Response to Breaux

I really enjoyed watching the The Princess and the Frog. I agree with my statements made in Breaux's article of how Disney avoided many of its pitfalls with a princess who is dependent on the male lead, and a female who is motherless and revels in the misery of the lack of a parental figure until an outside force relieves her of the suffering. I saw the movie as an achievement that helped Disney move forward and away from its racist past. Disney never really wins in most of these cases, for some people the movie lacks enough cultural aspects, and for others the movie plays on too many stereotypes. I enjoyed watching a Disney film that didn't where Tiana had "very little interest in waiting for her prince to come" (Breaux 404), and where Tiana was guided by her own self-interest and living up to the dreams of her father of establishing a restaurant without the monetary aid of a male hero. "Love or finding a prince to emotionally rescue her is the last thing on Tiana’s mind" (Breaux 404), and this is one of the things I loved about The Princess and the Frog. It deviated from Disney's popular depiction of love at first sight, and while the ending of the movie resulted in Tiana marriage with Nevine, it took the length of the movie to establish a loving connection and feelings for one another, something entirely different from older Disney films like Cinderella. I do disagree with Breaux's argument that the film missed opportunities to add historical relenacy of the Jim Crow Era, and aspects of segregation. I feel like Disney would have received a lot of backlash from viewers for creating a very racially historical film that wouldn't have appealed to many young viewers who wouldn't have understood the historical context. It would have appeared as the same fairy tale movie that young children like to watch. This is one of those topics that Disney really cannot win, but I think the creators chose the right side in being progressive in using the setting of New Orleans to introduce their first black princess. It's contextually relevant to make Tiana black in 1920's New Orleans, and also inspiring to not revel on the past (though a teachable topic) and create a princess who overcomes monetary adversity and does independently open her own restaurant. They also did a good job of avoided being overly stereotypical with Tiana's voice as well. Some people would regard her as too white, while others wished she would have more black features, but this is a tough line for Disney to walk. But to answer Breau'x assertion that the film's first critics were those who stated that black women's jobs at the time in New Orleans were to "primarily serve white people" (Breaux 407), I think the underlying racism was absent from the minds of the animators who wrote the script. If Tiana had not been serving at the movie, it would not have been such a wonderful fulfillment when she finally escaped from her situation and opened a restaurant where she herself was the owner of the store. By having Tiana be a waitress at the beginning of the movie, which also has some historical racial context, we have a greater sense of appreciation for Tiana's journey when she finally realizes her dream of owning her own restaurant, Tiana's place. 

The Princess and the Frog

While some people may take issue with The Princess and the Frog’s portrayal of Disney’s first black princess as a poorer woman who must work for her living, or with the fact that she was transformed into a frog for half of the film, thus making it easier for Disney to introduce Tiana. I take no issue with Disney for this movie. I respect Disney for making this movie, and I have actually come to really enjoy watching it. The setting of the movie is 1920’s Louisiana, and coming from Louisiana myself, it was really neat to see all of the cultural accuracy Disney had hen portraying New Orleans voodoo culture and the atmosphere of the unique city. I really appreciated this movie because while it was still the classic adversity to true love’s first kiss plot Disney employs in all their movies, it was masked much more effectively and was different from other Disney love animations. In The Princess and the Frog Disney addressed several firsts, and I really respect them for using their first black princess as a way to also kick off other changes in their films. This was one of the first Disney films I have seen where love takes awhile, it’s not easy, and it doesn’t happen right away. In films like Cinderella, the protagonist falls in love right away with the male lead however; with Tiana and Nevine things aren’t the same. It takes awhile for Nevine to woo Tiana, and the love progresses throughout the movie rather than instantaneously. I think this movie also introduced more realistic culture than I have seen in previous Disney movies as well, with the setting being in New Orleans. Just overall, I don’t see anything problematic with Disney using it’s first black princess in this movie because number one: it is required for the setting of the movie, a white princess would not have been accurate for the role in 1920’s Louisiana, and number two: we can still see/hear her blackness even when she is transformed into a frog so it eliminates the idea that Disney is trying to minimize screen time for their first black protagonist.

Alternate Beginnings for Beauty and the Beast

 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/unseen-footage-from-disneys-first-attempt-at-beauty-and-the-beast-110748.html
http://youtu.be/heAlxJsjAgI

Pretty interesting article on alternate ideas of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Pictures come from one of Disney's animation developer Hans Bacher.

Older Princesses

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/disney-princesses-older-women_n_6858868.html

This article is very interesting because it shows what Princesses would be like if they were depicted as older. While the article is just plain cool, I thought of a new potentially problematic message that many Disney films could be implanting in the minds of young children. All Disney Princesses are young when they search for love, and all are young when they find it. They all get married extremely early, and seem to live happily ever after without any of the later years in life. This observation leads me to suggest that the message could be problematic. Does the search for love only occur during those young years? Does the search for love stop once you've reached a certain age, and is there a point where you can't be a princess anymore?

Kate Flynn's "Fat and the Land"

Disney has been known to use stereotypes in their animated films, and it's no secret that people often find these films very troubling. It's okay to analyze the films and the messages they seem to present to their audiences, but because of the volatile nature of the subjects and how problematic they can be, some people may tend to over analyze. One particular problem I took up with Flynn's argument of Pixar's Up was the issue of stereotyping Russell. Russell is portrayed as clumsy, overweight, and non-appreciative of the natural environment, and thus Flynn sees the message from Pixar stating that overweight children all exhibit these characteristics. I think Flynn is over analyzing the character of Russell in this movie. As opposed to Wall-E, where the message is intentionally trying to establish a link between obesity and technological dependency, I think the message in Up is much different and comes from a different origin. I see Russell as a mere child who is eight years old and still has some baby fat. He is clumsy simply because kids his age are actually clumsy, and he is depicted as dependent, and unappreciative of the natural landscapes simply because he is a child! To see Russell as insufficiently masculine is ridiculous. How many children at eight years old actually present a clear indication of any form of adult masculinity? I would say exactly zero. I see Russell as a form of comedic relief for young children and a reminder to the adult audience of childhood adventure, big dreams, and a tad bit of childhood clumsiness. Russell's lack of appreciation for the sublime cannot be linked to his supposedly Asian ethnicity, but instead must be linked to his age. Young children simply do not possess the knowledge or experience in life to be able to fully appreciate the same view of the landscape that Carl possesses.

America's Values

Up wasn't supposed to be as big of a hit as it turned out to be. It wasn't a story about princesses or fish in the sea, but instead about an elderly man who finds an unlikely companion on a journey that he never was able to embark on, even though he had planned on it since childhood. I think Disney underestimated how popular Up would be, and did not realize that they touched on something deeper in the American psyche. I see Up as a brilliant creation because it allows for more than one age group to identify with the characters and story. From the eyes of a young child, the movie can be seen an visually spectacular, with the magical floating balloon house, and the adventure to Paradise Falls, the land lost in time. Children identify with the awkward, clumsy, hilarious character of Russell who loves adventure and the outdoors, while older viewers take a different stance on the plot. Older viewers can identify with the old America theme that seems to be portrayed by the movie. The theme of settling down with a happy life, building a house and following the American dream. This older generation identifies with the nostalgia of small town USA that is depicted in the earlier parts of the movie, yet they also have a deep disdain for the urbanization and destruction of these small town communities. The older crown will find a happiness in Carl's pursuance of a dream he had as a child, and his fulfillment of a promise he made to his wife whom had tragically passed away. Up is a magnificent film capable of engaging with multiple age groups, and portraying different messages to each audience. Whether is the childish dreams of adventure, the nostalgia for small town USA, or the fulfillment of childhood dreams and promises to a loved one, the film identifies with many different people, and Disney unknowingly or not hit on these key themes.

Lion King Socioeconomic Topic

Gooding and Morton broach an interesting topic on race, class, and space in their articles. Morton's piece is a response to Gooding's paper, and I found that I tended to agree with the arguments and clarifications that Morton presented. I had never viewed the Lion King as a commentary on political issues, and much of what both writers suggested was plausible, but like Morton pointed out, I found the topic of history a bit difficult to digest. I saw the circle of life and characters like Rafiki as a form of culture and spirituality instead of a dearth of both as Gooding suggested. The suggestion that the hyenas represent the lower tier of the socioeconomic classes can be clearly seen by the clash with the lions, where the ostracized members revolt against the power of those in the center of the circle of life or the wealthy. Scar I suggest would thus represent a social movement leader who utilizes his coercive skill and power to promote anarchy and overthrow those in power to both help the plight of the hyenas and himself. But even throwing Pride Rock into anarchy and despair wouldn't necessarily represent a dearth of history as a brand new event is introduced. the circle of life would be history itself, constantly repeating itself and that the change in the course of events would simply represent a shift in political structure and social structure. I don't agree with Gooding's assertion that Africa is depicited as a land dearth of these topics, but I agree with him in viewing the inequality through the lense of the hyenas because theirs would be a more unbiased position to view through because of their exclusion from the circle of life and circle of well-being that the lions live in. By viewing the inequality topic through the eyes of the lions of Pride Rock, we introduce a bias of wealth where nothing appears to be wrong by looking from the inside out instead of the outside in.