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!