Racism And Sexism In Tangled - Or, Okay WHAT Are These People Smoking?

[zelda_queen]

ZeldaQueen: Right. This is one bit of idiocy that threw me for a bit of a loop. Warnings folks, this will have spoilers for the movie Tangled. If you want to read the original article, it's available here

Projection Room Voices: Starting Media in 3...2...1...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brown Is Not Beautiful

(This post first appeared on my blog ReelGirl which rates kids' media and products on girl empowerment)

ZeldaQueen: It worries me that seeing the words "media", "girl", and "empowerment" together in a sentence fills me with a vague feeling of dread

Renee of Womanist Musings points out, the glorifying of blonde hair - yet again - is problematic. She writes:

www.selfishmom.com

Can't get past the hair

 

"As a Black woman, I know all to well how complicated the issue of hair can be. Looking at the above image (of Tangled's Rapunzel), I found that I could not see beyond her long blond hair and blue eyes. I believe that this will also become the focal point of many girls of colour. The standard of long flowing blond hair as the epitome of femininity necessarily excludes and challenges the idea that WOC are feminine, desired, and some cases loved and therefore, while Disney is creating an image of Rapunzel that we are accustomed to, her rebirth in a modern day context is problematic, because her body represents the celebration of White femininity.

The fact that "Tangled" is coming on the heels of the first African American princess is indeed problematic. It makes Princess Tiana seem like an impotent token, with Rapunzel appearing to reset the standard of what princess means and even more precisely what womanhood means."

ZeldaQueen: Okay, first up, everyone take a good look at Rapunzel in that poster. I'm sure everyone can see her eyes. They're about the size of tennis balls. The color? Green. So yeah, apparently Renee wasn't trying too hard to see past it, or she might have noticed it. In fact, I do believe that Rapunzel is the first of the princesses to have green eyes. Isn't that progressive? Power to the emerald eyes!

On a more serious note, Rapunzel is one of exactly two princesses in the official princess line-up with blond hair. Everyone else is mostly brunette, with Ariel as a redhead. I also feel it's worth mentioning that it is often written in the fairytale itself that Rapunzel has "hair of gold", which is hardly racist when you consider that the tale was Germanic and that's the hair color that was considered most attractive at that time. The other thing worth mentioning is that Rapunzel is not a natural blond. In fact her real hair color (which, as we see, she inherited from her mother) is brown.

In short, I'm not really sure what Renee here was expecting from the movie. It was clearly in a vague fantasy quasi-European setting, and using source material which specifies that the heroine has long, flowing, golden hair. That would be like complaining that Mulan is Chinese even though the folktale her story came from kind of had her that way.

I also don't really get what she expected about Tangled following up on The Princess and the Frog. Of course Disney was going to do another movie after that one. It's kind of silly to expect them not to. And I fail to see how Rapunzel in any way overshadows Tiana or tells girls "She doesn't matter! I do!"

I watched "Tangled" with my sister, both of us brunettes, and when we heard the line about how Rapunzel's hair, if cut, loses its magic and turns brown, we looked at each other and started cracking up.

ZeldaQueen: I'm also a brunette. I fail to see how that's funny. It actually made sense, considering that the magic flower came from a drop of sunlight, Rapunzel is a natural brunette, and the haircutting clause was put in to make sure that Mother Gothel kidnapped the baby instead just a bit of her hair

(Also I think I remember in the movie, that there is some other reference to "brown-ness." Does anyone remember what it is? Flynn takes Rapunzel into a bar full of drunken men, and he says something, or someone says something like" "It seems very brown in here" or it "smells brown." Please tell me if you know what I'm talking about.)

ZeldaQueen: What Flynn actually says is, and I quote, "Ya smell that? It's part man-smell and the other part is REALLY BAD man-smell, but overall it just smells like the color brown. Your thoughts?" If you keep in mind that Flynn was trying to scare Rapunzel at that point, it's rather obvious what the "brown" smell referred to was supposed to be

It is notable to, as Girl W/Pen! refers to, that the princess death sentence is coming right after the first African-American young royal finally made her way to the animated screen. There's lots of internet chat about ending the only cartoon vehicle that repeatedly allowed girls be stars, but not so much discussion about the race issue involved in the timing of this decision. Also, I keep hearing that adjusted for inflation dollars, "The Princess and the Frog" did just as well as "The Little Mermaid." If this is true, I don't get why Disney execs claim the film was such a failure.

ZeldaQueen: I might be mistaken, but I believe the announcement came shortly before or around the time when Tangled was actually released. If my memory serves, I'd hardly call that "right after" The Princess and the Frog".

And Disney never said The Princess and the Frog was a failure. In fact, it got them a good bit of money, a cash cow in the form of a new princess for merchandise, and a good bit of praise. What they said was that the movie didn't do as well as they had hoped. Their expectations for the movie were high, perhaps ridiculously so. It was fairly clear, through interviews and talks about the making of the movie, that Disney was desperately hoping that this would be that movie that would revive things. The movie that would start a second Disney Renaissance. The movie that would put their 2D animation back on the map.

Instead, it did good but not great. It made back money, but didn't have nearly the splash they'd hoped. And I'd hardly consider Disney excommunicating the movie, as this article seems to imply. Tiana and Naveen are both official members of the Disney Princess and Prince line-ups. Their merchandise is everywhere. Disney would not do that if they didn't want them sticking around. After all, look at how eager they were to drop poor Princess Eilonwy or Kida. Those two were in movies that didn't do well, so look at how much media attention they've gotten

Again, I don't want to be defending princesses here. I don't like them. But I also don't like the way they're being used to get rid of starring girls roles all together.

ZeldaQueen: Um, it is possible to make movies with non-princess leads. Granted, I know Disney made princess protagonists very popular, but they do exist. Susan, from Monsters vs. Aliens? Coraline? Heck, Lilo and Stitch had both Nani and Lilo, who were well-rounded and likable characters, and neither of them were royalty. And hey, Disney has exclusive rights to the release of English dubbed Miyazaki films. So we also have movies like Howl's Moving Castle or Spirited Away, which also have strong, interesting, non-royal female protagonists. Saying "no more princess movies" doesn't mean Disney will do away with female leads, it just means they'll have to get more creative

Natalie Wilson writes the cast of "Tangled" isn't quite all white. On Rapunzel's wicked mother:

Notably, Mother Gothel, Rapunzel's evil abductress, has dark hair and eyes and non-Caucasian features.

According to Christian Blaulvelt of Entertainment Weekly, "Mother Gothel is a dark, dark character. I mean, she's a baby snatcher." Ah yes, and she is dark in more ways than one - her dark skin, hair, and clothing contrasting with the golden whiteness of Rapunzel.

Alan Menken, the musical composer for the film, similarly notes that "Mother Gothel is a scary piece of work. Nothing she is doing is for the good of Rapunzel at all. It's all for herself" Emphasizing her manipulative relationship with Rapunzel, Menken admits, "I was concerned when writing it. Like, will there be a rash of children trying to kill their parents after they've seen the movie?" Wow - how about worrying if there will be a rash of children who will see DARK-SKINNED mothers (and non-wedded ones) as evil and sinister?

In addition to carrying on Disney's tradition of problematic representations of race, the film also keeps with the tradition of framing females beauty obsession as evil and "creepy" (Flyn's words) rather than as understandable in a world of Disneyfied feminine norms. A mirror worshipper to rival the evil queen in Snow White, Gothel is presented as a passive-aggressive nightmare - she is the tyrannical single mother that is so overbearing Rapunzel must beg for the opportunity to leave the tower.

ZeldaQueen: First, on the matter of those "non-Caucasian features". This is Mother Gothel







ZeldaQueen: So yes, she has dark hair. While I'll admit I'm not the best at judging facial features though, she looks rather European to me. So...yeah. And I would not call her "dark skinned", by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd also like to remind the jury that it was just last Disney movie that we had Eudora, Tiana's mother who was, in fact, clearly black and a wonderful, caring mother.

Finally, I'm rather confused about that quote. So it's wrong that Mother Gothel is a vain bitch who would rather kidnap a baby than let herself naturally age and is portrayed as evil for it? I'd say that is plenty good reason for a person to be considered evil

I always ask my daughters when we're watching these movies: where are the moms? Belle in "Beauty in the Beast:" no mom. Ariel in "The Little Mermaid:" no mom. "Jasmine" in Aladdin: no mom.

ZeldaQueen: Mulan - mom and grandmother. Aurora - mom, plus three adopted mothers. Tiana - mom. Rapunzel - evil mom plus good birth mother who she reunites with. I also feel it's worth noting that in most of those cases, the fairy tales themselves specify "no moms". After all, how could Snow White or Cinderella have wicked stepmothers if their birth mothers were still alive? It's certainly preferable to the earliest forms of the tales, which had that it was the birth mothers who tormented Snow and Cindy and abused them.

Now granted, some cases were by Disney's choice. For example, Aladdin's mother was supposed to make an appearance, but was cut out of the story. In general though, the lack of mothers came from the fairy tales, which used the deceased mothers as metaphors for how children see their moms (the "good" side of mom, who is portrayed as the angelic but dead birth mother, and the "mean" side of mom, who is portrayed as the wicked stepmother)

Maybe us moms should get together and start making some movies.

ZeldaQueen: Good idea. I'm sure that none of the women on the Disney staff, after all, have children. The idea is ludicrous

Update: Billjitsu,one of my biggest fans, comments: "Little Mermaid (1989): $111M Princess and the Frog (2009) : $104M As I suspected and adjusted for inflation, "Mermaid" positively annihilates "Princess and Frog".

Um, no. Annihiltates? Since when does a 7 million dollar difference make one movie a "blockbuster" and another "a flop?" If your figures are correct, you're proving my point. Thanks! (though it isn't really my point anyway, but reporters.)

ZeldaQueen: Actually it proves my point, that The Princess and the Frog did well, but not as well as expected. Which, what a surprise, was also Disney's point. So everyone's point is proven! Hooray!

Second update: About the brunette princesses, yes of course, there are some, but their hair doesn't have magical power that when cut, loses that power and turns blonde!

ZeldaQueen: Right. About that. And if there still are people here who are bothered by spoilers, you might want to skip this. I'm pretty much talking about the end of the movie.

So as the movie goes, Rapunzel's hair is magic. It's her big thing. It can heal injuries, provide people with eternal youth, and makes a kickass lasso and whip. So on the surface, I see the author's point. Unfortunate implications, yeah.

Except, look at how Rapunzel views the magic hair and what it does to her life. She never asked for it. It was the only reason at all that she was kidnapped. The woman who raised her, who she thought was "mother" only ever took care of her because of the magic hair. In other words, Rapunzel was raised without love, by an abusive woman, who essentially tricked a young girl into thinking she cared, just to use her. It was because of the magic hair that Mother Gothel never let her leave the tower and tried to drive a fear of humanity into Rapunzel. It was because of the magic hair that Rapunzel was nearly kidnapped by the Stabbington brothers, why Mother Gothel wanted to keep her captive for her entire life, and why Rapunzel wasn't able to fully trust Flynn's love for her until the very end. The one guy who she meets who shows her genuine love, she can't bring herself to fully trust because she thinks it's because of the hair.

In short, the magic hair has given her nothing but heartache and grief for her entire eighteen years of life.

Now, let us look at the inverse. At the end of the movie, Flynn cuts off all of Rapunzel's hair, turning it brown and robbing it of its power. What happens? Mother Gothel dies about two seconds later. No one has any reason to want to hold Rapunzel captive. She's able to go back to the castle and be with her own parents, who genuinely love her and have spent eighteen years trying to find her.

In other words, it looks a lot more like it's the other way around. Yes, Rapunzel's blond hair is shiny and magic, but it also symbolizes her captivity and miserable life. Her brown hair symbolizes her freedom and ability to go home to her loving parents (parents who have the exact same shade of brown hair). At the end, she's thrilled to be ride of her hair.

So yeah, what is this stuff I don't even
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to the Sporking Chamber

Comments

[lurkythespork.livejournal.com]

Okay, a little input from the Lurkster.

Disney doesn't produce strong female characters? Pixar ring any bells? (In fact, Lasseter is in charge of Disney's animation department now, methinks.) Just in the ones I'm thinking of at the moment, we've got Elastigirl, Violet (who knows how to use defensive skills as weapons), Collette, Celia, Roz, Sally...

And of all of the Pixar heroines, Elli is the strongest. She had to wrestle with never getting any of her big dreams. I think people fail to understand that it takes even more strength for an energetic person to slow down than it takes for that same person to grab a sword and fight.

But then again, Pixar films tend to have subplots about how men need women, so I guess that would escape people like ReelGirl.

Also, racism? RACISM? So once you've had a black heroine, you can't have white ones anymore?

Finally, Mother Gothel? Here you go: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm477660928/nm0000333

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

Yep, Lasseter is in charge of the animation department. Heck, he was the sole reason The Princess and the Frog was even made, or that Spirited Away came to America! (And Spirited Away was what convinced Disney to continue to dub Miyazaki movies, so he's also kinda-sorta responsible for the other strong female characters introduced in America after that).

"And of all of the Pixar heroines, Elli is the strongest. She had to wrestle with never getting any of her big dreams. I think people fail to understand that it takes even more strength for an energetic person to slow down than it takes for that same person to grab a sword and fight."

That's something which, unfortunately, seems to be forgotten when people discuss "strong female characters". There's strength to be had in being opinionated or steadfast or forgiving. That's one of the reasons I always liked Tohru Honda from Fruits Basket. She never fought anyone, almost never lost her temper, was adorably klutzy, and was always overly polite and apologizing for things. Even so, she didn't let people walk over her. She stood up for the people who took care of her. Heck, she talked down a crazy person who wanted to stab her.

The for characters like Ellie or Sophie Hatter or even Cinderella. Strength of spirit is still strength.

"So once you've had a black heroine, you can't have white ones anymore?"

By this person's insane logic, yes. I don't even.

Wow, that's...O_o I've never noticed that similarity before. XD

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Also, racism? RACISM? So once you've had a black heroine, you can't have white ones anymore?/

To be fair to the author (as well as Renee, whose post she quoted), maybe she was hoping that after Tiana, Disney would go on to make another princess of color for their next movie, so she was disappointed when she saw that they had decided to make another white princess instead. Still, just because Disney chose to make Rapunzel right after Tiana doesn't mean that they'll only make white princesses from now on and never feature a non-white heroine again. At least I hope not.

P.S. Cher as Mother Gothel? I wonder if she really is where the artists drew their inspiration from. XD

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

Of course the irony there is under the writers logic it would have to be "from now only black princesses" because even if you made three in a row and then changed it she would probably say that it was rasict because there had already been SO MANY white princesses.

I always wondered what's wrong with princesses anyway? What the heck is with the anti-princess backlash I've noticed. I've seen it targeted at all kinds of Characters.
From disney princesses, to Zelda, to Princess Peach! Apparently being a princess is to "feminine" and thus to "weak".

I'm a guy so apparently my opinion on the subject is less than important but I always felt as long as a character is well written then their gender is completely meaningless. I don't buy into the whole Heroine's "for girls" and Hero's for guys crap (although sometimes it seems like nobody cares if boys have good rolemodels anyway)! Some of my most looked up to characters are female, and not just because I think they are "attractive". Hell I could make a list of my rolemodels... Why can't characters just be characters... crap I think I'm off topic...

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

I noticed that backlash as well. I believe the issue is that when a guy is the main character, in general he is from a variety of stations in life, but there's a heavy trend of having female protagonists be princesses or royalty of some kind, either from the start or marrying into it. I guess the idea is that it's gotten stale to reuse the same type of heroine in animated works, sort of like the NC's peeve about how the princesses never become queens. It just gives the feeling that it's a quick and easy way to write out that the girl is hot and has a lot of pretty outfits and has resources and is in the thick of the action.

It's like any trope. If you do it right, it works fine. If you do it sloppily, it feels cheap.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/I'm a guy so apparently my opinion on the subject is less than important but I always felt as long as a character is well written then their gender is completely meaningless. I don't buy into the whole Heroine's "for girls" and Hero's for guys crap (although sometimes it seems like nobody cares if boys have good rolemodels anyway)! Some of my most looked up to characters are female, and not just because I think they are "attractive"./

Kudos to you! ^^ I think that one of the big problems is that Hollywood doesn't realize that there are guys like you who do appreciate female characters and who have female role models. I think that one of the assumptions that is still around, even in this day and age, is that girls will accept any main character, male or female, but guys will only gravitate toward films with male leads. Apparently, according to Hollywood, any movie with a female lead is a "chick flick," and no self-respecting guy who hasn't been dragged there kicking and screaming by his wife/girlfriend will see one. Earlier in the comments, southerngaelic mentioned that Disney changed the name of the movie from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" because they were afraid that the mere mention of a princess's name would drive boys away.

And I think the reason why nobody seems to care if boys have role models is because white male characters have such a monopoly on films that such a worry seems superfluous. You have male cowboys, male astronauts, male spies, male scientists, male athletes, male soldiers, male superheroes, etc. Boys have a wide variety of heroes to choose from. By contrast (and this is probably one of the reasons why there's a backlash against princesses and why the author of this article is so concerned), girls and minorities don't have such a wide pool of characters to choose from to identify with and emulate. Many female characters in Hollywood *are* princesses and in many cases, they're limited to just that role. Because women and minorities are seen as "special groups" and not the default, they're very often presented with limited, stereotypical roles. Once you start to notice that most of the roles for women are the same, then you start to notice a pattern. And then you wonder why such a pattern exists and why there are hardly any deviations from it.

But it certainly says something when people criticize "Twilight" for having such a terrible role model for girls in the form of Bella, but hardly say anything about Edward being such a terrible role model for boys. I know, it's probably because they assume that boys don't read "Twilight," but still, it's something to think about.

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

"But it certainly says something when people criticize "Twilight" for having such a terrible role model for girls in the form of Bella, but hardly say anything about Edward being such a terrible role model for boys. I know, it's probably because they assume that boys don't read "Twilight," but still, it's something to think about."

That's true. Actually, was there ever anything that people really complained about being a bad role model for boys? Yet, you hear about it for girls all of the time. Interesting...

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

It's the double edged sword of sexism. A mix of being afraid of being seen as sexist and sometime actully being sexist.

Boys don't get good role models because no one thinks about them as need one. They also don't register that boys CAN look up to females.
Crazy people pick apart female characters.
It's assumed that ALL females are supposed to be rolemodels.
If a female isn't perfect someone will complain.
In the end all your left with are bad rolemodels for everyone.

There is an unlying assumption that "real" men just don't need rolemodels and they have so many men anyway so who cares; well all females should BE rolemodels that any negitive female is thus a bad rolemodel meaning most people just won't let female character BE just characters.

It's not always the creators fault, sometimes the people watching or the moral gaurdians just assume they are writing a female character as a bad person because they must believe ALL women act that way or are bad. Or they will latch onto a trait that is seen as sterotypical. For example, you have a girl who likes to cook and clean - regardless of anything else she does someone will say she is a bad rolemodel for this reason. Wouldn't matter if she was an action girl who takes down tanks fo a living with her bare hands. Cooking and cleaning must mean she is an attempt to say "women should stay in the kitchen". It speaks more about the people watching really.

The fear of being seen as sexist can also lead to double standards where women can do most anything to a man in things like sitcoms (which families often watch together) and childrens shows (even male targeted ones) and get away with it; making her a terrible rolemodel anyway, but she's assumed to be strong and right because she's a female so she has to be or it's sexist.

On the other hand Bella IS a bad rolemodel because she supposed to be a rolemodel. Not sure if Edward is supposed to be a rolemodel and since no one judges male characters anyway (and a large part of her fanbase is crazy) it doesn't trigger anything in people.

In the end it's all very scary to me. I just wanna see characters as characters and I feel this kinda stuff gets in the way of my enjoyment of thing. [sigh]

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. And the worst part is, if you look hard enough at ANYTHING, you could find evil implications in it.

Take, for example, female characters. It seems like these days if a female character has any sort of love interest or is at all close to a male character (friend or relative), it nullifies anything useful she might do because hey, it implies that women can only be tough to protect their kids/save their husband/fight alongside their boyfriend. And then there's the argument that if a girl does something remotely "girly" like cooking or sewing, it's also a horrible blow to feminism. It doesn't matter if it's only one part of her personality or if it's something she *has* to do (cooking because she lives alone, for example).

On the flip side though, if there's a female character that kicks men in the nuts and is a jerk to everyone, it leaves the implication that all women are psychos who are permanently PMS-ing and aren't capable of being rational or thoughtful.

Or heck, look at Allecto's stupid arguments about Firefly. When a black person was a villain, she called racism. When a black person was a protagonist, she also called racism because he was helping a white guy and thus was an "Uncle Tom". Right.

"On the other hand Bella IS a bad rolemodel because she supposed to be a rolemodel. Not sure if Edward is supposed to be a rolemodel and since no one judges male characters anyway (and a large part of her fanbase is crazy) it doesn't trigger anything in people."

Bella, yes, in the worst possible way. Apparently people have argued that she's some sort of liberated woman because she badgers Edward for sex in "Breaking Dawn". Granted, it's the most assertive she is, but it's still uncomfortable and once he puts out, she doesn't want to do anything else. And in a way, yes I think Edward was meant to be a role model of sorts, if only because Meyer wrote him and all but said "See him? He's the Ideal Man. He's the sort of guy that every woman ought to go for". So we get a bunch of idiot girls who moon over this guy. And then, we get some guys who are told "Why don't you be more like Edward", and...yeah.

"In the end it's all very scary to me. I just wanna see characters as characters and I feel this kinda stuff gets in the way of my enjoyment of thing. [sigh]"

I know what you mean. Seriously, sit back and enjoy things, for heaven's sake!

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Apparently people have argued that she's some sort of liberated woman because she badgers Edward for sex in "Breaking Dawn"./

Oh, yeah, because if the roles were switched, we'd totally see Edward as a "liberated man" who was only standing up for himself. Instead of, you know, a selfish, sexually aggressive jerk who was pressuring his spouse to do something that she didn't want to do. *rolls eyes*

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course! When a man forces a woman to do something, he's a domineering jerk. When a woman forces a man to do something, it's cute because she's overcoming years of OPPRESSION. Whee!