Film Response – The Princess & The Frog

Of the films I have watched in this class, many of them have been introduced by my teacher with a brief foreword on what to observe. For my most recent and last film study of the semester, I was asked to distinguish a subtle theme in Disney’s 2009 film The Princess and the Frog. This subtlety was to discern if the film genuinely features Disney’s first black princess or if Disney presents a princess who just happens to be black. Regardless, this film marks new territory for Disney, as it is Disney’s first film with an African American female protagonist. From what I perceived of the film, I felt that Disney successfully broke new ground in presenting a black princess. The film however is not limited to a commentary on race; it also heavily concerns itself with gender, breaking new ground with an empowered female, and class, displaying socioeconomic diversity. Many critical questions arise with Disney’s more progressive thematic concerns. I believe Disney balances these concerns incredibly well to produce an entertaining animation that expands its diversity while extending its universal Disney appeal.   

Before I begin a more critical analysis, I want to express my enjoyment of the film. I thoroughly appreciated the storyline and the humour in the film. I felt the setting of 1920s New Orleans gave the film a lot of personality. I really enjoyed characters like Charlotte with her vanity yet Southern hospitality and friendliness. Louis was incredibly entertaining with his anthropomorphic depiction and love of jazz. Ray was an adorable unsung hero of the film. In typical Disney fashion, the film ends with loves true kiss, marriage and happiness as Tiana opens her dream restaurant. However the arrival to this conclusion is unique and provides great entertainment.

Not only does Disney break its conventional template with a black princess but also with an empowered female protagonist. Traditional Disney princess are born into royalty or actively seek the desire of marriage and ‘happily ever after’. Their characterization is usually shallow with an incessant longing for marriage and their prince. Tiana subverts this conventional depiction. The film strongly emphasizes her independence and willpower. Tiana is introduced to the audience as an adult working two jobs to save for her restaurant, foregoing the opportunity to dance with her friends and determined to achieve her and her fathers dream. In this way, the film takes on a more feminist reading, empowering the independence and strength of women. Tiana is the manifestation of working class and working for a goal, determined to open her own restaurant that will be the crown of New Orleans. At the ball to welcome Prince Naveen, she is behind the tables, serving her beignets to the affluent and exuberant public. She is not Disney’s typical princess; she doesn’t seek her ‘prince charming’ and ‘happily ever after’. Tiana is the epitome of an independent and driven women and her theme song ‘Almost There’ is an ode to her hard-working nature.

The Princess and the Frog is also a moving heavily concerned with class division, which can be problematic. The film clearly distinguishes the affluence of the La Bouff mansion to the lower class residence of Tiana and her family. The white La Bouff family is shown to have deep pockets and Charlotte is the paragon of entitlement. Meanwhile, Tiana and the black community are shown to live in much more modest houses where a pot of gumbo brings together the whole community. The La Bouff family is run by ‘Big Daddy’ while Tiana’s father passes away, showing the dominance of the white patriarch. Furthermore, Tiana’s mother Eudora works as the seamstress for the La Bouff family, a subservient role of service to the rich white manor. While all these depictions lend themselves to scrutiny and critical analysis, they do represent a relative accuracy of the historic American South. Any more racial class division and Disney will be reinforcing the age of slavery and any less division and Disney will be accused of historical racism, whereby they are ignoring the reality of America’s racially charged South and class injustices. I content that Disney errs on the side of historical inaccuracy (presenting a historically racist depiction), as the New Orleans society seems very equitable and joyful in an age where discrimination and racial injustice was common. However, I think it is sensible to give Disney a little bit of liberty as they are, after all, in the business of entertainment and fairytale. These racial and class concerns are more plot driven then racial charged and therefore, I argue that Disney is able to navigate these concerns to the best of their ability.

Following the train of thought above, a natural question is to inquire why Disney must set its first African American princess in the past. The audience is entitled to criticize Disney for this portrayal. Setting the film in the past distances Disney from the contemporary racial dynamic of America. Disney is able to more indirectly incorporate a new racial component to their catalogue without having to compete with the contemporary racial scene. Playing both devils advocate yet also defending Disney, I believe that Disney is circumventing racial questioning but I do not find an issue with it. Disney typically presents its stories in an ambiguous setting and away from modern society. While the setting of The Princess and the Frog is more distinct, it is not definite and in reality, is the best option. Disney couldn’t set its first black princess in Africa nor would in a period before the abolition of slavery without drawing questions of political correctness that would detract from the films penultimate intention to entertain. Furthermore, the audience is entitle to question why Disney’s first black princess is a frog for most of the film. While this is a genuine concern, Disney has a common affinity with the animal kingdom and Tiana isn’t the first anthropomorphic creature. While she is the first princess, this is more plot driven then racially intended.

The Princess and the Frog breaks new ground for Disney challenging their conventional portrayal of women, their traditional princess and their lack of racial diversity. Doing so is new easy feat, and Disney addresses these concerns with great balance that provides for the typical Disney charm while expanding their representation. Disney challenges their own outdated views in this more progressive film, which can at least be acknowledged as a foot in the right direction.          

            

Response - Pixar's UP

I’m going to sound like a big fan-boy but I am in love with the movie Up by Disney Pixar.

There it is – no guilt attached. Phewww…

But in all honesty, I am in awe of the incredible creative mind who conceptualized that he could make a film out of a man, his house and a few thousand balloons. It is this same creativity that is the magic of this movie. When I see Up, I see something I have never seen before. This is not limited to the plot and the incredibly heartfelt story but also in what does not need to be said; the motifs, the theme song and the incredible characterization. Thus it is no wonder why this is my favorite movie, not only among Disney titles, but among all animations that I have seen.

I have always considered myself a bit of a softy; it doesn’t take too much for my eyes to get a little damp. Whether it is a corny rom-com or a more dramatic movie tailored to pull the heartstrings, emotional films usually get a reaction out of me. However you give me Up and I will cry we eyes out. I must admit I locked myself in my room, making sure my roommate wasn’t around because I was so self-conscious at the mess I became after seeing the opening montage of the life of Carl and Ellie. There is something incredibly moving in those five minutes that hits me like nothing else. The love between Carl and Ellie is undeniable, when they get married, Carl still has his little boy smile and Ellie jumps on Carl with her enthusiasm and optimism. They live a simple enough life, building their dream home and working side by side at the zoo, where we can assume they make a modest wage. Their life and love is characterized by a sort of simplicity that I crave, whereby they can do what makes them happy and they have each other. Most poignant though is Pixar’s construction of ‘life’. Some dreams are realized but others get lost or are crushed by things beyond our control. When Ellie is confronted with the news that she cannot have babies, a sorrow penetrates the audience, myself in particular, that transcends the screen. So too, the dream of Paradise Falls taken a back shelf (literally) as sacrifices are made and setbacks like flat tires and a lightning storms cause Carl and Ellie to take from their funds to explore. Using my own cliché, they’re opposites attract, with Carl being quieter and the solid cornerstone and Ellie being the vibrant spark and dynamism to the relationship. Yet, they complement one another so perfectly, Ellie does up Carl’s ties which are all an array of different colors, showing how Ellie brings her vibrancy to Carl’s life. Similarly, Carl buys the tickets to Paradise Falls to fulfill Ellie’s sense of adventure. So too, the frames of Carl and Ellie cleaning show their desire to preserve the life they have built with one another. They way Carl and Ellie complement one another is portrayed with such simplicity and delicacy. This is the most apparent when Carl pushes the blue balloon to Ellie, now in her last days, just as she once did when he broke his leg after they first met. I must admit there is where I lost it and almost choked on my tears. Like this motifs of the balloon, the mailbox, the clouds, crossing of the heart and the form fitting chairs, are all symbols representing their togetherness and love. These magical five minutes by Pixar’s animation and production teams is why I love Up so much, they create something that transcends the screen and reaches into my soul.

Combine this with the amazing theme song and you have me in raptures. It comes to me as no surprise that Disney Pixar has won seven of fifteen Best Animation Feature awards in its nine nominations as Pixar creates a holistic film. The theme song of Up is at once playful as it is somber the next. It is interjected in the film at precise moments to reflect the mood of the film with subtle variations changing it from upbeat and optimistic to slow and melancholic. This past week I have gone to Biddle Music building at Duke in my free time to teach myself the tune out of my pure love for the song. 

What I also love of Pixar’s Up is that I can appreciate something new every time I watch the film. Having seen the film as both a teenager and now a young adult, my perception of the film is different to that of a younger child or someone older. There exists both a time dependent and timeless nature of the film and what one can appreciate. As a more empathetic and sensitive person, I am greatly attracted by the more mature themes of love, life and sacrifice and how they apply to Carl and Ellie. A younger audience however may have a greater affinity to Dug, the talking dogs and Kevin, with his love for chocolate. Yet somehow, I can also appreciate these more comedic and juvenile themes too. Every element of the film complements the other and Pixar truly succeeds in its mission to create entertainment not only for children but for the whole family.

Left now to bring a more critical analysis to the film, I am left scratching my head. There is nothing that reaches out to me as being controversial or uncomfortable in the film. Pixar’s message in Up is different for everyone, for me it is a story of love and how this changes with time. Carl’s love was exclusively for Ellie, but circumstances dictate that he finds a new family in Russell, Kevin and Doug. For others Up is a story of adventure or a story of rejecting society and authority or a story of fatherhood. Ultimately, these are all correct and true, there is no one reading to the film. While in class, our discussions analyzed the potential harms in Russell’s Asian American ethnicity, the issue of size and even the outrageous claims of an oppressive white patriarch, I find these analyzes unsubstantiated or simply irrelevant. Questions that hover in my mind would be the absence of Russell’s father and the dominance of the male gender in the film – however I am inclined to ignore these concerns in giving the movie its creative liberties. Often these concerns are over-analyzed.   

Pixar’s Up is a timeless classic and creative work of art. Seeing the film I am bizarrely put in a happier and more fragile mood. The happy ending with Carl and Russell on the sidewalk is another example of the continuity, motifs and symbolism that pervades the film. The long shot of Carl and Ellie’s house sitting at the side of Paradise Falls is also heartwarming. All the same I am made more fragile by the raw emotion in the film. These elements combine seamlessly to shape my love of Up.  

"You and me, we're in a club now"

Response - The Lion King

No movie brings back my childhood nostalgia quite like Disney’s classic The Lion King. There is something that I cannot put into words that makes this movie so appealing and enjoyable to me. Neither seeing it half a dozen times nor growing older can tarnish my undeniable love of this film. I wish I was able to explain why this is so, but I struggle to articulate why this movie seems to transcend the obsolescence that typify so many other films. At the core however I think there is something of my childhood self that still latches onto the film in a uniquely profound way.

I would first like to take an uncritical approach to the film, recognizing it for the masterpiece it is. What then can trump the fabulous opening montage of the film presenting the harmony and beauty of the wild expanses of Africa and the animal kingdom. From the first establishing shots of the rising of the sun, the birds flying over the pristine waterfall and the grandeur of pride rock – the imagery and setting are wonderfully breathtaking. This beauty and sublime nature of the animal kingdom are enchanting and awe inspiring even as a young adult. Coupled with a phenomenal soundtrack, these scenes resonant with a feeling of wonder like no other film. The epic opening of ‘Circle of life’ to the playful ‘I Just Can’t Wait to be King’ to the tender ‘Can You Feel the Love Tonight’ satisfy both my love of aesthetic beauty and my love for music. It is no surprises that these anthems feature prominently in my everyday playlists. This magic in animation, production and composition make the Lion King so appealing.

Expanding my love of this film, I love the characterization and comedic relief of Timon and Pumbaa. A bunch of misfits and rather awkward individuals, they give another dimension to the film that complements the message of the film while adding great entertainment value.  I strongly resonant with their message of ‘hakuna matata’ – which means ‘no worries’. I frequently use the term “no worries” in my day-to-day speech, reflecting my attachment to their life philosophy and fun nature. Disney’s creative humour can be seen when Timon, Pumbaa and Simba are looking at the stars, contemplating what they could be. Pumbaa’s response of ‘Oh gee. I always thought they were balls of gas burning billions of miles away’ is incredibly funny and ironic given the characterization of Pumbaa as being obsessed by gas. These subtleties of humour give the film another dimension of creativity and pleasure. Yet these comedic interjections are also supplemented with profound philosophical moments. Simba’s same reflection on the stars as being home to kings and ancestors formed my rudimentary fragments of what heaven is. Furthermore I adore the themes of adventure and fatherly love that permeate the movie. The transfiguration of the sky when Simba talks to his father as well as the character of Rafiki bring in an element of spirituality to the film and the restoration of Pride Rock is symbolic of this greater ‘Circle of Life’ that we are all part of. The breadth of themes in the Lion King makes me appreciate something unique in the film every time I watch.

While the discussion above displays my great admiration for the film, I did have a few critical observations of the film that I haven’t had before. The first of these concerns is the character of Scar. More than ever, I was very agitated by the character of Scar and his tyrannical character. While his plot to murder both Mufasa and Simba is torturous enough, I was also taken back by his very effeminate nature and the impact of that representation on the audience. His open acknowledgement of his weaker nature and his distant relationship with the other lions makes his portrayal strongly align with that of an outcast. Drawing upon the observations of his more transgendered characteristics, this reinforces his position as ‘other’ to the rest of the lions and that differences are to be avoided. I am left with the desire for Disney to construct a hero, akin to their existing heroes: hyper-masculinized, strong and handsome, but who is also fallible. Too often Disney villains are constructed in the same homogenous way as frail, outcast and envious. This leads to my stronger reading of the film and the theme of jealousy. Scar is corrupted by jealousy, ultimately committing regicide to usurp the throne. Even once be does ascend to the throne, he is jealous that he cannot create the kingdom that Mufasa first formed. This powerful message, warning of the dangers of jealousy is important but Disney presents it in questionable ways.

In our discussion in class, I was invested in out discussion of the scene ‘be prepared’ with Scar and the hyenas. When I watch the film individually I was uncomfortable with this scene but I couldn’t identify exactly why. In class however, I was illuminated by the allusion of the hyena uprising as analogous to the Nuremburg Rallies, with Scar representing the dictator figure of Hitler. In a powerful low-angle shot, the hyenas are marching and saluting Scar who is raised above them. The parallels are undeniable to the images of the Nuremburg Rallies. Scar further reflects Hitler in his propaganda promising prosperity and the issue of a new era. Having such a mature them such as Nazism is concerning in what is primarily a children’s film. 

Lastly I was also concerned by the underlying subtle message of the ‘Circle of Life’. The Circle of Life infers that there is exists a correct and very rigid order to the hierarchy of the animal kingdom. Expanding this outside the world of the text, I see the construction of divisions of classes. The way the Lion King unfolds, where the uprising of the hyenas disrupts the Circle of Life, becomes a commentary on class divisions. Hyenas are scavengers and representative of the lowest of society. The plot of the film, whereby this class order is inverted and the hyenas rule the animal kingdom results in chaos and famine. This is then a commentary that the lower classes cannot govern society and that an uprising will only lead to ruin. Thus, The Lion King is showing us that there exists a correct order and hierarchy of society. One is to accept their rightful place and not question their position in society, as breaking the mold will only create devastation.

In summary, The Lion King is a masterpiece amongst the creations of Disney but not entirely resistant to criticism. While the Lion King is a hallmark of the beauty of animation and soundtrack, there exist several controversial themes and undertones that are open to critical analysis and scrutiny. I do maintain however, that I have a profound love the film and its allure to my childhood self.  

Putnam Essay Response

In her essay “Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films”, Amanda Putnam argues that Disney offers exaggerated portrayals of gender in the characterization of the heroes and villains in their animated films. Through an analysis of the proliferation of hypersexual heroines such as Cinderella and Ariel and overly masculinized heroes such as Mufasa, Putnam suggests that Disney crafts a ‘unified portrayal of happy heterosexism… clearly marked as the path to contentment and goodness’. Putnam then proceeds to contrast these characters with their villainous counterparts, observing their unconventional attributes and gender ambiguity that ‘constructs an implicit evaluation of transgenderism, unequivocally associating it with cruelty, selfishness, brutality and greed’. I share the viewpoint of Putnam and strongly align with her concern ‘of what… Disney is preaching’. The portrayal of Disney characters, especially villains, as having gender ambiguous characteristics, associates individuals would cross gender normative boundaries as evil and to be avoided.

To enhance her critique of the characterization of villains, Putnam juxtaposes them with the depiction of Disney heroes and heroines. Putnam particularly notes the appearance of female princesses with ‘long hair’ ‘flowing attire’ and ‘hour-glass figure’.  Putnam proposes that ‘Disney accentuates the ideal heterosexual female figure’. This argument cannot be disputed as when one recalls Disney princesses - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle, etc. - there exists an unequivocal correlation in their representation as beautiful women seeking to fulfill their desires of love and marriage. To enhance her argument Putnam also notes the princess’s hyper-femininity as demonstrated in their grace, poise, affinity to nature and strong domestic roles. This stereotypical gender representation is not limited to princesses, as their male counterparts also fulfill the clichéd heterosexual representation of muscular, courageous and charming men. Even the animal kingdom depicts hyper-sexuality as manifest in King Mufasa’s masculine role as valiant king and protector of ‘the circle of life’. Heterosexual desires are demonstrated as Putnam notes the betrothal of Simba and Nala. Putnam states ‘clearly, Disney’s royalty, whether human or animal, portray a safely traditional heterosexual view of the world, which offers a clear contrast to the complexity of the transgendered villains’. Supplementing Putnam’s view, I would add the Disney portrays a sensationalized portrayal of heterosexuality. The audience is programmed to view the marital, sexual and familial desires of the heroes and heroines as natural and congruent with goodness and happiness. As alluded to in the quote above, this accentuates the portrayal of the transgendered villains, correlating them with evilness.

Disney villains are depicted as having traits, behaviors and actions that do not correspond with their gender. Putnam uses an excess of examples, primarily the stepsisters in Cinderella and Ursula in The Little Mermaid, to demonstrate the transgendered representations of these villains. Putnam’s strongest argument, however lacking further discussion, is her description of the functional role of these villains. Putnam touches upon but fails to reinforce the correlations between transgendered villains in the films and the greater perception of transgenderism in our society. On the role of villains, Putnam argues ‘villains create the storyline… typically that storyline also disrupts and frustrates heterosexuality dominance by agonizing the happily-ever-after of the heroes and heroines. These evil actions or desires have very little to do with their gender-bending portrayals’. In this way, Putnam calls into question the excessive nature of the characterization of the villains. Their function in the scheme of the film is independent of their gender representation, hence calling into question the ‘superfluous’ nature of their transgendered depiction. This sentiment is shared in Putnam’s concluding sentence ‘Thus, while the Disney villains are mean, cruel and petty… it’s not because they are girly men or tomboys’. From this, we deduce that it is not their transgendered nature that makes them evil. Rather this implies that their wickedness is enhanced by their transgendered representation. Hence, it is clear that Disney is implicitly condemning transgenderism and promoting the values of heterosexuality. Outside the world of animation, Disney is perpetuating archaic views of gender and endorsing prejudice towards transgendered individuals. Playing on Putnam’s anecdote, if it is obvious enough for a young girl to recognize these gender representations, surely this is a more ‘unpalatable’ reflection of Disney's influence in our society.