dating" and the way she "blew through men." Then, I discovered Midnights , fell madly in love with her songwriting, and now I teach a course on her music. The point is: since working my way through her entire discography -- as one must do when one is eating one's own words -- Reputation has always been my favorite album and I remain flummoxed -- flummoxed I tell you! -- that it was ever widely disparaged. Because I've seen Miss Americana -- I know it wasn't nominated for any Grammys and Taylor took that disappointment and internalized it so strongly that she produced an album the exact antithesis of Rep in every way. Logically, I understand that the Kimye drama and #TaylorSwiftIsOver shitshow colored people's perceptions of it. I even get that the album may have been judged by its initial singles and not the deeper cuts, which are genuinely the strongest tracks. Look, this is an absolute NO SKIPS album for me -- the only one of Taylor's albums that's No Skips for me. And "LWYMMD," "End Game" and "Ready For It" are all great tracks in their own right. But the storytelling in "Getaway Car"? Perfection. The 3-song-sequence of "King of My Heart" + "Dancing With Our Hands Tied" + "Dress"? LOVE IT. The cackle right before the "I can't even say it with a straight face" in "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things"? Deliciously petty. The quiet anxieties of "Delicate" and "New Year's Day"? Heartachingly vulnerable. The softly spoken "At least I did one thing right"s of "Call It What You Want" that seem like Taylor trying to convince herself? Painfully familiar. It has never surprised me that Rep is a Scorpio album (it's honestly more surprising to me that Fearless is -- it's my least favorite album of Taylor's). While fans will quickly point to Red and evermore has Taylor's quintessential Autumn Albums, they usually classify Rep as a winter album, which...No. (But actually kind of tracks because Scorpios are one of the most misunderstood signs. We're water signs for instance, not fire signs.) After all, Scorpios are most often described as passionate, loyal, determined, intuitive, mysterious, resourceful -- and also stubborn, jealous, and vindictive. Is that not Rep in a nutshell?! For me, a Scorpio is an (insecure) softy, wrapped in a tough, armored outer shell. It makes sense that songs like "Look What You Made Me Do" and "End Game" were the lead singles: they help underscore that "tough" outer shell, the first impression of the album. You get lines like " all I think about is karma " and " maybe I got mine but you'll all get yours" and " I bury hatchets but I keep maps of where I put 'em" that absolutely speak to Scoprio's vindictive & petty nature -- as well as our loyalty to holding grudges. But you also get lines like these: KoMH's " I'm perfectly fine, I live on my own / I made up my mind I'm better off being alone " --> the independence Scorpios fiercely cling to (and also evokes those moments on Life of a Showgirl where Taylor writes about how she put up the facade of being happy single and unmarried) KoMH's " Your love is a secret I'm hoping, dreaming, dying to keep / Change my priorities" --> still a little bit of that "playing it close to her chest" vibes, but definitely hinting at the romance All of "Gorgeous" is basically determined Scorpio going after what she wants "Dress" -- passionate Scorpio. 'Nuff said. NYD's " I can tell that it's gonna be a long road / I'll be there if you're the toast of the town babe / Or if you strike out and you're crawling home" --> Loyal Scorpio CIWYW's " All the liars are calling me one / Nobody's heard from me for months / I'm doing better than I ever was" --> Mysteriously, secretive Scorpio I could go on -- I think both "Dancing With Our Hands Tied" and "Call It What You Want" are some of the most achingly beautiful (and relatable, IMO) songs Taylor has ever written that are also just so Scorpio coded. The part of DWOHT when she sings " I loved you in spite of deep fears that the world would divide us" and " I'm a mess but I'm the mess that you wanted "? Or my favorite bridge on the album, where Taylor literally invokes "late November" when " slowly I said, You don't need to save me / But would you run away with me?" This is, hands down, her most romantic album, and I will die on that hill. And I love it for that -- and because it's not the fairy-tale romance of Fearless but a very real, raw, complex romance of someone "whose flowers grew back as thorns." Also -- coming into the Swiftie fandom when I did, I never fully understood the accusations that she "can't sing." Is she Ariana Grande? No. And I genuinely believe that "vibrato" isn't the defining feature of a great musical artist. (Truly, y'all. My other favorite musician is Billy Joel.) Because have you heard "Don't Blame Me"?!? Take us to church, Taylor. Anyway, Happy Scorpio Birthday to Me, and to Reputation . They could never make me hate you. And I will keep clowning for my Rep Vault Tracks until they hatch.

I've been a bit quiet lately, mainly because my writing has, unusually, taken me elsewhere. A few weeks ago now, I received an email out of the blue from an editor at Public Humanities . He was inviting me to write an article on Taylor Swift's new album, The Life of a Showgirl . The editor -- who is a professor at Harvard -- pitched the piece as part of an "Of The Moment" roundtable, a space that " offers articles that are short, peer-reviewed, open access, and written for a wide audience of non-specialists." First emotion: YAY WHAT FUN. I'd be one of the first (academically) to publish on Life of a Showgirl . But then the Imposter Syndrome kicked in. Second Emotion: NO WHAT ARE YOU THINKING YOU CAN'T DO IT. Hi, it's me. I'm the problem, it's me. That's the funny thing about Imposter Syndrome, right? You don't grow out of it, it just hides, waiting for the right moment to strike. After all -- I hadn't even heard the album yet -- what if I hated it? What if I couldn't think of anything to say, or write about? What WOULD I write about? I didn't have the time! They were asking for drafts one week after the album came out: I have class and grading! I have kids and laundry! How could I possibly write 2000 words on an album I hadn't heard yet? The last time I wrote anything of substance -- beyond blog posts and assignment sheets -- was for a grad school course. I took 2 courses that semester: one went well, so of course the details are fuzzy. One did not; the professor (whose background was in history) told me that my argument had promise, but needed less quotations from the text and more historical context. (This was for a literature class.) I'm Teaching Faculty now -- my lane is teaching! Shouldn't I stay in my lane? And finally -- WHAT WOULD I WRITE ABOUT?! Luckily, there's a Taylor Swift song for this. (I know this is a cringe song on a cringe album, but as a Millennial, IDC.) Rather than focusing on the worst that could happen, I tried to focus instead on "what's the best that could happen?" And I found that teaching writing for over a decade might have made me a better writer. Because I did what I advise my students to do. I thought about the Taylor Swift articles that I had read, and the ideas that had stuck with me. There's a piece from NPR's Leah Donnella where she opens with the idea that " There comes a moment in a lot of Taylor Swift songs where it becomes hard to sing along. ...in that moment, you realize that this isn't a song about you. It's a song about Taylor Swift ." The hyper-specificity that Donnella draws attention to is, as she points out, unusual for pop music -- and I've always gotten the feeling that she didn't think it was a good thing. That line has always stuck with me; I think about it constantly when listening to Taylor's music. There's a scholarly article that talks about Taylor's discography and how she moves through archetypal phases -- passive innocent --> hero --> anti-hero. (I've disagreed with that last categorization, even though "Anti-Hero" is literally a song title.) And there's the fact that there is no research on Taylor's Track 5s. I did some research, read a few more articles. I put Taylor's music on Shuffle and eventually zeroed in on the Track 5s, listening to them on repeat. I mined Threads and Instagram, reading fan theories and predictions and speculation. I took notes -- copious notes, so many notes. (Literally 12 pages of notes. Single spaced.) All before the album even came out. And you know what? It was fun . Don't get me wrong: the insecurities were definitely still there. But I'd forgotten how much fun actually putting into words all the ideas that are bouncing around in my brain could be. How much fun it is to figure out how the puzzle pieces all fit together. I try and emphasize to my students that (academic) writing thrives in the messy, gray spaces. The answers aren't easy -- and the type of writing we do isn't black-and-white, right-and-wrong. Which is frustrating . And complicated . And we rarely get it right on the first try. Anyway, imposter syndrome aside, I'm really proud of the article I wrote. And, more importantly, I'm really proud of me for writing it.

Last week, I followed the words and ended up writing a lot more on Disney Princesses + eating than I had planned to, and honestly, I'm not mad about it. This was all inspired by a social media post about the girls in K-Pop Demon Hunters and last week I focused on Disney's first two animated feature films, Snow White & Pinocchio. The overall take-aways were: ...women / female characters were not shown eating on-screen, but ...women / female characters were shown baking / cooking / preparing food, connected to a domestic setting ...male characters in Pinocchio were shown eating and ...the consumption of food was largely associated with temptation / excess (an overall negative connection) So, what's next? Let's fast-forward a little bit to the 1950s. After Disney's Golden Age (which ended right around the time the US entered WWII), Disney and his studio were largely concerned with producing wartime propaganda . A fascinating time , but not super relevant to feature animation. The 1950's is colloquially known as Disney's Silver Age -- lasting until about Walt's death in 1966 -- and is characterized by bright colors, milder villains (with the exception of Maleficent, as delightfully unhinged as she is), and an ornate, artistic aesthetic. Overall, food plays a sporadic role throughout the Silver Age. Two of the most well-known films of the period have almost iconic scenes involving food: 1951's Alice in Wonderland and 1955's Lady and the Tramp . Both of these films seem, to me, to be outliers in terms of representations of food and eating in Disney films. The first, Alice , is based -- however loosely! -- on Lewis Carroll's 1865 novel. The portrayals of food -- specifically, Alice eating random things and those things creating chaotic changes -- may have been intentional by Carroll. According to one blog , Alice's eating in the novel may have been a "commentary on the famines of the Victorian era." It may have been that Carroll "included the tiny pieces of food...to express that Alice is essentially scrounging for her meals" and "is often left looking about for more food to return her to normal." So, Disney may have just lifted elements from the text without much deeper connection to Carroll's original intentions, especially since the film overall is a trippy, chaotic adventure. The second, Lady and the Tramp , involves the iconic spaghetti scene. The film was a largely original Disney concept, so unlike with Alice, there's no adherence to source material. But, the depiction of animals in Disney films, however anthropomorphized they may be, is starkly different than the depiction of human characters. While they may be stand-ins for humans occasionally, they are ultimately animals and are held to different standards. So, what are the Silver Age Princess films, and how do they depict women's relationship to food? Cinderella (1950) Cinderella was one of the stories Walt was most excited to tell, and was originally intended as a follow-up to 1937's Snow White . Production on the film stalled during the war, but was finally released at the start of the decade in 1950. Much like Disney's OG Princess film, women (well, one woman) are shown preparing food, but not consuming it. And, much like in Lady and the Tramp , animals are shown eating, especially in moments of heightened emotion (comic relief here, as when Gus Gus is trying to collect corn kernels and romance in Lady and the Tramp ). Food plays an overall minimal role in this film, and is used primarily to highlight Cinderella's servitude. In the opening scenes of the movie, it is Cinderella's job to "wake up" the household: this involves feeding the animals -- cream for Lucifer the cat; corn for the chickens and mice -- and preparing breakfast for the family. We see Cinderella -- much like Snow White -- at the stove/hearth preparing something out of a big pot ( the internet seems to agree that it's porridge , which makes sense--the family's fortune has evaporated, so porridge would be the cheaper option). She ladles it into only three bowls, however; she prepares only three trays, with three bowls of porridge, and three cups of tea: one for her stepmother, one for each of her stepsisters, and none for her. Finally, we see Cinderella deliver the trays and the scene is largely intertwined with the comic relief of the B-plot. As she carries the trays up the stairs, the 'camera' / perspective shifts down, to follow Lucifer as he tracks GusGus hiding under one of the empty tea cups. We see Cinderella enter each bedroom, serve the breakfast, and exchange the tray for a load of laundry, as the door shuts behind her. The other women presumably consume their breakfast, but do so 'off-screen,' in the privacy of their own spaces. You can see the shifted perspective in the video below: Much like Snow White , Cinderella both connects the preparation of food as a female duty in a domestic space and also neglects to show human, female characters actually partaking in the food they make. There isn't any association with excess here, which I suppose is a positive move. Sleeping Beauty (1959) Let's skip forward in time to the end of the decade, when Disney's 3rd princess film is released. I don't often teach Sleeping Beauty , so I was surprised when I was able to vividly recall in my mind the three scenes of characters eating in this movie. Like, I accurately remember Merrywether magicking the cookie out of thin air and chomping on it out of frustration with Maleficent. Which...is an (anecdotal) testament to the power of these movies. Again, like the two princesses movies before it -- a trend is starting to emerge... -- Sleeping Beauty once again: ...associates food preparation as women's work, specifically in a cozy, domestic space. Fauna (the green fairy) is shown making Aurora's birthday cake twice (once with magic, once without) in the small kitchen of their forest cottage. The food at the castle feast, however, is merely depicted on the table; this is a film about royals, after all, and not a medieval Disney version of Upstairs, Downstairs . We can assume that the food was prepared by an army of (female) cooks -- although the chef is more likely to be masculine -- but we don't need to see the sweaty, chaotic bustle of the royal kitchens. ...fails to depict women actually eating the food they prepare / which is prepared for them, while male characters do indulge more freely. Right before the two kings (and the minstrel) get hilariously drunk -- Disney today would never! -- we see King Hubert partaking of the feast on the table. It is worth pointing out that there is a stark visual difference between King Hubert (shown above, chomping on a turkey leg) and King Stefan, who is taller, leaner, and more lanky. It's also worth noting that we only see the...rounder King Hubert eat, not King Stefan. (And sure. If we wanted to do some armchair diagnosing, we could argue that Stefan is likely anxious over the return of his cursed daughter, whereas Hubert is only looking forward to the engagement party. But that's all speculation.) Similarly, Aurora never gets to eat the birthday cake Fauna prepares. When she returns to the cottage, flushed with excitement about meeting 'the stranger from the woods' (which is super creepy out of context), her aunts break the news that she's a princess, and engaged, and going home that night. Understandably, Rose breaks down crying and runs upstairs to fling herself on the bed and sob -- she is just 16 -- leaving the beautiful birthday cake untouched. There is seemingly an exception to this point: before the fairies whisk baby Aurora away to the woods, we see them fuming over Maleficent's curse and plotting a way around it. Fauna magicks an Emotional Support Beverage (presumably tea) out of thin air, and the fairies sip as they conspire. Only Merrywether also magicks two cookies/biscuits out of thin air to drink with her tea -- and we actually see her eat them. It's a rare moment -- seeing a female Disney character not only pick out what she wants to eat -- a cookie! not an apple, or a salad or some other 'healthy' option -- but then actually eat it. Now, why isn't this more important? Because, as many scholars -- including Elizabeth Bell and Carrie Cokely -- have noted, Disney often draws a distinction between their female characters, age-wise. (This isn't necessarily exclusive to Disney films; but that's a soapbox for another day.) That is, there are 3 main categories of Disney women: The Princess -- young, (conventionally) beautiful, innocent, naive, sweet The Wicked Woman -- middle-aged, smart, ambitious, wants "more" than she's allotted The Grandmother -- old, soft, wise, maternal, nurturing I mean...again, this isn't exclusive to Disney. The witches of ye olden days weren't actually sinister, magic-practicing agents of evil; they were just women who dared to step outside of the proscribed norms of the time. In Disney, then, the first and third types -- all good. That's where we want women to be. And The Grandmother figure? Well she's past her prime; she's done her time. Her goal is to help the younger generation, protect them from the scheming, ambitious wicked woman, and if she gets a little hungry along the way, she can have a snack. Her goal isn't marriage; it's preservation of order. So, yes. We see Merrywether eat. But we also have yet to see a young Disney princess tuck in with glee and joy the way Rumi, Mira and Zoey attack their carb-loaded snacks. There is a 65+ year difference between the two films, however, so next week we'll zoom into the Disney Renaissance. These heroines are spunkier and more rebellious, loudly declaring that they aren't " prizes to be won" and that they " want adventure in the great, wide somewhere " -- so let's see if that progressive attitude extends to food as well.

Ever since Disney announced that it would be retheming Splash Mountain with a Princess and the Frog  overlay, I've found myself thinking about the logistics of this. What does it mean for the areas around the ride? After all, it's rare for an area of a Disney Park to be disjointed and not "cohesive" anymore. Take Tower of Terror in Disney World, for instance. The abandoned 1930s era Hollywood hotel is next to Rock n' Roller coaster with it's "contemporary" LA freeway race to get to an Aerosmith concert, both of which are at the end of Sunset Boulevard, itself lined mainly with shops, quick service restaurants and two amphitheaters. Not exactly as unified as Galaxy's Edge or Toy Story Land. (Although, to be fair, MGM's original "purpose" was to compete with Universal Studios by offering a "behind-the-scenes" look at Hollywood. So in that sense, they're all united by that vague California-theme.) Especially now, since it has the catalog to do so, it seems as if Disney doesn't just plop a random ride into the middle of a park -- it has to be part of a larger narrative. This is what happened to outdated and undervisited parts of MGM (or, Hollywood Studios I GUESS; it will always be MGM to me) -- they became Galaxy's Edge and Toy Story Land. In a move I'm still not ready to talk about, The Great Movie Ride sob became Mickey & Minnie's Runaway Railway . In Disneyland, Paradise Pier became Pixar Pier -- with all the rides, themes, and restaurants renovated to fit that theme. [Sidebar: if you ever visit California Adventure, and go to Pixar Pier, eat at Lamplight Lounge and get the lobster nachos. You will NOT regret it!] The most recent casualty is, of course, A Bug's Land playground, which has been absorbed in order to make way for a whole Marvel area of California Adventure , centered around Mission Breakout (formerly DL's Tower of Terror. RIP.). So, yeah. How's this new Princess and the Frog  ride going to work? And the answer, I think, depends on which park you're talking about. 1. Disneyland  (Anaheim, California) This one is the easiest, I think. And here's why: Here's a map of Disneyland from 1989 -- obviously the park doesn't look much like this now, but this is how it looked when the ride opened, and you can easily read the names of the different lands.  Splash Mountain is located in "Critter Country" -- it's pretty much this ride + Winnie-the-Pooh -- tucked away in a liminal space between Frontierland (part of which has now been repurposed for Galaxy's Edge) and New Orleans Square. In Disneyland, Splash Mountain is kind of its own thing -- not really connected to either of the lands it sits between, although it is aesthetically connected to Frontierland. Since one of those lands is New Orleans Square -- that's why I think it will be fairly  easy to integrate a new Splash Mountain. After all, Princess and the Frog  -- for better or for worse -- is set in 1920's New Orleans.  Now, it's important to note that New Orleans Square is pretty much the only area that is unique to Disneyland (as compared to the Magic Kingdom -- I'm not counting the other 4 parks here) -- at least in the basic renderings of the park. Both parks have a central Main Street leading to the castle in the center, which then branches off into Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, Adventureland, and Frontierland. Disneyland has New Orleans Square and Disney World has Liberty Square -- yes, they've expanded since then, but that was originally the only difference. (Like, Disneyland still has a Toontown, where Disney World doesn't.) I'm not entirely sure why Disney World created a Liberty Square, but I do know that New Orleans Square was one of Walt's favorite parts of the park. He had a bit of a love affair with New Orleans , and also Mark-Twain-esque Riverboats. The only place you used to be able to get Mickey pancakes -- NOT the ubiquitous Mickey waffles but Mickey shaped pancakes  -- was River Belle Terrace (a.k.a. Aunt Jemima's Pancake House, but that's a story for another day ) which, much to my great dismay, no longer serves breakfast but instead serves Southern barbecue type stuff for lunch and dinner. (Which...having lived in the South for 2/3 of my life now, and even knowing how amazing Disney food is...I'm pretty sure it won't compare to the stuff I've had here.) On the other side of New Orleans Square is Adventureland, so that Pirates of the Caribbean sort of lies in between the two lands of the park. The entrance to the line  lies closer to Adventureland, but (1) the ride entrance actually takes you through Blue Bayou restaurant (Disney World peeps: think of the way the Gran Fiesta Tour goes past the San Angel Inn in the Mexico pavilion); and (2) the exit spits you out (after the Gift Shop!) in New Orleans Square. Blue Bayou is the pricey sit-down restaurant, but there's also Cafe Orleans (which has an amazing Monte Cristo sandwich) and Mint Julep bar, a quick service restaurant serving beignets and non-alcoholic cocktails which often rotate seasonal flavors. (The candy cane beignets are apparently amazing.)  Then you have the Haunted Mansion. And if you want to argue that New Orleans Square glorifies slavery, well, I won't stop you, but I will challenge your ability to use the Haunted Mansion as part of your argument. Yes, the original concept for the attraction was "an antebellum manor overgrown with weeds, dead trees, swarms of bats and boarded doors and windows." But Walt Disney rejected  this idea -- the aesthetic of run-down and overgrown just wasn't compatible with the planned perfection of Disneyland. Instead, Walt was inspired by the Winchester Mystery House (itself built in 1884, decidedly not antebellum) and wanted it to be a sort of Ripley/Museum of the Weird type thing. I don't think the ghosts there are the ghosts of slaves or anything so political. All of this to say: it would be fairly easy to extend the New Orleans vibe past the Haunted Mansion, especially since the Rivers of America, which the Mark Twain Riverboat traverses, winds down to the end of what is now Critter Country.  As the concept art shows, it should be fairly easy to blend Splash Mountain in once it's been rethemed.  2. Disney World (Magic Kingdom, Orlando Florida) Over in Disney World, however, things get a little bit trickier.  via NavFile You can see this on the map, but in Disney World, Frontierland is tucked away into a back corner of the park. In fact, one of the reasons it's a Congestion Point is that there's really only one way into and out of it. (You can take the railroad, but I don't count that.) Thunder Mountain is all the way at the edge, with Splash Mountain next to it. On the other side of Splash Mountain, you can go straight, into Adventureland and headed towards Pirates of the Caribbean, or you can turn left, and head back down the Frontierland themed street, past Pecos Bills (excellent taco salad, by the way), the shooting gallery, and the Country Bear Jamboree. Go down far enough, and you'll hit Liberty Square with the Hall of Presidents and Disney World's Haunted Mansion (an upstate NY colonial mansion -- because Liberty Square is designed to represent a tour across America, both historically and geographically).  The design problem here should be apparent: on one side of Splash you have a California mining train attraction, and on the other, a Western saloon type vibe -- neither of which fits the Louisiana bayou aesthetic. The vibe is definitely Southwestern, not Deep South.  via Best of Orlando Does the ride have  to match the land it's located in? Of course not.  Could this present an interesting opportunity for Disney?  Of course. After all, I've never been a fan of the shooting gallery or the Country Bear Jamboree. (I know this is blasphemous to some die-hard Disney fans, but the bears have always kinda creeped me out. I'm sure this dates to some childhood interaction that I've blocked out of my memory.) And, as much as I love Pecos Bill's and their taco salads, that restaurant could easily (I imagine) be re-imagined as Tiana's Place. In fact, that whole "street" could be redesigned and repurposed. I'm not sure how...my first instinct would be to just make the whole street a New Orleans kind of vibe, but I love that New Orleans Square is unique to Disneyland, and wouldn't want a carbon copy in Orlando. There's a way -- I'm sure there is -- to maintain the geographic panorama of America...maybe a gradual shift from colonial New England to the Deep South. It wouldn't necessarily tie into any property directly, since so few of Disney's animated films are located specifically in America. (And we definitely do not want to touch on Pocahontas and appropriate that for profit/fun. NOPE.) Of course, Disney could just decide to forego thematic consistency and retheme the ride alone, leaving everything else as it is. But that's not very Disney, is it?

[ETA: Like most of my thoughts these days, this one seemed to run away a bit...turns out, this is something I'm actually really curious & passionate about, so I'm diving a little deeper than I intended. So this will be Part 1 of...?] I'll admit it. I'm a fan of KPop Demon Hunters . It's not Disney -- and I almost wrote that Disney hasn't released an animated film this year but I forgot about Elio ; oops -- but it's a strong contender for my favorite animated movie of the year. Zootopia 2 has some big shoes to fill. At this point, my algorithm is basically KPop Demon Hunters and The Roses press junket content. And every once in a while, a post will pop up that I can't stop thinking about. Case in point: The post on the right has been living rent-free in my brain since I read it. Every time I watch the movie -- and it's on in my house a lot -- I pay attention to those scenes and the truth of that post rings loud and clear. Especially the part about the girls finding joy in food: As an Elder Millennial, I do not take this for granted. So much of the media we consumed was about shrinking ourselves -- making ourselves smaller both literally (by eating less) and figuratively (if you're constantly hungry, you're more tired and quiet, because your body just doesn't have the energy) -- to fit an arbitrary standard. Diet culture is nothing new, of course; the pendulum swings every couple of years. But it was exacerbated in the late 90s/early 2000s because it was everywhere: from the magazine covers in the grocery store checkout aisles to the shows we watched as we grew up, from Full House to America's Next Top Model . I mean, the motto of the 90s was literally "Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels." Now, we did have a reprieve from this for a while -- we embraced body diversity and called out the toxic standards. But now we've got Ozempic and that 90s motto is starting to come back. Luckily, we have people like Ilona Maher and Kylie Kelce pushing back on that -- revising the narrative to emphasize strength -- which I love. But the discourse around food -- and specifically girls + food -- is still there, and it starts so. damn. early. So watching KPop Demon Hunters around the same time I was teaching Disney's Snow White got me thinking...do we ever see Disney Princesses eat? And what is the larger relationship with food we see in these movies? I started running through a mental checklist in my head -- and let's start with the Golden Age of Disney, which runs from 1937-1942 (right about the time the US formally enters WWII). Disney releases 5 major films during this time: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Pinocchio (1940), Fantasia (1940), Dumbo (1941) & Bambi (1942). I'm going to focus primarily on the first two, since of the remaining three, Fantasia is a (ground-breaking) anomaly, and the latter focus on animals. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) Takeaway: Snow cooks and bakes -- for the (male) dwarves -- but is never shown eating food. Here, food represents warmth and domesticity, but also temptation, particularly for female characters. Now, some of this may be because of the trickiness of animating humans eating -- animating humans in general was somewhat difficult for Disney and his team ( early concept art shows a wide range of sketches for Snow White) and the Prince was allegedly the hardest character to animate. His face, at times, is rather amorphous and blob-like. Regardless, the only time we see Snow approach something like eating is when she tests the soup before ordering the Dwarves to go wash up ( see the carousel below) . Then, we skip over the dinner scene entirely and go straight to the post-dinner-dancing and merriment. So again, as we don't see anybody eat, this could be just not being able realistically animate the process. This would seem to be supported by the fact that we don't even see Snow White take a bit of the infamous apple: as the scene plays out, the focus is on the Evil Queen in disguise, as she convinces Snow to take a bite and anticipates the her desired effect. The bite happens "off-screen" and we only see Snow's hand as she drops to the ground and the apple rolls across the floor. The end result is (1) we don't see Snow White (or, to be fair, any of the characters) eat, but also (2) the one instance of at least implied eating, is directly connected to temptation and negative consequences. Pinocchio (1940) Takeaway: We have a male protagonist in Disney's 2nd feature film, but food is once again connected to temptation and vice. It's been a minute since I've watched the entire movie -- and I've been meaning to, as well as the live action versions that were released. But in class this week, I was trying to explain the plot of this movie (and realizing, in the process, how batsh*t crazy it is) and finally just decided to show parts of the Pleasure Island scene. Perhaps eating/food is shown in other moments of the film (leaving aside Monstro the whale) but I'd definitely have to go back to the text. For now, we see Pinocchio and Lampy (a.k.a. Lampwick) eating when they first arrive on the Island: As the boys stream off the boat and into the amusement park, a voice-over narrates: Right here, boys, right here. Get your cake, pie, dill pickles and ice cream! Eat all you can! Be a glutton! Stuff yourselves! It's all free boys, it's all free!" Moments later, we see Lampy with...an entire roast chicken? And Pinocchio has a whole pie and an ice-cream cone, and he's clearly shown taking a bite out of the pie. (A bite is similarly missing from Lampy's chicken.) While eating is once again shown in connection with vice and temptation, there is a slight difference from Snow White . The idea of gluttony -- of eating more than one can or should consume -- is literally invoked as the boys enter Pleasure Island, and there's also the idea that this food is "bad." After all, Pinocchio isn't gorging himself on fruits and vegetables; he's shown with sugary desserts. (Maybe Lampy's chicken is fried?) If the point is to convey that eating more than one's share is wrong -- a point which probably hit harder during the Great Depression -- it technically shouldn't matter what type of food the boys are eating. But to further underscore the wrongness of it, they're shown eating "bad" foods. Sidebar: food has no morality and unless it's covered in dirt, all food is clean. And does a puppet even have to eat? Where does it go? I have questions. But I digress. The whole Pleasure Island scene is about bad behavior: as Pinocchio says, "Being bad's a lot of fun. " After they discard their mostly uneaten food on the ground -- wasteful; another transgression, that would have landed differently with audiences who lived through the Great Depression -- the boys enter the Rough House (purely for fighting), and then are shown destroying property in a 'model home.' Then, as Jiminy Cricket searches for Pinocchio -- in a moment that would NEVER make a kids animated film today -- we see him lounging in a chair by a pool table, an empty beer stein and money on the table next to him, with a lit cigar. Smoking, gambling, drinking -- and (gluttonous) eating. All presented as vices and sins in the context of the film. Now, if there are other depictions of eating in the film, that may change things. But, as it stands, the only times eating is shown so far, it's in the context of vice and temptation. Preparing food is slightly different: whether it's soup or gooseberry pies -- is seen as a domestic act, to be carried out by women, for the household...which tracks, given that these films were made and released in the 1930s. This was surprisingly engaging to write about, and I actually have a lot more to say. Next week, I'll look at Cinderella and Aurora in the Silver Age of Disney!

Last week, I wrote (more than I had intended) on Disney's recent shift toward engaging their audience more in the rides and attractions at the park. Storytelling has always been a unique aspect of the Disney theme parks, so this evolution makes sense in a lot of ways. During my August trip, I couldn't help but notice this shift. And one of the places where I noticed it the most was during the new Villains show at Hollywood Studios, Villains Unfairly Ever After . The show is tucked into a back corner of Studios, near Tower of Terror and Rock n' Rollercoaster, and was formerly the site of Lightning McQueen's Racing Academy (which I actually never saw...😬). It is an indoor attraction, which honestly might have changed my mind about the Racing Academy... Somehow, I managed to avoid spoilers on social media/online, so I went into this show completely blind. Here's the official blurb from the Disney website: Enter the realm of the Magic Mirror—where dozens of villains are trapped! They want the Mirror to reveal the truth: which villain has been treated the most unfairly of them all? I am super excited to take my mom and my daughter back in a couple of months, as they're both big Villains fans. Three specific villains are featured in the show, and you get a clue as to who they are as you walk up to the building. (And yeah, it's also clearly laid out on the website but again, I avoided ALL spoilers and information about this show.) The doors opened about 5-10 minutes before the show started, and the theater filled pretty quickly. Sitting around in line waiting for a show to start/to hop on a ride is nothing new in Disney, especially Hollywood Studios. Waiting for a show like the Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular or the Beauty and the Beast show can get a little dicey since those theaters are outside (in the often muggy Florida heat) and you're sitting on a bleacher seat staring at a motionless stage waiting for the show to start. (At least for the Frozen Sing-Along you're inside and get a cushy seat -- but still, motionless stage.) Here, the show kinda starts when you sit down: the stage is surrounded by screens, and there's constant motion. The smoke is swirling, hazy outlines and eerie eyes randomly appear before fading away, the music is just a little frenetic: These are the villains trapped in the realm of the Magic Mirror -- where, I presume, they go when they die in their respective films? That part's not clear, but its a cool way to set up the story before a single word is spoken. And it all works to keep the audience if not fully engaged, at least distracted, while they wait for the show to start. We open with the Evil Queen intoning the iconic line -- " Magic Mirror, on the wall... " -- but we stop short of the next line. Instead, the Magic Mirror cuts in, longing for the days when " only one villain summoned me, a queen with a question ." Now, here's where things start to get interesting. The Magic Mirror says to the audience: " You know how it goes ." He starts to repeat the Queen's line, then, at the end, says " Your turn." And the audience, now a part of the show, is invited to answer the question, finishing the line with " Who's the fairest one of all?" (The Mirror then muses on the definition of the word "fair," which I found interesting...he points out that " once upon a time it was" defined as beautiful, " but these days, villains are preoccupied with who's been treated most unfairly of them all. " It's the premise for the show, of course, but is a nice little nod to the fact that being "the fairest of them all" doesn't always, or doesn't necessarily, mean "the prettiest" as we usually take it to mean.) Then the Magic Mirror launches into a musical number (very on brand for Disney) and, okay, so I wasn't completely unspoiled. I had heard this song before, but I didn't know it was associated with this show. And it's a legitimate bop . Like, I caught myself singing this song for the rest of the afternoon. (At least until I rode Runaway Railway. IYKYK.) Anyway -- the point of the song is basically that Magic Mirror is annoyed and overstimulated by all of the villains constantly hounding him to declare them the most unfairly treated. As he makes clear, he " can't judge, I just reflect" so he's outsourcing the work to us, the audience:" it's up to you to tell them what you see .. please make a choice so they'll stop asking me! " He clarifies that he can only answer the Evil Queen [when she asks] so " I need you to intervene ." It's a clever way to bring the audience into the show, right? Instead of just passively watching the show, we have a secondary task: to listen to the pleas of each villain who makes their case and "determine" which one is "most misunderstood of all." We start with Cruella. Honestly, IMHO, this was the most engaging part of the show. The energy is upbeat, the visuals are striking, and Cruella has...3 costume changes? Maybe 4 if you count the fact that her coat from the first outfit has a change of its own. Anyway, Cruella makes her case, asking us: " Is it my fault I have a flair for fashion? Or that the puppies stirred my passion? Great artists are always so misunderstood! It's enough to make one see spots!" And to answer her question: Yah, girl. It's kind of definitely your fault that PUPPIES "stirred your passion." *says the dog-lover. But the coolest part -- and why it's my favorite -- is that when Cruella says "spots," the smoke bubbles float down from the ceiling. It's like the villain version of Elsa making it Snoap in the Frozen Sing-Along, and I am here for it. I am an absolute sucker for snow / bubble effects, and while I recognize it's meant to distract us while Cruella has her costume change, I'm not even mad. It's just so magical. MAGICAL. Up next is Hook! This one was an odd choice for me. I mean, if you're asking me to list Iconic Disney villains, Hook doesn't crack the top 5. I get that the requirements for inclusion were probably (1) human and (2) has a song, but I would have probably advocated for Gaston (the potential here alone!) or Dr. Facilier (BANGER song). Granted, it's probably to make a case for being misunderstood if you make a Faustian bargain with voodoo spirits, but Gaston would be a solid choice. Hook doesn't really make a case for being misunderstood -- he's largely comic relief, and offers you a free tattoo if you join his pirate crew. He definitely got the least amount of cheers (in the 2 shows I saw). THAT honor was reserved for Maleficent -- understandably. Her video is a little longer, but only because when I was watching it back, I thought the whole sequence was just visually stunning, especially with the way they added in scenes from the 1959 film. And that haunting cover of "Once Upon A Dream"? Not quite the Lana del Rey version, but still. Shivers. But Maleficent's case is probably the weakest, IMO? She asks us, " Haven't you ever been forgotten? Left off the list? Omitted from a grand affair that the entire kingdom is attending, except you?" Which...don't try to justify or rationalize it, ma'am. You are the Queen of Evil precisely because you cursed a baby girl to die just because you didn't get an invite. That is Evil, and sometimes, you just want a villain to be evil. She then goes on to claim that she's been " woefully misinterpreted" and muses, " wasn't it my curse that brought Sleeping Beauty the gift of true love? I suppose you could say that the happily ever after of Princess Aurora was my doing! Doesn't anyone ever think of it like that?" Which, LOLZ. That is some epic mental gymnastics right there, ma'am. It was Merrywether who mitigated the curse and downgraded "Death" to "Magical Sleep That Can Be Ended With True Love's Kiss." I mean, maybe she can get credit for the assist, but it wasn't really her doing. Now all three villains have made their case as to why they're misunderstood. Magic Mirror reappears for the final time (he's popped up in between each villain, for cohesion), and there's a bit with Hades and Jafar as all of the villains from Disney's canon appear in the mirrors. It's a really cool sequence, and I keep rewatching the full video to try and catch all the villains who pop up. There are some pulls from deep within Disney lore: my girl Yzma is there (although she's having a bit of a moment!), Madam Mim from The Sword in the Stone ; the Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood , Professor Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective, Willie the Giant from Mickey and the Beanstalk .... At this point, Magic Mirror is getting overwhelmed again. So he "turns" to the audience, as if just remembering we're there and says: " You...yes, you! I beseech thee! Answer them! Choose the most misunderstood!" (I think someone from the audience yells out "Jafar" here...which...hot take, but okay.) He continues:" But how? Many spoke, but few were seen; though villains in the mirrors gleamed. But these 3 passed through the glass...Yes! Choose from them, that is your task! This is your moment, YOU are the judge. Clap, stomp and scream, show who you love! And when you do, the smoke will rise as you choose the most villainized!" And again: here's a cool part. As Magic Mirror recaps each of the villains who have made their case, the audience gets a chance to show their support. You can hear them cheering -- although, honestly? I think its more for who their favorite villain is and less for who's actually 'misunderstood'...I'm pretty sure Maleficent gets the loudest/most cheers (the woman next to me was a FAN), then Cruella, and poor Hook doesn't get much. (Like, sorry Hook. You're not everyone's favorite pirate...pretty sure that honor belongs to Captain Jack.) Then Magic Mirror says: " the smoke in the mirror never lies, you have revealed the most villainized. Magic Mirror on the wall, who's most misunderstood of all?" There's a dramatic pause -- and the audience continues to show out names! again, the woman next to me: Big Maleficent fan -- and Mirror reveals... Captain Hook! I swear the disappointment in my theater was palpable. 🤣 But, to be fair, in this case, I think Hook may be the most misunderstood of the three. Not the best villain, but probably the most misunderstood. So, yes. The audience isn't actually a part of the show -- the winner is pre-determined, or on a rotation of sorts. I saw the show a second time, and Cruella was declared the most misunderstood. But that's part of the innovative fun of it: the show is different each time you see it. Much like the Frozen Sing-Along which is my absolute favorite show at Studios. The performers change, the winner changes, even the 3 villains could conceivably change over time, rotating out. Again, the potential with Gaston is so much fun, Ursula could show up...Yzma would be fantastic! You could create an entirely new show with very little overall change. The Magic Mirror narration would be largely the same, and the costumes and screens would change, but the bare bones of the show would stay. This was definitely a fun show, and a valuable addition to Studios. The synergistic tie-ins are there -- the stores were stocked with Villains merch and Hollywood Scoop s had a Hades float (even though he wasn't a major player in the show....yet) and a Maleficent cone . I hope we get to see new villains in the future.

Bit of a longer post this week, but if you know me,  you know that The Little Mermaid  has always been one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. Tiny Me was the target audience for its original release, and whatever the online discourse about it , I have continued to love it.  Is it a perfect movie? No, and I'd be the first to admit that. But I fear it has a chokehold on me that will never let up.  Luckily, there's always been a lot of Little Mermaid representation in the parks:  at the Art of Animation hotel, the standard rooms have Little Mermaid theming  you can meet Ariel at various character dining throughout the parks -- including Akershus in the Norway pavilion at Epcot, Cinderella Royal's Table in Magic Kingdom, and formerly at Trattoria al Forno at the Boardwalk  at Magic Kingdom, you can meet Ariel in her grotto and go 'under the sea' on the Journey of the Little Mermaid ride (also at Disneyland)  and at Hollywood Studios you can meet 2023 Ariel at Walt Disney Presents and see the Voyage of the Little Mermaid musical experience Opened in 1992 at MGM-Studios park, The Voyage of the Little Mermaid  closed with the rest of Disney World in March of 2020 due to Covid. Over the next few years, there were reports of mold infestations and rumors that the show would be going away completely. Then, around the time of the live-action release in 2023, Disney announced that they were bringing back a refreshed version of the show -- and I have been counting down the days until I had a chance to go and see it.  Luckily, I had that opportunity this summer -- and I kid you not, I saw this show 3 times in one afternoon. Was it because this offered an air-conditioned respite from the Florida heat & humidity? Maybe. But did I also love it? Yes.  The bones of the old show are there -- rearranged now to follow the plot of the animated film more accurately; the old show started with "Under The Sea" -- but Disney has done some really cool, innovative things with screens and technology to plus the show up.  Before I get into that, I wanted to first look at two key "script" changes that I saw in the show, changes which are subtle but significant to the story.  The first is a small -- literally a single word! -- change during the "Poor Unfortunate Souls" sequence. In the movie (and the old show), Ursula reveals that if Ariel can share True Love's Kiss with Eric, she'll remain human permanently. To her credit, Ariel pauses and muses softly, " If I become human, I'll never be with my father or sisters again..." Ursula replies with the iconic line (one of many in this song, TBH), " That's right...but you'll have  your man . Life's full of tough choices innit? "  But there's a tiny change in the new stage show which makes such a difference: instead of saying " you'll have your man ," Ursula says " you'll have your dream . "  Again, it's just. one. word.  But the implication here is one which many Little Mermaid defenders -- myself included! -- have been trying to draw attention to: Ariel's interest in the human world has always predated her interest in Eric. Always. The beginning of the movie is literally Exhibit A: Ariel misses Sebastian's concert with her sisters because she's hunting for human treasures with Flounder. The iconic "Part of Your World" -- where Ariel sings about her desire to see and experience the human world -- takes place before she sees Eric for the first time. So Ursula's temptation to Ariel has always been about her dream to be a part of the human world -- of which Eric is a part, yes  --  rather than just about a romance with a guy she's never talked to.  And this change reflects that in a small but powerful way. The second is a change to the end, particularly to the relationship between Ariel and King Triton.  In the film, Triton's recognition that Ariel really loves Eric and he has to let her go, is told to Sebastian; Ariel and Triton share a look, as he magics her into a human, and while the lack of dialogue at the end of the film does have a powerful impact, I really like this verbal addition to the show. In the show, Triton directly acknowledges Ariel, admitting that he should've listened to her and apologizes:"I'm sorry you had to lose your voice for me to hear you. " I cannot impress how important it is to show a Disney Parent apologizing to their child. (Is it the best apology? No -- Triton doesn't exactly acknowledge his role in the situation, but then, that's also cut from the 18-minute stage show.) Check that out below: Okay, onto the creativity and innovation aspects of the show! The biggest change is the use of screens & technology to help tell the story and move the show along without having to wait for actors to move off-stage, change costumes, etc. Here's what the stage looks like when you enter the theater: We can see the benefit of this in the opening scene of the show: the old show opened with "Under the Sea," which makes sense, as it's the jazziest number of the movie. But it also occurs 30 minutes into a 90-minute film; a lot of the introductory content of the film was missing. (Which made sense: the conceit of the show was you were literally 'journeying under the sea' and the first few minutes of the show brought you 'underwater.' Now, we actually start at the beginning, with Ariel missing the concert. We actually get to see Triton and his other 6 daughters -- in what looks like a possible hybrid of puppets and animation (and maybe even motion capture?): I sat in the middle of the theater, so I can't speak to the view from closer to the stage, but the perspective from that angle is that Triton is somehow "swimming" onto the stage, and then exiting. It's animation on the screen, of course, but a nice illusion/trick. The same goes for Ariel's sisters: it appears that the seashells rise from the stage and then sink back down, but they're not actually there (reducing the logistics issues + risk of technical malfunctions.)  But then, Ariel herself actually does "swim" onto stage -- which adds a nice fluidity and element of movement to the show. In the past, they just moved the rock seat onto stage, with Ariel already seated.  We also get to see both of these at work in "Under The Sea": the screens are a big upgrade here, creating an overall more vibrant and playful atmosphere as well as a brighter one -- the old show relied on actors moving puppets and so the stage was much darker to more effectively "hide" them. Ariel is also a part of this performance this time -- she sings/interacts with Sebastian a bit and moves around the stage, a notable change from the old show, where she was absent. And the bubbles at the end are still here. 😊 That was always one of my favorite parts of the old show. When I was in the theater, I thought that some of the old puppets (with actors in black bodysuits behind them) were still there, specifically the two guys in the bottom right corner, but watching it back, I'm not so sure. (I believe they sold most of the original puppets too, so I'm not sure if these are the old ones, new puppets, or more motion-capture animation.) The coolest part is absolutely, hands-down the climactic fight with Ursula:  Knowing how to write about the technical elements like the staging and use of lighting is not my forte, but I just thought the overall effects here were chefs kiss. The way Disney uses the lightning and the animation to change the perception of the speed of the scene -- the way it appears in slow motion to highlight the dramatic beats of the scene is just really, really cool. I would go back just to watch this part again and again.  Finally, I don't have any videos of this part, but the "Kiss The Girl" scene also gives -- no, shows  -- Ariel's personality more. She has one -- has always had one -- but the changes allow the cast member playing Ariel to really play up different aspects of that personality. I'll hopefully be back in Hollywood Studios in December, so I'll try to prioritize that.  Next week I hope to look at Disney's other new show at Hollywood Studios, this one Villains themed!

[ Not the blog post I intended to write this week! But that's how writing works. I wanted to write about the new Villains show at Hollywood Studios, as a counterpart to my thoughts on the refreshed Little Mermaid show. But I couldn't think about the show in terms of innovation and creativity without thinking about my conversation with Philander on guest experiences of attractions. What I thought would just be a bit of introductory context, ended up being a little bit of a longer post. So I went where the words took me. 😊] When I visited Disneyland a few weeks ago (August 2025), I was so incredibly fortunate to cross paths with Disney Legacy Cast Member , Philander (a.k.a. philanderc85 on Instagram ). Philander is a VIP Tour Guide at Disneyland , but he also does a fascinating series on Instagram about Imagineering and the history of the Disney Parks. My (academic) interest is mostly on the films -- don't get me wrong, I'm a Park Girl as much as the next Disney Adult, but my first love has always been storytelling, and the way Disney tells stories through their films. Part of the reason I love the Disney parks -- over other theme parks -- is the way Disney Imagineers integrate storytelling into the attractions. So I really appreciate the opportunity to meet and talk with people who have similar Disney niche interests and knowledge, especially when they're about things I don't know much about. (I think this is something the majority of my favorite Disney content creators have in common...) Secretly, I really hoped I'd get to meet some of those content creators in the parks on my trip. It 's a random thing to have on a Disney Parks bucket list, I know -- and not something you can exactly plan. Once I step inside that Disney Bubble, I'm all in. The real world -- the news, social media -- they kinda cease to exist. My one exception (/guilty pleasure) is to play Disney: Rich or Famous though... So when my friend and I turned the corner to head into Cars Land at the same time as Philander was...I fear I squealed like the excited fangirl I was in that moment. (And it's not the first time I've done so either...a story for another day.) Long story short, Philander was so kind and gracious, and we were able to chat for about 15-20 minutes. I asked him about innovation and creativity -- the purpose of the trip out there, after all -- and something he said really stuck with me. We were talking about rides & attractions at the parks, and one thing he mentioned regarding innovation was the way certain attractions, like Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout or Rise of the Resistance, make you, the guest, a part of the narrative. That is, there's a difference between these attractions and ones where, like Pirates of the Caribbean or Haunted Mansion, you're just a passive observer of the story. On Haunted Mansion, for example, your ghost host welcomes you to the mansion, and then intones: Our tour begins here in this gallery. Here, where you see paintings of some of our guests as they appeared in their corruptible, mortal state. You then board your Doom Buggy, and the tour continues through the mansion, with the Ghost Host reminding you that " if you should decide to join us, final arrangements may be made at the end of the tour. " The ride takes you through the different rooms as well as to the graveyard outside, but you're simply an observer of the "999 happy haunts." You don't interact with either the host or the ghosts. The one exception is at the end, when you're warned to " beware of hitchhiking ghosts" and Ezra, Phineas and Gus "materialize" alongside you. Some of the newer attractions, however, have a bit of a different approach. I could do a whole post on Rise of the Resistance, so I think one of the best examples is Tower of Terror, and its Disneyland counterpart, Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout. In the original Tower of Terror, the pre-show script invites you onto a maintenance service elevator: The time is now, on an evening very much like the one we have just witnessed. Tonight's story on The Twilight Zone is somewhat unique and calls for a different kind of introduction. This, as you may recognize, is a maintenance service elevator, still in operation, waiting for you. We invite you, if you dare, to step aboard because in tonight's episode you are the star. And this elevator travels directly to . . . The Twilight Zone."  Which, sure. You're invited to star in "tonight's episode," but you're still a bit detached from the storyline overall. You're not engaging with the original narrative; instead, its clearly stated that "the time is now, on an evening very much like the one we have just witnessed ." When the ride was re-themed to feature the Guardians of the Galaxy and fit into Avengers Campus in California, the pre-show evolved a bit -- beyond the necessary changes to fit the existing IP: Listen up! He's gonna put you on a gantry-lift for your tour. I'm gonna sneak on top of your lift, and take us all the way to the big ole generator control room. I'm gonna blast that thing, and destroy all the control systems, which will open up every cage in this freak show and free my friends. Our buddy, Mantis, is in the getaway ship, waiting for my signal. And then we'll be on our merry way! BUT ... this plan won't work unless YOU help. I don't have clearance: My hands don't scan, yours do. If you raise your hands, I get the clearance and the chaos begins! [laughs] It's a fool-proof plan! [my emphasis] In this refreshed version of the attraction, the audience is drawn into, and made part of, the story. Will the ride still go as planned if you don't raise your hands up when Rocket tells you to? Of course. Will it be as fun? Maybe. (Will I internally judge you a little bit for not embracing the magic? Heck yeah.) But -- especially on Tower of Terror -- there's a really cool cohort effect that can take place when you're all seated and the ride begins. You probably don't know anyone else on the elevator, and you probably won't interact with them again for the rest of the day, but for that brief moment in time, you're bonding and laughing and screaming with each other. And the new changes to the pre-show script ripple out to effect the whole narrative of the ride, prompting that bonding a little earlier, making YOU a part of the narrative. Philander believed that attractions like these were innovative in both technology and storytelling. I thought about that a lot as I hopped on over to the East Coast... In The Little Mermaid show I posted about last week, guests are very much passive observers of the story. It's not a bad thing! It actually makes sense, given that the show was opened in 1992 at the time when Hollywood Studios was designed to counter Universal Studios and offer a "behind the scenes" look at movie-making-magic. The Villains show is new, and is more in line with the refreshed Guardians pre-show. I hope to get into that next week, but I think this strategy of...not quite "immersing" but "engaging" the audience in the story is a really cool one. with philanderc85 @ DCA in August

Woke up to this news this morning: And honestly? I am here for it. 👏 👏 👏 While I'm not the biggest Star Wars  fan, I did really enjoy Tran's role in Rian Johnson's Episode VIII; to see her " more than sidelined ," to use Julia Alexander's words, in Episode IX, was more than disappointing.  But what's interesting to me is that this film, despite the plot summary, is being billed (and marketed, I'm sure) as a princess film .  Let's take a look at the plot summary from IMDB:  "In a realm known as Lumandra, a re-imagined Earth inhabited by an ancient civilization, a warrior named Raya is determined to find the last dragon."  And from Wikipedia:   " A lone warrior sets out to find the last dragon in existence and save the kingdom of Kumandra from the villainous Drunn ."  With the exception of Mulan , and maybe Moana , Disney movies don't usually focus on warriors. That is, typically , Disney Animations studios films skew female-centric, with the Disney Princess, Disney Fairies and Frozen franchises anchoring the studio. Pixar, on the other hand, skews predominantly male. While there are exceptions to both of course (e.g., The Lion King  for Disney; Brave  and Inside Out  for Pixar), the generalizations hold true.   And, for better or for worse (and people love to point out the "worse" ), Disney princess movies are a staple of American childhood and culture. So it's interesting to me that Raya and the Last Dragon  is being billed as a princess movie.  Look at this post from The Mary Sue, for example:  This movie, then, has the potential to be groundbreaking for Disney. Awkwafina, who will co-start with Tran, has already praised the movie's "sisterhood": Two things to note:(1) the clip features Cassie Steele, a British-Filipino actress who was originally cast in the role -- wonder what happened there? and (2) sisterhood, on the heels of Frozen , is nothing new for Disney. It's worth pointing out that of 14 (un)official princesses -- only four of them have biological siblings (Ariel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa)  and only three of them have sisters (Merida has brothers). The only film where sisterhood features a significant role is, of course, Frozen , as Ariel's sisters are largely irrelevant to the plot. And even in Frozen , Anna was intended to be the lead, with Elsa originally slated for the villain role. Jennifer Lee, thankfully, updated that narrative, and we have the two empowered characters we know and love today.  And while I don't think that Raya and Sisu are biological sisters (plot twist?!), this might actually be more important -- because Disney Princesses don't really get "friends." Sure, they get animal sidekicks and they may even get magical helpers, but not real friends. The only two princesses who have female friends are Pocahontas (Nakoma) and Tiana (Charlotte) and I would argue that only Tiana and Charlotte are real friends (Nakoma is largely a plot device), however historically unlikely their friendship would be.  So if this film deliberately features two female leads (as opposed to an accidental female lead with Elsa), who aren't biologically related, and focuses on their friendship/dynamic and  both of them are Asian women? Like I said -- groundbreaking.  But here's where it gets a bit tricky for me...in an interview with Entertainment Weekly , Kelly Marie Tran revealed,  "She is someone who is technically a princess, but I think that what's really cool about this project, about this character specifically, is that everyone's trying to flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess...Raya is totally a warrior. When she was a kid, she was excited to get her sword. And she grows up to be a really badass, gritty warrior and can really take care of herself." Okay, what's the problem? How could this be anything less than great?  Fair question. I agree -- Tran's points about Disney trying to "flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess" is  important -- and definitely in line with their recent marketing campaigns for the Princess franchise. And trust me -- I am all for strong, empowered, warrior characters. My concern is that Disney has a tendency to Otherize its Princesses of Color -- to mark them as different from the typical white, European Princesses in significant ways. As early as 2004, Celeste Lacroix was pointing out that Disney's non-white heroines -- Pocahontas, Esmeralda, and, to some extent, Jasmine. Lacroix's point is that the non-White Princesses are often more sexualized and more associated with nature than the White Princesses, reinforcing the normative superiority of Whites. That is -- non-white Princesses don't get to just be princesses: they don't get to wear floofy ballgowns and have servants. We can see this trend continue in the films that were released even after Lacroix's publication: Rapunzel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa, while all more active and empowered women, still wear ballgowns and live in castles. While Tiana and Moana may not be hypersexualized, they are definitely associated with Nature (Tiana turns into a frog and spends a good deal of time in the Louisiana bayou, and Moana is chosen by the Ocean to restore the heart of Te Fiti and give new life to a barren lava field) and don't wear ballgowns or live in castles.  Raya, it seems, would continue this disparity: I'm guessing she won't be wearing a ballgown as a warrior or living in a castle, as Entertainment Weekly  also reveals that " Raya (voiced by Tran) is the daughter of the Chief of the Heart Lands, one of the five lands in the fictional kingdom of Kumandra. Years ago, dragons and humans lived in harmony, until monsters known as Druun invaded, forcing the dragons to sacrifice themselves and save humanity. Raya's father was also killed, and the film follows her journey as a warrior to find the last dragon, who she believes can save Kumandra ."  This is where it gets tricky: on the one hand, I'm definitely  not advocating that we continue telling solely European fairy tales, and the fact that this is a story deeply rooted in Southeast Asian culture is so very important. I'm also not saying that we should impose cultural inaccuracies as an empty gesture just for the sake of "equality." That is, we shouldn't impose castles and ballgowns and pretty passive princesses on a culture where castles and ballgowns simply don't exist. And I'm also not necessarily advocating for a return to pretty princess stories.  But I would maybe like to see some blurring of the boundaries: a White warrior Princess in the vein of Mulan and Moana and a Non-White Princess who does live in a castle and maybe doesn't wear ballgowns, but is unabashedly royal. And those Princesses of Color don't necessarily have to represent a real culture: while Pocahontas and Mulan are based on real people/people of legend, and Moana   seeks to explain The Long Pause in Polynesian culture, Jasmine's Agrabah is fictional ( sort of ) as is Naveen's Maldonia.  Disney can  create fictional worlds which can be ruled by characters of any color -- which I think I would like to see a bit more of. Maybe it would raise questions I haven't yet thought of... The bottom line is that I'm still really excited about this movie, and I'm probably even more excited about Kelly Marie Tran's starring role. After all the hate and vitriol she received from toxic Star Wars  fans, she's deserves a bit of pixie dust.

Yesterday -- May 7, 2025 -- was National Tourism Day . This was news to me -- apparently, it was established in 1980 to " establish the cultural and economic importance of tourism " -- and something I only learned about because of The Big News that Disney dropped: Initially, this was news that I was moderately excited about -- from the moment I watched the initial announcement video, I had a curious swirl of emotions. So much so that I felt like I had to write down the thoughts that were currently zooming around in my mind and dusted off my old trusty blog. Do we even blog anymore? I don't think so. But the long-form medium has always been more my speed, and I write for me, not for clicks and likes. But, just in case, and before I start to process and unpack, I want to make a few things clear: First, this new Disney Park in Abu Dhabi is not, technically, a Disney park.  That is, much like Tokyo Disney, a company called Miral  is essentially leasing the rights  -- a.k.a. paying Disney 💰💰💰 -- to the Disney IP to create a theme park.  It's worth noting that this is what Miral does: according to their online portfolio , they also run SeaWorld Yas Island, Warner Bros World Abu Dhabi, and Ferrari World Yas Island -- so leasing Disney IP to add a Disney Park to this area is on brand.  Again, this is nothing new for Disney : Tokyo Disney (the first international Disney Park) is actually owned by The Oriental Land Company, who fully funded the project.  The result is that Tokyo Disney is often celebrated as the "best" (<-- that's subjective, of course) Disney Park, in terms of attraction design, food, and merchandise. Of course I can't find it now, but I saw something (article? IG video?) a few weeks ago that detailed the disparity between how much funding US Imagineers get for the Disney Parks versus how much Tokyo Disney Imagineers get -- and the gist was that the Imagineers (who, I believe are Disney CMs) who work at Tokyo Disneyland, get far more money -- hence the "superior" quality.  Second, I have not been to Abu Dhabi or the UAE. I have traveled outside the US, but I am categorically not making claims about the city, the region, the religion, the people, or the culture. And, even if I had visited, my thoughts would be informed by my lived experiences, and wouldn't be any sort of universal statement. I would like to believe that I am not one of those people who equate "not American" with "evil" or "bad," and I will not invalidate anyone's authentic lived experiences.  It's also worth noting that I know Abu Dhabi is an entertainment capital of the world (if not The capital) right now, and is a very high-profile tourism destination.  That being said, a few other things to establish: First -- as Jeremy a.k.a. Jerendelle said , growth and expansion are always  good things.  Perhaps most importantly, it means that Disney will be more accessible for fans in a different region of the world. And that's a good thing .  It also means that there's likely a significant influx of capital headed Disney's way -- if Miral is paying Disney money to use their IP, it's another source of income for Disney. (After all, The Oriental Land Company used to pay Disney royalties based on the parks' revenue -- see also: here .) We can only hope that some of this will be reinvested into the US parks. Second -- I think it's important to note that, in 2025, the choice of location for a new park is a valid piece of information to unpack. (I've seen people on social media mentioning they thought that Brazil / South America was a top choice.) That is, it is true that Disney had a choice  of where to green-light their next park.  It is also true that, when raising the concerns we're about to raise, Florida isn't the safest space for all visitors. (The same can perhaps be said of California too.) It is also true that China -- for the Hong Kong and Shanghai parks -- isn't the safest space for all  visitors.  But it's also true that the Florida park was opened in 1971 -- well before current political and social climates. (And Disneyland opened in 1955.) And it's also true that the Hong Kong park opened in 2005 and Shanghai in 2016, also well in advance of the current social climate.  All of those parks were contracted and built before significant shifts in conversations.  The thing is...to me, raising these concerns doesn't necessarily equate to "selfishly centering the American perspective," as I'm seeing a lot of criticisms on social media claim.  That is, we can understand and acknowledge that this park isn't for "us," and celebrate that Disney will become more accessible for people who may not have been easily able to travel to the US (or who may not have felt safe doing so) -- and  we can also voice our frustration with a company that seemingly stands for inclusion and acceptance, but only does so in a performative way.  And it's a tricky thing, right?  After all, Disney is a company: a capitalist corporation whose only "goal" is to turn a profit.  But it is also a company whose brand is so deeply entrenched with storytelling and dreams and magic and happiness -- and a company that employs artists (of all kinds!) who understand the power of storytelling and representation.  This is a discussion at the heart of my course: does Disney have an obligation to...well, do anything other than turn a profit? Does it have an obligation to teach its audience/consumer base accurate history? Or an obligation to represent diverse voices? I'm sure there's a tension between the corporate higher-ups and the storytellers, and I'm not sure what the "answers" are to these questions, if there are any.  Watching the reactions to this unfold in real time have been fascinating -- and can be broken into 3 distinct phases, I think: Wed. a.m. : initial excitement over the announcement Wed. p.m. : initial criticism starting to take form, as concerns over LGBTQIA+ rights emerge Wed. p.m./Thurs. a.m. : nuanced responses to the above criticism strengthens (dominant threads seem to be: stop painting UAE as a backwards regressive country; this park isn't for you (you = American Disney fans) and your criticisms make this about you and decenter non-American perspectives) I'll admit: my first response -- as in, seconds after watching the announcement video -- was from my American-centric perspective. Yes, I was disappointed that I probably won't be able to visit this park -- and I say that with a full acknowledgement of the privilege that allows me to visit both bi-coastal parks in a calendar year. But that was an effervescent thought for me: I felt it, I acknowledged it, I accepted it, it was done -- it's one minor thought of in a sea of other factors.  After all, my next, more significant thought was that, historically, Disney has not been great with Middle Eastern representation -- this could be a chance to learn, to grow, to rectify that. And I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the tagline for the announcement is "a whole new world." And then the conversation started to turn, as many on social media started to point out the potential dangers for members of the LGBTQIA+ community:  via Human Dignity Trust And again, I don't think acknowledging these concerns is automatically de-centering international Disney fans -- both things can be true. We can acknowledge that this is a good thing for many Disney fans and also voice our concern and frustration with the Disney company.  Because here's the thing: the Four Keys have always been integral to Disney's out-ward facing approach to the company. Prior to 2019, there were four: Safety, Courtesy, Show, and Efficiency. In the words of Josh D'Amaro, the Chairman of Disney Experiences (i.e., Parks & Resorts) himself : Every Disney Parks cast member is familiar with our longstanding tradition of the Four Keys...which have guided our approach to guest service for more than 65 years. [...] Each cast member is asked to use the Four Keys as the blueprint for the decisions they make during the workday and the approach they bring to their interactions with others. [...]  And when we asked our cast how we could better cultivate a culture of belonging, they suggested the addition of a fifth key: the key of Inclusion. Like The Four Keys before them, The 5 Keys -- with Inclusion at the heart  -- will continue to guide us... Inclusion is essential to our culture and leads us forward as we continue to realize our rich legacy of engaging storytelling, exceptional service, and Disney magic. " [my emphasis] Here's the video that accompanied the release of the fifth key: And just to be clear: at around 1:18 in the video, Disney included several shots of what looks to be some sort of Pride parade, with people (cast members?) sporting pride flag Ears and shirts, as the words "where everyone belongs" are narrated. That's not an accident; that's a rhetorical decision.  And again, just to be clear: I am not in any way saying that Inclusion won't be a part of the Abu Dhabi project, or that members of the LGBTQIA+ community will come to harm there.  I only wish to articulate my own confusion over a company that so openly celebrates Inclusion and choosing to open a new park in a part of the world where not everyone might feel welcome.  Because that's what Disney is, to me . I know that's my personal, privileged take: Disney parks are, as Walt Disney intended, safe spaces for everyone. That may be naive, that may be delusionally optimistic, that may be a fairy-tale wish -- but isn't that the magic of Disney? Of course the social and political climates are different now than they were in 1955 when Walt first opened Disneyland; of course we can't really know who he meant (and didn't) by "all" in his opening address. But we do know that Walt believed in "moving forward" and always making things better.  I know that not all Disney Parks are safe for all guests, even in our own country. I know that.  I also know that Disney (largely) removed a trans storyline from their series, Win or Lose .  I also also know that 99% of Disney's shareholders voted to uphold DEI measures in the company.  I could keep going -- the list of steps forward and steps backward is longer than this post already is. The point is -- I hope -- just that Disney's stance on this issue isn't clear, yet Inclusion is an integral part of their company ethos.  And maybe the point is that, for a lot of Disney fans, many things can be true, at the same time. (A novel concept on the internet/social media, I know.) We can celebrate the growth and expansion of a company that remains so important to us, and we can voice our hesitations and frustrations in way that we hope holds them accountable and advocates for dialogue and communication. It is, I think, valid to express our concern that a business decision (because Disney IS a business) it seemingly at odds with the values said business professes to (and profits on) stand for. It wouldn't be the first time, and I know it won't be the last.

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.