Or a more fitting title would be WHAT YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY BE UPSET ABOUT WITH THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, INSTEAD OF THE RACISM.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually really enjoyed The Princess and the Frog. For the longest time I refused to watch it because I was under the biased assumption that it looked extremely racist. But then tumblr got to me, and I kept seeing posts that were incredibly too cute to pass up.
Before I explain you a thing, I do want to say that the animation of this film is beautifully done. In a previous post I ranted about how this film was the last hand-drawn film to be made by Disney. The scenery is wonderfully drawn and just breath taking in general. The movie also had many funny, cute, and adorable moments and jokes. And the characters are interesting enough to watch for 90 minutes. I especially enjoyed the jazzy alligator Louis.
Now, about that thing. I heard the rumor mill spinning about how racist this new Disney film was, and it was based around the African American culture in St. Louis during the 1920’s. Which by the way, there was still plenty of real racism happening in the 20s. Let’s not forget that Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat up in the 1956 in the state of Alabama. A mere 30 years later.
So why should you not be mad about a little lightening bug being a tad bit of dumb-black stereotype, and the voodoo witch doctors? Well because Disney is just playing into the colorful background that is provided for their plot. Don’t believe me? They’ve done it like a hundred times before in all of their own classic movies. Here’s a short, complied list of what I think are the top offenders.
The Little Mermaid– 1870’s Under the sea/any land against the ocean
The culprit – A Jamaican, big-lipped, fun-loving, singing cretaceous. Sebastian.
People seem to focus on his lyrics that seem to pander in slacking off under the sea, but the real reason Disney is giving us a character full of color and boldness is because they are under the sea, people! He’s given a Jamaican accent and a giant bottom lip reminiscent of any pure blood Jamaican man in a band! There’s no fowl play when they’re using the setting around them.
Mulan– Ancient China
The culprit- Any person who thinks a woman has no worth. The entire opening song about honor
Is this racist? No, you want to know why? Because this is an actual sexist thought that is a part of their culture. It’s been known that throughout history the Chinese want only boy babies, and that some infant girls have actually been tossed into the trash. Whether this is actually true or just a similar myth to the American’s Prom Night Dumpster Babies is something I’d rather not sort through.
Pocahontas- 17th century America
The culprit- Really the whole movie. And Pocahontas’s torso.
But I only have one thing to say. All them Indian titties would be exposed Disney. Lets get real here, real fast.
Beauty and the Beast– France 1770s
The culprits– a loose maid who can’t keep her legs together, a tight-laced waiter who obeys every word, and a sly, romantic candlestick that can’t keep his hands off of a woman. Fifi, Cogsworth, and Lumiere.
That’s right Fifi the feather-duster is a prime example of a french whore. She enjoys spending time with Lumiere, a gallivant man whore with sticky fingers. But were accepting of this because France is the city of love, and if we Americans were to go there and didn’t have a French woman saying “oh-la-la” to our American dicks in less than 3 days, you bet there would be some kind of demand for their money back. But I have never seen anyone piss and moan about these characters which are stereotypical and racist? Culturalist? And Cogsworth is just an uptight butler, with a pudgy stomach that turns his face up to any rule breaking. Sounds like a French butler in any movie that I have ever heard of.
No, No, people don’t realize it, but Disney is just utilizing the character archetypes of that general era and setting. So don’t bitch and moan that The Princess and the Frog is racist because of a few characters, while a beloved classic goes by year after year without anyone realizing how it plays the same fiddle, just with a different tune.
What you should be mad about as a viewer, is the moral of the story. In the beginning Tiana is a strong-willed woman who works two jobs to support herself and her dream to own a restaurant someday. Sounds like a pretty awesome girl doesn’t she? But where’s that leave for her character development to go? Oh, only down. The moral of the story was love. Just love. If you can end up falling for the guy you originally despised, who is a womanizing player, who you have nothing in common with (aside from turning into a frog together) then everything’s going to work out fine in the end for you and all your dreams will come true. Sounds like a great moral right? I’m surprised that’s not what the public was upset about. That in the end, love can conquer all, and if you find the right bloak, he’ll help you make your dream come true.
Guys, come on, I can’t be the only one?
Also, the Prince frog in this movie is a total rip off of Jean Bob from the amazing 1994 Swan Princess.