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.
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 Moanaseeks 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.
When it comes to watching Disney movies, I find it very hard to take off my academic cap and just enjoy the movie. I'm constantly analyzing and looking for little details. While I sometimes wish I could just enjoy them like I do other movies, I actually really enjoy it -- especially when I see some progress and development in the Disney Princess brand.
One of the biggest criticisms lobbed against Disney films is their whitewashing of history -- it started, perhaps, with Song of the South, and didn't really get better with Pocahontas or The Princess and the Frog. Critics point out that relations between two tension-charged groups -- the Native Americans and the English settlers in the former, and whites and blacks in the latter -- were not as simple or positive as they're portrayed in the animated films; defenders retort that that they're children's films and, as such, can't possibly address the complexities of racial dynamics in 90 minutes nor should they.
Both sides are right: Disney isn't creating a documentary or a historical film; they're producing a fairy-tale film. (Whether Pocahontas -- a real historical figure -- has a fairy-tale story and whether Disney should have set a film in 1920s Louisiana are entirely different questions.) And the defenders are right, too: even if Disney had a moral obligation to accurately represent history, it'd be almost impossible to do in a 90-minute film.
So the question then becomes -- and I love discussing it with my students -- what should Disney do? How can they not sidestep sensitive issues but still do them justice?
And this is where Frozen II comes in: the basic gist of the plot (and I think this is mostly apparent from the trailer), there's a conflict between the Arendellians and the native people in the film, the Northundra (who, I think, are modeled after the Sami tribe, the native people of Norway/Scandinavia). The story of the conflict is initially filtered through Elsa and Anna's father, who doesn't know what happened because he was outside the forest and knocked unconscious. But the elemental spirits of the forest basically keep people in and "lock" out the outside world.
But here's the significant part: the arc of the film is basically Elsa uncovering the truth of what happened, of why the spirits were angered. And the reason, as Elsa learns, is that Elsa's grandfather betrayed the Northundra, building the dam under the guise of peace and unity, but really doing it to gauge the strength and size of the Northundra tribe. His reason? He was pissed off that they were independent and wanted them to swear allegiance to him. The moment he kills the Northundra leader is the moment the spirits "revolt" for lack of a better term, and there's a more complicated, but beautiful, resolution to the story, one which ends with a message of true peace and unity.
Why is this so important? Well, aside from the fact that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is basically a symbol of some ye olden days Fragile Toxic Masculinity, he represents that colonial, imperialist mindset of "white is right" and that native people should swear fealty to him simply because of the crown he wears. In the film, the Northundra are portrayed relatively flat, but they're kind people who seem intent on harmony and peace. (I'm thinking of Pocahontas, where each group views the other as "savage," and equally at fault, when, in reality, the English settlers bear the majority of the blame and fault.) While there's a bit of a problem in locating that mindset in just one character -- in Pocahontas, it's Ratcliffe; once he's gone, all the English settlers are totally fine with everything; here, it's the grandfather who seems to be the sole prejudiced one -- what's important is that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is portrayed as wrong, and his beliefs are firmly and clearly denounced by both Elsa and Anna. Both sisters understand why their grandfather's actions were unforgivable and also understand what they need to do make things right and restore balance. And, in this case, that means appeasing the Elemental spirits and making reparations by destroying the dam.
Is it a perfect depiction of complex inter-racial relations? Of course not. It is, after all, an animated film with a target demographic of preschoolers and elementary schoolers. And there are lots of unanswered questions, but...
Does it attempt to handle complex issues better than its predecessors did? Yes, I would say so. And, what's more important, is that I think it lays the groundwork for important future discussions. I think it opens the door to have early conversations about imperialism and colonialism and how some people, even people we thought were good and right, did some truly bad things. From there? There are so many places to go.
This afternoon, my husband I were fortunate enough to have a Double-Feature Date Afternoon. We saw Knives Out first -- which was a fantastic WhoDunIt and just an overall delightful romp -- and then saw Frozen 2.
Disclaimer: I haven't read any reviews and managed to stay largely spoiler-free. I had read some "first reactions" -- those Twitter responses about people's early responses to the film which are largely vague and non-specific and which don't give away any specific details -- and that was all I knew. Most of them were positive -- I feel like there was one lukewarm response which basically said it "was good, but not as good as the first," (important to note that it was written by a man) -- which reassured me. Disney sequels are, after all, usually things that go straight-to-video and aren't very good. (The only sequels I can think of are The Rescuers Down Under -- because The Rescuers were. my. jam. -- and Ralph Breaks the Internet...somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) I knew that the film was darker, had supposedly matured with its audience, and that a good deal of people believed it was unnecessary.
I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts.
But here's the gist of them: Frozen II is not the movie I thought it was going to be, and that's okay, because it turned out to be the Disney Princess Movie I needed. And, more importantly, I think it's the Disney Princess Movie that I needed to see as a young girl, that the brand needs, and that little girls (and boys) need.
Spoilery thoughts below.
It's #ThrowbackThursday today, so let's rewind to last week when my in-laws watched our kids for the day so we could go Black Friday Shopping and continue our annual tradition of eating grilled cheese sandwiches at Pop's Soda Shop and watching a movie at The Grandin.
Clarification: if push came to shove, I'd have to say the first one was better -- but in a different way, if that makes any sense. Wreck-It Ralph was so filled with nostalgia for me -- a child of the late 80s/early 90s -- and I loved the newness of it. This, IMHO, was the start of Disney Renaissance II's original stories, those not based on any previous source material (see also: Zootopia). It was also so smart, and clever, and the villain reveal was refreshing, something so different from Disney's long line of obvious, usually offensively stereotyped villains -- as was the way Disney toyed with the idea of villainy and what it means to be bad.
But Ralph Breaks The Internet was just as good, just in a different way. The nostalgia factor wasn't there, nor was the commentary on villainy. But there were other things, equally new and refreshing for a Disney movie -- especially a Disney princess movie. Because I think it's important to remember that Vanellope is, technically, a Disney princess.
Today we discussed Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in class, so last night, I had to re-watch it. (Sometimes, I really love my job.)
I also watched it with my family -- my husband and both my kids -- which made my heart all kinds of happy. My daughter is just about 2.5 and, amidst all the fun of the terrible 2s, she's starting to become her own little person with a clear personality. It's also a lot...less quiet. 😂 There are so. many. questions!
But it's fascinating to see what she picks up on. Critics, especially the academic ones, like to make a big fuss over Disney movies -- especially the princess ones -- especially the early princess ones. They like to say that kids take this harmful message away or that watching princess movies will make them grow up into weak, passive women. Which...I've always been skeptical of. After all, how can you determine what a child takes away from a film? Won't every viewer take away something different? And even if you could definitively conclude what a child takes away from watching a movie, can you lay the blame entirely at Disney's feet? Isn't this one part of a larger conversation?
So, yeah. My daughter didn't bat an eye at the dark, scary parts -- not when Snow White ran into the woods, not when the Queen went down into her dungeon and used dark magic, not when the Dwarfs chased the Queen at the end.
She was more concerned with where characters were -- so when Snow White was cleaning the house, she didn't seem to focus on what Snow White was doing, she wanted to know where the rabbit was. And her biggest concern was that she didn't understand where the Queen went when she transformed into the hag -- and after answering that question about a dozen times and trying to explain magic, she wanted to know what happened to her crown. 😳 Write about that, academics.
Anyway. I noticed something at the end of the movie that I hadn't noticed before and, TBH, I found it a little odd. Yes, things wrap up pretty quickly. Yes, the Prince randomly stumbles upon Snow White and kisses her (without knowing that Love's First Kiss is what breaks the spell). Yes, Snow White wakes up and is like, "O hai. Sure I'll ride off with you to who knows where." Yes, Snow White just abandons the Dwarfs after all they did for her.
But it was the castle at the end that I noticed.
Here's a screenshot near the end, with Snow White and the Prince riding off, literally, into the sunset.
Then, here's a screenshot of a few second later:
I remembered the Prince's castle differently...I assumed/remembered it as a castle on a hill off in the distance (maybe like the castle in Cinderella?), but this castle appears to (1) have magically appeared in the middle of the sky and (2) be floating on a cloud. Which...intrigued me and sparked a connection to "castles in the air."
I remembered the phrase from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women -- there's an entire chapter titled "Castles in the Air." The March sisters are telling Laurie about how they used to play Pilgrim's Progress and try to make it to the Celestial City. Beth tells Laurie:
If people really want to go, and really try all their lives, I think they will get in, for I don't believe there are any locks on the door or any guards at the gate. I always imagine it as it is in the picture where the shining ones stretch out their hands to welcome poor Christian as he comes up from the river.
And Jo replies:
Wouldn't it be fun if all the castles in the air which we make could come true, and we could live in them?
The castles are, I think, meant to represent the girls' (and Laurie's) daydreams, their aspirations, what they want most in this world. (Jo's dreams and castles were the ones I related to the most, TBH.) The idea, though, is that they have to live their lives first -- to deal with their weaknesses, to face their troubles, to endure the hardships. There's also the Christian undertones, given the reference to Bunyan's Pilgrim Progress (which I'll admit I'm not familiar with, except to know that it's about how to get to Heaven) which are quite prominent in Snow White.
There's also the connection to Thoreau (who I'm pretty sure was close with Alcotts -- or at least moved in the same circle as them), who wrote in Walden,
I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary...In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. "
Later, in the same chapter, Thoreau writes,
However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are. It looks poorest when you are richest. The fault-finder will find faults even in paradise. Love your life, poor as it is....
These are still unformed thoughts but I think the connection to Snow White is there: if Thoreau viewed "castles in the air" as a person's dreams, their heart's desires, the life which they have imagined, then the "foundation" is to love your life, as poor as it.
Doesn't this hold true for Snow White? However "mean" her life was, she "met" it and "lived" it. She met adversity with "a smile and a song" and never stopped wishing "for the one she loved to find her." She built her castle in the air in her heart and dreams, and lived her life as poor as it was. And in the end? Her castle literally appeared in the air in front of her, as her reward for her good life and faith and hope.
I have no idea if Disney read Walden or Little Women, or was familiar with Thoreau's or Alcott's ideas, but he was a smarter man than people sometimes give him credit for. At the very least, I think it's plausible.
YAY! Disney pretty much knew what we wanted and gave us the Princesses for a good chunk of the new trailer today. Look! Here they all are!
And, can I just say, I was right about the panorama and the other princesses being off-screen:
See? There's Ariel, charmingly combing her hair with a dinglehopper, and you can just make out part of Merida all the way at the right. But when they realize Vanellope has entered the room:
There are Mulan and Merida (and all the rest of them) being bad-ass!
And, as Cosmo points out in their article on the trailer, they are all so hyper-aware of their narratives. (I really do love this new, meta-Disney that has fun poking fun at itself.) I especially like that Rapunzel and Belle asked Vanellope if she'd been "kidnapped or enslaved." The whole scene is just fantastic because it implies that each of the princesses know their stories and are just playing their parts -- just like Vanellope (and Ralph). Just like Ralph is a "good guy" playing the role of Bad Guy, each of the princesses are strong heroines playing the role of Damsel in Distress because it's the way the story goes. (Well, most of them. Perhaps that's why Merida, Anna and Moana don't really chime in during this part.)
(1) Alan Tudyk is back! Given that his original character, King Candy/Turbo, was the villain and (spoiler!) got his just desserts, and also given that Alan Tudyk has become Disney Animation Studios' good-luck charm -- I was worried that he wouldn't be in this film. Worries no more.
(2) Taraji P. Henson's character looks awesome.
(3) Perhaps, most importantly, our first look at the Disney Princesses all together is here!
(1) This is awesome. And you will never get me to say otherwise. I imagine this to be some sort of super-cool Princess secret society. Or, resort/spa where they can relax and get away from princessy-duties.
(2) Excluding Vanellope, there are 11 princesses present:
(2a) Interestingly, Anna, Elsa and Moana are all here -- even though they haven't been officially inducted into the princess court.
(2b) All the First Wave princesses are present -- Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora -- even though their voice actors are no longer with us. (I always assumed they'd have different actors, so it'll be fun/interesting to see who they cast.)
Also--Aurora is in her pink dress. Don't get me started.
(2c) 3/5 of the Second Wave princesses are present: Belle, Jasmine, & Pocahontas are there, but Ariel and Mulan aren't. More on this in a second.
(2d) 2/3 of the Third Wave princesses are present -- Tiana and Rapunzel, but Merida isn't. (I'm not counting Moana yet.)
Given the panorama-type view of the shot, it's possible that the three of them are just off-screen (and maybe we'll see them in the trailer tomorrow).
Shockingly, (she said sarcastically), the internet is a little upset about Mulan not being included -- thanks, Buzzfeed!
Which, I know they ask about Ariel in the sub-title, but still. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to count the princesses and figure out that not *every* Disney princess is there -- I counted 3. But there's a lot of ignorance misinformation in this post.
Like that whole jibber-jabber about how Mulan isn't *technically* a princess. Yes. We talk about this a lot in my class -- i.e., how do we determine a Disney princess? Do you have to be born one? Can you marry into royalty? And what about different cultures? After all, princesses are primarily (not exculsively!) a Western concept, especially in the way Disney portrays them. Is Jasmine a princess, as the daughter of a sultan? Is Pocahontas a princess, as the daughter of a chief? (Maui would clear this up.) But I digress. -- The point is: when Andy Mooney created the princess franchise in the early 2000s, they had to come up with some criteria. After all, Tinker Bell was included at one point -- but then they went and did the whole Fairies franchise ($$$), so she was out. Any female character who is included in the Royal Court, is an official princess, regardless of birth, marriage, or any other factors. See below:
All 11 princesses are there -- and yes, this is before Frozen and Moana, but there hasn't been another "induction" since.
So then they point to these cast photos that were taken at the 2017 D23 Expo (which I thought I blogged about, but I can't find it. Which makes sense. I was so. very. pregnant. in July of 2017 and also running around after a 1-year-old.)
I'm just going to ignore this comment from the Buzzfeed post -- But interestingly the voice actors of Snow White, Cinderella, Elsa, and Aurora were not present, even though they are in the shot from the movie. -- because, you know, LOGIC. (Snow White came out in 1937, guys. It's a safe bet that Adriana Caselotti isn't still alive -- she passed in 1997 -- and even if she were, she'd be pretty old.)
So, yeah. Merida and Ariel will be there -- although no one seemed particularly worried about here in the Buzzfeed post 😢 -- and it's a safe bet that Mulan will be too.
So, let's just enjoy the awesomeness of all the princesses together and hope that we see them all in the trailer tomorrow.
May, 2018: We're still re-imagining Disney Princesses in inventive ways. #somethingsneverchange
The latest one imagines Disney Princesses as modern-day career women:
The collection is by Matt Burt and he's put a lot of thought into the careers for each character.
Chronologically, here they are:
Snow White -- Leading Psychologist
Cinderella -- Animal Rights Activist
Aurora -- CEO of Spinning Wheel Coffee
Ariel -- Pop Star & Record Producer
Belle -- University Chancellor
Jasmine -- UN Ambassador
Pocahontas -- Environmental Activist (I mean, duh)
Mulan -- Title IX Lawyer
Tiana -- Award Winning Chef (I mean, duh)
Rapunzel -- Neurologist
Merida -- Two Time Olympian (Archery & Equestrian)
Elsa & Anna* -- Climate Change Scientists
Moana -- Officer in the Navy
*Not official princesses, but, a common mistake.
Okay, one, it's clear that Burt put a lot of thought and rationale into each of these career choices.
Two--I love that each of them is an empowering career for the character -- you've got chancellors and ambassadors and scientists. (Yay for Women in STEM!)
But.
I wouldn't be me if I didn't have nit-picky thoughts.
1. Most obvious -- Tiana & Pocahontas: really, any other career options for these two wouldn't work.
2. My favorite "new career" -- Aurora: I love that she's the CEO of a coffee company. Tongue-in-cheek, but oddly appropriate.
3. No...just no -- Snow White as a "Leading Psychologist" and Rapunzel as a "Neurologist": Nope. Not buying it. While I appreciate that Burt made Snow a "leading" psychologist who cares for her clients but also presents at conferences, I...would not put my faith in her as a psychologist. If anything, I think she'd made a great preschool/kindergarten/elementary school teacher. Her cheerful disposition plus her ability to make people actually wash their hands? Textbook.
And Rapunzel? Yeah, cool. Neurologist, doctor, med school, blah blah blah. But the thing I love about the end of Tangled is that Flynn tells us that she learned to rule and govern her people and was a great princess/queen. So, yeah. I would have liked to see her be a senator or even a female president.
4. Miscellaneous thoughts, from someone who has clearly spent too much time thinking about this:
I guess I see Cinderella as an Animal Rights Activist -- but maybe she and Ariel join forces together. I don't love Ariel as a Pop Star -- because she's my favorite, and it seems a shallow career -- but...I suppose Ariel is kind of shallow, so it fits. :/
Again, I love that Belle is the chancellor of a university, but again, it kinda doesn't fit her personality. I don't see her as an authoritative decision-maker -- something I think Once Upon A Time captures nicely with Belle as a librarian -- maybe an English professor at best.
Mulan & Moana -- For some reason, I'm just "meh" about these. I think it's because they seem too rebellious for such straight-laced careers. I'm pretty sure Mulan would do something -- with the best of intentions, of course -- that would end up getting her disbarred. And Moana? She relies too much on emotion and instinct to be a good naval officer -- I can't see her taking orders well.
Like I said, I've clearly spent too much time thinking about this!
Today, my first pairs of Toms arrived in the mail. I know they've been popular for awhile, and people swear they're super comfy, but...I'm always a little reluctant to join the bandwagon. But these had strawberries and oranges and carrots on them -- and they just seemed so summery.
Plus, I wanted to see if their sizing was accurate (it is) since I came across this news the other day:
I blogged about them a while ago -- and the big news was that they'd be featuring rarely seen concept art from the Disney Archives.
Now we've got some close ups of the art -- and I have to say, the Snow White ones are my favorite, which is a surprise to me.
The Cinderella ones are actually pretty cool -- I have a friend who is probably eyeing the ones with the mice, since Gus is her favorite character -- and I really like the concept art of Cinderella's mom's dress that the mice fix for her. There's also a nice simplicity to the Glass Slipper ones, but I'm not sure they'll warrant the (inflated) price tag.
The Sleeping Beauty ones were the ones I was actually most excited for. Not because of Aurora (because let's face it -- the movie's named after her, but she's not the protagonist) but because of the Good Fairies, particularly Merrywether, who's always been a favorite of mine. But...meh.
Maybe because she's the OG princess, or maybe because they're blue, but these are my favorite. Aaaand I'll probably be ordering a pair when they start selling them.
And a Little Mermaid pair? I'll take those next please, Disney.
For the longest time, Cinderella was a film I hated to teach. I didn't remember much about the film, but I remembered that I didn't like it. And, after all, Cinderella is the most popular princess, so anything that's popular can't possibly live up to the hype. (It's this mindset that caused me to refuse to read Harry Potter for years. Whoops.)
But then I watched it a few years ago when a student wanted to write a really fascinating paper on gender transgression in the 1950 film. But when I read her proposal, I was skeptical: The King has a stereotypically feminine obsession with grand babies? And acts uber-masculine to make up for this transgression? I don't remember ANY of this.... So, I rewatched it. And promptly gave the student the go-ahead to write a really fascinating and unique argument. (To this day, it's still one of my favorites.)
The point is -- Cinderella is not what I remember -- and Cinderella (the character) isn't quite as passive and spineless as academic critics sometimes want us to believe. So I added it to my syllabus.
And re-watching pieces of it yesterday (three times) just made me think of something:
#1 -- Cinderella is actually pretty relatable. I mean...this is me basically every morning (just sub a dog and two tiny humans for the birds):
#2 -- This may be the most unrealistic part of the whole movie. She sleeps on two braids all night and has magically beautiful wavy hair when she takes them out? Nope. Her hair would be kinked and frizzed all over the place. Now that's Disney magic.
One of the things I get asked a lot, once people know about the courses I teach, is whether I'll let my own kids watch Disney movies. "Surely," they say, "you can't talk about what's wrong with a movie like Cinderella and still think it's okay for your kids to watch?"
To which I respond, "Of course I can."
Because even though I can put on my Professor Cap and analyze why Cinderella presents outdated gender roles from the 1950s, I can still also see the good in it. I see a female-driven narrative with a protagonist who is unflinchingly and unfailingly cheerful and hopeful.
And, perhaps what's more important, is that my children will have a wide variety of characters to watch in their Disney [Princess] movies. For the earliest part of my childhood, the only princesses I had were Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora -- homogenous by even the loosest definition of the word. But I grew up with the Disney Princesses -- I was the target demographic for The Little Mermaid, and while I can't attest to how watching that film repeatedly unknowingly influenced me, I can speak to what I knowingly took away from that film. And my children -- my daughter -- will have even more variety than I did, both in terms of racial identity and physical appearance as well as in character and achievement.
Which is part of the reason why we're watching the Disney princess movies in reverse. While Toy Story 3 was my daughter's first Disney movie (mainly because it was on TV over a weekend when I was struggling with some first trimester ickiness), Moana is the first Disney movie she watched when she was old enough to be aware of it.
What really got me thinking of all of this (again) was the other day, when we were finishing up Frozen. My daughter's seen parts of it before -- it's been on TV often enough -- but this was the first time that we actually sat down and watched it. She's also learned who the characters are from several Frozen books we have -- Anna Loves Elsa is her current favorite, I think, but my husband reads her the Pop-Up Adventure book and she loves it -- and connects Elsa with snow (which makes my heart happy).
But then we got to this scene:
You know? One of the BEST parts of the whole movie where Anna has a choice -- she can save herself by running to Kristoff or she can sacrifice herself by running to Elsa and she chooses Elsa?
To be honest, my daughter was a little concerned at this point -- she didn't quite understand why Anna was so cold or why her fingers were turning blue and she had snowflakes on her cheeks. And when Anna froze, and Elsa flung herself on her sister out of grief -- my daughter turned to look at me, as if searching for reassurance that everything would be okay. Yes, she'll learn one day that a Disney movie means that everything turns out okay for The Good Guys, but in this instance, I just chose to tell her that Elsa was worried about her sister, and so she gave her a hug, because that's what you do when you love someone and you want them to know that.
And I watched my daughter watch Elsa hug Anna -- I watched her face as Anna's act of true love melted her frozen heart, and the happy ending arrived. Maybe, to my daughter, it was the hug that melted Anna -- not Anna's selfless act; after all, she's not even 2 -- but either way, she got the gist of it. And, right before Anna punched Hans, my daughter came up and gave me a hug.
Now. Of course my daughter has hugged me before. But it's usually reflexive, or something she seeks out when she falls, or something she does when she's asked, as if to prove that she can do it, like say her name or identify a color. But connecting the act of hugging with a voluntary display of affection...that's been a bit elusive.
Not anymore. Disney helped my daughter make that connection. Why wouldn't I want her to learn that?
I think of all the other lessons Disney can teach my daughter, and they're lessons that I want her to learn.
She loves Moana -- maybe even more than Frozen. (And I'm a proud Mama Bear that she can articulately say Moana, Maui, and hawk -- she wanted to know the words for the pictures she saw.) But I think of all the positive messages that movie can teach her. Like this one. This is her favorite scene in the movie (well, I think it is. She can't really articulate "favorites" yet, but she does ask for the "turtle scene"):
When I watch her watch this part of the movie, this is what I see: I see her anxious for the baby turtle -- even though she doesn't quite understand why, she knows Baby Moana is concerned for it, and she's concerned -- I see her watch Baby Moana protect it and care for it, show compassion for another living creature, and I see her watch Baby Moana save the turtle, reuniting it with it's parents (Squirt from Finding Nemo maybe?!).
And, again: how could I not want my daughter to learn that message?
Yes, I know Disney isn't perfect. Believe me, I know. I spend a good deal of my non-teaching-work-time reading about how awful Disney is for kids and why we shouldn't be exposing our kids to their messages.
But then I think about my daughter's spontaneous hug and watching her learn the value of caring for an animal and...the bad messages don't seem so bad. After all, it's not like she won't have me harping in her ear about why the "bad" things aren't that great ("Remember what Queen Elsa said! You can't marry a man you just met! Remember how Kristoff asked Anna's permission before he kissed her? Consent is an important thing!"). I'm totally going to be "that mom." But I guess, to me, the good far outweighs the potentially bad.
I read it for the first time in the Fall of 2015, when I found out I was pregnant with my daughter. I had been mulling over the idea of a Disney-Princess focused course and, after reading the book, I revamped my entire course in a few weeks. It was all well and good to read Orenstein's thoughts and experiences, but I wanted to discuss it, to talk through the details of her argument, to see what other educated, intelligent individuals thought. And I am so lucky to teach at a university where my students (for the most part) really do engage and grapple with ideas like these.
Since my daughter was born, I've found myself returning to her ideas over and over again, wondering if and when Orenstein's ideas will start to apply to her. Some of her points already resonate with me more than they did the first time I read the book -- and I imagine that as my daughter gets older, and as I continue to reread the book, different points and ideas will strike me as relevant.
For example -- in Chapter 3, "Pinked," Orenstein ponders the question, "Why has girlhood become so monochromatic?" She muses, "It's not that pink is intrinsically bad, but it is such a tiny slice of the rainbow, and, though it may celebrate girlhood in one way, it also repeatedly and firmly fuses girls' identity to appearance" (34). She points out that "children weren't color-coded at all until the early twentieth-century" and that, even then, pink was associated more with boys (it was a "muted" version of the powerful red) and blue was more of a girl's color (which is why Disney's Wendy and Alice wear blue dresses). All of this leads up to a discussion of Sesame Street's introduction of Abby Cadabby in 2006:
From L to R: Abby, Zoe, & Rosita
Now, in 2015, I hadn't watched Sesame Street in 25 years so, clearly, I had no context for this. Now, the 25-50 minutes of screen time that my daughter watches is the 1-2 episodes of Sesame Street that we watch in the evenings. (And it's surprisingly entertaining y'all.) The fact that there weren't really female muppets in the cast of Sesame Street wasn't something I had thought about -- and definitely not something I remember from when I was a kid. From what I do remember, Little Me didn't really think of muppets as having a gender identity -- they were just muppets. Bert and Ernie were clearly male, but Big Bird? Grover? It didn't really matter if they were male or female.
But Abby? Clearly female. And here are Orenstein's thoughts:
"Workshop executives have denied they created Abby with a licensing bonanza in mind; the fact that she is so infinitely marketable, that she dovetailed precisely with the pink-fairy-princess megatrend among girls, was apparently a merely happy coincidence.[...] At every geographic outpost from Disneyland to Sesame Street, executives described the same "taboo-breaking" vision, with an identical self-righteous justification about 'honoring the range of play patterns girls can have.' All this pink-and-pretty, they claimed, was about giving girls more choices, not fewer." (41)
Orenstein's point is what she identifies as the "pink factor" -- this idea in corporate marketing that if you make a regular item, and then you make it in pink, girls will want the pink version. Like the Little Tikes Cozy Coupe:
The "traditional" one is the red and yellow one--but of course there's a pink version (for girls). There's also a pink princess version that has glitter because...why not?
Me being me, I've pretty much refused to have the pink version of things in my house if there's a "boy" color available (which is usually not overly blue, but more primary colors). My daughter has the red car and loves it. Because primary colors are not inherently masculine and pink is not inherently feminine. And I'm pretty sure she doesn't care what color her toy is -- she just loves that she can ride around in her car like Mommy and Daddy.
So when we first turned on Sesame Street -- in a moment of desperation because my newborn son was crying and I needed something to distract my daughter -- I'll admit that I was curious as to which characters she would be drawn to: would Abby be her favorite just because she was "the girl" or the pretty pink fairy?
The answer? Nope. Not even a little bit.
Her favorites, in order, are:
(1) Elmo
(2) Cookie Monster (although he's a very close second -- and depending on the day, he might be first)
(3) Grover
(4) The Count
(5) Big Bird (or, "Duck" as she calls him)
(6) Abby
And I really think Abby is only on the list because she's so heavily featured. Elmo is definitely her favorite: while he's featured the most, I also think there's something about his character that speaks to toddlers. She loves Cookie Monster because -- well? Who doesn't? He OmNomNomz cookies! And The Count is so high up because of the counting segment where they encourage kids to stomp along.
Maybe when she's older, her favorites will change -- and maybe it will be because of gender differences. But right now? I'd like to think that, like me, she doesn't think monsters and muppets have genders. Elmo is just the red monster who laughs and dances a happy dance when he learns something new. Cookie Monster is just the blue monster who loves to eat cookies (again, who doesn't?). And Abby is just the pink monster with wings who waves a magic wand around.
Right now, Elmo is the stuffed animal she places on her chair each night before bed (along with Beast, but that's a different post) so she knows exactly where it is the next morning.
A few classes ago, a student asked me if I dressed like a Disney princess on purpose. (I hope this was a compliment.) I said I didn't, and it's true. I don't consciously dress like a Disney character to go to work, but I'm sure the Disney movies I grew up on and the characters I adored subconsciously influence some of my fashion choices.
I was thinking about that again this morning when, because of the rainy forecast, I threw my hair up in a top-bun. I've never been a girl who spends a ton of time on her hair or makeup, probably because I never really "learned" until I got to college. That was never something my mom taught me -- if I needed make-up done, we went to the Clinique counter at Belk -- and my high school friends were similarly disinterested. And my swimming friends -- well, I think we all realized the futility of spending 20-30 minutes after morning practice blow-drying and straightening our hair and applying make-up when it would all be undone 6-7 hours later during afternoon practice. The number of times I went to school with sopping wet hair...
But I digress. My point is that, yes: the top-bun is easy and fast (although it probably takes me much longer than it should) but it has the added bonus of making me feel like Tinkerbell. I know that Disney critics and scholars probably have their opinions about the Disney version, but I don't care. She's my favorite. She's blonde and sassy and petulant and a little bit vengeful. So if I ever stumble on a green dress suitable for teaching, you bet your bottom dollar I'll buy and proudly wear it to teach:
I'd probably substitute the wings for a sensible cardigan though. 😉
Confession: I have never DisneyBounded at a Disney Park, mainly because I have too many geeky Disney shirts and I prefer comfort over style when I'm spending 12+ hours on my feet in the Orlando heat & humidity. But maybe now that The Dress Shop is open at the Disney Parks it'll be easier to coordinate?
I haven't done a "Disney Princesses As" post in a while, so it was nice to stumble across these images: according to BoredPanda, the artist is Chilean digital artist Fernanda Suarez, and his current project is to imagine what Disney Princesses would look like if they were living in 2017. Check out his Instagram here.
Setting aside the fact that he is ridiculously talented in a way that I could never even dream of aspiring to, his vision is interesting...most of them look edgier to me, maybe even a little sinister?
For one thing, Jasmine and Pocahontas don't actually look that different, IMHO:
Is there a commentary on exorcized beauty here? Several critics have pointed out that the non-white princesses are more sexualized than their white counterparts, so maybe it's not surprising? (Although, I don't know what it says about 2017 that being "modern" is "sultry"...although maybe it's just the discrepancy from the softer, more innocent animated versions?)
Snow White and Cinderella kinda have this whole zombie/supernatural/paranormal vibe going on...I think it's the eyes. They both have this sultry, come hither vibe, but the coloring gives them that supernatural edge. Plus, nothing says temptation like an apple.
I think Mulan is my favorite though. Maybe it's because she looks so different from the traditional animated version, and maybe because Suarez didn't seem to make her hyper-feminine and fit her into a "delicate" princess mold.
Fall is, without a doubt, my favorite season. I was raised in the Hudson Valley in New York, so I grew up with beautiful fall foliage, chilly nights and mornings, and some of my best memories involve going apple picking with my family. Falls aren't quite the same in the South, but the minute that first hint of crispness enters the air...I love it.
I'm not normally one to obsess over fashion trends and who-was-wearing-what at the latest awards shows -- but when you invoke Disney Princesses....I'm going to at least take a look.
Was at Target the other day (although, to be honest, when am I not?), and I took a stroll down the toy aisle just for kicks.
And guess what? The new Moana merchandise is out! (Yes, even before the film is released.) So if you know someone who's going to want Moana merchandise, get it now before the actual release of the film.
Not the point. The point is that the Moana doll, much like her character looks so much different than a "traditional" kid's doll.
Here she is next to Barbie:
Look at the differences in height (Barbie is considerably taller), face shape, neck length, bust and leg size. Sure, Moana's eyes are unrealistically large, but hey. That's animation these days. Overall, she's more built more "realistically" and her legs don't look as if you could snap them like matchsticks.
For comparison, here she is next to Pocahontas (who is actually the only other Disney princess whose legs you can see in the box):
To be fair, Pocahontas has some fairly well-defined legs (for a doll), but she does run around the woods barefoot a lot so....
Is this progress for Disney & Hasbro? Have we finally moved past the princesses whose waists were as thin as their necks?
