Fifteen or so years ago, when I was but a wee budding feminist, my favorite movie was Beauty and the Beast. You wanna know why? Because Belle read books. I read books! She had a hobby outside of just…sitting around and being pretty and passive! She was (as is implied whenever a woman reads books) intellectual. And not only that, she wanted MORE! She wanted to break free from the bounds that tied her to that little French town, where the baker goes by with his tray, like always. Same old bread and rolls to sell. She rejected the chauvinist Gaston (who, as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve harbored intense hatred for since childhood) because she had greater dreams and they didn’t involve being turned into a miserable housewife and knocked up a zillion times by some jerk. I strongly believe that I held on HARD to all these things that Belle represented.
In the first part of the movie, of course. Her happily ever after still comes in the form of a marriage to a man. That is her ‘freedom’. I didn’t become disappointed by this until I got older; when I was a child, the bulk of the narrative before the ending said more to me than the five minute ending with their marriage. This Disney movie, with a very vaguely pseudo-feminist protagonist came out twenty years ago. Looking at it in terms of the Disney Princess canon, Belle is definitely a breath of fresh air; the princess before her is the much-reviled (by me anyway) Ariel of The Little Mermaid, who is another character that I’ve had deep resentment for since childhood. Ariel, other than being in the movie responsible for rekindling popularity for the princess narrative (the last princess movie was Sleeping Beauty in 1959 [which failed to make a large profit]), gives up her voice. For legs. And a vagina. So that she can be with some guy she doesn’t know. Yeah, fuck that movie.
But as far as Belle and her story being feminist? Well, this is something that Disney has been struggling with for awhile. In their attempt to not draw ire from feminists (and attempt to draw in a larger audience), they’ve been attempting to create the ideal female protagonist: pretty, smart, independent and self-reliant…but still confined by the boundaries of the Disney Princess status quo. Which means still available for marriage, still ready to take up that marriage (on basis of ‘true love’) no matter what, still ready to be rescued when her own self-reliance fails.
Now, let’s skip ahead four years to Pocahontas (Jasmine is considered a Disney Princess and there is a princess story structure within Aladdin but that movie is not itself an outright ‘princess movie’). Pocahontas is another discontented female who wants more out of life; she goes where the wind guides her, defies a marriage proposal from the ‘serious’ (read: BORING) 
warrior Kocoum, and can climb trees and jump off cliffs and shit. Pocahontas is a interesting case: there is no marriage but there is happiness found in a (white) man. She is not a princess (by any REAL standard of royalty; Disney has their own system to figure out who is and isn’t a princess) at any point in the movie, unlike the other princesses who either start out as princesses and marry down (Jasmine, Ariel) or start out as commoners and marry up (Belle, Cinderella). And others just are royalty and marry other royalty (Aurora, Snow White). Pocahontas’s father is the chief, however, and that (somehow) makes her a princess and, as Andreas and I discussed at length the other night, her narrative fits the princess structure. As awkward a duck as Pocahontas appears to be she still fits nicely into the niche, even if her love sails away.
Skip ahead again, to 1998 (I would discuss Esmeralda but D
isney does not consider her a Disney Princess). Disney was gonna do it. They were gonna make the female protagonist to end all female protagonists. Mulan. And you know what, they got close(r than they ever had before). Setting aside for a moment that Disney doesn’t know how to represent other cultures and countries other than overemphasizing what they think that culture is all about i.e. stereotypes about that culture and/or country (hell, they can’t even get things right within their own damn country; tidal Virginia does not have mountains and cliffs), Mulan actually had some conscious effort put into its protagonist. I haven’t watched the movie in quite awhile but I watched it a lot when it first came out because, much like with Belle, I related more to Mulan than I did ny other Disney Princess. And I think that they handled the subject of cross dressing very well and it’s actually a pretty good attempt at having a woman who is flawed yet strong, clumsy but (eventually) quite able. All in all a relatively well-rounded character. But that’s not to say that Mulan doesn’t have it’s own princess-story narrative touches (and confines); the movie basically starts out with her failing to be peddled off to a husband and ‘bringing shame upon her family’ (that’s what Chinese people are all about right? Honor and stuff?). Marriage fail=inept woman. But she makes up for it by putting on some man-dukes. And quite honestly, the scenes with Mulan interacting with the men are very funny and (very gently) confront ridiculous stereotypes about men (“You know how it is when you get those MANLY URGES! And you just gotta kill something!”)
In retrospect, I think I respond to this movie more because of how it handles gender than anything else. The entire story centers around gender-fuckery and Disney, surpr
isingly, doesn’t shy away from it. And while it’s not gender-fuckery for sexual reasons there is implicit sexuality within the film; Mulan has the hots for Captain Li Shang who is every bit a ‘man’ and it’s ever so vaguely implied that he has a (totes hetero, amirite?) interest in her as well. And with the musical number I’ll Make a Man Out of You (which, seriously, is one of the best Disney songs ever), despite all the men’s complete physical ineptitude, Li tells Mulan directly to her face, “Mister, I’ll make a man out of you.” Which has so many connotations to it that I could probably devote an entire post to it: the film saying to it’s female protagonist “Well, you sucked as a woman, so you better man it up and prove yourself”, the sexual deflowering associated with ‘becoming a man’, the reiteration of masculine nomenclature, etc. That one little lyric. And there’s more! The entire song is steeped in purposeful irony. “Did they send me daughters/when I asked for sons?” Yes! Yes, she’s totally a chick! And she’s gonna become the best man in your entire rank!
Ahhh, the gender play makes me giddy. However. It is by no means perfect, the most glaring example being the way it ends. Mulan has finally achieved the respect (as a woman) that she deserves and not through marriage; no one saves her, she’s completely self-reliant and takes down the Big Bad. The Emperor offers her a position as second consul of his cabinet (which, let’s face it, in 15th century China [or thereabouts; it isn't 100% clear when this movie takes place] just does not happen. Period) and she REJECTS IT.
It’s a very disappointing ending. For all the supposed empowerment and respect Mulan has garnered, both in the guise of a man and as her true self, a woman, she rejects it for a life of domesticity that it was already shown she probably wasn’t cut out for/wouldn’t be happy with.
But for all its flaws Mulan was a definite step forward. It speaks to every girl or woman who has ever done something that is thought of as traditionally male. And I definitely respect the fact that, since it’s a Disney movie, a generation of young girls were exposed to something that broke the boundaries of traditional gender roles, maybe for the first time ever. And that brings me to the main reason I started this entire blog.
The Princess and the Frog.
Mulan was the last Disney Princess for a long time, over ten years. The Princess and the Frog started making a stir when it was announced that Tiana would be the first African American Disney Princess. This worried me because I am familiar with how Disney portrays anything outside their comfort zone (of European folk/fairy tales); I was afraid that this was going to be “Tribal Girl: The Movie!” or, possibly worse, “Sassy Black Girl: The Movie!” I’d heard a little about it here and there after it came out, heard that it was actually good! So I got around to watching it the other night. And I was more than disappointed.
Now, let me just get this out of the way: this is not a bad movie. It’s a fine movie, an exceptional movie even and beautifully animated (I love a good ol’-fashioned animated film); there is a gorgeous Art Shift during Tiana’s I Want song (or rather, her Nearly Got It song) that just had me tickled. It’s probably Disney’s finest animated film since…well, Mulan. It may even surpass that film in terms of visuals; I’m not sure, I’d have to watch them both again because they’re both stylistically beautiful.
But I’m analyzing specifically within the Disney Princess canon and, even more specifically, in terms of the progression of the female protagonist from a feminist viewpoint. Let’s go over Tiana’s character and story, shall we? (Spoilers ahead)
Tiana is presented as a sensible, hardworking young woman in 1920′s New Orleans. Her father, who was later killed in WWI (which is very subtly shown through visuals alone), instilled in her a strong work ethic, 
telling her that you can’t just wish upon a star and make your dreams come true. You have to work for it; if you work for it, you can achieve anything. Tiana works two waitressing jobs to save up money so she can realize her (and her late father’s) dream of owning her own restaurant. Her friends say that she needs to “live a little” and “not work so hard”; even her mother tells her that she wants Tiana to find happiness (in true love, because that’s the only way to find true happiness, fuck having your own success). But Tiana is determined and resists all the objections. I had hope for this movie. It was taking jabs at the former Disney Princess tropes, it was making fun of the confines the other princesses were bound by! Tiana’s best friend, a white, spoiled, 
vapid ditz named Charlotte is an extreme caricature of former Disney Princesses; she is loud, stereotypically girly, wants to marry a prince and believes very strongly in the power of wishing on stars. She is a manifestation of the ‘passivity being rewarded’ trope (of which the best example is Cinderella; did she ever do anything to try to change her situation? No, she just waited around for a fairy godmother and ultimately a prince to come save her). And this character is done so well, it’s so amusingly spot on.
And the prince is also a subversion of what we’re used to. Most of the princes are bland, empty, generically good-looking men who exist only to save the princess from…whatever. Prince Naveen is laid-back, enjoys mingling with commoners and, in what I found a refreshing character trait for a Disney prince, completely cut off from funds from his parents. Later on in the movie, during an argument between Naveen and Tiana (because they have a bicker-bicker-sort of kiss-awkward moment-bicker-relationship to start) they both say things that completely undercut what the typical prince and princess story is all about:
Tiana: I’m not a princess, I’m a waitress!
Naveen: I don’t have any riches! I am completely broke!
All this had me very excited about this movie; not only was it turning the 
idea of the Disney princess on its head, it was distorting all the typical characters in very satirical, hilarious ways. Even the way the two’s relationship starts out; Tiana agrees to kiss him (he is a frog at this point and wants desperately to be turned back; he thinks that Tiana is a princess [because she's in a glittery gown that looks very, very much like Cinderella's] only to get enough money for her restaurant!
But then…
When things start to not work out for Tiana, in a moment of hopeless, almost silly desperation, she closes her eyes and wishes on a star. From that moment on, magical shit starts happening. And then the movie morphs into a fully-fledged magical animal adventure. And then our main characters, despite the fact that they are frogs, get two-TWO-animal sidekicks. And then I just got continually more frustrated. The music, the visuals, the villain, all were great. But I was deflated. The narrative was turning into the same old princess story. The same tropes that had been made fun of earlier were now being used straight forward. For example: Charlotte has only known (who she thinks to be) Prince Naveen (spoiler: it’s not really him) for a few days before he proposes to her and she says yes. They show, through Charlotte’s hyper-active, shallow demeanor, how ridiculous an unrealistically short courtship like that is. But later, near the end of the movie, despite the fact that Tiana has only known Naveen for a few days, they’re ‘in love’ and ‘her dream wouldn’t be complete without him’.
Throughout the movie, what starts as just a mild opposition to Tiana’s defiance towards urgings for her to search for love (and implicitly her defiance of the status quo of an always ready to be in love female protagonist) turns into outright disappointment. The song “Dig a Little Deeper”, sung by Mama Odie (the movie’s blind Voodoo priest of a fairy godmother), encourages Naveen and Tiana to look deeper inside themselves to find out what they need not just what they want. At the end of the song, Mama Odie 
asks Tiana if she understands now what she needs; Tia’s response, “Yes! I need to work hard to realize my dream of owning my own restaurant!” draws audible moans of disappointment from the other characters! The entire mood shifts and it’s made clear that Tiana, at this point in the film, is supposed to be viewed as completely naive and unaware of what she NEEDS. Because, you know, it’s totally fucking stupid to have a dream otherthan finding a man. That won’t make you happy. Truly happy. Single women can’t be happy no matter how much personal success they have.
And so the movie continued on to an ending that physically pained me. They miss the Cinderella rule of Naveen having to be kissed by a princess to be turned back (by some…ridiculous Disney rule, Charlotte was a princess for ONE DAY because her very rich father [who was perfectly voiced by John Goodman, btw] was the Mardi Gras…king or something; as I said, Disney has its own system for figuring how someone is a princess. In this case it was a matter of convenience) and decide, fuck it, we can be happy as frogs. And then during their cute little frog wedding, the moment they kiss makes Tiana a princess (cause she married a prince) so they…turn back into humans. So. Yeah. And then, of course, because he married, he has access to all his riches and they go and get her restaurant (an interesting note about that; Andreas and I discussed how it’s just a tiny bit ambiguous whether or not it’s actually Naveen’s money enabling her to go outbid and win the sugar mill or if it’s because they have a threatening alligator. I am firmly of the opinion that it doesn’t really matter either way: she still didn’t [and as far as the movie is concerned couldn't] achieve her dream without being attached to man) and they live happily fucking ever after.
After I watched the movie, I talked to Andreas about it and he said I seemed really angry, more angry than he would have expected seeing as it was a Disney movie. And I was, I was seething. And here’s the reason why: this movie, while a good movie overall, is stagnant in terms of how it treats its female protagonist. Yeah, she has ambitions in the beginning that have nothing to do with a man: so what? Belle did too and that was twenty years ago. They both ended up married off to princes. I’m angry because it is the year 20-fucking-10 and we’re being fed the same fucking bullshit. It’s the year 2010 and Disney has JUST NOW gotten around to have a black Princess! And as far as the racial politics in this film go, that is also a fail. Where Disney could have made some kind of interesting commentary on race relations in 1920′s America they remained infuriatingly silent. Whereas Mulan took on the bending of genders head on, Princess and the Frog avoids the topic of race so much that it’s a complete non-issue. There is one single instance of racial conflict: when the two white men come to tell Tia that she’s been outbid for the sugar mill she wants to convert into a restaurant they say to her, “A little woman of your…background wouldn’t be able to handle a restaurant anyway.” I mean, how significant is it that she’s black when she’s a fucking 
frog for most of the movie! This is another example of Disney existing in its own little world that is completely disconnected from history-oh yes, race relations in the 1920′s were totally good and there was no racism or anything like that! White people and black people were friends all the time and it’s totally believable that the richest, most powerful white man in the entire town would frequent a black-run restaurant!
That is so disconnected from reality that it takes a a very powerful suspension of disbelief to swallow. However, thinking about it, it goes quite nicely with the widespread belief that NOT talking about race is equal to racism not existing. And bringing up race in any way makes you racist.
I’m angry about this movie because it presents us with nothing challenging, doesn’t give a fresh new perspective on Disney Princesses nor give insight or any real thought as to what it may have been like to be young and black and a woman in 1920′s America. That’s what the movie could have been. And somewhere in the back of my head, I knew that there was no other way for the film to end up. And they set the film up in such a promising way, with such a commendably diverse cast of characters and ideas, that I didn’t WANT the magical shit to start happening; I just wanted to keep watching Tiana work towards her dream. That is the movie I wanted to see. But that’s not what this movie is; it’s all the Disney Princess movies you’ve seen before wrapped up in different paper. The moment that Tiana dons that Cinderella dress is incredibly significant: it’s the moment she disregards everything she believes in, closes her eyes, wishes on that start and the movies transforms into the same old thing.
So why do I even bother? Why am I discussing this movie, why have I spent so much time writing this ridiculously long blog? Because this is Disney. This is what little girls all over the world are watching. The first movie I ever remember watching and knowing by heart is Beauty and the Beast. And you know, I can give some credit there; Tiana is similar to Belle and I took a lot of very important ideas and values away from Belle despite the way her story ended. But I am not every little girl. This is going to be the first movie some little girl somewhere in the world remembers as her favorite. And somewhere, some little girl is going to remember that Tiana wasn’t really truly happy until she fell in love. And that is what bothers me. Am I saying that love and personal success can’t coexist? Of course not. I’m speaking specifically of the continuous portrayal of women who CANNOT have happiness without a man. To repeat myself: single women can’t be happy, no matter how much success they have. I’m sick of it. This movie would have been progressive had it come out 30, 40 years ago. It would have been a milestone. But for the year 2010, sorry Disney, it just doesn’t fucking cut it.
Ashley
Andreas
RF
Jacob Canfield
What a fantastic post. I never saw The Princess and the Frog, but now I feel as though I have. You’re so right about the missing racial tension… obviously, they think they’re doing everyone a favor by not including it, but then WHY CHOOSE THE 1920s!? I mean, really.
This post is fucking brilliant.
Great post. I will leave a more substantial comment when I have the time to come pick through this a little deeper, but I have a post in the works about why Beauty and the Beast is an example of an abusive relationship, and how it sends little girls the message that if you just stay with someone that treats you terribly, eventually they’ll become a changed man. I used to love that movie… until I became a domestic violence counselor and realized how fucked up the message is.
I’ve written about something similar in regards to Beauty and the Beast; he traps her in his castle, is completely emotionally abusive and physically intimidating and then just MAGICALLY he gives her a fucking library and everything is okay. I’m definitely looking forward to your post about it!
This is an amazing article, I really agree with a lot of the points here. I used to love Beauty and the Beast, but as I grew older, I started to think about a lot of the points that you raised.
Mind, I find this is really noticeable in a lot of shows/movies aimed at girls. I’m writing a similar article based on Sailor Moon, and there are similar problems.
Thank you! I used to watch Sailor Moon a LOT when I was younger; in the past I’ve written about all the very fucked up messages and ideas presented. Somehow or another, I managed to take good values away from these cartoons/movies. I really hope that young girls do the same; kind of overlook the more fucked up stuff for the potential redeeming factors (unfortunately some things have NO redeeming factors). Thanks for reading and commenting!
Pingback: Pussy Goes “Happy Birthday!” « Pussy Goes Grrr
Pingback: 10 Biggest Mistakes Women Make in Relationships « Guise&Eves
Awesome post. I loved Beauty and the Beast when I was a kid too. However, my favorite Disney movie, the one that I could recite by heart, was Hercules. While I also loved it because I loved Greek mythology, I adored Meg. She was smart, sarcastic, and she was capable. “I’m a damsel. I’m in distress. I can handle it. Have a nice day.” She was a morally ambiguous, and interesting character. Also, SHE SAVES THE HERO at one point. Sure, he saved her before and after that, and sure, she was doing it because she loved him, but she was still my favorite Disney female lead. I’d like to see more characters like her.
Pingback: In defense of the Disney Princess (sort of) |
Of Mulan:
1) Yes, I’ll Make a Man Out Of You is both the best Disney song ever (if they trained soldier to that song now, we’d have the best Army in the world) and hilariously homoerotic. Also, there’s two kinds of irony there: that Mulan is, actually, a girl, and that it’s Donny Osmond singing.
2) The ending is kind of made up for in the sequel, but I don’t suppose anyone watched that unless they were still stuck in a rut of Disney Channel reruns right before their parents upgraded the TV stations…
Great blog :) I have referenced it in my essay on Madame Bovary. I never read blogs, but yours is awesome :) and I will definately keep reading :)
As for Beauty and the Beast–
Don’t forget that Belle enters into an abusive relationship with the Beast. She thinks that if she keeps loving him, his emotionally abusive tendencies will just magically go away.
I do love Beauty and the Beast, though. Belle, I think, is one of the more progressive princesses.
While it’s true that Belle and the Beast have an abusive relationship, it’s also true that she entered it out of her own free will and against that of her father, knowing that he was a beast. She made a sacrifice to save someone she loved (and not that “true love” crap either, love for a family member.)
I don’t believe Mulan’s objective was to ever receive a very high position or job after her role in the war. Her motivation for going to war for her father was because she was worried for him. She left that job because she missed her family, not because she wanted to go on to a lowly housewife. She prioritized her family over getting a job – which is a not a bad thing to do.
I bet if the job was close to her home, she would have gladly taken the position. And in Mulan 2, I think she shows how much more of a feminist she is. She is set to marry Li, however, she finds out the emperors daughters are unwillingly betrothed. Li attempts to stop her from doing anything, but fights back against him for what SHE believes is the right thing to do. And in the end, she is again the person to save the characters within the story.
She speaks to almost all the male characters in the movie as an equal and understands that she is not what normal Chinese women are like. She accepts that and makes it work for her and for the situation that she is in and people respect her in the movie as more than just a pretty face but a person with a courageous heart who will fight for what she believes is right.
cause she was pretty.
In the end, I don’t think Mulan deciding to go back to her family was a step backwards in her character or for feminism. She joined the war to protect her family, and she wanted to go back to her family. The feminist movement have somehow made it seem like all women should want to gain a career before family. But in the movie, she is the only child of an elderly couple and grandmother. She wants to take care of them and she loves them and she finds that fulfilling. Don’t attempt to make those choices any less feminist that gaining a job with the Chinese Emperor.
Thank you for reading and commenting! I agree that failing to recognize her responsibility to her parents and grandmother in regards to her decision to turn down the position was a blind spot on my part; I should have taken it into account. But I would like to point out that I never implied that having a family or choosing to be with family as opposed to a career are any less feminist or worthwhile and I certainly never implied that being a housewife is “lowly”; what I did do was point out that earlier in the film it’s shown that being a housewife/being domestic may not be the thing that Mulan likes/is good at. And yes, it is a little frustrating for me to see a brave, courageous, vivacious female character turn down such an incredible (and rare) opportunity. When it comes to media, especially films intended for children, it’s important for me to think about them in a greater context. How many high-profile children’s films show women who don’t choose a husband or family? I don’t have a problem with women who choose a husband and family over a career; what I do have a problem with is the imbalance of representation: oftentimes that’s the only representation of women in children’s films (specifically the Disney Princess films). That is one of the biggest issues I’m attempting to point out here: in so much of children’s media we get the same representation of women over and over-the representation of woman as incomplete without a husband. In terms of Disney Princesses, Mulan is the biggest digression from that (especially because she doesn’t actually marry or even have a concrete relationship with Li by the end of the movie) but she is still constrained by the demands of the Princess narrative.
I would also like to point out that I am not “the feminist movement”; I am one feminist and I do not speak for all women or feminists. Saying that one person’s actions, beliefs or mistakes reflect on an entire social & political movement is a very good way to derail and invalidate whatever they have to say. I’m sure there are lots of feminists (you, if you identify as a feminist) who are completely fine with the ending of Mulan and don’t see it as problematic. I, however, do. Because Mulan does not exist in a vacuum; it exists within a canon that continually portrays women in a predictable (often stereotypical) way.
Again, thank you for reading and commenting. And thank you for making me curious about Mulan II; from what you’ve told me about the plot, I really wanna check it out!
late reply is late, but I was hunting ‘disney princesses and feminism’ in google and I was led to here. XDD So I’ve got a number of things in mind:
1) Aladdin. I think you should have put that in there. I often felt that Jasmine straddled that line between your stereotypical princess and someone that was more independent. She wanted to find love and explore life outside the palace. By the end of the first movie, she gets love – and yet STAYS in the palace. (blech). On the positive side, I think she’s the only Disney princess that manages to get a boy toy !(and be above him in a position of power)XDD All joking aside, you should also check out the Aladdin tv series, which definitely develops Jasmine’s character into something that I find pretty interesting- and yet very stereotypical at the same time. She very much models the “modern Barbie” ideal in the tv series: Kick butt and look beautiful doing it. It’s frustrating to look back on now, but looking at the progression of princesses in Disney as a whole, I find it to be definite progress. The tv series aired between 1994-1995.
2) Mulan. I agree with another writer. She dressed as a male soldier and joined the army to protect her father; she didn’t want to see him go off and get killed. Which, given his frail leg, sadly would have happened. What I would have personally liked to see is a simple request to go back, say hi to her family and reunite with them, and THEN go back to the palace to be the emperor’s advisor. Mulan, I feel, was in a position to have her cake and eat it too – although she does appear to be in a rare position of power in the 2nd movie, like someone else before me has said. I’m not a fan of sequels, but for the sake of the subject at hand, I encourage you to check it out.
3) Tiana – the moral that Tiana was missing was that she needed to enjoy the PEOPLE in her life; her mother and her father’s memory. (had to caps lock that for emphasis). Yes, she got a man, and to a degree, it was pretty frustrating. But I couldn’t help but notice that Naveen learned his lesson – he’s working at HER restaurant. XDD.
That movie went through controversy after controversy because Disney was under scrutiny of people who I feel might have been playing that ‘race card’ a little too often. Given Disney’s notorious nature for stereotypes, I found they did well with the Princess and the Frog (I’ve got some cynical standards for them though) And they actually did have a little bit of racism in that movie – it was just very, very subtle. At the ball at Charlotte’s house, Tiana meets the relators she had been talking with, and was looking to buy that old warehouse off of to convert it into a restaurant. The relators told her flt out that a “woman of her position” should “just stay where she is,” telling her that she won’t be able to buy the old warehouse – despite the fact that she had the money that was needed.
It is of course, very wrong, but I was surprised at how subtle Disney managed to work that in there.
4) Brave – It’s Pixar, yes, but Disney owns Pixar. Have you seen the trailer for that movie? It looks promising. I’m just incredibly concerned that Princess Merida (who sounds like she might be joining the princess franchise) will end up with a prince of her own, when from what I’ve heard, the main source of conflict between her mother and herself IS that Merida’s not interested in getting married – she wants to pursue archery. And she’s pretty good at it too. =)
It’s all a matter of perspective.
1. The most important part of Beauty and the Beast it that Belle makes her own choices. She choses to stay with the Beast to rescue her father, but she again makes a choice in the woods after the Beast fought with the wolfes. She could flee, but she decides against it. Belle doesn’t allow the Beast to bully her, at any point of the movie. Considering that the original Fairy Tale is about a girl who gets sold by her father for his freedom, I say Kudos to Disney there.
2. Mulan: The great thing about Mulan is that she doesn’t become a man, she just dresses as one. She doesn’t get the arrow because she trains herself to death, she gets it because she uses her brain and uses her disadvantages to her advantage. And in the end she beats the villain with a goddammned fan! I’m not perturbed at all that she doesn’t take the job. She chooses what she wants, that’s the important part here.
3.I never watched Princess and the Frog, because I was so annoyed with all the discussions beforehand. It doesn’t matter what Disney does, they will never be able to satisfy the nay-sayer. So why should they try something risky? It doesn’t matter what they do, there will always people walking around with the racist or sexist google, picking apart everything they do. I don’t say that Disney can’t go wrong – Fantasia is proof of that (although I would love to get my hands on an unedited version of the movie). But you would find much less “proof” for it, if you wouldn’t be so set on interpreting everything you see this way.
It’s important to remember that living with oppression sometimes our ‘choices’ aren’t always as free as we would want them to be; a simple way to describe oppression is being caught between two things, a damned if you do, damned if you don’t type thing. For example, I have the free choice to wear whatever I want but I will be socially policed by people who think it’s “slutty” or too “revealing” or whatever. There are ways that marginalized people’s choices are severely limited. Beauty and the Beast is a story that smacks of Stockholm syndrome; she is being held captive against her will. Yes, she chose to be held captive to set her father free but that goes right back to what I was talking about before: caught between to things. Either choose to be captive or let your father die of pneumonia in a cold dungeon. In my opinion, there’s not a REAL amount of freedom in that choice. Just because the story is an improvement on the original fairy tale doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be examined and criticized.
I’m not entirely sure about what you mean when you say ‘she doesn’t become a man, she just dresses like one’; are you saying that she’s not actually a man so she shouldn’t have taken the job? I’m confused. I’m glad that you’re not upset about the fact that she didn’t take the job but that doesn’t invalidate my frustration at the lack representation of women who choose a path other than family in the media.
Your argument with Princess and the Frog seems to be that no matter what, people will have something bad to say about Disney. In cases of people like me, as this entire post was all about, it’s because their reputation precedes them. To me, there is a fundamental flaw with the Princess narrative and no matter what Disney tries to do, no matter how progressive they try to make their female characters, if it’s part of a Princess arc, it’s bound by the confines of that narrative. So, from my feminist perspective, that is a problem. You say I would find “less proof” if I weren’t so set on interpreting it this way. But see, I am set on examining things this way. It’s what I do. And often times, I find my “proof” and it’s pretty valid. Saying that “I’m just looking for things to complain about” doesn’t invalidate the things I do find and talk about in regards to these movies. Just because you don’t see it that way, doesn’t mean it’s not true and your argument is a derailing tactic.
What a great post! I was born in ’82 and therefore grew up on Cinderella VHS tapes and movie theater trips for the ’90s revival. Sadly I really do see your point about how even the films with the ‘strong & smart heroine’ ultimately saddle her with a man to achieve true happiness (oddly enough, this is also why I disowned Sex & The City in its final season). I’m actually horrified to learn the ending of Mulan!
Word has it that Pixar’s next film is supposed to be its first female-centered one, so here’s hoping.
You didn’t want magic… in a Disney movie? That is like never going to happen.
I, too, was disappointed with The Princess and the Frog, mostly because it was sort of boring, and I had hopes that the race issue would be a little more blatant. I did want Tiana to get her restaurant on her own, too. In fact, I really just wanted the first black Disney princess to be Aida, so I went into the whole thing somewhat disappointed.
Anyway, I’ll admit that Disney does have a habit of trotting out the same old material, but one thing I commend them for is that in their last 3 or 4 princess movies, it’s the princess who saves the day. And if she ends up attached to a prince at the end, I can only ask: who really cares? Find me a movie in which the protagonist, man or woman, doesn’t end up with a significant other in the end. Find me a book. Find me any story that isn’t at its core about love. Those types of stories exist, but they are few and far between. A feminist story is not one without a man in it. A feminist story is one that strives to empower its females, and I am happy with Beauty & the Beast, Pocahontas, Mulan, and Rapunzel, at least. They have their flaws, but each of these women is the hero, the maker of her own destiny, and that’s what I care about most. I hope that Disney continues to develop its princess characters. And I don’t really see how the princess arc is different from any other love story arc; and yes, love stories are flawed because love is sort of about power. I just really don’t see any getting around that.
And Becca, whoever you are, don’t accuse people of “playing the race card” a little too often. You sound freaking ignorant.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I never said that feminist stories are stories without men in them. Feminist stories can be lots of different things because there’s lots of different kinds of feminism. But what I really want to concentrate on here is your assertion that “most stories are love stories”. No. Just…no. I’m going to have to blatantly disagree with you on this. Outside of the realm of romantic movies and most mainstream entertainment there are TONS of films, books and stories that do not have a love stories or relationships as the driving force behind their plot. Just look at some of last years best films: Black Swan–has sexual stuff but the plot is fueled by mental illness and no one falls in love. Winter’s Bone–no relationships there. It’s about a girl trying to find her drug-dealing father so she and her siblings won’t lose their home. And freakin’ Toy Story 3– a movie distributed by Disney. The plot is not fueled by romantic relationships. I could really go on and on and on. These are just a few very popular movies from last year. Once you delve into other areas of film, books, and art it gets even more prevalent. Just because you are not familiar with stories that aren’t driven by romance, love or relationships doesn’t mean that there isn’t a HUGE AMOUNT of that kind of thing out there (Jesus Christ, H.P. Lovecraft was absolutely notorious for never having any kind of relationships in his stories). Please, before you claim that “almost all stories are love stories” actually check that shit to make sure it’s accurate. And by “check that shit” I mean, watch something that isn’t a romantic comedy or heavily marketed mainstream popcorn flick.
As for love “being about power”–no. That is a ridiculous, dangerous notion. As long as we continue to treat relationships like they’re power games, we’re going to have bullshit ideas about being in love and the nature of love and what it means.
I can definitely understand your frustration, but I would like to offer a different point of view, one that I’ve been noticing in a lot of Disney (and, by extension, Pixar) movies of late (at least since John Lasseter took the reins, thank god).
There is more to life than just achieving the goal.
Yeah, it’s obvious that Tiana is focused on opening her restaurant, pretty much to the point of almost ignoring everyone around her. And it’s established early on that Tiana’s family life is obviously not where they wanted it to be, but they made the best with what they had, and at the end of the day, they were happy.
Another example I’d like to present is “Up.” Carl Fredricksen lived a nice and full life with his wife, wanting to do some things, but as it has a habit of happening, life got in the way. When he finally loses his wife, he doesn’t really have much to live for, until he gets the idea of taking his house to paradise falls.
Here are both characters, defined by a goal, and determined to achieve it. Here’s the thing though, they are both so determined to achieve the goal, they pretty much ignore what they have, and what’s going on around them. With Carl, it’s his relationship with Russell and Dug (of course realizing your childhood hero has been driven completely nuts helps things along). With Tiana, it’s not just Naveen. They do spark up friendships that help them along later in the movie, and their friends are driven by goals, too. Louis wants to be a big-time jazz player (of course being a 10-foot alligator complicates things), and Ray wants to be with the love of his life (who happens to be a star). Both of them realize that their goals are really secondary to the people they have in their life. Same with Carl… he finally makes it to Paradise Falls, lets Kevin the bird get captured in the process, but he realizes that things are kinda empty. It’s there that he finally opens up his scrapbook (something he’s been unable to do throughout the movie, expecting to find disappointment), and he finds the exact opposite: pictures of him and his wife together, a final note from his wife, saying “thanks for the adventure.” It’s a sign that his life wasn’t a complete waste, it gives him the motivation to go back and take the people in his life at the moment.
Louis and Ray do the same thing… Ray is more immediate, because he believes in the whole “power of love” thing, even at the cost of his life (quite literally, actually… this is the first time I’ve seen Disney take the Joss Whedon route and kill off the most likeable secondary character for real), but it’s definitely implied that in his death, he achieves his goal. And in the denoument, They all help each other achieve their goals. When you see the closing number, you notice that they aren’t using Naveen’s family’s money to start the restaurant, it’s still all Tiana’s… they just needed Louis’s… help to make the real estate agents see reason.
Man, I wasn’t expecting things to be this long. The point I’m making is that Tiana, like Belle, didn’t “need” a man, but rather Tiana found one on her own terms (Belle, I’m willing to admit, had a bit of Stockholm Syndrome). And it wasn’t just Naveen’s help that she got her restaurant, but also Louis, and they helped him out, too. Just something to think about if you decide to screen the movie again.
And hey, you’ve given me something to talk about for my next ranting rampage, so thanks.
Hi. I know this is a bit… late, but there is something I have always wanted to touch upon in regard to how people view Belle’s character. Some things in particular that kind of irk me. For one, is when people say she is not just another delicate flower who sits around all day. Newsflash: yes she is. She just happens to read while she does it. Yes, I know that she eventually starts taking action in her life, when she is practically foced to due to her father going missing. Noble, very, but she otherwise would have continued letting her life pass her by, escaping her reality with fantasy and romance novels. Maybe I’m being too harsh? :/
Another thing that kind of bothers me is when people try to sweep the whole Stokholm thing under the rug because she did not actually try to change him herself, and the only reason she instantly fell in love with him is because he FINALLY came around on his own, and even saved her life! Gee, I don’t know what most girls would do, but if I felt endangered by a tyrannical beast whom I wad enslaved to, I would not just instantly forgive and forget that he broke up my family and ruined any chance I could have had for the adventures I so dreamed of.
I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but after saving my life I would definitely just thank him kindly, and haul up out of there back to my sick, broke father.
I appreciate the visual art of the movie, but I just… can’t look past these things. It makes me a little sad since evryone else loves that movie so much.
Hey, thanks for reading and commenting! I agree about both Belle being passive and the Stockholm syndrome stuff but let me clarify why I didn’t write more about it in this post. While talking about Belle in this, it was more about my reaction to her as a young child–before Belle, I had never seen any female characters express interest in anything, especially reading (which was what I was most passionate about–and on a related note, I think it’s really important to talk about just how important is is to have a character who is part of a series of canon characters that are very much all about passivity not just reading but loving to read. Reading can encourage critical thinking and I still think it’s important and good that she has this characteristic [even if it is the only thing that sets her apart from other Disney princesses]) and seeing that left a big impact on me more so than the unsavory elements of Beast and Belle’s relationship. The reason that I didn’t talk more about the mental and verbal abuse here (because I have discussed it in other places just not in this post) is 1. I didn’t want the post to be longer than it already was and 2. it just didn’t occur to me to until way after the fact.
Just as a side-note–I think it’s important to recognize that we can still have sentimental feelings toward–and even like–things that are problematic from a feminist perspective. There are a lot of things from my childhood and in my daily life that, as an adult, I immediately see how problematic certain aspects of it are. But I still watch, read, whatever those things (most of the time–sometimes things are just too problematic and I can’t deal with them; I completely respect if this is how you feel about Beauty and the Beast) because in a society full of problematic shit, we’d really just be left to watching paint dry. One of the most fulfilling things for me as an adult is to be able to examine the media around me, especially media that I loved as a child and enjoy now, and figure out the things that are wrong or fucked up with it.
Again, thank you so much for commenting–these are important points about not just this Disney movie but the Beauty and the Beast narrative itself that should be pointed out and discussed. So, thank you!
I agree with a lot of your points. But one thing keeps nagging me. Disney needs to appeal to a large audience to ensure their profits (they are a business after all) and lots of people are searching for love/companionship. And so sometimes I think we get lost in the “she needs a MAN to achieve her dreams” when we forget that humans are social creatures and that sometimes we need someone/anyone to help us out on the road to our dreams whether its a romantic interest of the opposite sex. Which also makes me wonder if the “prince” was another chick how the feminist community would react. If it’s a lesbian romance would Disney receive the same amount of scorn from this community, or would it be applauded because it would be two women achieving their dreams? Never mind that it took falling in love to make your dreams come true.
Just to clarify here: I believe in and love strong women, but I’m also a romantic.
I think you bring up a good point but one of the things that is continually frustrating for me is that women in Disney have a very limited narrative; all of the big name female Disney characters are princesses or follow some type of Princess-esque narrative. For male characters, there’s an unlimited amount of stories they get (and yes, there may be a love interested on the side but it’s not necessarily the driving element of the plot) but for female characters it’s pretty much just “Find a prince, get married.”
However, there are lots of sequels and lesser known Disney movies that I haven’t seen; this article is dealing with main Disney Princess canon. I’m interested in 1. rewriting different parts of this article (specifically concentrating more on Jasmine’s and Esmeralda’s narratives) and 2. seeing how films that aren’t part of main, big-time canon differ from the normal narrative.
As for whether or not there would be scorn when it came to lesbian princess narrative: I think that overwhelmingly the response from women’s activist’s communities would be positive just because that would be such a progressive thing for Disney to do (and something that likely won’t happen for….a very, very long time) and I also think that it’d be interesting to examine how the Princess narrative suits itself to a lesbian couple.
Thanks for reading and commenting! You brought up a lot of good, interesting points.
bravo i love tiana and all but i love your opinions ( I personally think that belle is overrated ) but still beautifully writen
hi, loved the piece and would like to quote some bits in a mini dissertation project i am doing regarding the disney princesses and thier social representation. can i have the authors permission please? and i also need details for a citation. Please email me at dcpeppermarsh@hotmail.co.uk
many thanks,
Dani
I can’t stand Belle, alot of people seem to forget that yes the girl could read but what was it she was reading. Her favorite book was a romance novel. She wanted her own prince from the very begining. Disney just covered it well with making it look like she wanted to leave her mundane life. In fact it sounded like she was reading Sleeping Beauty and we all know how invovled Aurora was in her own life (and if you didn’t, the answer is none).
And as far as Tiana goes, I think alot of people also forget that Tiana is not the first princess of color. Jasmine was not orignally white ( I don’t know what she is now…some times she is sometimes she isn’t, depending on what your looking at.) They did well with black princess though being they even gave her a black name. To me the movie fell short with them using the princess and the frog as her princess story. It’s a European fairytale, there are plenty of other cultural fairy tales that could have been used. Mulan and Jasmine both actually got to show there own individual cultures and yet Tiana doesn’t (and no blacks and creo’s are not the same). I would have prefered to see a princess from the bronx or Cali. I think that is one of the greater (unnoticed) injustices of that movie.