alexsprincessparty

[alexsprincessparty]

In Which Alex Can’t Hold It Back Anymore: A Very Long Essay in a Very Busy Princess Week

Day after day I become more and more surprised by how polarizing Disney Princesses really are. There appears to be no franchise that is more reviled than the Princesses, the ire of anticapitalists, staunch feminists, and casual Internet users fed up with constant reimaginings of these classic Disney ladies on their social media feeds. The recent crop of marketing around Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph sequel seems to tie right into a week where two prolific Disney women--one playing a Princess herself--criticized the franchise for its, admittedly sometimes dodgy portrayals of women and the messages their children must be receiving from them.

Only a few months ago did we get our first taste of the iconic Disney Princesses as they would appear in November’s Ralph Breaks the Internet, the sequel to 2012′s Wreck-It Ralph. Their scene was teased nearly a year prior at the 2017 D23 convention in California, and given the theme of Ralph and Vanellope traipsing the Internet, the theories around the Princesses’ presence abounded before the first trailers dropped. Disney seems to be playing right into the hands of BuzzFeed and its ilk as all fourteen Princesses (including Frozen’s Anna and Elsa as well as newcomer Moana, none being part of the official lineup of Princesses) reside in a dressing room inside Disney’s BuzzFeed clone, Oh My Disney.

What could have been a throwaway, though still memorable, scene from the movie has become the root of its merchandising strategy. Yes, you can still find collectible and playline toys of its main characters, Wreck-It Ralph and Vanellope Von Schweetz, as well as a few new friends (such as Taraji P. Henson’s Yesss and Gal Gadot’s Shank), still, the Princesses rule. Not long after a teaser image dropped of each Princess in a set of themed pajamas, images of new merchandise featuring the new #comfysquad began to leak. Funko’s Rock Candy line included most Princesses in their cozy forms, selling out quickly at Target and Box Lunch. Elsa, Rapunzel, and Merida joined the lineup of Power Pac toys. Even just this morning, shopDisney dropped a $100 doll set of all the pajama Princesses (sans Anna and Elsa), in addition to a plethora of apparel based around them, including full sets of some "cosplay" pajamas.

It all points to a common criticism of Disney Princess culture, which is steeped in capitalism. OF COURSE IT IS. It’s Disney. The franchise itself did not come to be until the early 2000s, as beforehand, these classic fairytale characters did not mingle together in a single franchise, rather residing within their own. Then-chairman of the Consumer Products division of Disney, Andy Mooney had the idea to thrust all these ladies into one franchise in the name of capitalizing on the popularity of these ladies (and for a while, Tinker Bell). In short, the Disney Princess franchise almost exclusively exists because money.

The franchise itself has changed with the times, adapting the more progressive "Dream Big, Princess" rebrand in the mid-2010s. Its characters have evolved along with it, but with so many steeped in decades of old, how does the Princess franchise hold up to today’s feminist heroines?

In a recent trip to The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Keira Knightley, star of the upcoming Nutcracker and the Four Realms, revealed that films such as Cinderella and The Little Mermaid are banned in her home, bemoaning the main character’s lack of agency and devotion to men they barely know. Knightley complained that Cinderella "waits around for a rich guy to rescue her," and that Ariel’s decision to give up her voice for a man was more than questionable.

Criticisms on Mermaid aren’t without merit, and I could understand on the basis of Ariel defying her father, but her most vocal critics often overlook Ariel’s affinity for the surface world even before she laid her eyes on Eric. Let’s face it--Ariel’s 16 and kind of dumb. A lot of us can be at 16. Knightley and I remember "Part of Your World" very differently, apparently. But no, because Eric was part of the agreement made by Ariel and Ursula, it’s all for him. By…some logic. However, Knightley gets Cinderella all sorts of wrong (unless she got it confused for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?). Nowhere in the film does Cinderella wish for a prince to sweep her off her feet and take her away. Maybe after the ball during that whole debacle with the missing slipper, but I think that’s more Cinderella being honest about who was in that slipper, and not to mention a free ticket out of an awful, abusive home situation. Also, free prince included. Sounds like a win-win to me. It seems like in order to escape these sorts of criticisms, you need to write out the male love interest completely, which Disney did for protagonists in recent Princess titles like Brave, Frozen (in regards to Elsa, but not Anna), and Moana. 

On the same ticket, Kristen Bell (voice of Princess Anna herself) told Parents magazine this month that she uses these Princess movies as learning experiences, good or bad. Bell said in regards to Snow White:

"Every time we close Snow White I look at my girls and ask, 'Don't you think it's weird that Snow White didn't ask the old witch why she needed to eat the apple? Or where she got that apple?' I say, 'I would never take food from a stranger, would you?' And my kids are like, 'No!' And I'm like, 'Okay, I'm doing something right.'"

Okay, and what about that True Love’s Kiss thing?

"Don't you think that it's weird that the prince kisses Snow White without her permission? … Because you can not kiss someone if they're sleeping!"

This encourages and develops critical thinking skills in children, by allowing them to learn to make decisions at a young age rather than having them spoonfed, ie. Banning the films altogether as Knightley does. It’s basically learning from other people’s mistakes, rather than having them made for you at an early age. I’m not saying that Bell should allow strange men to kiss them without their consent, but those apples-from-strangers moments might come in more unexpected scenarios.

It all points to a major issue I have with Disney Princess culture, and that is shouldering upon Princesses the responsibility of being Good Role Models at a far greater capacity than any other Disney character. Those are the reasons why people like Keira Knightley ban most pre-Mulan Princess movies in their homes (Pocahontas may be banned for different reasons, honestly). Ariel gives up everything for a man she never met. Cinderella and Snow White wait around for Prince Charming. Belle falls in love with a borderline abusive captor. All bad things.

One film that rarely comes up in this discussion is Aladdin, possibly due to it being more about its title character than its Princess, Jasmine. In fact, Jasmine is often lauded because of one line she says one time that has kind of been the go-to Disney Feminist Manifesto: “I am not a prize to be won!” In this, Aladdin, for enough people, passes the Disney Feminist Litmus Test, and thus is safe to be shown to children because Look! Female Agency! However, we forget, again, this movie is based around its title protagonist, Aladdin, who many people forget is kind of a thief. He steals for survival, of course, and that honestly should prompt a discussion with children on economics and poverty, in addition to morals. But there is far less discussion on how good a role model Aladdin is to boys, than Jasmine is to girls.

Take The Princess and the Frog, too. Sure, Tiana is often praised for being a self-made entrepreneur, which is great! She values hard work and works relentlessly for what she wants. Yet there is no discussion on Prince Naveen, a lazy, sleazy, spoiled brat prince. It is Tiana who shoulders the responsibility.

“Oh, come on, it’s not like boys are watching Princess movies, Alex.” Okay, let’s look at The Emperor’s New Groove. Kuzco is a notorious egomaniac. How in the world is that a good thing for a protagonist to be? But it’s okay, because Kuzco is selfish to the point of caricature. Then again, so is the spray-tanned clown running the White House, who is also a guy with an affinity for erecting large buildings in gold, emblazoned with his name (in Kuzco’s case, something similar to his likeness). This is what happens when we don’t have these discussions with boys like we do with girls. They grow up to be Kuzcos and Naveens.

It’s just funny to me that a franchise that is so heavily relied on is also the largest lightning rod for controversy in the Disney company, down to the point where all their films have to be remade for the sake of “doing it right the second time.” As of press time, remakes of Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast are available on DVD (in addition to a loose retelling of Sleeping Beauty, from the perspective of Maleficent), a trailer for next year’s Aladdin just dropped, and a remake of Mulan is due in 2020, with The Little Mermaid beginning casting negotiations. Disney is desperate to rebrand their Princesses to fit in with the #MeToo generation, which, on one hand, is great, because some of these girls are in need of a do-over (perhaps a historically-accurate remake of Pocahontas?). Still, remember that the Princess franchise is, at its core, a money grab. Which isn’t to say you can’t enjoy it, and I do. But when your corporate icon is a mouse, cheddar is king, but it’s the Princess’s job to sell it.

Thanks for sitting through a very long-winded and only kind-of proofread essay. Aladdin is coming, I promise. This is a guarantee that I will have it up before the new Aladdin comes out next year. (Disney, please, please don’t bump it up.) Dream Big, Princess!

#disney #disney princess #keira knightley #kristen bell #wreck it ralph #ralph breaks the internet

[alexsprincessparty]

Beauty and the Beast: Not Like THOSE Princesses

I've really been looking forward to getting into this beloved Disney masterpiece, for several reasons. The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, be my guest for Beauty and the Beast.

This is a story that seems to enchant viewers of all ages, and even genders as well. While everyone loves the classic music of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman, it is a tale (as old as time) about how True Love Conquers All, and can even change a savage beast (even literally). Belle is loved by many Disney fans, for knowing her worth, while not forgoing her kind, brave heart. Still, there are some glaring issues with this film that should be addressed. So, without further adieu, let us venture into this little town...this quiet French village...

The titular "beauty" of this movie is a girl by the name of Belle, the daughter of a local inventor named Maurice. She is essentially the Town Weirdo, in the way that she is a female who reads--for fun. ::gasp.:: Naturally, she is sought after by the Town Douche, a beer-guzzling Alpha Male by the name of GASTON (who requests his name always be written in caps, so...I guess we'll just do that). Belle often rejects his advances, seeing as GASTON is, well...a brute. Not her type. Probably digs scrawny nerds. I don't know, like the Matthew Gray Gubler type. When Belle's father goes missing, Belle sets out on a journey to find him, and discovers him at a decrepit old castle, inhabited by talking dishware and, apparently, a werewolf-like beast. This beast--a selfish prince enchanted by a curse--holds Maurice captive, until Belle offers herself up in exchange for her father's freedom. Belle, now the Beast's captive, is pressed by the talking dishware to ~befriend her captor, and show him to love--since, you know, that's the only thing that will break the curse. So, Belle works her Pretty Girl Magic, while word gets out at home about the terrifying Beast holding lovely Belle hostage. Emasculated GASTON sends a mob to the castle to KILL THE BEAST and free Belle. GASTON succeeds in killing the Beast, but not before Belle finally proclaims her love for him, and effectively breaks the spell. Oh, yeah, and GASTON kicks it, too, like every princess's villain before him. Happily ever after, etc.

Let's talk pros, shall we?

-We Need To Talk About Belle. Often I have criticized Belle for being That Princess, that "not like other girls" Princess. Watching this for the first time in a while, I realize that's not exactly the case. Belle does not put herself over anyone (except maybe GASTON) for things like reading or rejecting men. She just...does it. She's truly sweet and personable, making casual conversation with the bookshop owner as well as other townspeople she runs by. Belle is NOT That Princess, and it took me this rewatch to realize it. I am sorry, Belle.

-These are some of Disney's best songs. Menken and Ashman were truly the dynamic duo. It's a shame we only got three movies out of them, but at least we still have Menken. (Like I mentioned in my post about The Little Mermaid, Ashman passed away from complications from AIDS in March of 1991, eight months prior to Beauty and the Beast's release. He was able to see it before his death, and he even has a few songs included in Aladdin).

-Angela Lansbury.

-This is one of the greatest Princess gowns in history. Fight me, Cinderella.

-The singing in this is top notch. Paige O'Hara, Robby Benson, and Richard White really knock it out of the park as leads, and the castle crew ain't too shabby either. (I dare you not to cry when Mrs. Potts sings the film's title song.)

-Speaking of Mrs. Potts...Angela Lansbury.

But what is wrong with Beauty and the Beast? Let's have a looksie.

-Belle is still kind of That Princess, in the way that she is often the Princess championed by certain types of girls, because she rejects douchey dudes and reads books. Sooooo not like THOSE Princesses who only wish for their princes to come and sell their voices for dudes they barely know. This isn't necessarily Belle's fault. Like I said, Belle only comes off like this on the surface. The only person Belle puts herself above is GASTON. The "not like other girls" mentality is often accompanied by a superiority complex, one that puts one type of girl above others. In this case, it's a girl who rejects men and reads books. Brave's Merida also kind of falls into this category, as she isn't considered traditionally attractive, doesn't wear makeup, "shoots for her own hand" (again, rejecting dudes, as well as tradition), and is generally rebellious. On one hand, I guess there's a Princess for everyone. But on the other, this is honestly a toxic mentality. It implies that there is something wrong with girls, and that there is a right way to be a girl, and a wrong way to be a girl. The truth is that there isn't.

-That also kind of goes hand in hand with the film's message of "beauty is found within," where often people with this kind of mentality judge other women based on how they present themselves on the outside. Maybe they wear a lot of pink. Maybe they show a lot of cleavage. Maybe they have fake hair. That's just basing someone's character off of their appearance, which I guess we're still doing in 2018. I remember Christina Aguilera in 2003, when she was blasted by the press for whatever she was wearing (or the lack thereof), generally looking "slutty/trashy," and therefore unworthy. Yet, it was Christina Aguilera who always stood up to the status quo, supporting the LGBT+ community in a time where it wasn't trendy, challenging sexist double standards, and giving a voice to abuse survivors. These were all invalid because of what she wore and what she looked like and how she presented herself. It goes to show that you really cannot judge someone based on what they look like, and that includes how women view other women.

-The term "Stockholm Syndrome" comes up a lot when discussing Beauty and the Beast. The layman's terms definition of Stockholm Syndrome is when a person held captive begins to develop feelings for their captor. On the surface, Belle fits the criteria, but there's more to it. Belle is never a hostage, again, she willingly exchanges her freedom for her father's. She only decides to change her feelings about Beast when he changes the way he behaves (therefore putting responsibility on him, now we're talking). She does not want to stay, in fact, she leaves the minute Beast sets her free. So, it's not Stockholm Syndrome in the technical sense. Is it still a bit dodgy? Maybe, but I can give her a pass for her motivations for staying in the castle.

-GASTON is a douche, but we've been over this.

-Unfortunately...Angela Lansbury. I just remembered that one time she claimed that sometimes women “must take blame” for sexual harassment...aka, victim blaming. I trusted you, Jessica Fletcher.

Final thoughts: Beauty and the Beast leaves us with plenty of entertainment to delight in, and just as much thought-provoking content to pick apart. It comes to us at the dawn of third-wave feminism, which gives us plenty to think about in terms of its cultural context. Like most Princesses, Belle is a product of her time--the era of riot grrrls, Lilith Fair, and Thelma and Louise--where women were taking charge and putting themselves first. So she got the man in the end. She still made sure the man took responsibility, and took it herself when necessary. There are also more complex issues of how women view each other just on a fandom scale, and those are the concepts that aren't as widely discussed, because we still need to find a way to drag the woman through the mud. There's one curse we still need to break.

Rating: 5 out of 5 dancing plates

Thanks for coming to this installment of the Princess Party. Join me next time for a wild romp through Agrabah in Aladdin. Hey, wait, he's not a Princess. Uh...Dream Big, Princess?

#disney #disney princess #beauty and the beast #should i do a separate post about batb 17? #along with cinderella 15 and maleficent?

[alexsprincessparty]

A whole new world...wide web...?

That is to say, I'm taking the party to Twitter and Instagram! Follow APP on Twitter: http://twitter.com/aprincessblog (Dishonor on the username character limit...) And on Instagram http://instagram.com/alexsprincessparty Please follow, because I am a delicate pixie who requires validation to survive. Dream Big, Princess! Alex

#mod post

[alexsprincessparty]

The Little Mermaid: Alex’s Feminist Crisis

I've been waiting for this day to come, because finally I get to watch My Favorite Movie of All Time:

Clearly we are talking about The Little Mermaid. I'm sure this is going to be a rather difficult one to deal with because this is a film that is often criticized for a not-great portrayal of a female; in fact Ariel is considered by many to be the Worst Princess. Yet, by others, she is still beloved by many. See, Ariel is, to me, Marmite Princess. You either love her spunk, her curiosity, her determination, maybe her red hair; or you hate that she fell in love with a man she knew for a minute, gave up everything she knew (and everything that made her special) to be with him, and was kind of a brat to her dad. These are all very valid reasons to like or dislike Ariel! It's a film that warrants about as much praise as it does criticism (again, Snow White, in my opinion, has more issues than most princess films). So this is probably a good time to weigh those pros and cons. Hold on to your dinglehoppers and get your snarfblats, because we're heading out to Atlantica for a spell.

The Little Mermaid is Disney’s adaptation of a Hans Christian Andersen classic about a young mermaid, curious about the world above the sea. In this adaptation, the mermaid is a called Ariel, and she is the youngest (and most rebellious) of seven sisters, who all awkwardly 1. look nothing like her and 2. all have names starting with A. She likes to spend a lot of time going to the surface to show all her weird human stuff (she’s a hoarder with a huuuuge collection of it--she puts most comic book collectors to shame) to her seagull friend, Scuttle. This really displeases her racist anti-human dad, King Triton, who continually forbids her from going to the surface. One night she goes against her father’s wishes and watches a ship above, as they hold a big birthday party for a dashing prince named Eric. Ariel is enamored with Eric. Like, full-on heart eyes. He’s a living Tiger Beat centerfold, John Stamos circa 1989 was shaking (John Stamos circa 2017 just kinda became him). Suddenly a storm arrives, the ship goes down, but Ariel saves Eric. When Ariel returns home, she is hopelessly in love, which leaves daddy curious, but changes his tune when he finds out it’s a human his daughter is in love with. He destroys Ariel’s hoard grotto, leaving her in tears. She is then lured by a pair of eels with a deal--we know someone who can give you what you want. They lead her to Plus Size Icon, Ursula, a caecilian sea witch. She offers to give Ariel legs for three days, in exchange for her flawless singing voice, and if she can kiss the prince before the three days are up, she can keep the legs, but if not, she goes back to Fintown. Ariel obliges, and spends some largely non-verbal time with her prince, him completely unaware that she is the mystery woman who saved his life. When Ariel comes too close to her kiss, Ursula intervenes, disguised as Eric’s mystery savior, and puts him in a trance that leaves Ariel completely hopeless. After her friends intervene and restore her voice, Ursula takes the now-mermaid-again Ariel back to the sea to fight for her father’s freedom, because SURPRISE! she’s got him now, too. With Eric’s help, the evil is defeated, Triton relents, allows Ariel her legs back, and her prince, Happily Ever After, yadda yadda yadda.

WHEW. You can tell I’ve seen this...more than a few times.

The Little Mermaid comes at a pivotal time in the company. Not because it’s the first time Disney has made a Princess film since 1959, but because...well, at this point, things are Not Great at the company. We are coming out of what is called the Dark Age of Disney, where its films are just not going great. The Black Cauldron is a critical and commercial bomb, and The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company didn’t go so great either. Basically, Disney is banking on Ariel to rejuvenate the company. Ultimately, she does, and the Disney Renaissance begins. Because my mom remembers 1989 better than I do (I was born November of the following year), she says that Ariel was kind of like the Elsa of her time. Everyone wanted to be Ariel. In 2018, everyone still wants to be Ariel, as grown-ass women claim to be mermaids. Including myself. Yes, I am calling myself out. But this is just the impact Ariel has had on women of all ages. In fact, Ariel is the most famous portrayal of a mermaid of all time (a fact I mentioned to Jodi Benson herself /humblebrag). For more on this, please watch the Little Mermaid documentary, Treasures Untold. (I can’t remember if this is the one that accompanies the 2006 Platinum Edition release of the film, but it’s eye-opening regardless.)

Let's begin with the pros.

-ERIC WAS NOT THE REASON ARIEL WENT TO THE SURFACE. I REPEAT, ERIC WAS NOT WHY ARIEL WANTED TO BECOME HUMAN. This is a common misconception for anyone who apparently missed the entire "Part of Your World" number. Clearly, Ariel had a fascination with the human world before ever setting sights on Eric, in fact, if she wasn't so keen to explore the surface, she probably would have never even seen him. She needed a motivation to get up there, and to paraphrase another sea-based Princess, the call wasn't out there at all--it was inside her. If anything, Eric was more of a final straw. Also, if Flotsam and Jetsam hadn't intervened, she probably would not have taken such drastic action. Ariel didn't just cry because Triton destroyed her statue of her crush. Keep in mind he destroyed the ENTIRE grotto. All of Ariel's gadgets, gizmos, whosits, whatsits, thingamabobs, dinglehoppers, snarfblats, you name it--all up in smoke. Stuff she probably spent YEARS collecting. I know I'd be pissed if someone wrecked my Sailor Moon collection. (Also it probably meant that Triton would have an even closer eye on her so it was definitely all over for her--I'd cry, too.) 

-In the original Little Mermaid tale, when the mermaid gains her legs, walking is incredibly painful for her. Whenever she walks, she feels the sensation of walking on knives. Ariel, seemingly, does not. I am 100% okay with this. Also, when the mermaid does not get her prince, her sisters cut their hair off and give to the sea witch in exchange for a knife. With the knife, the mermaid is supposed to stab the prince, have his blood pour over her feet, and that will make her a mermaid again. She refuses, because she's not so jealous she would kill over it. Instead, she flings the knife out to sea, throws herself onto the water, and dissolves into seafoam. Whether this is good or bad probably depends on how much of a purist you are for the original, or how much you like despair porn. Personally I don't think the wages of Ariel's (admittedly, crappy) decision should be death, so this is fine by me. Sure, a generic Happy Ending is kind of a cop-out, and it would have been interesting for Disney to play it closer to the original, but Disney won't simply kill off a Princess. Come on, now.

-Animation-wise, this is probably one of Disney's best. This is one of the last of its kind, being 100% hand-drawn. They would revisit this style with The Princess and the Frog and later Winnie the Pooh (2011, not the Many Adventures), but not since Pooh, since I guess CGI is more profitable. Go figure.

-This film also boasts some of Disney's best songs and best score. This is the first film in which Disney worked with the power duo of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. This tradition would continue until Aladdin (Ashman passed away shortly before the release of Beauty and the Beast, but still had songs featured in Aladdin). The only better Disney songwriting duo, in my opinion, might be Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (Frozen, Coco). But we do not meet them for a whiiiiile.

-Ariel oozes personality compared to a few of the other princesses we have met so far. She is motivated, knows what she wants, is fearless, and delightfully curious. This also is her biggest downfall, but we'll get into that in a second.

-Ursula, too, is a GREAT example of a villain. Like with Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty, her beef is not with our title princess, but with her father, and she uses our princess as more of a pawn in her plan (so, nothing personal). So the woman vs woman issue in Snow White (and later Tangled) is not present here, though it might look like that on the surface. Also, it's been pointed out that Ursula can shapeshift, but prefers to take the form of a plus-sized caecilian sea witch. Basically, she's fat-positive! See, even the villain is progressive. Well, kinda.

-Vanessa (Ursula’s alter ego) is hot. There, I said it.

Do I really need to go into the cons? ...Ugh, it really pains me to criticize this film so heavily.

-It is troublesome that Ariel gave up everything she had for a dude who she barely knew, admittedly. While I insist that Eric was not her sole intention, still, him being the sort of bait (again, remember Flotsam and Jetsam's role in this) and Ariel taking it are all...dodgy.

-Ariel's greatest strength is also her greatest downfall. Her curiosity leads her to a sunken ship and to the surface, thus defying her father (and the iconic "I'm sixteen, I'm not a child" line) and Sebastian in the process. This, obviously, is...not true. Unless this film takes place in Scotland, where 16 is the age of majority (what up Merida), or one of a few African countries (such as Cameroon and Niger), who define the age of majority as early as 15. Which brings me to...

-WHERE ON EARTH DOES THIS FILM TAKE PLACE? For most Princess films, its location is pretty cut and dry. Snow White seems very German. Cinderella, possibly French? Brave obviously takes place in Scotland, Mulan in China, and Pocahontas and The Princess and the Frog in different areas of the North American continent. But The Little Mermaid is an anomaly. Most people just claim Denmark because of the nationality of Hans Christian Andersen (as well as the iconic Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen), but by that logic, you could claim the same for Frozen, however, Frozen takes place in a fictional Norwegian kingdom, not in Denmark. The wildly colorful sea life lends itself to a possible Caribbean setting, Denmark still checks out for the human world. But who even knows, really.

-A few racist caricatures in “Under the Sea”: The “fluke, the duke of soul,” the “blackfish” (who sings), and the Carmen Miranda fish that grabs Flounder out of the blue. I’m under the impression that the “blackfish” was supposed to be an homage to Ella Fitzgerald...but it just comes off wrong.

-I wish we could have had more opportunities to see Ariel conversing with her sisters. She has six of them, there's really no excuse, unless she is purposely distancing herself from them? But like, geez, what would be the beef? Did Attina place her crown on Ariel's vanity seat for her to sit on?

-Can Ariel write basic English? Just out of curiosity.

I do have one complaint that The Little Mermaid kind of set this pattern of mermaid movies being kind of samey, where the mermaid has to become human in order to chase after a man or something of that nature (I love Splash, but that’s one of those films). However, if you're looking for some new kind of mermaid flavor, I might recommend The Mermaid by Stephen Chow (if you can find it subtitled, it's in Chinese), or Freeform's Siren series.

Final thoughts: If you love something, you really have to be honest about it. In my case, I know where the issues lie with The Little Mermaid, and I admit them--begrudgingly. As with many Princesses, Ariel is not without her misconceptions, yet also not without valid criticisms. Ariel's message, on the surface, is that men are to be desired and women should chase after them. But in order to really understand Ariel, you have to dive a bit deeper: If you want something, go for it, rather than wishing and wishing.

Rating: 5 out of 5 dinglehoppers

Thanks for joining me for this (admittedly, difficult) party. Join me for my next one where we look into the misconceptions and misogynists of Beauty and the Beast. No, not that one. Dream Big, Princess!

#disney #disney princess #the little mermaid #in which alex is salty #get it bc mermaids live in the ocean and the ocean is salty #mermaid vibes #mermaid hair don't care #i'm done adulting let's be mermaids #just thinking of quirky mermaid shirts i've seen on etsy...

[alexsprincessparty]

Oh Boy, What a Week

Disney is a lot like Survivor in the way that "just when you think you know what's going on, you have no idea what's going on." (Shoutout to Sebastian from Survivor: Ghost Island...) A company can campaign all it wants about inspiring young girls to Dream Big, Princess while its men (both in the company and within its fandom) get away with belittling women and girls of all ages. Just this week, it was announced that John Lasseter would step down from his role of Principal Creative Advisor, following allegations of sexual misconduct from numerous women he's worked with. Earlier in the week, newly-minted Star Wars star Kelly Marie Tran disappeared from Instagram following overwhelming harassment from angry male Star Wars fans. As this is a Disney blog that discusses gender-focused issues (especially surrounding females), I feel compelled to discuss these issues as a kind of break from Princess discussion, as Disney Princesses are just one facet of so-called Disney Feminism. What happens in our films is one thing, but we still need to focus on what is happening around us, behind the scenes and off the page.

Monsters, Inc, or, the Scary Stuff Behind Pixar's Closed Doors

Let's begin with Lasseter. John Lasseter is best known as one of the co-founders of Pixar Animation Studios, the studio that brought us Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Cars. Up until recently, he was Chief Creative Officer at Walt Disney Animation Studios (Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Moana) as well as DisneyToon Studios (DuckTales, Planes), as well as Principal Creative Director of Walt Disney Imagineering. So, naturally, we all associate Lasseter with his achievements and creations (as well as his trademark Hawaiian shirts). In late 2017, just days before the theatrical release of Disney-Pixar's Coco, Lasseter came under fire for sexual misconduct towards several female employees. Numerous women came out in protest of Lasseter, claiming the 61-year-old Disney head had repeatedly tried to kiss other female employees on the mouth without their consent, give very lengthy and inappropriate hugs (particularly with the actresses of the Disney Fairies franchise), touch inappropriately (one employee stated he would rub her leg under the table at meetings), and make comments about employees' appearances. This led to an apologetic statement from Lasseter, who subsequently took a six-month sabbatical from Disney, after which he will take on a lesser role before leaving for good this December. As I said, Lasseter is renowned for his art and his leadership, as well as his innovative contributions to the animation medium. Rightfully so. 1995's Toy Story, directed by Lasseter, was the first-ever feature film to be animated completely in 3D animation. Pixar specialized in this medium, but Walt Disney Animation Studios would not give it a shot for itself until 2005's Chicken Little, just before Lasseter took over WDAS. Today, nearly every Disney animated feature since 2010's Tangled has been animated in CGI. Lasseter and Pixar blew the door wide open on CGI animation, which dominates the animation industry today, Disney or otherwise. Add that to the work he's done as a writer or producer on films as early as The Fox and The Hound, through the Disney Renaissance, numerous Studio Ghibli classics, all the way up to the upcoming sequels to Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Toy Story--the film that put his company on the map. These are all great accomplishments, but are they really worth putting over the basic needs of security and safety for women in the workplace? Should we really excuse habitual predators and violators based solely on the fact that they're great artists, actors, athletes, musicians? Perhaps it's best left to an individual basis, as some people are better at separating art from artist. For example, I love Toy Story. It is indeed a revolutionary film, a well-written one, and incredibly memorable. In fact, I love a lot of the work Lasseter has done with Disney, and Disney-Pixar. That said, while I cannot put myself in the shoes of the women he affected, I won't simply forgive him because of how much I loved WALL-E. It doesn't work like that. So then, why are so many supporters of the #MeToo movement quick to initiate boycotts of someone's work after these allegations come out? Great question. It's as simple as cutting off a supply, so to speak. Since the allegations against Lasseter came out just before Coco's release, some had planned to boycott the film in protest of Lasseter (which I don't recommend, because 1. a loooooot of other people worked on that film, and 2. it's the only feature film Disney has produced around Mexican culture that also features Hispanic voice talent). What it says is, "if you hurt or violate other women, we will no longer support you." The accused no longer have that supply. It could be a financial supply, an emotional supply of "but you're still so great though!" or "it's okay because I'll still be up at the Oscars/Golden Globes/Annies this year anyway." That, again, is probably best left to an individual basis, that is, you do what you feel is right. 

For example, T.J. Miller very quickly lost favor with me after he came under fire for numerous actions (including violence, transphobia, and also calling in a fake bomb threat! A piece of work, this one), yet still, I saw Deadpool 2...mostly because Ryan Reynolds and Zazie Beetz. And Yukio. (Hi, Yukio.)

If Disney wants to continue to promise a safe workplace environment for women, then it has to commit to punishing violators within its doors, no matter how high on the food chain they are. Nobody should be "too big to fail." Misogyny: A Star Wars Story

You could argue that Star Wars has declined in quality since Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm in the early-to-mid 2010s. Perhaps it got too...you know, Disney. Too soft? Maybe. Too predictable? Yeah, sure, I could see that. But the most common scapegoats for this tend to be not Disney, and not Lucasfilm. Not even J.J. Abrams, or Rian Johnson, or Ron Howard.

Nope. It's the women. Earlier in the week, actress Kelly Marie Tran suddenly disappeared from Instagram amid a flurry of hateful comments from angry Star Wars fans. Tran made her Star Wars debut in last year's polarizing eighth installment, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, as Resistance tech Rose Tico. Since the film's release, many have criticized and questioned the need for Rose, as well as Tran's talents as an actress, in addition to her appearance. I know. Surprise. Granted, a lot of post-Disney Star Wars has seen its fair share of criticism, and it's normal to criticize cinema, regardless of how much you like it. However, I have to point out a glaring pattern with some recent Star Wars gripes. A lot of issues, particularly with male Star Wars fans, are with its new streak of female protagonists. Rey. Jyn Erso. Rose Tico. Maz Kanata. Captain Phasma. Qi'ra. Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo. These are just a portion of the cinematic female characters introduced by Lucasfilm since its acquisition by Disney, many of which have been panned by the saga's male fanbase not only as "useless" or "boring," but also "pandering to women because representation/SJWs/libtards/[insert buzzword here]!" While I think all those characters invite their own well-deserved criticisms. However, simply blaming the new films' failures on the fact that they have female protagonists? Sounds fake, but okay. "Rey is the hero? But Finn was holding the lightsaber in the trailer! WTF is this?" You didn't complain about Poe Dameron essentially being the new Han Solo. "Captain Phasma is a waste of space! She didn't do anything!" Boba Fett though? "Rose stole Finn's heroic moment, what a bitch!" BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FIGHTING THE THINGS WE HATE, WE'RE SAVING THINGS WE LOVE, KEVIN "Jyn Erso is such a flat character, why is it all about women now?" Because maybe, just maybe, it would be awesome for female fans of Star Wars to see other females in Star Wars. Sounds pretty novel if you ask me. This seems to be a long-running problem with Star Wars. In fact, Tran is not the only Star Wars lady bullied off Instagram by overzealous male fans. Only a few years ago, Rey herself, Daisy Ridley, suffered the same fate and still hasn't returned to the website (honestly? Probably for the best). You can't claim that just because Emilia Clarke, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, and Laura Dern haven't buckled as well, that Tran and Ridley are "sissies" and not oppressed. Believe me, they are (Clarke and Christie probably deal with this crap as Game of Thrones stars as well so they're probably just used to it). "But we didn't harass Carrie Fisher!" You reduced Princess Leia to a metal bikini until Disney intervened and conveniently forgot about it when it came to merchandising.

Again, you can argue that Disney is ruining Star Wars. I might even agree. But it's not because they keep utilizing female protagonists. In fact, Disney's only Star Wars film with a male protagonist, Solo: A Star Wars Story, has been the least profitable of the Disney/Lucasfilm era. That's not to say the male protagonist was to blame, of course. Personally, I think the problem is Star Wars fatigue, that is, Disney oversaturating us with Star Wars to the point where we just can't take it anymore. But yeah, go ahead and blame the women, sure. Clearly it has been an interesting week for female Disney fans. Some good, some bad. But, hakuna matata, I guess. The world still sucks. But remember the Fairy Godmother's words: "Even miracles take a little time." (I don't remember if she actually said this, but there's a lot of cute Tumblr gifs of her saying it, so she must have said it, right?) I'll be swimming back this way soon for The Little Mermaid, so hang tight. I've just got some bigger fish to fry at the moment. Dream Big Princess!

#disney #star wars #pixar #kelly marie tran #rose tico #john lasseter #metoo #i am really going there today aren't i

[alexsprincessparty]

Sleeping Beauty: Slept On!

Another week, another princess adventure. This one I spent with a particular friend...

That's right, I watched Sleeping Beauty this week. This image does not in any way reflect how I felt about the film, but it has been crazy at work so I did conk out for a while before starting it.

Sleeping Beauty is an anomaly of a Princess film, in the way that its villain is vastly more popular than its title princess. I guess it makes sense since Aurora has a personality befitting a discarded Amazon box. Literally, there aren't a lot of character traits about Aurora that aren't shared by the princesses who came before her. She's...kind. Pretty. Fairly submissive. Oh, yeah, and white. Still, Aurora is beloved as an original Disney Princess, just like Snow White and Cinderella before her. And still arguably one of the most beautiful. Okay, that was just me talking, I think.

So now we can finally actually talk about Sleeping Beauty.

Sleeping Beauty is based on the classic fairytale of a princess (in this adaptation, called Aurora), cursed at birth to a deathlike slumber by a wicked fairy (in this adaptation, called Maleficent). She lives in the forest as Briar Rose with three fairy godmothers--Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather--who raise her until her sixteenth birthday. The curse is said to prick her finger on a spinning wheel's needle on the day of her sixteenth birthday, but while Maleficent ordered her to die from it, Merryweather comes in clutch and adjusts the curse (when will your fae?) so that she merely falls asleep, to be awakened by True Love's Kiss (sounds familiar). She's saved by a prince, there's a dragon, yadda yadda yadda, make it pink, make it blue, happily ever after.

This film also borrows its score from that of the Sleeping Beauty ballet by Pyotr Ilych Tchaikovsky, which means it automatically wins. Menken and Giacchino, I still love you.

The good:

-Aurora still manages to be just a bit rebellious despite being one of the early ones. She, like Ariel thirty years later, hopes to marry this man she just met in the woods, and gushes to her fairy godmothers about him, none of them knowing he is Prince Philip, the one set up in this fancy arranged marriage their parents set up for them. This is about to get awkward. Still, Aurora knows what she wants, and no arrange marriage is gonna stop that, until she realizes she's being arranged to marry the guy she wanted to anyway. Life comes at you fast.

-The humor in this film is actually the best of the classic era. The Skumps scene with Philip and Aurora's fathers is pure debauchery, but it's the bard who steals the show by slipping their alcohol into his lyre and just getting hilariously drunk...and staying that way throughout the film. He gives a new meaning to the phrase "drinking under the table." The fairies also are a comedy show in themselves, as they're all just plain dumb without magic.

-Speaking of fairies, can we just put a good thought in for Merryweather? She has to adjust the Awesome Gift she has for baby Aurora because Maleficent just ordered to have her killed. Hatchimals will just have to wait until next year. Not only that, but she always has to be the one to remind her sisters to not use magic, should Aurora find out what her godmothers are. And then she is the one whose bright idea it is to make Aurora's dress blue, but she is far more recognized in her pink dress. Long story short, Merryweather has been through it. (By the way, the fairies are the ONLY reason this film passes the Bechdel test, though it is not the first Princess film to do so--Cinderella holds that honor.)

-Prince Philip so far rules the Most Useful Prince title, for slaying a dragon and awakening Aurora with the good old TLK. Great job, Philip, for being a standard prince.

-M A L E F I C E N T. Let's be real, Maleficent stole the ENTIRE show. The very definition of petty with a face beat for the gods, and, oh, I don't know, All The Powers of Hell! No other Disney villain can claim a pact with Satan! When will Ursula ever? There is a good reason why she is synonymous with Disney villains, and so far, the only villain with a solo film to her name. Iconic doesn't even begin to describe. (Also, that monologue she gives to captive Prince Philip is purely sinister. I love a wicked woman.) Maleficent is also the only example of woman hating other women, and being hated by other women. To be fair...she is despicable. Yet, still, I love her...

And then there's the not-so-good.

-You know that trope you hate about princesses where they're all damsels in distress and have to be rescued by a prince? This is that movie. This is that trope. Aurora is the damsel, put to sleep by a wicked curse, and Philip--Mr. Right Place Right Time--breaks it, slays the dragon, marries the princess, happily ever after. All this time you have been blaming every princess for this trope when, in reality, it's only a few, with this one being one of the worst offenders.

-Are arranged marriages still a thing? I think they are. Kill them with the rage of a burning black hell dragon. It slides in this era because era but the fact that it still happens in other countries to this day is just unbelievable, honestly.

-How did Disney get away with such heavy alcohol consumption in a kids' movie? Not that I care that much, personally, I'm just wondering.

-On one hand, the dress could have stayed blue, because gendered coloring blah blah, but I think they started using Aurora's pink dress when the Princess franchise came into being in the 90s, to differentiate Aurora from Cinderella (EVEN THOUGH HER DRESS IS SILVER). And I guess Tiana later on, even though her green lilypad dress seems to be her signature look. I don't know, I guess it was either her or Ariel. I really just wanted Merryweather to have SOMETHING in the end.

-A lot of emphasis on beauty in this film as well as the ones before it, but you can tell that the company is v e r y s l o w l y moving away from this concept.

Final thoughts: Sleeping Beauty is just a few steps backward, but you know how it is with things like this. Baby steps and all. This film practically patented the damsel-in-distress trope, and perfected it to a science. Tchaikovsky, a horned witch, and some rabble-rousing fairies could not save this film from that, but oh, do they make it enjoyable. Out of the classic era, this one truly shines, and is severely underrated. There isn't a lot else to be gleaned from it, other than to be careful around needles. (Fun fact: I didn't watch this movie until I was 20, because I never watched it as a kid. My mother didn't want me to develop a fear of pricking my finger. Now, at age 27, I still have no piercings or tattoos for that very reason, so suck it, Mom.)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 drunk bards

Thanks for joining me for this installment of the Princess Party. In my next installment, I will have to painfully criticize my favorite film of all time--1989's The Little Mermaid. Join me as I resist progressiveness in the name of defending my problematic fave! Until then, Dream Big, Princess!

#disney #disney princess #sleeping beauty #princess aurora #aurora #in which alex discovers gifs and time travel

[alexsprincessparty]

Sorry for the disappearance...

I know all zero of you were wondering where my Sleeping Beauty post was last week! (Really, I got no messages about it so I figured you all were waiting with bated breath.) Well, the truth is that I got pricked by the spindle of a spinning wheel and fell into a deep sleep I was working. A lot. It's a long story that you really don't care to hear.

Anyway, in addition to work, I found time to attend Megacon in Orlando on Sunday, where I (sort of) got to meet actual Disney Legend, the voice of Ariel herself, Jodi Benson! And by that, I mean I nervously asked a question, while actually dressed as Ariel, because I didn't have any other cosplay ready (also, when in Rome, I guess). It was wonderful. And I potentially embarrassed myself in front of her because I am an awkward little thing. But I'll never forget it.

(Not my first experience with a Disney Legend, either! I also asked Ming-Na Wen, Mulan herself, if she views Mulan as a Disney Princess. She does. The debate is settled.)

Where am I going with this? Nowhere, really. I'm honestly bragging.

But I am working on the Sleeping Beauty post at the moment. Once it's ready, it will go up. Thanks for your patience, Princess Pals...

Yours truly,

Princess Alexandra of Procrastinatia

#mod post #never using that signature again

[alexsprincessparty]

Cinderella: Like a Victorian Coachella

Guess what I watched this week?

Clearly, A Bug's Life.

I remember really enjoying Cinderella as a child, which is interesting because she does not really even rank in my top 5 princesses. Perhaps it was just the iconic quality of Cinderella as another archetypal princess, the ideal of what a princess looks and acts like, the happily ever after, the magic, the Prince Charming...she's a princess package deal. Or maybe it was me kind of relating to the Anastasia/Drizella sibling rivalry, as someone who has a twin sister myself. I'm not sure why Cinderella slid so far back on my ranking of Disney Princesses, maybe it was just growing up (or not, considering who my number one is).

You would have to be living under a rock to not know the story of Cinderella, but here we go. Cinderella is the daughter of a widowed gentleman (his social status is not exactly mentioned), considerably well-off, but lonely. Hoping to find a sort of mother figure for his young daughter, he remarries a woman known only as Lady Tremaine, who has two daughters Cindy's age. (These girls are often referred to as "ugly stepsisters" which is a problem in itself, more on that later.) Daddy suddenly passes away, leaving Cinderella in the care of her new stepmother. Or not. As their house falls into squalor, Tremaine forces Cindy to become the resident maid, as the two stepsisters live luxuriously. When an invitation comes to attend the Prince's royal ball---for Every Woman To Attend--the Tremaines go out of their way to make sure Cindy doesn't attend. Her outfit that had been meticulously prepared by her sweet mouse friends is ripped to shreds, and she is left without a thing to wear, and utterly discouraged. Suddenly her Fairy Godmother comes into the picture, whips her up a gown and carriage, and sends her on her way, but with a catch: you have until midnight, or you end up in the tacky pink thing again. She does get her dance with the (honestly boring) prince, but leaves a single glass slipper behind, at least allowing a clue as to who the Mysterious Princess might be. After many efforts by the Tremaines to keep that slipper off Cinderella's foot, the pieces fall together, and Cinderella finally gets the hell outta dodge, Happily Ever After in tow.

So now, let's go through the pros:

-While Cindy isn't exactly exploding with personality, honestly, it's remarkable that she is so patient. Cinderella has the patience of a SAINT. Her stepmother and stepsisters talk to her TERRIBLY. They are abusive. All three of them. Yet still, Cinderella does what she is told, kindly, with little question. This should be a con as well, but she is not entirely passive. She does defend herself when one of the stepsisters finds a mouse in her teacup. Of course, Lady Tremaine is awful and isn't having any of this, but give Cindy credit for trying at least. It's a miracle she hasn't slipped poison into their tea, Lady Gaga style.

-The humor in this movie is an improvement over Snow White (there was barely any, so it's not a stretch). Most of it centers around the animal characters, particularly in response to the cat Lucifer. But our title princess has her moments, too, as she chuckles at the stepsisters' musical talent (or lack thereof). Call her Shaderella!

-When I was young we had a black and white cat named Whitney and after watching this movie I told my mom we should have called her Lucifer, not knowing the biblical origins of the name and her being very, very Christian. So...you can probably imagine her reaction.

-Some of the BEST Disney songs are in this movie. "A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes" is not only iconic but simply stunning, as is the "So This Is Love" duet.

-There's a scene after the ball in which Cinderella looks totally dazed as Anastasia and Drizella pile up clothing in her arms. She legitimately acts like one of those girls who just got back from Coachella who post a Snapchat story the morning after with one of those flower crown filters groaning "I wanna go back...I wanna go back..." This isn't really a pro or con, just an observation.

Annnnnnnd the cons.

-The Tremaines are simply awful. They are perpetrators of woman-on-woman negativity, and incredibly abusive. Lady Tremaine, the house matriarch, disallows Cinderella to state her piece after the mouse-in-a-teacup incident. She also teases Cinderella being able to attend the ball (which she ends up ripping out the rug from underneath her). When Cinderella shows up wearing Anastasia and Drizella's discarded beads and sash (after they complained they didn't like them), they rip them off Cinderella when they see her wearing them. In the film's storybook beginning, we learn that Lady Tremaine only began to take advantage of Cinderella after the passing of her parents, so that without her parents to get in the way, nobody could defend her. At one point, Tremaine locks Cinderella in a cellar so she can't try on the slipper and potentially marry the prince. You know, as if the stepsisters would fit the slipper. Sounds fake, but okay.

-That said, I don''t necessarily agree with using the word "ugly" as a synonym for evil. Physical appearances are just that, physical appearances. They have little to do with one's moral character. As we have learned from the current administration, even pretty people can be despicable. Should we only value people who are aesthetically pleasing? This is an issue that also comes up in 1997's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, only in this case, it centers on a man (Quasimodo, the titular hunchback) rather than a woman. Pretty people can be despicable. Not so pretty people can be absolute angels. And the other way around is true too. Beauty--both inward and outward--is in the eye of the beholder.

-Cinderella isn't entirely passive but at the same time, she seems hesitant. I really just long for the day when she tells Lady Tremaine what for and lets her have it. Some people are awful and just deserve it.

Final thoughts: Cinderella often gets a bad rep for being the archetypal Disney Princess, and often gets lumped in with Snow White in waiting for her prince to come. This is a common misconception with Cinderella. Cindy seems to have a similar view on romance as I do: if it happens, neat. If not, also neat. I'm just here for a good time. She just wanted a night off from chores! Kind of like how my coworkers and I all took an hour off of what we were doing to watch Prince Harry and Meghan Markle get married. It might be because Cinderella simply does as she's told with little contestion. A quote from Conan O'Brien's last Tonight Show comes to mind: "If you work hard and be kind, amazing things will happen. Perhaps she has more in common with Coco than Snow White.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 singing mice

Thanks for joining me at the Princess Party this week. Next week I'll have a look at a Princess rarity--a film in which the villain's popularity greatly outweighs that of its princess. That would be, naturally, The Maleficent Show Featuring Princess Aurora Sleeping Beauty. Dream Big, Princess!

#disney #disney princess #cinderella #in b4 your tired glass slippers/glass ceilings analogy

[alexsprincessparty]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: You're, Like, Really Pretty

I watched Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

There are a lot of things about this film that are great. There are also a lot of things about it that are bad. Very, very, very bad. I'm going to try my best to salvage poor Snowy but God...this is a tricky film.

For the uninitiated, let us summarize this iconique piece of animated cinema. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the olden tale of a kind-hearted princess with the kind of voice only heard by dogs, a girl only named Snow White. Snow White is pretty, like, really pretty. No one is more irritated by this than her stepmother, the Evil Queen (less popularly known as Queen Grimhilde--it just did not catch on). Perhaps the Petty Queen was a better name, because she is so petty about not being the Fairest of Them All that not only does she force the princess to dress in rags and do basic chores...but she also puts a hit on her. She commissions an unnamed huntsman to kill her and stick her heart in a box as some kind of twisted trophy. When the huntsman fails to carry out his deed, she runs away and finds herself at a cottage owned by seven uncreatively named dwarfs (btw, "dwarfs" was apparently a conscious decision, not a typo. People with dwarfism don't necessarily like to be associated with "Heigh-Ho"). The dwarfs allow her to live in the cottage after she offers to essentially be their mother. Meanwhile, the Queen finds out that her hitman failed to deliver, returning with a dick heart of a pig in the box. She takes it upon herself to turn herself into an old hag witch, offer Snowy a "magic wishing apple" (spoiler alert: IT'S TOXIC) which Snowy, being not very bright, takes, eats, and dies from. The dwarfs thwart their mother's killer, mourn Snowy, and stick her in a glass coffin, because that's not weird when you die beautiful. Snowy's prince then magically arrives, magically resurrects her with True Love's Kiss, and they ride off into the sunset.

All in all, a very standard, basic princess tale. This is the kind of story that you hear when angry mothers and girls who are Not Like Other Girls complain about Disney Princesses. To be fair, Snowy is the OG. You're not gonna come up with something as wildly original as Blade Runner right off the bat. This was the late 1930s. These kinds of stories were acceptable back then. In 2018, teenagers have campaigned for Queen Elsa and Captain America to have same-sex love interests, as well as for more non-white/disabled/mentally ill/LGBT protagonists. Disney is definitely listening, but taking baby steps, including more protagonists of color (Moana, Coco, Marvel's Black Panther) and even including women in major roles in Marvel and Star Wars films. Better late than never, I guess, especially when you think about where we started.

Let's start with the good.

-This film really did pave the way for animated feature films. It was the first in fact, not just the first by Disney. Literally. It's possible that without the success of Snow White, Disney may not be in the film business the way it is, or at least wouldn't be as well known for its fairytales as it is.

-It is one of the better examples of rotoscoping that I have seen.

-Snow White herself is indeed very kind and pretty, and is an animal lover! All very good things.

-The Evil Queen is low key hot, for someone who wears about as much makeup as a contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race. (Which I personally am kind of attracted to lmao.)

-The dwarfs all have different quirks and personalities...which are all kind of made obvious by their names. Very creative, Disney.

And now.......the bad. Buckle up, buckaroos.

-The woman-on-woman negativity in this film is a doozy. The Queen is determined to be the Fairest of Them All, but Snow White--her actual stepdaughter--keeps getting in her way by outfairing her. So rather than just stepping her shit up...she plots to kill Snow. And this seems to just be okay. Right.

-There is a creepy emphasis on outer beauty. The Huntsman is commissioned by the Queen to kill Snow and bring her her heart. The Huntsman refuses to kill her, presumably because he finds her SOOOO BEAUTIFUL. Now, it's open to interpretation. Perhaps he has his qualms about killing an innocent young woman in the name of another person's vain jealousy. However, the dwarfs, one club to the head away from knocking Snowy right out of this film, hesitate when they see A GIRL!!!!!!!! in their bed. Later, when she dies, the film goes out of its way to mention that Snowy was TOOOOO BEAUTIFUL!!!!! to be buried in the ground where nobody can see her. So instead, her corpse is placed in a.....glass coffin. This certainly would backfire when she begins to decay, right? Did nobody think this through? Beauty is temporary.

-This film suffers from VERY antiquated gender roles. Aside from being SOOOOO BEAUTIFUL!!!!1!1, Snow White's strengths seem to be limited to domestic work--cleaning, cooking, sewing, etc. She is like the dwarfs' mother, only she is only 14 and they are grown ass men. All she wants is to find her prince, fall in love, and live happily ever after. In my opinion, there is not really a problem with Snowy wanting to be swept off her feet by a handsome prince. The heart wants what it wants, after all. The real problem here is the film teaching young girls that getting married and being domestic are what they NEED to aspire to, that it is all they are good for. There is the real problem. (There is another problem in women chastising other women for wanting to get married and be domestic, again, if that is what she wants then fine, but it should not be the only option for every woman ever.)

-The dwarfs are utterly useless. Who are they mining gems for? The Queen? And why can't they do ANYTHING ELSE for themselves? They can't cook or clean or BATHE???? Snowy, please love yourself.

-The film overall is just...kind of boring. I was just not excited by any part of it. Just the Queen...even though she is awful. That's not good.

-As a personal note, Snow's voice is my least favorite. Of course, I rank Pocahontas above everybody, and then everybody else above Snow. That's a vibrato only a mother could love.

-Snow White has zero agency. She does not think for herself, instead blindly accepts a dodgy apple from a woman she only just met. Nobody told her to not accept apples from strangers? That was, like, lesson number one for me as a kid. But maybe they didn't lace candy with staples and nails in 1937.

Alex's rating: 2 out of 5 poison apples

Final thoughts: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is definitely a product of its time, and Disney Princesses have come a long way since her time. But the worst thing about Snow, to me, is the fact that she is the archetypal passive princess. Snow White set the bar for princesses that came after her...unfortunately. It's funny to me that people often bring up Cinderella or The Little Mermaid in terms of progressivity in Disney Princess films, when Snow White has SO many more glaring issues than either of those films. I'll get more into those issues as my marathon continues. Snow White still has good, admirable qualities: her kindness, work ethic, and positivity are all very good things to be. She's selfless, but to a fault. She seems to put others so far ahead of herself that she in fact loses herself. You can be kind and giving, but you have to be kind and giving to yourself as well as others. Once you find that balance, then everything falls into place. And remember that external beauty is temporary. It's okay to put effort into your appearance, wearing makeup and cute clothes and such, but be careful not to base your worth on appearances, and don't let other people take advantage of you for that reason either.

Thanks for stopping by the party this week. Join me next time when I discuss Cinderella, a princess so iconic, she had TWO theme park castles. Dream Big, Princess!

#snow white and the seven dwarfs #disney #disney princess #a lot of apple juice was consumed in the making of this post

[alexsprincessparty]

Once upon a time, there was an Alex

And she had a dream. She dreamed that one day she could watch every Disney Princess movie and write about them, and that someone somewhere would care about what she had to say.

But wishing on stars is half the job. She had to put in effort. (And find a day off or two.)

This is the beginning of her story. One that she can't keep telling in third person because God, this is harder than it looks.

Turn the page, the story begins...