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

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/It's like that argument that Jaffar has darker skin than Aladdin, and they use a pic where Aladdin's standing next to a glowing object./

Ah, yes, I've heard that argument before. I think it's also because Jafar has a hooked nose, a feature that's usually used in insulting, racist depictions of Jews and Arabs, while Aladdin and Jasmine do not.

However, in the animated television series of "Aladdin," friends and foes come in all colors. For example, Sadira has darker skin than Aladdin and Jasmine, and originally, she is indeed a villain (albeit a misguided one), but by the end of the series, she gets over her attraction to Aladdin (which is what caused her to become a villain in the first place) and becomes Jasmine's friend. On the other hand, Mozenrath, who's one of the main villains of the series, is *very* pale. I'm serious, he's noticeably paler than Aladdin and Jasmine, and in some shots of him, his skin looks as white as cream.

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

"Ah, yes, I've heard that argument before. I think it's also because Jafar has a hooked nose, a feature that's usually used in insulting, racist depictions of Jews and Arabs, while Aladdin and Jasmine do not."

Ah, I see. Aladdin had a pretty large, angular schnoze though. Jasmine, not so much, but then that's more of a female Disney character trait (Nostalgia Chick: "Why does Pocahontas have no nose? Was her father Lord Voldemort?" XD)

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

Actully the quote is
"Why does Pocahontas lack a real nose? Was she really fathered by lord Voldermort?" I love that line- also the answer is yes- yes she was :) her father is in total denial.
---
My favorite Disney Princess (yes I have one) was Belle - I'd love to find a girl like Belle whos loves to read,is kinda quirky, loves to read, has a strong will with a kind heart, who loves to read, wants to travel, and loves to read. I always got the feeling if she'd been in a modern setting she'd be the Queen of hot female nerds and geeks. Mostly she'd be into Table Top Roleplaying; along with her love for books, due to her love of adventure and stories. I may be over thinking this...

Also that one line she sings.
"and for once it might be grand to have someone understand..." always chokes me up.

The only thing she's missing to make her my ideal female is glasses... what? I'm allowed to be a little vain! I'm only human.
---
But seriously these wierd "dig deep" to find the unfourtainate implications types are scary - this isn't freakin' the crows from Dumbo (who honestly are good guys, but totally racist honestly) but freakin' hair. It's like no matter what is made and how it is made - someone somewhere will be offendeded by it no matter how crazy!

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

I always loved Belle because she stood up for herself. She never let anyone walk over her, plus she loved to read. XD

I don't get it either. Disney is a COMPANY. It's got an ever-changing number of people working there. It's not like it's got the exact same people from 1920, twirling their mustache and laughing about how they could be racially insensitive.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

Yes, Belle is my favorite Disney Princess too, and "Beauty and the Beast" is my favorite Disney movie of all time. ^^

I love Belle because I can identify with her so much - a dreamy, brunette bookworm. To finally have a princess who was an honest-to-goodness smart bookworm was amazing.

I could go on and on about how Belle is awesome, but I think that I'd be here all day. XD

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

ZeldaQueen:I always loved Belle because she stood up for herself. She never let anyone walk over her, plus she loved to read. XD

Mikey: Yeah! :) I hate those people who claim she had Stockholm syndrome. Apparently character development just doesn’t exist. The Beast was just kind of an ass at the start - already being selfish, being turned into a beast, and not having human contact in like forever can do that to you - go figure… Honestly most would have been worse.

Of course they aren’t as annoying as the people who claim she should have hooked up with Gaston; because marrying the guy who want’s to lock up your quirky dad (ever heard Belle and her fathers song together from the musical. It’s cute…) , wants you for your looks, and hates reading is so~ much better.

Must have her mixed up with a different girl who’s name means beauty.
Here’s a hint - It’s Belle with an silent “e”, not an ugh I mean ahhh~!!! I mean an “a“.

ZeldaQueen: I don't get it either. Disney is a COMPANY. It's got an ever-changing number of people working there

Mikey: I know if you listen to some people you’d think it was some kind of creepy have minded legion of racial intolerance who all cackle as one every time a movie comes out.

aikaterini:I love Belle because I can identify with her so much - a dreamy, brunette bookworm. To finally have a princess who was an honest-to-goodness smart bookworm was amazing.

I could go on and on about how Belle is awesome, but I think that I'd be here all day. XD

Mikey: Go ahead; I could listen all day long. When I first saw that movie I was like "I can totally understand and relate Belle" and I still do.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Mikey: Yeah! :) I hate those people who claim she had Stockholm syndrome. Apparently character development just doesn’t exist./

It's even more ridiculous because Belle never *acts* like a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. She freely disobeys the Beast's orders about staying away from the West Wing, she refuses to have dinner with him even as he yells at her through the door, and she actually *argues* with him when he tries to blame her for his injury. At no point does she concede to his demands or fall for his attempts to avoid responsibility for his behavior. If the Beast had never learned his lesson and had stayed the same way that he was in the beginning of the movie, I really don't think that Belle would have fallen in love with him. She only starts to warm up to the Beast *after* he's genuinely changed, after he's shown her that he's not such a terrible person after all.

The only times that Belle is afraid of him are when she meets him for the first time (when she didn't know who he was and was frightened by his appearance when she did see him) and when he flies into a rage when he discovers her in the West Wing (and I think that anybody would be scared of him in that scene, even Gaston). When they argue, she never backs down from her position. If she were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, I'd imagine that Belle would be much more timid and much more eager to please the Beast.

/Of course they aren’t as annoying as the people who claim she should have hooked up with Gaston; because marrying the guy who want’s to lock up your quirky dad (ever heard Belle and her fathers song together from the musical. It’s cute…) , wants you for your looks, and hates reading is so~ much better./

Wait...what? There are actually people out there (besides the guy that Zelda Queen argued with on the IMDB forums) that support Gaston/Belle and yet claim that Belle/Adam's relationship is abusive? What planet are these people on? Gaston was supposed to be a shadow and a foil of the Beast. And we're clearly shown in the beginning of the film that he's *not* the man for her. Belle even directly says it herself when her father asks about Gaston. Not only is Gaston a rude, arrogant, sexist boor, but just look at his actions in the beginning of the movie. He insults her love of books and tells her that it's "not right for a woman to read," he tosses her book in the mud, he laughs at her father, he arranges a wedding between himself and Belle *without even telling her* and invites the whole town (yeah, that's not putting pressure on Belle at all, right?), he puts his dirty boots on her book, and he forces her up against the door. And that's all *before* he comes up with his scheme of throwing Maurice into an asylum to pressure Belle to marry him.

Yeah, I sure can't see why Belle didn't choose him. *snorts*

Meanwhile, the Beast *never* denigrated Belle for being a woman or being a bookworm. He gave her a *library* for heaven's sake (granted, it wasn't originally his idea, but then we later see that he enjoys reading with Belle). The only reasons that he was rude were because he was a spoiled brat, he was depressed because of the curse, and he had been deprived of human contact for so long. Once the Beast realized that he had been rude, he changed himself for the better (like Mr. Darcy! :D). How on earth would Gaston be a better alternative?

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

Before we start - awesome avatar/icon! :)

Yes they exist and most arn't even men - they just think Gaston is better looking!

I'd like to note some people didn't even notice Darcy was proud in Pride and Prejudice. There is this horrible dating book I've heard of that calls Darcy the perfect gentlemen and say that Elizabeth was wrong about him and that her character devlopment is realising she was wrong about him. And then offers help finding the persons own Mr. Darcy.

Guess they only saw the damn movie... [shudders]

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Before we start - awesome avatar/icon! :)/

Oh, thanks! *embarrassed* I didn't make it; I just found it somewhere.

/Yes they exist and most arn't even men - they just think Gaston is better looking!/

*snorts* Yeah, that really helps their case. And even on that topic, I'd disagree with them. I know that a lot of people don't like the Beast in his original human form, but I do. And I still think that he's better-looking than Gaston. Heck, even when I was little, I didn't think that Gaston was that handsome. Maybe it's because brawny guys just aren't my type. *shrugs*

/I'd like to note some people didn't even notice Darcy was proud in Pride and Prejudice./

What did they think that the "pride" in the title referred to, or should I say, whom did they think that the pride in the title referred to? I know that some people take one or the other interpretation: that the title refers to Mr. Darcy's "pride" and Elizabeth's "prejudice" or that the title refers to Elizabeth's "pride" and Mr. Darcy's "prejudice." I've never seen anybody argue that both traits refer only to Elizabeth.

/There is this horrible dating book I've heard of that calls Darcy the perfect gentlemen and say that Elizabeth was wrong about him and that her character devlopment is realising she was wrong about him./

Uh, no, Elizabeth was wrong about him in terms of what she thought he did to Wickham and Jane, but she was absolutely right about his attitude. That was supposed to be the reason why Mr. Darcy changed his behavior for the better; it was because he realized that she was right.

The perfect gentleman? Did the writer of that book just miss the part where Mr. Darcy insulted Elizabeth's family in his first proposal? Where he practically said that it was degrading for him to love her? How did they miss that? Because he said it in the Queen's English, so that automatically makes it okay?

Yes, Elizabeth's character development was realizing that she was wrong about him. But *Fitzwilliam's* character development was realizing that *his* attitude was unacceptable. Did the writer of that book miss the part near the end where Mr. Darcy told Elizabeth that his behavior was "unpardonable?" What, did the author think that he was just being modest and self-deprecating? I'm beginning to think that the writer didn't read the book at all.

/Guess they only saw the damn movie... [shudders]/

Which one? The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier, the BBC miniseries, the Keira Knightley version, or the modernized version (which I've heard is awful)?

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

aikaterini:I didn't think that Gaston was that handsome

Mikey:Neither do I. Both personlity wise and in the looks department he's just not that good looking. Mostly I hate his personality though...

aikaterini:I've never seen anybody argue that both traits refer only to Elizabeth.

Mikey:I say they are both Pride and Prejudice - although Mr. Darcy is more Pride well Elizabeth is more Prejudice.

aikaterini:Did the writer of that book miss the part near the end where Mr. Darcy told Elizabeth that his behavior was "unpardonable?" What, did the author think that he was just being modest and self-deprecating? I'm beginning to think that the writer didn't read the book at all.

Mikey:I'd say yes, most likely, and you are most likely right about that last bit...

aikaterini:Which one? The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier, the BBC miniseries, the Keira Knightley version, or the modernized version (which I've heard is awful)?

Mikey:Well they all have flaws; as big believer that the book is almost always better, but I believe I am refering to the most recent modern one in this case. I can't remember which one it was exactly, but it actully had her pretty much say flat out "I was wrong he's not proud he's just shy" and all kinds of other romance cliche crap. I only saw it once - ya know cause it was stupid... damn which one was it!

Speaking of Pride and Prejudice - it had been a long while since I read it and I wanted to so I bought a new copy and now I can't find it anywhere. I was half way through it to. I've looked all over for it [sigh] how depressing.

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

"I say they are both Pride and Prejudice - although Mr. Darcy is more Pride well Elizabeth is more Prejudice."

I always got that feeling as well. Lizzie was proud of her ability to judge people, but was influenced by her prejudice and thus failed to think of the reasons Darcy had for his actions (looking out for his friend and sister, etc). Darcy, meanwhile, was proud of his station and prejudiced about Lizzie's lower class and thus looked down his nose at her and almost missed her own good qualities.

Is the modern one "Bride and Prejudice"? Because that one was kind of awesome. Plus it had singing! :D

[overlordmikey.livejournal.com]

No~ haven't seen that.

I do love a good musical though~ :)

[zelda-queen.livejournal.com]

Ah. I do recommend it, though. XD It's cute and fun and makes a surprising amount of sense.