Showing posts with label tangled. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tangled. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Let's Talk About The Stigma Around Enjoying "Kids" Things

Every so often, when I tell people I have a Master's Degree in Children's Literature, I can see the internal question behind their eyes: "Is that even a real thing?" They're usually much too polite to say that though, so they usually ask a variant of, "Oh! What kind of job do you get with that?" or, "So you just read kids books for a living?"

To be fair, most of the time, especially when I mention that I focus on Disney and Harry Potter, people's eyes light up and they start to talk enthusiastically about their favorite Disney movie or their favorite childhood book or they lean forward, as if we're sharing a guilty secret, and ask, "So what do you think about...?" Most of the time, it's a pleasant conversation. After all, the power of nostalgia is strong, and most people find it easy to talk about Disney movies or vacations.

But sometimes, I admit, it's easier to just say I have a Master's in 19th Century British Literature. Which I do. I actually have 2 Master's Degrees, which is not a #humblebrag, but more to point out that one of them is generally regarded as "more valid" or "better" than the other. Reading Dickens and the Brontes and Austen and Shelley is considered a legitimate form of academic study -- people get that. But reading Harry Potter and watching Disney movies? That, to some people, just isn't an acceptable way for an adult to spend her time.

Which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. But that doesn't change the fact that when things are marketed to children, they are seen as juvenile: simpler, easier, lesser. I'm certainly not the only one to observe this trend, and it's not a new phenomenon easier, despite the recent surge in popularity of YA fiction.

There's a really great quote by C. S. Lewis from an essay he wrote, titled "On Three Ways of Writing For Children" -- actually, the whole essay is great and I highly recommend it -- that neatly sums up this idea. Lewis writes,
"I am almost inclined to set it up as a canon that a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story. [...] This canon seems to me most obviously true of that particular type of children’s story which is dearest to my own taste, the fantasy or fairy tale. Now the modern critical world uses ‘adult’ as a term of approval. [...] Hence a man who admits that dwarfs and giants and talking beasts and witches are still dear to him in his fifty-third year is now less likely to be praised for his perennial youth than scorned and pitied for arrested development." 
Lewis then goes on to offer a three-prong defense of fantasy and the fairy tale, and says this in his first defense:
"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
To Lewis, the notion of being judged for one's personal preferences -- the fear of that judgment -- those are the childish marks of arrested development. A well-adjusted adult (not grown-up!) cares little for such judgment and is comfortable in their own skin.
[And, yes. The phrase "when I became a man I put away childish things" is an allusion to 1 Corinthians because while Lewis is (perhaps) most famous for his Chronicles of Narnia series, he was also a rather prolific theologian. I admit that I didn't know this until my younger brother was assigned one his theology books for homework at his private, Episcopal high school -- although, in hindsight, the religious symbolism in the Narnia books isn't exactly subtle. Aslan is a pretty obvious Christ figure when you think about it, which Little Me certainly didn't. Whoops.]

Anyway -- all of this is a rather long-winded way of introducing this:


I came across this article this morning and immediately bristled. My knee-jerk, snarky response was, "So? I'm [older than 24] and I love all things Disney." Yes, maybe the caption was click-baity, but the implication seemed to be that the author ought not to be enjoying a show about a Disney Princess on the Disney Channel. After all, the Disney Channel airs children's programming for kids, not adults.

The beginning of the article didn't do much to assuage me either:
"These are questions I often ask people when I get a little tipsy and start talking about TV, because, as I am here to proudly proclaim, my favorite show on TV right now is none other than the Tangled continuation/sequel series that everyone is sleeping on, Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure."
I prickled when I read this part because, again, the implication seems to be the author can only gush about one of her favorite things when her guard has been let down, her inhibitions lowered, her judgment impaired. Sober, she would never admit to liking, let alone loving, such a show, making it seem as if enjoying a Disney product is a dirty little secret and a very-guilty-pleasure. She even goes to criticize Disney a little bit, when she says:
"Yes, I am 24 years old and love a kids’ show about a Disney Princess, but this show—created to give Rapunzel more outfits so they can sell a new line of Tangled dolls—has some surprisingly relatable themes for millennials (and even Gen Z)."
The criticism of Disney-the-Company here is striking. Taking Disney down a peg -- reducing the show to another example of its synergistic relationship between film and merchandise -- isn't surprising: it's the dominant narrative these days. It just seems like a way to qualify the appeal of the show, to legitimate the rest of what she's about to say.
[It also seems, to me, to be unfair. Yes, of course, there's merchandise that accompanies the show, but I view the business and creative sides of the company as two separate entities. Perhaps that's naive of me, but I don't think that Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi would have agree to return to do the show if it had been a shallow merchandising ploy. And Mandy Moore has acknowledged this.]

To be fair, though, the rest of the article is a spot-on insightful account of the ways in which the show transcends average children's programming on network TV. Yes, shenanigans ensue and it's entertaining -- but the show and the TV movie work to expand the typical Disney Princess narrative, which is often really heavily criticized. After all, the show acknowledges: (1) Rapunzel has to enter the real world for the first time and adjust to a new normal and deal with the aftermath of her abusive relationship with Mother Gothel; (2) she has to forge a relationship with parents she doesn't really know; (3) she has to work at her relationship with Flynn/Eugene because happily-ever-afters don't just happen -- relationships take work (and that is revolutionary in and of itself). And, perhaps most importantly, Rapunzel gets a female friend with whom she gets to develop a real relationship. (Disney princesses are, shockingly, light on both female friends and human friends, let alone one who is both.)


This is  a show to be celebrated -- and to be celebrated without qualification. It doesn't matter if this is labeled a "kids" show; good storytelling is good storytelling, no matter the "target" audience.

This is also, I think, part of a larger cultural conversation. (Aren't most things?) There's this really great meme (which of course I can't find because I'm looking for it) that points out that fans who cosplay are ridiculed for playing dress-up far past the socially-accepted age to do so, whereas sports fans who paint their faces and wear the jersey of their favorite team/player escape that ridicule -- even though the two activities are, essentially, the same. The idea, of course, is that being a sports fan -- and, by extension, showing your support of that sport -- is a socially accepted thing for an adult to do. Dressing up as your favorite character from a TV show or movie just...isn't. Again, it's the idea that it's juvenile, childish, and therefore distasteful or inappropriate in some way.

But, to return to Lewis once more:
"For I need not remind such an audience as this that the neat sorting-out of books into age-groups, so dear to publishers, has only a very sketchy relation with the habits of any real readers. Those of us who are blamed when old for reading childish books were blamed when children for reading books too old for us. No reader worth his salt trots along in obedience to a time-table."
And no person "worth his salt trots along in obedience" to "socially acceptable conventions." It seems quite simple, to me (even though I know it really isn't): read the books you enjoy reading. Watch the movies and the TV shows you want to watch. Support the sports teams you want to support. And show your support and enjoyment in any way you want -- and certainly do so without any shame.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Spotted: Target Run & Done

After being cooped up in our house since Wednesday evening -- thanks, Hurricane Florence -- my family and I ventured out to Target this morning. (Honestly, though, where else would we go?) We didn't really need anything, but Target is such a great place to wander around and somehow end up with a cartful of random things.

Plus there's coffee. Which, after four days in the house, was definitely, actually needed. (Starbucks + Target is my second favorite pairing behind Starbucks + Disney.)

Target's also a great place to do "field research," which is a fun way of saying I get to look at the Disney-related merchandise through an academic lens.

And Target didn't disappoint. First up:

📷: Me (and yes, that's my coffee in the background)
First, I tried searching Target for "mulan doll" and the only one that came up was the Hasbro doll. (At least she's wearing the outfit from the end of the movie and not the matchmaker outfit that she's usually in.) This one is marketed as an "Action Adventure Figure" so that's a solid plus. Also a plus -- this is the closest thing to Warrior Mulan I've seen in the Mulan merchandise. Normally, for whatever reason, she's marketed in a dress and definitely conforms to feminine conventions. So, another solid plus for a Mulan figure who's wielding a sword and is portrayed as a kick-ass woman. 
But...those legs!? 

Not exactly a win in the "realistic body image" column there, Hasbro. So, Con. 

On a less relevant note, I also saw this:

📷: Me
My daughter wanted to watch Tangled this weekend -- anything that wasn't Frozen! -- and I'm just really confused about why Maximus has such a glittery mane. I'm pretty sure he's not glittery in the movie and can't we market a male horse without adding glitter? My daughter loves Maximus just fine without the glittery mane, and I'm pretty sure she doesn't need to have one marketed towards her.

And we may or may not have left the store with this shirt:


Dream big, princess.

Friday, September 7, 2018

Let's Go To The Movies: Disney Princesses Back In Theaters!

So, I don't have a lot of spare time to go to the movies -- still waiting to see Crazy Rich Asians. And Mission Impossible. And Mamma Mia 2. -- but this is tempting. If only my daughter was a little older, these would be perfect to take her to! While Disney movies can hold her attention like nothing else can -- except maybe Dora the Explorer -- I don't think we're quite at the point where we can sit in a movie theater.

I'm hoping Frozen 2 will be her first theater-movie, but I don't know how she'll do with a movie she's never seen before. Honestly, she's more likely to sit through Moana because she knows the movie by heart.

Our local AMC theater is at Southpoint mall, y'all! Happy Fall!


Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Disney Artwork -- Isaiah Stephens

Blogger tells me that my last post was March 8th. Oof.

To be fair, I'd like to think I had a pretty good reason:
Another Disney princess (and future Disney consumer?) has entered the world. :) Our little Cricket Bug was born on April 21, three weeks early, and I've been playing catch-up ever since.

Cricket Bug has -- surprise surprise! -- yet to wear a Disney outfit -- but when she does, I'll be sure to document and share it.

For now, I thought it was fitting that my first post back be this "Disney Princesses As" piece by Isaiah Stevens for Cosmo: Disney Princesses As Mothers. (Follow Isaiah Stephens on Instagram here! He does a lot of Disney work that's super cool and inventive.)

[Sidebar: I just finished reading "Nearly Everybody Gets Twitterpated: The Disney Version of Mothering" by (Hollins professor!) Lisa Rowe Fraustino--which...well, let me just quote a line from the abstract:
"The animated films [reproduce traditional mothering ideology] not by animating the realities of marriage, childbirth, and mothering work for girls to model after but instead by idealizing the dream of romance that leads to the making of the traditional patriarchal family."
Basically, Disney movies end with the fairy-tale happily-ever-after of a wedding, and basically ignore everything that comes after -- including motherhood (although that's not necessarily a requirement).
So it's interesting to see Stephens kind of take up that mantle and portray the princesses (albeit in a romanticized, stylized way) as mothers. I dig it.]

Quite possibly my favorite:


This one just makes me smile -- even more so because I think the photo in the background is women of all different body types spelling out "B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L." I don't know if this is a subversive dig at Cosmo or something that was sanctioned by the magazine, but either way, I love it.


Okay, so this one's not as romanticized...but I love that Flynn is wearing a gas mask. (Although...shouldn't Rapunzel's hair be short and brown?) 


#ParentingTruth. I know Cricket Bug is only 4.5 weeks old, but I have nieces and nephews. This is pretty much how it goes. 

Also--it's called "karma," Merida. :) 





Friday, February 19, 2016

Disney Artwork -- Phil Berry

In today's installment of "Disney Princesses as..." I bring you "Disney Princesses as Jedi" by Phil Berry. (Check out his work at his DeviantArt page.)

While I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan, I still think these are pretty cool if only because the princesses seem super kick-ass and not at all like damsels in distress. I also like the little subtle nods to the other characters in the film -- although Pascal, Rajah and Flounder are not nearly as cute and cuddly in Berry's versions.

Rapunzel might be my favorite -- after all, she's using her hair as a weapon, freeing up her hands, so the bad-ass potential is pretty high here.


Runner-Up probably goes to Ariel -- probably because she's my favorite princess in general. 


Berry rounds out his quartet with Jasmine and Belle:


For some reason, I'm not as big of a fan of the Belle one (to each his own!), mainly because if Beast wasn't there, I'd have a hard time knowing it was Belle. Her pose is also less active and striking, but maybe she's more of a strategist. 



Friday, February 5, 2016

People Love Disney.

Okay. Whatever you're doing -- stop, take 5 minutes of your day, and listen to this beautiful cover/Disney mash-up. 

I am always in total awe of people who can not only sing but who can sing acapella since I have no musical skill whatsoever. 

Here, Kirstin Maldonado (of Pentatonix) and Jeremy Michael Lewis (of AcoUstiKats) mash-up "I See The Light" (from Tangled), "You'll Be In My Heart" (from Tarzan) and "Go The Distance" (from Hercules) and the result is stunning. I'm so used to Phil Collins' version of "You'll Be In My Heart" that I think hearing the soprano version when Maldonado sings is a bit weird for me, but she absolutely slays the Rapunzel vocals in "I See The Light." (And, as I explained to my husband, she's the reason I'm nitpicky about the actresses who play the Disney princesses on Broadway -- a few years ago, we saw an Ariel who was just so nasal, it bothered me the whole show: yes, Disney Princess songs are incredibly hard to sing, and I'm not professing to do any better, but when you find the right vocalist, it's amazing. They're out there!)

And those vocalists in the background? Doing the "music"? SO TALENTED.

*sigh* I wish I could sing. (On-key.)

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Life Imitates Disney Art

So this story popped up in my newsfeed this morning: "Fayetteville Home Invade Receives A Little Frying Pan Justice":



Cliffnotes version: guy breaks in (apparently shot?); homeowner attacks him with frying pan.

Sound familiar?


I mean, you just have to laugh. 

Not about the guy getting hit with a frying pan. Although I think he's okay, that's still not a humorous incident. (Especially since I think he assaulted a woman before the B&E.) 

But...they did use a frying pan to take care of an intruder. Survival skills by Disney? I wonder if they're even aware of the Disney/Tangled connection...



Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Tangled TV Series

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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