The Importance of Kristoff

We talk about this a lot in my Disney classes, but so often, it's the female characters who are the focus of at best discussion, at worst criticism in Disney films. (With the exception of Pixar. Because Pixar has this weird obsession with male leads. And just when we think they're making progress with films like Brave and Toy Story 4, which feature Merida and Bo Peep & Jessie, we get Onward. Don't even get me started on Onward. I am...not impressed by the trailer.)

And while the heroines (and, to some extent, the villains) of Disney Princess movies aren't necessarily fully-fleshed out characters, they're at least better than the Disney Princes. After all, Snow White's prince doesn't even have a name (I refuse to believe it's "Florian"), and Cinderella's love interest is known simply as "Prince Charming". It's not until we get to Sleeping Beauty that the prince even has a name and actual dialogue. 

This is, of course, something that's changing in more recent films. Speaking of the 2015 live-action Cinderella, screenwriter Chris Weitz says,

"Prince Charming is something of a cypher in the animated (1950) version and the Grimm and Perrault talks. I felt that whereas it was acceptable and even useful to have him be essentially symbolic in earlier versions (it was just enough that he was rich and important and handsome), an audience today demands a bit more in terms of identification."

Kristoff isn't technically a prince (yet) -- I'm hoping for a Frozen III where Kristoff and Anna get married and Elsa brings Honeymarren as her date -- but the ideas are the same: it's not enough that he's Anna's True Love, we have to know more about him to understand why Anna loves him. (Frankly, his relationship with Sven is enough for me: he's goofy and good with animals.)

And, as Kristen Bell points out to Jimmy Fallon, it's equally important to know why he loves her and to see him loving her. It's not something we get enough of, and can go a long way in changing the narrative that leads to Toxic Masculinity.

Film Review: How Frozen II Gets Colonialism Right In a Kid's Movie

When it comes to watching Disney movies, I find it very hard to take off my academic cap and just enjoy the movie. I'm constantly analyzing and looking for little details. While I sometimes wish I could just enjoy them like I do other movies, I actually really enjoy it -- especially when I see some progress and development in the Disney Princess brand.

One of the biggest criticisms lobbed against Disney films is their whitewashing of history -- it started, perhaps, with Song of the South, and didn't really get better with Pocahontas or The Princess and the Frog. Critics point out that relations between two tension-charged groups -- the Native Americans and the English settlers in the former, and whites and blacks in the latter -- were not as simple or positive as they're portrayed in the animated films; defenders retort that that they're children's films and, as such, can't possibly address the complexities of racial dynamics in 90 minutes nor should they. 

Both sides are right: Disney isn't creating a documentary or a historical film; they're producing a fairy-tale film. (Whether Pocahontas -- a real historical figure -- has a fairy-tale story and whether Disney should have set a film in 1920s Louisiana are entirely different questions.) And the defenders are right, too: even if Disney had a moral obligation to accurately represent history, it'd be almost impossible to do in a 90-minute film. 

So the question then becomes -- and I love discussing it with my students -- what should Disney do? How can they not sidestep sensitive issues but still do them justice? 

And this is where Frozen II comes in: the basic gist of the plot (and I think this is mostly apparent from the trailer), there's a conflict between the Arendellians and the native people in the film, the Northundra (who, I think, are modeled after the Sami tribe, the native people of Norway/Scandinavia). The story of the conflict is initially filtered through Elsa and Anna's father, who doesn't know what happened because he was outside the forest and knocked unconscious. But the elemental spirits of the forest basically keep people in and "lock" out the outside world.

But here's the significant part: the arc of the film is basically Elsa uncovering the truth of what happened, of why the spirits were angered. And the reason, as Elsa learns, is that Elsa's grandfather betrayed the Northundra, building the dam under the guise of peace and unity, but really doing it to gauge the strength and size of the Northundra tribe. His reason? He was pissed off that they were independent and wanted them to swear allegiance to him. The moment he kills the Northundra leader is the moment the spirits "revolt" for lack of a better term, and there's a more complicated, but beautiful, resolution to the story, one which ends with a message of true peace and unity.

Why is this so important? Well, aside from the fact that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is basically a symbol of some ye olden days Fragile Toxic Masculinity, he represents that colonial, imperialist mindset of "white is right" and that native people should swear fealty to him simply because of the crown he wears. In the film, the Northundra are portrayed relatively flat, but they're kind people who seem intent on harmony and peace. (I'm thinking of Pocahontas, where each group views the other as "savage," and equally at fault, when, in reality, the English settlers bear the majority of the blame and fault.) While there's a bit of a problem in locating that mindset in just one character -- in Pocahontas, it's Ratcliffe; once he's gone, all the English settlers are totally fine with everything; here, it's the grandfather who seems to be the sole prejudiced one -- what's important is that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is portrayed as wrong, and his beliefs are firmly and clearly denounced by both Elsa and Anna. Both sisters understand why their grandfather's actions were unforgivable and also understand what they need to do make things right and restore balance. And, in this case, that means appeasing the Elemental spirits and making reparations by destroying the dam.

Is it a perfect depiction of complex inter-racial relations? Of course not. It is, after all, an animated film with a target demographic of preschoolers and elementary schoolers. And there are lots of unanswered questions, but...

Does it attempt to handle complex issues better than its predecessors did? Yes, I would say so. And, what's more important, is that I think it lays the groundwork for important future discussions. I think it opens the door to have early conversations about imperialism and colonialism and how some people, even people we thought were good and right, did some truly bad things. From there? There are so many places to go. 

Film Review: Frozen II

This afternoon, my husband I were fortunate enough to have a Double-Feature Date Afternoon. We saw Knives Out first -- which was a fantastic WhoDunIt and just an overall delightful romp -- and then saw Frozen 2.

Disclaimer: I haven't read any reviews and managed to stay largely spoiler-free. I had read some "first reactions" -- those Twitter responses about people's early responses to the film which are largely vague and non-specific and which don't give away any specific details -- and that was all I knew. Most of them were positive -- I feel like there was one lukewarm response which basically said it "was good, but not as good as the first," (important to note that it was written by a man) -- which reassured me. Disney sequels are, after all, usually things that go straight-to-video and aren't very good. (The only sequels I can think of are The Rescuers Down Under -- because The Rescuers were. my. jam. -- and Ralph Breaks the Internet...somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I knew that the film was darker, had supposedly matured with its audience, and that a good deal of people believed it was unnecessary.

I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts.

But here's the gist of them: Frozen II is not the movie I thought it was going to be, and that's okay, because it turned out to be the Disney Princess Movie I needed. And, more importantly, I think it's the Disney Princess Movie that I needed to see as a young girl, that the brand needs, and that little girls (and boys) need.
Spoilery thoughts below.

Wait -- Disney Is *Actually* Doing A Live-Action Snow White?!

This girl right here? She's an icon:


via GIPHY

She is not just the OG Disney Princess -- she's the OG Disney Character.

Without her, there would probably not be a "Disney." There (probably) would not be a billion-dollar multi-media conglomerate. We (probably) wouldn't be watching cartoons as adults. We might not even have theme parks, of which Disney ones represent the Gold Star. And who else knows what the trickle-down-effect would be. 

Because back in 1937, pretty much everyone expected an 80-minute feature-length animated film to flop. Which is extra problematic considering Disney sunk everything he had into this film -- I think the estimated budget eventually ballooned up to $1.5 million (in the middle of the Great Depression, remember). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was known as Disney's Folly. 

But maybe it was precisely that historical context -- the Depression -- that made people flock to the theater. For escape, for nostalgia, for air conditioning -- whatever it was, people loved it. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the film made $80 million during its first year: at a time when an adult movie ticket cost a quarter and a child movie ticket a nickel. 

And thus, Disney was saved and an empire was born. 

Now, she's not perfect. She's gotten a lot of criticism. She certainly makes some questionable life-choices: 

via GIPHY

But remember: She was born in 1937. I'm not saying that excuses everything, but face it: things were a helluva lot different then. 

And it's not all bad: sure, she's only 14 and marries a man she basically just met, but at least that man didn't stumble across the seemingly-dead-body of an 8 year old girl in the middle of a forest and attempt to buy her from some dwarves. (Which is what happens in the original story by the Grimm Brothers.) Unlike her successors, her eyes are proportionate and normal-sized. Also unlike her successors, she's got a healthy body type with a realistic waist and some actual curves. And, when she stumbles upon the dwarf's cottage, she doesn't ask for a hand-out: she uses the skills she has (yes, they are limited and domestic) to compensate for a roof over her head. 

So, yes. I'm defending her. And not just because she was my favorite when I was very little. (We also didn't have a lot of options pre-1989):

(My dad would kill me if he saw this photo. Also, remember when Disney characters just wandered the parks?)

ANYWAY. All of this is to say that, as the OG Character, she holds a special place in the realm of Movies-You-Just-Don't-Remake. How could you remake The Wizard of Oz without Judy Garland? Or Gone With The Wind without Clark Gable or Vivien Leigh? Or Breakfast at Tiffany's without Audrey Hepburn? 

I thought, for the longest time, that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was off-limits. Of course her story has been retold -- I actually even enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman, mainly due to Charlize Theron's Wicked Queen, and Gregory's Maguire's Italian take with Lucrezia Borgia as the villainess -- and Disney went so far as make Snow the heroine of its fairy-tale-version-of-Lost, Once Upon A Time. 

But now it seems like the iconic 1937 film has been added to the list of Disney's Remake Machine, having just found a director in Marc Webb. (Yes, the film was announced in 2016, but films are announced all the time--it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get made. We've been waiting on that Wicked film for years now.)

Things That Make Me Cautiously Optimistic:

• Marc Webb was a director/producer on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which, largely thanks to Rachel Bloom, did exceptional things with its portrayal of mental illness, female friendships, and romantic relationships. 
• Pasek and Paul have been brought on to write new songs for the film -- and if "Speechless" is any indication, this bodes extremely well. 

Things That Might Be Tricky:

• Adriana Caselotti -- Disney's original voice actress -- had an incredibly high voice. And while it may have worked in the 1930s, it's one of the things my students comment on the most when asked about things they disliked about the film. (A quibble, I know, but her voice is iconic.)
• There's not a whole lot of story there, and the source material isn't exactly great by 2019 standards. Most adaptations maintain the element of female jealousy and conflict -- based on appearance/beauty -- and I would love to see Disney change and update this for 2019. 
• I'd also hope that this Snow White will have a spine and won't be quite so passive. While Disney's 2015 version of Cinderella was a beautiful film, and did update some elements of the story, Ella was still "as meek and as mild as a mouse" for  most of the film. 

Finally, while there aren't even whispers of a rumor about the plot, several of the articles I read mention that Disney is also considering a "spin-off" featuring Snow White's "sister," Rose Red. Which....

via GIPHY

...is not entirely true. I mean, yes. I used to think this as a kid because "Snow White and Rose Red" was one of my favorite stories. But...just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're the same character. So...yeah. Not sisters. 

Hopefully, this is just lazy reporting and not actual information coming from Disney. Because that would not bode well. 

Speechless: In Praise of Naomi Scott, Benj Pasek, Justin Paul & Alan Menken

If there was one living Disney legend I could have lunch with, it would be Dame Julie Andrews.

But if I could have lunch with two Disney legends, it would be Dame Julie Andrews and Alan Menken. I have no musical talent whatsoever, but even I can recognize that Alan Menken is in a class of his own. 

I've been listening to the Aladdin soundtrack on repeat, especially the score. (I don't know if it counts as "classical" music, but I find the instrumental music helps me concentrate when I'm writing or course planning.) And the more I listen to "Speechless," the more I find myself humming it as I'm unloading the dishwasher or singing fragments when I'm replying to emails. 

Take a listen below:

Yes, it obviously has a different sound than the other music -- but it's not like the music from the original animated film is completely coherent. As Mari Ness explains for Tor, Aladdin's production history was interrupted by Howard Ashman's death. Jeffrey Katzenburg didn't like the initial script that Musker and Clements produced so they brought in Tim Rice (who would later work with Elton John on the soundtrack for The Lion King). Of the main songs on the soundtrack "A Whole New World" and "One Jump Ahead" are written by Rice and Menken, and "Prince Ali" and "Friend Like Me" are Menken and Ashman's collaborations. 

All of this is to say -- there's a pastiche element to the soundtrack already, so adding "Speechless" to the mix doesn't really bother me. Perhaps that's because it was written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul who worked on two of my favorite soundtracks at the moment, Dear Evan Hansen and The Greatest Showman. And they're Disney aficionados, which endears them to me even more. Look at them, they're adorable!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Walt Disney Studios (@disneystudios) on May 29, 2019 at 11:08am PDT

I appreciate that they pointed out that Jasmine needed her own song -- it's always struck me as odd that, despite it being Aladdin's movie (technically), Jasmine is one of the official Disney princesses. To be fair, when they created the brand in 2000, they played fast and loose with the definition since Tinkerbell was originally included (before they realized that the Fairies could be a profitable brand on their own) and characters like Pocahontas and Mulan are included, despite not technically being princesses.

And yes, the song is a powerful feminist anthem, especially considering that, in the film, it comes directly after Jafar's line that "princesses should be seen and not heard."

But more than that -- it's intricately connected to the original animated film in such a smart, subtle way that you could almost miss it if you were dazzled by the visuals of the film. (I did. And I loved that scene where the characters around Jasmine disappear into poofs of smoke as she dismisses each of them. I think critics were divided over it, but I thought it was a visually cool effect.) It was only after I started listening to the song divorced from the visuals that the connections started to click together.

The song starts with the lines:

"Here comes a wave meant to wash my away / A tide that is taking me under / Swallowing sand, left with nothing to say / My voice drowned out in the thunder..."

The line to "swallowing sand" struck me -- and it seemed more than just a throwaway reference to the Arabian setting. To me, it seemed like a callback to the scene in the original film where Jafar traps Jasmine in the giant hourglass, literally silencing her.

It's a scene that increasingly bothers me the more I teach the film. It's weirdly sexual for a kid's film and is rivaled only by, perhaps, Frollo's "Hellfire" song in Hunchback. Plus Slave Jasmine makes me think of Slave Leia in her gold bikini, but without any of the subsequent empowerment Leia gets. 

Pasek and Paul thought so too, apparently. In an interview with The LA Times, Pasek says:

“We were really inspired by a line in the original movie where Jafar very misogynistically says, ‘You’re speechless, I see. A fine quality in a wife'...In the world that we live in, so many people need to reclaim their voice — or claim it for the first time — and be outspoken about who they are and what they believe in. It was a really exciting opportunity to put that message into the voice of Jasmine.”

Which...I love. I love that they found inspiration in a line from the film -- one of the more misogynistic parts of the film, TBH -- and flipped it on its head and turned it into an empowering anthem.

And there's another part of the song that I think is also a direct callback to the original film. In the song, Jasmine sings,

"Try to lock me in this cage / I won't just lay me down and die / I will take these broken wings / And watch me burn across the sky..."

I can't be sure, of course, because Pasek and Paul don't address it specifically with The LA Times (which isn't to say that they don't address it somewhere else; I haven't found it yet, if they have) -- but it reminded me of the scene in the animated film where Jasmine is in the courtyard with Rajah. The Sultan's just come pestering her about marrying a prince before her 16th birthday (UGH) and Jasmine is lamenting her lack of freedom and her desire to get out of the palace. (Although this exact scene isn't in the remake, the premise is consistent, and may be alluded to when Jasmine sings "written in stone / every rule, every word / centuries old and unbending.") Frustrated, Jasmine sets the birds, who were previously locked in the cage, free:

It's a nice moment in the animated film -- foreshadowing Jasmine's escape from the palace -- but given that she ultimately ends up back in the palace, it rings a little hollow. (And heavy-handed with the symbolism, but that's definitely an adult perspective.) I like that this scene wasn't kept in the remake, but I love that Pasek and Paul alluded to it. It shows a familiarity with the original film and pays homage to it by acknowledging that there were memorable moments in the original film that don't hold up in 2019. 

It's smart and it's subtle and it works. And it makes a kick-ass anthem. 

Pixar's Latest -- Onward...and Backward?

The first images from Pixar's latest film, Onward, dropped today via People:

📷: People: Tom Holland (left) and Chris Pratt's (right) characters

📷: Julia Louis-Dreyfus (left) and Tom Holland's (right) characters

Okay.

I admit, I knew nothing about this film. So I did a little digging.

The film is set to come out in March of 2020 and is written and directed by Dan Scanlon who, while working on other Pixar films, most notably wrote Monsters University. (Meh.)

Here's the plot summary from Wikipedia -- so take it for what it's worth:

"The film is set in a suburban fantasy world where humans do not exist, instead populated with elves, trolls, and sprites, where unicorns are as common as rodents. Two teenage elf brothers, Barley and Ian, embark on a quest to discover if there is still magic in the world in order to spend one day with their father, who died when they were too young to remember him.'

Apparently, the story is "inspired by Scanlon's father's death when Scanlon and his brother were younger, and their relationship" which kinda makes me feel bad for what I'm about to say.

But even though there's an emotional center to the story; even though Chris Pratt and Tom Holland are adorable and are sure to have good chemistry; even though.

There's that little voice in the back of my head that thought, "Really Pixar? Really?"

Because leaving aside the fact that the plot sounds an awful lot like Zootopia -- it just feels like Pixar is falling back on their typical formula. And I don't mean the "What If X Had Feelings" one (although it is hilarious):

 It's the buddy film -- two guys on an emotional journey where they each help other learn something that changes them--usually with the tough macho guy learning to be emotional and, well, less macho. A little vague but it's Buzz & Woody, it's Mike & Sully, it's Marlin & Dory (who's female, yes, but let's not unpack that rn), it's Mr. Incredible & Syndrome, it's Lightning & Mader, it's Remy & Linguini, it's Carl & Russell, it's Miguel and Hector. It's more of the same.

via GIPHY

So, yeah. Even though this story is based on Scanlon's life and we can't fault him for that -- someone at Pixar heard this pitch, read this script and thought "Yep. That's on brand." To be fair, the film was announced back in 2017, at the D23 Expo, when the now-disgraced-COO John Lasseter was in charge. So it's easy enough to lay the blame at his feet and be done with it. After all, Lasseter was at Disney since the early 1980s (ish), and he helped found Pixar and was integral in having Disney shift to computer animation. 

But that's almost too easy, isn't it? This is, I'm sure, indicative of a larger gender-based issue in Hollywood: despite fiction and storytelling being coded as female, making money is decidedly coded male, with women comprising only 8% of Hollywood directors. 

Think about it. 

Out of Pixar's 20 films, 17* have male leads. That's 85% of Pixar's films. 

Of those 17, some do have a female character of some significance -- it's debatable whether the role is large enough to be considered a co-protagonist: Princess Atta in A Bug's Life, Dory in Finding Nemo (it's really the story of Marlin and Nemo), maybe ElastiGirl in The Incredibles (again, it's really the story of Mr. Incredible and Syndrome), maybe Eve in Wall-E, and maybe ElastiGirl in The Incredibles 2 -- because even though it's about her getting to be the one to save the world, it's still about how Mr. Incredible deals with it. 

That leaves 3 -- THREE -- films that are anchored around female characters: Brave was the first (with Merida and her mother Elinor), Inside Out was next in 2015 (Joy and Sadness), and Finding Dory in 2016. 

So, yeah. I'm sure this story is deeply personal to Scanlon, and I certainly don't begrudge him that. Let him tell his story. But that doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed to see another male-buddy story from Pixar, with Julia Louis-Dreyfus mentioned as just "the mom."

Let's hear some other stories, Pixar. Disney, for all their faults, at least puts female characters at the forefront of their animated stories -- Zootopia needed both Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde to make it work (and even changed the story to make Judy the heart of the story) and Wreck-It Ralph is anchored by the friendship between Ralph and Vanellope. (On a side note, it was really weird to skim the Wikipedia page and see all the animated films Disney now owns after their merger with 20th Century Fox...like Bob's Burger's The Movie...) 

Little Mermaid Musings: Casting Possibilities

On the way home from the lake the other day, my husband and I were talking about Aladdin (yes, again). And one of the things we were focusing on was the criticism that Disney didn't do enough with the live-action version.

This is something I struggle with with retellings in general. But I suppose that's the thing, isn't it? Disney isn't really "re-telling" the story -- at least not in the sense that Gail Carson Levine was retelling "Cinderella" with Ella Enchanted or Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant did with Ever After (these two are generally highly regarded when it comes to retelling a classic fairy tale. There are, of course, numerous others, but these are two of my personal favorites.). What Disney is doing is re-making their beloved animated films and occasionally updating them. The closet they've come to retelling is Maleficent, since there's really not much there in the original animated film and Maleficent is, arguably, the most dynamic part of that film. (For the record, I hate the way Linda Woolverton & Co. transformed the Good Fairies, as Merrywether is my icon.)

BUT ANYWAY.

The point is, I think expecting Disney to radically change the fundamental story is setting yourself up for disappointment. This was never going to be Jasmine's story, because the story is, after all, called "Aladdin."

That being said, I do think there are opportunities to do something new and different, without fundamentally changing the narrative of the story.

Case in point: The Little Mermaid live-action film. Y'all know how much I LOVE this film and don't care what the prevailing academic argument about this is a horrible story for feminists because she gives up her voice yada yada yada. Production for the film is rumored to begin sometime in 2020, probably because Lin-Manuel Miranda is a very busy man. BUT. He is on-board:

We’re off and swimming! https://t.co/av6udBuIlp

— Alan Menken (@AIMenken) April 10, 2019

And leaving aside all of LiLo's pleas to be cast as Ariel (NO, DISNEY. JUST NO -- which, to be honest, I don't think would every happen, as Disney is probably well aware of LiLo's career after she jumped the good ship Disney Channel Child Star) -- I think Disney could be radical and different with this film, simply by diversifying the cast.

Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" holds a unique position in fairy-tale-lore, since it is, to the best of my knowledge, an original story written by Andersen in 1837. (Unlike, say, "Cinderella," which has an analogue in most cultures around the world.) So, yes. While Andersen's authorship firmly locates the tale in the European (re: white) tradition, it's also about mermaids. So we're not bound by any "scientific" rules here or anything, since, you know, mermaids aren't real. (Whatever some people might think.)

Zendaya has long been the rumored favorite for the role, although nothing has been confirmed. I've seen a lot of clamor for Lea Michele to play the part, especially after her performance at the Hollywood Bowl recently:

You're welcome. 

And I've always been a fan, but girl should be busy with rehearsals for Wicked, because if she isn't cast as Elphaba in that remake, then I want nothing to do with it. 

As should Dove Cameron who, despite the 10-year-age-gap between her and Michele is one of my picks to play Galinda -- which is still relevant, because my husband thought Dove Cameron would make a good choice for Ariel as well. 

BUT. After watching The Greatest Showman -- because I aged out of Disney Channel before her show Shake It Up aired -- I'm a fan. And totally support this casting choice. 

So that got our drive-home-discussion going: if Zendaya is cast as Ariel, and if LMM brings some of his race-swapping Hamilton magic to the film...well. This could be the statement piece for Disney that so many wanted Aladdin to be. 

We decided LMM would make a great Grimsby -- we could age him down from the fuddy-duddy butler he is in the animated film to more of best-friend-advisor -- and we know he can rock that period-piece-ponytail:

For King Triton -- we'd cast The Rock. We first thought of Jason Momoa, but that's a little on-the-nose given that he was just Aquaman. But the more we thought about it, the more we were on board, because (1) he is the model for fatherhood we need these days -- and with three daughters, he could easily channel that into the role since Ariel has 6 sisters; and (2) Triton was always weirdly buff for a dude with a white beard, and Disney could save on their CGI budget by casting The Rock.
Edit: After some thought, I might be okay with Terry Crews as King Triton. Can he sing? Broadway Triton sings, I think...

We agreed that Tituss Burgess should have a role somewhere -- casting him as Sebastian is also a little on-the-nose since he originated the role on Broadway, but I'd like to see him as Ursula. This is the potentially most subversive -- and thus the potentially most important -- role for Disney to cast. While Ursula was voiced -- iconically! -- by Pat Carroll in the animated film, the character was famously modeled on the drag queen Divine and that legacy should not be underplayed. Casting a gay man or a draq queen or a trans actor would be an incredible move by Disney -- Harvey Fierstein recently played Ursula at The Hollywood Bowl -- although I can see them going with a bigger name for the star power. I think Lady Gaga is the rumored favorite, but Rebel Wilson also slayed at the Hollywood Bowl. Maybe NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour team would be happy if Billy Porter was cast in this role? 

As for Eric...IDK. So long as it's not Henry Cavill, I think I'm okay. 

Where Is Skanland? -- Aladdin's "Controversial" Prince Anders Role Revealed

As I sit here, waiting for a band of thunderstorms to roll in and listening to the Aladdin score (whatever else you want to say about the live-action Aladdin, you cannot deny the talent of Alan Menken) -- I want to revisit something I blogged about a year and a half ago:

This Guy:

This is Billy Magnussen, a.k.a. Prince Anders in the new live-action version who, as many people have pointed out, does not exist in the animated version.

Back in September 2017, I wrote about my thoughts on this, which are complicated given my privilege.

For the record, I was almost exactly spot-on about Magnussen's role:

"FWIW, and this is probably a best case scenario, I hope Magnussen is playing the role of Prince Achmed from the animated film -- the prince who looks disdainfully at the people of Agrabah and who Jasmine (and Rajah) promptly rejects when he tries to impress her with all his wealth and status.
Maybe the Sultan is so desperate to see Jasmine married that he tries to arrange a marriage with her fairy-tale style -- you know, how in the fairy tales the King always says "whoever can complete task X can marry my daughter" and princes come from far and wide to try and win the princess, but in the end, it's the miller's son, or the stable boy who succeeds and rises up. (Which is, essentially, the story of Aladdin.) So maybe Prince Anders is either invited by the Sultan or hears of the stubborn princess and travels from Scandinavia to try his luck. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, he's arrogant and entitled and elitist and looks down on our hero and the hungry children of Agrabah. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, Jasmine puts him in his place and rejects him. Maybe there's a subtle commentary on the white savior narrative and this casting/narrative will flip it."

via GIPHY

If you've seen the film, you'll know that's pretty close. Prince Anders does replace Prince Achmed, but it plays out pretty much the same.

Except.

Where in the 1992 animated film Prince Achmed was pompous, arrogant, disdainful, and even cruel -- Prince Anders is...kind of a buffoon? He's pretty -- and it's a genuinely strong moment when Jasmine comments on his beauty (he's just complimented hers) and he says something like, "I know right? But no one ever mentions it!" And Jasmine, being the strong, take-no-BS-feminist that she is retorts with, "Isn't it strange that we have the same title [prince/princess], but people talk about us so differently?" (Something like that -- I don't remember the exact wording.)

And poor Prince Anders -- you can see he doesn't quite get what she means. And you just want to ruffle his hair and pat his head, because he's not very bright.

So, yes. Jasmine does put him in his place and does reject him -- and that's about it. There's no significant change to the plot. Which does lend support to the idea that it wasn't necessary to cast a white man in the role.

I do think there's lost potential here -- I think Ritchie & Co. could have implemented the subtle commentary about the white savior narrative, thereby validating the decision to change Achmed to Anders. And this connects back to one of my other quibbles with the film -- the identity of Jasmine's mother. Or, at least, where her mother comes from. (This was alluded to in interviews, but is never explicitly dealt with in the text of the film.)

One of the minor-plot points of the film is that Jafar wants to control the Sultan/become a Sultan because, like every Super Evil Bad Guy evar, he's bent on world domination. He wants to turn Agrabah into an empire, not just a prosperous city. To do that, he needs to invade [insert fictional name of country where Jasmine's mother is from]. Jafar also indicates that Skanland -- Prince Ander's fictional country -- could be a strong military/political ally.

Sure. They're fictional countries, so why not.

I'm just saying: there could have been a 30-second addition to the scene where Jafar is trying to mind-meld the Sultan with a map that shows where each of the countries are located. The country where Jasmine's mother is from could look vaguely like India (as I suspect it's supposed to be) and Skanland could be...IDK, near Arendelle or something? This would fit with the military strategy the Sultan is supposed to be reviewing and could neatly tie these loose ends together. (Maybe the countries are on the map when Jasmine is trying to find Ababwa, but I was distracted by the Fantasyland easter egg. I'd have to rewatch to verify.)

Giving Skanland a strategic military value -- paired with the obvious buffoonery of Magnussen's Anders -- would be enough to flip the white savior narrative: Look at this idiot who thinks he's coming to save the day but is really just being used and manipulated by an evil vizier. The potential was there--it just wasn't actualized.

Let's get this together before you deal with The Little Mermaid, Disney. You've got LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA working on this with you. Don't screw it up.

"It's Chaotic, But Hey It's Home": Disney's Live-Action "Aladdin"

"Oh, imagine a land, it's a faraway place where the caravan camels roam,

Where you wander among, every culture and tongue--

It's chaotic, but hey, it's home!"

So starts Disney's live-action Aladdin -- a new beginning for the now infamous lyrics of "Arabian Nights*." That line -- "it's chaotic, but hey, it's home" -- seems to nicely sum up the 2019 version: the live-action adaptation is a bit of a hodge-podge, and I'm not entirely sure the film knows what it wants to be (is it a straight remake? is it a retelling? is it a feminist story about a non-mad-queen's rise to power? is it an action movie?). But it's familiar and comforting and taps into the nostalgia 90s' Kids (those of us who were kids in the 1990s) have for Renaissance Disney films.

*(See, for instance, the NY Times review, "It's Racist, But Hey It's Disney!" and the LA Times' coverage of the changes Disney made in response to that criticism. Vanity Fair also seems to have a pretty good piece on the changes that were made in the 2019 version, but I admit I haven't fully read it yet.)

My husband and I had a chance to see it this afternoon, and, per usual, I went in without reading any extensive reviews. I can't help seeing the headlines as I scroll past them on social media but I try to avoid them so I can form my own, relatively uncolored opinion. On the way home, we had a pretty good discussion about what we thought of it and it ended with my saying, "I bet Glen Weldon from your NPR podcast will hate it." For the record, I don't think I was wrong. My husband loves this podcast -- I can't really do podcasts or audiobooks as I tend to zone out, no matter how engaging they are; and I do think this one is pretty engaging -- and we usually listen to their discussion of films after we see them.

But I couldn't get on board with their review of the film. From what I've seen in just Googling the articles I've needed for this post, the reactions seem to be mixed, with some critics praising Will Smith as the saving grace of the film and others lamenting his role, so, to paraphrase Will Smith's Genie, there's a lot of gray area here.
I've embedded the podcast here, since my post is largely a response to this discussion. Read more below the jump cut!

Disney Released A New Lion King Trailer...And I've Got Some Thoughts

It's been a big week for Disney news -- there's been a ton of info released on Disney+ (more on that in a separate post) and, of course, a new trailer from a tiny little franchise you may or may not have heard of. (My husband's the big Star Wars fan in our house, so, yeah. I'm gonna pass on that and leave it to the fan-experts.)

Instead, I'm gonna talk about The Lion King, because that's more my wheelhouse.

First--let me just say that even though we open with Chiwetel Eijofor intoning one of Scar's more iconic lines -- "Life's not fair" -- we're apparently not getting "Be Prepared*"?! Which I am not okay with Disney. Not okay with. 

*"Be Prepared" is one of my favorite Disney songs, full stop. (It's also one of the best Disney villain songs -- absolutely tied with "Poor Unfortunate Souls." Ooh, and "The Mob Song" from Beauty and the Beast. Damn, the villains get good songs.) Even though it's iconic and Elton John was involved, the music from The Lion King has never been my favorite. Probably because The Lion King was never my favorite, which I know is blasphemous to some. I liked it, sure, but it didn't resonate with me as much as other films did. 

But regardless. I have some thoughts.

1. Baby Simba (and Baby Nala) are absolutely adorable and I love them already. I know they're not real and they're CGI, but still. I have a vague memory of my brother and I being allowed to pick out one stuffed animal each on a Disney trip (before a Disney trip?) and I'm 99% sure that my brother had a stuffed baby Simba and I had a baby Nala. But I could be making that up. 
2. I got a minor case of goosebumps seeing what is, presumably, part of the "Hakuna Matata" montage when Simba grows up and he and Timon and Pumba are walking on the log. 
3. One of the things that jumped out to me was Mufasa's quote. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain that Mufasa has a new speech. I feel like I'm second-guessing myself, but I think that this quote, from the trailer, is a new revision to the Circle of Life Speech:
   "Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. While others search for what they can take, a true king searches for what he can give."
   
   Okay. It's a new film -- adding new lines and revising speeches is to be expected (and a relief, given that one of the big concerns was that the live-action film would be a shot-for-shot remake of the animated film). But the problem for me was that the line "while others search for what they can take" is played over an image of the hyenas and "a true king" is, of course, paired with Simba. It's the former that concerns me, because Little Me grew up thinking that hyenas were evil, villainous animals. Which...is not true. There are several articles online (like this Disneyfied, or Disney Tried Blog or this Michigan State University Blog or this Odyssey article, among many others) which point out that hyenas aren't scavengers. In fact, they kill somewhere between 60-95% of their own food, and lions are much more likely to steal from hyenas than hyenas are from lions. So, contrary to Mufasa's grandiose speech, hyenas are very much a part of the Circle of Life, and do not ostracize themselves in a graveyard full of old elephant bones.
   I was hoping that this would be fixed in the new film but...seems unlikely.
   It could be misdirection though, and taken out of context, the speech does have particularly poignant political implications, given it's commentary on what makes a good king (re: leader). Which leads me to my next point...
4. The other thing that stood out to me was the difference in Scar's appearance. Here's Scar in the 2019 film:

Looks like a lion, right? I agree. Especially when you consider that Mufasa looks like this:

The lighting isn't stellar for the shot of Scar, but he looks pretty much like Mufasa does, except with a much less magnificent mane.

Which isn't all that big of a deal unless you consider the animated version:

I mean, I know it's an animated movie for a target audience of 4-6 year olds, but the differences here are pretty obvious. (And, yes, I realize that may be Simba but Adult Simba is pretty much a carbon copy of Mufasa, so...) The coloring is completely different -- Scar's darker with a black mane, and Simba is lighter -- and Scar has some stereotypical Disney Villain Features like the lime green and yellow eyes, the facial hair (if his little goatee beard thing can be facial hair on a lion), and the harsher features (compared to Simba's softer, rounder features). If you had never seen this film, you could, pretty instantly, identify who was The Good Guy and who was The Bad Guy.

Now, I'm not the only one who noticed as the articles on Huffpost and Buzzfeed show. But their reactions are decidedly different than mine. Take this one:

Just compare the designs here.
OG Scar: evil and pompous as hell
remake Scar: a ratty looking lion I guess pic.twitter.com/5J6ygMQGGV

— Robert "Fat Leprechaun" Bahn (@SenorWoberto) April 10, 2019

He's not wrong...I basically said the same thing. But the connotation is different. The Interwebz is not a fan of Scar (which, to be fair, The Interwebz may have conflicting opinions, and people may be on board with this new Scar, but that wouldn't be very click-baity would it?) Take Buzzfeed Ben Henry's comments:

"Just to refresh your memory, in the animated version of The Lion King, Scar is flamboyant, he's sassy, he's a flawless icon. To put it simply, Scar is That Bitch. In the trailer for the live-action version, Scar looks like he's been THROUGH it. He looks like he's sick of everybody's shit. In fact, he looks a little sick, period."

This quote, I think, hits the nail on the head: Henry's word choice -- that Scar is "flamboyant," that he "sassy," that he's "flawless" -- these are all words we use to describe divas and fabulously fierce gay men. Especially the "flamboyant," effeminate gay man. Which is fine -- while I know I could do more, I'm a proud ally of LBTQ+ rights -- except when animators code "transgressive" behaviors solely on the villains. Many male villains in Disney movies -- Scar included, but also, for instance, Ratcliffe, Jafar, and Dr. Facilier -- are coded either "feminine" or "homosexual," ostensibly to mark their difference. (It's not just male villains -- female villains like Ursula and Lady Tremaine are coded masculine too. And villains like Gaston and Clayton are hyper-masculine in a way that marks them as different too.)

All of this is to say -- this wouldn't be a problem if villains weren't the only ones being coded this way; if we had a positive male character be coded as homosexual, or, better yet, be homosexual, but we're not there yet. It's not just an academic opinion -- in a 2017 article, The Telegraph includes Scar in their list of "not so secret gay Disney characters," and points out that while it's unclear if Scar is definitely gay, "given the character's undisputed villainy, it all feels somewhat problematic."

So Scar's "new look" in the remake, while perhaps less "evil and pompous as hell" or "disappointing" or "the wonderful villain from the superior 1994 film," I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I think it's Disney -- very subtly and not at overtly -- acknowledging that the whole "Good and Evil look different" trope is problematic, as well as the ways in which they portray that difference. Because guess what? You can't assess someone's moral status based on their physical appearance. (Anna learns this lesson the hard way in Frozen -- which is just another reason I love that movie.) This article from Out magazine acknowledges this and points out that Scar's new look might be a good thing. Mathew Rodriguez quotes Myles Johnson, who points out,

“I’m relieved that “The Lion King” put down the trope of using performed femininity and darkness as a way to visually communicate evil...It’s small, but the representations we consume can communicate a lot and Disney has been a notorious culprit of this.”

YAAAAS.

So, the trailer left me with mixed feelings. On the villain side, Disney does seem to be improving...but the political message still seems a little suspect to me. I guess we'll have to wait until July to find out! 

Let's Talk About The Stigma Around Enjoying "Kids" Things

Every so often, when I tell people I have a Master's Degree in Children's Literature, I can see the internal question behind their eyes: "Is that even a real thing?" They're usually much too polite to say that though, so they usually ask a variant of, "Oh! What kind of job do you get with that?" or, "So you just read kids books for a living?"

To be fair, most of the time, especially when I mention that I focus on Disney and Harry Potter, people's eyes light up and they start to talk enthusiastically about their favorite Disney movie or their favorite childhood book or they lean forward, as if we're sharing a guilty secret, and ask, "So what do you think about...?" Most of the time, it's a pleasant conversation. After all, the power of nostalgia is strong, and most people find it easy to talk about Disney movies or vacations.

But sometimes, I admit, it's easier to just say I have a Master's in 19th Century British Literature. Which I do. I actually have 2 Master's Degrees, which is not a #humblebrag, but more to point out that one of them is generally regarded as "more valid" or "better" than the other. Reading Dickens and the Brontes and Austen and Shelley is considered a legitimate form of academic study -- people get that. But reading Harry Potter and watching Disney movies? That, to some people, just isn't an acceptable way for an adult to spend her time.

Which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. But that doesn't change the fact that when things are marketed to children, they are seen as juvenile: simpler, easier, lesser. I'm certainly not the only one to observe this trend, and it's not a new phenomenon easier, despite the recent surge in popularity of YA fiction.

There's a really great quote by C. S. Lewis from an essay he wrote, titled "On Three Ways of Writing For Children" -- actually, the whole essay is great and I highly recommend it -- that neatly sums up this idea. Lewis writes,

"I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story. [...] This canon seems to me most obviously true of that particular type of children’s story which is dearest to my own taste, the fantasy or fairy tale. Now the modern critical world uses ‘adult’ as a term of approval. [...] Hence a man who admits that dwarfs and giants and talking beasts and witches are still dear to him in his fifty-third year is now less likely to be praised for his perennial youth than scorned and pitied for arrested development." 

Lewis then goes on to offer a three-prong defense of fantasy and the fairy tale, and says this in his first defense:

"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

To Lewis, the notion of being judged for one's personal preferences -- the fear of that judgment -- those are the childish marks of arrested development. A well-adjusted adult (not grown-up!) cares little for such judgment and is comfortable in their own skin.
[And, yes. The phrase "when I became a man I put away childish things" is an allusion to 1 Corinthians because while Lewis is (perhaps) most famous for his Chronicles of Narnia series, he was also a rather prolific theologian. I admit that I didn't know this until my younger brother was assigned one his theology books for homework at his private, Episcopal high school -- although, in hindsight, the religious symbolism in the Narnia books isn't exactly subtle. Aslan is a pretty obvious Christ figure when you think about it, which Little Me certainly didn't. Whoops.]

Anyway -- all of this is a rather long-winded way of introducing this:

I came across this article this morning and immediately bristled. My knee-jerk, snarky response was, "So? I'm [older than 24] and I love all things Disney." Yes, maybe the caption was click-baity, but the implication seemed to be that the author ought not to be enjoying a show about a Disney Princess on the Disney Channel. After all, the Disney Channel airs children's programming for kids, not adults.

The beginning of the article didn't do much to assuage me either:

"These are questions I often ask people when I get a little tipsy and start talking about TV, because, as I am here to proudly proclaim, my favorite show on TV right now is none other than the Tangled continuation/sequel series that everyone is sleeping on, Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure."

I prickled when I read this part because, again, the implication seems to be the author can only gush about one of her favorite things when her guard has been let down, her inhibitions lowered, her judgment impaired. Sober, she would never admit to liking, let alone loving, such a show, making it seem as if enjoying a Disney product is a dirty little secret and a very-guilty-pleasure. She even goes to criticize Disney a little bit, when she says:

"Yes, I am 24 years old and love a kids’ show about a Disney Princess, but this show—created to give Rapunzel more outfits so they can sell a new line of Tangled dolls—has some surprisingly relatable themes for millennials (and even Gen Z)."

The criticism of Disney-the-Company here is striking. Taking Disney down a peg -- reducing the show to another example of its synergistic relationship between film and merchandise -- isn't surprising: it's the dominant narrative these days. It just seems like a way to qualify the appeal of the show, to legitimate the rest of what she's about to say.
[It also seems, to me, to be unfair. Yes, of course, there's merchandise that accompanies the show, but I view the business and creative sides of the company as two separate entities. Perhaps that's naive of me, but I don't think that Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi would have agree to return to do the show if it had been a shallow merchandising ploy. And Mandy Moore has acknowledged this.]

To be fair, though, the rest of the article is a spot-on insightful account of the ways in which the show transcends average children's programming on network TV. Yes, shenanigans ensue and it's entertaining -- but the show and the TV movie work to expand the typical Disney Princess narrative, which is often really heavily criticized. After all, the show acknowledges: (1) Rapunzel has to enter the real world for the first time and adjust to a new normal and deal with the aftermath of her abusive relationship with Mother Gothel; (2) she has to forge a relationship with parents she doesn't really know; (3) she has to work at her relationship with Flynn/Eugene because happily-ever-afters don't just happen -- relationships take work (and that is revolutionary in and of itself). And, perhaps most importantly, Rapunzel gets a female friend with whom she gets to develop a real relationship. (Disney princesses are, shockingly, light on both female friends and human friends, let alone one who is both.)

This is  a show to be celebrated -- and to be celebrated without qualification. It doesn't matter if this is labeled a "kids" show; good storytelling is good storytelling, no matter the "target" audience.

This is also, I think, part of a larger cultural conversation. (Aren't most things?) There's this really great meme (which of course I can't find because I'm looking for it) that points out that fans who cosplay are ridiculed for playing dress-up far past the socially-accepted age to do so, whereas sports fans who paint their faces and wear the jersey of their favorite team/player escape that ridicule -- even though the two activities are, essentially, the same. The idea, of course, is that being a sports fan -- and, by extension, showing your support of that sport -- is a socially accepted thing for an adult to do. Dressing up as your favorite character from a TV show or movie just...isn't. Again, it's the idea that it's juvenile, childish, and therefore distasteful or inappropriate in some way.

But, to return to Lewis once more:

"For I need not remind such an audience as this that the neat sorting-out of books into age-groups, so dear to publishers, has only a very sketchy relation with the habits of any real readers. Those of us who are blamed when old for reading childish books were blamed when children for reading books too old for us. No reader worth his salt trots along in obedience to a time-table."

And no person "worth his salt trots along in obedience" to "socially acceptable conventions." It seems quite simple, to me (even though I know it really isn't): read the books you enjoy reading. Watch the movies and the TV shows you want to watch. Support the sports teams you want to support. And show your support and enjoyment in any way you want -- and certainly do so without any shame.

via GIPHY

Disney's Aladdin Trailer -- Will Guy Ritchie Give Us More Of The Same?

A few days ago, Disney dropped a new full-length trailer for Aladdin (2019). Watch it below:

Unsurprisingly, I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts.

My feelings about some of Disney's live-action adaptations have been laced with a heavy dose of skepticism. In the case of Dumbo, at least, my skepticism seems to be misplaced. But with Aladdin...? Not so much. I've written about Aladdin before, mainly about the controversy surrounding the production of the movie. But also Guy Ritchie seemed an odd director choice IMHO, mainly because I'm not a fan of his style.

Aaaaand then there was that second trailer that dropped a few weeks ago and sent the internet (rightfully so!) into a tizzy. Just look at these Google hits:

None of it really inspired confidence.

So what's going on with this new trailer? Let's break it down.

1. The opening of this trailer seems really reminiscent of the beginning of Casino Royale with the urban chase scene -- which is apparently something called Parkour? and also something that seems very Guy Ritchie.

2. Will Smith's awful looking blue genie? Well, it seems that he's not blue all the time, which is good, I suppose.

📷: Disney

3. The trailer also gives some much needed humor -- as in the scene above, where Smith's Genie humorously explains the "gray area" the subjectivity of wishes -- and some glimpses of the music. Smith's version of "Friend Like Me" is giving me some very Fresh Prince vibes, and, if I'm being totally honest, "A Whole New World" gave me chills. (I was lucky enough to see the OBC of Aladdin on Broadway, but I was not impressed with Jasmine's vocal performance: it was very nasal to me, and that's one of my Disney princess pet peeves.) Naomi Scott's voice was amazing here.

4. It looks like we're going to get a Bollywood dance numbers, which makes me so incredibly happy.

📷: Disney

But here's where it starts to get tricky for me.

1. There's not a glimpse of Billy Magnussen's Prince Anders in the trailer -- which means (1) he's either really inconsequential and the Internet made a big fuss out of nothing or (2) leads me to wonder if Disney made some changes because of that fuss. I personally didn't have an issue with the casting, but that's another post.

2. I'm still concerned about the female costuming:

Don't get me wrong -- all the costumes look beautiful. I also do not claim to be anything close to an expert on Middle Eastern costuming -- which is complicated by the fact that we don't really know where this story is set. Is it India? Iran? Iraq? Egypt? Who knows.
But the costumes give off a very "exotic" vibe...the bright colors, the veils-that-don't-really-veil, the accentuation of chests and waists...*sigh*

3. The accents. Oh, the accents.

This is a complicated issue to unpack in a blog post, so if you want to read more, feel free to check out Richard Scheinin's 1993 article from The Washington Post, "Angry Over Aladdin." It's a piece that was released shortly after the film was and really highlights the central issues at play. The gist of it? Aladdin plays into Middle Eastern stereotypes by making the bad guys distinctly "foreign" and the "good guys" basically American. After all, all 3 of our main characters -- Aladdin, Jasmine, and Genie -- are obsessed with the notion of being free and Aladdin himself was modeled after Tom Cruise.

Now, Scheinin's article includes a quote from a then Disney-spokesperson, Howard Green:

"...most people are very happy with it. All the characters are Arabs, the good guys and the bad guys, and the accents don't really connote anything, I don't think."

I mean, I honestly wouldn't expect anything else from Disney -- they're not going to admit to being racist or prejudiced, even if it was largely subconscious or unintended or colored by the Gulf War.

But the thing is, it's not just Aladdin, and not just Disney, and the accents can connote something. In an article for The Atlantic, "Why Do Cartoon Villains Speak in Foreign Accents?" Isabel Fattal references a 1998 study by Gidney and Dobrow. As she points out, here's

"The kicker: In many of the cases studied, villains were given foreign accents.[...] Meanwhile, the study found that most of the heroic characters in their research sample were American-sounding; only two heroes had foreign accents. Since television is a prominent source of cultural messaging for children, this correlation of foreign accents with “bad” characters could have concerning implications for the way kids are being taught to engage with diversity in the United States."

Fattal offers more details of course, but the point is, these aren't just harmless kid's movies -- especially when there are noticeable trends and patterns. So, yeah. Things like accents and facial features (and facial hair) were a key part of the criticism of the 1992 Aladdin and I've been curious to see how they would be handled in the live-action adaptation, and all the casting controversies didn't do much to help.

This trailer, I gotta say, doesn't help much either. We don't get a lot of dialogue, and Will Smith's Genie does take up a significant portion of it, but here's what I noticed:

1. Aladdin -- American accent. Or, at least, non-accented English. He's portrayed by Mena Massoud, who was born in Egypt but raised in Canada. (So, yes. His accent isn't technically American, but it's not going to be perceived by American audiences as accented.)
2. Jasmine -- American accent. But -- she's portrayed by English actress Naomi Scott, so it was a conscious decision to have her forego her natural accent in favor of an American one. Perhaps because, as Fattal notes, "the most wicked foreign accent of all was British English[...]From Scar to Aladdin’s Jafar, the study found that British is the foreign accent most commonly used for villains."
3. Jafar -- foreign accent. It's subtle, for sure, and not as heavily "different" as Jonathan Freeman's Jafar was, but in this film, Jafar is played by Marwan Kenzari, a Dutch actor. It will be interesting to see how Jafar's accent plays out in the film, but at least from the trailer, it's clear that it is audibly different from that of the protagonists. Now, maybe it's because Kenzari couldn't nail down an American accent -- I can only imagine how difficult it is to act in different accents and certainly not every actor has been able to do it successfully. But maybe not. Maybe it was a conscious decision to help mark the character as a villain which would certainly be problematic when the female lead doesn't keep her "foreign" accent.

This newest trailer has generally been more positively received than the other ones, and seems to have redirected the conversation -- for now, at least.