I’m not a parent, but as an aunt, I have sat with my niece, Grace, and found myself watching her watch films. I am interested in how she reacts to certain scenes and concepts, and, because I have read Christensen before, I am curious about the messages she is internalizing through media.
Combining Christensen’s textual analysis with a reading of the political and economical culture makes for a really interesting discussion. Particularly in regards to how Disney has evolved over the past few decades to reflect the ideological pushback from audiences to the “passive princess” trope found in classic films like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. Lindsey Ellis, (amazing YouTuber makes videos about popular media and film criticism - if you enjoy Popular Media Analysis you absolutely have to subscribe to her channel) explores this in her “Woke Disney” video essay.
She argues that while Disney has come a long way in its portrayal of female characters, Disney is still strongly invested in making sure consumers keep going to their parks and keep purchasing Disney princess merchandise. So what they do is create princesses, like Moana, who are strong independent girls with girl agency and girl power but who ultimately still reinforce the status quo and dominant ideology about girlhood.
Moana, in particular, is interesting, because it is essentially a narrative remake of Pocahontas.
The story is about a young girl who is a daughter of a tribal chief living in an indigenous tribe in pre-colonial times just as she is about to come of age and her dad wants her to behave one way according to their culture but she isn’t so sure about her place in their world and water is a metaphor for freedom (they both sing a song about this) and there is an old grandmother character who dispenses important spiritual wisdom .... (okay I could go on but you get the idea, right?) and it all concludes with the message that conflict should be solved, not with violence, but with compassion.
A textual analysis of both stories, however, shows that Moana, as an individual, has more agency and resists the stereotypes of race, culture, and gender that Pochahantas reinforces.
An economic analysis of Moana is a bit less forgiving though. The question I want to ask and think about is in regard to cultural appropriation. Are the filmmakers guilty of exploiting an underrepresented culture in order to profit? They did make sure to include the input of actual Pacific Islanders but overwhelmingly the film was created by white men and reads as a pretty classic Disney story. Looking at Moana through an economic lens, we have to take into account that no matter how well-researched and thoughtful it was in its approach, the stakeholders at Dinsey are white, and their ultimate goal in creating this film was … make lots of money.
Can there be any ethical creation or consumption of Disney Princesses under capitalism?
Your last question is a good one and I fear the answer is probably no. I do think that it is interesting that Lin-Manuel Miranda had a strong hand in Moana, and the Oceanic Trust Advisory Board may have been the first of its kind. The reason I am taken so much with this film is for the lessons about gender and courage -- that bravery can be learned and practiced, that there is strength in working as a team (even when it gets hard), and that girls won't always be punished for going against their father's wishes. Those feel like new messages to me which I like. And so (and yet?) Disney will continue to make money because they resonate so hard with people like me. Yup. Back to your question.. with a resounding no.
ReplyDelete