Tuesday, March 26, 2019

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.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

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.

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Dumbo First Reactions -- Burton Is Back

Y'all know I've had my reservations about Tim Burton's Dumbo. (Check out my past thoughts here.)  But apparently, this film is surprising people:

via EW
There are some negative first reactions, of course, but on the whole, people seem to have enjoyed it and are calling it Burton's best film in years. When Burton is good, he's very, very good. The thing is, he kinda hasn't been for awhile. But maybe that's about to change?









Okay, I don't really understand this one because I thought Mary Poppins Returns was fantastic and so creatively and subtly tied to the books.

Friday, March 8, 2019

New Year's Promise FAIL

One of my New Year's Promises (I'm not sold on the word "promises," but it's better than "resolutions" so...) was to blog more. Whoops.

But it's Spring Break, and this seems to be a good time to hit "reset."

So, starting nice and easy: Disney recently released a new poster for Maleficent 2. Take a look below:


Like many of Disney's projects this year, not much is known about the plot. Both Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning are returning (as Maleficent and Aurora, respectively) -- as are Juno Temple and Imelda Staunton as two of the three fairies (don't get me started on their characters from the original film). The big casting for the sequel is Michelle Pfeiffer as "Queen Ingrith," but no one really knows what her role will entail.

But the "reveal" from the trailer comes in the subtitle of the sequel: "Mistress of Evil."

I mean...that's our girl Maleficent. At least, in the 1959 film:


The only problem is that that's not Maleficent's MO anymore. That's the whole point of the 2014 film. The first line of the film is literally, "Let us tell an old story anew and we will see how well you know it."The whole point is that Maleficent isn't really evil, she's just a scorned woman who made a bad decision but ultimately was saved by true (maternal) love. 

Which raises the question: Who is the Mistress of Evil? I, of course, want it to be Maleficent, but I doubt it will be. Which leaves, potentially, Michelle Pfeiffer's character. 

I would like to say, "I'm sure Disney will come through with a stellar storyline" but...after the first movie, I can't be too sure. On the one hand, yes. I thought it was fantastic that Disney took one of their most passive female characters and created a film that didn't hinge on romantic love. But, on the other hand, Maleficent is the most bad-ass Disney villain (and if Buzzfeed agrees, it must be true 😂).  She's evil just because she wants to be. There's no tragic backstory, no jilted lover, no scorned woman. And Disney took that away in their attempt to...I'm not really sure. I think "create an empowered fairy-tale retelling that didn't pit women against each other." So, yeah. I'm not super optimistic at the moment.