Live Action Cinderella in 2015

Source: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/first-look-disney-strong-sexy-cinderella-195313961.html

For those of you who are fans of the original 1950 animated version of Cinderella, this may be interesting!

Kenneth Branagh -- a.k.a. Prof. Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter -- is directing, and Cate Blanchett is playing Lady Tremaine and Helena Bonham Carter is playing a version of the Fairy Godmother. Branagh has acknowledged that he'll pay homage to the iconic scenes from the animated version, but it will be interesting to see how his updates play out.

No word yet on what role the mice will play. :)

Maybe Blondes Do Have More Fun...?

*sigh*

A few weeks ago, I read this web article, "Disney's New Frozen Heroine Is White, Blonde, and Thin, Which Is Nice For A Change." And I had a lot of problems with it.

First of all, I feel the need to acknowledge that my perspective may work against me here: I'm white and blonde, am possessed of large, Disney-princess eyeballs and, while not a princess, I do consider myself to be the heroine of my own life (or, fairy tale). And, to some, this may mean that I'm writing from a place of privilege, and can't possibly understand the issue in its entirety.

Which...may be true, but I'd also like to think that that doesn't mean I can't have a valid opinion.

*****

One of my favorite things about these articles is reading the comments. Because usually? They're good for a few laughs. But the commenters here make some really great points--ones that can't be reduced to a black-and-white debate. For instance: Yes. Frozen is based (and let's go ahead and emphasize based) on Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen." (I have no doubt that Disney will put their own spin on the tale, much like they did with Andersen's "The Little Mermaid.") And, yes: the stereotypical appearance attributed to Scandinavians is blonde-haired, blue-eyed Caucasians. And, yes. Not all Scandinavians are blonde-haired and blue-eyed. We do have to acknowledge the presence of the Sami tribes and the fact that they do not look like the women above.

And, yes. Anna does bear a striking resemblance to Rapunzel from Tangled. And Disney does love its blonde-haired, blue-eyed heroines. Or does it...? Snow White, of course, had hair as dark as ebony. The princesses in the mid-90s -- Ariel, Belle, & Jasmine -- were a redhead and 2 brunettes (6 brunettes, if we include Mulan, Pocahontas, Meg, and Esmeralda). Then came dark-haired Tiana and redheaded Merida. Before Anna--there were 3 blondes: Rapunzel, Aurora, and Cinderella -- who, originally, was a strawberry-blonde much like Nancy Drew. So why all the Blonde Hate???

Maybe because Cinderella is usually placed front and center in the Disney princess line-up. But maybe Disney's return to blonde princesses isn't all that surprising. Every time they branch out and attempt to tell a story featuring a non-white heroine, they get attacked. Aladdin is a racist portrayal of Arabs; they butchered the historical stories of Mulan and Pocahontas; and the controversy surrounding Tiana may have over-shadowed the film itself. 

The thing is, the fairy tales that Disney draw from are European ones. (Imagine the controversy if Disney attempted to adapt a traditional African folktale.) So, for their Princess franchise, it kinda makes sense. 

And I understand the logical response, especially from parents: not all princesses are white and blonde and that could send a negative message to impressionable kids. 

But here's the thing that bugs me about this criticism: the focus on Anna and Elsa's appearance seems very superficial. We're only focusing on what they look like -- and what kind of message does THAT send? 

To me, it seems much more important to focus on what kind of heroine Anna will be. With the most recent Disney princess movies, we've seen princesses come so far from where they started -- as passive objects who need to be rescued and only desire to get married. Rapunzel leaves her tower and she and Flynn save each other; Tiana owns her own restaurant; and Merida refuses to get married, prioritizing her own journey of self-discovery. Will Anna and Elsa continue this trend? Or will Disney regress in its depiction of women? The fact that Anna and Elsa are sisters seems to be promising: perhaps the central plotline will be the resolution of the tension between them rather than a love story. (I'm sure there will be a love story, but it matters significantly whether this is the focus or merely a B-plot.) 

Again, I don't mean to belittle the lack of diversity in Disney princess films. But I do think that focusing so zealously on their appearance has its own pitfalls. We say over and over again that it's what's on the inside that counts -- and here we are, prioritizing the physical appearance of an animated character. If the inside truly does matter, and Anna and/or Elsa keep Disney's portrayal of women moving forward, then we should celebrate Disney's decision to create a strong, independent female--no matter what color hair or skin she has.

"Escape From Tomorrow"

(Source: Entertainment Weekly)

This little indie movie hasn't received that much buzz--yet. But as the October 11th release date approaches, I have a feeling it might.

A good question might actually be: will the film actually be released? After all, the movie was filmed secretly in the parks, without the company's knowledge or permission, and no doubt features many Disney landmarks/icons (which are protected or allegedly protected by varying degrees of copyright). There are literary scholars/critics who can't get permission to use a photo of Cinderella's castle in their books (which, undoubtedly, criticize Disney), so why would a filmmaker who clandestinely obtained footage be allowed to use the images?

I suppose it all depends on how the park is portrayed. The basic gist of the plot is that a father, while on a family vacation at Disney, learns that he has lost his job and essentially loses his mind. Is Disney essential to the plot? Would the father have still lost his mind if he had been vacationing at Universal Studios or King's Dominion? Or is there something about the Disney experience that sparks the descent into madness?

If so, I can't imagine the Disney execs sitting idly by. This is a company that ferociously protects its image -- there are numerous stories of preschools receiving cease-and-desist letters for painting a figure of Mickey Mouse in a wall mural. But if Randy Moore and Company are merely using Disney for shock value -- hoping for a reaction from Disney that would (1) draw more attention to the film (and thus make them more money) or (2) allow them to denounce Disney as the big, bad, authoritarian monster that censors creative freedom, then perhaps Disney is right not to take any action.

As far as I know, they haven't yet, but again, the release date is still a month away.

Random Hogwarts/Hufflepuff Post

Just for fun--but for Section-70 in particular, given our class discussion last Wednesday:

Everyone Should Want To Be A Hufflepuff or, Stop The Hogwarts-House Hate

And, because Buzzfeed is awesome:

Don't be sad if Pottermore put you in Hufflepuff.

Mean Girls Trailer -- Disney Style

Starbucks & Disney

Big News this year: the Main Street Bakery in the Magic Kingdom has reopened -- and now it serves Starbucks coffee.

This has a lot of people up in arms for various reasons. Some people say that Starbucks is "too modern -- too current": that when they go to Disney World, they want an escapist vacation and Starbucks is an intrusion of the "real world."  Some people say that the Starbucks represents too much of a corporate presence -- too much commercialism and materialism. Some people say that since Main Street is designed to evoke a small mid-Western town, and that Starbucks ruins this image. Some people say that Walt would wholeheartedly disapprove.

Now, I get their points. I really do. But, like most stories/debates, there's a flip-side and here's what I would say to those critics:

(1) Starbucks is too much of an intrusion of the real world into the escapist fantasy of a Disney vacation.
Perhaps. If Disney had literally placed a Starbucks in the parks. But they didn't. They didn't allow the iconic green-and-white mermaid logo to stand on Main Street. Instead, the only indication that the Starbucks is even there is a small sign on the wall of the building -- it blends in with the decor of its location (whether Magic Kingdom's Main Street or Epcot, etc.). In a way, it's like being able to get Starbucks coffee at a Barnes & Noble cafe: you're still in Barnes & Noble, they just serve Starbucks coffee.

(2) Starbucks represents too much of a corporate presence.
This wouldn't be the first time. During Michael Eisner's reign, he was ALL about corporate partnerships. The partnership with McDonald's has largely dissolved -- Subway is the new fast-food partner since it's healthier food sends a better message in the fight against childhood obesity -- but there used to Golden Arches french fry stand in Frontierland by Splash Mountain that sold only McDonald's french fries. But people rebelled against that and it disappeared. And let's not forget all the businesses that "sponsor" rides at EPCOT -- their logos are plastered everywhere and bombard you as you enter and exit the ride. You can't pick and choose -- object to one, object to them all.

(3) It ruins the small-town feel of Main Street.
Again, there's no Starbucks sign. Also--have you been to Main Street in the Magic Kingdom? On the outside it looks like Main Street in a quaint, nostalgic town, but on the inside? Main Street is basically a giant gift shop. With some food. The entire street is designed to get you to buy stuff.

(4) Walt would disapprove.
There's no real way of knowing this, short of either holding a seance or prematurely unfreezing him from his cryogenic state. :)

But here's the thing about Walt: the theme parks were his pet projects. He wanted everything about them to be flawless, to be perfect, to be the best that it could be. That's why there's the labyrinth of underground tunnels so you never see employees coming and going -- that's why trash stays on the ground for mere seconds before it's instantly whisked away.

And coffee at Disney World? Was awful. There was some okay coffee at The Polynesian, but that's not really convenient unless you're staying at that hotel or dining there. And there's some pretty decent coffee at one of the outpost in the Animal Kingdom, but nothing super spectacular. I have a vivid memory of being in the Magic Kingdom on New Year's Eve, having been in the park since it opened that morning, in desperate need of coffee to make it to midnight. We found some, at a stand in Liberty Square, and...well, let's just say that if I didn't need all the help I could get to stay awake, I wouldn't have finished it.

So, in that respect, I can't imagine that Walt would be thrilled. To hear that any aspect of his visitor's park-going experience was less than stellar would have been an instant problem to be solved. And Starbucks? Is arguably one of the better coffee retailers out there -- not to mention, it's extremely popular with (upper-) middle-class Americans who comprise the majority of Disney Park visitors.

Newest Disney Dream Portrait -- Jennifer Hudson as Princess Tiana

I'm a huge fan of Annie Leibovitz's Disney Dream Portraits -- specifically the one with Julianne Moore as Ariel and surrounded by Olympian swimmers as merpeople. The newest one in the series was released online a few days ago and features Jennifer Hudson as Princess Tiana:

It's a stunning photo, IMHO, and I think Hudson was a good choice to portray Tiana. (I think she would have been a good voice for the animated character as well and wonder why she wasn't...)

But what's of greater interest to me is the response to it. I haven't seen that much feedback -- yet -- and it will be interesting to see what people's reactions are. (Because people always have reactions to these sorts of things. Particularly when we throw diversity into the mix.)

And I'll be honest. I love reading random user comments. They're hilarious to me. Like the first one of the HuffPost website:

"If people knew their history, there weren't any prominent families in the Renaissance times. It is absurd to have a Black princess. Maybe in Africa but not in Englad. Let's get with some reality shall we?"

Oh, dear. Some of the other users quickly call this person out for being a little racist -- even the one who points out that Princess and the Frog is a "fairies tail" -- but I'd have to go with "ignorant" over "racist" -- in this instance. While the earlier Disney princess films are set in some vague, medieval Anglo-European setting, Princess and the Frog is one of the few movies to have a very distinct setting -- 1920's New Orleans. Dr. Facilier is involved with voodoo after all, and most of the film takes place in the bayou.

But the phrase "It is absurd to have a Black princess," is troubling on so many levels. Is it absurd because Renaissance royalty is typically thought of as Caucasians?  Is it absurd because this person can't envision African-American (or African) royalty outside of Africa? (How would the world reacted if Prince William had married a black woman?) Or, is it absurd because the black princess in question is a Disney one?

I also wonder if Hudson will meet with some of the same criticism that Tiana did. The film was often criticized for its portrayal of Tiana: some thought that she was too black, some that she wasn't black enough. Some thought that her skin was too light and her hair too "white." Will Hudson face the same attacks, or, because this is merely an ad campaign rather than the "official" face of the Disney princess, will she be immune?