The movie, entitled “The Princess and the Frog,” is set in New Orleans during the 1920’s Jazz era. The producers felt that after Hurricane Katrina, this was a positive addition to the very violent images that have replaced many of the romanticized notions of the city. A valiant desire, but let’s be real. This is Disney. The same Disney that has glorified and re-written some of the nastiest and bloodiest times in our history – the “discovery” of North America in Pocahontas, all of slavery in Song of the South (a movie that, along with an alarmingly long list of demeaning cartoons, is locked away in the Disney vault).
And while romanticizing and glorifying is Disney’s main MO, I think there is a very fine line to be walked here. For example, I can’t help but wonder if anything historically accurate can or will be included in this film. New Orleans in the 1920’s wasn’t exactly the beacon of free expression and economic bliss for African Americans. Not to mention physical well-being or safety. So the first problem is that a movie about African Americans in the post-Reconstruction South really shouldn’t be for kids.
But even if we were to just take the film as another adaptation of a fairy tale, the history of Disney and the negative iconography associated with blackness don’t cease to be an issue. Originally, the movie was entitled “The Frog Princess.” However, the image of the frog overlaid on black culture (think, among other representations of blackface, Michigan J. Frog) caused such a backlash that the title had to be changed. As were the princess’s name, from Maddy to Tiana, and her role from chambermaid to princess.
In addition, the question of dialect or any hope for an innocuous depiction of the princess’s animal sidekicks seem to arouse a certain unease. As I watched the trailer, I couldn’t help but think that they didn’t quite get it right…
Many who support the movie believe that it’s “about time” Disney used an African American princess in one of its fairytales. Yes, there was the Lion King. But that would be an African princess (who had a minor role) and really, they were lions. The sadder thing is African American remakes of familiar fairytales were very popular at one time. “Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs,” produced in 1943, is a 7 minute retelling, complete with an evil queen, Prince Chawmin’ and a jazz soundtrack.
And while that time was a long time ago, it seems like there’s still a lot to unpack. Like, why is this villain a Voodoo Priest? As if we don’t have enough to face about the decimation of native religious practices… Or, who can decide if it’s more of a disservice to ignore the historical context of this film rather than produce a Disney-illustrates-the-Brothers-Grimm type cartoon? Or, should we focus less on it being “about time”? And try to think if there was any time period that would have been a better setting for an African-American princess?
Posts
9 comments:
In "Coal Black," the hitman company Murder Inc. (nice one, Ja Rule) prices their 'jobs' as follows:
Rub out (anyone): $1
Midgets: Half-Price
Japs: free
What a country it was, and still is. Although this film and ten others were withheld from syndication by a UA (United Artist)-initiated block known as the "Censored Eleven" in the 60s, the real question is "who signed off on this stuff in the first place?!"
I guess it goes without saying that I am NOT looking forward to the next disney movie.
Nice reporting, christine!
That's funny G cuz I really am looking forward to the movie. I think maybe with Obama as president and the general public getting too comfortable with the idea that America may no longer be racist, that this movie can be a reality check. It's a damn shame that it is a child's film however the racist Disney corporation will prove to the world and the country, that we're not that progressive.
I loved this post Christine. Everything (unfortunately) that Disney does is so important because it influences kids when they're so young - don't get me started on the bodies they slap on their female characters. More people need to concentrate on calling this movie out as wrong, and still point out that even if it did paint a positive picture of an African American princess in that time, that picture would have been a lie.
that firefly is horrifying. is that john witherspoon? damn shame.
How is Michigan J. Frog a "blackface" character???? That is simply nonsense.
It is also nonsense to bring up Warner Brothers characters if you're trying to paint Disney as racist.
Why are so many people ready to jump down the throat of this movie before they even have a clue what it's about? The information available - so far - is sketchy at best, yet the assumption among (apparently) many is that this will be some kind of racist epic along the lines of Song of the South.
Give it a rest, people, and wait to throw your rotten tomatoes until you've actually seen the picture.
TD, if you don't think that Michigan J. Frog hints at all at blackface then you must simply not know anything about blackface. Both blackface performances and Michigan J. Frog's dance routines derive directly from vaudeville performances. You should research more before you label something as 'simply nonsense'. It's fine to disagree, of course, but belittling a well known argument is not.
Also in order to back her point, Christine mentions Michigan J. Frog so that the readers can view ways that we have already been exposed to an animated frog character. (See the cartoon 'The Old Mill Pond' for more evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0My-Ved3LbE)
Thanks for your response, TD. The point of this blog is largely to spark conversation and critical thought on things that pique our interest.
First, I am not trying to paint Disney as racist. The films and cartoons Disney has produced reflect its racist reputation that I had no part in creating. And it is important to consider what other institutions perpetuate a social phenomenon to make sure one is not indexing an isolated event to a wide-spread trend. To that end, thinking about how American animation as a whole deliberately exploited race through images, it’s irresponsible not to look to Disney’s contemporaries like Warner Bros or MGM. So regardless of who earns royalties off them, figures like Michigan J Frog, Sambo, and Coal Black are important to take into account if we’re going to analyze an honest history of people of color in animation.
And especially today, as more and more people are convinced we are moving towards a “post-racial” society (without anyone being quite sure of what that is or implies), the potential danger of this movie (that, again, follows in a tradition of racist epics) is that we can probably expect any racism in it to seem underlying, if perceptible at all. Yes, today (for those who even know about Song of the South) those movies seem like racial epics. But in their day, that imagery was pervasive and normalized. In our “post-racial” society, the danger is that we have largely accepted these images because their history has been erased (or hidden behind vault doors) and we may be unable to identify a work that will be labeled a racist epic 50 years from now.
Even from just seeing the trailer, I’m sure that this will be a cinematically wonderful film. There has been a demand that Disney return to hand animation because of the visual quality of their films. And without getting into a discussion on modern advertising, and how trailers are designed to create expectations and assumptions of the film (“I think this movie will be good…”), heighten your interest (“I really wanna see it…”), and eventually draw you to the theatre (“Yes, please take my $12.75 during this recession…”), there is something to be investigated if the images produce such strong responses of apprehension and mistrust.
So thanks, these discussions are important…
Once upon a time, the whole of American society was much more "racist" than today, as viewed from the perspective of time and through the narrow-angle spectacles of our own prejudices today.
Judging the quality of entertainment from a different age is bound to cause such societal differences to stand out in bold relief, just as years from now our own prejudices will. People will marvel that gay couple were forbidden to marry, for example.
The people at the Disney studio - or any other studio - are just people, breathing the same air you do. We do not represent some overarching societal philosophy. That is not our function. We are here to provide entertainment - to amuse, and hopefully inspire.
The Princess and the Frog will be a beautiful, entertaining movie - that I can absolutely guarantee you. The racial element in the film is simply matter-of-fact - as it should be. The movie is not intended as a polemic on the subject of race. There are black characters as well as white characters. There are frogs and alligators too!
People all over the world will be drawn to this film, for the right reason - that it tells a compelling, magical story, and does it well.
Dear Christine,
Way to trouble the waters. Thank you for pushing us to think.
I can't figure out how to link photos but please check out the following for a comparison of minstrels and michigan j frog:
http://www.ragtime-society.de/Video/48-The%20Minstrel%20Man.JPG
http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/toons/frog_dance.gif
I was really excited/intrigued when I read TD's comment that comparing Michigan J. Frog to a blackface character was "simply nonsense". I was intrigued because I had long ago accepted as fact that the WB's beloved character Michigan J Frog, though perhaps not intentionally, grows directly out of an aesthetic popularized when vaudeville performances were adapted as signature elements of much more profitable minstrel shows. If anyone is skeptical but lacks the time for any in-depth research, I invite to try this simple shortcut. Google image search the terms "blackface" or "minstrel show". Here you will see that some of the must-have elements of the minstrel costume were the top hat, the suit, the white gloves and the cane/instrument. I want to thank you, TD, because you inspired the following question: how does one look at this dancing cartoon frog, with his top hat and hello-my-baby high stepping, and not ask where that caricature comes from? Furthermore, how have we gotten to a point where the very act of asking about an image's history is written off as "nonsense."
The minstrel show provides us with an important starting point. Here images such as the mammy, the tom, the koon, the pick-a-ninny, and the dancing slave - good ol' Jim Crow himself (the character after whom Jim Crow laws were named) were created and popularized.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/images/3jimc0315b.jpg
These images helped to spread and normalize certain ideas about black intelligence, sexuality, and morality. The problem was not simply that they gave blacks a bad rap, but these ideas perpetuated through blackface performance also normalized and justified the racially restrictive and exploitative practices for the rest of the 20th century.
The lesson is this: popular performance, whether it is a traveling blackface song and dance review or a classic animated children's movie is never just pure entertainment. Disney himself recognized that there is an undeniable power in story-telling. Whenever you are telling a story, no matter how compelling or magical it is, you are also communicating to them a certain set of beliefs about groups of people and the workings of the world. You are shaping what they believe, what they value, and - particularly in fairy tales - what they view as the ideal state of the world.
The point of analyzing disturbing images from the past is not to condemn their makers, consumers, or distribution companies for their ignorance or backwardness. The point is to learn a lesson from the way that certain images were able to promote and normalize ideas and stereotypes about blackness.
Once upon a time, as evident in early minstrel shows and extending even up to pieces as modern as "Song of the South" and "Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarves", we told stories of happy go lucky people who loved a good rhythm, ate watermelon, and optimistically danced and sang their way through life. Thrilled by the song and dance numbers, the generation of children who saw these depictions took away another story: that black people are jitter-bugging, oversexed, bafoons.
Though in our progressive day and age a company like Disney would not dare to show big lipped mammies and dancing black men with dice for teeth, it is still just as vital to ask: what story are we really telling?
For past stories Disney has told, check out the article: 9 Most Racist Disney Characters:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_9-most-racist-disney-characters.html
Post a Comment