Showing posts with label TV Shows. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TV Shows. Show all posts

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, October 26, 2017

Once Upon A Time -- Hyperion Heights

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

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

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

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


  1. Both Lana Parrilla (Regina) and Robert Carlyle (Rumple) are still around, which phew. (So is Hook, but IDK why he's there so the show's got some explaining to do on that front.)
  2. Henry Mills is all grown up -- and literally a different actor. Nothing against Jared Gilmore -- he was a great child actor -- but I felt like the show didn't really know what to do with him after a point. (See: The Author storyline.) Now that he's the focus, and portrayed by someone else, the character can grow.
  3. I'm intrigued by the shift in the central story from "Snow White" to "Cinderella" -- if not a little skeptical. Yes, Snow White was Disney's first film but Cinderella is by far the more popular story. I'm curious to see their take on it.
  4. I really like the new supporting characters -- including Reign's Adelaide Kane as Drizella. Although--where is Anastasia? Why is there only one wicked stepsister (who may or may not be actually wicked)? And her American accent game is on point. 
But the thing that I appreciated the most -- as a children's literature scholar and all-around fairy tale nerd -- came fairly early in the episode. Original Henry is talking to Regina about why he's not going to college and instead taking a gap year to go explore other fairy tale realms. I don't remember the exact line, but he basically acknowledges that there are so many other versions of the stories that he didn't know about -- like a French Snow White, an Italian Snow White, etc. Yeah, he makes it about him -- he's not in any of the other stories and wants to know why -- but I think this acknowledgement of other versions of the fairy tales is a big deal: critics love to lambast Disney for overshadowing those other versions and, in their minds, erasing them. 

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

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

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Dania Ramirez as Cinderella on Once Upon A Time

I'll admit that I'm a bit behind on Once Upon A Time -- mainly because my husband felt it jumped the shark a few seasons ago and lost interest, so it's not one of the shows we watch together at night. And, with a 15-month-old toddler running around and my perhaps-naive goal to limit her screen-time/exposure, I don't have a lot of free time to just bingewatch shows these days.

I have kept up with the "big" news though -- like the fact that the main characters aren't returning for this coming season and that there's another time jump, where Henry will apparently be older (grown-up?). They also hired 5 new female actors -- #girlpower -- to join the show, and we learned this weekend that Dania Ramirez (who I know as Maya from Heroes) will, apparently, be Cinderella on the show:

PC: ABC/Disney 2017

I'll admit that I find this a bit confusing since, within the realm of Once Upon A Time, we've already "met" Cinderella: she had a relatively minor role (given her comparative popularity as a fairy tale princess) in the show, but definitely "looked" familiar:


Blonde hair, blue eyes, white. (Even though I firmly maintain that the original 1950 animated Cinderella was not as blonde as she's animated today: she's definitely more of a strawberry blonde/auburn girl.)

So, IDK how that's going to work, because Ramirez is definitely sporting a Cinderella-style dress in the picture above.
But, as a recent Huffpost article points out, Ramirez's casting is a bigger deal than just "we've-already-had-the-Cinderella-storyline":


The article mentions that we'll meet "different versions" of familiar characters -- which, again, IDK how that will play out and doesn't make me feel invested in the show but the fact that Disney is taking it's most iconic Disney princess (and traditionally "most white") and casting an adult Dominican-American actress in the role is a huge deal. After all, both of their previous Latina princesses haven't really made strides in the diversity department: see, for instance, "Princess Sofia Is Not Latina" and "Disney's New Princess Elena Probably Doesn't Count as Latina."

Fingers crossed Ramirez's version of Cinderella will change that. 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Tangled TV Series

One of the news stories making the Internet Rounds today is that the Disney Channel is developing a Tangled animated series.


Now, Tangled is one of my favorite Disney movies. Rapunzel is pretty high up on my list of favorite Disney characters -- #3, behind Elsa (#1) and Tink (#2). It was always one of my favorite fairy tales, but I love the Disney version -- due in no small part to Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi. (Seriously. How ADORABLE are they??) I love the music, I love Rapunzel's spunkiness, and I love, love, love the lantern scene. After all, "I See The Light" was the song my husband and I danced to for our first dance at our wedding. 

So when I read that the Disney Channel was making a TV series, I'll admit I rolled my eyes and sighed a little. 

After all, I remember The Little Mermaid TV show (which was horrible) and the Aladdin one (which was even worse). So low budget. 

BUT. Then I read that not only have "Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi have signed on to reprise their roles" but also that "The duo responsible for the movie’s original score, composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater, also will serve as songwriters on the series." That in and of itself is a pretty big deal. 

But it gets better. Not only are we introducing a new character, "Cassandra" who is a "strong-willed handmaiden who also serves as Rapunzel’s confidant" but here's a brief summary of the plot:
Her irrepressible spirit and natural curiosity about the world drives her to the realization that there is so much more she needs to learn before she can truly accept her royal destiny. She boldly puts her crown and impending marriage on hold to seek out epic adventures, much to the dismay of the King who, after missing out on Rapunzel’s youth, must accept that his daughter is now an independent young woman.”
For the Disney Princess franchise, this is kind of a big deal. The TV series will take place after the movie but before Flynn & Rapunzel's wedding (from the short "Tangled Ever After"). The implication is that, as the plot summary states, she "puts her crown and impending marriage on hold to seek out epic adventures." That is, we'll get a Disney princess who, despite some progressive moves (she wielded a frying pan!), was still firmly relegated to the traditional Disney princess sphere of love and marriage. When I put on my Critical Cap, one of the things that strikes me the most about Tangled is that Flynn Rider controls the story -- and at the end, he reassures the reader that despite the fact that Rapunzel is going to be a great queen, don't worry -- they got married and live happily ever after. An innocent, romantic ending perhaps, but there's also the potential to read that as the patriarchal voice shifting focus away from the female-as-ruler and placing her back in the safe, domestic role of wife. And then, the focus of the short is, of course, their wedding.

But this TV show proposal changes all that. Or, at least, expands the story and Rapunzel's character to be more consistent with the progressive character we initially see in the film. The fact that she's deferring her marriage to explore the world and discover herself is an amazingly progressive role for a Disney princess. (I know the summary blurb also mentions that she defers her crown but that really doesn't make much sense. After all, her parents are still alive, and thus the rightful rulers of the kingdom. She should, in theory, only be able to take the crown once they've passed -- and, as the plot summary mentions the King's disapproval, it seems to indicate that we'll keep our nuclear family intact -- again, another "different" move for the parent-killing Disney storytellers.)

I have such high hopes for this show -- which, maybe I'm setting myself up for disappointment, but I think Rapunzel could have the potential to be another Elsa in terms of independent princesses.