Rate the men of Disney!

Thank you, Buzzfeed, for providing me with hours of entertainment/procrastination while attempting to study for finals. I came across this hilarious article titled "If the Men of Disney Had Dating App Ratings" and I just have to post it! 

Click on the link for more!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/if-the-men-of-disney-had-dating-app-ratings

Disney Princess's Swap Races

I recently came upon an interesting article by the Huffington Post in which the Disney princesses are depicted in different races. Here are some pictures, I just thought that it was a fun and unique article to take a look at! Check out the link for more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/disney-princesses-made-into-women-of-color_n_1721336.html#slide=1303600

You Can Run From Disney, But You Can't Hide

While grocery shopping at Kroger, I picked up a box of grapes solely because I was sick of eating the same ones from the marketplace. It wasn't until I got back into my dorm room and was happily snacking on them that I realized for the first time that the label depicted a picture of Goofy and the iconic Disney symbol. What do "California Grown Red Seedless Grapes" have in common with Goofy? Besides the fact that Disneyland is in California, I can think of no other reasonable explanation for the grape company (I'm not sure what brand they are, and I no longer have the box) to have a connection to Disney. Quite a peculiar marketing strategy, if you ask me.

This discovery led me to recall an argument made in one of the very first articles that we read, Janet Wasko's Challenging Disney Myths. In this article, Wasko debunks the common belief that Disney is somehow "different" from other profit-seeking companies. As epitomized by this subtle yet ingenious advertising through items as mundane as produce, Disney has successfully integrated itself into our everyday lives. The more amazing accomplishment, however, is that we don't even seem to notice. Disney's presence in everyday society has become so accepted by the public that we no longer associate Disney-affiliated characters with advertisements, though that is essentially what they are. Throughout the years, Disney has developed into an inextricable icon of American culture, so much so that we are blind to the fact that Disney is just as much of a profit-seeking corporation as other companies. When your characters can be used to market fruit and consumers don't question it, you know you've made it. Kudos, Walt.

Prince Naveen and His Race, Or, Lack Thereof

After spending the last 30 minutes browsing the interwebs and exploring the question of Prince Naveen's racial ambiguity, I have come to the conclusion that the world will never know what race Naveen is supposed to represent. The more important question to consider then, is if this was an ingenious decision on Disney's part or rather a self-incriminating one. Though I failed to find any solid evidence from the Walt Disney Company itself or any extremely compelling arguments for one race over the other, I did happen upon a large number of various articles, blog posts, and journals criticizing one facet or another of Naveen's race. Like Ajay Gehlawat asserts in "The Strange Case of The Princess and the Frog: Passing and the Elision of Race", Naveen encompasses physical and linguistic traits that associate him with both India and France, two cultures that are indisputably different. 

Why did Disney feel the need to do this? Naveen's character is an artistic decision that I may never get over because I am just so perplexed as to why Disney consciously crafted him to be the way that he is. Though I have little evidence, which I believe was a purposeful maneuver by Disney to keep Naveen's racial identity as ambiguous as possible, I too will add my voice to the masses and speculate as to why Naveen essentially possesses "no race". No matter how much I thought about it, it just did not make logical sense to me that Disney would purposefully conceive such an obscure prince-- but then I realized that this obscurity was the point.

By refusing to categorize Naveen, Disney is able to get closer to achieving the paradoxically race-representing and race-blind film that it so desires. By confusing the audience enough over the topic of race through Naveen, Disney is able to mold The Princess and the Frog to address both those who believe that race is represented positively and those who believe that race is represented negatively in the film. It is a phenomenon that, at least for me, warrants enough bewilderment that, after intensively trying to discover an answer and failing, I have no choice but to let it be. It would be interesting to view Disney's true motive behind creating this film. My guess is that they felt pressured to encompass diversity in their films, and didn't know how to go about it in a "politically correct" manner that would appeal to their target audience. Thus, Naveen was born out of their desire to at once introduce "Otherness" but also adhere to the traditional European princes that are known to sell to the public. 

What do you think about the fact that Naveen strikingly resembles, to put it in Gehlawat's terms, an "extremely brown" Eric from The Little Mermaid? I, for one, am utterly mystified. 

The Princess and the Frog: The Most Complex Disney Film to Date?

With a reputation that allows no leeway for controversy, we must applaud Disney for at least attempting to address the subject of race in its 2009 film The Princess and the Frog. The lack of acknowledgement of Tiana's blackness and Naveen's ambiguity, as Sarah E. Turner argues in her article "Blackness, Bayous and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World", illustrates Disney's desire to be politically correct, but their sensitivity to the topic is quite understandable. In a nation that at once places an emphasis on one's cultural background but also prides itself upon being race-blind, it is no surprise that Disney must act cautiously. Though critics may target the film for failing to truly reference race in a meaningful way, I agree with Turner's statement that the representation of color is a complex issue that cannot be viewed in black and white.

I believe that Tiana's race, coupled with her distinguishing personality traits, is enough to portray her blackness in a positive light. Contrary to past Disney princesses such as Snow White, Ariel, and Jasmine whose accomplishments are inextricably linked to the aid of their male counterparts, Tiana is characterized as a strong individual from beginning to end. Even as a small child, she shies away from the traditional fairytale of marrying a prince and living happily ever after; contrarily, Charlotte, the stereotypically white foil to Tiana's character, more closely resembles these past Disney princesses as she quests to marry Naveen and become a "real princess". While other, older Disney princesses are often saved from peril by their love interests, Tiana is the one who does the saving-- she rescues Prince Naveen from the jaws of hungry alligators, and ultimately gives him life by marrying him and transforming him back into a human. Thus, although race is not explicitly addressed in this film, the dynamic created by Tiana's empowered character and her identity as a non-white princess serve to perpetuate positive messages about race for children. In a world in which the role of race is addressed, or not addressed, differently in every situation, Disney's ambiguous portrayal in The Princess and the Frog warrants neither excessive praise or criticism. It is merely another perspective on this complex issue. 

Princesses on the Runway

One of my friends recently posted this image on Facebook and I couldn't resist sharing it with you all. It depicts the Disney princesses in the popular fashions of the year in which their movie came out. Can you still tell which princess is which? They do look quite different!

I like to think of myself as a "Disney child"-- growing up, my brother and I had a fairly large collection of Disney VHS tapes that we would watch regularly. While I still vividly remember details from my favorite films such as Peter Pan and The Lion King, though I haven't seen them for a whole decade, I have no recollection whatsoever of certain films such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I'm certain that I have seen this film before, and talking to my mother reinforced this belief. However, when I sat down to screen it this weekend, I realized that I had absolutely no memories pertaining to this film. It was essentially an entirely new experience for me, which was all the more exciting. Yet, as I began to watch the story of Quasimodo, Esmeralda, Phoebus, and Frollo unfold in front of my eyes, my excitement quickly turned into astonishment.
To be entirely honest, I was not at all impressed with the film, and genuinely appalled by the first half. In particular, I found the lyrics of the songs, constantly referring to Quasimodo as a "monster" and other  harsh, derogatory terms, to be especially disturbing and unexpectedly so, considering that the film is meant for children. I strongly agree with Martin F. Norden when he states in his criticism ""You're a Surprise from Every Angle": Disability, Identity, and Otherness in The Hunchback of Notre Dame" that "the film seems to preach acceptance of society's Others but is in fact an embodiment of bogus "political correctness"". Though the happy ending is identifiably "Disney" and preaches the cliche of accepting others not for their external appearance but their inner character, this resolution does not sufficiently discredit the blatantly biased, critical portrayal of Quasimodo throughout most of the film. Yes, he gains acceptance by the community for his rescue of Esmeralda and protection of the cathedral, but the evidence throughout the film implies that this acceptance is conditional-- if he had truly been integrated into society, why does Esmeralda end up with Phoebus? The resolutions of most Disney films are distinctly characterized by heterosexual relationships, so it is all the more significant that Quasimodo ends up alone and partnerless. Thus, Disney's ultimate message does not equate disabled people with normal, functioning members of society but merely elevates them past the status of children. Personally, I believe that Disney made a mistake in attempting to adapt such a classic, dark tale into a child-friendly animated film. Not all works of literature are meant to be "Disney-fied". Though I do not believe that The Disney Company had ill intentions, the oversimplification that is so characteristic of Disney films (and understandably so, given the target audience) ultimately rendered this film offensive towards people with disabilities.