The Frog Princess Press Release

[PapiBear]

OK, so that's now 3 white folks totally dismissive of Black concerns, 2 sympathetic, and 1 sort of on-the-fence. Keep the comments comin', everybody!

You are a hypocritic. You hate when people dismiss black yet you feel it's ok to diss a white?

I'm keeping score of the range of opinions. How is this disrespectful of whites?

By the way, I wasn't calling anyone an "a-hole." You did that. Is that a respectful term in your culture?

This is why, dispite being friends with alot of open minded blacks people, I get a little annoyed when Blacks, whites, any ethnicity b*tch over petty little things that has no regard to the issue in the first place. They just love living in the past.

Nobody's living in the past, sweetie, and I am very much talking about the issue (the film, which doesn't exist in a vacuum). I'm talking about what's going on today. By the way, just because you have 2.5 Black friends doesn't mean what you just said wasn't racist.

[PapiBear]

OK, so that's now 3 white folks totally dismissive of Black concerns, 2 sympathetic, and 1 sort of on-the-fence. Keep the comments comin', everybody!

You clearly want people to choose sides, like you're preparing for a war or something. I want there to be no sides. And there are more beautiful shades in this world than black and white.

Choose sides? No, not at all. I'm just keeping tabs of the responses. War? We can't discuss things without somebody threatening violence?

By the way, did you watch the film I recommended you take a look at? It's short, don't worry.

Take a look at this film, "A Girl Like Me", from 17 year old filmmaker Kiri Davis. This speaks to the very issue I'm talking about.

[Poody]

Now, that is one great video. I don't see how it has much to do with your arguments with the fellow posters on this site. Maybe you should have simply posted that link before typing anything at all.

I used to think that a Disney board would be full of nice friendly people, but now I see why other posters (in the off-topic forum) are leaving the board for good.

Now, back to the topic at hand.... The Frog Princess - The Movie

[dalmation134]

I hope that this idea doesn't go down the toilet. I like this one.

[Disney's Divinity]

Why is race even a point of interest? To me, you can only find racism if you're looking for it or if you assume that the creators of this movie are intending to be racist. In the same way that I've read many articles arguing that Disney is sexist. It's only sexist if you take it that way, there's never any intention to demean or degrade anyone.

Not to say that there aren't questionable cases (Indians in Peter Pan, the crows of Dumbo, etc.), I just don't think this is one of them.

On other notes:

2. It's set in New Orleans in a post-slavery era but not post-Jim Crow era; enough that "Maddy" must still work cleaning white people's houses and tending to their privileged spoiled daughter?

I'm pretty sure that Maddy and her mother work cleaning for a spoiled African American debutante and her doting father. At least, that's what the character was described as in the earliest character listings.

5. Prince Harry - The EUROPEAN WHITE PRINCE with whom Maddy falls in love with? This is doubly offensive in that our Black children must be subconsciously subjected to the mindset that a Black man is not good enough to be a prince and therefore cannot rescue one of his own from the plantation.

Has it been said that Harry and Maddy end up together? Then again, I have no idea how a European prince ended up in New Orleans.

Not to mention the fact that in an era where Black women were routinely seen as less than human and raped at will by white men (wealthy landowners as well as poor), your writers had the audacity to make the prince white? Quadroons, mulattos, and octoroons were all labels & terms coming out of the South made up by the white establishment to further define the racist caste system they had going particularly in New Orleans . These unions of Black & white were normally NOT consensual on the Black women's part.

Um...I'm pretty sure that, if the "white" Prince and the "black" maid end up together, he won't end up raping her. Unless I'm missing some big leap in the plot.

Black people are not lab rats for white people to perform experiments on, social, cinematic, or otherwise.

You're making this film sound like an experiment in social engineering rather than a fairy tale.

Not to mention the fact that New Orleans has a mix of different races. If an all-white cast seems racist, can't you see that an all black cast is no different?

So the all-white casts can stay, but the all-Black cast has to go? I'm betting you won't like The Wiz, The Color Purple, or a lot of other films and plays with all-Black casts then, for the same reason.

Face it, you don't care about Black people.

This is perhaps the most ridiculus statement I've read. It's funny how so many find it so easy to point out racism against the obvious targets (African Americans, Native Americans, etc.), but they choose to ignore the fact that they're participating in racism themselves. Making it seem as if all white is bad but that all black isn't is idiotic. If you're going to have one, have the other. If both are wrong, have neither.

(Random Example)
It's the same as group-specific colleges these days. If there were a college for only Caucasian Americans, I'm sure there'd be no argument that the institution was racist. But somehow there's no question for there being an all African American college? Here's a tip: all whites aren't racist. Assuming so makes you a racist.

[akhenaten]

hmmm blacks and chinese are always over sensitive about issues like this. but when an arab does the same, they're regarded as terrorists. im not black nor arab nor chinese, im a malay and im upset there's no malay disney prince/princess. should i join the bandwagon too? should i rally a campaign? or should i just wait and see? and celebrate when there finally is a malay princess like its the birth of a messiah?

[jeremy88]

To be honest...You can find almost anything if you look for it in movies. Wheather it be wrong or right its how you view the movie and if you find the message your looking for, its cause you want to find a fualt or you want it to mean something special. For myself I view films for the film and only the film and its bleak storyline. A lot of movies have symbolism and a deep meaning or message, but only if you look for them otherwise they could just blow right over your head. Most of the time...especially with animated movies. They have their point of storyline to entertain and thats it. There not trying to start a controversy or promote anything wrong or right.

[akhenaten]

jeremy my ym is lonely without u.

[jeremy88]

Lol Im not at my house right now...Im up at my aunts house in the forest. No YM on this thing lol.

[PapiBear]

Why is race even a point of interest? To me, you can only find racism if you're looking for it or if you assume that the creators of this movie are intending to be racist.

So you believe that all racism is intentional and overt?

Tell me something. It's just a simple yes or no question. Are you Black?

In the same way that I've read many articles arguing that Disney is sexist. It's only sexist if you take it that way, there's never any intention to demean or degrade anyone.

So you believe that all sexism, too, is always and only intentional and overt?

Not to say that there aren't questionable cases (Indians in Peter Pan, the crows of Dumbo, etc.), I just don't think this is one of them.

Why are those cases questionable? What's questionable about them?

On other notes:

2. It's set in New Orleans in a post-slavery era but not post-Jim Crow era; enough that "Maddy" must still work cleaning white people's houses and tending to their privileged spoiled daughter?

I'm pretty sure that Maddy and her mother work cleaning a spoiled African American debutante's house.

You're pretty sure of that, huh? How are you so sure?

At least, that's what the character was described as in the earliest character listings.

Which character? Maddy? It's already been made clear that she's not a debutante.

5. Prince Harry - The EUROPEAN WHITE PRINCE with whom Maddy falls in love with? This is doubly offensive in that our Black children must be subconsciously subjected to the mindset that a Black man is not good enough to be a prince and therefore cannot rescue one of his own from the plantation.

Has it been said that Harry and Maddy end up together? Then again, I have no idea how a European prince ended up in New Orleans.

The likeliest method of travel was an ocean liner.

Rumor has it that this is Disney's first effort at showing a princess story where the prince and the princess just shake hands after a night of bowling and that's all. No love, no marriage, no happily ever after. Just a handshake.

Not to mention the fact that in an era where Black women were routinely seen as less than human and raped at will by white men (wealthy landowners as well as poor), your writers had the audacity to make the prince white? Quadroons, mulattos, and octoroons were all labels & terms coming out of the South made up by the white establishment to further define the racist caste system they had going particularly in New Orleans . These unions of Black & white were normally NOT consensual on the Black women's part.

Um...I'm pretty sure that, if the "white" Prince and the "black" maid end up together, he won't end up raping her. Unless I'm missing some big leap in the plot.

No, but you ARE glossing over the social historical reality.

Maybe Disney could next have a fairy tale where a little Jewish girl and a handsome Nazi officer meet cute and fall in love in the Warsaw ghetto? It'd show how far we've come and how much we've left racism in the past. There could even be a big musical number done to the backdrop of Kristallnacht! Imagine the marketing possibilities!

Black people are not lab rats for white people to perform experiments on, social, cinematic, or otherwise.

You're making this film sound like an experiment in social engineering rather than a fairy tale.

So the all-white casts can stay, but the all-Black cast has to go? I'm betting you won't like The Wiz, The Color Purple, or a lot of other films and plays with all-Black casts then, for the same reason.

Face it, you don't care about Black people.

This is perhaps the most ridiculus statement I've heard. It's funny how so many find it so easy to point out racism against the obvious targets (African Americans, Native Americans, etc.), but they choose to ignore the fact that they're participating in racism themselves. Making it seem as if all white is bad but that all black isn't is idiotic. If you're going to have one, have the other. If both are wrong, have neither.

I never said that having an all-white cast was "bad." I'm asking what's wrong with having an all-Black cast, since all-white casts have already previously been featured?

It's amazing to me how so many supposedly enlightened people preach racial equality, but when the time comes to put their money where their mouths are, they have a million reasons to justify not supporting real racial equality.

Racial equality is not about always having a rainbow of colors and making sure that everyone of every ethnicity always gets to play a part in whatever story you're telling or retelling. If you set a story in a certain real life place and a certain real life time, and especially if it's one that has a known history and isn't in some nebulous ancient past where poetic license can run free, even if the story is a fantasy, it's important to make an effort to tell your story within the parameters of that place's history.

Example: you don't have King Arthur meeting up with Neil Armstrong and Luke Skywalker in the Bronx in 1947 and exchanging cell phone numbers, unless you're writing an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Disney's not animating a Twilight Zone episode here. You can't play fast and loose with the facts of 1920s New Orleans just because it suits your 21st Century sociopolitical objectives.

It's the same as group-specific colleges these days. If there were a college for only Caucasians, I'm sure there'd be no argument that the institution was racist. But somehow there's no question for there being an all African American college? Here's a tip: all whites aren't racist. Assuming so makes you a racist.

Assuming that all whites are racist isn't so much "racist" as it is ignorant, as well as assumptive, because it's factually incorrect. So it's a good thing I know that, isn't it?

Here's a tip for you: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are not available exclusively to African Americans. They're just what the name says: historically Black. Whites and other non-Blacks can and do apply to them and have been accepted and graduated from them. Do you know why HBCUs are historically Black?

I'll wait for your answer.

[slave2moonlight]

While scanning through, I seem to have missed the rather large and insulting post that included the film link. However, I agree with what was said, the film seems to have little to do with the discussion.

PapiBear, I don't want to draw this out, but how can I not respond. You say I "don't care about Black people." Color distinctions are clearly very important to you, and you seem to be very angry at white people in general, for whatever reasons that are your own. At least, angry at any that don't believe in catering to every single statement of something being "offensive." Many of your retorts are simply impressions of white racist stereotypes meant to represent anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Well, I'll tell you who I care about. I care about people in general. I don't believe in pushing the idea of color/race separation, and that's all we do anytime we complain about an interracial couple in a film, whatever the reason, or call for an all black film just for the sake of leaving the white people out of it, or search for things to find offensive and part of some big conspiracy that is highly unlikely. Yes, there are times when things are offensive, and sometimes intentionally so, and I don't approve of those things, but I simply don't believe that is the case with this film. And, keep in mind that the Disney company is not REQUIRED to please anyone with their films. If people don't like something, they don't have to go see it, and the film won't make money, and they will do things differently with their future films. Their goal is not to offend, because that wouldn't work out to their benefit in any way whatsoever. If they didn't care about offending people, "Song of the South" wouldn't have been kept in the vault all these years.

As for what I was saying about culture, art, writing, etc..., my point, which really was clear as day, was that no matter how benign it is, someone will find something offensive about it, though not always rightly so. It seems everyone else here understood what I was saying.

Sure, some people do, but when ordinary people find something offensive, is it actually offensive, or are they just imagining it? See, you don't get to pick and choose what's offensive for someone else.

No, but an artist, filmmaker, or whatever has to use common sense to decide for themselves if the "offense" sounds reasonable or not, because, as was stated above, someone will always find something to be offended about, and some people DO actually look for things to be offended about. You can't just change your art everytime someone finds fault with it. Better for people to boycott it, really, than get something other than what the artists originally intended.

Did you see the part where I said that I don't have any problem with interracial relationships, and that I even promote them? Did you? I mean, really, did you read that part? Because I don't think it sank in.

It was contradicted again and again, that was the problem.

The issue - AGAIN - is not whether interracial relationships are good or bad. The issue is how Black children view themselves in the world, and media's role in developing children's self-image. You're completely unaware of this, and completely unsympathetic to it.

The Disney company is in no way required to fix the problem with the self images of any children. Of course, they shouldn't add to the problem either, and I see you feel that is what this film does. That's where we disagree, and I went into detail on that when I went over the petition letter. But here's the most important point, if Disney wants to tell a story where a black princess marries a white prince, there is nothing "racist" in that and no one should have a problem with it. It doesn't mean they are saying there is anything wrong with a black princess marrying a black prince, it's just not the story they are telling this time, and whether or not some people are getting that impression should not be something they have to worry about if it is not the impression they are intending to give. They should be allowed to make the film they want to make, and if people don't approve of it, they should say so, but they shouldn't alter their art to cater to anyone if they truly don't feel there is anything wrong with it themselves. That actually IS about our basic freedoms in the U.S. Telling someone, "Hey, you can't write/draw/paint that because it offends me," infringes upon our freedoms. However, I don't support anyone intentionally trying to offend someone else, but I really don't think that is the case here, nor do I believe the matters in this film are reasonably offensive.

I'm talking to a wall. You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, because you're not a part of the community I'm in. Worse, you're not even making an effort to understand the viewpoint. You're too busy parroting the colorblind party line.

If only you could join us in the colorblind party. Look, you can blame the media all you like. Definitely, the media has some influence, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but the guardians of any child are the strongest influence in his or her lives, much stronger than the media, and the Walt Disney Company has no responsibility in raising people's children. However, I think they do a pretty good job with what they put out. Why are there no black princes is a good question, but why should it be focused on the Walt Disney Company? Why haven't any young, black filmmakers come up with any? Or have they? When someone feels something is lacking in the world, they can always help to create it rather than complain that no one else has done it for them.

You know, as long as human beings continue to speak different languages, we'll also get nowhere as a group. Should we have just one world language and eliminate all the others? What about religion? What about political parties? Just one size fits all, for the world? (Don't bother answering. I know you won't understand this at all.)

Skin color/race, something we couldn't change if we wanted to, is quite different. I'll go ahead and answer you, because I understand more of what you say than you think. Should we all speak the same language? That would actually be quite progressive. It doesn't mean we have to eliminate languages, but yes, that's why most of us strive to learn more languages. Being able to communicate with as many people as possible is a good thing. Different religions is like having different opinions about something. As long as we're not hurting each other, there's no problem with it, and most religions don't support violence. Political parties is, again, different opinions. None of these match up to the issue of racial segregation. I am going to have to continue supporting integration, even on film; sorry.

I'm not "angry about a mixed-race couple." I said that I don't think that it's the smart move for Disney to make for their first effort at telling an African American tale, and I explained my reasons for this, which you've very conveniently ignored. I believe that Disney is sending dangerous messages to not only Black children, but to all children, by going about this the way they are. This is not a simplistic matter of stating whether interracial relationships are bad or good. Disney is hesitant, perhaps even loathe, to portray Black love. Why?

You arrive at that assumption simply because the main couple in the film is interracial. That's a big and harsh assumption.

It's clear to me that Black children's self-image is less important to you than your own personal entertainment. As long as you're entertained, who cares what damage is done to Black children, right?

This is like saying any interracial relationship is damaging for black children to see. I'm just not buying that.

No, that's what you've been talking about. Next time, read what's written. You talk to me about finding racism in everything, but look what you're doing. You're being defensive because you think I'm attacking interracial relationships, because you're the product of one. Understandable position to take if that's what I was doing, but I'm not. This isn't about you.

You're right, it's not about me. I didn't even think about it being about me. But this is going around in circles. You are insistant that the lack of a black prince makes this film damaging to kids. That translates to the interracial couple being damagine, because it is not a same-race couple. That should be easy to figure out.

Disney's NEVER HAD A BLACK PRINCE FOR ANY OF ITS PRINCESSES BEFORE, so there's nothing else to compare it to. Why won't they give their first Black princess a Black prince? They gave every single one of their white princesses a white prince. What are they afraid of?

Why do they have to be afraid of anything? Why can't they just be trying to make the statement that race shouldn't be an issue? Or maybe we will find it a very important issue in the story when it finally comes out. That would be surprising, but the point is that there are a number of possibilities there.

If Disney wants to play the diversity game with its animated princesses, let them do it with one of their white princesses first. Pair a white princess up with a Black prince. Think that'd go over well in Peoria? You know there'd be an outcry.

So an interracial couple in a Disney animated feature won't be accepted no matter who is the white one and who is the black one, because of the racist groups on both sides.

We are striving for a society where our children don't see each other by color.

What do you mean "we"? Not everyone is striving for this. There's a big difference between not discriminating against others based on ethnicity or race and recognizing ethnic and cultural differences, respecting them, and appreciating them. You're not going to achieve racial harmony when you force others to toe a colorblind line where racial and ethnic differences supposedly don't exist because you claim they're not there, even when they are there.

By "we," I meant those of us who are in support of a progressive, peaceful society of equality and acceptance, and I think most people here got what I meant about not seeing each other by color. Of course, I was talking about equality and acceptance, and not judging people based on racial stereotypes or past prejudices. I definitely am not in support of forgetting the past or individual cultural heritage. I'm speaking about separating people in modern society based on race/color. As long as we do that, how can we have racial harmony?

You're making this film sound like an experiment in social engineering rather than a fairy tale. Also, you're basically saying that it's okay that there are all these white princesses with white princes, and an Arabic princess with an Arabic prince, and a Chinese princess with a Chinese prince - those are all A-OK. But when it's time for a Black princess, oh wait, we can't pair her up with a Black prince - one of her own - suddenly now we have to be all diverse and colorblind and - hey, let's pair her up with a white prince!

It is okay, because the story they want to tell is about an interracial couple. Here's the problem: You're talking like this film is about nothing more than making a black Disney princess or a film to cater to black audiences. As I've said before, I sincerely hope it is more about telling a good story than covering a demographic Disney hasn't hit strongly enough yet.

You. Are. Not. Listening.

Black people, like all people, want to see themselves reflected in stories, films, plays, TV shows, etc. That's not happening with this story. We're getting an imbalanced, skewed, one-sided story. A partial, distorted reflection. And you're defending that.

Believe me, I'm listening. I get what you're saying, but, again, the problem is that you see this film as some sort of gift to one race of people. I see it as a story, and, as a nice change, it's a multi-cultural story. They are pushing the fact that the princess is African American because that is a first for Disney, but that doesn't mean they have made this whole movie just to please a group of people. I hope they will continue to tell the story THEY want to tell, because it needs to be about the story. And if their next film has a couple that is both African American, that's great, if it's the story THEY want to tell.

We are? We're trying to move past the past by pretending the past is the present? Or does time have no meaning in Disney animation all of a sudden? If so, I want a non-linear Disney animated film, like Pulp Fiction.

All of a sudden? Their films have their historical inaccuracies for the sake of the story, the fun, etc... Emperor's New Groove is not exactly accurate, and I don't believe there were really any Fairy Godmothers or genies flying around, but that's just me. We are trying to move past films with completely race exclusive casts when race exclusive casts are not necessary to the story.

So the all-white casts can stay, but the all-Black cast has to go? I'm betting you won't like The Wiz, The Color Purple, or a lot of other films and plays with all-Black casts then, for the same reason.

Face it, you don't care about Black people.

Actually, I own the Wiz on DVD. It's a great film. However, it was made in a different time. Anyway, I never said "the all-white casts can stay, but the all-Black cast has to go." I said one is no more or less enlightened than the other. They are the same thing: a race exclusive cast. I'm sorry if you think that means I don't care about Black people. I care about all my brothers and sisters of this world, not just the ones who match me.

[jeremy88]

PapiBear wrote:

No, but you ARE glossing over the social historical reality.

Maybe Disney could next have a fairy tale where a little Jewish girl and a handsome Nazi officer meet cute and fall in love in the Warsaw ghetto? It'd show how far we've come and how much we've left racism in the past. There could even be a big musical number done to the backdrop of Kristallnacht! Imagine the marketing possibilities

!


Well...Disney does tend to gloss over a lot of historical issues anyways. I don't see what makes this one different. Since the Nazi era was a complete actual event to where you can't change it, it would be impossible to take something like that to fit Disney's medium. The story in where The Frog Princess takes place, isnt exactly true to US history in the first place. So really with this story Disney isn't "glossing" over anything.

From ropeofsilicon.com
A musical set in the legendary birthplace of jazz -- New Orleans -- "The Frog Princess" will introduce the newest Disney princess, Maddy, a young African-American girl living amid the charming elegance and grandeur of the fabled French Quarter. From the heart of Louisiana's mystical bayous and the banks of the mighty Mississippi comes an unforgettable tale of love, enchantment and discovery with a soulful singing crocodile, voodoo spells and Cajun charm at every turn. Randy Newman will will write songs and the score for the film.

There ya have it...there going for completely made up place...It's in New Orleans but it's not like there going for "Let's have another realistic story like Pocahontas where there actually is historical sites and actual people that lived in that time period." So I don't see how this could involve America's social and political history.

[slave2moonlight]

I know this stuff wasn't directed at me, but...

Tell me something. It's just a simple yes or no question. Are you Black?

Not a simple yes or no question for MANY people in the U.S. today. Something Disney probably knows.

Racial equality is not about always having a rainbow of colors and making sure that everyone of every ethnicity always gets to play a part in whatever story you're telling or retelling. If you set a story in a certain real life place and a certain real life time, and especially if it's one that has a known history and isn't in some nebulous ancient past where poetic license can run free, even if the story is a fantasy, it's important to make an effort to tell your story within the parameters of that place's history.

Rules like that simply do not apply to fiction. Sure, the more accuracies, the more "realistic" the film is, but that is not always a goal of the filmmaker.

Example: you don't have King Arthur meeting up with Neil Armstrong and Luke Skywalker in the Bronx in 1947 and exchanging cell phone numbers, unless you're writing an episode of The Twilight Zone.

Those are ridiculously extreme comparisons. There actually were white princes during the 1920's.

Disney's not animating a Twilight Zone episode here. You can't play fast and loose with the facts of 1920s New Orleans just because it suits your 21st Century sociopolitical objectives.

Yeah, you can. That's at the creator's discretion. We haven't seen this film yet, perhaps it will be like the Twilight Zone. Though, it sounds more like "The Emperor's New Groove," which was a fantastic film that you should probably check out some time. Point is, if they want to add twists to a story, that's up to them. There are pretty much no rules in an animated film.

Assuming that all whites are racist isn't so much "racist" as it is ignorant, as well as assumptive, because it's factually incorrect. So it's a good thing I know that, isn't it?

Uh... that's what makes it racist.

[Disney's Divinity]

So you believe that all racism is intentional and overt? So you believe that all sexism, too, is always and only intentional and overt?

The worst aspects of it, yes. Not to say all racism is that way, considering I'm sure some people grow up in a racist family and unconciously become racist themselves. But if racism wasn't intentional, then how can it be considered racism at all? At some point, you have to take responsibility for what you do, what you say, and what you present. If you're racist/sexist/anti-semetic/homophobic/anti-anyminorityhere, then obviously it was intended.

Not to say that there aren't questionable cases (Indians in Peter Pan, the crows of Dumbo, etc.), I just don't think this is one of them.

Why are those cases questionable? What's questionable about them?

Because they are very stereotypical depictions of Native and African Americans.

You're pretty sure of that, huh? How are you so sure?

Because of the cast listings that were given. See:

THE FROG PRINCESS . Animated Feature Film SAG
Directors: John Musker, Ron Clements Composer: Randy Newman
Casting Director: Jen Rudin Pearson Casting Assistant: Phoebe Rosenberg
Interview Dates: In New York November 13-17 Shoot/Start Date: January 2007
SUBMIT HARDCOPY WITH COVER LETTER. NO FAXES OR PHONE CALLS.
JEN RUDIN PEARSON WALT DISNEY FEATURE ANIMATION
500 SOUTH BUENA VISTA STREET BURBANK, CA 91521-4970
ATTN: THE FROG PRINCESS
"The Frog Princess" is an animated American fairy tale musical, set in New Orleans, in the 1920's Jazz Age. SINGING ROLES:
[MADDY] A 19-year-old African American chambermaid. Bright, resourceful, ambitious, intense. A little too grown-up for her age. Dialect: Mild southern colloquial.
[CHARLOTTE] 18 years old. A spoiled, southern debutante. A diva. Comic "steel magnolia". Bossy but insecure. Dialect: Southern belle.
[DR. DUVALIER] A 30-40 year old Voodoo magician/fortune teller. African American. Charming, charismatic, smooth and a sinister bad guy. Theatrical and grandiose. Dialect: Elegant, possibly New Orleans Creole.
[MAMA ODIE] An elderly, 200 year old Voodoo priestess/fairy god-mother. African American. Broad, comic, eccentric. Benevolent, wise and all knowing. A mixture of Moms Mabley & Yoda. Dialect: Southern colloquial.
[RAY] A 25-35 year old lovesick Cajun firefly. Warm, friendly, laid back and easygoing. Comically obtuse. Missing front tooth, has a lisp and occasionally speaks in Cajun French. LOOKING FOR AUTHENTIC CAJUN ACTORS.
[LOUIS] A 20-40 year old Jazz singer alligator. Comic, manic, high strung. Can be African American or white. Has extraordinary jazz singing voice since he, in effect, "sold his soul" to get it. Dialect: New Orleans hipster.
NON-SINGING ROLES:
[PRINCE HARRY] A gregarious, fun-loving European Prince, in his early twenties. A young Cary Grant. Charming, witty but irresponsible and immature. Loves jazz. Dialect: British upper-class.
[LAWRENCE] Harry's pompous roly poly valet. In his forties. Stiff, snobbish and sarcastic. Secretly envious and resentful of Harry. Dialect: Overly affected British upper crust.
[BIG DADDY LA BOUFF] Wealthy, Southern plantation landowner. Doting father of Charlotte La Bouff. A "good ol' boy." Warm, affable, courtly, imposing and powerful. Dialect: Thick southern drawl.
[EUDORA] Maddy's mother. In her fifties. Eudora used to be Charlotte's nurse maid. Warm, homespun and nurturing. Overly fretful.
[GEORGE] The cook for the La Bouff family. African American 50s-60s. Curmudgeonly.
[YOUNG MADDY] Six years old, African American.
[YOUNG CHARLOTTE] Six years old.

Of course, it says that Maddy's mother "used" to work for Charlotte, so I guess that means they're working as maids somewhere else now. It doesn't say anywhere that they're working specifically for "whites" only. They obviously work for anyone with a house to clean and salary to pay them (as maids usually do).

Which character? Maddy? It's already been made clear that she's not a debutante.

If you had read my post at all, it would've been clear that I wasn't referring to Maddy. If I were, I wouldn't say, "Maddy and her mother work cleaning for an African American debutante's house."

No, but you ARE glossing over the social historical reality.

Maybe Disney could next have a fairy tale where a little Jewish girl and a handsome Nazi officer meet cute and fall in love in the Warsaw ghetto? It'd show how far we've come and how much we've left racism in the past. There could even be a big musical number done to the backdrop of Kristallnacht! Imagine the marketing possibilities!

Haven't they already done that with Pocahontas (where John Smith falls in love with her as opposed to raping her like he did in reality)?

Racial equality is not about always having a rainbow of colors and making sure that everyone of every ethnicity always gets to play a part in whatever story you're telling or retelling. If you set a story in a certain real life place and a certain real life time, and especially if it's one that has a known history and isn't in some nebulous ancient past where poetic license can run free, even if the story is a fantasy, it's important to make an effort to tell your story within the parameters of that place's history.

Oh, I don't know about that. Hercules has the black Muses, the pink Hera and Aphrodite, the green Poseidon and Panic, the purple Apollo and Athena, the red Aries and Pain, the grey Fates, the orange Zeus, the blue Hades and Hermes, the golden Hercules and the white Megara. I think they fit together just fine.

Here's a tip for you: Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are not available exclusively to African Americans. They're just what the name says: historically Black. Whites and other non-Blacks can and do apply to them and have been accepted and graduated from them. Do you know why HBCUs are historically Black?

"...any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation."

I guess that puts me in my place. I always did wonder how a college could be race-specific on their students. Guess they couldn't.

[veu]

I read your posts...

I'm italian, so I hope to explain me correctly... I apologize for the errors.

I think that "The Frog Princess" is a wonderful movie, is a wonderful love story in which love wins all, love cancels differences, love exceeds and wins racism and all differences.

Maddy is a beautiful African American girl... I love to watch the first African American Princess... I dream to watch the first Disney Black Princess since 1997... so today my dreams come true! Wow!

I read that Maddy falls in love with a white english prince, Harry... so I think that it's a great idea... an interracial love is very romantic!!!

I read that people want a Black Prince in a future Disney movie... it will be a great idea... so I hope that Disney in the future will make a movie in which we'll see the first Black Prince... is it possible that we can see a Black Prince in Disney's "Rapunzel"? What do you think?


I hope you can understand my post...

[PapiBear]

The willful ignorance and the outright refusal to listen and make an effort at understanding that has been exhibited in this thread is absolutely deplorable.

As for slave2moonlight and her adoration of the colorblind myth, I have this to say:

I hope we're never ready for a "colorblind" society. I don't like the expression because it sets the wrong terms for discussion when it comes to issues of race, equality, and social justice. To me, "blind" means not being able to see things, and wanting to be "blind" to color or race seems to mean wanting to ignore race or pretend its social and historical effects don't exist. When the larger question is how do we have an equitable society today, we have to be mindful of the historical and social complexities of race, not willfully ignore them. (Unless, of course, one believes that race doesn't have or hasn't had any impact, in which case there's no need for discussion.) We should strive to be color "full" rather than colorblind.

This doesn't mean, however, that we should divide people by race today (an accusation that was leveled at me, which I vehemently reject; I am not a Black Separatist and I don't believe in racial segregation, but I do recognize that my people have lost something in the headlong rush for racial integration). A central difficulty is the slipperiness of race and the many forms it's taken historically. To address the issue of race and equality, we must consider color in several different, seemingly contrary ways. The first is to recognize race's illusory status to avoid recapitulating racial categories and racial divides. The second is to acknowledge the real effect those categories have had and continue to have on peoples' lives and circumstances. And the third is to understand that racial divides, by their very nature, create imbalance and inequality.

These various shades of "color" must all be kept in perspective, none at the expense of the other, if we want to address seriously the question of how to be an equitable society today. There may not be a solution, but if there is one, it will almost certainly be difficult, and it will require effort, awareness, and responsibility. We can not afford to be "colorblind." We need to develop our ability to see "color" for what is, has been, and will be, so we're prepared to deal with its consequences.

I would argue that colorblindness generally perpetuates rather than challenges racism. Certainly there has been a long history of state-sanctioned white supremacy in this country. At one time, colorblindness may have been a legitimate strategy to counteract the formidable power of pseudo-scientific thinking that asserted the inherent biological inferiority of people of color. Today, however, advocates of colorblindness promote an understanding of racial inequality as individual "prejudice" devoid of historical context, thus preventing dialogue about more systemic kinds of oppression. The fact that colorblindness is so entrenched in court precedents, legislation, and policy making testifies to our inability to achieve racial equality while stuck in a pre-civil rights understanding of race and racism.

Perhaps opponents of racial equality embrace colorblindness because eliminating race consciousness conveniently eliminates accountability for white supremacy.

Are we ready for a colorblind society? Only if we are ready to deny responsibility for racism.

Slave2moonlight (and anyone else) - read this, please: http://www.alternet.org/story/16792/

As for the topic of this thread, I'm done with it. When this farce hits the screen in a few years and you hear about the controversy surrounding it, and when its box office returns don't quite match what Disney was hoping for, don't pretend you weren't warned about it.

Most of you wouldn't recognize real racism if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.

[slave2moonlight]

For the record, I'm male, and I'm not the one who started throwing the term "colorblind" around. As I said, I don't promote forgetting our pasts, our history and our cultures. However, hanging on to separation by race in any form is always only going to hold us back. We need to separate the past from the future if we want any real progress on the issue. That doesn't mean disregarding the past or current, legitimate cases of racism, but if we can't do so with an attitude that color of skin should not be important socially (the whole reason for fighting racism), then it's all for nothing.

[Super Aurora]

I'm keeping score of the range of opinions.

Seems to me you just want a flame war.

By the way, I wasn't calling anyone an "a-hole." You did that. Is that a respectful term in your culture?

I was mostly refering to that letter and people in general that go over the top of petty little things and have nothing for them selves to do.

Nobody's living in the past, sweetie,

Judging from that letter, seems so. Oh and I'm guy. Unless your gay, you don't call guys "sweetie".

and I am very much talking about the issue (the film, which doesn't exist in a vacuum). I'm talking about what's going on today.

yea and people are making inferences of the past(ala Jim Crow era) as a comparative.

By the way, just because you have 2.5 Black friends doesn't mean what you just said wasn't racist.

I never said anything racist to begin with. Calling people a-holes doesn't clarify as a racist comment.

Again if you guys don't like the movie or what's in it, than don't watch it. It's that damn simple.

[Princess Stitch]

I don't know why we haven't seen a mod here yet, but I don't think this is the best place to be having this discussion. Maybe we could move this part to the off-topic forum and get back to discussing the movie. Everybody has valid opinions, but aren't we reading too much into this? If Maddy had married a black prince some people would be outraged because Disney would be saying "she's not good enough for the white prince". Also, lets remember that Cinderella was a housekeeper, she was white. If Disney made the prince black, that could be interpreted as saying that black people can only marry other black people.

I guess the point is any time you deal with race there's always people who are going to take things badly and be upset. Well, direct your anger towards Disney and not towards other people on this forum who are expressing their opinions as well.

[CJ]

I don't know why we haven't seen a mod here yet, but I don't think this is the best place to be having this discussion. Maybe we could move this part to the off-topic forum and get back to discussing the movie.

Rest assured, Princess Stitch, I have been watching this debate closely since its beginning. You haven't seen me in here before, because there was need for me to speak up. So far, the debate has been civil. There have been no personal attacks, therefore there was no need for me to interfere. I see no harm in their discussion as long as they keep it civil and free of personal attacks.

Also, I see no need to split the debate from this thread. The debate sprung from a legitimate concern about the film, and it hasn't strayed toward a completely off topic subject. However, if it takes a clearly off topic turn, I will move the debate into a separate topic. For now, it stays put.

The only thing I need to mention is for Super Aurora to watch his language a bit. Partially bleeped out swear words are just as bad as non bleeped out swear words. Please don't take this as me picking on you, Super Aurora, you just happen to be the one I saw doing that.