Disney's Live-Action Remake: Ursula Should Not HAVE To be Thicc

Yesterday, when I was scrolling through Facebook, I came across this article:

TBH, I felt really old because I didn't know who Lizzo is and I totally had to Google her.

Okay, Disclaimer before I go any further: I am not opposed to Lizzo playing Ursula; this article just reminded me of another one I read a few weeks ago:

Now, this...this I have thoughts on. Lots of thoughts.

First: y'all know my love for The Little Mermaid runs deep, no matter how many critics -- and celebrities (I'm looking at you, Kiera Knightley) -- point out how problematic it is. (I'm more in-line with the authors of this article from Time.)
Second: y'all know I'm super excited about the live-action remake -- especially because it means Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Alan Menken and if that isn't a match made in a Disney fan's Heaven, I don't know what is. (Plus, I'm hoping LMM will be nominated for an Oscar for ANYTHING he writes here and The Little Mermaid will be the film that makes him an EGOT winner.)
Third: I firmly believe Ursula is one of the -- if not THE -- best Disney villains and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is my go-to car-karaoke-jam.

But.

I take issue with The Mary Sue's post caption, and the article doesn't do much to assuage me. Chelsea Steiner's writing in response to the rumors -- emphasis on rumors -- that Lady Gaga might play Ursula in the live-action adaptation. Here's her argument:

"Sea witch, please: Ursula is a fat girl icon. In an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out not only as a legendary Disney villain, but as an unlikely role model for body positivity. Ursula is confident, clever, and able to run a successful business helping poor unfortunate merfolk solve their problems. 

Ursula makes being bad look like a total blast, which is a shocking rarity for plus-size women in popular culture, who are too frequently portrayed as the butt of the joke. Ursula is not a dowdy shrew, nor is she a desperate wannabe seeking approval from King Triton and the rest of Atlantica. She marches to beat of her own drum fish, no matter how unpopular it may be. 

Over the years, Ursula has become an unlikely icon for the LGBTQ+ community as well. It’s well known that the character was based on John Waters’ muse, the outlandish drag queen Divine, and was brought to life by the music of gay lyricist Howard Ashman."

To Steiner's credit, I kinda see her point. I do agree that she's become an "icon for the LGBTQ+ community" -- the character's connection to Divine and Ashman have been solidified over the years, and it's a piece of Disney Trivia that always blows my students' minds.
I also agree that Ursula "makes being bad look like a total blast," because I'm a sucker for a villain who enjoys being bad and doesn't have some broken-heart-backstory that "explains" her villainy.

But that's just the thing: Ursula IS a villain. Seeing her as running "a successful business" when she's actually manipulating merfolk, no matter how naive they may be, by preying on their weaknesses and insecurities because of some vendetta with Triton? That's a loose interpretation at best.

And, yes. Steiner's not wrong when she says that, "in an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out" -- but I don't think it's in a good way. There are so few plus-size characters in Disney at all -- only a handful come to mind. Russell from Up is one, as are Lilo and Nani from Lilo & Stitch and while Elasti-Girl is surprisingly hippy for an animated character -- as she should be! She's had three kids! -- she still has that impossibly tiny Disney waist. But narrow the parameters to princess movies? The only non-hourglass shaped females are older, benevolent females -- the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella; the Three Fairies from Sleeping Beauty; and Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast.

And then there's Ursula. Her age is a little hard to pin-down, and even figuring out that she's a contemporary of Triton's isn't much of a help, since he's white-haired but surprisingly muscular. Plus, the guy's got a 16 year old daughter. But, like most-villains, she's probably middle-aged -- older than the teenage princesses but younger than the benevolent helper fairies.

So, here's my grief: when your most famous plus-size character is a villain -- when your only plus-size character is a villain -- that's not body positivity or empowering. That's problematic. There's a critic who, I think, says it more succinctly than I can. While I find Robert Trites' argument, as a whole, problematic in parts, I think she's accurate on the matter of Ursula's weight:

"The Disney-constructed conflict in The Little Mermaid is between an overweight, ugly woman and a doe-eyed heroine with a figure less realistic than a Barbie doll's. Once Ursula transforms herself into a rival love-interest for the prince, the conflict is between a dark-haired anorexic and a fairer one. The stereotyping of evil as dark and good as fair is traditional, but only recently has Disney associated corpulence with evil. Disney's villainesses before the 1970s look predatory because they are so thin...In the 1970s, Disney begins to reflect the cultural emphasis on weight consciousness.[...] The movie's portrayal of good as fairer and thinner than evil presents a bigoted distortion of the human body."

Because when Trites brings up Vanessa -- the "dark-haired anorexic"; this is the late 1980s, the era of heroin chic -- she makes a point about the dark vs. light aspect of her appearance, but neglects to consider a broader implication. This may be because Trites thinks Eric is "easily deceived by Ursula's disguising herself as the raven-headed ingenue who possesses the little mermaid's voice. Eric loves the imposter as he has loved the image in his mind: for her physical attributes and for nothing more" (148). To Trites, Eric dismisses Ariel once he hears Vanessa's sing--but Trites doesn't acknowledge the role magic plays here. Eric, with the magic smoke seeping into his eyes, is clearly enchanted by Ursula-as-Vanessa, as evidenced by his robotic behavior in front of Grimsby when he announces the marriage.

To me, here's the crux: if Ursula was really a body-positive character, why would she voluntarily choose to look like a "raven-headed ingenue"? After all, Eric is enchanted and she has Ariel's voice: it shouldn't matter what she looks like since she can simply enchant them to focus on her voice. Taking human form is a necessity, obviously, but the shape of that human form is important:

She chooses to slim waaay down -- when given the choice, she chooses not only a slimmer figure, but a thin figure. She is just as thin as Ariel, retaining nothing of her previously curvy, fuller-figured size. If she was truly a body-positive character, comfortable in her own skin and size, then that would translate to her human form, her victory ensured as it is through magic.

So, no. I can't get behind this #KeepUrsulaThicc movement. I'm sure Lizzo would do a great job -- as Rebel Wilson before her as done. Hell, I'd even support Titus Burgess in the role, although I don't think Disney would go that way for a variety of reasons. But you know what? I think Lady Gaga would kill it, too.

Because I don't think Ursula has to be "thicc" to be great -- not when a real-life person would be portraying her. I would much rather see a #MakeArielThicc movement start, as I think the body-positive movement would be impacted so much more significantly by a plus-size princess than a plus-size villain.
  

Review: Wreck-It Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks The Internet

It's #ThrowbackThursday today, so let's rewind to last week when my in-laws watched our kids for the day so we could go Black Friday Shopping and continue our annual tradition of eating grilled cheese sandwiches at Pop's Soda Shop and watching a movie at The Grandin.

We deviated a little from tradition last year -- we chose Murder on the Orient Express over Coco -- but we're back on track:

And y'all? 

It was SO GOOD. 

Clarification: if push came to shove, I'd have to say the first one was better -- but in a different way, if that makes any sense. Wreck-It Ralph was so filled with nostalgia for me -- a child of the late 80s/early 90s -- and I loved the newness of it. This, IMHO, was the start of Disney Renaissance II's original stories, those not based on any previous source material (see also: Zootopia). It was also so smart, and clever, and the villain reveal was refreshing, something so different from Disney's long line of obvious, usually offensively stereotyped villains -- as was the way Disney toyed with the idea of villainy and what it means to be bad. 

But Ralph Breaks The Internet was just as good, just in a different way. The nostalgia factor wasn't there, nor was the commentary on villainy. But there were other things, equally new and refreshing for a Disney movie -- especially a Disney princess movie. Because I think it's important to remember that Vanellope is, technically,  a Disney princess. 

📷: Disney

More, spoilery thoughts beneath the cut! 

This Is Not A Drill: The Lion King Teaser Trailer

After an unscheduled 2-month hiatus (😳#momlife #professorlife #whatworklifebalance 😳) of course it would take The Lion King teaser trailer to get me back into blogging.

Fun fact: my husband is a die-hard Dallas Cowboys fan. So, of course, Thursday night after Thanksgiving dinner, he was glued to the TV watching the Cowboys-Redskins game. I was mostly checked out, watching the kids, chatting with relatives, glancing up at the screen every now and then out of habit. It was hard to hear much since I was sitting pretty far away from the TV and multiple conversations in a small space make a fair amount of noise.

So when I looked up at the TV and saw "And the Director of The Jungle Book" -- I had a moment. It went something like, "Disney's The Jungle Book? Or do they mean Andy Serkis' version that's going to straight to Netflix release? Jon Favreau directed the Disney version...that's how he got The Lion King gig. I wonder when we'll see a trailer for that. My students have been clamoring for a trailer for that.  It has to be soon right? WAIT. Cowboys/Redskins is a big event with a lot of viewers...would Disney drop a trailer for one of their biggest hits during a high-traffic TV event on a family-centric holiday? OMFG YES THEY WOULD EVERYBODY HUSH AND BE QUIET." [<--This last bit was actually said outloud to the bewilderment of my husband's family.]

Oh well. I watched it and then Googled it and watched it again. Maybe 5 times.

And, yes. It looks (and, TBH, sounds) like a shot-for-shot remake of the original and I DON'T EVEN CARE. Don't come at me with your negativity, bro.

There's a part of me -- a tiny part -- that wonders, "Why remake a movie if it's just going to be the exact same?" so I do hope they do something different with the film.

But then there's another part of me that just doesn't care because there are cute baby CGI lions and James Earl Jones intoning those iconic lines in Mufasa's voice. Don't get me wrong -- there is literally no one else who could have filled those shoes but...that had to be a super easy day at the office for him, amirite?

Watch (and rewatch) the trailer below:

Cultural Appropriation or Harmless Costume?

Another year, another time to consider how Halloween costumes aren't just "Halloween costumes" anymore.

I feel like I write this post -- or a version of it -- every year. And I grapple with the same questions -- where is the line? When is a costume just a costume? -- and I haven't figured out an answer.

But this post popped up on my newsfeed a few days ago and...yeah.

via Distractify

Okay, fine. I'm on board with this. Cultural progress where we're "increasingly exposed to diverse narratives" which means "we look up to and admire cultures that are different from our own" -- yes. This is unequivocally a good thing.

But here's where it gets tricky:

What I take issue with here -- or, rather, what I struggle with -- is the part about how "it might not be your kid's place to honor them with a disguise."

While this article is, most likely, click-bait, it still raises an interesting question -- one I'm still grappling with.

First--let me offer this disclaimer: some most of these costumes are truly offensive and inappropriate, given their adult target audience. Yes, it is inappropriate for an adult woman to don a geisha costume. Yes, it is inappropriate for an adult woman to don a "sexy Pocahontas" costume. Yes, it is inappropriate for a company to even market an Anne Frank historical 1940's costume and then invoke The Chronicles of Narnia.

But the very first costume on the list is Moana -- a Disney character costume marketed towards kids.

Here's what the site offered as far as a caption:

What bothers me here is not the fact that a mother is talking with her child about cultures and cultural appropriation. (Lord knows, I'm already That Mom when it comes to watching Disney movies, emphasizing Elsa's point that you can't marry a man you just met, etc.) What bothers me is her claim that it "feels like we are laughing at her culture by making it a costume."

As a parent (<--that still feels weird to say/type!), I don't know...I staunchly disagree with this. (I mean, I guess it depends on how her old daughter is. If she's north of 10, sure.) But if my 2.5 year old (who doesn't really know what Halloween is, but let's pretend she does for the sake of this hypothetical) came to me and said she wanted to "be Moana" for Halloween, I wouldn't hesitate. Because I know that she's not motivated by malice or spite nor she does have a desire to mock or laugh at her culture. It's because Moana is a person she admires and wants to be like her. I don't even know what a conversation about cultural appropriation would look like with a 2.5 year old.

But is it cultural appropriation?

OED recently added the term to their dictionary defining it as:

the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.

The key component seems to be the power dynamic -- specifically the imbalance of power between the marginalized and dominant group.  And, look: my daughter's a white female. She, through no fault of her own, was born into a place of privilege and power, based simply on the color of her skin. But she doesn't know that. Not yet. And I don't know when she will know that. Probably much earlier than I would want or than I learned it.

Once again, I don't have an answer to this question. And it feels very reductive to say that "under the age of X you get a pass," because that's not what I'm advocating for. I just think that the situation is much more complicated for a 3-year-old wanting to be like her favorite fictional character than it is for an adult who, even as a teenager, would have experienced enough of the world to know about power dynamics.

The window of time where a kid can want to dress up like Moana, or Mulan, or Belle, or Hermione Granger, or Darth Vader, or Cookie Monster, is so short as it is -- why would I want to make it any shorter?

New Wreck It Ralph Trailer

It's a big week for Disney-related things -- new trailers for Mary Poppins Returns, Captain Marvel and now Ralph Breaks the Internet:

Fewer princesses, more details about the plot. I was wondering what the motivation was for Ralph and Vanellope to leave the arcade and go explore the Internet, and now we know: Vanellope's game is broken and they need to find a piece on Ebay. (Where else?) 

We also get a glimpse of Gal Godot's character, who seems to be a racer, albeit in a much different game, like Vanellope and there seems to be some female bonding going on. (Will she be a bad guy though? I'm skeptical of all secondary characters in Disney movies though...no matter how wondrous they are in real life.) 

I'll end with these screenshots from the trailer that just make my heart happy. 

Captain. Freaking. Marvel.

I've never been a big comics fan. I had a small collection of Archie comics (she said as she was binge-watching Riverdale -- I was totally Team Betty and harbored a deep irrational resentment for Veronica -- I'm glad that rivalry isn't a thing on the show) but they were mostly just random issues my mom bought me at the grocery store.

Aside from that...I watched Dean Cain and Terri Hatcher in The Adventures of Superman and I watched Smallville back when The WB was a thing. But Superman and Batman...they exist in pop culture in a way thats transcends comic books. You don't need to have picked up a single comic book to know about the moral compass of the Man of Steel or the tortured background of Gotham's Dark Knight. (Although I did love the cheesiness of the 1960s Batman series; I'd watch it with my parents on Nick at Nite.)

All of that to say -- I was never a big comics fan. And when an ex was Fanboying over the first Iron Man movie, I rolled my eyes and wasn't convinced that Robert Downey Jr could convincingly portray a hero let alone carry a franchise. (Yeah, yeah, yeah. Past Lisa was kinda dumb in that regard. She also refused to watch the first Thor movie with Chris Hemsworth and was in love with a guy who is an ex for obvious reason. Hindsight.)

But then The Avengers came out while my husband and I were dating, and my husband was a fan and was appalled that I had never seen them. (Honestly, between that fact and the fact that I had never seen the Star Wars movies, I'm surprised he put up with me. 😂) Aaaaand I was hooked. Kevin Feige hasn't had a miss yet and the new spate of DC movies are...soul-suckingly bad. Except Wonder Woman. She is kick-ass and amazing and everything I could want in a female superhero. It bothered me that the MCU, a stronger franchise in almost every other way, couldn't compete. (Don't even get me started on Black Widow.)

Until now.

I know there's a lot that I don't fully understand -- things about Kree and Skrulls and Ronan and Captain Marvel's backstory -- and obviously the thing I want the most (to know how in the world she's going to fix everything that happened in Infinity War) isn't going to be in the trailer, but I'm still super excited. Brie Larson looks amazing. 

Mary Poppins Returns -- New Trailer

Cue the "practically perfect in every way" and "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" puns. 

This morning was...rough, for a variety of reasons. But, then this trailer dropped and things got a little brighter:

First--that cast! I knew Emily Blunt was playing Mary Poppins (and that the iconic Dame Julie Andrews gave her her blessing); I knew that Lin-Manuel Miranda was playing Jack -- not Bert!!! -- I even knew that Dick Van Dyke was playing/reprising the role of Mr. Dawes (again, not Bert). 

But Angela Lansbury! Colin Firth! Julie Walters! And Meryl Streep!!!

Second--this is probably uber-nerdy even for an uber-Disney-nerd, but I love the film-specific castles in the front of each film:

But I also left a piece of my heart in London, so there's that. 

Third--the old-school 2D animation!!! 😍😍😍

ScreenRant has a really cool article on the attention to detail in this sequence -- how it's not just an homage to the original film or a remake of it, that's worth a read. (For example, how the characters' clothes look they were drawn/animated, which you can kinda see above!) 

Fourth--the CGI. When it came out in the 1960s, Mary Poppins was a technical innovation for its time (something that can always be said of Disney) -- but with the advances in CGI, the magic is going to seem so much more...fluid. 

I'm sure this film will be filled with Easter eggs and nods to the original film -- the kite, the original house with the infamous bannister, the chimney sweeps dancing, the 2D animation, Jane campaigning for women's rights, just like her mother -- which makes my heart happy on so many levels. There's even a questionable Cockney accent from LMM, continuing Dick Van Dyke's terrible accent tradition. 

Look, I'm sure P. L. Travers -- author of the original Mary Poppins book -- would probably hate this film too. I've blogged about Disney's Mary Poppins and Distory before, with the end result being my decision to both love the books as one of the cornerstones of children's literature and the Disney movie as a cornerstone of my own childhood. (Julie Andrews was one of my grandmother's favorite actresses and we watched this movie together a lot.) I know that the Disney movie(s) are Disneyfied versions of the books and while I wish Disney would reflect that in this film -- especially given it's setting during the Depression, a less cheerful, more no-nonsense Mary Poppins would fit -- I'm not expecting them too. The trailer reflects that -- it looks a magical concoction about the wonder and purity of childhood -- and I can't wait to see it. 

Spotted: Target Run & Done

After being cooped up in our house since Wednesday evening -- thanks, Hurricane Florence -- my family and I ventured out to Target this morning. (Honestly, though, where else would we go?) We didn't really need anything, but Target is such a great place to wander around and somehow end up with a cartful of random things.

Plus there's coffee. Which, after four days in the house, was definitely, actually needed. (Starbucks + Target is my second favorite pairing behind Starbucks + Disney.)

Target's also a great place to do "field research," which is a fun way of saying I get to look at the Disney-related merchandise through an academic lens.

And Target didn't disappoint. First up:

📷: Me (and yes, that's my coffee in the background)

First, I tried searching Target for "mulan doll" and the only one that came up was the Hasbro doll. (At least she's wearing the outfit from the end of the movie and not the matchmaker outfit that she's usually in.) This one is marketed as an "Action Adventure Figure" so that's a solid plus. Also a plus -- this is the closest thing to Warrior Mulan I've seen in the Mulan merchandise. Normally, for whatever reason, she's marketed in a dress and definitely conforms to feminine conventions. So, another solid plus for a Mulan figure who's wielding a sword and is portrayed as a kick-ass woman. 

But...those legs!? 

Not exactly a win in the "realistic body image" column there, Hasbro. So, Con. 

On a less relevant note, I also saw this:

📷: Me

My daughter wanted to watch Tangled this weekend -- anything that wasn't Frozen! -- and I'm just really confused about why Maximus has such a glittery mane. I'm pretty sure he's not glittery in the movie and can't we market a male horse without adding glitter? My daughter loves Maximus just fine without the glittery mane, and I'm pretty sure she doesn't need to have one marketed towards her.

And we may or may not have left the store with this shirt:

Dream big, princess.

Love is the Strongest Magic

A friend shared this post this afternoon, and I've found myself reflecting on it a lot. 

This is one of the best parts of the movie IMO (although the part that never fails to make me cry is when Moana's grandmother's spirit gives her the reminder and the strength to go on), but I'm not sure I completely agree with it...

There are a lot of valid points here:

• I agree that it's important that Moana meets Te Ka with love and acceptance and not violence, and that's what helps restore her.
• Yes, violence begets ruin. A violent approach could not have saved Te Fiti.

But I'm not entirely sure I buy the fact that "only women can help other women heal from male violence" -- and certainly not within the context of this film. While I am the first one to insist that Disney movies are not just simply animated fluff, and that they have complex thematic messages in addition to their morals, this goes a bit too far for me. 

One of the most striking things about Moana, for me, was its lack of emphasis on gender. That is, Disney went out of their way to tell a story where gender differences weren't front and center. After all, in the initial draft, Moana had brothers (6, I think?) and, as the youngest, she was constantly trying to prove that she was just as good as them and deserving of her father's pride and admiration. (SO glad they took that storyline out.) And, after all, this is the first Disney princess movie, where this isn't a romantic subplot. 

So, yeah. I don't think this is a movie about male violence or how women can help each other through it. Yes, women supporting other women is crucial and important, but I don't think the fact that Te Ka/Te Fiti and Moana are women is the point here. Rather, IMO, it's about Moana's humility and good nature -- regardless of gender. It's her act of saving the baby turtle when she was little that made the ocean "choose" her (as Grandma Tala points out) -- her kindness, her selflessness (she gives up the pretty shell), and her strength of character. 

It's more of an exchange of female wisdom and guidance. After all, Moana's journey throughout the movie is one of self-discovery and acceptance -- of finding her True Self, which is different from how others define her, namely her father (but, to some extent, her mother and community). They want her to be one thing, and she knows that she's meant for something different (to explore the world and sail the ocean). This is the advice she passes on to Te Fiti when she understands the effect of the stolen heart: she tells her that even though "they have stolen the heart from inside you / but this does not define you." I read this not as "healing from male violence" but as "honoring your true self." 

Snow White & Castles in the Air

Today we discussed Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in class, so last night, I had to re-watch it. (Sometimes, I really love my job.)

I also watched it with my family -- my husband and both my kids -- which made my heart all kinds of happy. My daughter is just about 2.5 and, amidst all the fun of the terrible 2s, she's starting to become her own little person with a clear personality. It's also a lot...less quiet. 😂 There are so. many. questions!

But it's fascinating to see what she picks up on. Critics, especially the academic ones, like to make a big fuss over Disney movies -- especially the princess ones -- especially the early princess ones. They like to say that kids take this harmful message away or that watching princess movies will make them grow up into weak, passive women. Which...I've always been skeptical of. After all, how can you determine what a child takes away from a film? Won't every viewer take away something different? And even if you could definitively conclude what a child takes away from watching a movie, can you lay the blame entirely at Disney's feet? Isn't this one part of a larger conversation?

So, yeah. My daughter didn't bat an eye at the dark, scary parts -- not when Snow White ran into the woods, not when the Queen went down into her dungeon and used dark magic, not when the Dwarfs chased the Queen at the end.
She was more concerned with where characters were -- so when Snow White was cleaning the house, she didn't seem to focus on what Snow White was doing, she wanted to know where the rabbit was.
And her biggest concern was that she didn't understand where the Queen went when she transformed into the hag -- and after answering that question about a dozen times and trying to explain magic, she wanted to know what happened to her crown. 😳 Write about that, academics.

Anyway. I noticed something at the end of the movie that I hadn't noticed before and, TBH, I found it a little odd. Yes, things wrap up pretty quickly. Yes, the Prince randomly stumbles upon Snow White and kisses her (without knowing that Love's First Kiss is what breaks the spell). Yes, Snow White wakes up and is like, "O hai. Sure I'll ride off with you to who knows where." Yes, Snow White just abandons the Dwarfs after all they did for her.

But it was the castle at the end that I noticed.

Here's a screenshot near the end, with Snow White and the Prince riding off, literally, into the sunset.

Then, here's a screenshot of a few second later:

I remembered the Prince's castle differently...I assumed/remembered it as a castle on a hill off in the distance (maybe like the castle in Cinderella?), but this castle appears to (1) have magically appeared in the middle of the sky and (2) be floating on a cloud. Which...intrigued me and sparked a connection to "castles in the air." 

I remembered the phrase from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women -- there's an entire chapter titled "Castles in the Air." The March sisters are telling Laurie about how they used to play Pilgrim's Progress and try to make it to the Celestial City. Beth tells Laurie:

If people really want to go, and really try all their lives, I think they will get in, for I don't believe there are any locks on the door or any guards at the gate. I always imagine it as it is in the picture where the shining ones stretch out their hands to welcome poor Christian as he comes up from the river.

And Jo replies:

Wouldn't it be fun if all the castles in the air which we make could come true, and we could live in them? 

The castles are, I think, meant to represent the girls' (and Laurie's) daydreams, their aspirations, what they want most in this world. (Jo's dreams and castles were the ones I related to the most, TBH.) The idea, though, is that they have to live their lives first -- to deal with their weaknesses, to face their troubles, to endure the hardships. There's also the Christian undertones, given the reference to Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress (which I'll admit I'm not familiar with, except to know that it's about how to get to Heaven) which are quite prominent in Snow White.

There's also the connection to Thoreau (who I'm pretty sure was close with Alcotts -- or at least moved in the same circle as them), who wrote in Walden,

I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary...In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. "

Later, in the same chapter, Thoreau writes,

However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are. It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults even in paradise. Love your life, poor as it is....

These are still unformed thoughts but I think the connection to Snow White is there: if Thoreau viewed "castles in the air" as a person's dreams, their heart's desires, the life which they have imagined, then the "foundation" is to love your life, as poor as it. 

Doesn't this hold true for Snow White? However "mean" her life was, she "met" it and "lived" it. She met adversity with "a smile and a song" and never stopped wishing "for the one she loved to find her." She built her castle in the air in her heart and dreams, and lived her life as poor as it was. And in the end? Her castle literally appeared in the air in front of her, as her reward for her good life and faith and hope. 

I have no idea if Disney read Walden or Little Women, or was familiar with Thoreau's or Alcott's ideas, but he was a smarter man than people sometimes give him credit for. At the very least, I think it's plausible. 

Let's Go To The Movies: Disney Princesses Back In Theaters!

So, I don't have a lot of spare time to go to the movies -- still waiting to see Crazy Rich Asians. And Mission Impossible. And Mamma Mia 2. -- but this is tempting. If only my daughter was a little older, these would be perfect to take her to! While Disney movies can hold her attention like nothing else can -- except maybe Dora the Explorer -- I don't think we're quite at the point where we can sit in a movie theater.

I'm hoping Frozen 2 will be her first theater-movie, but I don't know how she'll do with a movie she's never seen before. Honestly, she's more likely to sit through Moana because she knows the movie by heart.

Our local AMC theater is at Southpoint mall, y'all! Happy Fall!

To Buy: New Disney Shirts from TeeTurtle

A short post, to ease back into blogging. There is, apparently, some plague remnant stomach bug going around and I caught it. (Which is a big deal, because I never catch those. I always get the colds. Which, fun fact, I got too. Back to back: the virus and a cold.) Basically, this has been me for the past few days:

via GIPHY

YAY ADULTING. 

But, this email from TeeTurtle popped up this morning helped a little bit. Two new Disney couple shirts available! 

I mean, on the one hand, I definitely don't need any more Disney graphic-tees, no matter how cute and nerdy they are.

But on the other hand...it's Rapunzel and Flynn! (I'm definitely "meh" about Aladdin and Jasmine -- love the movie, love that scene, but as characters...meh.) And it's the lantern scene! Which is one of the most gorgeous pieces of animation and also "I See The Light" was the First Dance song at my wedding. 💖 

Check them out and add to your collection here -- along with a bunch of other Disney shirts I definitely covet. 

More Updates on the Live-Action Lady and the Tramp

Apparently, there's a lot more news about this live-action Lady and the Tramp than I realized.

Let's break it down:

1. Justin Theroux will be the voice of Tramp.

 TBH, I don't have a lot of thoughts on this casting choice. It seems odd to me, but not an interesting way...more of a "meh-shrug-your-shoulders-and-move-on" kind of way. I don't know if I expected more star power (my husband literally said, "Who?" when I shared this with him) or a more dynamic personality...Meh.

2. Ashley Jensen will be the voice of Jackie:

📷: ComingSoon

To me, this is more interesting news because (1) Jensen is actually Scottish (Bill Thompson who voiced Jock in the original animated film was not), so good move there, Disney; (2) we're gender-flipping the character (Jock was originally male) which...not to say that women can't have male friends, but I always thought it was odd that Lady had no female friends*; and (3) I've been a fan of Ashley Jensen since her Ugly Betty and Extras days, so I approve of this.

3. Kiersey Clemmons will be Darling and Thomas Mann will be Jim Dear.

Okay. I didn't actually know who either of these actors were -- and browsing their IMDB page didn't really help -- but, FWIW, it's interesting to note that Disney will be portraying an interracial relationship (which, unfortunately, is still a big deal for the media giant). That is, of course, if only the animals are CGI.

4. The most interesting bit of news from this People article, though, is how the film will be released: it won't be released in theaters, but rather directly through Disney's unnamed streaming service. (Which is, temporarily at least, known as Disney Play, thanks to an off-hand comment from Iger.) What this means, though, is less clear. Historically, films that weren't released in theaters were straight-to-DVD releases -- see, for instance, Cinderella 2 or any of the multitude of sequels -- and were generally considered inferior (re: not box office successes). A tricky appellation, and something of a misnomer. While, yes, the animation is generally inferior (more time, effort, and skill is placed into the films that can earn the most revenue -- usually: this didn't really work with Pocahontas and The Lion King) the story sometimes isn't. Since these films aren't subject to as much scrutiny -- their intended audience is much smaller -- their stories can be a little more progressive and their characters are little more dynamic. (My favorite example of this is probably the Tinkerbell movies which boast amazing voice actors and Tink is a girl in STEM! She's a "tinker," an engineer.)

But the viewing landscape has changed: this year's Emmy nominations fascinatingly (but not shockingly) favored non-cable networks, with the exception of NBC's This is Us and ABC's Blackish. Companies like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu and HBO are generating outstanding original content, so why shouldn't Disney follow suit? We know their storytelling and movie-making is, arguably, in a class of its own, so their own streaming platform to house that content could be a bold move.

Could be. Will the content suffer? Will people pay to see it -- especially once Disney's catalog is gone from places like Netflix? (I mean, I will, but I'm a weird Disney fanatic.)

Live-Action Update: Lady and the Tramp

In honor of classes starting back up in a week (well, less than a week, but let's round up so I don't freak out), I figured I should start blogging again.

So, I'm gonna ease back in with some news/updates that legit took me by surprise:

Tessa Thompson has been cast as the voice of Lady in the live action Lady and the Tramp. 

📷: The Independent

Let me clarify.

I 100% approve of this casting choice. I love Tessa Thompson: she's having a moment now -- what with Westworld, Thor: Ragnarok (is she alive in the MCU?! Did Thanos get her?!) and the new Men in Black, but I know her from her Veronica Mars days so.... -- I have faith that she knows a good thing when she sees it. Plus, the "original" (re: animated) Lady was voiced by Barbara Luddy a.k.a. Merrywether from Sleeping Beauty (<--that legit blew my mind, TBH) and, I don't know...I always liked that Lady's and Merrywether's voices were...I don't want to say "deeper" or "huskier," because the connotation there isn't what I'm going for, but their voices have a different pitch than, say, Aurora or Snow White. Their voices seemed unnaturally sweet and feminine, implying a preternatural innate daintiness that just seemed...unattainable? Unrealistic? All of the above? Both Merrywether and Lady are good-natured, to be sure, but they have a bite to them that I think Tessa Thompson will capture well. Well, for Lady at least. 

But...Lady and the Tramp live-action? 

IDK. I'm sure I knew this film was in the works, but honestly? Disney announced a live-action adaptation of basically everything they've ever made. And the 90's Renaissance remakes (The Lion King, Mulan, Aladdin) are kinda taking up the newsfeed right now. There's even been a fair amount of info on the Dumbo remake. Plus, I'm still waiting for updates on The Little Mermaid (which y'all know is my fave) with Lin-Manuel Miranda so...I kinda forgot about Lady and the Tramp.

Whoops. 

I love the film -- despite it's problematic parts (Si and Am, anyone?) -- and Tony's Town Square restaurant is one of my favorite places to eat in Magic Kingdom. I mean, who doesn't love Italian? (But, really. For the longest time, it was kinda one of the only sit-down, table-service (re: not a buffet) restaurants in MK.) And dogs? And dogs sharing a bowl of spaghetti?! LOVE. 

But, much like The Jungle Book adaptation (and, TBH, The Lion King), I remain skeptical (and cautiously optimistic!) about "live-action" adaptations starring CGI animals.

We'll see. 

Lady And The Tramp GIF from Smooch GIFs

Wreck-It Ralph Trailer #2 -- They ARE All Here!

YAY! Disney pretty much knew what we wanted and gave us the Princesses for a good chunk of the new trailer today. Look! Here they all are!

And, can I just say, I was right about the panorama and the other princesses being off-screen:

See? There's Ariel, charmingly combing her hair with a dinglehopper, and you can just make out part of Merida all the way at the right. But when they realize Vanellope has entered the room:

There are Mulan and Merida (and all the rest of them) being bad-ass!

And, as Cosmo points out in their article on the trailer, they are all so hyper-aware of their narratives. (I really do love this new, meta-Disney that has fun poking fun at itself.) I especially like that Rapunzel and Belle asked Vanellope if she'd been "kidnapped or enslaved." The whole scene is just fantastic because it implies that each of the princesses know their stories and are just playing their parts -- just like Vanellope (and Ralph). Just like Ralph is a "good guy" playing the role of Bad Guy, each of the princesses are strong heroines playing the role of Damsel in Distress because it's the way the story goes. (Well, most of them. Perhaps that's why Merida, Anna and Moana don't really chime in during this part.)

I also really want to believe that the people who worked on this movie are fans of Amy Mebberson's Pocket Princesses.

Wreck-It Ralph 2: The Disney Princesses Unite!

A few days ago, this post popped up on my feed:

A couple of important things to note:

(1) Alan Tudyk is back! Given that his original character, King Candy/Turbo, was the villain and (spoiler!) got his just desserts, and also given that Alan Tudyk has become Disney Animation Studios' good-luck charm -- I was worried that he wouldn't be in this film. Worries no more. 

(2) Taraji P. Henson's character looks awesome.

(3) Perhaps, most importantly, our first look at the Disney Princesses all together is here!

Here's a bigger look at the picture:

📷: Purewow via Disney

Again, there are a couple of things to note here:

(1) This is awesome. And you will never get me to say otherwise. I imagine this to be some sort of super-cool Princess secret society. Or, resort/spa where they can relax and get away from princessy-duties.

(2) Excluding Vanellope, there are 11 princesses present:

• (2a) Interestingly, Anna, Elsa and Moana are all here -- even though they haven't been officially inducted into the princess court.
• (2b) All the First Wave princesses are present -- Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora -- even though their voice actors are no longer with us. (I always assumed they'd have different actors, so it'll be fun/interesting to see who they cast.)
  Also--Aurora is in her pink dress. Don't get me started.
• (2c) 3/5 of the Second Wave princesses are present: Belle, Jasmine, & Pocahontas are there, but Ariel and Mulan aren't. More on this in a second.
• (2d) 2/3 of the Third Wave princesses are present -- Tiana and Rapunzel, but Merida isn't. (I'm not counting Moana yet.)

Given the panorama-type view of the shot, it's possible that the three of them are just off-screen (and maybe we'll see them in the trailer tomorrow). 

Shockingly, (she said sarcastically), the internet is a little upset about Mulan not being included -- thanks, Buzzfeed!

Which, I know they ask about Ariel in the sub-title, but still. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to count the princesses and figure out that not *every* Disney princess is there -- I counted 3.  But there's a lot of ignorance misinformation in this post. 

WHERE’S MY BITCH FA MULAN https://t.co/B2c6JUAtbx

— josh (@bernaldont) May 31, 2018

Like that whole jibber-jabber about how Mulan isn't *technically* a princess. Yes. We talk about this a lot in my class -- i.e., how do we determine a Disney princess? Do you have to be born one? Can you marry into royalty? And what about different cultures? After all, princesses are primarily (not exculsively!) a Western concept, especially in the way Disney portrays them. Is Jasmine a princess, as the daughter of a sultan? Is Pocahontas a princess, as the daughter of a chief? (Maui would clear this up.)  But I digress. -- The point is: when Andy Mooney created the princess franchise in the early 2000s, they had to come up with some criteria. After all, Tinker Bell was included at one point -- but then they went and did the whole Fairies franchise ($$$), so she was out. Any female character who is included in the Royal Court, is an official princess, regardless of birth, marriage, or any other factors. See below:

📷: WDWThemeParks

All 11 princesses are there -- and yes, this is before Frozen and Moana, but there hasn't been another "induction" since.

So then they point to these cast photos that were taken at the 2017 D23 Expo (which I thought I blogged about, but I can't find it. Which makes sense. I was so. very. pregnant. in July of 2017 and also running around after a 1-year-old.)

What these images tell us is that, from left to right in the second picture, Paige O'Hara (Belle), Irene Bedard (Pocahontas), Mandy Moore (Rapunzel), Auli'i Cravalho (Moana), Sarah Silverman (Vanellope), Kristen Bell (Anna), Kelly MacDonald (Merida), Anika Noni Rose (Tiana), Linda Larkin (Jasmine) and Jodi Benson (Ariel) are all there. When I first read this story, I assumed Ming-Na Wen (Mulan) wasn't there because of Agents of Shield commitments.

I'm just going to ignore this comment from the Buzzfeed post -- But interestingly the voice actors of Snow White, Cinderella, Elsa, and Aurora were not present, even though they are in the shot from the movie. -- because, you know, LOGIC. (Snow White came out in 1937, guys. It's a safe bet that Adriana Caselotti isn't still alive -- she passed in 1997 -- and even if she were, she'd be pretty old.)

So, yeah. Merida and Ariel will be there -- although no one seemed particularly worried about here in the Buzzfeed post  😢 -- and it's a safe bet that Mulan will be too.

So, let's just enjoy the awesomeness of all the princesses together and hope that we see them all in the trailer tomorrow.

Disney Princesses As: Career Women!

May, 2018: We're still re-imagining Disney Princesses in inventive ways. #somethingsneverchange

The latest one imagines Disney Princesses as modern-day career women:

via ScaryMommy

The collection is by Matt Burt and he's put a lot of thought into the careers for each character.

Chronologically, here they are:

Snow White -- Leading Psychologist

Cinderella -- Animal Rights Activist

Aurora -- CEO of Spinning Wheel Coffee 

Ariel -- Pop Star & Record Producer 

Belle -- University Chancellor

Jasmine -- UN Ambassador

Pocahontas -- Environmental Activist (I mean, duh)

Mulan -- Title IX Lawyer

Tiana -- Award Winning Chef (I mean, duh)

Rapunzel -- Neurologist

Merida -- Two Time Olympian (Archery & Equestrian)

Elsa & Anna* -- Climate Change Scientists

Moana -- Officer in the Navy

*Not official princesses, but, a common mistake.

Okay, one, it's clear that Burt put a lot of thought and rationale into each of these career choices.
Two--I love that each of them is an empowering career for the character -- you've got chancellors and ambassadors and scientists. (Yay for Women in STEM!)

But.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't have nit-picky thoughts.

1. Most obvious -- Tiana & Pocahontas: really, any other career options for these two wouldn't work.

2. My favorite "new career" -- Aurora: I love that she's the CEO of a coffee company. Tongue-in-cheek, but oddly appropriate.

3. No...just no -- Snow White as a "Leading Psychologist" and Rapunzel as a "Neurologist": Nope. Not buying it. While I appreciate that Burt made Snow a "leading" psychologist who cares for her clients but also presents at conferences, I...would not put my faith in her as a psychologist. If anything, I think she'd made a great preschool/kindergarten/elementary school teacher. Her cheerful disposition plus her ability to make people actually wash their hands? Textbook.

And Rapunzel? Yeah, cool. Neurologist, doctor, med school, blah blah blah. But the thing I love about the end of Tangled is that Flynn tells us that she learned to rule and govern her people and was a great princess/queen. So, yeah. I would have liked to see her be a senator or even a female president. 

    

4. Miscellaneous thoughts, from someone who has clearly spent too much time thinking about this:

• I guess I see Cinderella as an Animal Rights Activist -- but maybe she and Ariel join forces together. I don't love Ariel as a Pop Star -- because she's my favorite, and it seems a shallow career -- but...I suppose Ariel is kind of shallow, so it fits. :/ 
• Again, I love that Belle is the chancellor of a university, but again, it kinda doesn't fit her personality. I don't see her as an authoritative decision-maker -- something I think Once Upon A Time captures nicely with Belle as a librarian -- maybe an English professor at best. 
• Mulan & Moana -- For some reason, I'm just "meh" about these. I think it's because they seem too rebellious for such straight-laced careers. I'm pretty sure Mulan would do something -- with the best of intentions, of course -- that would end up getting her disbarred. And Moana? She relies too much on emotion and instinct to be a good naval officer -- I can't see her taking orders well. 

Like I said, I've clearly spent too much time thinking about this! 

A Real Life Fairy Tale

As an unabashed Anglophile, I've always been "meh" about the modern Royal Family. (I prefer the underrated soap-opera-y goodness of E!'s The Royals. Like, I know it's trashy and ridiculous, but there's something comforting about it -- and it's kind of fun to imagine what goes on behind the closed doors of royal palaces. Us Weekly -- or one of them -- shows that celebrities are just like us, but are royals? I'd like to think so, but sometimes it's hard to imagine. Although articles like this make it a little easier -- Huffpost's "Experts Dissect Meghan Markle’s Mother’s Body Language With The Royal Family." Although it's weird to think of Charles -- arguably the villain in Diana's narrative -- as "the nice guy.")

But I digress.

The point is, I didn't wake up early to watch The Royal Wedding. I didn't have any plans to, despite thinking that Harry & Meghan make a more relatable couple than William and Kate ever did. But that's a can of worms for another day. But then my husband had the coverage on, and I was curious what kind of dress Meghan Markle was wearing as well as what celebrities were invited/attending. (Sidebar: I love that the cast of Suits were invited...to the ceremony at least. I don't know why, but it makes me happy. I see it as genuine affection.)

But I digress again. The point is, I got sucked into the coverage and as I was watching the highlights, two things struck me. One, how modern, American, and black the ceremony was (for a royal wedding) and two, how Meghan Markle was basically Cinderella -- in appearance, not necessarily her life story, proud feminist that she is. When I saw her walking down the stairs, Disney fan that I am, this is what I thought of:

via Cosmo

And, thankfully, I'm not alone. Check out this article from Cosmo, and this tweet: 

A Disney fairy tale turned reality. Meghan Markle is the real life Cinderella #royalwedding pic.twitter.com/DpLoYZZXiT

— Umeh and 99 others (@UmehOMA) May 19, 2018

Aaaand now back to our regularly scheduled programming.