Girl w/ Pen has a fantastic and disturbing article about Disney’s Tangled. I highly recommend reading it, because I’m only going to touch on one of the many troubling points it makes.
Tangled is being called a “gender neutral makeover.” Perhaps this will make sense when I tell you it’s the story of Flynn Rider, an outlaw who meets some chick who’s been imprisoned in a tower all her life, and eventually marries her. By the way, that chick’s name is Rapunzel.
You see what they’ve done there? When the story was about Rapunzel, it was ABOUT WOMEN OH NOES, which made it not gender neutral. Neutralizing it meant making it about a white guy. White straight not-disabled middle class guys don’t have gender, or race, or sexual orientation or class. They just… are.
Must be nice. Apparently, being both female and from a below-middle-class background, I’m two issues rather than a person, myself. How about you?
Hollywood tells writers that if you make your lead a woman, a black man, a gay person, a disabled person, a poor person or anything but a white born male who’s heterosexual and not disabled and middle class and stuff, suddenly your movie is about being a woman, being black, being gay, etc. It automatically stops being about dragons or saving the world from terrorists or a romance or whatever may have seemed to be the plot, and becomes an “issue movie” about what it’s like to not be a conformist white dude.
We can’t win for losing, can we? We can’t even have stories – we have to have obnoxious political statement movies, which reinforces the idea that those of us who aren’t conformist white dudes are just irritating bundles of complaints that, honestly, no one wants to spend a lot of money to see in a theater.
Oh, and for pity’s sake, don’t point to the genre ghetto as evidence we have a place in movies. Yes, I realize we’re supposed to be content that “chick flicks” can feature women (so long as they’re dealing with depression, romance or the high cost of cute shoes), and then there’s “urban comedy” or Oscar-aiming dramas like Precious to cover the entire experience of being other-than-white (because not being white is either really, really funny or really, really sad!… to white people!). I guess there’s, oh, fanfiction for gays, and disabled people will always have Helen Keller, right? Yeah, just don’t even go there. See how it makes the case for me?
Let’s face it: loads of people routinely go to the theater and then decide which movie to see. Hollywood waaaaay overestimates the amount of thought people apply to what movie they’re going to see (and this is the very last thing they want to admit, because a whole lot of jobs center on figuring out precisely what the audience wants – “two hours in a darkened room with popcorn and a shared emotional experience” does not justify even one minor salary).
Hollywood argues that they must give us bigoted casting because bigots are in the audience, and not pandering to the bigots hurts their bottom line. But are they looking at the same evidence the rest of us are? Remember when Jeff Rabinov said Warner wouldn’t make anymore movies about women (I know he denied he said it; I don’t believe him) because a Jodie Foster movie hadn’t done so well? The Movie Blog – hardly a feminist critique site – pointed out that a Kevin Bacon film in the same genre had flopped much, much worse around the same time. The truth is, no one would ever think to explain a movie’s failure by saying, “That’s it! No more movies about white straight dudes!” And when a movie featuring a non-white-dude does well? That’s also in spite of the lead’s demographics. When a movie featuring Leo DiCaprio does well, that’s obviously down to him, so give that man a raise.
Not exactly equal, huh?
Sure, loads of movies featuring women or people of color don’t do so well. But far, far more movies featuring white male leads flop. Oh, you say, but that’s just because there are so many more movies about white men to flop. Well, yes. And when a movie about a woman flops, that too is for some other reason than the lead’s demographics. No, I can’t prove this, but I grew up in the region where the KKK was founded, and never did even the most vocal racist or misogynist assholes around me boycott the Aliens movies or a Will Smith movie or any other form of entertainment (sports, anyone?) featuring groups they disliked, because you know what? Entertaining white guys is exactly what we all exist for, according to white male bigots.
It’s time Disney and the rest of them just own the truth: they want to maintain the status quo. They look for excuses to do so.
{ 129 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
This is why I’d rather re-read Rapunzel’s Revenge. She gets out of the tower herself, figures out how to use her hair as a weapon herself, and goes around rescuing people oppressed by the witch (who is apparently standing in for a railroad baron, since it’s a Wild West setting). Including her real mom, who was forced into the mines. There’s a guy, but he isn’t the star of a story named after someone else!
Em(Quote) (Reply)
I’m kinda with Armchairshrink about this one, I’m an artist and if I were lucky enough to work for a big animation company like Disney and toiled endlessly plying my craft on pages and pages of scenes, then they got shelved for whatever reason, I’d fucking shit myself with rage and frustration, it’s not just a matter of “you got paid, why ya’ complaining?” I don’t want to be an asshole or dismiss your opinion but in this case it seems your hatred of all things Disney clouded your opinion about that?
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
She could have been the first “Jewish Disney Princess in a movie that doesn’t have anything to do with New York, Miami, or the Bible!”
(I’m not Jewish, I’m Irish/German but hey, stereotypically speaking…)
There DOES seem to be an overabundance of redheads in fiction, isn’t there?
;P
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
It’s not that I don’t understand their frustration, or that working long hours doesn’t take a toll on a person, or that work in the arts is somehow “less” than non-artistic labor, or even that considering your job in jeopardy isn’t strenuous. It’s not even the association with Disney, because to be honest, the animators are the Disney workers I find the most inspiring, and Disney has a reputation of fucking over animators first (see: The Thief and the Cobbler, Miramax edition, and Richard Williams’s previous work with the Disney company).
My biggest issues with the animators was that the frustrations they were coming up against are very typical of show business– against both the idea that someone has to be the necessary evil of the business end of showbiz, and be the asshole always worrying about the money, and the concept that sometimes, your labor will be fruitless, and cuts that you don’t agree with will be made. That’s show business. You won’t always have creative control, and when your job is to produce X product to Y standards, it’s your choice to do it and keep the job, or to not do it and get another job. It sucks to be in that position as an artist, but them’s the breaks.
To be clear, I did think all the other complaints aired were completely valid, even when it came to some of those corporate executives being out of touch with the work being done, or infighting being bad for company morale, but it really irked me that some of the animators were so sanctimonious about their work being edited, like they were somehow above criticism because they were the artists. Snobbery is an issue I have with the art world in general, and why I don’t pursue a professional career in art myself.
Gena(Quote) (Reply)
Now that you’ve explained, that’s also a part of why I’m an outsider artist, because I can’t be arsed to deal with showbiz bullshit and I want to work on my art on my own terms…This reminds me, I guess we can’t all have a producer or higher-up executives as chill as Ghibli studios, who say as long as they finish their product on time, they can make their movies about anything they want.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
I’m going to second this, based on my own experience in film. I came into screenwriting totally prepared to cut essential scenes because some stupid suit told me it was too expensive, to alter crucial elements on the fly, etc. I knew about that stuff. I was a good enough writer to generate what was required to keep the story alive no matter what concessions I was asked to make. That, as Gena says, is show business. Awful, but part of the job.
What I did NOT accept as part of the job was being asked to erase or minimize characters who weren’t white men. I also wasn’t wild about being asked to work for free (and I’m talking performing labor for free as a PA, not writing scripts on spec, because on spec is also part of the job).
Point: there are much bigger problems in the entertainment industry than artists having their creativity broken down into dollars and cents. I only wish there weren’t.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
“All they had to do was make using her hair as a rope be her idea”
I’ve now got a mental image of Rapunzel swinging around like Spider-Man.
Now THAT in a trailer, that would make me see it.
Charles RB(Quote) (Reply)
Thanks, y’all!
Genevieve(Quote) (Reply)
That reminds me of Big Bird. I was convinced as a kid that Big Bird was female, because there *had* to be a girl among the main Muppet characters, and Big Bird seemed the most likely candidate. Sesame Street has pissed me off royally in that way… not only did they betray my baby self by not, in fact, having any girls in the main Muppet characters, but then in the 80′s they added a new main Muppet… who was male. It wasn’t until a handful of years ago that they explicitly added a main female Muppet, and Abby Kadabby has no marketing juggernaut behind her like Elmo did when he was introduced.
But hey, not every show sucks in this way! I was shocked and pleased to discover recently that Linnie the Guinea Pig in Wonder Pets, who is the team leader, dresses in non-gendered clothing most of the time, and is the character who’s basically always right, is FEMALE! I thought for the longest time that she was a boy, just because I have never seen a show with anthropomorphic creatures, aimed at both genders, where there are two girls and a boy, and her having a female voice actor didn’t mean much because most boy characters do. But no, Nick’s website states that she is female! They seem to downplay it — I see few references to Linnie’s gender anywhere — but they do occasionally have her dress in goofy feminine costumes when they do their brief silly costume bit in every episode (as does Ming-Ming, and Tuck the turtle’s costumes are equally silly but generally gendered male). So the Wonder Pets are actually mostly female! This may be a record for children’s shows aimed at both genders.
Alara Rogers(Quote) (Reply)
There’s also something about his douchebag hipster facial hair that I find visually offensive. (You must understand that I went to art school, wherein guys like that were everywhere. And I didn’t like them then, either.)
Chai Latte(Quote) (Reply)
OMG! Be my new best friend! Seriously, I feel like I’m the only one who’s read that book! It’s freaking AWESOME.
Chai Latte(Quote) (Reply)
I took my niece to see this movie, and I was really underwhelmed. I liked the animation just fine, but the songs were blah–and Flynn really grated on my nerves, though I can’t fully articulate why. Maybe I was projecting my residual hatred for his hijacking of Rapunzel’s story?
But honestly? I freaking LOVED Princess and the Frog to pieces. Tiana was a relatable heroine, and her beauty was never a central theme–present, certainly, but it wasn’t constantly referred to/nor was it a plot point. She was a truly strong, admirable princess. Tiana knows what she wants, and has flaws, and is interesting. Rapunzel….not so much. Tiana would have no patience for Rapunzel at all!
And Naveen gets a lot of flack, but to be honest, he’s my absolute favorite Disney prince, and the only one whom I’ve ever found to be genuinely charming. (And definitely the sexiest, WHOAMAMA.) His flaws mostly reside in his carelessness and the fact that he just isn’t jused to doing for himself or considering others–elements of Kuzco in there, and yet, when he does begin to change, it’s believable and honest. Some complain that it was rushed, though most Disney pairings are–and in this one, they had a chance to teach each other something and bond a bit before making the actual declaration.)
I suppose I appreciate Naveen because he represents a different, more positive kind of masculinity–one that is caring, supportive, and family-oriented (in the way that Naveen is willing to make sacrifices for Tiana’s dream–which, in most films and real life, is a duty that usually falls to the woman). This doesn’t make him ‘less’ than a man, simply a different one.
Flynn, unfortunately, is more of the same. I feel like Disney lost an opportunity to make him truly interesting. While he isn’t as bland as some of his predecessors, he needs work–I had a really hard time buying his and Rapunzel’s love story.
Chai Latte(Quote) (Reply)
OMFG, two girls and a guy?
)
THAT’S BEEN MY NAKAMA SINCE I WAS SEVEN.
And now I’m too old to enjoy it….:(
(mostly ‘cuz I find most Nick Jr. shows nowadays to be unbearably dull…I miss Face and Allegra’s Castle and Rupert and Busy World of Richard Scary and Gullah Gullah Island.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
Whoops, I mean EUREEKA’S Castle and Allegra’s Window…they were both awesome.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
Hey, what about Rosita? And Zoë? They were both pretty prominent for a while… But I see what you mean. That’s why I always preferred Little Bear and Arthur to Franklin the Turtle and Thomas the Tank Engine. If I can’t relate to what’s going on, I’m not watching, even if I AM four years old.
Gena(Quote) (Reply)
I think I need to buy this. Even if it’s the only book I buy myself this Christmas, as I’ve just gotten rid of half my books.
Gena(Quote) (Reply)
I and my twenty-month-old son both adore “Princess and the Frog.” In fact, my SON prefers this princess movie to “Up,” ”Kung Fu Panda,”and “Monsters, Inc,” and will rather watch “Princess and the Frog” AGAIN and AGAIN.
Mana G(Quote) (Reply)
Tiana is definitely up there with Nala as my fav Disney princess. (Oh, wait, Nala’s not considered a princess, is she? Is it because she’s queen by the end, or because she’s not human? Hmmm…Oh well.)
I just wish I’d liked her movie more.
I think a lot of my love of her character is that she was a lot more Miyazakian (in character) than most Disney girls and princesses, considering she’s opinionated, goal-oriented, and she works HARD and is NOT afraid to get dirty.
And I do like that at the end of the movie the prince pretty much works for HER.
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
I love the term “Miyazakian”, I think I’m going to steal that.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
….and Naveen doesn’t seem to mind one bit!
Gotta love a man like that. Now where do I get my own personal Naveen? 
Chai Latte(Quote) (Reply)
I always thought the magic hair was blonde because the magic came from a drop of liquid sunlight. The flower was yellow, too, if you think about it.
Dark Puck(Quote) (Reply)
Missed point is missed.
You’re not wrong in reasons in the narrative of the movie.
However, there’s no actual reason to make the hair blond. And because blond hair is such a prominent part of the USA’s beauty constructs, that they made magical hair blond and unmagical hair brown plays a role in a larger context that glorifies certain physical traits over others. This is further troubling when the villain of the film has thick, curly black hair and a darker complexion. It’s using these physical signifiers to say “this is good” and “this is bad.”
Justifying that with plot points misses the larger picture in which actual thinking people are creating the plots, and choosing these characteristics after many, many character designs. As an animator, filmmaker, painter, drawer, writer and critical thinker I cannot overlook that it was chosen, and chosen deliberately.
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist This should be illuminating. This site focuses primarily on Doylist explainations.
Attackfish(Quote) (Reply)
IT COULD HAVE BEEN CURLY BROWN HAIR MAGICKED BY A DROP OF ENCHANTED LIQUID COCOA, DAMMIT!
(I’m just saying)
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
They even could have made it a color not naturally found in humans, like teal or purple or green.
But I like cocoa. That would’ve been awesome!
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
Rainbow hair colors kinda piss me off nowadays (I’m all burnt out on it because of anime hair) but if Rapunzel was just brunette instead of such a delightfully *retch* Aryan golden blond, then I think the whole Mother Gothel/all swarthy, dark-haired ethnic women are TEH EBIL subliminal messaging wouldn’t have been so glaring.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
Puck, we’re questioning the choices of the people who made the movie, right? Who decided sunlight would deliver the magic and therefore the hair color? That would be the people who made the movie, yes? So if you argue “I thought the writers made decision B because it followed from their earlier decision A”, we’re just going to come back with, “And why did they choose sunlight?”
Probably so it would be blond. Either way, I actually am a writer, so I can verify the rumor: writers can write it anyway they like. The only factors limiting them are their own imagination/thought processes, their own biases (we all have ‘em), and the views of their bosses, who are funding the writing and therefore get the final say.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, re: your “Why don’t film schools teach writers to pass the Bechdel test”, I just had this in a discussion:
“I am not going to write a scene where two women chat about something other than a man just because someone tells me that it is not politically correct.”
But why aren’t you writing something where two women chatting is part of the plot? Where it’s not just a token discussion? Why did you decide to write about men?
When it boils down to: “The story I *chose* made me write the story not the way I want to”, then I find that to be a very flimsy excuse.
I just read on Stephenie Meyer’s site how she didn’t want New Moon the way it turned out, how she begged her main characters to act differently, to tell her a different story, and all I could think was, “if you wanted to, you could have written it differently. Or you’re deluded”
The best thing you could say would be that the writers were clueless and didn’t think about the hair color, but with the heavy marketed nature of Disney films I’d find that hard to believe. Plus, we’re in the 21st century, a little late to be clueless. The next best thing would be the writers didn’t care. And that’s only marginally better than to say they did it on purpose because actually, blond does mean good and dark means evil.
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
I was just having this conversation regarding female pettiness in the Harry Potter books. My friends were rationalizing Molly and Ginny Weasley’s and Hermione’s behavior toward Fleur with backstory that they’d produced out of nowhere, plus the general jealousy/woman’s-fault-for-men’s-attraction angle, while I was saying, “You know what? If that’s what J. K. Rowling meant, that’s what she damn well should have said. Writers control what happens in their stories.”
I mean, if you want to REALLY go there, in Avatar: the Last Aibender, the otherwise Inuit-looking, dark-skinned character Yue had stark white hair, due to being divinely resurrected by the moon spirit as an infant. Boom. Magic hair. Or, hey, it’s big-budget CGI– make Rapunzel’s hair iridescent. Or color-change mood ring hair. Or lavender-silvery, like the rapunzel flower.
“Magic sunlight flower” is justification after-the-fact for a combination of either internalized or deliberate colorism and lazy writing, and sounds like the writers needed to quickly come up with a reason Rapunzel’s hair was magical. *shrugs*
Gena(Quote) (Reply)
And they’re missing a point: no one’s telling them to write such a scene, let alone to do so because it’s PC. The Bechdel test is ONLY asking you: why don’t those scenes just naturally happen in your stories? The answer: because you don’t include more than one named female character and/or you don’t develop them enough for them to generate such a conversation between them.
THAT is the actual problem the test is trying to highlight. That’s why passing the Bechdel test does NOT make your story less sexist or more PC. If your story contains at least two interesting women characters, something very like that conversation (two women engaging in some discussion or activity that advances the story) will happen naturally. Look at Buffy, passing the Bechdel test on a regular basis, simply because it involved several female characters who had very exciting work to do (fighting monsters). You can’t avoid passing the test if your story’s like that.
Even New Tricks, which only features one regular cast member who’s a woman, passes the test fairly often because a realistic number of witnesses, suspects and other relevant one-off characters happen to be women, and what she’s discussing with them is usually related to a case.
Maybe I should write an article about this since there seem to be a lot of people who don’t get it.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →