DVDizzy Forum

What do you think about that ? Just found it.

http://thefeministfangirl.tumblr.com/po ... eys-frozen

Extremely interesting post; some valid points raised there.

I think maybe Disney have gone a little overboard in trying to 'Disney' this fairytale maybe? I am not familiar enough with the original story to be as offended by the cliche changes, but I can see what she means, yeah.

And it is so annoying how the Disney parks set up a meet and greet to then chuck the occupants out for the next film! Surely Disney is big enough to home a couple of permanent and individual meet and greets?

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:Extremely interesting post; some valid points raised there.

Not at all. "Disgusting," she calls it? Well, she's entitled to her opinion. What I, on the other hand, find "disgusting" is when people judge art on the basis of a political/ideological scorecard -- which is what she's doing.

Thank goodness that we don't live in a country where films must conform to someone's political dogma, but are actually, due to the pressures of the market, more democratic. I.e., when Disney makes a movie, it's not forced by some ideologue to make that film fit a political pattern, but rather, the company has to keep the audience in mind and respond to their wishes enough for them to enjoy it and want to see it.

In other words, we vote for the films we want to see when we buy tickets. No political committee trumps the voice of audience. And that makes for better moviemaking.

Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen" exists. Frozen hasn't erased it. Disney has created something entirely different -- and the title change reflects that. If that writer likes Andersen's story so much, she is always free to read Andersen's story (or see whichever other adaptations of the work have been made). But based simply on her description of that story, and of what I know of Frozen from spoilers and such, I think the Disney film has reconfigured the story into something far, far more engaging for a wider audience than that which Andersen created. And that's why Disney moved it in that direction.

Disney has made countless beautiful movies by putting the wishes of fans first, above social engineering. And thank goodness that it has. The more that political imperatives intrude on the creative process, the worse the films will be, and the fewer people will want to see them. And if enough people were to be turned off by excessive politicking in Disney films, then given the steep price of moviemaking today, that could mean no more Disney animated films at all.

I've read that post a few months ago, and I have decided a long time ago to not voice my opinion on the matter.
Everyone is going to complain about something. First it was the whole "They're typical white princesses" and now this.

People seem to forget that Disney's number 1 main goal is to entertain people. You can't bring in money from just educating people and conforming to their idealist society. And honestly, I like it. Think about The Little Mermaid. Terrible moral to teach kids, but is it a bad movie? not at all. It's one of my favorites because the entertainment factor in it is so high up. Disney is not a PTA service. You can't expect them to teach your kids diversity and feminism. And I don't think that it's wrong for a child to look up to a character of a different race. This is what this should be. Children should be comfortable connecting with any character, be it race or gender.

And one BIG thing that people are forgetting is that Frozen is INSPIRED by The Snow Queen. So as far as Disney concerned, they can do whatever they want. They are not adapting the story. They made their own story.

People who boycott movies because of these things bother me. It's a children's movie...

It is nice where we have a film where the two principal characters are female, even if it is slightly unfortunate that we lose the dynamic of a female having to save a male.

That said, she is right in criticizing the predominantly male cast. Of the other characters mentioned in the film, Hans, Kristoff, Duke, Olaf, Marshmallow, Oaken, Sven, all of them are male. There is no reason why some of the more minor characters couldn't have been female. Representation, rather than portrayal, continues to be Disney's big problem.

Feminism isn't a political ideologue but a social obligation. I don't think this film or Disney are especially guilty compared to other animation studios or Hollywood in general but certainly, there are aspects in which they could be doing a lot better. Films aren't just for entertainment, they help to perpetuate social attitudes which generally favour dominant groups.

Of course, it is problematic when you focus too much on this at the expense of the quality of the film. Doesn't really apply here, though.

PrincessElsa wrote:
Thank goodness that we don't live in a country where films must conform to someone's political dogma, but are actually, due to the pressures of the market, more democratic. I.e., when Disney makes a movie, it's not forced by some ideologue to make that film fit a political pattern, but rather, the company has to keep the audience in mind and respond to their wishes enough for them to enjoy it and want to see it.

In other words, we vote for the films we want to see when we buy tickets. No political committee trumps the voice of audience. And that makes for better moviemaking.

I really wouldn't say American films are democratic. The voice of a significant proportion of the audience has been silenced as they've been conditioned to accept the status quo in films, minorities or females often do not get represented in proportion to their population and their portrayal tends to lean towards stereotype.

I'll give you a personal example. Whenever I create stories in my head, I imagine all my characters as white. And I'm not even white myself. That's what the media has done to affect my thought processes.

She raises some valid points, but I seem to forget when all the Princesses were white. Even if you're technical, there's at least Jasmine and Pocahontas(Mulan and Tiana start off working class so they don't really count)

Either way, I don't think Disney is even making the Snow Queen anymore so they should stop advertising it as such.

It should also be noted that there have been Disney movies that have been changed to the point where it was in name only. The Jungle Book was going to hew closer to Rudyard Kipling's original version but then Walt pretty much told everyone not to read the book. The result? Success!

Though it seems to happen more with movies based on novels (the possible exception being Alice in Wonderland) where it is changed around to make it simpler, more entertaining or appealing to general audiences. The fairy tale movies, while cutting out the gory bits and making some characters more likable than their literary counterparts, were still pretty much the same as the originals though Tangled is probably the first to make it a bit more drastic.

I think that article is taking things too far. The only changes that were made for Frozen to be "gender neutral" were the name change and the marketting formula. I believe the other narrative changes were made due to the fact that the tale of the Snow Queen is difficult script material. In the Snow Queen,most of the plot centres on Gerda's journey
to find Kay. It doesn't give a backstory to the Snow Queen,and the side characters don't interact with Gerda to know her inner emotions.A film like this would be more appropiate in hand drawn animation,and the Sniw Queen woulf just function as a motif.

I also have a question that others don't initiate.Why do people think the Snow Queen was evil?The fairy tale just says she was the only beautiful being he saw.She tried to free Kay by giving him a puzzle to solve.No evilness.

Again,back to the article. Boycotting or avoiding Frozen wouldn't alterate it's succes or WDP perspectives on women.This is a tumblr user probably from highschool.No real femminist would write this.

Her points are completely valid, even if she's chosen to stand by them in an extreme way.

FlyingPiggy wrote:Her points are completely valid, even if she's chosen to stand by them in an extreme way.

Yes, I totally agree. You don't have to be so rude PrincessElsa; I can agree with the post if I want to. I honestly am slightly frightened to post in this thread if I don't 100% agree that Frozen is/will be the greatest Disney movie since sliced bread.

Well unless they made Anna bisexual, the minute they decided there would be two love interests, they had to have two more male characters.

Marshmallow seems like kind of a genderless monster when it comes down to it, but I guess it counts as "male"

We don't really know much about the significance of Oaken and the Duke yet.

Regardless, the two major characters everyone is talking about seem to be interesting, well-developed, and female. The sister relationship is something fresh too, but then people just accuse Disney of just wanting to cash in some more on its princess merchandise. Damned if you do damned if you don't...

There are other minor female characters for the record

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote: You don't have to be so rude PrincessElsa. I can agree with the post if I want to.

That's called ad hominem.

I was not "rude" at all. I strictly criticized the points that that writer made.

And I never stated that you couldn't agree with the post if you want to. But you stated that the points were interesting and valid (in your opinion), and I pointed out why, in my opinion, they are not. It's that simple.

qindarka wrote:I don't think this film or Disney are especially guilty compared to other animation studios or Hollywood in general but certainly, there are aspects in which they could be doing a lot better.

Yet Disney is more criticized than any other Hollywood studio in regards to feminism and female representation in their films.

qindarka wrote:Feminism isn't a political ideologue but a social obligation. I don't think this film or Disney are especially guilty compared to other animation studios or Hollywood in general but certainly, there are aspects in which they could be doing a lot better. Films aren't just for entertainment, they help to perpetuate social attitudes which generally favour dominant groups.

Spot on. I have to second what Sotiris said, I think you've really hit the nail on the head here.

qindarka wrote:It is nice where we have a film where the two principal characters are female, even if it is slightly unfortunate that we lose the dynamic of a female having to save a male.

We don't even know that that's true, do we? We might even have a case where, say, Hans attempts to defend Elsa, but fails, and Elsa ends up having to save him. It's not the basis of the quest, true, but it would still be a woman-saving-man dynamic.

qindarka wrote:That said, she is right in criticizing the predominantly male cast. Of the other characters mentioned in the film, Hans, Kristoff, Duke, Olaf, Marshmallow, Oaken, Sven, all of them are male. There is no reason why some of the more minor characters couldn't have been female. Representation, rather than portrayal, continues to be Disney's big problem.

I don't see that as a problem.

qindarka wrote:Feminism isn't a political ideologue but a social obligation.

An ideologue is a person; an ideology, an "ism," is a set of beliefs. Therefore, I believe you meant to say,

qindarka wrote:Feminism isn't a political ideology but a social obligation.

But of course, that is in itself a political statement. And indeed, no feminist theorists claim that feminism is not a political ideology. But its very nature, it clearly is. The feminists themselves assert that "everything is political" and "the personal is political" and so forth.

As for feminism being a "social obligation," it obviously is not: it is an obligation, says who? I.e., who obliges society to submit to feminist precepts? It becomes circular, doesn't it? -- feminists believe feminism to be a "social obligation." Well, they're entitled to their opinion, just as others are entitled to reject their opinion. That's freedom. Just as it is freedom for, say, anti-feminists to claim that anti-feminism is a "social obligation."

Ultimately, there is no law stating that films or other works of art must conform to feminism, or to anti-feminism, or to any other "ism" (and thank goodness that there isn't -- it shows that artists still have some freedom in this country and aren't just mouthpieces for political dogma).

Films aren't just for entertainment, they help to perpetuate social attitudes which generally favour dominant groups.

That all depends on how one defines "dominant," doesn't it? And frankly, one could make a strong argument that the opposite is true -- that taken as a whole, the entertainment industry works to empower supposedly non-dominant groups and disempower so-called "dominant" groups (for better or worse).

Of course, it is problematic when you focus too much on this at the expense of the quality of the film.

At least we agree on something.

I really wouldn't say American films are democratic. The voice of a significant proportion of the audience has been silenced as they've been conditioned to accept the status quo in films, minorities or females often do not get represented in proportion to their population and their portrayal tends to lean towards stereotype.

But that's true of every group. E.g., conservative Christians (and I'm not one myself) believe that they have been silenced, and that their portrayals in film are stereotypical, with just as much justification as do other groups.

The point is, the box office is like voting. If Hollywood found enough people voting with their wallets for different kinds of movies, they would make those different kinds of movies.

The very best thing that Disney can do, in my opinion, is not to kowtow to any isms, be they feminism, Christianity-ism, Marxism, or whatever other ideology seeks to pressure it to alter its films to make them serve a political ideology, but instead, focus on making beautiful movies that tell compelling stories that are timeless. Leave the politics to someone else.

PrincessElsa wrote:

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:

That's called ad hominem.

I was not "rude" at all. I strictly criticized the points that that writer made.

And I never stated that you couldn't agree with the post if you want to. But you stated that the points were interesting and valid (in your opinion), and I pointed out why, in my opinion, they are not. It's that simple.

If you didn't intend it that way then fair enough, but you do come across quite feirce in your views.

PrincessElsa wrote: We don't even know that that's true, do we? We might even have a case where, say, Hans attempts to defend Elsa, but fails, and Elsa ends up having to save him. It's not the basis of the quest, true, but it would still be a woman-saving-man dynamic.

Nothing to indicate it now but it could well be the case, I guess.

PrincessElsa wrote: I don't see that as a problem.

It is reinforcing the pervading attitude that male is the default gender. I am not asking that all movies have a 50-50 split, but if you consider the source material had a wide range of female supporting characters, it is hardly ideal that this film seems to have only male supporting characters. Yes, I know the film isn't terribly faithful to the source but that was a deliberate decision by WDAS and is not an excuse for the lack of representation.

PrincessElsa wrote:But of course, that is in itself a political statement. And indeed, no feminist theorists claim that feminism is not a political ideology. But its very nature, it clearly is. The feminists themselves assert that "everything is political" and "the personal is political" and so forth.

As for feminism being a "social obligation," it obviously is not: it is an obligation, says who? I.e., who obliges society to submit to feminist precepts? It becomes circular, doesn't it? -- feminists believe feminism to be a "social obligation." Well, they're entitled to their opinion, just as others are entitled to reject their opinion. That's freedom. Just as it is freedom for, say, anti-feminists to claim that anti-feminism is a "social obligation."

Ultimately, there is no law stating that films or other works of art must conform to feminism, or to anti-feminism, or to any other "ism" (and thank goodness that there isn't -- it shows that artists still have some freedom in this country and aren't just mouthpieces for political dogma).

Mentioning feminism as politics makes it sound so cynical. Perhaps, it is a form of politics but then it would still be absolutely worth supporting. In essence, it is about equality and filmmakers along with the rest of us have a moral obligation to support and uphold equality.

PrincessElsa wrote: That all depends on how one defines "dominant," doesn't it? And frankly, one could make a strong argument that the opposite is true -- that taken as a whole, the entertainment industry works to empower supposedly non-dominant groups and disempower so-called "dominant" groups (for better or worse).

That certainly isn't true. A large proportion of films still feature white men in lead roles. Minorities are often under-represented or portrayed negatively and/or in a stereotypical fashion. Also tends to be a comparative lack of female characters, considering they take up half the population.

And yes, white men certainly are the dominant group with many privileges accorded to them.

PrincessElsa wrote:But that's true of every group. E.g., conservative Christians (and I'm not one myself) believe that they have been silenced, and that their portrayals in film are stereotypical, with just as much justification as do other groups.

Well, then films should be respectful and truthful about every group then, conservative Christians included.

PrincessElsa wrote:The point is, the box office is like voting. If Hollywood found enough people voting with their wallets for different kinds of movies, they would make those different kinds of movies.

In the end, people like watching big budget films and these are the sort of movies that are most lacking in terms of female/minority representation and portrayal. They do have other reasons for watching films , mainly entertainment. I don't think this necessarily implies that they are satisfied with or condone the lack of representation or shoddy portrayal of females/minorities. There isn't really much choice when most of these films are guilty of the same things.

PrincessElsa wrote:The very best thing that Disney can do, in my opinion, is not to kowtow to any isms, be they feminism, Christianity-ism, Marxism, or whatever other ideology seeks to pressure it to alter its films to make them serve a political ideology, but instead, focus on making beautiful movies that tell compelling stories that are timeless. Leave the politics to someone else.

It's not an either-or scenario. Disney can make movies that feature more female representation without compromising the quality of their films. Equality can only be a good thing.

Might as well mention that this is not so much an attack on WDAS as on Hollywood in general. No, WDAS isn't especially bad about these sort of things but there is still a lot of room to improve.
And yes, I do expect Frozen to be a more feminist-friendly film than most out there, by virtue of having two main female characters, both of whom show agency. Doesn't mean that criticism's cannot be made about the lack of female representation in the rest of the cast.

qindarka wrote:Mentioning feminism as politics makes it sound so cynical. Perhaps, it is a form of politics but then it would still be absolutely worth supporting. In essence, it is about equality and filmmakers along with the rest of us have a moral obligation to support and uphold equality.

Once again, to say that "the rest of us have a moral obligation to support and uphold equality" is a political assertion. Who gets to impose their morality on someone else? Only the legal system does. Anything else is just personal opinion of morality. It's not like we all have the same morals. And there's no law on the books demanding quotas in movies (thank goodness).

That statement, "the rest of us have a moral obligation to support and uphold equality," is also extremely debatable, because it all depends on the definition of "equality," doesn't it?

For example, are we talking about equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity, I think, most people would agree with. But equality of outcome? Many people would contend, with justification, that that is state-sanctioned inequality. It is, after all, the basis of Marxism, which, in preaching equality, actually instituted extreme inequality against those born with greater talent and initiative.

To put it as simply as possible, if two people write a test, and the smarter person writes an "A" paper and a less intelligent person writes a "C" paper, but both are marked "B," that is equality of outcome, but it is actually severe inequality to the person who wrote the "A" paper.

qindarka wrote:That certainly isn't true. A large proportion of films still feature white men in lead roles. Minorities are often under-represented or portrayed negatively and/or in a stereotypical fashion. Also tends to be a comparative lack of female characters, considering they take up half the population.

White men are often also "portrayed negatively and/or in a stereotypical fashion," from redneck southerners to "nazi" Germans to rich tycoon types and so forth.

Take note of the very obvious fact that in this film, Frozen, the bad guy is a white male. White men are almost always the bad guys in most movies, far more often than minorities are.

It may, on the other hand, be true that the exact percentage of women in society is not represented by an exact equivalent percentage of women in film, but if women are likelier to see films with male leads than men are likely to see films with female leads, then that, again, is democracy in action (just as it is with women being likelier to vote for male politicians than female politicians), and the movie industry, being a business after all, is completely justified in making such a choice. It's arrived at democratically: the people vote with their wallets.

qindarka wrote:And yes, white men certainly are the dominant group with many privileges accorded to them.

One could make the argument that the opposite is true. After all, there are no pro-white-male affirmative-action policies, but plenty of universities and government jobs have anti-white-male affirmative-action policies.

Now, one can make the argument that this is justified for one reason or another, but it is clearly these laws privilege non-whites and non-males, and anti-privilege white males. They are explicitly written to do just that. As a result, as you know, today, over 58% of college degrees go to women, not men.

PrincessElsa wrote:But that's true of every group. E.g., conservative Christians (and I'm not one myself) believe that they have been silenced, and that their portrayals in film are stereotypical, with just as much justification as do other groups.

Well, then films should be respectful and truthful about every group then, conservative Christians included.

Once again, we find at least one point of agreement. Though that still must remain only a suggestion to artists, and not an imperative, because an artist's artistic freedom must be paramount, governed only by the democratic will of the audience.

PrincessElsa wrote:It's not an either-or scenario. Disney can make movies that feature more female representation without compromising the quality of their films.

Yes, so long as the choices are made for artistic reasons and not political ones. There is a huge difference between the two imperatives, and grading a film based on a political scorecard, as the writer of the Tumblr piece under discussion appeared to be doing, is an example of putting politics above story quality, and that is a recipe for creative disaster.

Saw that feminist tumblr link and knew without even reading it, what type of essay it would be. And not surprisingly, it's full of shit. PrincessElsa pretty much said everything correct about the matter.

Either way, looking forward for this film.

Super Aurora wrote:Saw that feminist tumblr link and knew without even reading it, what type of essay it would be. And not surprisingly, it's full of shit. PrincessElsa pretty much said everything correct about the matter.

Either way, looking forward for this film.

I am too looking more and more forward to this movie each day. I hope I can find someone on campus who would be interested in seeing this.