Much has already been made about Disney’s new film, which depicts the company’s first black princess. The New York Times recently asked if the film thwarted or perpetuated black stereotypes; MSNBC originally reported in 2007 on the film when its heroine had a different name, occupation, and physical appearance, and when it was called The Frog Princess; and Adios Barbie seems about as excited as we are. Mostly, I think Monique Fields at The Root gets it right: the real problem is the princess–a notion that her commenters are pretty hostile to.
The problem is the princess, and it’s been Disney’s problem for decades. I don’t doubt there will be some uncomfortable, or even nasty race things going on–especially considering the film is set in 1920s New Orleans. But I find puzzling that the return to hand-drawn animation (as opposed to CGI) also means a visit to a previous century and a fantasy paradigm of a literal princess. You’ll also notice her humanly-impossible physique in the preview. Seriously, Disney, did her waist have to be that small? Can’t we have a heroine whose life is not completed by marriage to a handsome, wealthy man of royal standing?
Fuck you, once again, Disney.
Yes. Fuck you, Disney. I seriously hate watching my nieces dress up and pretend to be Ariel from the Little Mermaid (who can’t speak until a man kisses her). It’s not harmless.
Well, perhaps one should address the inversion of this classic tale. Disney transforms her race, ergo she turns into a frog??? Oh…my! And that one second clip of the minstrel show in the montage sequence? To paraphrase a one Ralph Ellison, “She is an invisible princess!” Sweet Mother! Why doesn’t Disney just make a children’s version of Toni Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye.”