Showing posts with label casting news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casting news. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2020

Kelly Marie Tran To Voice Raya in _Raya and the Last Dragon_

 

Woke up to this news this morning:

Star Wars star Kelly Marie Tran is voicing the main character in Disney’s newest animated film, “Raya and the Last Dragon”

Posted by Variety on Thursday, August 27, 2020


 And honestly? I am here for it. 👏 👏 👏

While I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan, I did really enjoy Tran's role in Rian Johnson's Episode VIII; to see her "more than sidelined," to use Julia Alexander's words, in Episode IX, was more than disappointing. 

But what's interesting to me is that this film, despite the plot summary, is being billed (and marketed, I'm sure) as a princess film. 

Let's take a look at the plot summary from IMDB: 

"In a realm known as Lumandra, a re-imagined Earth inhabited by an ancient civilization, a warrior named Raya is determined to find the last dragon." 

And from Wikipedia:

  "A lone warrior sets out to find the last dragon in existence and save the kingdom of Kumandra from the villainous Drunn." 

With the exception of Mulan, and *maybe* Moana, Disney movies don't usually focus on warriors. That is, typically, Disney Animations studios films skew female-centric, with the Disney Princess, Disney Fairies and Frozen franchises anchoring the studio. Pixar, on the other hand, skews predominantly male. While there are exceptions to both of course (e.g., The Lion King for Disney; Brave and Inside Out for Pixar), the generalizations hold true. 

And, for better or for worse (and people love to point out the "worse"), Disney princess movies are a staple of American childhood and culture. So it's interesting to me that Raya and the Last Dragon is being billed as a princess movie. 

Look at this post from The Mary Sue, for example: 


Get money!

Posted by The Mary Sue on Thursday, August 27, 2020

This movie, then, has the potential to be groundbreaking for Disney. Awkwafina, who will co-start with Tran, has already praised the movie's "sisterhood":


 


Two things to note:
(1) the clip features Cassie Steele, a British-Filipino actress who was originally cast in the role -- wonder what happened there? and

(2) sisterhood, on the heels of Frozen, is nothing new for Disney. It's worth pointing out that of 14 (un)official princesses -- only four of them have biological siblings (Ariel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa)  and only three of them have sisters (Merida has brothers). The only film where sisterhood features a significant role is, of course, Frozen, as Ariel's sisters are largely irrelevant to the plot. And even in Frozen, Anna was intended to be the lead, with Elsa originally slated for the villain role. Jennifer Lee, thankfully, updated that narrative, and we have the two empowered characters we know and love today. 

And while I don't think that Raya and Sisu are biological sisters (plot twist?!), this might actually be *more* important -- because Disney Princesses don't really get "friends." Sure, they get animal sidekicks and they may even get magical helpers, but not *real* friends. The only two princesses who have female friends are Pocahontas (Nakoma) and Tiana (Charlotte) and I would argue that only Tiana and Charlotte are *real* friends (Nakoma is largely a plot device), however historically unlikely their friendship would be. 

So if this film deliberately features two female leads (as opposed to an accidental female lead with Elsa), who aren't biologically related, and focuses on their friendship/dynamic and both of them are Asian women? Like I said -- groundbreaking. 

But here's where it gets a bit tricky for me...in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Kelly Marie Tran revealed, 

"She is someone who is technically a princess, but I think that what's really cool about this project, about this character specifically, is that everyone's trying to flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess...Raya is totally a warrior. When she was a kid, she was excited to get her sword. And she grows up to be a really badass, gritty warrior and can really take care of herself."

Okay, what's the problem? How could this be anything less than great? 

Fair question. I agree -- Tran's points about Disney trying to "flip the narrative on what it means to be a princess" is important -- and definitely in line with their recent marketing campaigns for the Princess franchise. And trust me -- I am all for strong, empowered, warrior characters.

My concern is that Disney has a tendency to Otherize its Princesses of Color -- to mark them as different from the typical white, European Princesses in significant ways. As early as 2004, Celeste Lacroix was pointing out that Disney's non-white heroines -- Pocahontas, Esmeralda, and, to some extent, Jasmine. Lacroix's point is that the non-White Princesses are often more sexualized and more associated with nature than the White Princesses, reinforcing the normative superiority of Whites. That is -- non-white Princesses don't get to just be princesses: they don't get to wear floofy ballgowns and have servants.

We can see this trend continue in the films that were released even after Lacroix's publication: Rapunzel, Merida, and Anna & Elsa, while all more active and empowered women, still wear ballgowns and live in castles. While Tiana and Moana may not be hypersexualized, they are definitely associated with Nature (Tiana turns into a frog and spends a good deal of time in the Louisiana bayou, and Moana is chosen by the Ocean to restore the heart of Te Fiti and give new life to a barren lava field) and don't wear ballgowns or live in castles. 

Raya, it seems, would continue this disparity: I'm guessing she won't be wearing a ballgown as a warrior or living in a castle, as Entertainment Weekly also reveals that "Raya (voiced by Tran) is the daughter of the Chief of the Heart Lands, one of the five lands in the fictional kingdom of Kumandra. Years ago, dragons and humans lived in harmony, until monsters known as Druun invaded, forcing the dragons to sacrifice themselves and save humanity. Raya's father was also killed, and the film follows her journey as a warrior to find the last dragon, who she believes can save Kumandra." 

This is where it gets tricky: on the one hand, I'm definitely not advocating that we continue telling solely European fairy tales, and the fact that this is a story deeply rooted in Southeast Asian culture is so very important. I'm also not saying that we should impose cultural inaccuracies as an empty gesture just for the sake of "equality." That is, we shouldn't impose castles and ballgowns and pretty passive princesses on a culture where castles and ballgowns simply don't exist. And I'm also not necessarily advocating for a return to pretty princess stories. 

But I would maybe like to see some blurring of the boundaries: a White warrior Princess in the vein of Mulan and Moana and a Non-White Princess who does live in a castle and maybe doesn't wear ballgowns, but is unabashedly royal. And those Princesses of Color don't necessarily have to represent a real culture: while Pocahontas and Mulan are based on real people/people of legend, and Moana seeks to explain The Long Pause in Polynesian culture, Jasmine's Agrabah is fictional (sort of) as is Naveen's Maldonia. 

Disney can create fictional worlds which can be ruled by characters of any color -- which I think I would like to see a bit more of. Maybe it would raise questions I haven't yet thought of...

The bottom line is that I'm still really excited about this movie, and I'm probably even more excited about Kelly Marie Tran's starring role. After all the hate and vitriol she received from toxic Star Wars fans, she's deserves a bit of pixie dust. 

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Jude Law To Play Captain Hook?

*sigh*

How many film adaptations have there been of Peter Pan at this point?



Like, I get it, Disney. You're remaking everything. But Peter Pan, more than any other Disney film has just been done before...so. many. times. And it's really hard to (1) do something different -- like Hook, which I don't care how it did at the box office, is an absolute treasure and (2) to be faithful to Barrie's original script/vision for the story. Because then Hook would have to be quasi sympathetic (not an out-and-out villain), and Peter would have to be a bit evil, since Barrie's point was that children can be callous and cruel and selfish. 

So...yeah. Variety didn't offer many details on the plot/story, or even if Jude Law would also be playing Mr. Darling -- which if he isn't, is a travesty. 

Also...I feel like Jude Law is just casting Jason Isaacs 2.0?

via StoryWarren*

Like, doesn't Isaacs-as-Mr.-Darling look like Jude Law?! I haven't seen the 2003 version of Peter Pan in a while, but I remember really enjoying it...

*Sidebar: If you visit the link for the photo credit, the author, Helena Sorenson, seems blown away that the producers decided to cast Jason Isaacs as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, like it was some amazingly inventive idea. Which....Nope. (She also reduces Peter Pan to a story about "the wonder of childhood and the bittersweet beauty of growing up" so...) There's been some debate over the deeper meaning behind the dual-casting, but Peter Pan was originally a stage play, with Gerald du Maurier (uncle to the boys who partly inspired Peter Pan) playing both roles. On the one hand, this was purely for financial reasons -- pay one actor to play both parts -- but it also works like the dual casting in Hamilton. Daveed Diggs plays both LaFayette and Jefferson because (1) they're not on stage at the same time; and (2) the audience has already established a connection with the actor. It might be more akin to Anthony Ramos playing both John Laurens and Philip Hamilton, as the audience is already mourning Laurens at the end of Act I, and that connection spills over (given Philip's ultimate fate).
But on the other hand: Peter Pan is inherently about growing up -- specifically Peter's fear of growing up and being a "man" -- and both Mr. Darling and Hook represent the exact type of adult Peter fears growing into: ineffectual and dishonorable. Whether Barrie realized that or whether it was a subconscious, Freudian decision isn't fully clear...

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

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.



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...) 

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

More Updates on the Live-Action Lady and the Tramp

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

Let's break it down:

1. Justin Theroux will be the voice of Tramp.

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

2. Ashley Jensen will be the voice of Jackie:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Live-Action Update: Lady and the Tramp

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

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

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

📷: The Independent
Let me clarify.

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

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

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

Whoops. 

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

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

We'll see. 

Monday, April 30, 2018

Let's Talk About This Live-Action Mulan

*sigh*

Here we go again.

A few weeks ago, I read about the casting news for the new live-action adaptation of Mulan:


via Variety

At first, I was just excited to discuss the news with my students -- for three reasons:

  1. Jet Li is being cast as the Emperor -- given Li's martial arts & action movie background, it seems an interesting choice for the Emperor (who is a very zen character in the animated film). I could be biased though -- Pat Morita is the Emperor for me -- I imagine this is how some Harry Potter fans felt when Richard Harris died and Michael Gambon replaced him as Dumbledore. 
  2. Gong Li is "the villain as a powerful witch" -- WHOA. This is what I was most excited to talk about -- there's no witch in the animated film and the implications of this are fascinating. Not only are we seemingly getting rid of the Huns/Shan Yu, but we're adding in a female villain. And not only a female villain -- a witch. More female-female conflict? And what are the ramifications for the empowerment storyline? (i.e., the fact that Mulan was so awesome because she beat all the boys and proved she was just as good -- if not better -- than them.)
  3. Fun tidbit: Mulan gets a sister.
    Interesting on several levels because (1) Mulan was one of the only Disney Princess films to show an intact nuclear family -- Dad + Mom + Mulan + Grandma. Up to this point, only Aurora had both her parents alive -- but I don't really count that since her mother is so underdeveloped it's painful and has maybe one line of dialogue in the entire film. So, yes, while Mulan's relationship with her father is still the central relationship of the film (like all of the other 2nd wave princess films) and while her mother is a relatively flat character, it's still important.
    And (2) Mulan doesn't have any other siblings in the animated film -- least of all male siblings who could have ostensibly taken her father's place instead of the daughter. But more importantly, Disney Princesses don't usually get female friends or siblings. Sure, Ariel has her sisters, but she's the "different one" (with her red hair and her mismatched shells and tail) and doesn't seem particularly close with any of them. Sure, Pocahontas has Nakoma -- but that friendship has disastrous results. It's not until we get to Tiana that we have a princess with a "good" friend -- and whatever you say about Lottie, she is a good friend -- and it's not until Elsa and Anna that we see a developed sisterly relationship with depth. So while we don't know anything about their relationship, it's at least another step in the right direction.
    Although, as some of my Chinese students pointed out, Mulan does have siblings in the original ballad. 
But the discussion turned into something more than I could have hoped for. My students had questions -- really good questions. They wanted to know more about who was playing Mulan, about this witch, about Shang, and about the release date. 

Which led me to this Elle article: "Everything We Know About Disney's Live-Action Mulan" -- where we zeroed in on this:


Wait--there's a character replacing Shang? As in, THERE WILL BE NO LI SHANG IN THIS MOVIE?!




Obviously, this was worth investigating. So, we clicked the link, which led us to this Tweet:


Let's break this down. First up, this not-Shang Chen guy:


"Full of himself, with a mean, bullying streak to him" -- we quickly drew parallels to Gaston (possibly because we'd just watched that live-action film for discussion), which does not bode well, given the type of toxic masculinity Gaston represents.

While we were also confused by the phrase "something like love" (what does that even mean?!?!), the more problematic part is the part where "after learning that his rival is a woman, his intense feelings of rivalry turn into something very different." On the one hand, it seems as if this is Disney's answer to any sort of queer subtext that might have existed in the animated film -- Shang may or may not have had some sort of attraction to Ping, which made him sort of a bisexual icon. (People were not happy.) And, on the other hand, all of this smacks of that silly thing parents used to say "if a boy is mean to you, it means he likes you." I don't know -- I find it extremely problematic that when Honghui thinks Mulan is a boy, he's a rival who he can/should bully; but as soon as he finds out Mulan is a girl, BAM! He's in love.

But in case you thought that was the worst, it gets better:

So, on the positive side, one of my students pointed out that while the casting call for Chen Honghui mentions his attraction to her, at least there's no mention of Mulan's romantic feelings for the men in her life, so...silver lining?

But here are the interesting things:
  • The Huns are out. (Which means, at the very least, that if this isn't a musical, we'll have to change the iconic line, "Let's get down to business / to defeat the Huns.") I have no idea who the Gokturks are, and the Wikipedia entry isn't super helpful.
  • My students focused on the "strapping down her breasts" line as an odd thing to mention specifically. I mean, yes, one would assume that dressing as a man who necessitate that, but it's an odd thing to mention in a casting call. Unless they were specifically looking for a busty, female female -- as in, one who was clearly female. 
  • But the most interesting -- and potentially problematic -- part is this: "There is a mysterious power inside Mulan." 

  • At first, I thought it was just the dramatic language of a casting call (you know, like "something like love"). But the more we talked about it -- and especially in conjunction with the revelation of the addition of a WITCH -- the more it seemed plausible that this "mysterious power" could actually be supernatural in nature. 
Just to be clear:

Apparently, this news -- the casting calls -- aren't really news, as this article from March of 2017 makes clear. Donya Abramo also makes clear the significance of this information, in a very eloquent way:


I don't remember this information going viral a year ago, but with the explicit addition of a supernatural character, the theory is gaining traction. As is the outrage that the fundamental message of the story could potentially be changed. As Abramo points out, "The beauty of Mulan is in the indisputable truth that what she achieves is down to her own skill and stubborn determination — both mental and physical." In other words, Mulan was a revolutionary character not only for her representation -- don't delve too deeply into Disney's past representation of Asian characters; it isn't pretty -- but for her deviation from past Disney princesses. She wasn't passive or focused on romance -- she was every bit as strong, resilient, intelligent as the boys, and, in the end, was the one to save China and the Emperor. Her story -- however much it deviated from the original Chinese ballad -- was empowering and inspiring. 

But if you give her powers? If you make her supernatural? I suppose it doesn't necessarily take away from her individual uniqueness, but it turns the story into another Chosen One narrative. She becomes another Harry Potter, specially chosen to defeat the supernatural evil. 

Yes, at this point, most of this is just speculation, since we're going on rumors and casting calls, not concrete facts. And, yes. Scripts undergo rewrites and films undergo reshoots, so it's all fluid and up-in-the-air right now. 

But still.

The rumors paint a very troubling picture -- not in the least because, up to this point, Disney's live action adaptations have been extremely faithful to their source material. Some critics question why even remake the film if you're just going to essentially remake the movie, but with actors not animation. Which begs the question -- why start deviating now? In the case of a film like Dumbo, the answer is kind of obvious: there's not a terrible amount of substance to the original, so, yeah. You're going to have to create a story there. 

But that's not the case with Mulan. 

Maybe they were trying to be more faithful to the original source material? Or, as Yohana Desta points out in her Vanity Fair piece, "casting a Chinese star helps the studio cater directly to Chinese audiences, the all-important demographic that can bolster or destroy blockbuster's global box-office hopes." But, as my Chinese students angrily and frustratedly pointed out, there's no magic in the original ballad -- and, to them, changing the story so significantly was not likely to curry favor with them. 

So, I guess we'll wait and see. But I do not have high hopes. 

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Maleficent 2 + Michelle Pfeiffer

So...I came across this headline this evening:

via Variety
And I'm just a little confused. 

All of this is really vague at the moment -- and it's not even official yet -- but the casting news is that Michelle Pfeiffer will be "the queen" in Maleficent 2. 

What queen? 

I don't really remember Maleficent that well -- it's not my favorite, since they gave a badass villain a hell-hath-no-fury backstory -- but I'm pretty sure that the movie ends with Aurora/Elle Fanning being crowned queen. (I think this means her mother dies...? I'm not sure, but it's Disney, so it's a safe bet to assume they axed the mother.)

So Michelle Pfeiffer won't be her mother/*that* queen, which begs the question: which queen will she be playing?

My first thought is that she'll be some sort of Evil Queen. Which...

via GIPHY

Really? Again, Disney? Female conflict? I guess they could spin it as "empowered females" rather than the same old patriarchal monarchy but...pitting females against each other rarely ends well. [Don't even get me started on this Mulan casting news...but more about that later.]

My second thought -- and they're not mutually exclusive -- was that maybe Pfeiffer could be playing Sleeping Beauty's mother-in-law. In the original story -- the "second" part that didn't get adapted in 1959 -- Sleeping Beauty and the Prince get married, and the prince takes her home to meet his parents. But, in a weird twist, his mother is actually a cannibalistic ogress who sends Sleeping Beauty away so she can eat her grand babies (and then Sleeping Beauty). [Because, oh yeah, Sleeping Beauty got pregnant and had two children by him. In some versions of the story -- the Italian version, I think -- the children were conceived before the spell was broken (i.e. rape) and Sleeping Beauty wakes up during labor. Not the best story for consent. One of my favorite things to discuss with students is how True Love's Kiss is basically Disney's invention -- it's not in the original fairy tales: Snow White wakes up because the apple is jolted out of her throat by a clumsy footman and Sleeping Beauty wakes up because the 100 Year Timer goes off.]

So, yeah. It's probably not going to happen because this cannibalistic ogress are like the most un-Disney thing ever, but then Maleficent is essentially raped in the first movie, so I guess it's possible?

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Disney Announces Official Live-Action Lion King Cast

Woke up this morning to find this story blowing up on my social media feeds:


A post shared by Walt Disney Studios (@disneystudios) on

I mean...first and foremost, this confirms that Beyonce will be the voice of Nala -- which, you just know she's going to slay that part of "Can You Feel The Love Tonight." (Sidebar: Can Donald Glover sing? I would think so...) I also wonder if this means they'll be bringing in some of the songs from the Broadway version, where Nala (and Scar, and Sarabi) have more of a singing presence since, you know, it's a musical. (Sidebar #2: Can Chiwetel Eijofor sing? I would think so and really hope so, because "Be Prepared" is one of my top 2 favorite Disney villain songs and he needs to bring it. Also, if this isn't a musical, and that song is cut, my heart will break.)

BUT.

What I find most interesting is the addition of Keegan-Michael Key and Eric Andre in the roles of Kamari and Azizi, respectively. On the pic above, they're paired with Florence Kasumba (who's German, interestingly enough), who is the voice of Shenzi.  Since "Shenzi" was the name of the hyena voiced by Whoopi Goldberg in the animated version, logic would dictate that Key and Andre are voicing the other two hyenas -- Banzai and Ed in the animated version.

I'm curious as to why Disney changed their names -- not that they were really well-known names. Perhaps to distance them from the animated version? Banzai in the animated version was voiced by Cheech Marin, and Ed was...well, Ed was problematic as the only animal character who didn't speak and who came off a little mentally handicapped. But I think it's interesting that all 3 hyenas will be voiced by black actors, and wonder what their "accents" will be, if they have any. After all, one of the big criticisms that scholars have against The Lion King is that the hyenas were voiced by minority actors and, they claim, had "urban accents" (essentially saying they sounded like they were, stereotypically, from the ghetto). To those critics, this was especially problematic as the hyenas were viewed as outside the circle of life and brought destruction to the Pridelands when they arrived. Critics read this as racist and classist on Disney's part -- and if you read the film against the backdrop of the LA Riots in the early 1990s, you might agree. (For a non-academic take on the hyenas, this is a pretty good read.)

I'm not entirely sure I do agree, but the name changes and casting choices are interesting, to say the least.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Happier Aladdin News -- Will Smith Shares Cast Photo

Amidst all the brouhaha over Billy Magnussen's casting, here's a bit of pixie-dusted news for you:

Will Smith has shared the "first cast photo" for the Aladdin remake:

Awww, don't they look happy?! I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about (1) this remake in general or (2) Will Smith as Genie (RIP, Robin Williams), but of course I'll give it a fair chance. 

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Is Disney "White-washing" Aladdin?

It always feels slightly awkward to comment on issues of whitewashing, given that I fully recognize my white privilege. But, Magnussen's casting in the live-action adaptation of Aladdin has created quite the storm of publicity for Disney...and I think it's at least worth pointing out. (Because Disney is so entrenched in pop culture.)

Before we start: I've said before that I am not looking forward to this adaptation. I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie or his directorial style and, as other people have pointed out, I'm not quite sure why Ritchie seems to be going "off-book" when the other Disney live-action adaptations have essentially been the animated movie with real people. (Cinderella was basically the 1950 film, with fleshed out characters and some modern updates to fix some of the more problematic things with gender roles; Beauty and the Beast was essentially the same; and The Jungle Book was actually probably closer to the original Kipling tale, while still retaining the essence of the animated film. And The Lion King seems to be headed in a similar direction -- Jon Favreau even brought back James Earl Jones to voice Mufasa. Which...thank goodness. NO ONE ELSE could voice Mufasa.)

Also before we start: it's important to note that we still don't know who Magnussen is playing or anything about the character of "Prince Anders." At this point, I'm not sure what the justification is for inserting a white character into the story, so everything on the internet is just speculation and twitter-rage. But let's avoid another Mulan situation where everyone jumped to conclusions, assumed the worst, and started hashtag campaigns.

Both Teen Vogue and the Huffington Post have articles on the controversy, and they both include Tweets from the Internet Rage Machine with how upset people are over this. (I wonder if anyone on Twitter is *defending* the casting choice...) But I find some of the Tweets to be unfair, like this one:

I get what they're going for, but...I can't take it seriously.

So I'd recommend reading this piece from The Mary Sue. Because even though my knee-jerk reaction is to defend Disney and view this optimistically, they do make some good points:
"But it doesn’t really matter whether it was Disney, Ritchie, or some uptight studio exec who won’t acknowledge their own bias. What matters is that Aladdin was, before this news broke, going to be a film primarily starring people of color. It was going to be a film that would help the studio make a step in the right direction, and while the vast majority of the leading cast will still be sticking around, it’s disappointing to think that for whatever reason, they just couldn’t be trusted to lead a movie without a white character present."
A valid point -- that maybe Disney thinks a movie, even with Will Smith as the voice of the Genie (I won't touch the fact that Robin Williams will ALWAYS be the Genie for me), can't succeed without a white actor in it. For the record, I think it's still going to be a film "primarily starring people of color"; casting one Caucasian actor doesn't change that, just as casting Martin Freeman in Marvel's Black Panther doesn't change it for that film.

And, given that the original source material for Aladdin in A Thousand and One Nights was Chinese, this claim felt a little hollow to me:
"...couldn’t even let one movie go by without feeling compelled to re-write an old folk-tale-turned-animated-film."
(TBH, I'm not entirely sure I follow what it means: if it's criticizing the deviation from the animated film or from the original story.)

It also seems overly strong to liken Ritchie & Co. to "colonial white imperialists." I don't know why, but that really rubs me the wrong way...maybe it's, as I said above, my tendency to defend Disney or maybe it's the claim that Disney is inserting white people into a non-white history that bothers me, since this is a fictional story and Agrabah isn't a real place.

I understand the criticism, I do. And I might eat crow for this later on, but I think it's a bit premature to vilify Disney without knowing the specifics. 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.

Maybe not. Maybe I've got too much pixie dust and optimism and maybe casting Magnussen will be a huge disaster for the film.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Prince Anders Coming To Agrabah

Um, okay.


Fresh from the Hollywood Reporter -- Billy Magnussen has been cast as an "original character" (re: not in the 1992 animated film), Prince Anders. (And also that Nasim Pedrad will play Jasmine's handmaid...I always did think it odd that the only three people living in such a huge palace were the Sultan, Jasmine, and Jafar.) Which...is an odd bit of casting news. My first thought would be that he's one of the suitors who the Sultan brings in to try and impress Jasmine, but...yeah. Maybe that scene's being expanded/reworked?

IDK. Of all the live-action adaptations of my childhood Disney staples currently in the works, I am the least excited about Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Aladdin. (I am more excited about Tim Burton's Dumbo than this one.) Which is a shame, because this could have been such an opportunity for Disney to retell an iconic tell without, you know, whitewashing it. I know there was a lot of casting controversy (which may or may not be resolved), but maybe not having a white male as a director would have been a good idea? Also, I'm just not a fan of Guy Ritchie's style, so there's that.

Ugh.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Lion King Casting News!

New casting news for The Lion King "live-action" film: Alfre Woodard will voice Sarabi, Simba's mom, and John Kani will voice Rafiki. I'm a fan of Alfre Woodard -- she was fantastic in Luke Cage -- but I'm less familiar with John Kani. Although IMDB tells me they were both in Captain America: Civil War and it seems like Kani is involved with Black Panther, so Yay! Marvel?

📷: Entertainment Weekly 
Still no word on the voice of Scar, though!

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. 

Sunday, February 19, 2017

JAMES EARL JONES WILL BE BACK AS MUFASA

And, yes. That required an all-caps title.

On Friday, director Jon Favreau (who also did this summer's live action The Jungle Book) tweeted out this big news:


Literally 25 minutes later, he tweeted out the following:

Now, I know Donald Glover is "having a moment": he's on the critically-acclaimed show Atlanta and he was just cast as "Young Lando Calrissian" in the new solo Han Solo movie.

But...I feel like news stories are really burying the lead:


Ummmm.

No.

The top headline for this story should absolutely be that "James Earl Jones WILL BE BACK as Mufasa." Because, honestly. Who else could be better than James Earl Jones?! 

This was actually one of the things I was majorly concerned about when they announced a live-action Lion King -- James Earl Jones created such an iconic character with an iconic presence, that it would be exceptionally difficult to top that -- so I'm glad to see that they're not even going to try. *phew*

Sidebar: I do think it's worth noting that Donald Glover, a black actor, will voice Simba -- as opposed to Matthew Broderick who voiced him in the animated film.
#diversitymatters #weneeddiverseanimatedfilms

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Lin-Manuel Miranda + Disney's The Little Mermaid

Yes, you read that right. Current It-Boy Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Disney on a live-action adaptation of The Little Mermaid.

BRB. I need to go die of fangirl-excitement.

via EW
According to Deadline, Miranda will (1) co-produce the film (he's not writing the story but will "supervise" it) and (2) will write songs with Alan Menken.

The article mentions that it's an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" but...I'm pretty sure it's just going to be a remake of the 1989 Disney film (a.k.a. my first Disney love and obsession) as Andersen is a bit too dark for Disney. (Also, Chloe Grace Moretz is starring in that film -- and she's been adamant about it is darker and it's not the Disney version.)

All that being said...I have no idea what a "live-action" adaptation of a story about mermaids and evil sea witches and set largely underwater even looks like. I mean...I would imagine it's something akin to a "live-action adaptation" of The Jungle Book where by "live-action" they mean "largely CGI." Although, Annie Leibowitz made a bunch of Olympic swimmers look like convincing merpeople, so it could happen. (Still one of my favorites things EVER.)

I'll end with this final thought: I have complete trust in LMM. I know he's not writing the story (yet), but if anyone can pull off a live-action adaptation and make it new and fresh, it's him. After all, if you'd told me that Broadway's hottest ticket right now would be to a rap-musical based on the life of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, I would have laughed and epically eye-rolled.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Moana News! Voice Actors & Character Details

Some interesting news about the upcoming Moana film!

First--there's some news on characters other than Moana and Maui. 

Perhaps most importantly we know that Moana has both parents alive (hopefully for the whole film):
(c) Disney via The Nerdist

Her father, Chief Tui, is voiced by Temuera Morrison (notably, a New Zealand actor of Maori descent) and is described as a "gregarious and well-respected"  leader who wants his daughter to follow in his footsteps. 
Her mother, Sina, is voiced by Nicole Scherzinger (Hawaiian) and is described as "sharp and strong-willed" and having her daughter's back. 

Moana's paternal grandmother is also present in the film:

(c) Disney via The Nerdist
Gramma Tala is voiced by Rachel House (also a New Zealand actor of Maori descent) and is described as Moana's "confidante and best friend" and as "dance[ing] to the beat of her own drum."

A couple of interesting things to note:
  • Gramma Tala is Chief Tui's mother. This isn't necessarily a strictly patriarchal tribe (Chief Tui wants Moana to rule after him, after all), so it would be interesting to see if Gramma Tala ruled before Chief Tui--which would be kick-ass indeed.
  • I think it's important to note that, in what is definitely a strategic "we-don't-want-to-be-accused-of-whitewashing" move, all of the actors have Pacific Islander heritage (be it Hawaii or New Zealand) which should (1) mitigate white-washing criticism and (2) bolster claims of diversity. 
  • As I mentioned above, hopefully all of Moana's family remains alive -- I think it's pretty rare in Disney princess (or, human) films for a parent to die onscreen: obviously, Mufasa dies in The Lion King (a move which is mirrored in Pixar's The Good Dinosaur) and Bambi's mother (thankfully not on-screen, although during the movie) but in the fairy-tale films, one or both parent(s) are absent from the beginning.
    (The only quasi-exceptions to this, that I can think of, are Cinderella's father who is briefly depicted and then mentioned as passing in the voice-over and Tiana's father who is, again, depicted on-screen and then it's implied (not directly stated) that he died during WWI).
    Regardless, the family unit seems to be doing much better in this Third Wave of Disney Princess films, and being a Disney Princess Parent doesn't automatically seem to be a death sentence.
  • The family unit of daughter-mother-father-grandmother, while relatively rare in Disney Princess films, isn't unprecedented: the same structure was apparent in Mulan, although we don't seem to be dealing with the same issues of gender privilege in this movie. (In Mulan, males/sons are seen as "more" as females/daughters -- although, whether that's the actual message or the false premise of the film is up for debate.)
  • Likewise, the character descriptions seem to indicate that Moana's parents will be actual, round characters rather than stock fairy-tale characters: more like Merida's mother and father than even Rapunzel's parents (who are actually flatter characters than Sleeping Beauty's King Stefan and his Queen). Chief Tui will also, hopefully, be a King/Father who doesn't fall victim to the pitfalls of the Second Wave Disney Princess fathers -- either strict and overbearing (like King Triton) or weak and ineffectual (like the Sultan). 
Finally, Alan Tudyk will voice HeiHei who is literally the village idiot who stows away on Moana's boat.
(c) Disney via The Nerdist
What's interesting though is that The Nerdist calls Tudyk "Disney's lucky charm" -- a fact which my husband and I gleefully pointed out, kind of made him the "John Ratzenberger of Walt Disney Animation Studios."




Either way--we didn't need the Internet to tell us that he was a good-luck-charm: Alan Tudyk has so much nerd-street-cred already (he's Wash on Firefly!) and I've been rooting extra-hard for him ever since I him at the Central Park Zoo with his (I assume) parents.

I'm really looking forward to this movie now -- so many good movies coming out in November!

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Disney Working on Mary Poppins Sequel (Of Sorts)

The news that Disney is basically remaking every one of it's animated classics into a live-action film isn't new.

What is new is reports that they're pursuing Emily Blunt for the role of Mary Poppins -- but not in a remake.

(c) Entertainment Weekly / Getty Images
The news comes from a Variety report and indicates that Rob Marshall (Chicago, Into The Woods) would direct. 

The most important information of the report -- at least to Disney/children's lit scholars/fans -- is this:
"Insiders confirm the new film will take place in Depression-era London 20 years after the first film and will take story lines from P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on Poppins’ continued adventures with the Banks family."
First--it  does confirm the reports that this would not be a remake of the 1964 live-action/animated film starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (In other words, Emily Blunt would not be replacing Julie Andrews, but rather stepping into her (albeit rather large) shoes.)

This is key, I think, namely because Julie Andrews is so beloved, and this was an iconic role for her.

What's interesting though is the decision to fast-forward 20 years. Jane and Michael will have (presumably) grown up at this point, so I'm assuming that perhaps Mary Poppins will come to deal with their children, the next generation. (Although Jane and Michael would have had to get married rather early in life to have children the same age they were when Mary visited them...but details.)

I'm also curious to see whether Emily-Blunt-as-Mary-Poppins will be more faithful to Travers' original vision of Mary. While Disney romanticized the relationship between Travers and Walt in the film Saving Mr. Banks, the true account is much more...contentious. Travers and Walt fought over almost every aspect of the film, and she left the premiere in tears. (Which apparently led to her reluctance to give the rights for the Broadway musical, but that Mary is much more in line with the literary version: sterner, less "spoonful of sugar.")

Of course, all speculation at the moment, since nothing is set in stone, but interesting nonetheless.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Emma Stone To Play Cruella DeVil?

In the grand tradition of milking things for all that they're worth, you may have realized that Disney is releasing a spate of live-action adaptations of, or inspired by, its classic films -- most notably Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson as Belle and The Jungle Book with its all-star, CGI cast.

The relative successes of Maleficent (giving villains a backstory) and Cinderella (essentially retelling the classic animated story in live-action) are, I suppose, at the heart of this: if those films had flopped, Disney probably wouldn't be so eager to spend money on the 15 or so live-action films currently in talks or production.

One of the most curious of these ("The Most Curious" HAS to go to the Chernabog movie -- and if you're asking "who?" I don't think it's unreasonable. Chernabog is, after all, the villain from Disney's Fantasia -- an unlikely movie and character on which to base a live-action film) is the live-action movie about Cruella DeVil. A memorable antagonist from a beloved Disney film, to be sure. But worthy of her own movie?

I remain skeptical.

After all, part of what makes Disney villains so great (in my opinion; I know some Disney scholars take issue with their portrayal of female power and villainy) is that they're evil. Like, pure, unadulterated, unabashedly EVIL. They're bad, and they know. They're not conflicted over it. (Which is part of the reason I wasn't enamored with Maleficent: of all the Disney villains, she's just so evil and the Angelina Jolie movie tried to explain that away. It did so in a powerful way, to be sure, but still. Can't she just be evil?!)

Cruella DeVil though...there's the potential for a really great, complex psychological backstory there....after all, one of the complaints when she showed up on Once Upon A Time was that she's not a "magical villain." That is, Cruella doesn't wield or use magic: she's just a horrible, puppy-killing, fur-coat-wearing, real person. And slightly (okay, probably more than slightly) maniacal and deranged.

The animated Cruella, c.1961; Glenn Close in the 1996 live-action remake;
and Victoria Smurfit in Once Upon A Time, c. 2014

And now the latest news is that Emma Stone is being pursued by Disney to portray Cruella in the live-action remake:

Which...is interesting. The obvious comment is that Emma Stone is young, which implies that we're definitely getting a backstory, and that we might not never overlap with the events of 101 Dalmatians. (It's Disney, though, so who knows.) And Emma Stone could bring a delightful, sassy spark to the character...as well as the emotional depth that a truly "good" story might call for.

Verdict: If Emma Stone agrees, I've no doubt she'll do a fantastic job. My skepticism lies, I think, with the script/story and the fact that Cruella DeVil is getting her own movie in the first place.