Sarah E. Turner's Article "Blackness, Bayous, and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World" explores the extent to which Tiana's race influences her character and her reception by the audience in Disney's The Princess and the Frog. She presents a lot of great ideas and does a great job of being objective and respectful of various opinions and interpretations of the film.
She starts off by explaining Stuart Mill's analysis of production and reception; she explains that decoding a text "enables an alternate reading in opposition to the dominant reading embedded within the discourse of the text" (84). Using this as a framework for her essay, Turner asserts that the dominant message of The Princess and the Frog is one of colorblindness meaning that Tiana just happens to be a princess that is black, not a black princess. Turner contradicts this popular reading of Princess Tiana by asserting that Disney's intention was to diversify its princesses; she supports this by saying "Tiana must be black in the same way that Mulan was Chinese, Jasmine was Arabic, ..." (84). I completely agree that it is foolish to suggest that race is not a factor in The Princess and the Frog. Like, Are you kidding me??? It's set in 1920s New Orleans, Tiana slaves away in a restaurant all day while her white best friend Lottie gets everything she wants without any work, Tiana lives in the ghetto, she OF COURSE can't get her shit handed to her like most Disney princesses, she has to work SUPER hard (and I mean actual work) to achieve her dream of owning her own restaurant, and she is told that a "woman of her background" has no business owning a restaurant/can't handle it. Now tell me that race isn't a factor.
I appreciate how Turner explores a view that displaces race. For instance, she understands and references arguments that illustrates how Tiana's desire to own a restaurant and her success in the end "reaffirms tenets of hard work and capitalism" (86). She also hints that the audience, regardless of color, feels a close connection to Tiana because of the loving, caring nuclear family that we all can relate to. While I understand this appeal, it makes me sad that Disney has to incorporate moments that evoke sympathy, compassion, and understanding from the audience probably in the hopes of being able to look past Tiana's race. Needing to include moments that will make you appreciate and want to root for the black princess. I understand why Disney does this, but it's sad that they have to.
Turner also points out how interestingly Tiana's mom, Eudora is someone that puts her down from her dream. Not necessarily out of malice, but out of love and the intention to protect. Eudora implies that she rather Tiana marry and go out and give her some grand babies than slave every day in the hopes of owning her restaurant one day. Like, okay you should be hella proud that your daughter wants to do more with her life and not just settle for confinement to domesticity. Eudora needs to get her crap together. Okay, random side note though, why do all of their names have to be so out there? Why can't they be names like Jean, or Rebecca, or anything that doesn't sound stereotypically black?
Okay another thing I appreciate about this article is that Turner addresses the lack of discourse on Tiana's physical attributes. Turner supposes that "while a feminist reading of this absence of beauty references would suggest a positive and progressive shift, thus providing little girls with a role model more concerned with material success that physical beauty, the absence becomes more s complex when race is introduced" (89). So true. You can't win either way. The film devoid of beauty references supports feminist messages while simultaneously being offensive for not letting Tiana receive the physical glorification and praise that every other Disney princess gets. I'm quite offended, seeing that beauty references for Tiana and depicting her as successful are not mutually exclusive categories. The complete absence of beauty references except for a five word comment from Lottie may offend the audience and imply that black bodies are not beautiful.
Okay, happy she included this point, but IT MADE ME REALLY UPSET because what happened is messed up. Turner writes that for the animated film award at the Oscars, each character gave a brief monologue about their film, yet when it came to The Princess and the Frog, it was Naveen and Louis that appeared. Tiana was "visibly absent and silenced" (92). Like I actually don't understand it. Especially seeing how liberal Hollywood and the film industry is, why is this necessary/how do your exclude the main character of the movie? #sometimesdisneymakesmeupset #butistillloveitforsomereason.
Last thing, the ambiguous skin color of Prince Naveen just kills me every time. Like Disney what are you even doing. I guess I can't criticize seeing that if he's black, people will be all like "why does he have to be black" and "Disney's against miscegenation" while if he's white it'll be like "why can't Tiana be with a black man" or "why is Tiana being the white man's whore." Sadly Disney can't win and I guess I approve with Disney's middle ground color that is "safe and sanitized." I don't think either Disney or audience members are ready for Tiana being set with a clearly identifiable race. Lol we're not there yet.
Overally, I really lied Turner's article and it made think more intently about The Princess and the Frog and anything that leaves me thinking and intrigued gets an A+ in my book! Read her article if you ever have time!
Peace Love Disney :)
No comments:
Post a Comment