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.
Like, doesn't Isaacs-as-Mr.-Darling look like Jude Law?! I haven't seen the 2003 version of Peter Panin 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...
She is not just the OG Disney Princess -- she's the OG Disney Character.
Without her, there would probably not be a "Disney." There (probably) would not be a billion-dollar multi-media conglomerate. We (probably) wouldn't be watching cartoons as adults. We might not even have theme parks, of which Disney ones represent the Gold Star. And who else knows what the trickle-down-effect would be.
Because back in 1937, pretty much everyone expected an 80-minute feature-length animated film to flop. Which is extra problematic considering Disney sunk everything he had into this film -- I think the estimated budget eventually ballooned up to $1.5 million (in the middle of the Great Depression, remember). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was known as Disney's Folly.
But maybe it was precisely that historical context -- the Depression -- that made people flock to the theater. For escape, for nostalgia, for air conditioning -- whatever it was, people loved it. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the film made $80 million during its first year: at a time when an adult movie ticket cost a quarter and a child movie ticket a nickel.
And thus, Disney was saved and an empire was born.
But remember: She was born in 1937. I'm not saying that excuses everything, but face it: things were a helluva lot different then.
And it's not all bad: sure, she's only 14 and marries a man she basically just met, but at least that man didn't stumble across the seemingly-dead-body of an 8 year old girl in the middle of a forest and attempt to buy her from some dwarves. (Which is what happens in the original story by the Grimm Brothers.) Unlike her successors, her eyes are proportionate and normal-sized. Also unlike her successors, she's got a healthy body type with a realistic waist and some actual curves. And, when she stumbles upon the dwarf's cottage, she doesn't ask for a hand-out: she uses the skills she has (yes, they are limited and domestic) to compensate for a roof over her head.
So, yes. I'm defending her. And not just because she was my favorite when I was very little. (We also didn't have a lot of options pre-1989):
(My dad would kill me if he saw this photo. Also, remember when Disney characters just wandered the parks?)
ANYWAY. All of this is to say that, as the OG Character, she holds a special place in the realm of Movies-You-Just-Don't-Remake. How could you remake The Wizard of Oz without Judy Garland? Or Gone With The Wind without Clark Gable or Vivien Leigh? Or Breakfast at Tiffany's without Audrey Hepburn?
I thought, for the longest time, that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was off-limits. Of course her story has been retold -- I actually even enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman, mainly due to Charlize Theron's Wicked Queen, and Gregory's Maguire's Italian take with Lucrezia Borgia as the villainess -- and Disney went so far as make Snow the heroine of its fairy-tale-version-of-Lost, Once Upon A Time.
But now it seems like the iconic 1937 film has been added to the list of Disney's Remake Machine, having just found a director in Marc Webb. (Yes, the film was announced in 2016, but films are announced all the time--it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get made. We've been waiting on that Wicked film for years now.)
Things That Make Me Cautiously Optimistic:
Marc Webb was a director/producer on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which, largely thanks to Rachel Bloom, did exceptional things with its portrayal of mental illness, female friendships, and romantic relationships.
Pasek and Paul have been brought on to write new songs for the film -- and if "Speechless" is any indication, this bodes extremely well.
Things That Might Be Tricky:
Adriana Caselotti -- Disney's original voice actress -- had an incredibly high voice. And while it may have worked in the 1930s, it's one of the things my students comment on the most when asked about things they disliked about the film. (A quibble, I know, but her voice is iconic.)
There's not a whole lot of story there, and the source material isn't exactly great by 2019 standards. Most adaptations maintain the element of female jealousy and conflict -- based on appearance/beauty -- and I would love to see Disney change and update this for 2019.
I'd also hope that this Snow White will have a spine and won't be quite so passive. While Disney's 2015 version of Cinderella was a beautiful film, and did update some elements of the story, Ella was still "as meek and as mild as a mouse" for most of the film.
Finally, while there aren't even whispers of a rumor about the plot, several of the articles I read mention that Disney is also considering a "spin-off" featuring Snow White's "sister," Rose Red. Which....
...is not entirely true. I mean, yes. I used to think this as a kid because "Snow White and Rose Red" was one of my favorite stories. But...just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're the same character. So...yeah. Not sisters.
Hopefully, this is just lazy reporting and not actual information coming from Disney. Because that would not bode well.
If there was one living Disney legend I could have lunch with, it would be Dame Julie Andrews.
But if I could have lunch with two Disney legends, it would be Dame Julie Andrews and Alan Menken. I have no musical talent whatsoever, but even I can recognize that Alan Menken is in a class of his own.
I've been listening to the Aladdin soundtrack on repeat, especially the score. (I don't know if it counts as "classical" music, but I find the instrumental music helps me concentrate when I'm writing or course planning.) And the more I listen to "Speechless," the more I find myself humming it as I'm unloading the dishwasher or singing fragments when I'm replying to emails.
Take a listen below:
Yes, it obviously has a different sound than the other music -- but it's not like the music from the original animated film is completely coherent. As Mari Ness explains for Tor, Aladdin's production history was interrupted by Howard Ashman's death. Jeffrey Katzenburg didn't like the initial script that Musker and Clements produced so they brought in Tim Rice (who would later work with Elton John on the soundtrack for The Lion King). Of the main songs on the soundtrack "A Whole New World" and "One Jump Ahead" are written by Rice and Menken, and "Prince Ali" and "Friend Like Me" are Menken and Ashman's collaborations.
All of this is to say -- there's a pastiche element to the soundtrack already, so adding "Speechless" to the mix doesn't really bother me. Perhaps that's because it was written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul who worked on two of my favorite soundtracks at the moment, Dear Evan Hansen and The Greatest Showman. And they're Disney aficionados, which endears them to me even more. Look at them, they're adorable!
I appreciate that they pointed out that Jasmine needed her own song -- it's always struck me as odd that, despite it being Aladdin's movie (technically), Jasmine is one of the official Disney princesses. To be fair, when they created the brand in 2000, they played fast and loose with the definition since Tinkerbell was originally included (before they realized that the Fairies could be a profitable brand on their own) and characters like Pocahontas and Mulan are included, despite not technically being princesses.
And yes, the song is a powerful feminist anthem, especially considering that, in the film, it comes directly after Jafar's line that "princesses should be seen and not heard."
But more than that -- it's intricately connected to the original animated film in such a smart, subtle way that you could almost miss it if you were dazzled by the visuals of the film. (I did. And I loved that scene where the characters around Jasmine disappear into poofs of smoke as she dismisses each of them. I think critics were divided over it, but I thought it was a visually cool effect.) It was only after I started listening to the song divorced from the visuals that the connections started to click together.
"Here comes a wave meant to wash my away / A tide that is taking me under / Swallowing sand, left with nothing to say / My voice drowned out in the thunder..."
The line to "swallowing sand" struck me -- and it seemed more than just a throwaway reference to the Arabian setting. To me, it seemed like a callback to the scene in the original film where Jafar traps Jasmine in the giant hourglass, literally silencing her.
It's a scene that increasingly bothers me the more I teach the film. It's weirdly sexual for a kid's film and is rivaled only by, perhaps, Frollo's "Hellfire" song in Hunchback. Plus Slave Jasmine makes me think of Slave Leia in her gold bikini, but without any of the subsequent empowerment Leia gets.
“We were really inspired by a line in the original movie where Jafar very misogynistically says, ‘You’re speechless, I see. A fine quality in a wife'...In the world that we live in, so many people need to reclaim their voice — or claim it for the first time — and be outspoken about who they are and what they believe in. It was a really exciting opportunity to put that message into the voice of Jasmine.”
Which...I love. I love that they found inspiration in a line from the film -- one of the more misogynistic parts of the film, TBH -- and flipped it on its head and turned it into an empowering anthem.
And there's another part of the song that I think is also a direct callback to the original film. In the song, Jasmine sings,
"Try to lock me in this cage / I won't just lay me down and die / I will take these broken wings / And watch me burn across the sky..."
I can't be sure, of course, because Pasek and Paul don't address it specifically with The LA Times (which isn't to say that they don't address it somewhere else; I haven't found it yet, if they have) -- but it reminded me of the scene in the animated film where Jasmine is in the courtyard with Rajah. The Sultan's just come pestering her about marrying a prince before her 16th birthday (UGH) and Jasmine is lamenting her lack of freedom and her desire to get out of the palace. (Although this exact scene isn't in the remake, the premise is consistent, and may be alluded to when Jasmine sings "written in stone / every rule, every word / centuries old and unbending.") Frustrated, Jasmine sets the birds, who were previously locked in the cage, free:
It's a nice moment in the animated film -- foreshadowing Jasmine's escape from the palace -- but given that she ultimately ends up back in the palace, it rings a little hollow. (And heavy-handed with the symbolism, but that's definitely an adult perspective.) I like that this scene wasn't kept in the remake, but I love that Pasek and Paul alluded to it. It shows a familiarity with the original film and pays homage to it by acknowledging that there were memorable moments in the original film that don't hold up in 2019.
It's smart and it's subtle and it works. And it makes a kick-ass anthem.
On the way home from the lake the other day, my husband and I were talking about Aladdin (yes, again). And one of the things we were focusing on was the criticism that Disney didn't do enough with the live-action version.
This is something I struggle with with retellings in general. But I suppose that's the thing, isn't it? Disney isn't really "re-telling" the story -- at least not in the sense that Gail Carson Levine was retelling "Cinderella" withElla Enchanted or Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant did with Ever After (these two are generally highly regarded when it comes to retelling a classic fairy tale. There are, of course, numerous others, but these are two of my personal favorites.). What Disney is doing is re-making their beloved animated films and occasionally updating them. The closet they've come to retelling is Maleficent, since there's really not much there in the original animated film and Maleficent is, arguably, the most dynamic part of that film. (For the record, I hate the way Linda Woolverton & Co. transformed the Good Fairies, as Merrywether is my icon.)
BUT ANYWAY.
The point is, I think expecting Disney to radically change the fundamental story is setting yourself up for disappointment. This was never going to be Jasmine's story, because the story is, after all, called "Aladdin."
That being said, I do think there are opportunities to do something new and different, without fundamentally changing the narrative of the story.
Case in point: The Little Mermaid live-action film. Y'all know how much I LOVE this film and don't care what the prevailing academic argument about this is a horrible story for feminists because she gives up her voice yada yada yada. Production for the film is rumored to begin sometime in 2020, probably because Lin-Manuel Miranda is a very busy man. BUT. He is on-board:
And leaving aside all of LiLo's pleas to be cast as Ariel (NO, DISNEY. JUST NO -- which, to be honest, I don't think would every happen, as Disney is probably well aware of LiLo's career after she jumped the good ship Disney Channel Child Star) -- I think Disney could be radical and different with this film, simply by diversifying the cast.
Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" holds a unique position in fairy-tale-lore, since it is, to the best of my knowledge, an original story written by Andersen in 1837. (Unlike, say, "Cinderella," which has an analogue in most cultures around the world.) So, yes. While Andersen's authorship firmly locates the tale in the European (re: white) tradition, it's also about mermaids. So we're not bound by any "scientific" rules here or anything, since, you know, mermaids aren't real. (Whatever some people might think.)
Zendaya has long been the rumored favorite for the role, although nothing has been confirmed. I've seen a lot of clamor for Lea Michele to play the part, especially after her performance at the Hollywood Bowl recently:
You're welcome.
And I've always been a fan, but girl should be busy with rehearsals for Wicked, because if she isn't cast as Elphaba in that remake, then I want nothing to do with it.
As should Dove Cameron who, despite the 10-year-age-gap between her and Michele is one of my picks to play Galinda -- which is still relevant, because my husband thought Dove Cameron would make a good choice for Ariel as well.
BUT. After watching The Greatest Showman -- because I aged out of Disney Channel before her show Shake It Up aired -- I'm a fan. And totally support this casting choice.
We decided LMM would make a great Grimsby -- we could age him down from the fuddy-duddy butler he is in the animated film to more of best-friend-advisor -- and we know he can rock that period-piece-ponytail:
For King Triton -- we'd cast The Rock. We first thought of Jason Momoa, but that's a little on-the-nose given that he was just Aquaman. But the more we thought about it, the more we were on board, because (1) he is the model for fatherhood we need these days -- and with three daughters, he could easily channel that into the role since Ariel has 6 sisters; and (2) Triton was always weirdly buff for a dude with a white beard, and Disney could save on their CGI budget by casting The Rock. Edit: After some thought, I might be okay with Terry Crews as King Triton. Can he sing? Broadway Triton sings, I think...
We agreed that Tituss Burgess should have a role somewhere -- casting him as Sebastian is also a little on-the-nose since he originated the role on Broadway, but I'd like to see him as Ursula. This is the potentially most subversive -- and thus the potentially most important -- role for Disney to cast. While Ursula was voiced -- iconically! -- by Pat Carroll in the animated film, the character was famously modeled on the drag queen Divine and that legacy should not be underplayed. Casting a gay man or a draq queen or a trans actor would be an incredible move by Disney -- Harvey Fierstein recently played Ursula at The Hollywood Bowl -- although I can see them going with a bigger name for the star power. I think Lady Gaga is the rumored favorite, but Rebel Wilson also slayed at the Hollywood Bowl. Maybe NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour team would be happy if Billy Porter was cast in this role?
As for Eric...IDK. So long as it's not Henry Cavill, I think I'm okay.
As I sit here, waiting for a band of thunderstorms to roll in and listening to the Aladdin score (whatever else you want to say about the live-action Aladdin, you cannot deny the talent of Alan Menken) -- I want to revisit something I blogged about a year and a half ago:
This Guy:
This is Billy Magnussen, a.k.a. Prince Anders in the new live-action version who, as many people have pointed out, does not exist in the animated version.
For the record, I was almost exactly spot-on about Magnussen's role:
"FWIW, and this is probably a best case scenario, I hope Magnussen is playing the role of Prince Achmed from the animated film -- the prince who looks disdainfully at the people of Agrabah and who Jasmine (and Rajah) promptly rejects when he tries to impress her with all his wealth and status.
Maybe the Sultan is so desperate to see Jasmine married that he tries to arrange a marriage with her fairy-tale style -- you know, how in the fairy tales the King always says "whoever can complete task X can marry my daughter" and princes come from far and wide to try and win the princess, but in the end, it's the miller's son, or the stable boy who succeeds and rises up. (Which is, essentially, the story of Aladdin.) So maybe Prince Anders is either invited by the Sultan or hears of the stubborn princess and travels from Scandinavia to try his luck. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, he's arrogant and entitled and elitist and looks down on our hero and the hungry children of Agrabah. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, Jasmine puts him in his place and rejects him. Maybe there's a subtle commentary on the white savior narrative and this casting/narrative will flip it."
If you've seen the film, you'll know that's pretty close. Prince Anders does replace Prince Achmed, but it plays out pretty much the same.
Except.
Where in the 1992 animated film Prince Achmed was pompous, arrogant, disdainful, and even cruel -- Prince Anders is...kind of a buffoon? He's pretty -- and it's a genuinely strong moment when Jasmine comments on his beauty (he's just complimented hers) and he says something like, "I know right? But no one ever mentions it!" And Jasmine, being the strong, take-no-BS-feminist that she is retorts with, "Isn't it strange that we have the same title [prince/princess], but people talk about us so differently?" (Something like that -- I don't remember the exact wording.)
And poor Prince Anders -- you can see he doesn't quite get what she means. And you just want to ruffle his hair and pat his head, because he's not very bright.
So, yes. Jasmine does put him in his place and does reject him -- and that's about it. There's no significant change to the plot. Which does lend support to the idea that it wasn't necessary to cast a white man in the role.
I do think there's lost potential here -- I think Ritchie & Co. could have implemented the subtle commentary about the white savior narrative, thereby validating the decision to change Achmed to Anders. And this connects back to one of my other quibbles with the film -- the identity of Jasmine's mother. Or, at least, where her mother comes from. (This was alluded to in interviews, but is never explicitly dealt with in the text of the film.)
One of the minor-plot points of the film is that Jafar wants to control the Sultan/become a Sultan because, like every Super Evil Bad Guy evar, he's bent on world domination. He wants to turn Agrabah into an empire, not just a prosperous city. To do that, he needs to invade [insert fictional name of country where Jasmine's mother is from]. Jafar also indicates that Skanland -- Prince Ander's fictional country -- could be a strong military/political ally.
Sure. They're fictional countries, so why not.
I'm just saying: there could have been a 30-second addition to the scene where Jafar is trying to mind-meld the Sultan with a map that shows where each of the countries are located. The country where Jasmine's mother is from could look vaguely like India (as I suspect it's supposed to be) and Skanland could be...IDK, near Arendelle or something? This would fit with the military strategy the Sultan is supposed to be reviewing and could neatly tie these loose ends together. (Maybe the countries are on the map when Jasmine is trying to find Ababwa, but I was distracted by the Fantasyland easter egg. I'd have to rewatch to verify.)
Giving Skanland a strategic military value -- paired with the obvious buffoonery of Magnussen's Anders -- would be enough to flip the white savior narrative: Look at this idiot who thinks he's coming to save the day but is really just being used and manipulated by an evil vizier. The potential was there--it just wasn't actualized.
Let's get this together before you deal with The Little Mermaid, Disney. You've got LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA working on this with you. Don't screw it up.
"Oh, imagine a land, it's a faraway place where the caravan camels roam,
Where you wander among, every culture and tongue--
It's chaotic, but hey, it's home!"
So starts Disney's live-action Aladdin -- a new beginning for the now infamous lyrics of "Arabian Nights*." That line -- "it's chaotic, but hey, it's home" -- seems to nicely sum up the 2019 version: the live-action adaptation is a bit of a hodge-podge, and I'm not entirely sure the film knows what it wants to be (is it a straight remake? is it a retelling? is it a feminist story about a non-mad-queen's rise to power? is it an action movie?). But it's familiar and comforting and taps into the nostalgia 90s' Kids (those of us who were kids in the 1990s) have for Renaissance Disney films.
My husband and I had a chance to see it this afternoon, and, per usual, I went in without reading any extensive reviews. I can't help seeing the headlines as I scroll past them on social media but I try to avoid them so I can form my own, relatively uncolored opinion. On the way home, we had a pretty good discussion about what we thought of it and it ended with my saying, "I bet Glen Weldon from your NPR podcast will hate it." For the record, I don't think I was wrong. My husband loves this podcast -- I can't really do podcasts or audiobooks as I tend to zone out, no matter how engaging they are; and I do think this one is pretty engaging -- and we usually listen to their discussion of films after we see them.
But I couldn't get on board with their review of the film. From what I've seen in just Googling the articles I've needed for this post, the reactions seem to be mixed, with some critics praising Will Smith as the saving grace of the film and others lamenting his role, so, to paraphrase Will Smith's Genie, there's a lot of gray area here.
I've embedded the podcast here, since my post is largely a response to this discussion. Read more below the jump cut!
It's been a big week for Disney news -- there's been a ton of info released on Disney+ (more on that in a separate post) and, of course, a new trailer from a tiny little franchise you may or may not have heard of. (My husband's the big Star Wars fan in our house, so, yeah. I'm gonna pass on that and leave it to the fan-experts.)
Instead, I'm gonna talk about The Lion King, because that's more my wheelhouse.
*"Be Prepared" is one of my favorite Disney songs, full stop. (It's also one of the best Disney villain songs -- absolutely tied with "Poor Unfortunate Souls." Ooh, and "The Mob Song" from Beauty and the Beast. Damn, the villains get good songs.) Even though it's iconic and Elton John was involved, the music from The Lion King has never been my favorite. Probably because The Lion King was never my favorite, which I know is blasphemous to some. I liked it, sure, but it didn't resonate with me as much as other films did.
But regardless. I have some thoughts.
Baby Simba (and Baby Nala) are absolutely adorable and I love them already. I know they're not real and they're CGI, but still. I have a vague memory of my brother and I being allowed to pick out one stuffed animal each on a Disney trip (before a Disney trip?) and I'm 99% sure that my brother had a stuffed baby Simba and I had a baby Nala. But I could be making that up.
I got a minor case of goosebumps seeing what is, presumably, part of the "Hakuna Matata" montage when Simba grows up and he and Timon and Pumba are walking on the log.
One of the things that jumped out to me was Mufasa's quote. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain that Mufasa has a new speech. I feel like I'm second-guessing myself, but I think that this quote, from the trailer, is a new revision to the Circle of Life Speech:
"Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. While others search for what they can take, a true king searches for what he can give."
Okay. It's a new film -- adding new lines and revising speeches is to be expected (and a relief, given that one of the big concerns was that the live-action film would be a shot-for-shot remake of the animated film). But the problem for me was that the line "while others search for what they can take" is played over an image of the hyenas and "a true king" is, of course, paired with Simba. It's the former that concerns me, because Little Me grew up thinking that hyenas were evil, villainous animals. Which...is not true. There are several articles online (like this Disneyfied, or Disney Tried Blog or this Michigan State University Blog or this Odyssey article, among many others) which point out that hyenas aren't scavengers. In fact, they kill somewhere between 60-95% of their own food, and lions are much more likely to steal from hyenas than hyenas are from lions. So, contrary to Mufasa's grandiose speech, hyenas are very much a part of the Circle of Life, and do not ostracize themselves in a graveyard full of old elephant bones.
I was hoping that this would be fixed in the new film but...seems unlikely.
It could be misdirection though, and taken out of context, the speech does have particularly poignant political implications, given it's commentary on what makes a good king (re: leader). Which leads me to my next point...
The other thing that stood out to me was the difference in Scar's appearance. Here's Scar in the 2019 film:
Looks like a lion, right? I agree. Especially when you consider that Mufasa looks like this:
The lighting isn't stellar for the shot of Scar, but he looks pretty much like Mufasa does, except with a much less magnificent mane.
Which isn't all that big of a deal unless you consider the animated version:
I mean, I know it's an animated movie for a target audience of 4-6 year olds, but the differences here are pretty obvious. (And, yes, I realize that may be Simba but Adult Simba is pretty much a carbon copy of Mufasa, so...) The coloring is completely different -- Scar's darker with a black mane, and Simba is lighter -- and Scar has some stereotypical Disney Villain Features like the lime green and yellow eyes, the facial hair (if his little goatee beard thing can be facial hair on a lion), and the harsher features (compared to Simba's softer, rounder features). If you had never seen this film, you could, pretty instantly, identify who was The Good Guy and who was The Bad Guy.
Now, I'm not the only one who noticed as the articles on Huffpost and Buzzfeed show. But their reactions are decidedly different than mine. Take this one:
Just compare the designs here. OG Scar: evil and pompous as hell remake Scar: a ratty looking lion I guess pic.twitter.com/5J6ygMQGGV
— Robert "Fat Leprechaun" Bahn (@SenorWoberto) April 10, 2019
He's not wrong...I basically said the same thing. But the connotation is different. The Interwebz is not a fan of Scar (which, to be fair, The Interwebz may have conflicting opinions, and people may be on board with this new Scar, but that wouldn't be very click-baity would it?) Take Buzzfeed Ben Henry's comments:
"Just to refresh your memory, in the animated version of The Lion King, Scar is flamboyant, he's sassy, he's a flawless icon. To put it simply, Scar is That Bitch. In the trailer for the live-action version, Scar looks like he's been THROUGH it. He looks like he's sick of everybody's shit. In fact, he looks a little sick, period."
This quote, I think, hits the nail on the head: Henry's word choice -- that Scar is "flamboyant," that he "sassy," that he's "flawless" -- these are all words we use to describe divas and fabulously fierce gay men. Especially the "flamboyant," effeminate gay man. Which is fine -- while I know I could do more, I'm a proud ally of LBTQ+ rights -- except when animators code "transgressive" behaviors solely on the villains. Many male villains in Disney movies -- Scar included, but also, for instance, Ratcliffe, Jafar, and Dr. Facilier -- are coded either "feminine" or "homosexual," ostensibly to mark their difference. (It's not just male villains -- female villains like Ursula and Lady Tremaine are coded masculine too. And villains like Gaston and Clayton are hyper-masculine in a way that marks them as different too.)
All of this is to say -- this wouldn't be a problem if villains weren't the only ones being coded this way; if we had a positive male character be coded as homosexual, or, better yet, be homosexual, but we're not there yet. It's not just an academic opinion -- in a 2017 article, The Telegraph includes Scar in their list of "not so secret gay Disney characters," and points out that while it's unclear if Scar is definitely gay, "given the character's undisputed villainy, it all feels somewhat problematic."
So Scar's "new look" in the remake, while perhaps less "evil and pompous as hell" or "disappointing" or "the wonderful villain from the superior 1994 film," I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I think it's Disney -- very subtly and not at overtly -- acknowledging that the whole "Good and Evil look different" trope is problematic, as well as the ways in which they portray that difference. Because guess what? You can't assess someone's moral status based on their physical appearance. (Anna learns this lesson the hard way in Frozen -- which is just another reason I love that movie.) This article from Out magazine acknowledges this and points out that Scar's new look might be a good thing. Mathew Rodriguez quotes Myles Johnson, who points out,
“I’m relieved that “The Lion King” put down the trope of using performed femininity and darkness as a way to visually communicate evil...It’s small, but the representations we consume can communicate a lot and Disney has been a notorious culprit of this.”
YAAAAS.
So, the trailer left me with mixed feelings. On the villain side, Disney does seem to be improving...but the political message still seems a little suspect to me. I guess we'll have to wait until July to find out!
A few days ago, Disney dropped a new full-length trailer for Aladdin (2019). Watch it below:
Unsurprisingly, I have thoughts. Lots of thoughts.
My feelings about some of Disney's live-action adaptations have been laced with a heavy dose of skepticism. In the case of Dumbo, at least, my skepticism seems to be misplaced. But with Aladdin...? Not so much. I've written about Aladdin before, mainly about the controversy surrounding the production of the movie. But also Guy Ritchie seemed an odd director choice IMHO, mainly because I'm not a fan of his style.
Aaaaand then there was that second trailer that dropped a few weeks ago and sent the internet (rightfully so!) into a tizzy. Just look at these Google hits:
None of it really inspired confidence.
So what's going on with this new trailer? Let's break it down.
1. The opening of this trailer seems really reminiscent of the beginning of Casino Royale with the urban chase scene -- which is apparently something called Parkour? and also something that seems very Guy Ritchie.
2. Will Smith's awful looking blue genie? Well, it seems that he's not blue all the time, which is good, I suppose.
📷: Disney
3. The trailer also gives some much needed humor -- as in the scene above, where Smith's Genie humorously explains the "gray area" the subjectivity of wishes -- and some glimpses of the music. Smith's version of "Friend Like Me" is giving me some very Fresh Prince vibes, and, if I'm being totally honest, "A Whole New World" gave me chills. (I was lucky enough to see the OBC of Aladdin on Broadway, but I was not impressed with Jasmine's vocal performance: it was very nasal to me, and that's one of my Disney princess pet peeves.) Naomi Scott's voice was amazing here.
4. It looks like we're going to get a Bollywood dance numbers, which makes me so incredibly happy.
📷: Disney
But here's where it starts to get tricky for me.
1. There's not a glimpse of Billy Magnussen's Prince Anders in the trailer -- which means (1) he's either really inconsequential and the Internet made a big fuss out of nothing or (2) leads me to wonder if Disney made some changes because of that fuss. I personally didn't have an issue with the casting, but that's another post.
2. I'm still concerned about the female costuming:
Don't get me wrong -- all the costumes look beautiful. I also do not claim to be anything close to an expert on Middle Eastern costuming -- which is complicated by the fact that we don't really know where this story is set. Is it India? Iran? Iraq? Egypt? Who knows.
But the costumes give off a very "exotic" vibe...the bright colors, the veils-that-don't-really-veil, the accentuation of chests and waists...*sigh*
3. The accents. Oh, the accents.
This is a complicated issue to unpack in a blog post, so if you want to read more, feel free to check out Richard Scheinin's 1993 article from The Washington Post, "Angry Over Aladdin." It's a piece that was released shortly after the film was and really highlights the central issues at play. The gist of it? Aladdinplays into Middle Eastern stereotypes by making the bad guys distinctly "foreign" and the "good guys" basically American. After all, all 3 of our main characters -- Aladdin, Jasmine, and Genie -- are obsessed with the notion of being free and Aladdin himself was modeled after Tom Cruise.
Now, Scheinin's article includes a quote from a then Disney-spokesperson, Howard Green:
"...most people are very happy with it. All the characters are Arabs, the good guys and the bad guys, and the accents don't really connote anything, I don't think."
I mean, I honestly wouldn't expect anything else from Disney -- they're not going to admit to being racist or prejudiced, even if it was largely subconscious or unintended or colored by the Gulf War.
But the thing is, it's not just Aladdin, and not just Disney, and the accents can connote something. In an article for The Atlantic, "Why Do Cartoon Villains Speak in Foreign Accents?" Isabel Fattal references a 1998 study by Gidney and Dobrow. As she points out, here's
"The kicker: In many of the cases studied, villains were given foreign accents.[...] Meanwhile, the study found that most of the heroic characters in their research sample were American-sounding; only two heroes had foreign accents. Since television is a prominent source of cultural messaging for children, this correlation of foreign accents with “bad” characters could have concerning implications for the way kids are being taught to engage with diversity in the United States."
Fattal offers more details of course, but the point is, these aren't just harmless kid's movies -- especially when there are noticeable trends and patterns. So, yeah. Things like accents and facial features (and facial hair) were a key part of the criticism of the 1992 Aladdin and I've been curious to see how they would be handled in the live-action adaptation, and all the casting controversies didn't do much to help.
This trailer, I gotta say, doesn't help much either. We don't get a lot of dialogue, and Will Smith's Genie does take up a significant portion of it, but here's what I noticed:
1. Aladdin -- American accent. Or, at least, non-accented English. He's portrayed by Mena Massoud, who was born in Egypt but raised in Canada. (So, yes. His accent isn't technically American, but it's not going to be perceived by American audiences as accented.)
2. Jasmine -- American accent. But -- she's portrayed by English actress Naomi Scott, so it was a conscious decision to have her forego her natural accent in favor of an American one. Perhaps because, as Fattal notes, "the most wicked foreign accent of all was British English[...]From Scar to Aladdin’s Jafar, the study found that British is the foreign accent most commonly used for villains."
3. Jafar -- foreign accent. It's subtle, for sure, and not as heavily "different" as Jonathan Freeman's Jafar was, but in this film, Jafar is played by Marwan Kenzari, a Dutch actor. It will be interesting to see how Jafar's accent plays out in the film, but at least from the trailer, it's clear that it is audibly different from that of the protagonists. Now, maybe it's because Kenzari couldn't nail down an American accent -- I can only imagine how difficult it is to act in different accents and certainly not every actor has been able to do it successfully. But maybe not. Maybe it was a conscious decision to help mark the character as a villain which would certainly be problematic when the female lead doesn't keep her "foreign" accent.
There are some negative first reactions, of course, but on the whole, people seem to have enjoyed it and are calling it Burton's best film in years. When Burton is good, he's very, very good. The thing is, he kinda hasn't been for awhile. But maybe that's about to change?
DUMBO stole my heart. I'm totally cool with it. Congrats to everyone behind this beautiful, surprising & visually mindblowing film. pic.twitter.com/cekRIzTOcc
Our reporter @minkus saw #Dumbo. “It’s absolutely wonderful - a beautiful story, quite different than the original, that won’t leave a dry eye in the theater. The cast is kismet together on screen. It’s one of Tim Burton’s best in a long time.” Full review on the 26th. pic.twitter.com/1VvhDU9dbl
I really enjoyed #Dumbo . It’s a beautiful and whimsical movie, starring a CGI elephant with so much heart. It’s also a rather simple tale, so don’t expect tons of character septh. But I still had a blast with the ride it took me on and it’s the best Burton’s been in years. pic.twitter.com/tKu6eHfKlM
I know I don’t sound too enthused about this movie but it was enjoyable, and it is certainly worlds better than Beauty and the Beast and Mary Poppins Returns. For reference, the only Disney live action remakes I liked were Jungle Book and Cinderella.
One of my New Year's Promises (I'm not sold on the word "promises," but it's better than "resolutions" so...) was to blog more. Whoops.
But it's Spring Break, and this seems to be a good time to hit "reset."
So, starting nice and easy: Disney recently released a new poster for Maleficent 2. Take a look below:
Like many of Disney's projects this year, not much is known about the plot. Both Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning are returning (as Maleficent and Aurora, respectively) -- as are Juno Temple and Imelda Staunton as two of the three fairies (don't get me started on their characters from the original film). The big casting for the sequel is Michelle Pfeiffer as "Queen Ingrith," but no one really knows what her role will entail.
But the "reveal" from the trailer comes in the subtitle of the sequel: "Mistress of Evil."
I mean...that's our girl Maleficent. At least, in the 1959 film:
The only problem is that that's not Maleficent's MO anymore. That's the whole point of the 2014 film. The first line of the film is literally, "Let us tell an old story anew and we will see how well you know it."The whole point is that Maleficent isn't really evil, she's just a scorned woman who made a bad decision but ultimately was saved by true (maternal) love.
Which raises the question: Who is the Mistress of Evil? I, of course, want it to be Maleficent, but I doubt it will be. Which leaves, potentially, Michelle Pfeiffer's character.
I would like to say, "I'm sure Disney will come through with a stellar storyline" but...after the first movie, I can't be too sure. On the one hand, yes. I thought it was fantastic that Disney took one of their most passive female characters and created a film that didn't hinge on romantic love. But, on the other hand, Maleficent is the most bad-ass Disney villain (and if Buzzfeed agrees, it must be true 😂). She's evil just because she wants to be. There's no tragic backstory, no jilted lover, no scorned woman. And Disney took that away in their attempt to...I'm not really sure. I think "create an empowered fairy-tale retelling that didn't pit women against each other." So, yeah. I'm not super optimistic at the moment.
Yesterday, when I was scrolling through Facebook, I came across this article:
TBH, I felt really old because I didn't know who Lizzo is and I totally had to Google her.
Okay, Disclaimer before I go any further: I am not opposed to Lizzo playing Ursula; this article just reminded me of another one I read a few weeks ago:
Now, this...this I have thoughts on. Lots of thoughts.
First: y'all know my love for The Little Mermaid runs deep, no matter how many critics -- and celebrities (I'm looking at you, Kiera Knightley) -- point out how problematic it is. (I'm more in-line with the authors of this article from Time.) Second: y'all know I'm super excited about the live-action remake -- especially because it means Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Alan Menken and if that isn't a match made in a Disney fan's Heaven, I don't know what is. (Plus, I'm hoping LMM will be nominated for an Oscar for ANYTHING he writes here and The Little Mermaid will be the film that makes him an EGOT winner.) Third: I firmly believe Ursula is one of the -- if not THE -- best Disney villains and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is my go-to car-karaoke-jam.
But.
I take issue with The Mary Sue's post caption, and the article doesn't do much to assuage me. Chelsea Steiner's writing in response to the rumors -- emphasis on rumors -- that Lady Gaga might play Ursula in the live-action adaptation. Here's her argument:
"Sea witch, please: Ursula is a fat girl icon. In an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out not only as a legendary Disney villain, but as an unlikely role model for body positivity. Ursula is confident, clever, and able to run a successful business helping poor unfortunate merfolk solve their problems.
Ursula makes being bad look like a total blast, which is a shocking rarity for plus-size women in popular culture, who are too frequently portrayed as the butt of the joke. Ursula is not a dowdy shrew, nor is she a desperate wannabe seeking approval from King Triton and the rest of Atlantica. She marches to beat of her own drum fish, no matter how unpopular it may be.
Over the years, Ursula has become an unlikely icon for the LGBTQ+ community as well. It’s well known that the character was based on John Waters’ muse, the outlandish drag queen Divine, and was brought to life by the music of gay lyricist Howard Ashman."
To Steiner's credit, I kinda see her point. I do agree that she's become an "icon for the LGBTQ+ community" -- the character's connection to Divine and Ashman have been solidified over the years, and it's a piece of Disney Trivia that always blows my students' minds.
I also agree that Ursula "makes being bad look like a total blast," because I'm a sucker for a villain who enjoys being bad and doesn't have some broken-heart-backstory that "explains" her villainy.
But that's just the thing: Ursula IS a villain. Seeing her as running "a successful business" when she's actually manipulating merfolk, no matter how naive they may be, by preying on their weaknesses and insecurities because of some vendetta with Triton? That's a loose interpretation at best.
And, yes. Steiner's not wrong when she says that, "in an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out" -- but I don't think it's in a good way. There are so few plus-size characters in Disney at all -- only a handful come to mind. Russell from Up is one, as are Lilo and Nani from Lilo & Stitch and while Elasti-Girl is surprisingly hippy for an animated character -- as she should be! She's had three kids! -- she still has that impossibly tiny Disney waist. But narrow the parameters to princess movies? The only non-hourglass shaped females are older, benevolent females -- the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella; the Three Fairies from Sleeping Beauty; and Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast.
And then there's Ursula. Her age is a little hard to pin-down, and even figuring out that she's a contemporary of Triton's isn't much of a help, since he's white-haired but surprisingly muscular. Plus, the guy's got a 16 year old daughter. But, like most-villains, she's probably middle-aged -- older than the teenage princesses but younger than the benevolent helper fairies.
So, here's my grief: when your most famous plus-size character is a villain -- when your only plus-size character is a villain -- that's not body positivity or empowering. That's problematic. There's a critic who, I think, says it more succinctly than I can. While I find Robert Trites' argument, as a whole, problematic in parts, I think she's accurate on the matter of Ursula's weight:
"The Disney-constructed conflict in The Little Mermaid is between an overweight, ugly woman and a doe-eyed heroine with a figure less realistic than a Barbie doll's. Once Ursula transforms herself into a rival love-interest for the prince, the conflict is between a dark-haired anorexic and a fairer one. The stereotyping of evil as dark and good as fair is traditional, but only recently has Disney associated corpulence with evil. Disney's villainesses before the 1970s look predatory because they are so thin...In the 1970s, Disney begins to reflect the cultural emphasis on weight consciousness.[...] The movie's portrayal of good as fairer and thinner than evil presents a bigoted distortion of the human body."
Because when Trites brings up Vanessa -- the "dark-haired anorexic"; this is the late 1980s, the era of heroin chic -- she makes a point about the dark vs. light aspect of her appearance, but neglects to consider a broader implication. This may be because Trites thinks Eric is "easily deceived by Ursula's disguising herself as the raven-headed ingenue who possesses the little mermaid's voice. Eric loves the imposter as he has loved the image in his mind: for her physical attributes and for nothing more" (148). To Trites, Eric dismisses Ariel once he hears Vanessa's sing--but Trites doesn't acknowledge the role magic plays here. Eric, with the magic smoke seeping into his eyes, is clearly enchanted by Ursula-as-Vanessa, as evidenced by his robotic behavior in front of Grimsby when he announces the marriage.
To me, here's the crux: if Ursula was really a body-positive character, why would she voluntarily choose to look like a "raven-headed ingenue"? After all, Eric is enchanted and she has Ariel's voice: it shouldn't matter what she looks like since she can simply enchant them to focus on her voice. Taking human form is a necessity, obviously, but the shape of that human form is important:
She chooses to slim waaay down -- when given the choice, she chooses not only a slimmer figure, but a thin figure. She is just as thin as Ariel, retaining nothing of her previously curvy, fuller-figured size. If she was truly a body-positive character, comfortable in her own skin and size, then that would translate to her human form, her victory ensured as it is through magic.
So, no. I can't get behind this #KeepUrsulaThicc movement. I'm sure Lizzo would do a great job -- as Rebel Wilson before her as done. Hell, I'd even support Titus Burgess in the role, although I don't think Disney would go that way for a variety of reasons. But you know what? I think Lady Gaga would kill it, too.
Because I don't think Ursula has to be "thicc" to be great -- not when a real-life person would be portraying her. I would much rather see a #MakeArielThicc movement start, as I think the body-positive movement would be impacted so much more significantly by a plus-size princess than a plus-size villain.
After an unscheduled 2-month hiatus (😳#momlife #professorlife #whatworklifebalance 😳) of course it would take The Lion Kingteaser trailer to get me back into blogging.
Fun fact: my husband is a die-hard Dallas Cowboys fan. So, of course, Thursday night after Thanksgiving dinner, he was glued to the TV watching the Cowboys-Redskins game. I was mostly checked out, watching the kids, chatting with relatives, glancing up at the screen every now and then out of habit. It was hard to hear much since I was sitting pretty far away from the TV and multiple conversations in a small space make a fair amount of noise.
So when I looked up at the TV and saw "And the Director of The Jungle Book" -- I had a moment. It went something like, "Disney's The Jungle Book? Or do they mean Andy Serkis' version that's going to straight to Netflix release? Jon Favreau directed the Disney version...that's how he got The Lion King gig. I wonder when we'll see a trailer for that. My students have been clamoring for a trailer for that. It has to be soon right? WAIT. Cowboys/Redskins is a big event with a lot of viewers...would Disney drop a trailer for one of their biggest hits during a high-traffic TV event on a family-centric holiday? OMFG YES THEY WOULD EVERYBODY HUSH AND BE QUIET." [<--This last bit was actually said outloud to the bewilderment of my husband's family.]
Oh well. I watched it and then Googled it and watched it again. Maybe 5 times.
There's a part of me -- a tiny part -- that wonders, "Why remake a movie if it's just going to be the exact same?" so I do hope they do something different with the film.
But then there's another part of me that just doesn't care because there are cute baby CGI lions and James Earl Jones intoning those iconic lines in Mufasa's voice. Don't get me wrong -- there is literally no one else who could have filled those shoes but...that had to be a super easy day at the office for him, amirite?
