Distory at Its Finest...but I don't care.

I'm not sure if Stephen Fjellman is the person who coined the term "Distory," but he's the man who wrote the book Vinyl Leaves in which there are two chapters devoted to the concept. He initially describes it as "Disney's Norman Rockwell view of history." But it's a passage on the next page that truly defines "Distory":

"The phrase "Disney realism" was meant to be ironic, although it is not so in a simple way. Disney people clearly knew they were not telling the truth.[...]But the Disney designers ("imagineers") were also Pollyannas. Many of them actually believed, in a relatively uncynical and optimistic fashion, that the world would be a better place if history could be rewritten, leaving in only the parts that "should have happened." 

People complain about the way Disney portrays the past at the theme parks -- claiming that it's a rose-colored glasses view of history. Which seems a bit of a silly complaint to me. After all, theme parks are vacation spots, where people go to smile and laugh and spend time with their families. They're not focused on historical veracity, and if Main Street in the Magic Kingdom is an idealized version of the past that smells like vanilla and apple pie, I don't see anything wrong with that. Disney World is not Colonial Williamsburg, and people don't go there to learn history.

Now, I'll admit that Distory can be problematic at times in the films. See Pocahontas, which clearly does not tell the true story. And here's where the discussion takes an interesting turn. Yes, Disney butchered the historical narrative of Pocahontas. But it's a children's film--would we want to expose them to the truths of that story? The response might be, "Then don't adapt that story. Pick another fairy tale."

And that's the thing that really bugs me: people picking on Disney (both the man and the company) for not only which stories they tell, but the way in which they tell them. Walt Disney was a storyteller and, like many before him, he was drawn to specific stories for specific reasons and he told them the way he wanted to them. (There is SO much more that can be said on that topic, but I'll leave it be.) And he had his reasons for rewriting them, and for focusing so heavily on that "happily-ever-after."

There's a line in Saving Mr. Banks where Tom Hanks-as-Disney says essentially just that: he's talking to Emma Thompson's P. L. Travers and trying to explain just why he wanted to adapt Mary Poppins and why the promise to his daughter meant so much to him. He explains to her that he's a storyteller, and he asks her, "Aren't you tired of remembering it that way?"

And in that moment -- in the context of the story they told -- I didn't care that I knew P. L. Travers hated the film. I didn't care that I knew the story ended another way. And it's not out of any disrespect for P. L. Travers or her story; as a children' lit scholar, I certainly value and recognize the importance of her story and her version of the story.

But if there was any truth to it -- any truth to the psychological sadness she suffered as a result of her childhood -- then I have to applaud the message. Because remembering the bad -- focusing on the negative -- blaming yourself for things out of your control: they can all be exhausting and damaging things. And if you have the power to retell your story and change the ending to one you want, then why not? Perhaps I should clarify: both Travers and Disney retold their stories in an external medium. Mary Poppins left when the Banks family no longer needed her, when they were whole and happy. Every story that Walt retold ended happily because he could end it that way. There's a difference, I think, between telling a happy story and pretending that your own life happened in a way it didn't.

And that's the beauty of fiction, isn't it? You can't change biography. Things happened the way they did: Elias Disney wasn't the most supportive, encouraging father; Travers Goff died when P. L. Travers was a little girl; and the working relationship between Disney and Travers was tenuous at best. We can't change that. But Disney can give other children happily-ever-afters and Travers can give other children the happy family she never had.

2014's "It" Christmas Toys List is 'Frozen' Over

Every year, it seems as if there's some "It" Christmas Toy that every child just has to have. I don't really remember what they were when I was young enough to write lists to Santa, but I can remember some of the biggest fads when I got older. Beanie Babies might be the exception. The hysteria that set in when everyone wanted a Tickle-Me-Elmo? The inexplicable furor that surrounded a Furby? (I still think those are exceptionally creepy.)

I'd never really understood who decided this -- who sat down and said, "Let's make X the Hot Ticket item that will make people show their dark sides on Black Friday as they attempt to get it" -- actually, I'd never really given much thought to the fact that this was a calculated decision.

But something popped up in the Disney RSS feed today -- something about the hottest toys for Christmas 2014. (I think it's connected to Toys R Us, but I can't be sure.)

Apparently, two Frozen toys made the Top 15 list. As far as I can tell, the Must Have Item is a Sing-Along Boombox ($29.99) that's basically a Frozen-themed karaoke machine. It plays three songs -- "Let It Go," "For the First Time in Forever" & "Summer"-- and I can only imagine that parents are super thrilled that their kids might be begging for this.

The second is another signing Elsa doll that sings "32 seconds" of "Let It Go" -- but if it's anything like the other singing Elsa doll, it won't be the good parts of the song. 

She's kinda cute! But the article I was reading said that, "Depending on where you purchase the doll, Elsa can sing in one of 25 languages -- everything from French and Spanish to Cantonese and Korean." I'm not sure whether or not this means that she can sing in all 25 languages and you pick one? Or if they're just manufacturing dolls that will sing in the language of the country they're sold in (as opposed to selling an English-singing doll everywhere). I kinda hope it's the former because it reminds me of the video:

But the coolest ones - to me - are the Olaf ones:

It's like an Olaf-Mr. Potato Head and an Olaf-Sno-Cone Maker. Okay, the Sno-Cone Maker is a little weird because the stuff comes out his stomach (better than his mouth, I suppose). But the Mr. Potato Head one is kinda fun! 

More Changes to Walt Disney World

Came across this news tonight--MGM (or, as it's now known, Hollywood Studios) will be getting rid of the Backlot Tour.

(c) 123disney.com

While I was heartbroken (only a slight exaggeration) to learn of the news of Maelstrom's closing, if we're being completely honest, I gotta admit -- not so heartbroken about this news. 

I have fond memories of the Backlot Tour -- MGM was always my little brother's favorite park because of (1) the cars stunt show (which I CANNOT STAND) and (2) the Catastrophe Canyon segment of the Backlot Tour.

(c) wdwnt.com

Mainly because stuff explodes. Boys seem to love exploding things. 

But still. I think, in its earlier incarnation, you got to see animators at work -- back when animated movies were hand-drawn and not computer animated. I remember seeing the front for the Golden Girls house (still not sure if that's the real one or not...) and realizing that TV shows weren't filmed in real houses. And you get to see the plane that Walt used to fly down and scope out the swamp-land that would eventually become Disney World. (Again, still not sure if it's the real one or not....)

That was always the cohesive plan for MGM -- the goal was to give you a "behind the scenes" look at how movies were made -- and the park channeled that old Hollywood vibe. There's a part of California Adventures that does that as well -- which makes sense, given that Hollywood is, you know, in California. 

But MGM has kinda moved away from that behind-the-scenes feel, as outdated attractions get replaced. And so, overall, the park has an odd disjointed vibe -- like lots of things kinda mashed up together in one park because Disney wants the attraction, but doesn't know how to combine them effectively. You've got Pixar Place and Animation Courtyard -- then there's the "thrill rides" with Tower of Terror and Rock n' Roller Coaster -- and Star Wars and Indiana Jones and the Muppet Show....it's all over the place. Whenever we go, my husband and I always say that MGM needs a major makeover -- much like the one California Adventures got. 

The solution he keeps coming back to -- he likes to read the theme park rumor blogs -- is to add an East Coast Cars Land. Which, if they're getting rid of the Backlot Tour -- and I can't imagine the Cars Stunt Show is far behind -- seems likely, as that's a big chunk of the park. Particularly since those attractions currently sit next to Pixar Place -- Cars Land would be a nice, logical addition to that. 

I'm not wild about this. I'm of the mind that Disneyland and WDW are separate parks with their own identities, and they don't need to have identical attractions. Cars Land is one of the defining features of California Adventure, and you don't need to replicate that on the East Coast, no matter how popular it is. 

That leaves, however, the other viable option (according to the rumor mill) -- the long-rumored and much hyped (given Disney's recent purchase of Lucas Films) Star Wars expansion. Not exactly up my Geek Girl alley, but I imagine the Imagineers could come up with some pretty kick-ass ideas....

So Long, Maelstrom; Hello Frozen

On Friday, Disney released some relatively big news -- namely, that they're starting construction on a new Frozen ride at the Norway pavilion in EPCOT. And, perhaps above all else, I'm amazed at Disney's ability to spin news -- from a rhetorical standpoint, they are, quite simply, absolutely ingenious. Here's the first few paragraphs from the Disney Parks Blog announcement:

When Walt Disney promised that Disneyland would never be completed, so long as there is imagination left in the world, he made a promise to our guests that we take seriously at all our locations around the world. This year, one particular product of imagination — Disney Animation’s blockbuster hit “Frozen” — captured the hearts and minds of people around the world and gave us a new opportunity to make good on Walt’s pledge.

We’ve made “Frozen” a part of the guest experience in a number of ways already and our guests have both loved them and asked for more. So I’m pleased to say that we’re starting construction at Walt Disney World Resort on a brand new “Frozen” attraction at the Norway Pavilion in Epcot. The new attraction, which replaces Maelstrom, will take our guests to Arendelle and immerse them in many of their favorite moments and music from the film. The pavilion will also include a royal greeting location where Anna and Elsa can meet our guests. We think these “Frozen” elements are great complements to the Norway Pavilion, which showcases the country and region that inspired the film.

You really gotta love how they invoke the spirit of Walt himself -- how they invoke the promise Walt made that "Disneyland would never be completed so long as there is imagination left in the world." Which, truly, is one of Walt's greatest legacies and has given us the Disney Parks MGM and Animal Kingdom and attractions like Splash Mountain and the new Seven Dwarfs Mine Train.

But then they shift the agency to us, the visitors to Disney Parks, the people who have so eagerly and greedily consumed Frozen: "...our guests have both loved them and asked for more." Just in case you're unhappy with the news that Maelstrom will be no more, you really have no one to blame but yourself: you asked for it.

Now, here's the thing. I love Frozen -- I really, really do -- and haven't been shy about expressing my love for it. I've embraced the film, bought the merchandise, even took a trip in August for the sole purpose of seeing that "guest experience" firsthand.

But....Arendelle doesn't exist -- it's not real -- it's not a real place in Norway. It was inspired by Norway -- absolutely. There's a long tradition of Disney animators doing what they can to capture the authenticity of their subject -- whether it's visiting Norway to see the fjords or bringing a reindeer into the studio to watch its movements. Terri Wright, writing of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, noted that Disney "indicated a preference for the traditional folk/fairy tale genre that consists of a realistic setting into which some magic is introduced" (100).

So while Arendelle may look a lot like a town in Norway, it's nevertheless not a real place.

And this distinction is only really important when you consider the goal of the World Showcase at EPCOT. The park, in its current incarnation, is vastly different from what Walt originally envisioned it to be. As Mike Wallace points out, "the ExperimentalPrototype Community of Tomorrow was to be a laboratory city in which twenty thousand people would live. Disney dreamed of ”a planned, controlled community, a showcase for American industry and research,” a permanent testing ground for new ideas in urban planning" (41). Obviously, EPCOT is nothing like that today: you've got Future World with all its corporate sponsorship and you've got the World Showcase with its international sponsorship.

EPCOT, I feel, is probably the park you appreciate the least when you're a kid -- or at least, EPCOT the way it was when I was a kid (pre Test Track). It's the educational park, after all, where the only rides are (were) Figment's Journey Into Imagination and Maelstrom in Norway. That's changing, of course. Obviously there are new thrill rides like Test Track and Spaceship Earth, but they've slightly altered some of the older attractions to appeal to kids. The Living Seas used to be just an aquarium; now it's a Finding Nemo ride. The Mexico Pavillion used to have a boat-ride that relates (a Disneyfied version of) Mexican history and culture; now, Donald and The Three Caballeros journey with you providing a source of comic relief.

But that doesn't seem to be the plan for Maelstrom. What they're proposing, I think, is not to add Anna, Elsa, and Olaf to the current ride a la Mexico, but to completely erase the old ride and replace it with a new Frozen one. I'm not lamenting the creation of a Frozen ride -- I think that it could be great, provided it's not simply a "little kid" ride that just regurgitates the film -- I'm lamenting the loss of the cultural experience. One of the coolest and most unique aspects of the World Showcase as been it's (relative) commitment to cultural authenticity: the countries that sponsor a pavilion there were involved in the construction and design of the pavilion; the employees are all citizens of their respective countries (e.g. those who work at EPCOT-Germany are German citizens), and most of the pavilions have some sort of ride or movie that gives you a glimpse -- albeit a rosy, optimistic one -- into the country's history and culture.

And this new Frozen ride will erase all of that--all because Norway wouldn't (couldn't?) pay. When we went down in August, I read a few online articles about the Frozen phenomenon. I was trying to figure out if there were plans to extend the Frozen Summer Fun events, but what I learned is that Disney was asking for exorbitant amounts of money from Norway to keep Maelstrom and the cultural aspects there -- perhaps to offset the loss of the profit Disney would make from a Frozen ride (and inevitable gift shop). Given the fact that the new pavilion will include a new meet-and-greet location for Anna & Elsa (the old one simply couldn't handle the demand/long lines), I can't imagine that the new Norway will look much like the current one.

And that kinda breaks my heart a little.

 

Ellen and Kristen Wiig Sing ‘Let It Go’

Just when you thought all the "Let It Go" versions were done...Ellen brings you this one.

Alternate Way of Reading Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_

A couple of days ago I came across this alternate way of reading Beauty and the Beast  -- and I thought it was really cool. It's a quasi-Queer Reading of the film -- influenced by that fact that the composer Howard Ashman was a gay man -- and proposes that the film rejects bullying and lauds the bullied and celebrates difference.

Personally, I loved the movie as a kid -- namely because Belle was a brunette bookworm -- but revisiting it as I've gotten older, I've found it increasingly problematic. A lot of the critical arguments  which read the relationship between Belle and Beast as an abusive one are really convincing -- particularly the idea that if you simply love a man enough, he'll change for you. It was nice to read a positive interpretation of the film.