Princess and the Frog Reading Response

In the novel Diversity in Disney Films: Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability, the chapter called “Blackness, Bayous and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World” written by Sarah E. Turner explores the ways in which "Disney and its audiences negotiate the complexities inherent within the readings of [The Princess and the Frog] by drawing, in part, upon the theories of encoding and decoding as articulated by Stuart Hall in his seminal 1973 study" (83). When I first watched the film The Princess and the Frog, I never put much thought into whether I felt like it was conveying a racist message or not. I obviously realized the fact that Tiana, the princess, was the first black Disney Princess, but I did not believe there was any ulterior motive or reasoning behind this decision. I think because I watched it a long time ago I did not remember many of the details of the plot until I re-watched it for class. After reading Turner’s essay, she also helped jog my memory because she pointed out aspects of the film that I still did not pick up on after watching it. When I watch movies I guess I don’t really put much thought into and instead get carried away in the plot and the characters. I never think to analyze below the surface, but this essay does, and manages to make some solid points. I think the reason behind much of the controversial response to the film was fact that Tiana was not only Disney’s first black princess, but she was also the first princess whose life started in poverty. In comparison to the other Disney princess films, the princesses are born into royalty and grow up living in extravagant palaces. Tiana had to work hard to get the life she wanted to have. I think this was a mistake on Disney’s part to make Tiana this first black princess and also the first princess to start her life living in poverty. This can serve as proof that this film is racist since she is black and she is poor. It would have made a huge difference if Tiana was born into royalty like the rest of the princesses. Another aspect of the film that I think can support the claim that the film is racist is the face that the majority of the time in the movie, Tiana is a frog. Turner states in her essay that “human Tiana is only on the screen for the first twenty-nine minutes; frog Tiana takes up the next fifty-nine minutes, leaving only the final three and a half minutes for Tiana and Naveen to reappear in human form” (90). I did not even realize this while watching the film, but I cannot believe that it is true. These two points made by Turner helped convince me that there is a slight chance the Disney film The Princess and the Frog is in fact racist. A small part of me though still thinks that Disney did not mean anything of it and was just trying to create another one of their brilliant children’s movies.

Disney & Puppies

I don't know a better way to cheer yourself up and forget about coming back to school for finals week than watching this video from Buzzfeed. 

Puppies + Disney = Instant mood change

Here's the link!  

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maycie/here-are-a-bunch-of-puppies-dressed-up-like-disney-character

Home Is Where the Heart Is: Pixar's Up Response

Pixar’s Up has been and always will be one of my favorite Disney films. I just cannot get enough of Russell and his cute little lisp. I also can’t get over how much Carl resembles one of the history teacher’s from my high school named Mr. Nappo. They are literally the same person in every way possible (looks wise and personality!). In Dennis Tylers, "Home Is Where the Heart Is: Pixar's Up", I thought he brought up two very interesting points about the film that I never paid close attention to before reading his article.  

 The first point of Tyler's that I found interesting was the idea of a gender role reversal in the film. In the beginning of the movie, when Carl and Ellie first meet when they are kids, Ellie is the more adventurous and brave one while Carl is the more passive one who likes to sit back and watch. This becomes obvious again when later in the movie they are getting married and Ellie grabs Carl aggressively to kiss him to make it official, leaving Carl a little blushed and embarrassed on the alter. These character traits remain consistent throughout the montage of their life together. Ellie is always the one willing to take risks and be proactive and Carl sort of follows along in her footsteps. This is definitely not typical of Disney films, as we know. Usually, the male characters take on the traits that Ellie portrays and the female characters (usually princesses) are much more like Carl. This is one of the aspects of Up that I really like. I love the fact that Ellie is the crazy daring character. It's refreshing for a change to have the woman take on that kind of role in a Disney film. I also think it’s incredibly cute how Carl follows her around like a puppy dog, doing what ever he can to make her smile. I feel like most of the time it is usually the girls trying to please the husbands.

            The second point of Tyler’s that I found interesting was his point about the normal lifestyle Carl and Ellie live. The families in Disney films are either members of the extreme upper class and live in palaces with servants, or in the extreme lower class and live in the streets scourging for their next meal. In Pixar’s Up, Carl and Ellie are the “depiction of normalcy – a white middle income couple” (Tyler 273).  They both work at the zoo and make moderate incomes. Neither Carl nor Ellie are heirs to thrones and have the responsibility of ruling a country looming in the backs of their minds. They live normal lives that many of us can compare to our reality. Russell also comes from a realistic family background that many kids can relate to. His parents are divorced, his dad has a girlfriend, and he spends his days trying to impress his dad and get his attention by being the best wilderness explorer he could be. I think a lot of kids with divorced parents go through this stage at some point, trying to gain the approval of a parent.
            For these reasons I think Up serves as one of Disney’s most relatable movies that has been made thus far.

Boston Bruins & Frozen

http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/10/27/boston-bruins-hospital-visit-frozen-costumes-dougie-hamilton

I thought this was pretty awesome. I love to see stuff like this especially involving anything Disney. Kudos to the Boston Bruins! 

Another Facebook Find...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/melissaharrison/under-the-sea-wedding

Disney Villain Music Video

I found this Disney Villain inspired music video link on Facebook today! Disney and One Republic is a fabulous combo! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqrBsMFRaLA

Lion King Reading Response

            After reading the articles about The Lion King this week in class and listening to the discussion I have come to realize many interesting observations about the film that I had previously failed to notice. Sweeny's article included "dilemmas" that she believed the film possessed. The idea that Timon and Pumbaa were Disney’s first homosexual couple never crossed my mind until after reading Sweeny’s “ “What Do You Want Me to Do? Dress in Drag and Do the Hula?” Timon and Pumbaa’s Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma in the Lion King”. I always thought they were just best friends who did everything together. Some of Sweeny’s arguments were rather convincing. For example, the fact that they raised Simba together essentially as there own child is something that I did not really think much of until I recently re-watched the movie. I also did not notice that they lived on their own private oasis away from the rest of their own species or any other animals for that matter. Sweeny made the argument that this was because they were banished from their specie families and casted as outsiders. In her article, Sweeny referred to Timon and Pumbaa as “theatre queens” and claimed that just because the actors that provided the characters’ voices were gay, this automatically means that they are gay themselves. I think that this argument in particular was one of her weakest in the article.

I think at some points people can over analyze Disney films when in reality they are just simply meant to entertain little kids. When I was little I most definitely did not think that Timon and Pumpaa were dating. And I think that goes for every other little kid that watches The Lion King. I disagree with Sweeny’s argument claiming that Disney characters have sexuality. In my opinion I believe that Disney characters aren’t meant to have sexuality because that can just complicate things. I think a lot of the articles we have read in class so far this year have been written by authors who over investigate these Disney films and create arguments and critiques that are not actually there. I understand that in some cases there are underlying meanings to certain aspects of the movies and specific agendas created by Disney but in my opinion that idea that Timon and Pumbaa are a homosexual with one another is not valid. I do not think when creating The Lion King this was Disney intention. I think this is a prime example of an author over analyzing a subject and forming an argument out of nothing.