Where Is Skanland? -- Aladdin's "Controversial" Prince Anders Role Revealed

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.

Back in September 2017, I wrote about my thoughts on this, which are complicated given my privilege.

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."

via GIPHY

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.

"It's Chaotic, But Hey It's Home": Disney's Live-Action "Aladdin"

"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.

*(See, for instance, the NY Times review, "It's Racist, But Hey It's Disney!" and the LA Times' coverage of the changes Disney made in response to that criticism. Vanity Fair also seems to have a pretty good piece on the changes that were made in the 2019 version, but I admit I haven't fully read it yet.)

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!

Disney Released A New Lion King Trailer...And I've Got Some Thoughts

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.

First--let me just say that even though we open with Chiwetel Eijofor intoning one of Scar's more iconic lines -- "Life's not fair" -- we're apparently not getting "Be Prepared*"?! Which I am not okay with Disney. Not okay with. 

*"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.

1. 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. 
2. 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. 
3. 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...
4. 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! 

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.

via GIPHY

Disney's Aladdin Trailer -- Will Guy Ritchie Give Us More Of The Same?

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? Aladdin plays 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.

This newest trailer has generally been more positively received than the other ones, and seems to have redirected the conversation -- for now, at least.

Dumbo First Reactions -- Burton Is Back

Y'all know I've had my reservations about Tim Burton's Dumbo. (Check out my past thoughts here.)  But apparently, this film is surprising people:

via EW

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

— Julia Hart (@juliahartowitz) March 12, 2019

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

— Attractions Magazine (@Attractions) March 12, 2019

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

— Chris E. Hayner (@ChrisHayner) March 12, 2019

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.

— Peter Sciretta (@slashfilm) March 12, 2019

Okay, I don't really understand this one because I thought Mary Poppins Returns was fantastic and so creatively and subtly tied to the books.

New Year's Promise FAIL

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.