Proof that the article is clearly written by a lunatic is when they start praising High School Musical and the other Disney channel movies as being "good but underrated."
Those movies are only good if you MST3K them up. I have more fun laughing at them with my friends than without them, which is why I saw HSM3 twice.
This. The image on TV Tropes' article about Narm pretty much sums up the hilarity HSM offers.
Other than the odd comment saying it was going to be controversial I'd not really been aware of the movie. Luckily all your comments and this articIe on Slate have helped put things into a much more positive light.
Here'san article that reads way too much into the movie and tries to insert racial issues into it. It makes me rage so much.
Do people just look for little intricacies and other similar things to bitch about? Why can't they just let these things slide and just take it for what it is.
While I admit they go a little overboard in this article ("Hurricane Katrina guilt"?), I'm not seeing where the 'rage' is coming from. I mean, if Tiana actually spends that much of the film as a non-human, then that is pretty disappointing.
You know what I found disappointing? That Disney's first redheaded princess spent most of the movie with a fish for a butt. What kind of statement are they trying to make about my people? That's so racist and uncool.
And every Inuit/native of the Pacific Northwest should be flat out insulted that one of their own spent nearly an entire Disney movie as a bear. Obviously, Disney is too afraid to depict an actual Pacific Northwest hero and thinks that all of those people are nasty fat bears. That too was disappointing.
Let's not forget every blonde-haired blue-eyed white guy. Their first prince only got to spend a few seconds as a human and not a big tall scary animal man. Or how about French people in general? They were FURNITURE and didn't have more than 2 lines as humans! Disney thinks that all French people are hairy animal furniture people who suck.
Where will this disappointing racial travesty reach an end? As we are not true and decent Americans without being/interpreting everything as obsessed with racial issues, surely Disney could not possibly be trying to tell a STORY in which a transformation takes place, and the hero or heroine just happens to be whatever appearance best suits the story's setting? It's much more feasible that Disney goes out of their way to enrage the black community by symbolically turning them into frogs for 60% of a children's movie about a couple that changes into frogs, am I right?
And don't get me started on the invisible Jews in Pocahontas...
And I saw Princess and The Frog on Saturday, so I'm singing the praises of the movie. It was a return to Disney greatness, but the movie had a great sense of practicality to it as well. The whole issue about a Princess actually kissing a frog, the value of HARD WORK (ZOMG), and the moral diversity of the characters. Some people were surprisingly good and others were surprisingly evil.
...[S]urely Disney could not possibly be trying to tell a STORY in which a transformation takes place, and the hero or heroine just happens to be whatever appearance best suits the story's setting? It's much more feasible that Disney goes out of their way to enrage the black community by symbolically turning them into frogs for 60% of a children's movie about a couple that changes into frogs, am I right?
Where did I say Disney intended to offend people with this film? Of course they're just trying to tell a story. My point was that, if this is the first time a Disney film will have an African-American princess, perhaps the decision to use a story where the main character isn't human for the majority of the story was a poor one. Or: If they were planning on making a film where the protagonists turn into animals, perhaps they shouldn't have chosen that film to make the main protagonist an African-American for the the first time in the Disney animated canon. I'm not even saying the concept itself is somehow inherently racially insensitive, or that the thought makes me foam at the mouth with rage: The fact that this is done with the very first story with an African-American main character disappoints me. That's all.
On a side point, why would it matter if Disney intended to offend anyone anyways? This is what frustrates me about so many people's approach to racial insensitivity (or any other kind; I'm extrapolating from homophobia here): The belief that it can't be racially insensitive if it wasn't intended to be racially insensitive. If someone accidentally steps on my foot, regardless of whether or not the act was intentional, my foot still hurts. Knowing the person didn't consciously set out to step on my foot doesn't make it hurt any less, nor does the assertion that I shouldn't let it bother me so much.
As we are not true and decent Americans without labeling anyone with even a mild concern about racial issues as obsessed with racial issues
FTFY.
Again, I thought the article itself overanalyzed the film, but there were a few fair points here and there. There's a difference between not going overboard on considering racial issues and refusing to even consider them to begin with.
ANYDDWIWWWIM. (Actually no you didn't douchebag, what I wrote was what I meant.)
Did you consider that maybe Disney made the decision to write this story without having it revolve around or obsess over the racial image it might cast? They already took a number of precautions in avoiding the ugliest of racial issues that could have come up in this film - segregation is shown at a minimum, Tiana's best friend is white, friction between blacks and whites isn't present, etc. Those are the real issues they want to avoid. Not only would they severely detract from the film, but they would be lambasted by critics for including racism and Jim Crowe in a childrens movie and invite a wave of distracting controversy.
I imagine that it sorta went like this -
"We need to go back to our roots. Let's do a fairy tale. How about we do a spin on "The Frog Prince" fairy tale?" "Great! Let's adapt the book "The Frog Princess"!" "We could have it take place in 1920's America, that would be interesting. How about New Orleans? They've got bayous, good place for frogs." "If it's taking place in the American south, this could be an opportunity to have our first black Disney princess."
Good writers think about story first, and America's hurt feelings later. As it happened, this story involved a woman who turns into a frog. As it happened, it suited the story to have her be African American. It would be stupid for them to alter elements that important to avoid "disappointing" people who will go and make such statements without even seeing the movie. Do you know how many changes they already made so as not to offend anyone? Tiana's name was changed, her occupation was changed, the title of the MOVIE was changed from "The Frog Princess", because this is a new racial slur invented last week.
I assume from your manner of speak that you didn't see this movie yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) - and that's a really bad starting point for making statements like "disappointing" and "racially insensitive". Tiana's character is very firmly established early in the movie, from childhood to adulthood. We learn all about her and what kind of person she is while observing her as a human. Her big musical number is performed while she's a human. Her aspirations and her first major conflict are established while she is a human. By the time she's turned into a frog, we the audience are very plainly identifying this character as a human who's been transformed, and we do not lose sight of her humanity and begin to see her as only a frog. I'd estimate a good 20-30 minutes of the film feature Tiana as a human before the transformation.
That said, I don't understand this obsession with Tiana being a frog for part of the movie. Why is it that for her to be a fully pleasing black princess, she must physically be a black woman for the entirety of the film? Her appearance changes, but her personality doesn't. Her upbringing is not only glorified, but mentioned again and again even after she's become a frog. Tiana's personality is strong and admirable, and of all the characters in the film she was definitely the most "human". That is what matters, that is what audiences should be looking for and looking at. Disney's first black princess was a well-developed character with strong convictions, who makes a much better "role model" than many who have come before her. (Maybe you haven't seen enough Disney movies - It's what's inside that counts.)
Tiana spends part of the movie as a frog. Big-fucking-whoop. If she had been Disney's first Jewish princess, I'd have been thrilled to be represented by her, frog or no. No one has stepped on your foot. And before you even claim that someone has, maybe you should step out the door and see for yourself rather than imagining it.
Ouch. If I really offended you with that, I'm sorry (I assumed it was a fair move based on what others have done on the forum) but was it really that harsh?
[Disney] already took a number of precautions in avoiding the ugliest of racial issues that could have come up in this film...
[snip]
I imagine that it sorta went like this -
"We need to go back to our roots. Let's do a fairy tale. How about we do a spin on "The Frog Prince" fairy tale?" "Great! Let's adapt the book "The Frog Princess"!" "We could have it take place in 1920's America, that would be interesting. How about New Orleans? They've got bayous, good place for frogs." "If it's taking place in the American south, this could be an opportunity to have our first black Disney princess."
I agree on both points, and never asserted otherwise.
I assume from your manner of speak that you didn't see this movie yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) - and that's a really bad starting point for making statements like "disappointing" and "racially insensitive". Tiana's character is very firmly established early in the movie, from childhood to adulthood. We learn all about her and what kind of person she is while observing her as a human. Her big musical number is performed while she's a human. Her aspirations and her first major conflict are established while she is a human. By the time she's turned into a frog, we the audience are very plainly identifying this character as a human who's been transformed, and we do not lose sight of her humanity and begin to see her as only a frog. I'd estimate a good 20-30 minutes of the film feature Tiana as a human before the transformation.
That said, I don't understand this obsession with Tiana being a frog for part of the movie. Why is it that for her to be a fully pleasing black princess, she must physically be a black woman for the entirety of the film? Her appearance changes, but her personality doesn't. Her upbringing is not only glorified, but mentioned again and again even after she's become a frog. Tiana's personality is strong and admirable, and of all the characters in the film she was definitely the most "human". That is what matters, that is what audiences should be looking for and looking at. Disney's first black princess was a well-developed character with strong convictions, who makes a much better "role model" than many who have come before her. (Maybe you haven't seen enough Disney movies - It's what's inside that counts.)
Fair enough. My reaction of disappointment was from the claim that she wasn't human an overwhelming majority of the film, which would appear to be an exaggeration. The fact that I have not yet seen the film was why, in fact, I was being so reserved in my statements. Again, I was expressing disappointment. Not anger. Not outrage. Disappointment. Quit trying to make it look like I was more upset about the issue than I was or am. Not everyone is "obsessed" simply because they discuss racial issues beyond dismissing them as irrelevant.
I'd like to know why you appear to think it's such a terrible concept that someone might be concerned about how race is portrayed in a film with children as a major target demographic. You yourself took pains in those two paragraphs to stress how positive Tiana's portrayal is in the film, so I think it's safe to say you see the importance of how such things are presented.
Nine, don't get started on inappropriately harsh replies, unless you're going for the forum's grand hypocrisy award.
The fact that I have not yet seen the film
...was my biggest problem with you. That's an article you can side with or side against after you've seen the film. You were claiming to be disappointed over something you weren't even aware of.
I'd like to know why you appear to think it's such a terrible concept that someone might be concerned about how race is portrayed in a film with children as a major target demographic.
Terrible no, idiotic yes. It is nearly 2010, not 1940. To assume that any childrens movie would be made about a black character with either intentional racism or the disregarding of racial issues (without even seeing it) is idiotic. Disney refused to release a certain Ghibli movie because there was a discussion of the menstrual cycle in it. Disney goes to more trouble than any other moviemaker to avoid offending people.
Months before this movie came out, people were declaring it racist and forbidding their children to see it. People miss the point and overlook what could be a great movie to fuel their self-righteous paranoia. This is an animated movie. The fact that racism was even brought up at the sight of a black princess says something about those people. A good movie shouldn't suffer over such crap.
Also, being upset disappointed at the fact that Tiana turns into a frog is asking for inequality in representation. You want special treatment for her, because she is black. Disney instead decided to treat her as they have treated every other protagonist in their films - that is equality. You never answered my comparison. Kenai in Brother Bear not only spends about 90% of the movie as a bear, but chooses to remain as one forever. Disney had also never had a protagonist of his heritage before, as with Tiana. Was their some sort of outcry from the Inuit people or the people of the area from which his race was based? Wouldn't it have been agonizingly stupid if there was?
If I really offended you with that,
Oh yes. It took a few hours of wiping the running mascara from my face before I was able to see my screen and "take pains" to type the reply.
...was my biggest problem with you. That's an article you can side with or side againstafteryou've seen the film. You were claiming to be disappointed over something you weren't even aware of.
I mean, if Tiana actually spends that much of the film as a non-human, then that is pretty disappointing.
Relevant word highlighted. From what you've said, I'm glad to have my doubts assuaged, but I'm sorry, forming a conditional opinion on a film before you see it based on what you've heard is not a bad thing.
Terrible no, idiotic yes. It is nearly 2010, not 1940. To assume that any childrens movie would be made about a black character with either intentional racism or the disregarding of racial issues (without even seeing it) is idiotic.
Putting aside the debate over whether or not this particular film is insensitive: The former, perhaps. Definitely not the latter. People believe that we've already moved past racial issues due to the fact that "it's nearly 2010." As a result, racial issues that haven't been dealt with by now(or that come up fresh) are treated as either "solved" or nonissues, and dismissed (or worse, ridiculed).
Months before this movie came out, people were declaring it racist and forbidding their children to see it. People miss the point and overlook what could be a great movie to fuel their self-righteous paranoia. This is an animated movie. The fact that racism was even brought up at thesightof a black princess says something about those people. A good movie shouldn't suffer over such crap.
You're assuming racial issues were brought up just because the protagonist is African-American?
You never answered my comparison. Kenai in Brother Bear not only spends about 90% of the movie as a bear, but chooses to remain as one forever. Disney had also never had a protagonist of his heritage before, as with Tiana. Was their some sort of outcry from the Inuit people or the people of the area from which his race was based? Wouldn't it have been agonizingly stupid if there was?
I didn't give an answer to that one because you were already criticizing me on forming opinions of films I hadn't seen, so I figured I shouldn't compound it. Having said that, no, this doesn't disappoint me. I can only assume the genders of the two protagonists (and to a lesser extent, the racial make-up of the two settings) have something to do with the difference in personal reactions. Having said that, I wouldn't have decried anyone's reaction as "agonizingly stupid" had it been different from mine.
If I really offended you with that,
Oh yes. It took a few hours of wiping the running mascara from my face before I was able to see my screen and "take pains" to type the reply.
SoylentGreenIsPurple, anthropomorphised characters in film, particularly animated film, are often entirely human in behaviour and personality. Consequently, it seems foolish to me to consider having non-human shape as some kind of slight against the character. Why complain about a character spending most of his/her time in animal form when there's characters that spend all of their time in animal form in plenty of other media?
People believe that we've already moved past racial issues due to the fact that "it's nearly 2010." As a result, racial issues thathaven'tbeen dealt with by now(or that come up fresh) are treated as either "solved" or nonissues, and dismissed (or worse, ridiculed).
In this, I agree with you. We as a society like to think that we have made everything perfect and equal, and become completely color/gender blind, but this is obviously not the case. This reminds me of one argument my sister had with my mom after my mom had read a feminist critique of "A Christmas Story" on one of her favorite blogs. My sister was annoyed that the author of the article saw fit to nitpick all the sexism in a movie that we all essentially viewed as a good and enjoyable film, but my mom's response was that, while it did not diminish the movie for what it was, pointing out the sexist cliches taken for granted in our society and in our media makes us aware of them and allows us to change them. There is nothing inherently wrong in scrutinizing society for traces of these preexisting biases, but beware: many people become over-sensitized and see their hot button social issue as the be all end all reason for everything. It's kind of like how depending on a cinema studies professor's primary discipline they can come up with completely different analysis of different films. I remember one of my friends talking about how one of her professors was convinced that My Neighbor Totoro was an allegory for the tragedy of the atom bomb. He basically read way too much into the film, and this led him to assign his own studies in symbolism to the material, to create messages in the art that by all accounts did not exist. What I am saying is that while race and gender issues permeate every level American society and there needs to be dialogue in order to better the situation, to let that taint your enjoyment of all media is a shame. Sometimes a frog is just a frog, and while there may be echos of America's race obsession surrounding the film (from what it sounds like, it's more in the stuff that they don't bring up in the story than the stuff they do) it's mostly just a solid example of more of the same solid fairytale stuff from Disney.
Re: Dumbo. This is always the classic example I use when I talk about enjoying something despite it's downfalls, enjoying flawed media knowingly. The crows in Dumbo are indeed stereotypical characters, minstrel show-esque tramps whose portrayal is, by today's standards, kinda racist. On the other hand, the crows function within the story as a very positive influence, fellow outcasts who give Dumbo the confidence to fly and find his true nature. I feel like if one views the stereotypes in this movie as a product of the time in which they were produced, one is able to recognize that yes, the portrayals of the "black" crow characters in the film are outdated, they can still enjoy the movie as an animation great.
For some reason I felt like Tiana was more human than frog. As someone already stated, there was such an emphasis on her human form in the beginning of the movie, that I permanently thought of her as human for the rest of the movie. I actually felt that she was human for a larger portion of the movie, as in time on the screen. I didn't realize that Tiana's frog form literally took up more minutes on the screen until hearing other people complaining about it. I had just ignored this fact because I was so immersed in the story.
When thinking about the black princess dilemma, what kind of fairy tale would be "acceptable" for a black princess? Which fairy tale would be perfect enough to not include any racism or negativity towards black women? What if Cinderella was black? Nope, Cinderella was a slave and treated like scum, that's too racist. What about The Little Mermaid? Nope, Ariel was a stinky half-fish. Beauty and the Beast? Nope, can't have the black princess fall in love with a monster, implying she doesn't deserve to be with a normal human. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I'm just so tired of hearing people complain... As a side note: Has anyone thought about the fact that black women can now be a princess at the parks? (Or maybe only someone like me would think about this because I like getting pictures with the princesses >_>)
You know what, I have a race issue to complain about. Disney, where the fuck is my Hispanic Princess? The Spaniards have princesses, and I am sure that the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs had something like the concept of the Princess. Cover your bases Disney; the majority of the United States will soon be Hispanic in origin. Stop living in the past, racists.
You know what,Ihave a race issue to complain about. Disney, where the fuck is my Hispanic Princess? The Spaniards have princesses, and I am sure that the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs had something like the concept of the Princess. Cover your bases Disney; the majority of the United States will soon be Hispanic in origin. Stop living in the past, racists.
You already got Pocahontas, what else could you brown people possibly want?
Pocahontas was a Powhatan princess. We need some truly Hispanic girls to represent.
what else could you brown people possibly want?
Oh, I'm Disney's worst nightmare on this. All the heritage of a Latino/Spaniard, with all the fair skin of a German. Just try and write off this minority, Disney. Just try.
Pocahontas was a Powhatan princess. We need some truly Hispanic girls to represent.
I am with you. I thought the Emperor's new Groove was awesome but The hispanic population is growing rapidly. I am not sure who they would worked though. I mean most people on the USA know ever little about pre-columbian cultures to relate to them, and Disney needs to create a product for the masses. If you ask me, the princess has to be of a new generation. That is a princess that grew up in a city, or is moving from a small town to the big city. Now add some drama, good animation, good plot and some magic; and we might have something.
I am with you. I thought the Emperor's new Groove was awesome but The hispanic population is growing rapidly. I am not sure who they would worked though. I mean most people on the USA know ever little about pre-columbian cultures to relate to them, and Disney needs to create a product for the masses. If you ask me, the princess has to be of a new generation. That is a princess that grew up in a city, or is moving from a small town to the big city. Now add some drama, good animation, good plot and some magic; and we might have something.
I don't know that unfamiliarity is necessarily a problem; after all, how many people in the U.S. were familiar with the Ballad of Mulan before they made a film about it?
As an aside, I'm willing to admit that my concern about the transformation issue may have been misplaced in this instance. However, I stand by everything else I've said about the relevance of racial concerns, both in general and in regards to this film.
When thinking about the black princess dilemma, what kind of fairy tale would be "acceptable" for a black princess? Which fairy tale would be perfect enough to not include any racism or negativity towards black women? What if Cinderella was black? Nope, Cinderella was a slave and treated like scum, that's too racist. What about The Little Mermaid? Nope, Ariel was a stinky half-fish. Beauty and the Beast? Nope, can't have the black princess fall in love with a monster, implying she doesn't deserve to be with a normal human. I could go on, but you get the idea.
While I see your point, "Cinderella" would only be racist if the rest of the family was Caucasian, and the other two examples are a facetious as you intended them to be. Yes, the world being what it is, you'll probably get someone complaining about what you've done in a film regardless of what it is, but at the same time that's no reason to ignore any such concerns out of hand.
As a side note: Has anyone thought about the fact that black women can now be a princess at the parks?
Thinking about this is part of the reason I'm now conceding the frog thing: Regardless of what actually happens in the film, Disney's marketing is going to treat her as human as anyone else they've designated an official "Disney Princess." For good or ill, that's probably going to have a more lasting impact on how the character is perceived than the film itself
Soylent - you are being oversensitive. I'm a member of a minority too. Being a Jew isn't as visually obvious as being black, but hell yes do we count. We have a (half) black president now. When will the American people ever elect a Jewish president? Along with Walt himself having been an anti-semite, a protagonist of Jewish heritage would be bad for marketing, especially around Christmas when their movies usually debut (though the whole implied Muslim thing didn't really stop them from doing a couple Christmas things with Aladdin, but I digress). I don't hope to see a Jewish prince or princess or whatever in a Disney movie anytime soon. BUT if I did, and if she were similar to Tiana and turned into an iguana or coati or a whatever for as long as Tiana had been in her film, I don't think I'd be even mildly offended, upset, or even disappointed. This film was anything but disappointing, and if it were my people represented I'd have been very happy.
So wasDumbo.
1941, end of story. I'm talking about now, and you can't tell me there's been no progress since that.
Are you kidding? First of all, I'm talking about Disney films, fuck the chipmunks. I already mentioned Disney specifically and the way they approach potentially offending people. Please see Lilo and Stitch for how Hawaiian people are handled in a Disney movie. Second, that movie was around when I was a child. If that's the only thing you could come up with for modern racism in animated films, you make a lousy argument.
You're assuming racial issues were brought upjustbecause the protagonist is African-American?
Yes. Replace Tiana with a white girl, change none of her lines and nothing that happens to her - goodbye controversy.
Thinking about this is part of the reason I'm now conceding the frog thing: Regardless of what actually happens in the film, Disney'smarketingis going to treat her as human as anyone else they've designated an official "Disney Princess." For good or ill, that's probably going to have a more lasting impact on how the character is perceived than the film itself
Again, see the movie first.
And really, you think that this is incivility? Seriously?
I don't know that unfamiliarity is necessarily a problem; after all, how many people in the U.S. were familiar with theBallad of Mulanbefore they made a film about it?
The number of people who are familiar with the Ballad of Mulan in the U.S did not significantly increase after the movie "Mulan" came out, because at best, the two share a vague concept and a name or three. Unless, I'm recalling the wrong movie, And Mulan, instead of getting the cute soldier boy and singing a song, became a general, and following the war, was appointed as a minister, and then when the emperor found out that she was a woman, and forced her to become his concubine, she kills herself.
Nine, don't get started on inappropriately harsh replies, unless you're going for the forum's grand hypocrisy award.
Started? Hypocrisy? Lolwutsun. I started nothing, and there is no hypocrisy in giving my opinion as answer to a question that asks for opinions about the harshness of a joke. You just blow up because you got quoted. Now, I think why this is. You're just hungry. Go ask Churba to make you something to eat, for I'm sure he has a bag of cement lying about somewhere.
If that's the only thing you could come up with for modern racism in animated films, you make a lousy argument.
Your comment on the fact that it was animated implied a dismissal of the idea that issues of race could even apply to it as a result of it being animated. My argument was simply to show that animation was not immune to such issues; modernity never entered into it.
Regardless, why should I have to show racial insensitivity in another modern animated film if the discussion is on whether or not this film is insensitive? If no other animated films released in recent years were good films, would that mean this film couldn't be good either?
You're assuming racial issues were brought upjustbecause the protagonist is African-American?
Yes. Replace Tiana with a white girl, change none of her lines and nothing that happens to her - goodbye controversy.
So then the lines and plot themselves couldn't have had any part in it? You believe controversy would have come up regardless of what the plot had been, for no other reason than the protagonist is African-American?
And really, you think that this is incivility? Seriously?
I wasn't aware words like "douchebag" were in keeping with a civil tone, no.
EDIT:
I don't know that unfamiliarity is necessarily a problem; after all, how many people in the U.S. were familiar with theBallad of Mulanbefore they made a film about it?
The number of people who are familiar with the Ballad of Mulan in the U.S did not significantly increase after the movie "Mulan" came out, because at best, the two share a vague concept and a name or three. Unless, I'm recalling the wrong movie, And Mulan, instead of getting the cute soldier boy and singing a song, became a general, and following the war, was appointed as a minister, and then when the emperor found out that she was a woman, and forced her to become his concubine, she kills herself.
Oh yeah, I mean Disney does that sort of thing with all the stories they adapt (Hercules being by far the worst offender), I just meant that they didn't let the fact that no one in the U.S. was really aware of the original story get in the way of adapting it in the first place. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they'd have no problem selling a film based on a story from any pre-Columbian culture (or any other, really).
Comments
And every Inuit/native of the Pacific Northwest should be flat out insulted that one of their own spent nearly an entire Disney movie as a bear. Obviously, Disney is too afraid to depict an actual Pacific Northwest hero and thinks that all of those people are nasty fat bears. That too was disappointing.
Let's not forget every blonde-haired blue-eyed white guy. Their first prince only got to spend a few seconds as a human and not a big tall scary animal man. Or how about French people in general? They were FURNITURE and didn't have more than 2 lines as humans! Disney thinks that all French people are hairy animal furniture people who suck.
Where will this disappointing racial travesty reach an end? As we are not true and decent Americans without being/interpreting everything as obsessed with racial issues, surely Disney could not possibly be trying to tell a STORY in which a transformation takes place, and the hero or heroine just happens to be whatever appearance best suits the story's setting? It's much more feasible that Disney goes out of their way to enrage the black community by symbolically turning them into frogs for 60% of a children's movie about a couple that changes into frogs, am I right?
And don't get me started on the invisible Jews in Pocahontas...
^
And I saw Princess and The Frog on Saturday, so I'm singing the praises of the movie. It was a return to Disney greatness, but the movie had a great sense of practicality to it as well. The whole issue about a Princess actually kissing a frog, the value of HARD WORK (ZOMG), and the moral diversity of the characters. Some people were surprisingly good and others were surprisingly evil.
On a side point, why would it matter if Disney intended to offend anyone anyways? This is what frustrates me about so many people's approach to racial insensitivity (or any other kind; I'm extrapolating from homophobia here): The belief that it can't be racially insensitive if it wasn't intended to be racially insensitive. If someone accidentally steps on my foot, regardless of whether or not the act was intentional, my foot still hurts. Knowing the person didn't consciously set out to step on my foot doesn't make it hurt any less, nor does the assertion that I shouldn't let it bother me so much. FTFY.
Again, I thought the article itself overanalyzed the film, but there were a few fair points here and there. There's a difference between not going overboard on considering racial issues and refusing to even consider them to begin with.
Did you consider that maybe Disney made the decision to write this story without having it revolve around or obsess over the racial image it might cast? They already took a number of precautions in avoiding the ugliest of racial issues that could have come up in this film - segregation is shown at a minimum, Tiana's best friend is white, friction between blacks and whites isn't present, etc. Those are the real issues they want to avoid. Not only would they severely detract from the film, but they would be lambasted by critics for including racism and Jim Crowe in a childrens movie and invite a wave of distracting controversy.
I imagine that it sorta went like this -
"We need to go back to our roots. Let's do a fairy tale. How about we do a spin on "The Frog Prince" fairy tale?"
"Great! Let's adapt the book "The Frog Princess"!"
"We could have it take place in 1920's America, that would be interesting. How about New Orleans? They've got bayous, good place for frogs."
"If it's taking place in the American south, this could be an opportunity to have our first black Disney princess."
Good writers think about story first, and America's hurt feelings later. As it happened, this story involved a woman who turns into a frog. As it happened, it suited the story to have her be African American. It would be stupid for them to alter elements that important to avoid "disappointing" people who will go and make such statements without even seeing the movie. Do you know how many changes they already made so as not to offend anyone? Tiana's name was changed, her occupation was changed, the title of the MOVIE was changed from "The Frog Princess", because this is a new racial slur invented last week.
I assume from your manner of speak that you didn't see this movie yet (and correct me if I'm wrong) - and that's a really bad starting point for making statements like "disappointing" and "racially insensitive". Tiana's character is very firmly established early in the movie, from childhood to adulthood. We learn all about her and what kind of person she is while observing her as a human. Her big musical number is performed while she's a human. Her aspirations and her first major conflict are established while she is a human. By the time she's turned into a frog, we the audience are very plainly identifying this character as a human who's been transformed, and we do not lose sight of her humanity and begin to see her as only a frog. I'd estimate a good 20-30 minutes of the film feature Tiana as a human before the transformation.
That said, I don't understand this obsession with Tiana being a frog for part of the movie. Why is it that for her to be a fully pleasing black princess, she must physically be a black woman for the entirety of the film? Her appearance changes, but her personality doesn't. Her upbringing is not only glorified, but mentioned again and again even after she's become a frog. Tiana's personality is strong and admirable, and of all the characters in the film she was definitely the most "human". That is what matters, that is what audiences should be looking for and looking at. Disney's first black princess was a well-developed character with strong convictions, who makes a much better "role model" than many who have come before her. (Maybe you haven't seen enough Disney movies - It's what's inside that counts.)
Tiana spends part of the movie as a frog. Big-fucking-whoop. If she had been Disney's first Jewish princess, I'd have been thrilled to be represented by her, frog or no. No one has stepped on your foot. And before you even claim that someone has, maybe you should step out the door and see for yourself rather than imagining it.
I'd like to know why you appear to think it's such a terrible concept that someone might be concerned about how race is portrayed in a film with children as a major target demographic. You yourself took pains in those two paragraphs to stress how positive Tiana's portrayal is in the film, so I think it's safe to say you see the importance of how such things are presented.
Months before this movie came out, people were declaring it racist and forbidding their children to see it. People miss the point and overlook what could be a great movie to fuel their self-righteous paranoia. This is an animated movie. The fact that racism was even brought up at the sight of a black princess says something about those people. A good movie shouldn't suffer over such crap.
Also, being upset disappointed at the fact that Tiana turns into a frog is asking for inequality in representation. You want special treatment for her, because she is black. Disney instead decided to treat her as they have treated every other protagonist in their films - that is equality. You never answered my comparison. Kenai in Brother Bear not only spends about 90% of the movie as a bear, but chooses to remain as one forever. Disney had also never had a protagonist of his heritage before, as with Tiana. Was their some sort of outcry from the Inuit people or the people of the area from which his race was based? Wouldn't it have been agonizingly stupid if there was? Oh yes. It took a few hours of wiping the running mascara from my face before I was able to see my screen and "take pains" to type the reply.
Also, so what if it's an animated film? So was Dumbo. Dumbo was a good film. But you can't tell me the crows weren't even mildly racist. Or if you'd prefer I cite a more recent film, here's The Chipmunk Adventure. What's so special about an animated film that it should be considered automatically beyond such concerns? I didn't give an answer to that one because you were already criticizing me on forming opinions of films I hadn't seen, so I figured I shouldn't compound it. Having said that, no, this doesn't disappoint me. I can only assume the genders of the two protagonists (and to a lesser extent, the racial make-up of the two settings) have something to do with the difference in personal reactions. Having said that, I wouldn't have decried anyone's reaction as "agonizingly stupid" had it been different from mine. You know, I'm at least trying to keep this civil.
Re: Dumbo. This is always the classic example I use when I talk about enjoying something despite it's downfalls, enjoying flawed media knowingly. The crows in Dumbo are indeed stereotypical characters, minstrel show-esque tramps whose portrayal is, by today's standards, kinda racist. On the other hand, the crows function within the story as a very positive influence, fellow outcasts who give Dumbo the confidence to fly and find his true nature. I feel like if one views the stereotypes in this movie as a product of the time in which they were produced, one is able to recognize that yes, the portrayals of the "black" crow characters in the film are outdated, they can still enjoy the movie as an animation great.
When thinking about the black princess dilemma, what kind of fairy tale would be "acceptable" for a black princess? Which fairy tale would be perfect enough to not include any racism or negativity towards black women? What if Cinderella was black? Nope, Cinderella was a slave and treated like scum, that's too racist. What about The Little Mermaid? Nope, Ariel was a stinky half-fish. Beauty and the Beast? Nope, can't have the black princess fall in love with a monster, implying she doesn't deserve to be with a normal human. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I'm just so tired of hearing people complain... As a side note: Has anyone thought about the fact that black women can now be a princess at the parks? (Or maybe only someone like me would think about this because I like getting pictures with the princesses >_>)
I was originally just poking some fun, but I do sort of wish they'd do it.
As an aside, I'm willing to admit that my concern about the transformation issue may have been misplaced in this instance. However, I stand by everything else I've said about the relevance of racial concerns, both in general and in regards to this film. While I see your point, "Cinderella" would only be racist if the rest of the family was Caucasian, and the other two examples are a facetious as you intended them to be. Yes, the world being what it is, you'll probably get someone complaining about what you've done in a film regardless of what it is, but at the same time that's no reason to ignore any such concerns out of hand. Thinking about this is part of the reason I'm now conceding the frog thing: Regardless of what actually happens in the film, Disney's marketing is going to treat her as human as anyone else they've designated an official "Disney Princess." For good or ill, that's probably going to have a more lasting impact on how the character is perceived than the film itself
And really, you think that this is incivility? Seriously?
Regardless, why should I have to show racial insensitivity in another modern animated film if the discussion is on whether or not this film is insensitive? If no other animated films released in recent years were good films, would that mean this film couldn't be good either? So then the lines and plot themselves couldn't have had any part in it? You believe controversy would have come up regardless of what the plot had been, for no other reason than the protagonist is African-American? I wasn't aware words like "douchebag" were in keeping with a civil tone, no.
EDIT:Oh yeah, I mean Disney does that sort of thing with all the stories they adapt (Hercules being by far the worst offender), I just meant that they didn't let the fact that no one in the U.S. was really aware of the original story get in the way of adapting it in the first place. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they'd have no problem selling a film based on a story from any pre-Columbian culture (or any other, really).