Noticed this right away today thanks to re-establishing my twitter. 

Big news, basically.

I’m cautiously happy about it.  I don’t think- so far, which is not very far since I just read about it- that there is much to criticize from Disney’s perspective.  I think this is the right thing to do because children, especially young children, tend to lack the ability to distinguish between ads and entertainment and a lot of companies have been basically exploiting the fact that the US and many other countries do not yet limit what is viewed by the most vulnerable audience, and children are the gateway to their caretakers’ pocketbooks, and a lot of junk is marketed so well these days that it’s hard to tell, for the harried parent who’s been asked for “cheap SweetSugarLumps with FORTIFIED CALCIUM” 40 thousand times that it’s not healthy without an extensive read through of the list of ingredients. 

My issue though, especially when I started reading through the surrounding tweets, is the way it always comes back to being seen as some sort of huge tool in the “fight the fat” battle that shouldn’t be a battle in the first place.

Our focus really should always be on protecting vulnerable consumers from the psychological know-how of multi-billion dollar corporations who don’t give a shit about your health so long as their stock fairs well for the quarter.   Our focus should not be on policing the waist sizes of 6 year olds.   One of these things will help everyone be a little healthier, and one of these things will probably not do that and additionally make a lot of people feel shitty about their body.   The choice in how we frame this issue should be simple.   So far I haven’t read anything too bad but that is why I am cautiously optimistic: sooner or later, though, someone always has something remarkably ridiculous and small minded to say about size and fatness.

~Overall Rating: 2.3/4 stars (see bottom for details)~

Considering all the qualms I had about re-watching this movie (like Tarzan’s chin being impossibly pointy, why does that always bother me so much?), it was surprisingly appealing, even with all the Phil Collins music (sorry, Collins fans).   Not one of my favorite Disney movies, but well produced and memorable enough.

 Jane is the film’s main female protagonist.    Jane is adventurous, and has come to a new land not to find love, but because she is passionate about the research she and her father do.    She does show many moments of bravery and courage, such as when she basically throws herself at Clayton trying to stop him even though he is a big man with a rifle and she’s just trying to punch him with her hands or something (unsurprisingly, she is unnsuccessful and thrown to the side as if Clayton does not see her as much of a threat, and he fights Tarzan instead).  

Even though she is often courageous, she does rely on Tarzan and others to save her from basically every sticky situation she encounters.   When she is being chased by baboons- Tarzan saves her.    When some pirate guy is about to clock her in the face, again, it is Tarzan to the rescue.   When they are imprisoned on the boat, she does not devise a way for them to escape- or even try to- she is resigned to their fate. 

  Jane is almost always following men around in the story, whether it’s her father, Tarzan, or Clayton, and again, the time she does venture off by herself to sketch- the one time that she is not being led into an adventure, but independently pursuing it- the jungle tells her that is a bad idea by having a fleet of rampaging baboons go after her.    

Another take on Jane and how romance affects the portrayal of her character, from this site’s critique:

She’s very straightforward and knows what she wants, but after she meets Tarzan and starts to fall in love with him she becomes bashful and almost shy. Jane plays no real role in the movie other than the love interest of the male lead…

The problems with Jane’s portrayal are characteristics common to so many female characters and it says something not about them as individuals, but about how society (and film makers, by extension) view women and their place and expected responses in narratives.   

At times the way the incomers treated Tarzan made me feel a little uncomfortable (“Look at our marvelous cities and superior types of clothing, as a fellow human you belong here!” type deals), because a lot of their attitudes seemed to vaguely mirror the type of attitudes europeans have always had when encountering non-europeans historically (whether they be native americans, africans, asians, et cetera).   It’s difficult to do without invariably seeming to draw a parallel between “gorilla family” and “human beings,” which I don’t want to do.   But I think the similarities arise not because gorillas are, for example, similar to native people, but because the gorillas in the movie behaved more like people than like real gorillas, and so through this anthropomorphism, the people who directed the movie projected their own feelings of how to approach “forest people” into the storyline.   It’s the old stereotype that non-European life is rougher, less complex, yet more appealing and rewarding to our “inner animals” quietly reasserting itself.

Like 99% of mother figures in film Tarzan’s mother Kala is reduced to only that aspect of her character- her role as a mother.    This, again, is a problem because it is so prevalent in all movies, and in most you will notice that the relationship of the mother/child usually takes a backseat to the father/child relationship.   The mother/child relationship might be precarious, but she is always there for the child- it is always the father’s respect, love, admiration, etc. that must be earned by the child.    She was not even at the deathbed of her mate, Kerchak, because it was too important to the movie that his final moments involve passing along leadership to Tarzan.

“In children’s literature, there is a convention to get a child protagonist out into adventure — to deprive the child of one or more of his parents…

However, this convention has translated into American animation becoming a patricentric (father-centered) world…
Since this representation does not reflect the actual changes in society (except the decline of the two-parent household), this must be sending a subtle message — that fathers are more important than mothers. This can be seen in the depiction of fathers as well. Patricentrism is not only seen in the lack of the mother, but in the differing treatments of fathers and mothers.

Fathers become the center of lives. Mothers are cast as less important. They are hardly spoken of by the husband they have left behind. The Sultan says in Aladdin of his wife only that she wasn’t nearly so picky. The Little Mermaid’s King Triton only mentions his late wife in wishing she was there to help him corral Ariel. Jane’s father in Tarzan and Belle’s father in Beauty and the Beast never mention their daughters’ mothers.
Their children treat them as less important too. Mulan wants her father’s approval and seeks to honor him, while Hercules wants to join his father Zeus on Olympus; neither mentioning their mother. Tarzan seeks Kerchak’s approval and recognition, not content with Kala’s. Milo tries to fulfill his grandfather’s legacy in finding Atlantis, never mentioning a mother or grandmother.”

Source: http://animation.memory-motel.net/motherhood.html

Terk is an interesting character because most people either read her as being very androgynous, or a boy.   In rewatching the film, it’s interesting how many of us have recalled her as being a male character because there are multiple references in the movie to her being a girl; in the intro she is referred to by her mother as a “young lady,” her full name is given (Terkina), and later in the movie she is referred to as “miss,” and those are just a few examples.     There’s no lack of context given to clue the audience in as to how she identifies.   Any confusion is not owing to how the movie refers to her, but rather, how she presents in terms of being traditionally masculine or feminine.   

Her fairly ambiguous gender presentation is often seen by people as being “boyish”- because she is more active, more loud, more assertive (with boys as well, not something we often see either without the female character being coy to some extent), et cetera than what we expect to see in a female character.   Because we, as an audience, are so accustomed to female characters being presented more like Jane, we actually end up trying to conform Terk to the gender binary that her character is avoiding. 

From this site’s critique of Tarzan:

“Tarzan, another Disney film adapted very loosely (from the novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs) succeeds in being a lot like The Lion King in terms of its female gender roles. Once again (am I sounding trite yet?) Disney HAS NOT strayed from their ideal gender roles, male or female, in any way.”

We come to rely on behavior to indicate gender, and therefore end up forcing characters into gender roles because we have trouble- subconsciously- accepting that not everyone will conform to the gender binary.   Not because we’re bad people, but because we’ve been taught our entire lives to see a binary.   In a strange way, crafting her in such a way was a win on Disney’s part, and a(n unintentional) fail on the audience’s part, because even when Disney has given us a character that breaks so many gender expectations, our first- subconscious- reaction is still to place her within them and try to figure out “how” she can be a girl if “she doesn’t act like one.”  

Since it doesn’t relate to the Disney version I’ll just tell you about it if you want to check it out, but I found this review of the original Tarzan interesting, it gives a lot of information about sexism, racism et cetera present in the story.

———————

Promotion/Equal Voice given to women: **~

Representation of Women present (are they more than typecasts of female stereotypes etc): **~

Racism/Classism: *** (mostly white, upper-class people shown, but to be fair they’re in a jungle and half the cast is gorillas)

LGBTQ representation: ** (no one really present, but no queer villain coding)

Gender Binary adherence: **

I thought it would be fun to put together a photoset of some of the Cinderella re-captions I’ve done.  Additional commentary for some of the images can be found in the above link :)

In my imagination she’s a bit of a second-wave-ish college student type feminist, but she’s catching up and getting concerned about issues outside of her own realm of life experiences.  

They could say what they liked about her, but Belle had standards.

-puts youtube playlist on-

-starts looking through Disney tag for something to comment on-

-Closer by Nine Inch Nails starts playing while I’m looking at GIFs of Disney princesses and other cutesy Disney things-

-it is a very weird combo and yet seems to go together well… yeah I’m gonna stop this is weeeird!!  haha-

Just came across an interesting, if slightly older (2010) Salon article that discusses Song of the South in comparison to the newer movie, the Princess and the Frog (and obviously, the race issues running throughout both of these movies and how Disney addresses them).   You can read it here.

Quotes (it’s a long piece, but I would go and read it all):

Poor Charming always gets the short end of the stick when Cinderella starts speaking off camera

“But indeed,” Bo Beep said, “It is a trope, as well as an indicator of a lack of basic female representation, as judged using the Bechdel Test.”

movie trivia from here:

Bo Peep’s shrinking role in the series after the first film is explained in The Art of Toy Story 3. Bo Peep was among the main cast of the first film as a voice of female reason, and was not Andy’s toy, but a porcelain lamp. Due to being unable to find a believable spot in the story, Bo Peep only appears in the beginning and end of Toy Story 2. [and is then absent from the 3rd entirely]

wow- I have to say, I am impressed by your mom!  

As a Disney Feminism blog, I’ve reblogged many posts from the  Walt Disney Confessions tumblr site, which is set up as a submitted collection of anonymous Disney related confessions.    People often get into very heated and involved debates over the different topics this site covers, and a lot of the posts have served as a good starting point for discussing how societal issues play out in Disney movies (and with Disney’s fanbase).  

I was interested in hearing the mods’ take on everything they spend so much time reading and posting about, so I contacted and invited them for an interview, and I was able to talk with Jen (wingardiumiyazaki), the main mod right now, as well as Jonna (Oom-pah-pah).   Thanks again to them for taking the time to reply my questions!

A few notes: the mods only speaks for themselves and not for the other mods, all bolding has been done by me, Mod’s response is the indented (usually unbolded) replies, most of the images included are taken from the Confessions blog, and links were added by me for anyone interested in further reading on the issues she mentions here.

  Please imagine that we were sitting in a Beast’s-castle-type-library-setting sipping tea and talking, even though this is definitely not what really happened.

First, a few background questions for our readers:

(Feminist Disney:) How long has this site been running for?    

Jenn: The site has been running since August, or Late July, I believe. 

Jenn: Major changes: We’ve become narrower in what we accept, everything has to have a reasoning now (no confessions like ‘i love rapunzel’ or ‘ariel is my favorite’ or ‘mulan is my role model’) and no more repeats. It’s a minor detail, but we also have started to try to condense very long confessions or tautological ones- people can be pretty loquacious about their secrets!

Jen: I saw Harry Potter confessions, thought it was a really cool idea, searched around to see if a Disney one had been made, it hadn’t, so I made it. Then I asked Jonna to join me!

Jonna: Jen and I have been friends for over a year, we used to run this tumblr called “My life is Disney” together and she asked me to be the co mod of WDC, and how could one possibly say no to such an opportunity?

Jen: I have 2, sort of. Ariel will always mean the most to me and have inspired me the most, but as for my favorite Disney character, that’s John Silver from Treasure Planet. It’s rare to find a Disney character who isn’t clearly on a side of ‘good’ or ‘evil’, and usually you can tell right off the bat which faction they’re going to pick. But John Silver straddles this distinction, and even by the conclusion of the film still hasn’t picked a set side. I find him to be Disney’s most complex character they’ve created, at least in their animated classics. Aside from that, I adore him sacrificing for his dream and trying to reach it no matter the costs- to me, this is a very admirable trait, and why I love Ariel so much too. I love his personality as well, his charm and charisma. I even found a McDonald’s toy of him in my basement and it was one of the happiest moments of my life!

Jonna:  Well don’t judge me feminist Disney fans, but it’s Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. The reason is because having gone through depression and being in one right now, I always love characters that makes me happy and laugh, and Gaston does that (seriously he’s one of the funniest characters I’ve seen). I also think he’s a good role model in some ways (and by that I don’t mean he has inspired me that if I want someone, I’ll threaten them to put their father in the mental house) but like having bad self confidence, thinking like him makes you feel a lot better about yourself. He’s also very determined to get what he wants, and I always admire that.

Read More

MY BLOG AS REPRESENTED BY A SINGLE IMAGE.

haha look familiar?   That’s what the image background of my blog was originally- a tshirt design I made when I was taking a silk screening class.   And here was that finished product!  (the bottom text wrap reads: “The man who never alters his opinions is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.” -William Blake)

My family went to Disneyworld for Thanksgiving which is where Cinderella came from- of course the only time they ever do that is when I’m living in Germany and not the USA!  But that’s okay haha.   My mom was very excited to get me the Cinderella ornament because of my blog, and then she told people how perfect it was and they were like “uum… with that sort of blog wouldn’t she hate it??”  And my mom was like “No you don’t get it.”   My mom gets me!  

Cinderella’s wearing a pin I got last year at the National Young Feminist conference that says “This is what a Feminist Looks Like.”

~Overall Review: 3/4 Stars (see bottom for details)~

Enchanted is one of my favorite movies ever.   For a full list of just reasons I like it, go here.  (some points will be incorporated into this blog, when they are relevant)     I love that it is irreverent, but not disrespectful.   It pokes fun of a lot of the rather tired Disney themes/unrealistic set-ups etc., without being mean.  Even though Giselle is completely weird, she’s also really lovable.   And they really give the Prince Charming trope a run for its money, but without making him seem… bad.   He’s not very bright, but it’s clear that he means well.

Giselle: Oh, it’s you.
Prince Edward: Yes, it’s me. And you are?
Giselle: Giselle.
Prince Edward: Oh, Giselle! We shall be married in the morning!

To give a very quick plot summary: in order to prevent their upcoming marriage, Edward’s evil stepmother sends Giselle to “reality,” aka NYC, where “there are no happily ever afters… muahaha!”   Giselle then meets/is rescued by Robert and his daughter, Morgan.   Giselle and Robert’s blossoming romance is at the heart of the movie, and like many movies, it tends to overfocus on heterosexual romance (tv/magazines/movies’ zealous creation of hetero romance plotlines creates/feeds into a social desire for everyone to pair up/a lot of pressure for everyone to pair up, or be seen as/feel abnormal). At the same time though, there’s meaningful dialogue taking place regarding the true imperfection of a perfect relationship.  There is a lot of great discussion focused around the difference between fairytale romance and the reality of most romances- and how it can still be special even if it isn’t always forever, immediately felt, or involves magical animals, etc. 

Robert: [regarding Morgan] I know she’s shy. I know she doesn’t have very many friends. I just want her to be strong, you know? To be able to face the world for what it is. That’s why I don’t encourage the fairy tales. I don’t want to set her up to believe in this “dreams come true” nonsense.
Giselle: But dreams do come true. And maybe something wonderful will happen.
Robert: Yeah, well, I forgot who I was talking to.
Giselle: Well, I hope you don’t forget. I like talking to you. [imdb]

I like how they worked out the ending; both Giselle and Nancy got their happily ever after, even though it was in completely different ways and what worked for one didn’t work for the other.   I really appreciated in this movie that Nancy was never made to be “the bad one” even though her motives were, for most of the movie, at odds with Giselle’s.   The movie’s lack of antagonism between them- even though they didn’t end up being really friends, sadly- was, to me, a breath of fresh-ish air.    Again though, the focus on hetero romance is in line with, rather than breaking any stereotypes, of all earlier movies Enchanted otherwise lampoons- Happily Ever After is about these ladies finding true love and [implied, for Giselle] marriage with a man.   If Nancy hadn’t found love with the Prince, it doesn’t seem like she would have ended with a Happily Ever After- and that’s a little sad.

Wheresmystory on blogspot notes that,

Enchanted has a rare opportunity to present a unique picture of true/real love. But in the end, the film fails to do this. Giselle champions commitment, yet throws it out the window. Robert emphasizes the importance of getting to know your partner, yet contradicts himself by choosing Giselle over his girlfriend of five years.

Fair enough!   Sarah Seltzer in an Enchanted review for the Huffington Post remarks:

Enchanted’s glib espousal of both feminist pragmatism and feminine romanticism suggests that the balancing act facing modern women is as simple as, well, as a song and dance routine might be for a cartoon heroine. That idea is a fairytale in and of itself: balancing society’s expectations is extremely difficult in a world where women are supposed to have it all and do it all. But as myths go, the film sends girls a better message than falling into a hundred-year swoon.  

I agree that Giselle’s emotional roller coaster transformation from naive Disney princess to real, complicated woman perhaps in its conclusion underestimates the difficulty of juggling all the different roles.   However, I thought the pacing of her character’s development was very well done and really allowed us to see her as a dynamic, complex individual.   She was able to grow in a way that allowed her to begin to critically examine the things that happened to her rather than just believing in them, yet was still able to retain that joy in life and inner spirit that really is at the heart of what makes “Disney magic.”   To me, the conclusion of the changes Giselle undergoes serves as a metaphor for Disney at large; it is possible to craft interesting, modern, magical, and memorable characters without necessarily backstepping into a lot of sexism, underdevelopment, gender roles, stereotypes et cetera.    Giselle goes from literally falling into the saving arms of Prince Edward and not questing her fate, to being a sword wielding, shoe losing, dragon battling, decision making real woman, ready to risk her life to save the man she loves.   And she is still a princess at heart.

In her review, Seltzer also mentions that,

Of course, the whole stepmother-as-dragon thing is a holdout from fairyland’s misogynist tradition, but that’s another story.

Which I think sums up my feelings on that rather well- yes, this characterization trope is a problem and a stayover from earlier tales, but I’ve talked about it so much beforethat I think it’s enough just to note that it’s here too.   And while Narissa is definitely an underdeveloped character, it’s interesting to note that Nancy’s last name (Tremaine) links to the original evil stepmother in Cinderella.   Yet Nancy in this movie is not shown to be a  “evil” [potential] stepmother to Morgan- I think their relationship is portrayed fairly realistically even though it is only seen in bits and pieces/ and through Morgan’s conversations with her father and Giselle.   Morgan is hesitant to accept this woman as her “new mother,” and Nancy for her part is not completely comfortable yet with the role either.   Through Nancy, the role of the “evil stepmother” in fairytales seems to have evolved into something more honest, more nuanced, and less… shaming.

There are some nice little “feminist” moments in Enchanted, like when Robert thinks a great gift to give his daughter is a hefty book of important women in history.   He clearly doesn’t understand the desires of a 6 year old and it’s supposed to be funny so that diminishes the point a bit, but I think it’s still a really good moment for little girls to just… visualize.  Like right there in the beginning of the movie there’s this real message that You, Little Girl, can one day change the entire world.   And going back to the Nancy/Giselle/Robert/Edward thing, the movie overall doesn’t seem to say that it’s bad to want to be a “princess,” or that having a successful career is the only way to be happy; but it seems to do a much better job than many earlier films of saying either can be perfect, for different people; that there is no universal definition of Happily Ever After.   And it’s worth noting that Giselle does transform her “princess esque” happiness into a career (she ends up heading a business where she makes princess dresses for little girls).   As a note, this movie does pass the Bechdel Test.

Race in this movie was not portrayed especially well.   All the main, and all the secondary characters, are white actors and actresses.   There are a few POC in this movie- which is better than Tangled can say for itself- but they operate always as background characters and are only there for Giselle and others to interact with.   Both of the black women in the film- the almost divorcee and the bus driver- also more or less fit the trope of the Angry Black Woman.   (For anyone unfamiliar with the trope, the point isn’t that it’s “wrong” or “unnatural” for black women to be angry, but that they are portrayed overwhelmingly in media as constantly, sometimes irrationally angry).

The almost-divorcee, Phoebe Banks, is a more developed character than the busdriver (and is, at one point, calm, although this is only AFTER Giselle changes her), but the scene where Giselle touches her hair and says she/her hair is “just beautiful” felt a little off.   I realize part of Giselle’s character/charm is that she doesn’t understand personal (physical, and emotional) boundaries like “real world” people do, but it just felt weird that they turned “touch the black woman’s hair without asking” into something positive/excusable because it is a compliment, considering that- feeling entitled to feel up a black person’s hair because it seems “different”- is a big issue in the way white people tend to interact with (and otherize/make to feel “different”) black people.  

And even though it was, I think, cool that Giselle the Disney Princess actually makes a point to vocalize that a black woman with dredded hair is beautiful, it felt a little forced, and like another “aha, Giselle is so naive” cue-the-laugh moment, which didn’t seem completely appropriate given the context of black women rarely being shown as “the beautiful one” in film.    Also a little off beat was that the black couple couldn’t fix their marriage without the help of Giselle the white woman savior, although maybe the aftermath of all the “The Help” discussions are too prominent in my mind right now.  

Another off moment with race is when Nathaniel is pretending to be a taxi driver and seems to be dressed up as a Sikh (turban etc)?   He also pretends to be German (I think?  It doesn’t sound like a German accent to me but.) when selling the candy apples, and Italian while selling the pizza.   On the one hand, I think part of the point is recognizing that his portrayals are stereotypes, and part of the humor is realizing how unbelievable he is as an “italian” when he’s relying only on these stereotypes to craft his character.   On the other hand… I’m not sure how clear this point really is, especially to younger audiences.    The line between making fun of a stereotype, and reinforcing it by playing into it, is often a very thin one to walk.

Although I sort of hate to mention it, Dana Stevens at Slate Magazine makes a good point about one thing Disney does not make fun of:

 …Giselle needs an outfit only a fairy godmother can provide. So Morgan, Robert’s 6-year-old daughter, proposes a solution: “I know something better than a fairy godmother,” she trills, reaching into a drawer for her daddy’s credit card. There follows a shopping montage in which the two dash in and out of a series of Manhattan boutiques…

Finally, we see them getting makeovers at a salon, surrounded by a mountain of shopping bags. Smiling shyly at the lovely young woman who’s just entered her divorced father’s life, Morgan asks, “Is this what it’s like to go shopping with your mother?”

Of course, “shopping with your mother,” specifically for femininity-enhancing, wallet-reducing princess clothes, is precisely the activity that propels the global Disney empire forward. The scene between Morgan and Giselle in the spa isn’t played for irony; these two are truly bonding over the manicure counter, and Morgan’s mission to save the day via retail proves successful…

Disney can afford to poke fun at a lot of things about itself, and in Enchanted, it does exactly that, to largely charming effect. But the marketing of princesshood? That’s serious business.

Do I think this is enough to make Enchanted a terrible movie?   Of course not.  But it’s definitely worth examining the way Disney is using the film to subtly market their Princess Lifestyle, since a large part of selling their (highly successful line of) merchandise is first convincing young girls and their parents that it is something that will make them happy- that will make them feel complete.   All of the above, combined with Giselle’s eventual career creating princess dresses at her business “Andalasia Designs,” make this an interesting peek into the ways in which Disney has worked to combine their merchandise with a deeper sense of meaning for potential consumers.

Overall, Enchanted is still one of my favorites, and although it is not perfect, I think it carries far fewer troubling messages than older Disney films.    Disney took a mild gamble in creating a movie that makes fun of their own empire, and they were rewarded with the quality payoff that is Enchanted.

———————

Promotion/Equal Voice given to women: ****

Representation of Women present (are they more than typecasts of female stereotypes etc): **~

Racism/Classism: ** (mostly white, upper-class people shown)

LGBTQ representation: ** (no one really present, but no queer villain coding)

Gender Binary adherence: ***

“No,” replied Gothel; “Why do you ask?”

• Article via the Guardian: America’s $88 billion anti-aging industry: dangerous with no scientific backing

• Piece on Sociological Images: “Baby Lips”: Thanks for the Infantilization, Maybelline

• “The Double Standard of Aging” by Susan Sontag on Media Watch (published in 1979… how slow things are to change!)

“[Women] can let themselves age naturally and without embarrassment, actively protesting and disobeying the convention that stem from this society’s double standard about aging. Instead of being girls, girls as long as possible, who then age humiliatingly into middle-aged women, they can become women much earlier-and remain active adults, enjoying the long, erotic career which women are capable, far longer. Women should allow their faces to show the lives they have lived. Women should tell the truth.”

• an article from Virginia Tech’s research magazine on ageism in culture

Cinderella clarified her position on her lack of judgment when it came to others having consensual sex inside or outside of “official relationships” after reading multiple tumblr posts that said,

“if Cinderella can find her Prince Charming without taking off her clothes, so can you.”

So this is a tv review, which I haven’t ever *officially* done before.   I’ll go episode by episode, but since I did watch this show growing up, my review is going to have some inherent bias. My kids, if/when I have them, will probably learn to hate the internet because they’ll be like “Can we watch the show Offensive Magical Native Stereotype on tv?”  And I’ll be like “Here’s Lizzie McGuire on youtube! Watch it.”  “NO MOM NOT YOUR OLD FAVORITE SHOWS FROM MIDDLE SCHOOL AGAIN!”  I wish I could review 5 rather than 3, but it was getting rather lengthy.  

Episode 34: First Kiss

I picked the first show at random, and it happened to be very focused on romance.  I’m usually of two minds about this- on the one hand, I think kids shows overall tend to overemphasize the importance of [hetero] relationships for kids and it creates a societal pressure where kids- especially girls since the message is aimed strong in their direction- feel like they have “failed” or are “not good enough” if they are not in a relationship/have the attention of the opposite sex.  

But, on the other hand, so long as it *is* a social pressure, then it’s one worth addressing with kids, rather than ignoring.  I think this episode did a pretty decent job of that. Around Valentine’s day, Lizzie becomes rather enamored with her paper boy Ronnie and it quickly becomes a relationship. In doing so, her brain turns to romance mush and she doesn’t talk about anything other than Ronnie/ignores Miranda/ doesn’t pay attention in school. The relationship (and episode) ends when Ronnie breaks up with her. The ending reinforces several points:

• Romance can be fun, but at the end of the day, it is often short-lived, and the people who really stand by you and support you through it all aren’t the guy you met last weekend, but the friends and family you’ve come to love.   So throwing them under the bus the second you start dating someone is not a good idea.

• Balance is important; Lizzie was messing with her friendship with Miranda by making her entire life about Ronnie, rather than seeing her relationship as one of many that are important to maintain

• Gordo is clearly in love with Lizzie AUGH WHY DID THAT NEVER HAPPEN.

I’m not sure I’m completely on board with the girl-goes-bonkers-for-a-guy-meme because  I feel like it’s what our society mostly expects from young girls, and their other abilities and accomplishments are ignored or not addressed as much in tv/movies/etc., which creates a sort of catch 22. Society constantly tells girls it expects boy-crazy of them, so girls, since they always see it in portrayals of young women on tv, feel like it is an expectation they must live up to in order to be perceived as “not a failure.” Then society turns around and is like “why are 10 year olds obsessed with having boyfriends what happened to the good ol’ days?!”

When Lizzie’s parents debated over whether or not she was “allowed” to date a boy (obviously she was going to anyway), it made me think of how gender binaried this discussion is, at least on tv.   I think it’s a reasonable concern for parents to have, that their children might get distracted by romance (yet kids, especially girls, will think it’s uper important because every magazine will tell them, from the tender age of 10, how to get the attentions of their crush, and every movie they watch will end with a blooming romance!) and not concentrate on being a kid/working hard in school/whatever.  

But I was thinking during this episode how we never see a reaction from Ronnie or Gordo’s parents (since he starts crushin). If it was just this one show, I wouldn’t think it meant anything, but off the top of my head I couldn’t recall a single episode I had ever viewed of any tv show in which a young boy was told by his parents to cool his jets when it comes to having a girlfriend (or boyfriend)/romance/whatever. I can recall multiple instances of this happening to girls. Is this overall trend indicative of the way our dialogues with children are quickly gender-binaried and influencing how they perceive their non-familial relationships?

I have to say, for a show that started off over 10 years ago, Lizzie McGuire had a fairly diverse cast, which I think Disney is better about with their shows than with their movies.  Lizzie and her family are, predictably, middle-class white people, but Miranda is latina,  Gordo is Jewish, and Matt’s best friend Lenny is black.   Which was an interesting casting choice since he never speaks (and it’s not clear if it’s a choice or if he actually can’t, to me it seemed that choice was implied?).   So in that way I feel iffy about the casting choice because on a larger level, black characters- especially in movies- are often given few speaking lines, no speaking lines, or have their lives explained to them/altered/made better by a white character.  So, it bothers me a little that Lenny’s viewpoints are always explained through Matt.   On the other hand, I did think it was in some ways a positive portrayal because never talking is really atypical behavior that IRL would probably get you in trouble with your peers,  yet Lenny is never shown as being bullied for it, and in fact always reveals himself to be incredibly creative and intelligent- without ever speaking.   He is not a stereotype of any sort I can recognize- he is an incredibly unique character who does not need spoken words in order to define himself to the audience.

Episode 35: El Oro De Montezuma

Lizzie McGuire El Oro De Montezuma was… decent, but I think it was more haphazard than the other episodes and there was more obvious “this line is the point of the episode” lines from the characters.   An Indonesian student, Lee, transfers to Lizzie’s school, and at first she tries to befriend him but is amused/confused by his inability to understand the point she’s trying to make.  

Their teacher wants to do some project on cultures of the world and the first thing he does is ask Lee to tell the whole class about his culture because what a great opportunity!  I thought that was a rather awkward thing to do because it highlighted his “otherness” at a time when he’s trying to fit in/probably not draw too much attention to himself, as is often the case with newcomers.    And especially given that the teacher must have known he struggled with understanding english- why put him on the spot like that??   Lizzie quips, “This might take a while,” and then Mr. Diggs says, “So it takes a while.  We’re here to learn about other cultures.”   But- confusingly- the scene then cuts away… so it was so important that they didn’t want to include it?     It would take a while to actually show in the episode, so it wasn’t worth the time?? 

Meanwhile, Miranda’s cousin from Mexico City is on a game show and invites them to come along when other contestants drop out.    Miranda and Gordo attempt to practice their spanish but Lizzie thinks that practicing the tasks will be better since they’ll have the cousin to translate.    Predictably, they have trouble understanding what is going on while they participate, and becuase Lizzie doesn’t understand the language or culture, she has to give everyone labels but has no idea what they mean and ends up seperating the cousin (who acts as the interpreter) from their group.   They then have absolutely no idea what the host is telling them to do and the studio audience laughs at them for it, which makes Lizzie feel really uncomfortable and- predictable parallel- realizes that she’s treated Lee like crap.    She goes back to school and instead of delivering her report on the Mexican game show, explains how she realizes she was wrong to be hard on him because she realizes now how difficult adjustment can be, and instead she presents a report on Indonesia, to the apparent delight of Lee.

While the intent of the episode was nice- realizing the importance of understanding other cultures/languages and the difficulty others encounter while getting to know our own (and why we should have empathy for them), I felt like the handling of Lee’s character was really shaky.    It ended up basically reducing him to nothing more than a physical representation of his culture- he is never able to talk for himself/about himself in this episode, instead all we know is that he is “Lee from Indonesia”- and Lizzie ends up being the one that teaches the class about his country and culture.  Seeing people as symbols and spokespeople for their entire race and/or nationality has often been a problem in US American culture (and elsewhere), and I don’t think this episode did anything other than perpetuate that concept.    It reflects the cultural dissonance we have in wanting to learn from others and thinking that our desire to learn negates all of their feelings on how this education is approached.   Not everyone likes being asked about their native homeland every time they meet someone new, as if that’s all they are or all they can offer everyone.

What also bothers me about this episode is that it’s like an essay introduction without the punch of the rest of the essay.   They say all this stuff about the positive rewards of learning about other cultures, but what the viewer of this epsiode comes away with learning about either Indonesian or Mexican culture is less than the first two lines of their wikipedia entries. We only hear the intro of Lizzie’s essay and still learn nothing about the country. So it was like… “We think your culture is important… just NOT important enough to actually include it in our show.” 

The game show scene may or may not have been appropriative or inappropriate … it’s difficult to tell since I know a lot of game shows are legitimately really strange, so does it count as furthering a stereotype, or no?  Feel free to check out the episode and let me know if you have a more definitive opinion on it.
 
Episode 36: Mom’s Best Friend

 I love Lizzie’s parents as characters, so this episode was likely to be a rewarding experience. Lizzie is inspired by a book she’s required to read for class to have a stronger “friendship” relationship with her mother. Through Lizzie’s exploration of their relationship, a lot of good points are made.  She realizes that she has underappreciated her mother, that at some point her mother might not be there so it’s worth strengthening their relationship now, and she says something along the lines of wanting to be her mom’s friend because her mom has already been through everything they’ve gone through and knows how to relate.  

Her path causes Gordo and Miranda to attempt the same thing.   Gordo’s discussion with his dad is hilarious; he asks if his dad wants to go on a fishing trip. 

Dad: “As a psychiatrist, I’m aware you’re at a stage where it’s normal for you to seek seperation from your parents.  Yet, you desire closeness, rather than distance… [Gordo says something]… Saturday’s wide open.   We can leave at 6.30… breakfast at 7… we can be at Inspiration Overlook by 8.15.   That leaves time for a spontaneous discussion of our place in the world, and our emotional response to it.  

…What do you think, 3 minutes?  5 minutes?”

Gordo: “…3 minutes.”

Haha nostalgia alone does not make this show hilarious.   But I thought that sort of highlighted that A) not every child/parent relationship is the same, B) it’s a two way street when it comes to strengthening that relationship and working at relating to each other as peers, and C) your relationship will probably work out okay even if you don’t plan it out every step of the way (while leaving space for spontaneous discussion, lol).    Miranda’s experience with her mother starts off positive- she just sort of blurts out “So, you want to be friends?”  And her mom is super excited and wants to go shopping and it seems like Miranda realizes then that constantly shutting her mom out of her life had been hurting her.

 Lizzie then realizes that her relationship with her mother is becoming overwhelming because she isn’t ready to relate to her/talk to her about adult things like her grandmother considering leaving her grandfather.   She tells her mom that it will have to wait a few years.

Lizzie: “But, I’m glad to know that we can be friends.”
Mom: “So am I.  And I know it’s going to be worth the wait.”

I thought that was a really touching moment, and it was really a surprisingly insightful look into how to transverse the generational differences while kids are growing up.   It acknowledged that they wouldn’t be great friends right then, and that was sad, but that Lizzie understood that she wasn’t ready to tackle really serious stuff all the time- and that was okay.    It’s okay to be young, and it’s okay to wait for that parent-child-yet-friendship relationship to occur when it’s ready to.   It was a good reminder that growing up is both cool as you grow in your relationships with yourself and others, and painful at times as you become more aware of the imperfections in the world around you.

——

Basically: Lizzie McGuire the show predictably has some problems with examining more complex issues like cultural representation, but it makes a decent attempt to examine multiple types of issues in a fairly non-shaming, humorous way that makes fairly progressive messages accessible to kids. It features multiple female protagonists who form strong relationships with each other and others around them.  I’d recommend it overall