Does Race Play a Big Role in Disney's Princess and the Frog?

Live Blog on The Princess and the Frog!

To start, LOVE this movie! The jazzy tunes and cuteness of Tiana and Naveen warm my heart :). However, watching this films with a critical, racial eye, there are issues already within the first five minutes.

Why is it that Tiana has to be poor and live in the dumps of New Orleans while her best friend, Charlotte, is living large and wants for nothing?? Even though the two are super cute and seem equals at first because of their youthful and innocent relationship, there is a clear line drawn already. Eudora, Tiana's mom, slaves away taking care of the children and sewing dresses, yet she can't shower Tiana with gifts like Charlotte's hardworking father can (he's also dressed in all white all the time, reminds me of imperialism and white man's burden).

Similarly, Tiana's struggle is that of the stereotypical struggle. She is on the bottom of the food chain because of her poor status and needs to overcome some hurdle or work super hard in order to make her dreams come true. Charlotte lives an easy life and is rewarded continuously, while Tiana slaves away working as a waitress and gets by on crappy tips. It's just frustrating because the black person is usually always depicted as being challenged in some way and needing to overcome that challenge to be successful. I remember when I became valedictorian of my high school, many often asked me who influenced me and motivated me to work hard? I was very confused, because it seems people made the assumption that I had to overcome some hurdle in school or be inspired by sometime to do well, however, there was no challenge that I had to overcome to want to do well. I worked hard like everybody else, however in a predominantly white town, many assumed that I needed a rags to riches type story. Tiana's plot reminds me of this.

Also, aside from being portrayed domestically, it is problematic that Tiana's future of owning her own restaurant lies in in the hands of the white man. Despite her success in acquiring the money to startup her restaurant, she is still shut down by two white realtors. She is not in control of her future and happiness, the white man is.

When Tiana envisions what this abandoned, dirty property could like it if it were transformed into her restaurant, Eudora reminds her that what is important in life is love, not necessarily living out your dream. This message reinforces this idea that the black girl likely won't be accepted by her society, limiting her chances of success, however, she'll still be content with her life is she can love!

Fenner and Fenner, the two white realtors, imply that a person of Tiana's background likely has no business trying to run a restaurant when they tell her another buyer has topped her offer. Disney here is clearly saying something about race; though they address it here, is that enough?

Lottie wishes on a star, her wish of Prince Naveen coming to her party comes true. Tiana wishes on a star, she becomes a frog. Hmmm, something wrong there.

Let's not forget the jazz stereotype. As seen in Disney's Dumbo and The Jungle Book, animals voiced by black characters or that are depicted as black erupt into jazzy show tunes and dance giddily. The jazz that emerged in 1920s America that was largely associated with blacks is another stereotype portrayed in the movie. Jumping off of black stereotypes, despite the animation of characters, the broke, Southern accents of Ray (the firefly) and Lewis (the alligator) suggest blackness, though there may be no "proof." Fact of the matter, most wouldn't hear these characters voices in the middle of the bayou and think that they weren't black.

Okay, one thing that I absolutely HATE is that the Disney movie with the Black princess has to take place in the south and in the bayou. You want to say that Tiana is simply a princess that is black, however, when you look at Belle, Aurora, Cinderella, and other classic Disney princesses, they are not in a setting that defines their whiteness. The southernness and jazzy-like, wild nature of the bayou in conjunction with being black, however, does imply a connection to race. Why couldn't Tiana speak in a neutral accent like the majority of Disney princesses and be some submissive, oppressed princess, born a royal, living in a castle, and awaiting her prince?

One last thing that I find interesting about this movie is Mama Odie. Tiana journeys through the bayou to find Mama Odie and seek help to be transformed back into a human. Interestingly, Mama Odie, the person that is supposed to restore Tiana's hopes and wishes, is decked out in white. This prevalence of whiteness and its connections to success imply to me that whiteness is necessary for Tiana's wishes to be accomplished.

As much as criticize this movie, I still love it. The characters are so lively and personable, the music is FANTASTIC, and I think Tiana and Naveen=cutest couple ever. If ya haven't seen it, please watch. There are many aspects that you can identify and critique, however, it is still a great children's movie.


Peace Love Disney :))

Unanswered Questions of Disney

LOL the shit that you overlook in Disney but notice when a Buzzfeed article points it out to you!!! Check out this article on the unanswered questions. Best one by fair, #12: Why did the enchantress basically curse an 11 year-old for being a brat?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/samstryker/why-disney-why#.jhLLbpjpp

B & B Putting Men or Women First?

       I'm currently looking at sources that analyze feminism in Disney for a paper I have to write and I stumbled across this really cool book called "The Princess Story: Modeling the Feminine in Twentieth-Century American Fiction and Film." Author Sarah Rothschild analyzes a princess's story and discuss the dialogue of Disney films on feminism and cultural anxieties and stereotypes surrounding girls and women. For my paper, I'm analyzing feminism and gender stereotypes within Disney's Beauty and the Beast, and was looking for a source that examine's Belle's role in the film.

In a segment titled "The Precedence of Romance," Rothschild offers a really unique and interesting perspective on Belle in relation to the Beast. Discussing how Belle spends the majority of her time "civilizing and gentling" the Beast, she sets the stage for the view of Belle as domestic. She takes this argument even further and extracts a quote from Jane Yolen and Heidi E.Y Stemple that I feel is a cool perspective on Belle and the Beast. The quote reads, "this story teaches our daughters exactly how to become battered wives. Its message...states clearly that no matter how beastly and cruel the monster you live with is, somewhere there is a prince hide, and that if you just love him enough during his 'nice' periods, that prince will appear" (247).

I had never considered the relationship between Belle and the Beast through this lens. While I did suggest a submissive role played by Belle and assert that she functions to "fix" the Beast, I never considered that Beauty and the Beast advocates a message of "nurturing men until their 'true' goodness arises," as Susan Jeffords puts it. That women should endure abuse and deal with the ugliness of relationships until they see a soft side of men that is tolerable and capable of love. I really like this argument because not only does it depict a patriarchal domination but it looks past the illusions of animation and can pinpoint the segments of Beauty and the Beast that encourage female's putting up with the male's struggles and abuse because deep down all men have lovable sides.

Another cool point that Rothschild poses is that Belle is given no reasonable man to love. Gaston is a narcissistic and selfish man that views Belle as no more than a submissive, pleasing wife while the Beast is barely human and harsh-tempered. The absence of a "normal" or "reasonable" option for Belle to love and the presence of men on extreme ends of the romantic spectrum suggests that Belle is forced to settle. I thought this was really interesting because we often view Belle as overcoming the superficiality of love and finding her happily ever after with the love of her life, but it is often easy to overlook the work that Belle had to do on the Beast before loving him. She had to teach him manners and first endure his emotional abuse and dictatorial mannerisms (i.e. ordering her to dinner, making Belle stay in the castle in exchange for her father leaving, not being able to explore the West Wing). The Belle seems so appealing because he is literally contrasted by the worst possible man on the planet, Gaston, however, I feel it is valid to assert, that "the Beast could only have been made reasonable and effective by visualizing a worse man [Belle] could have chosen" (Jeffords 170).

Furthermore, Rothschild offers a refreshing and new perspective on Belle's character in Beauty and the Beast and draws on various insightful sources that work to enhance her argument. Definitely recommend this book if you can get your hands on it!



Peace Love Disney :)

Questioning of Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotypes in Pixar's Up"

Kate Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up"... interesting is a good word to describe this article. In this article, Flynn analyzes "childhood obesity" portrayed in Up and displays the clash between the fat boy and the aesthetics of nature. While I felt that Flynn started off with a compelling argument, she draws in several irrelevant sources and pieces of evidence that reduced the credibility of her argument. Similarly, there were many spots where she extrapolates too much, drawing too many assumptions from things that were meant to be simple. 

Flynn opens with a comparison to Wall-E, emphasizing that both movies "pay close attention to bodily fat" (435). She notes that Wall-E most indolent characters are "overdeveloped,""large, round and soft," and "gelatinous blobs" (Stanton and Reardon 27-34). Flynn depicts Wall-E largely as a commentary on obesity, though its main message is to illustrate the negative consequences of consumerism and its potential damages. While I understand why Flynn focuses only on the instances where Wall-E applies to obesity, she doesn't do the movie's overall message justice. She should accurately represent the movie for what it is than twist it unjustly to fit her argument.

It is important that Flynn includes Pixar's notion that "body shape is a key part if conveying the essence of characters' personalities." This sets the stage for her argument concerning Russell's "obesity" and how it relates to his personality.

Flynn juxtaposes Russell's body with Ellie and Carl's body. She details Ellie's "long, narrow body" and her dynamic actions and Carl's rounded limbs that lead to his clumsiness; however, she notes that he thins with age, matching the body needed to be adventurous and explore. Russell, a chubby eight-year old, according to Flynn is "ill-suited to the outdoors because of his size" (436). He's a wilderness explorer, yet Flynn argues that he struggles with the outdoors, complains about the length of walks, and is unable to correctly put the tent together. Thus, somehow from this she deduced that fat people are "clumsy, over-reliant on home comforts, and unappreciative of the natural landscape" (436). ??. Not sure I understand the logic Flynn used to make that point. Firstly, Russell is a young boy who has not yet lost his baby fat and is still a bit chubby. While he may be bigger for his age, he is not necessarily obese and his chubbiness should not be reason for his "ineptitude" in the outdoors. Children at that age tend to be impatient, lazy, and one for instant-gratifcation, thus it MAKES TOTAL SENSE that he's tired of walking miles on miles and complains incessantly. Okay and Flynn hints that Russell's obesity causes him to be unappreciative of the aesthetics of the landscape that surrounds him; essentially, "Russell's fatness excludes him from the national identity constructed in Up" (438). Translation: Russell's fatness means laziness and laziness means he can't appreciate beauty in nature. Forreal??? He is an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY! What child that age truly can appreciate and understand the beauty of nature and nature's importance at that age? Of course Russell can because he is an experienced adult and has been aspiring to experience Paradise Falls almost his entire life, but how can you compare an experienced old man's view of nature to that of a child who still has so much to learn??? If ya couldn't tell this point definitely irked me. 

Okay, another point that made absolutely no sense. Flynn ties Russell's Asian-American identity to Kant's concept that Asian American explorers who could not own property and were incapable of appreciating the sublime because it did not pertain to their "ethnicity and country of origin" (439). Thus, because Russell is an Asian-American, (qualifying him as not fully American??) he can't appreciate American landscape? That is racist on so many levels and establishes a multicultural conflict that is not necessary by any means. Also, Flynn tying in Immanuel Kant's view on aesthetics completely lost me and I thought it was so irrelevant to say the least? 

And a direct contradiction! Flynn, pardon my French, has been shitting on Russell's fatness this entire  time, but then says that his fatness is "in part rendered normative because [Russell] is still a child. Endowed with a child's body, his fatness can be constructed as cute"(440). Enough said. 

Lastly, Flynn asserts that "Russell is positioned to resemble this othered land more than he is the explorer"  because the "Bible, as any good Puritan would know, refers to the land as fat" (269; Gen. 45:17-18). The bible verse actually has nothing to do with people being fat, it just implies that the land has substance and is something that is resourceful and of use. This is another instance where Flynn twists the meanings of texts to fit her argument. 

Overall, wasn't a fan. Up is a great movie and the interpretations of it in scholarly article's such as Flynn's don't do it justice and overanalyze the simplicity and beauty of Pixar movies.

Peace Love Disney :))

Loophole's inTyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"

Dennis Tyler's article "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up" is an interesting piece. He poses great ideas concerning the life-lessons and values depicted in Up, however he goes on several tangents throughout his piece that reduce the substance of his argument. Intertwining issues of the white man's burden, drawing heavily on race when it was not necessary, and reducing the independence and adventurous persona of Ellie to that of a domestic wife drew attention away from the true messages of the movie.

Before diving into the lows of Tyler's article, I would like to address certain aspects that I appreciated. Tyler opens his articles with critic reviews on Up, establishing its widespread appeal and general acceptance by the public. Similarly, he sets the stage for Up by broadening into the world of Pixar; he demonstrates that Pixar truly seeks to bring "life" into their animation and portray family as a "grouping of individuals who care for each other whether technically related or not" (269). He supports this well with evidence from other well-known Pixar movies like Chicken Little and Toy Story, effectively drawing on the nostalgia and sense of family in the Disney community that most of us treasure. Lastly, I liked how Tyler detailed the logic behind animation, illustrating its twelve most prominent principles and the enormous power that animation has over depicting reality (i.e. using and reinforcing cultural stereotypes). I felt that the combination of these segments made for a great introduction, however I feel that Tyler's argument went downhill from here. 

Tyler's take on Ellie's relationship with Carl is completely misguided. He is correct in depicting Ellie as the talkative and energetic extrovert who seeks adventure while Carl is an adventurous introvert who is not as outgoing, however, he shifts this clear understanding of Ellie and Carl by asserting that Ellie's spirit is tamed by Carl's practicality, suggesting a silencing of Ellie's voice. For anyone who watched the film, it is SO clear that this is not true. Ellie brings substance to Carl's life and lends him the voice that he lacked when they were children. Her passion for experience and living life to the fullest is what get's Carl out of his comfort zone and makes the pair a mutual partnership that seeks exploration and wonder. If anything, it is Ellie that is responsible for making the majority of Carl's life so emotionally and mentally fulfilling. Tyler backs up his argument against this by stating that Carl forces childhood on Ellie, envisioning babies in the sky and replacing Ellie's own vision with his own. Except, in the movie, Carl initially sees the baby in the sky, but Ellie is the one who then envisions a sky full of babies, thus, the decision to pursue having a child was mutual and equally wanted, not one-sided and forced. Additionally, Tyler asserts that Ellie's body "defines" her; she is the "catalyst for Carl's sexual awakening" and is a slave to domesticity (274). I was extremely annoyed by this because Tyler reduces Ellie's life and fulfillment to being impregnated and helping Carl changes his ties, when it is obvious that she represented much more. She got to live a normal, fulfilling, happy life with her love and enjoyed life's spirit and offerings in her daily experiences. Though she is unable to fulfill her lifelong dream of going to Paradise Falls, she still possessed a spirit that stayed with us throughout the entire movie. Now interestingly, despite having accused Up for portraying Ellie in a restricted and submissive manner, he asserts that Ellie is the "true spirit of adventure in the film." (274). ??? WHAT??? Dude is directly contradicting himself. Literally asserts that Ellie's spirit is repressed by Carl one minute and a paragraph later implies that her spirit is present an undeniable. Not a fan of this.

Another aspect of the article that I didn't like is the assumption that Up is the "white man's" story. He relies heavily on the assumption of whiteness and it's dominance, saying that the white man rules over the other characters and that his desires must become their desires as well. He supports this also by saying that Russell, an Asian-American character, looks white alongside Carl and "becomes covered Carl racially" (275). Ermm no. Like not even. I hate when people try to incorporate issue of ethnicity and race when it is not warranted. Just because Russell does not appear to have Asian origins does not imply that his ethnicity is overshadowed by Carl's whiteness. What if Disney is just trying to display that Asian-Americans don't have to be assigned the stereotypical Asian characteristics that we see today. If anything, I think Up is just a progressive movie that's defying the racial stereotypes we see today and the inability to distinguish Russell's Asian ethnicity is demonstrative of appearance not defining who we are. Plus, the whole notion of white man's burden is misplaced, seeing that Carl simply had a wish that he sought to fulfill and the people that he encountered along the way voluntarily came along for the ride. 

Okay, and lastly, WTF is with the mention of The Princess and the Frog?!?! That actually really upset me because Tyler has no basis for an argument concerning African Americans in Up!!!! Like no! First off, his mention of "African Americans in the film" as if they play a major role in the film is complete crap! There is legit one African-American girl in the film for LITERALLY five seconds that stares out her window in awe as she sees as freaking house with a mound of balloons floating in the air. Like WHO WOULDN'T be looking up in wonder?!?! Tyler spins this as a symbol of unimaginable hope and wonder that the African-American lacks and will only dream of but the white man can fulfill. NOT EVEN!!! And the comparison to The Princess and the Frog is that the lack of social realism and the deracialization of Tiana's story assumes a story where race is unimportant. However, it is in Up??? Where an innocent African-American girl who's reaction to something unrealistic was COMPLETELY normal has to be somehow tied to her race??? No.

And in addition to The Princess and the Frog, Tyler literally mentions eight different movies within the last couple of paragraphs of the article. He introduces literally eight different movies with eight different points for each movie when he should be tying together the loose ends of his argument and ending with a cohesive statement that summarizes his article. Definitely think he should have just kept Up as the main focus of the conclusion but that's just me!

So those are my thoughts on Tyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"! Definitely check out the article and see what you think!

Peace Love Disney :)

Female Empowerment??

Yesss strong females in Disney!!! Despite the clear gender stereotypes and lack of uniqueness that Disney unfortunately applies to its women, lets check out the few examples of girl power in Disney!

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/12/02/what-disney-movies-taught-us-about-girl-power/

One Person, Two Disney Characters!

Legit mind blown!!!! The fact that one person sang both Mulan and Princess Jasmine's parts and Cogsworth's voice is Governor Radcliffe's?! I can't fathom this.

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/08/17/we-bet-you-didnt-know-these-characters-were-voiced-by-the-same-person/