Musings on Whether or Not Cinderella Will Eat My Daughter

Bad title for this post? Not sure. But it's in reference to Peggy Orenstein's landmark book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches From the Front-Line of the New Girlie-Girl Culture. The basic premise is that there's a new girly-girl, pretty-in-pink, princess-based culture that's taken over American girlhood -- and not for the better.

I read it for the first time in the Fall of 2015, when I found out I was pregnant with my daughter. I had been mulling over the idea of a Disney-Princess focused course and, after reading the book, I revamped my entire course in a few weeks. It was all well and good to read Orenstein's thoughts and experiences, but I wanted to discuss it, to talk through the details of her argument, to see what other educated, intelligent individuals thought. And I am so lucky to teach at a university where my students (for the most part) really do engage and grapple with ideas like these.

Since my daughter was born, I've found myself returning to her ideas over and over again, wondering if and when Orenstein's ideas will start to apply to her. Some of her points already resonate with me more than they did the first time I read the book -- and I imagine that as my daughter gets older, and as I continue to reread the book, different points and ideas will strike me as relevant.

For example -- in Chapter 3, "Pinked," Orenstein ponders the question, "Why has girlhood become so monochromatic?" She muses, "It's not that pink is intrinsically bad, but it is such a tiny slice of the rainbow, and, though it may celebrate girlhood in one way, it also repeatedly and firmly fuses girls' identity to appearance" (34). She points out that "children weren't color-coded at all until the early twentieth-century" and that, even then, pink was associated more with boys (it was a "muted" version of the powerful red) and blue was more of a girl's color (which is why Disney's Wendy and Alice wear blue dresses). All of this leads up to a discussion of Sesame Street's introduction of Abby Cadabby in 2006:

From L to R: Abby, Zoe, & Rosita

Now, in 2015, I hadn't watched Sesame Street in 25 years so, clearly, I had no context for this. Now, the 25-50 minutes of screen time that my daughter watches is the 1-2 episodes of Sesame Street that we watch in the evenings. (And it's surprisingly entertaining y'all.) The fact that there weren't really female muppets in the cast of Sesame Street wasn't something I had thought about -- and definitely not something I remember from when I was a kid. From what I do remember, Little Me didn't really think of muppets as having a gender identity -- they were just muppets. Bert and Ernie were clearly male, but Big Bird? Grover? It didn't really matter if they were male or female. 

But Abby? Clearly female. And here are Orenstein's thoughts:

"Workshop executives have denied they created Abby with a licensing bonanza in mind; the fact that she is so infinitely marketable, that she dovetailed precisely with the pink-fairy-princess megatrend among girls, was apparently a merely happy coincidence.[...] At every geographic outpost from Disneyland to Sesame Street, executives described the same "taboo-breaking" vision, with an identical self-righteous justification about 'honoring the range of play patterns girls can have.' All this pink-and-pretty, they claimed, was about giving girls more choices, not fewer." (41)

Orenstein's point is what she identifies as the "pink factor" -- this idea in corporate marketing that if you make a regular item, and then you make it in pink, girls will want the pink version. Like the Little Tikes Cozy Coupe:

The "traditional" one is the red and yellow one--but of course there's a pink version (for girls). There's also a pink princess version that has glitter because...why not?

Me being me, I've pretty much refused to have the pink version of things in my house if there's a "boy" color available (which is usually not overly blue, but more primary colors). My daughter has the red car and loves it. Because primary colors are not inherently masculine and pink is not inherently feminine. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't care what color her toy is -- she just loves that she can ride around in her car like Mommy and Daddy.

So when we first turned on Sesame Street -- in a moment of desperation because my newborn son was crying and I needed something to distract my daughter -- I'll admit that I was curious as to which characters she would be drawn to: would Abby be her favorite just because she was "the girl" or the pretty pink fairy?

The answer? Nope. Not even a little bit.

Her favorites, in order, are:
(1) Elmo
(2) Cookie Monster (although he's a very close second -- and depending on the day, he might be first)
(3) Grover
(4) The Count
(5) Big Bird (or, "Duck" as she calls him)
(6) Abby
And I really think Abby is only on the list because she's so heavily featured. Elmo is definitely her favorite: while he's featured the most, I also think there's something about his character that speaks to toddlers. She loves Cookie Monster because -- well? Who doesn't? He OmNomNomz cookies! And The Count is so high up because of the counting segment where they encourage kids to stomp along.

Maybe when she's older, her favorites will change -- and maybe it will be because of gender differences. But right now? I'd like to think that, like me, she doesn't think monsters and muppets have genders. Elmo is just the red monster who laughs and dances a happy dance when he learns something new. Cookie Monster is just the blue monster who loves to eat cookies (again, who doesn't?). And Abby is just the pink monster with wings who waves a magic wand around.

Right now, Elmo is the stuffed animal she places on her chair each night before bed (along with Beast, but that's a different post) so she knows exactly where it is the next morning. 

Disney's The Nutcracker and the Four Realms Trailer

So, this dropped the other day:

And, yes: that is Keira Knightley. 

I have mixed thoughts about this. 

On the one hand, it's a Disney movie that looks absolutely gorgeous. So of course I'm excited. 

Also in the "plus" column -- my daughter's name is Clara (she was named after a Doctor Who companion though; not the character from The Nutcracker) so if this Clara is a princess (1) she can share a name with a Disney princess and (2) we'll buy ALL the Clara merchandise because, Hi. I'm a good little Disney consumer.

Another plus: this looks like it has  a lot of girl power. Clara looks like she undergoes some sort of warrior princess transformation which could bode well from a gender studies perspective.

And, of course, Misty Copeland. 

But on the other hand....I don't know. It seems a little too Alice in Wonderland to me. Curious girl enters fantasy land with a cast of magical creatures and characters and undergoes a journey of self-discovery which results in her empowerment and subsequent victory over Evil.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Alice in Wonderland (the Carroll book -- not so much the Disney adaptation, although it was creative in its own way) but that doesn't mean I want the story to become a formula for media companies to use for every coming-of-age story with a female protagonist who travels to a fantasy land. It's been a while since I've seen The Nutcracker (and I'll admit that I've never read the original Hoffman story) so perhaps the story does need some updating. I have vague recollections of the Mouse King fighting the Nutcracker....but Clara saves him by throwing a shoe? And then he whisks her away to the fairy-tale land of flower dances and sugar plum fairies...so, not terribly problematic, but perhaps there's room for improvement/updating. And, after all: that's the true litmus test for a new adaptation of a beloved story: what is the "something new" you're doing with the story?

Let The Memes Begin

I have to admit: I've been a fan of Ryan Reynolds since he was on a show way-back-when called Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pizza Place. And Deadpool is such a fun, irreverent movie...this makes me like him that much more.


Although...the first thing I thought of was, "Silly, Ryan Reynolds. The Matterhorn is in Disneyland and that is clearly Cinderella's Castle at the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World."

Disney Nerd Problems.

Disney Buys 21st Century Fox -- What Does It Mean?

Honestly, I don't know.

I was an English/Bio double major in college so business deals and economics lie far outside my wheelhouse. (I'd probably recommend the New York Times article on it, or even this piece from CNN Money if you want more business-y specifics.)

What I'm concerned with is what this means for Disney's brand.

After all, Disney has built an empire on being a wholesome, family-friendly, "safe" brand -- which critics take particular issue with, given the company's capitalist and consumer-driven corporate ethos. 

Me? I tend to view the creative team and the businessmen as largely separate. That is, I think (or, I'd like to think) that the people directly involved with the story are concerned with just that: concerned with the story. I don't think Jennifer Lee sits down with her creative team and says, "Hmm. We've got this movie about two sisters -- how can we add something that Corporate can market and merchandize the hell out of?" 

Maybe that's naive. I don't know. After all, the Porgs from The Last Jedi seem like someone high up at LucasFilm said, "Make something cute like an Ewok that we can market and merchandize the hell out of." And they did. (Although--when Frozen did come out, there was that whole lack-of-merchandise thing so...maybe not?) 

But I digress. 

My point is: Disney is essentially synonymous with family-friendly and there's a lot about 21st Century Fox that...well...isn't "very Disney," as we say in my house. 

Fox is no stranger to either animation or superheroes, after all: on the TV side, they've got staples like The Simpsons and Family Guy, which, while they may offer on-point social commentary, their humor is a little "adult" for Disney's brand. On the film side, they've got some of the other Marvel properties like X-men and Deadpool -- the latter of which is definitely off-brand. But if the logic behind Disney's acquisition of Marvel (and, I think, of LucasFilm) was to expand their consumer base by acquiring things that appealed to boys (they needed something to compete with the Princess franchise) well...acquiring some off-brand media could potentially expand that consumer base. 

I get why people are worried that being underneath the Disney umbrella will mean significant changes to, or even the end of, off-brand media, but...I just can't see that happening. After all, Touchstone released Pretty Woman under the Disney umbrella, and that worked out pretty well. The Disney logo didn't pop up on the screen before the film, so it's not like Disney was directly associated with it -- they just reaped the profits.

And, that, I think, is the bigger concern. As Alex McLevy points out in this article at The A.V. Club:

"In the long run, all this merger does is contribute to an increasingly homogenized and calcified corporate dominance of the entertainment industry, with fewer and fewer media companies able to challenge the major studios. And in particular, it will make Disney arguably the most powerful studio that has ever existed. The company will exert even more outsized control than it currently does, muscling in on any turf where it can wrench an extra dollar away from someone who deserves it more."

Yikes. This is where I wish I had a little business/econ knowledge to fully understand the ramifications of this. I mean, I get the basic gist of this, as someone who studies and consumes media, but not the full implications. (Any Duke Econ professors out there want to team up and create a FOCUS cluster???)

But just check out this info-graphic, using information from 2011:

This tidbit is also troubling to me as well:

"Also, it will strip the Fox broadcast network from the studio that produces most of its properties[...]that could mean the death knell for Fox television as we know it. Deadline notes Disney would likely keep brand-affiliated shows like The Gifted and beloved institutions like Simpsonsand Family Guy, but beyond that, “observers do not see Fox continuing as a network focused on scripted programming.” Without control of the studio that provides most of its content, the assumption is that Fox will instead focus more on “sports programming, news magazines, and possibly reality shows” to fill its primetime lineup."

As someone who watches an embarrassing amount of television (my DVR is pretty  much always 90% full -- although I do have a lot of Sesame Street saved these days), that hurts my heart. FOX and ABC are probably my two favorite major networks -- mainly because FOX usually picks up the shows that are more fun and different that other networks steer clear of. (Don't get me started on CBS -- while they have The Big Bang Theory, which I will forever love, their line-up is pretty much shows about white dudes. Hi, it's 2017.) Some of my favorite shows are on FOX: Lucifer, Empire, Brooklyn Nine-Nine...and they picked up Glee and Scream Queens. The idea that "scripted programming" could be sacrificed for more sports (you already have ESPN, Disney!!!) and -- *shudder* -- reality shows, makes me want to cry.

I guess we'll have to wait and see...?

Happy Birthday To Me

I don't usually go in for designer things -- I don't own, or feel the need to buy, an Hermes scarf, Louis Vuitton luggage, Tory Burch flats, a Chanel LBD, or a Coach bag -- but there are exceptions.

1. My wedding shoes are Kate Spade -- not the Jimmy Choos my Younger Self vowed to buy. Hey. That was like peak Sex and the City time. 
2. My glasses are Burberry -- and I buy their perfume. One day, I will own a Burberry trench, but that's in the distant future.
3. I'm a sucker for the Disney Dooney & Burke bags. Now, I'm super picky about the prints and the look -- a lot of the bags are bright and colorful and scream "Disney" in a way that I just can't get behind. But when the design is subtle or muted? I want to buy all. the. things. 

Well, maybe just one thing. 😊

Peter Pan Dooney & Burke released *on* my birthday. #happybirthdaytome #treatyoself #disneydooney #buyallthethings pic.twitter.com/wBLQB7yhZv

— Lisa Andres (@TheDisneyProf) November 17, 2017

#tbt

Today's #tbt is throwing back to less than a week ago, when I spent my birthday at the most magical place on Earth. (Fun Fact: Disneyland (in California) is the happiest place on Earth; Disney World is the most magical. #disneynerd) It was kind of a big deal; while we've been to Disney around my birthday -- our anniversary is October 26th, so it's close enough -- I've never been in a park on my actual birthday. I highly recommend it.

Thursday, 11/09: We had dinner at the new Jungle Cruise themed restaurant -- the Jungle Navigation Co. Ltd. Skipper Canteen -- before we went to Mickey's Very Merry Christmas Party. If you're a fan of the Jungle Cruise and think it's pun-derful, then you probably won't be disappointed by the restaurant, as it's full of the same oh-so-punny jokes as the ride, just delivered in a little bit more upbeat manner. Also, the food's pretty good; the average Yelp rating is 4/5 stars. While some of the more recent reviews were pretty harsh -- they called the food bland -- ...idk, our meal was delightfully flavorful. Although the buttercream on that cupcake was like *all* butter.

Friday, 11/10: my actual birthday!  I had breakfast with Mickey Mouse--honestly, does it get more magical than that? NOPE.

Saturday, 11/11: We went to the Happily Ever After Dessert Party & Fireworks Viewing and the Cast Member made me a custom ice-cream-cookie-cupcake-sandwich: vanilla ice-cream between two chocolate-chip cookies + mini cupcakes as Minnie's "ears" + icing + sprinkles + a cherry on top. Chelsi might be my new favorite person ever.

I legitimately think everyone should spend their birthday at a Disney Park at least once in their life. Get you a Happy Birthday button and wear it around: every cast member will wish you a Happy Birthday -- and sometimes random strangers will too; it's a good way to meet Birthday Twins -- and sometimes, with a little bit of pixie dust, you'll get a birthday treat, like free hot cocoa, or a free Mickey Mouse ice cream bar. IT'S MAGICAL. 

[In hindsight, this must be fairly annoying for cast members...a lot of people wear these buttons, so I can imagine it might be quite tiresome to wish everyone a happy birthday or say Congratulations every day...]

Just remember to take your birthday button off before you board the plane home. Otherwise, a particularly cheerful flight attendant may notice it and announce over the loudspeaker that it's your birthday and everyone should wish the girl with the blonde hair and gray sweatshirt a happy birthday as she passes by, causing you no small amount of embarrassment. 

Early Reviews of Pixar's _Coco_ Seem To Be Positive

While researching articles on race in The Princess and the Frog, I stumbled across this -- "What Mexican and American critics are saying about Disney/Pixar’s groundbreaking film “Coco."

Now, Coco has been a long time in the making -- and the making hasn't always been good. After all, it seemed to start with this controversy over trying to copyright "Day of the Dead" and ScreenRant offers a nice history of the making of the film. 

So now that early reviews are starting to come in, I'm curious to see if their work paid off. And while the reviews excerpted here acknowledge that the film isn't perfect -- will a Disney film ever be? -- the reviews do seem to be largely positive and seem to praise Disney for the efforts they made:

I ❤️ Tee Turtle

Confession: I have a t-shirt obsession. I think it started back in my swimming days when we'd get shirts from the different meets we went to, but all the free-shirts-as-bribes in college definitely didn't help. And now, today, it continues in the form of geeky/nerdy shirts that I wear whenever we go to Disney and to class sometimes.

One of my favorite sites is Tee Turtle, and they've had a little bit of a Disney drought lately. But maybe they renewed their Disney license recently or something because they've had a spate of new Disney shirts lately. These two popped up in my Inbox this morning:



Y'all know how I feel about The Little Mermaid *and* "Poor Unfortunate Souls" so....yeah. Currently coveting both of these shirts.

Disney Announces Official Live-Action Lion King Cast

Woke up this morning to find this story blowing up on my social media feeds:

#TheLionKing. 2019. 🦁👑

A post shared by Walt Disney Studios (@disneystudios) on Nov 1, 2017 at 3:31pm PDT

I mean...first and foremost, this confirms that Beyonce will be the voice of Nala -- which, you just know she's going to slay that part of "Can You Feel The Love Tonight." (Sidebar: Can Donald Glover sing? I would think so...) I also wonder if this means they'll be bringing in some of the songs from the Broadway version, where Nala (and Scar, and Sarabi) have more of a singing presence since, you know, it's a musical. (Sidebar #2: Can Chiwetel Eijofor sing? I would think so and really hope so, because "Be Prepared" is one of my top 2 favorite Disney villain songs and he needs to bring it. Also, if this isn't a musical, and that song is cut, my heart will break.)

BUT.

What I find most interesting is the addition of Keegan-Michael Key and Eric Andre in the roles of Kamari and Azizi, respectively. On the pic above, they're paired with Florence Kasumba (who's German, interestingly enough), who is the voice of Shenzi.  Since "Shenzi" was the name of the hyena voiced by Whoopi Goldberg in the animated version, logic would dictate that Key and Andre are voicing the other two hyenas -- Banzai and Ed in the animated version.

I'm curious as to why Disney changed their names -- not that they were really well-known names. Perhaps to distance them from the animated version? Banzai in the animated version was voiced by Cheech Marin, and Ed was...well, Ed was problematic as the only animal character who didn't speak and who came off a little mentally handicapped. But I think it's interesting that all 3 hyenas will be voiced by black actors, and wonder what their "accents" will be, if they have any. After all, one of the big criticisms that scholars have against The Lion King is that the hyenas were voiced by minority actors and, they claim, had "urban accents" (essentially saying they sounded like they were, stereotypically, from the ghetto). To those critics, this was especially problematic as the hyenas were viewed as outside the circle of life and brought destruction to the Pridelands when they arrived. Critics read this as racist and classist on Disney's part -- and if you read the film against the backdrop of the LA Riots in the early 1990s, you might agree. (For a non-academic take on the hyenas, this is a pretty good read.)

I'm not entirely sure I do agree, but the name changes and casting choices are interesting, to say the least.

Halloween Treat, Disney Style

Well this looks delightfully appropriate for Halloween. If only I had the free time to try to make it! 

Subtext: Disney Is For Little Kids

I've been seeing this commercial a lot on TV lately...which must mean it's airing on TBS (we watch a lot of Big Bang Theory reruns), the SEC network (my husband is a South Carolina football fan) or HGTV (we're Basic white people; this one's self-explanatory):

Now, don't get me wrong: I like Universal Studios and I love the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (obviously). 

But this ad really grinds my gears. I mean, I get it. It can't be easy to be a theme park in Orlando. Busch Gardens is in Tampa; Sea World has the whole marine mammal/sea life thing going for it; and let's not forget the, ahem, unique schtick the Holy Land Experience has going for it. But Universal, until recently, had it pretty rough; it must be tough to be an entertainment-based-theme-park-in-Orlando-that's-not-Disney. The two are fairly similar -- theme parks + themed hotels + downtown shopping area + water park -- but the power of Disney is just...overpowering.

So I get the ad campaign. I do. You have to differentiate yourself from Disney somehow and, yes. Universal targets an older demographic: here are more thrill rides and coasters; Halloween Horror Nights is no Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party; the Dr. Seuss area of Universal is pretty much the only "kid" area; and kids probably graduate from Disney movies to Harry Potter books.

The implication of the commercial though is that Disney is only for little kids -- that you can "outgrow" Disney: "Kids grow up; so do vacations." Which...makes me bristle and make this face:

Um, What? No... GIF from Xfactor GIFs

I won't lie and say that I didn't go through a "I'm-too-cool-for-Disney" phase; mine hit around late school and ended freshmen year when I took my First Year Seminar at UNC and realized that people could study things like Disney and Harry Potter for a job. But even then, I was never too old for a Disney vacation. When my younger brother had a soccer tournament in Orlando, I always tagged along. My mom and I would visit all of the parks -- we rode The Hulk when it first opened at Islands of Adventure; rode the Jaws and Back to the Future rides at Universal when they were still there; and we had to buy these awful pajama pants at Sea World because we got soaked on their water ride -- but we always saved the Magic Kingdom for last because...well, because it was so darn magical.

And that was before Disney upped their game. Now, some of the best restaurants in Florida -- some of the best in the country -- are at Disney World; no greasy theme park fast food here. The Food & Wine festival at EPCOT is one of the biggest crowd draws in the Fall -- especially for Florida residents. And Disney has made a conscious effort to appeal to couples/adults rather than just families and expanded their Fairy Tale Wedding packages.

At the end of the day, it's just a commercial and I know that. It's not going to change my mind about Disney and I certainly don't underestimate the power of Disney to instill a life-long love in the tiniest of humans. But that doesn't mean that "grown-up" vacations can't include days at both Universal and Disney. 

Once Upon A Time -- Hyperion Heights

Confession: I've been a fan of ABC's Once Upon A Time before it even aired. A show about Disney-versions-of fairy-tale-characters who were living in a modern setting? SOLD.  I loved everything about it -- especially Lana Parilla's Evil Queen/Regina. Seriously. IMHO, she was the best part of the show. (Folks at The Nerdist agree too.)

I even stuck with the show when it got a bit ridiculous. I mean, I know shows "jump the shark" after a certain point, and when you're dealing with fairy-tales and fantasy, that's almost inevitable but...still. I could have done without the whole foray into the Land Of Untold Stories, and I'm pretty sure the addition of Jasmine, Aladdin and Jafar in season 6 was kinda pointless.

So when I read that the show was basically rebooting for this season -- with most of the major cast members leaving -- I was skeptical. Wouldn't that normally be the kiss of death for a show?

But I just watched the season premiere tonight and I gotta say: this might actually be a good thing for the show:

1. Both Lana Parrilla (Regina) and Robert Carlyle (Rumple) are still around, which phew. (So is Hook, but IDK why he's there so the show's got some explaining to do on that front.)
2. Henry Mills is all grown up -- and literally a different actor. Nothing against Jared Gilmore -- he was a great child actor -- but I felt like the show didn't really know what to do with him after a point. (See: The Author storyline.) Now that he's the focus, and portrayed by someone else, the character can grow.
3. I'm intrigued by the shift in the central story from "Snow White" to "Cinderella" -- if not a little skeptical. Yes, Snow White was Disney's first film but Cinderella is by far the more popular story. I'm curious to see their take on it.
4. I really like the new supporting characters -- including Reign's Adelaide Kane as Drizella. Although--where is Anastasia? Why is there only one wicked stepsister (who may or may not be actually wicked)? And her American accent game is on point. 

But the thing that I appreciated the most -- as a children's literature scholar and all-around fairy tale nerd -- came fairly early in the episode. Original Henry is talking to Regina about why he's not going to college and instead taking a gap year to go explore other fairy tale realms. I don't remember the exact line, but he basically acknowledges that there are so many other versions of the stories that he didn't know about -- like a French Snow White, an Italian Snow White, etc. Yeah, he makes it about him -- he's not in any of the other stories and wants to know why -- but I think this acknowledgement of other versions of the fairy tales is a big deal: critics love to lambast Disney for overshadowing those other versions and, in their minds, erasing them. 

There's also another moment, when New-Henry meets New-Cinderella, and he tells her he has to help get her story back on track. She asks if her story has a happy ending -- do these people know they're characters from stories? I'm not really clear where the show landed on that -- and he tells her that yes, it does: in most versions, the prince has to find her first, so she leaves him a sign, in this case the glass slipper. It's subtle, yes, but again, it's an acknowledgement that there are other versions of these stories than the one that comes to mind when you say "Cinderella" or "Snow White." 

Kudos, Disney. Or, well, Kudos, writers. 

The Little Mermaid -- Broadway Version

Last night, my husband and I had Date Night (rather a big deal when you have "two under two"). We're season ticket holders at DPAC, and last night was Disney's The Little Mermaid.

Now, y'all should know by now that The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney Princess movie, so to say I was excited is probably a bit of an understatement:

But I was even more excited by the fact that, after seeing a regional production in Raleigh, I was pretty sure the Disney Powers-That-Be had their writers read academic criticism of The Little Mermaid and fix  most of the issues critics had with it.

And after seeing the National Tour, I'm convinced of it. (There's a paper/conference presentation in here somewhere...) Here are some of the things I noticed:

1. The Broadway version (BV) establishes fairly early on that Eric feels more at home at sea than he does on land -- he specifically says that he'd rather be a sailor than a prince -- and he wants a girl who can swim/would feel at home on the ocean.
   Given that this is paralleled by Ariel's desire to be a part of the human world, I think it works to establish their similarities -- they both feel out of place in their world, and long to be a part of the other's world -- as well as emphasize how well-suited they are for each other. When they end up together, Ariel won't have to completely give up her family, because Eric feels so at home at sea.
2. Triton has more depth as a father. Whereas in the film he comes off as a domineering ruler first and a father second, here he's humanized a lot more. His role as the single-father-of-7-teenageish-girls is heightened, and you get to see that he's struggling with how to raise them -- especially the rebellious Ariel. He wants to do right by them, and protect them, but they're at an age where he just doesn't know what to do.
3. The whole play takes place over a year -- bookended by Eric's birthdays. IDK if that helps much, in the grand scheme of things, but it does make Ariel's decision to join Eric a little less impetuous. 
4. The theme of tolerance-of-differences and prejudice is super-heightened: there's a lot more talk of "hating humans" and "all humans are evil" based on the actions of a few. 
5. We do get an answer as to why Triton hates humans so much -- he believes they killed his wife -- so cross that off the list of criticisms.
6. We also get an answer as to why Ursula was banished and why she hates Triton so much -- and this is probably my favorite improvement from the animated film. While I still don't get why Ursula is an octopus if she's related to Triton and the other merfolk -- maybe it's like a Wicked thing, where Elphaba is born green? -- their familial connection does explain the tension and animosity. And "Daddy's Little Angel" is the best musical addition to the BV -- it's a whole song about how Ursula killed her 6 older sisters in order to inherit the throne, but forgot about her baby brother (Triton) who grew up to take it from her because, you know, she was intent on evil misdeeds.
   Sidebar: in the original version of the BV, Poseidon had just two kids, Ursula and Triton. Upon his death, he gave Ursula the shell and Triton the trident and told them to split the oceans and each rule half. Ursula got greedy, wanted to be sole ruler, so Triton banished her. Apparently, this wasn't well-received -- or well-conceived? -- so they tweaked the backstory. I gotta say: I like the tweaked version better. After all, it heightens the parallels between Ursula and Ariel -- the 7th daughter, different from her sisters, misunderstood by her father...
7. In the end, there is no melodramatic scene where Ursula steals the trident and Eric goes after her and they have the weird, dramatic sea battle while Ariel lies helpless at the bottom of the sea. It's a little clunky and rushed, but Ariel definitely has a more active role and saves herself: she steals Ursula's shell -- the source of her power -- and smashes it, breaking the spell and destroying her power. 

Lots of improvements, at least based on academic criticisms. In fact, the only thing that I wasn't a huge fan of was this whole "Cult of the Good Mother" thing -- the idea that the dead mother is this pure, powerful figure who would make everything better if she were there and whose absence drives a surprising amount of character actions. Triton invokes her -- only by her role: he refers to her as Wife and Mother, not by her name -- when he's turning to Sebastian for help: he says something like, "If only their mother were here, she'd know what to do, what to say to her, how to make everything right." And then again, at the end, when it's revealed -- Spoilers -- that Ursula was the one who actually killed Triton's wife (why or how remains unclear), this is what motivates Ariel into action. Not being tricked by Ursula, not her father giving up his power -- the invocation of the dead mother. 

Which...sure. On the surface not a bad thing...but I feel like I'm more aware of how mothers are portrayed in the media these days and anything that excessively glorifies motherhood as this natural, easy thing....makes me twitch a little. I appreciate movies like Bad Moms and TV shows like American Housewife because they de-romanticize motherhood and get at the idea that motherhood is hard. For some people, motherhood may come easily -- but the level of selflessness and self-sacrifice that parenting -- and especially motherhood -- requires is glossed over quite often. There is no magic moment that, once they put that baby into your arms, you suddenly know how to do everything and you have all the answers. So, sure. Ariel and her sisters probably would have benefitted from having their mom around, but that doesn't mean she would have had all the answers or known exactly what to say to Ariel or how to "handle" her rebellious nature. Maybe Ariel's mom would have been just as frustrated as Triton was. Maybe -- okay, probably -- she would have been constantly fighting over something with her SEVEN daughters: the only semi-perfect mother/daughter relationship I know is the one between the Gilmore Girls. 

But, hey. This is Disney, so maybe Ariel and her mom would have gotten along just fine. 

Disney-Bounding -- Tinkerbell

A few classes ago, a student asked me if I dressed like a Disney princess on purpose. (I hope this was a compliment.) I said I didn't, and it's true. I don't consciously dress like a Disney character to go to work, but I'm sure the Disney movies I grew up on and the characters I adored subconsciously influence some of my fashion choices.

Due in part, I think, to the popularity of Dapper Days as well as the Disney rule that anyone over the age of 14 (how arbitrary!) can't dress like a Disney character in the parks (lest it confuse the tiny humans) unless it's at the Halloween party, there's been a uptick in DisneyBounding. What is DisneyBounding? Basically, it's dressing like a character -- being inspired by them -- but not wearing an identical costume. Check out a few examples here, but Googling and/or Pinteresting will yield copious examples.

I was thinking about that again this morning when, because of the rainy forecast, I threw my hair up in a top-bun. I've never been a girl who spends a ton of time on her hair or makeup, probably because I never really "learned" until I got to college. That was never something my mom taught me -- if I needed make-up done, we went to the Clinique counter at Belk -- and my high school friends were similarly disinterested. And my swimming friends -- well, I think we all realized the futility of spending 20-30 minutes after morning practice blow-drying and straightening our hair and applying make-up when it would all be undone 6-7 hours later during afternoon practice. The number of times I went to school with sopping wet hair...

But I digress. My point is that, yes: the top-bun is easy and fast (although it probably takes me much longer than it should) but it has the added bonus of making me feel like Tinkerbell. I know that Disney critics and scholars probably have their opinions about the Disney version, but I don't care. She's my favorite. She's blonde and sassy and petulant and a little bit vengeful. So if I ever stumble on a green dress suitable for teaching, you bet your bottom dollar I'll buy and proudly wear it to teach:

I'd probably substitute the wings for a sensible cardigan though. 😉

Confession: I have never DisneyBounded at a Disney Park, mainly because I have too many geeky Disney shirts and I prefer comfort over style when I'm spending 12+ hours on my feet in the Orlando heat & humidity. But maybe now that The Dress Shop is open at the Disney Parks it'll be easier to coordinate? 

Disney Weddings: Beauty and the Beast

I'm a sucker for a Disney-inspired wedding -- especially in October, when my own anniversary rolls around.

Fun Fact: in addition to dreaming about a Disney proposal in front of Cinderella Castle, I always adamantly told jokingly teased my dad that I wanted a Disney wedding. And I did...until I got engaged and started planning my own wedding. I mean, a "normal" wedding gets expensive real quick -- especially if you come from a family of New Yorkers who firmly believe that wedding guests should be taken care of if they attend your wedding (i.e., more than enough food and an open bar) -- but a Disney wedding? Is on another level.*

If you want the true fairy tale -- i.e., in front of the castle, rolling up in Cinderella's coach -- it's something to the tune of $75,000. Minimum. For the ceremony alone. The other dream locale is the Grand Floridian Wedding Pavilion, which I'm sure has a similarly exorbitant price tag. (There are ways to bring the cost down -- limit the number of people, have it on a weekday, have a brunch, etc. -- but, to me, none of those really said "fairy tale.")

*faints*

Yeah. I don't have that kind of money.

But some people do, so until we win the lottery and renew our vows, I'll be jealous of live vicariously through other people's weddings.

Like this Beauty and the Beast inspired one on the Disney Style blog: DECADENT.

*For a more scholarly approach see: Levine's "Fractured Fairy Tales and Fragmented Markets: Disney's Weddings of a Lifetime and the Cultural Politics of Media Conglomeration."

New Disney YAH Starbucks Mugs

DAMMIT DISNEY. JUST TAKE ALL MY MONEY ALREADY.

Okay. If you know me at all, you know that two of my favoritest things in the world are Starbucks & Disney. (Coincidence that both Magic Kingdom and Starbucks opened in 1971?! Yeah, probably. But still. These are two companies that would basically become the pinnacle of customer service and I like to think that that's kismet.)

Anyway. We all know my heart exploded the day Disney & Starbucks announced their partnership -- for the obvious reason ("these are a few of my favorite things") but also because there would finally be good coffee in the Disney parks.

And, like the good little Disney consumer that I am, the Disney YAH Starbucks mugs are the perfect souvenir, and we proudly own all of them. (Except the discontinued EPCOT mug. That was, perhaps, a bit of an overreaction -- it was just a mug -- but it's become a hot collector's item, so yay consumerism.)


I mean, yes. I freely admit that I'm a sucker for Disney merchandise -- and, now that I'm #adulting, I lost most of my self-consciousness about it. If I want to wear a Magic Kingdom 40th Anniversary track jacket out to Target, I'll do it thankyouverymuch.

But, some context: before I ever met my husband, I collected Starbucks mugs. They made a nice souvenir, and a practical one at that. Then, after my husband and I had our first date in a Starbucks, bonding over our mutual love of hand-crafted espresso beverages, expanding that collection became a nice way to remember our adventures. (Most of our mugs come from places we've been; but one of my best friends, who travels far more extensively than I will ever get the chance to do, has brought us back some amazing ones.)

I freely admit I'm not the biggest fan of the You Are Here mugs; I much prefer the older style. But I don't mind them for Disney mugs. Their bright colors and cartoonish look "fit" the Disney aesthetic much more than they do the mugs of big, urban metropolises.

Of course, now that Disney has released a new set of YAH mugs for each of the parks, I have to find a way to somehow get my hands on them. *sigh* Why are they so pretty?!

📷: Starbucks-Mugs

#fbf

I was all set to do a #tbt post yesterday, until Facebook reminded me that October 6 is the day we had our Disney engagement photos done. So it seemed more appropriate to do a #flashbackfriday post instead.

So--five years ago today, I road-tripped down to Orlando with my husband and our moms. We did the Food & Wine Festival, Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween party *and* my fairy-tale moment: Disney engagement photos:

c. October 2012

In front of Cinderella Castle. Forever one of my favorite memories. 

Also this:

Please to note the cast member with the balloons leaning in so the balloons would be in our photo -- and then the end result with the balloon backdrop. We didn't ask her, she just offered up a little bit of extra Disney magic. ✨

Will Bob Iger Step Down?

This is Bob Iger, the current CEO of the Walt Disney Company:

Hi, Bob!

Iger has been the CEO of Disney since 2005, when Roy E. Disney (Walt's nephew) successfully ousted Michael Eisner. Now, I have many thoughts on Eisner, and very few of them are positive. I do acknowledge that Eisner becoming CEO in 1984 was a movie that absolutely saved the company from bankruptcy: he helped revitalize the animation department and brokered some shrew financial deals. BUT -- and this is a huge but -- all magic comes with a price, and some of the changes Eisner implemented are just distasteful to me. For some reason, the FastPass system is one of them. I know it seems ubiquitous now, but if Disney hadn't led the way, would some version of it be in every theme park? And, yes. I take full advantage of it now, and book my FastPasses and have few qualms about skipping the line -- especially on Thunder Mountain, because that line is SO BORING to wait in. But one of the things that separates Disney from, well, everyone, is that their rides are so intricately tied into the stories they tell. Some would call this opportunistic, some would praise the synergy of Disney's marketing, and that's fine. But the point is that when you ride a Disney ride, you're not just riding a coaster -- you're riding a coaster with a story that you can immerse yourself in. And part of the joy of visiting a Disney park is experiencing that story with your family -- and that story is often told while you're waiting in line, with your family. Skip the line and you skip the story and the bonding time with your loved ones. And that is a very un-Disney thing. 😢

But I digress. Like, a lot.

The point is that there are reports that Iger has said he's stepping down from the CEO role -- and means it. Now, he's said 2019 is his end date, so who knows? A lot can change by then.

But. If he does step down...well, I think we have a right to be hesitant and concerned about what this means for Disney. While you could say that Iger has done similar things as Eisner -- after all, like Eisner, he's taken the company to a new financial level by acquiring both Marvel and LucasFilm and, also like Eisner, he's overseen the opening of an international park (Eisner had Disneyland Paris, Iger had Shanghai Disney)  -- he's done so in a manner that somehow seems true to Walt's vision and "feel" for the company. And the fact that he was approved by Walt's nephew carries a great deal of weight for me. (The whole drama is fascinating to me -- I highly recommend reading up on it, or reading Roy E. Disney's resignation letter to Eisner.)

Regardless...I'll be curious to see who's tapped for his replacement...

via Buzzfeed: Disney Quiz

There is *always* something Disney-related on Buzzfeed, but this quiz was actually pretty fun to take:

Spoiler Alert: I'm not a fake Disney fan. (Shocker.)

Although, I am a bit confused as to which names were included and which were not. For instance: "Grumpy" was okay for "G," but "Happy" wasn't for "H." And both "Flora" and "Fauna" were okay for "F" but Merrywether wasn't for "M." So...yeah. 

"Q" was, not surprisingly, the hardest...Quasimodo is really the only choice here, although apparently you can put "Queen" before a name and have it count. And IDK who "Queen Miranda" is. 

Doesn't matter though, because:

BOOM. 

Hocus Pocus Remake -- *sob*

I've said this before, but Fall is my favorite season. (I really think it's because I grew up in New York, in the Hudson Valley, where we have *actual* Fall, with cool temperatures, stunning foliage, and apples and pumpkins galore.) And while I'm not a huge fan of Halloween -- my dad hated the holiday and I prefer Thanksgiving -- October mainly means one thing: a socially acceptable time to watch Hocus Pocus.

If you haven't seen Hocus Pocus, stop reading, go to your DVR and set this up to record. Because you're missing out. I could go into all the reasons why it's awesome, but the fact that it's one of Bette Midler's favorite films is really all you need to know. And, if you still need convincing, it was directed by Kenny Ortega, who also did High School Musical so...you know. 

So, when I heard that they were making a sequel, I was ecstatic.

Only...FAIL. There's no sequel -- despite the fact that the Sanderson Sisters are all on board -- just a remake for Disney Channel. 

Which....NO. Just no. 

One, the original film is a cult classic, SO WHY REMAKE IT? 

Two, part of what makes the original so great is it's glorious '90s vibe -- something that you just can't replicate now. *coughJumanjicough*

Three, if it's going to air on Disney Channel -- and that's nothing against Disney Channel movies; I love them -- that pretty much shows how high on the priority list it is for Disney. In other words, it's probably just a shameless money grab. 

I love you Disney, but when you pull stunts like this, it gets really hard to defend you. 

New Disney Dooney & Burke Bags

When we were in Disneyland for our honeymoon, my husband asked me what I wanted for my birthday and if there was anything Disney-related I might like. (Our anniversary and my birthday are 15 days apart and he admitted that he'd been so focused on the wedding, that he hadn't had time to give it a lot of thought.)

Now, I've never been an "expensive handbag" kind of girl: I can appreciate them, but when it comes down to it, as long as it holds all my stuff, I don't mind if it comes from Target or a designer store. But when my husband asked if I'd like a Dooney & Burke bag, I didn't hesitate. Yes, I said. I love the one you picked out.

They have a color version of this design, but part of the reason I love this bag so much is that the Disney is really subtle. Unless you're looking really closely, you can't tell. And the people who *do* notice often ask me, in hushed but excited tones, if that's a Disney bag. I nod, and we share a little conspiratorial smile and recognize each other as Disney nerds. It's great.

My current bag is currently showing a little wear, so my husband's been on the lookout for another print  that he thought I might like, but most of the recent prints have either been too cartoonish or just not my thing. 

But. 

Today I saw this: 

And I may have texted it to my husband reminding him that our anniversary/my birthday/Christmas were all coming up. I love it. I love that it's Peter Pan, and that Tink is prominently featured, and I love that it's not in color -- the black-and-white color scheme make the Disney aspect a lot more subtle than most of the Disney Dooney & Burkes. 

For a comparison, here's the new Snow White collection -- I think in honor of the 80th anniversary:

There's also a new Christmas print coming out, which, I have to admit, did set my Disney-consumer-heart aflutter. Fall/Halloween is my favorite time to visit, but Disney-at-Christmas is...magical. But this print just doesn't seem practical. I would feel weird using the purse in, say, May, so it's an expensive purchase to just it for a few weeks. But still pretty. 😊

Food For Thought...

I came across this video this morning...not exactly sure how, but there it is:

This lyric struck me, as it's one of the issues I grapple with when thinking about villains/evil in Disney films. I'm particularly intrigued by the "no one's evil for evil's sake" part...

"We are all misjudged, we are all begrudged, and of course we've made mistakes
But you can rest assured our hearts are pure, no one's evil for evil's sake
We have all had dreams, things are never as they seem, maybe we're the heroes too
But a happy-ever-after is a dream that won't come true."

I've been fascinated by Disney villains and why they're seen as evil for a while now...there's been a trend lately in pop culture to blur the lines between good and evil, hero and villain, and even Disney hasn't escaped this: there's been an uptick in villain origin stories (perhaps started by Wicked?). I think this is the reason I was so drawn to Once Upon A Time, especially when they delved into the background of Regina/The Evil Queen and Rumple. It was all well and good to see how Snow White and Charming met, but the most dynamic episodes early on were the ones that gave some depth and insight into the Evil Queen's character -- showing that she didn't start off evil; that life (and her abysmal mother) caused her to turn that way.

Can people be evil for evil's sake? What about fictional characters? Do all characters, regardless of whether or not we know it, have an origin story? Is there a time, in that origin story, where they're not evil? If so, what makes them evil? Does it justify their behavior? Or at least allow us, as the audience, to excuse it more easily?

Disney Princesses As...Living in 2017

I haven't done a "Disney Princesses As" post in a while, so it was nice to stumble across these images: according to BoredPanda, the artist is Chilean digital artist Fernanda Suarez, and his current project is to imagine what Disney Princesses would look like if they were living in 2017. Check out his Instagram here.

Setting aside the fact that he is ridiculously talented in a way that I could never even dream of aspiring to, his vision is interesting...most of them look edgier to me, maybe even a little sinister?

For one thing, Jasmine and Pocahontas don't actually look that different, IMHO:

Is there a commentary on exorcized beauty here? Several critics have pointed out that the non-white princesses are more sexualized than their white counterparts, so maybe it's not surprising? (Although, I don't know what it says about 2017 that being "modern" is "sultry"...although maybe it's just the discrepancy from the softer, more innocent animated versions?)

Snow White and Cinderella kinda have this whole zombie/supernatural/paranormal vibe going on...I think it's the eyes. They both have this sultry, come hither vibe, but the coloring gives them that supernatural edge. Plus, nothing says temptation like an apple.

I think Mulan is my favorite though. Maybe it's because she looks so different from the traditional animated version, and maybe because Suarez didn't seem to make her hyper-feminine and fit her into a "delicate" princess mold.

Happy First Day of Fall!

Fall is, without a doubt, my favorite season. I was raised in the Hudson Valley in New York, so I grew up with beautiful fall foliage, chilly nights and mornings, and some of my best memories involve going apple picking with my family. Falls aren't quite the same in the South, but the minute that first hint of crispness enters the air...I love it. 

#tbt

Just going to sneak this #tbt post in under the midnight deadline...

Facebook reminded me today that, 5 years ago, we made our engagement "Facebook official." (Because of course it's not official until it's Facebook official. 😒) So, in honor of that, I wanted to share a photo of my "Disney engagement":

I had always dreamed of getting engaged in front of Cinderella Castle in the Magic Kingdom. Cliche, I know, but to my Disney-princess obsessed self, that seemed the epitome of romance. (Plus, all of the families on the 90s sitcoms I grew up with had a Disney-episode, and I'm pretty sure one of them involved an engagement in front of the castle.) And, TBH, it still kinda does. I know princesses and fairy tales and uber-romanticized happily-ever-afters don't exist, but Disney is the place where they at least seem possible.

So my wonderful, thoughtful, creative husband did this. We had a trip planned for October with our moms, and he thought about proposing then, but (1) he did think it was a little cliche and (2) he didn't want to have to worry about traveling with and packing a ring, let alone carrying it around a Disney park all day. (What if it fell out of his pocket on Space Mountain? I mean, his cell phone did, so it could happen. Luckily, we did get the phone back.)

So he brought Cinderella Castle to me. And dragged me out of bed before 8 on a Friday morning, without coffee, because he couldn't wait. 💖

And, bonus: even though our engagement didn't take place in front of Cinderella Castle, our engagement photos did. Because he proposed a few weeks before our trip, we got to plan to have engagement photos taken in the Magic Kingdom, and that's something that I will treasure forever.

I Dare You Not To Sing Along.

An oldie, but goodie:

I love that Josh Gad and Luke Evans don't just complete the line but actually sing the songs.