...but a reader sent along the trailer to The Princess and The Frog. It's amazing how much shit has changed. Doesn't mean it's all changed. By as a kid who came up on 80s cartoons, it's shocking to see them doing this in New Orleans with black folks.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yeah, and that's not even the real twist. The princess TURNS INTO THE FROG! I bet you didn't see that one coming when you were watching 80s cartoons, either.
Why won't you go see it?
At this point, I don't really go to the movies. I don't really enjoy the experience anymore.
Fair enough. I don't do it much either but we have fun taking the kid.
Ditto. I am at the point where the only movies I feel remotely compelled to see are Pixar films. The anticipation and subsequent let down of The Dark Knight more or less ruined me for anything short of a sure thing. And Pixar's the closest thing you're going to get to a sure thing anymore.
The Dark Knight was a definite low point for me, but I have to say, in terms of blockbusters, Star Trek really brought it back. I don't go to that many movies, and when I do it's something that I have to be nearly certain I'll like
The Dark Knight was a letdown for people? I thought it was one of the rare bright spots of the last few years.
Dan, Yeah, I liked Star Trek. I thought it was imperfect, but I thought it more or less got the job of the reboot done with class.
Danny, Don't get me started.
@Dan W -- The new Star Trek is the last movie I saw in the theater (and the first in quite some time). That, to me, was worth it.
Otherwise, by and large I agree that I don't enjoy going to the movies anymore. Much happier watching them in my own living room.
heh... breaker someone might get you started... i think the dark knight was pretty great.
I've had more enjoyable experiences recently at so-called arthouse theaters, but multiplexes are a horror, even when the crowds are small. An example: I saw "No Country for Old Men" in a packed theater at an arthouse. It was absolutely quiet, and I was able to get caught up in the movie. When the movie was over, and it has a rather abrupt and, to some, puzzling ending, I didn't hear anything aside from a few murmurs. I could actually savor and ponder the ending. I liked the movie so much, I went to see it again, but this time it was in a multiplex during matinee hours. There may have been 20 other people scattered throughout the theater. Once the movie ended, some jerk yelled "WHAT?!? THAT'S STUPID! I WANT MY MONEY BACK!" It pissed me off some, but what did it do to other people who hadn't seen it before, people who may have been troubled or put off by the ending, or even may have liked it, but didn't really get a chance to let it sink in because of this loudmouth's outburst.
Having the beer theaters in Portland where the tickets rarely cost more than $3 helps the experience a lot. Plus the awesome couches. Only reason I ever go out to see movies anymore.
Oh I'll be seeing it! On opening night if possible. Along with the blind side and Precious (saw it). Not that it looks particularly compelling beyond who's playing the lead, but on some level, as a guy who sees, on average, 1-2 in theater movies a week, I feel almost obliged to do my small part to let whomever the decision makers are know that were out here waiting for quality black movies if they'll make them. Haven't missed a Tyler Perry movie yet. Heck, I even saw "woman thou art loosed." Talk about sacrifice. lol.
1-2 movies a week? Good Lawd that's alot of movies.
My new project is Asian leads. I'm gonna watch Ninja Assassin Thanksgiving weekend if it's any good or not.
The only reason I've seen Harold and Kumar was because it had two Asian leads.
Mmm, John Cho.
mysoju.com is a korean site with some good asian flicks and tons of dramas. not a lot of ninja movies though. more directed at the ladies (think My Sassy Girl).
Ninja Assassin will have cardboard character, nonexistent plot, and pathetic thematics.
And yet, despite all that, Ninja Assassin will be fhtagn awesome.
Okay, so I'm really out of touch here, but why is this movie surprising? Also, ditto to the sentiment that Pixar is the only reason to go to the movies anymore.
a) Black cast, not something that's happened in a Disney film.
b) Real effort to give a sense of the black New Orleans feel. There's a shrug the princess does that's very in line with real body language (Fallows?).
Possibly more. My Disney-age child being a boy means I won't see it. (And I am grateful that my teen can go to the Twilight movies with her friends and ooh to her heart's content without me.)
But there's a prince, too! More boys should watch 'girl' cartoons.
I definitely saw Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast as a kid.
My sons want to go see this one. They also watched "Hannah Montana" and "Kim Possible" and really liked "Sleeping Beauty." (The prince killing the big scary dragon is basic Boy Stuff."
I think the 'boys won't watch anything with girls in it' is as much the parent's problem as anything. Too many fathers rely on what they thought as kids instead of paying actual attention to their sons' taste, and WAYYYYY too many fathers see their sons' interest in girl characters as the first sing of Teh Ghey and freak. Lighten up guys, good taste in entertainment doesn't make your penis fall off.
Karen,
Most of the Disney feature length cartoons could be viewed as "girl movies", yet plenty of Gen X boys like myself had no problems with seeing Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or even Cinderella. I am sure that plenty of Gen X girls enjoyed watching Pinocchio or Dumbo also.
This is a reply to Eltoro:
Exactly. Based on my observations of other parents of sons since I had my kids, there' a certain kind of father who loses it if his son acts "girly" in any shape, form, or fashion. Kids learn really bloody quick how to avoid parental anger, so those boys start acting supermacho very young. This type of parent is quickly disappearing even in conservative Texas, so I doubt this will be much of a problem for our grandkids.
I was vague. My son is 8, and only into cartoons with ninjas. (Thanks to those here who recommended Avatar, which he is devouring off Netflix.) He won't ask to see it, and my husband and I aren't interested in seeing it for all the bad multiplex experiences listed above. I don't think anything's coming out that I particularly want to see, or the kid. (The teen can't wait for Twilight of course.)
Deborah, has he tried Samurai Jack yet? That's completely awesome.
Hey, we had Panthro and Shana from Jem and the Holograms (though Shana was the bass player, so I think she only counts as half).
Panthro definitely was a brotha. He was, in fact voiced by Earle Hyman (Cliff's dad in The Cosby Show).
Never saw an episode of Jem.
Woah woah woah. Pixar is the only reason to watch movies?
What nonsense. Pixar movies are reliably pretty good. Up was their best movie yet. But maybe 1 of the top 10 movies of the last 2 years is a pixar movie (Up). You guys have to expand your horizons.
Unless of course you don't like movies that are intense or are somehow relaying a message. Or are political in some way.
Right now, Fantastic Mr. Fox is my most anticipated movie.
Ditto (fingers crossed I'll like it).
Oh I will see it (Fox). But I have lost all faith in Wes Anderson and, for that matter, all of the young film makers who looked like they were going to be great 10 years ago. I love movies. I just don't like movies that aren't very good, and I certainly don't like the effort an expense that goes into seeing a movie that's not very good. The last movie I saw was 'Where the Wild Things Are.' It was not very good. Spike Jonze is another of those guys in whom I've lost faith. For the record: Pixar averages a movie a year. This year was Up. Last year was WALL-E. The year before that was Ratatouille. Those three have my vote for the best three movies of the last three years.
It's the sheer costs, for me. Seeing a bad movie, isn't (at least for me) reading a bad book, or listening to a bad album. The experience cost so much--popcorn, soda, crowds, tons and tons of commercials, and (for me) the sheer noise of thing. It's like volume is now a value for a good film. I had to plug my ears during Dark Knight. The experience is just too expensive for me.
For me, it's like the difference between watching a game on TV and going to watch live at the stadium. In lots of ways, watching an NFL game or a baseball game on TV is better - more comfortable, cheaper, better views of the action. But it is still lots of fun to go see a game live. Don't do it often, for costs and other reasons, but I still enjoy it. Same with movies. I watch most on DVD/HBO. But I love going to the theater when I get the chance.
Add in the cost of baby-sitters for more adult fare, and it really isn't worth it.
I kind of have the reverse of kangahoo: my elder can babysit my younger, so the night out that's just two movie tickets is reasonable. Going as a family we're immediately over $30, for which I could buy the thing on dvd and have some left over.
Cost is part of it, but my still darkly-remembered experience of watching Crouching Tiger in front of this guy who kept making helpful observations like "No way is she really running up that wall--they must be using a wire!" disposes me to watch on the much smaller screen at home, 6 months later.
Seriously. When I tried to watch Serenity in the theater, I couldn't even make it through the first scene. The noise was complete stimulus overload. Is everyone deaf?
Paul Thomas Anderson is a genius, and has not let me down after making Boogie Nights.
There Will Be Blood was a real letdown for me. I thought Daniel Day Lewis was better when he played essentially the same role in Gangs of New York.
Letdown? We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. The kid preacher was great in that movie as well. I thought it was brilliant. I only go to see about 3 movies a year and the theaters, and I left that one very impressed. Then again, I pretty much like everything he does.
I said it was a letdown for me. I’ve become a bit skeptical of PT Anderson. His arc is sort of like that other Anderson. I liked Hard Eight. I liked Bottle Rocket. I loved Boogie Nights. I loved Rushmore. I thought Magnolia was beautifully done, but way to precious and pretentious. Ditto The Royal Tennenbaums. Punch Drunk Love? The Life Acquatic? Double meh. There Will Be Blood? Yeah, he sort of traded the Robert Altman trope for the Terrence Malick one. Another beautifully crafted, but ultimately (for me) underwhelming film. Oh and I don’t even want to mention The Darjeeling Limited.
Breaker: For me, There Will Be Blood was a return to form for Anderson. I loved Boogie Nights, but Magnolia got more cloying and smug each time I watched it before I finally gave up on it, and Punchdrunk Love was an interesting trifle. I feel There Will Be Blood was a towering achievement.
What didn't you like about it, aside from Day-Lewis playing a charismatic villain? His performances for Plainview and The Butcher are not the same, aside from being monsters. One is a swaggering, preening, brutal leader of men who seems rather secure with himself. The other is seemingly crumpled by his self-loathing and hatred of other people. The Butcher actually seems to delight in combat while Plainview is driven by greed and can't seem to take joy in anything, and even his ultimate victory over Eli is depicted as more of a relief than a pleasure.
Yeah, I'd rather not get into it other TWBB. It was a major, major letdown
BreakerBaker,
Although Gangs of New York featured superb performances by both Daniel Day Lewis and Leonard DiCaprio, the movie itself isn't very good. I found that toward the end of the movie, I stopped caring about the whole conflict between the characters played by Lewis and DiCaprio. I was more interested in Scorsese's depiction of the New York Draft Riots, and wanted Scorsese to abandon the fictional story he was telling involving Lewis and DiCaprio in favor of focusing more on the actual historical events that were supposed to serve as a backdrop to the fictional story.
I pretty much want to co-sign on everything Col. Mike said. I think comparing Wes Anderson and P.T. Anderson's careers isn't really fair to P.T. Anderson. I mean, say what you want about the Oscars, but P.T. Anderson is the only one of those two to have a picture nominated. And it was his last movie.
(Although Boogie Nights should have been nominated)
The scene where Paul Dano forces DDL to admit he abandoned his son was worth the price of admission alone.
Mike,
I don’t know if I want to hijack the thread, but since you asked: I felt the film was self-important, and it more or less justified for me a suspicion I’ve had about PT Anderson for some time, i.e., that he lacks a voice of his own. He’s an extremely talented filmmaker, but I think he’s also a bit of a hack. His films feel like unintentional odes to somebody else. Like a much more talented version of M. Night Shyamalan.
Aside from that, I thought the film had genuine pacing issues, and that it was hamstrung by an almost distractingly over-blown performance by the guy who’s in essentially every scene. I'm not sure it's a good idea to have the two main characters of the film be scenary-eaters.
With respect to the Oscars that year, I think No Country For Old Men was by far the best film nominated.
Agreed.
And eltoro: You're right, Gangs of New York wasn't very good as a film, but Day Lewis' performance was better in it. And it worked better because it was anchored by a more subdued, but equally strong performance by DiCaprio. But you're right, the movie itself had a lot of problems.
BreakerBaker,
Don't despair about our young filmmakers.
Alex Proyas (the director of "Dark City" and this year's "Knowing") is still doing good work, and Darren Aronofsky is as well. Christopher Nolan's body of work during this whole decade has been very good also (Memento, Insommnia, Batman Begins, and your favorite The Dark Knight), and Guillermo DelToro has grown on me also. (I am confident that he will do a great job with filming The Hobbit.).
On the other hand, Wes Anderson has done nothing worthwhile since The Royal Tennenbaums, and M Night Shamalayan needs to stop trying to recreate the plot dynamics of The Sixth Sense.
Don't talk to me about Christopher Nolan. Or his brother. I'm just glad you didn't list The Prestige as being part of his very good body of work. For the record, I think Memento was dishonest filmmaking masked as clever filmmaking; Insomnia was a sub-par remake of a far superior original; Batman Begins I liked, but have soured to a bit; The Prestige was awful; and I don't want to talk about The Dark Knight, and this new movie he's doing with Leo...I am not hopeful.
Guillermo Del Toro makes visually interesting movies, but I think he's a pretty poor storyteller.
I've always felt that Aronofsky was well over-rated. Is he still rebooting RoboCop? Joy.
These guys being shoved down my throat as visionaries are the reason I've grown cynical to filmmaking. Ask me who has the best track-record of the last 10 years, and the answer's easy: Brad Bird.
The Prestige was a funny experience for me. I watched it at home with two friends, we all were silent until about 1/3 of the way through the movie, when one turned and said "this is a really bad movie, isn't" And that was the end of the Prestige.
Yeah, I'm right with you on a lot of these guys, BB. PT Anderson makes very pretty movies, but even with Boogie Nights, I guess I just really didn't care. At all. I went to school with a lot of film students, and it's interesting, they almost all idolize these guys. They don't really even do the "knock them to be cool" thing. And of course, the vast majority of these film students, while brilliant and damn near pros behind the camera, they just cannot write a script.
As for me, Richard Kelly is about +1,000,000 for Southland Tales, even if Donnie Darko was a bit on the lame side. Haven't seen The Box yet.
wow, Breaker, you are a very tough critic. Maybe I go in expecting less from the movies. It's fun just to get lost in something. However, I may be on that level with literature, though i hardly ever read anymore.
Dan, You're not supposed to tell people that Donnie Darko was lame.
The Prestige was fantastic because it was a movie rather than a 'film'. Audiences can be as snobish as any director. I was a projectionist for many years and not only did I see a lot of movies, I saw these movies many times. I also saw audience reaction. In almost ever genre for any age group a great story won out over any other aspect of the experience. Even if you didn't like the actor, or the action or the crowd. If a good story was told, you told that story to your friends. The Prestige was a good story. All Nolan's movies (he makes movies not films) have a good story.
I don't know, part of it also depends on the varieties of theaters around you. If you only have the big multiplex, you'll miss out on some good indie stuff, not to mention have to deal with teenagers on dates and other people that can detract from watching the movie.
I generally just wait for the DVD. But I have a family. That's another thing.
Yeah, it's one thing to spring for Netflix, a whole nother ballgame if you're buying 3 or 4 tickets at $8.50 a pop plus $4 cokes and $5 popcorns (or whatever it is in your friendly neighborhood movie theater).
It cost us -- me, my husband, two sons ages 7 and 11 -- $65 for four matinee movie tix, popcorn, and drinks when we saw "Up." So, yeah, the cost is a significant factor.
Yea, in NYC that $65 price tag starts looking a lot more like $100. It's pretty outrageous.
That's why if I want to do any snacking I almost always sneak food in. Winter's the best when you can smuggle in bags of microwave popcorn under your jacket.
As for Wes Anderson, he's one of my favorite directors. I think he tends to evoke strong feelings from people one way or the other. But stop-motion animation seems like it might be the perfect medium for him. So i'm even more psyched than usual for this film.
I'll dish out the $10 a piece to see it over thanksgiving with the family.
Yeah, Costs us about $100 to take three kids + snacks here in SF. But, I still love going to the movies every few months for certain types of films. I like being with a big rowdy crowd for something like "Zombieland" or "2012." Part of the experience for me.
Having a family dramatically reduced my movie-going. A movie (without popcorn and soda, which aren't on our diet) is not too awfully expensive, but the babysitter puts the whole thing over-the-top. In our town, a high-school aged babysitter makes $7-8/hour. Even if we skip having dinner before the show, movie with a sitter runs $40 total for just the two of us. When we could rent it for $5 a few months later, it just seems like money we should save for a better use. Of course, this is not just the movies. This explains why we don't go on many dates in general.
When we do go to the movies, it's cheaper to bring our daughter than to pay a sitter to stay with her. Hence, we've been to way more Pixar/Disney movies than sophisticated character dramas lately...
Still, I really miss the whole movie-house experience.
You know, the overpriced drinks and snacks aren't required at the movie theater. I don't really see many movies anymore either, but that's mainly due to hanging out with my wife instead. But from the ages of about 20 to 32, I saw more than a movie a week. And I bought snacks at the theater maybe about 3 times a year, if I was really hungry and didn't have a chance to eat beforehand.
I think maybe this comes from having worked at a theater as a teenager... I had such ready access to popcorn that it lost its appeal as something special. I mainly watched the movies because I was interested in the films, not to hang out with people... I frequently went to the movies by myself.
Kinda nice seeing Canal St. and Jackson Square in a cartoon, though the inclination to Disney-fy NOLA has been around for awhile.
Anyhow, I was less put off than I thought I'd be by this. Only half of the accents irked me--usually they all do.
Per the accents, how did you feel about The Skeleton Key?
Never saw it. I can't stand scary movies. Just watched the trailer though. Hard for me to tell, but I was glad that Kate Hudson, whose character I assume is from New Orleans, didn't try to put on a southern accent at least. That's the biggest mistake most films make when they're supposed to be set in NOLA.
Actually her character is from New Jersey and that's a plot point in the film (she's initially totally unbelieveing in hoodoo because she's not southern.) But your point is still well taken.
Her character's from New Jersey anyway.
I divide movies as follows:
- Worth standing in line when it first comes out
- Worth seeing on the big screen
- Eager to see at home on DVD
- Would tolerate seeing at home on DVD, if nothing better to do
- Would leave the room/house to avoid
Most things are in the middle three categories. And the difference between 2 and 3 is mostly one of scale. Does the movie include gorgeous landscape or interesting special effects? If so, big screen. Romantic comedies, DVD is fine.
Disney is perfect DVD material.
No doubt that the neoOrleans (a.k.a. New Orleans) is a product of the neoAmerica which the elites inhabit.
The old America is phasing into a third world country infrastructure where myth believing elite princes and princesses complain when the underlings whine.
Let the cartoons begin.
For everyone complaining about the $65 price tag of the movies... have you considered, you know, NOT buying soda and popcorn and candy? I promise, a 90-minute movie is just as enjoyable without them and costs a third as much. ;)
That said, it's now up to $11.50 for an adult ticket and that's getting absurd. I also don't go to movies as much now that I live in a part of the country where you have to drive to the theater. But I spent 2003-2005 getting an MFA in Film and so I had free/reduced passes to every theater -- multiplex, indie house -- in Boston. I saw damn near everything and sometimes two or three times. At heart I'm a big ol' fangirl and for certain kinds of movie experiences (Lord of the Rings being the key recent example, with the Star Wars re-releases of the mid-1990s and the Phantom Menace release in May 1999) absolutely nothing beats being there in a crowded theater, looking at a 60' screen, surrounded by people who are just as desperate to love this film as you are.
For more serious "adult" fare (the Oscar-set, post-Thanksgiving releases) I generally find I'm better off with Netflix.
Or do what I used to do, sneak in a hoagie to the theater.
Once a buddy and I snuck in some cans of beer. That was a good time.
I actually have a theater near me that serves beer...It just felt right during Zombieland
Oh yeah, Cinema and Drafthouse in Arlington. Wish they'd have more of those around.
Reminds me of going to see the first X-Men movie w/ brew in the pockets...LOL!
Admittedly, I've brought a bag of candy and a 20-oz bottle of soda in the bottom of my purse or backpack more than once. Heck, once I even brought healthy snacks.
You're being a little reductive. It's not just the price of snacks it's that the entire experience costs. Watching commercials costs. Watching trailers that you may or may not be interested in costs. Navigating crowds costs. And they ask me not to sneak in food, so I don't do it. I just don't go. I'd rather see it at home.
But more importantly, I'm not railing against the movies, calling for a boycott, or suggesting what you should do with your money. I'm telling you what I do with mine. No one's saying you're a sucker for going to the movies. I'm saying I don't enjoy the experience. It isn't worth it to me--emphasis on me.
I know. Just there are a lot of comments upthread saying, "By the time I buy all four of us popcorn" and whatnot. If that's a stumbling block for some people, it's one that's easy to avoid!
I'm with you about the commercials, though. There's a theater around here that actually lets you reserve seating online and we've started making it our preferred one, so that there's no need to sit through 20 minutes of "preshow" and commercials just to get a decent view. That is pretty soul-sucking.
I kind of love previews though. Even for bad movies. ;) I'm just sad that I don't really get to go anymore. Movies are different with an audience than they are by yourself; something about the shared experience. Even in a basement screening classroom in grad school, that there were 10 or 20 or 50 of us there made it different than watching it at home to write the paper.
Ha! Try bringing kids to the movies and not buying snacks. Or, maybe I'm just a sucker. My hippie mom used to make us bring bags of homemade popcorn to the movies. Still leaves a scar.
The specific issue with us is more that Dad kind of assumes it happens, even though objectively speaking he doesn't like the multiplex snacks. Left to my own devices I would avoid all snacks not smuggled in in my capacious mom bag.
Small art house is again a different ball game--they often have good ice cream from the local company, and tea and coffee, or cookies. The one in Waltham has flavored powders for the fresh popcorn, a revelation to my newly-foody daughter. If a movie is showing at Waltham--we saw Star Trek and the latest Harry Potter there--I'm much more inclined to try and see it on the big screen.
Our "dad" insists on the extra extra extra large tub of popcorn because it's a better deal. Then our entire family's grubby hands take out big fistfuls. I, too, wish we could get away with just water and maybe a candy bar from the corner store, but I'm afraid that's me being what my teenage daughter now frequently calls me - a "buzz kill." !
Waltham... you're in MA?
There used to be an absolutely fantastic second-run theater in Somerville, a converted old 1930s theatre-proper. That was where my parents and I went to a ton of movies in the 1990s, and my dad and I to some weekend-long Warner Brothers cartoon marathons. I don't know if it's still there but if I were still up in Boston that's where I'd be going to everything!
KC--If you're talking about the Somerville Theater, it's my favorite one around. Kinda limited selection, but great atmosphere, and of course, beer on tap.
I used to live across the street! Above the 7-11 and those weird human statue sculptures they put in the little park (are those still there?)
My daughters are so hyped for this movie. They make me show them the trailer multiple times almost every nite.
I know I'm supposed to be all jazzed about Disney finally debuting a black princess, but I hate all things Disney (no really, my husband believes I have no soul), so I don't care. As a expectant mother, I'll be contributing to the Disney Industrial Complex soon enough.
Do you count Pixar among the all things Disney? Because if so, you're crazy and have no soul! ;)
LOL! I do. But I reluctantly admit that I cried during the opening scenes of "Up" after being forced to watch it.
Yeah, the whole opening sequence is pretty damned heartbreaking.
BabyRat is 4 1/2 and smack dab in the middle of princess fever despite the best efforts of me and WifeRat. Thankfully my sister (& BR's Godmother) had volunteered to take BabyRat to see this movie. When we told BR this morning, she almost started trembling in anticipation.
We've managed to strike a balance where the princess nonsense is only one of many different types of toys/games she likes to play. As a devout feminist (and fairly prominent feminist scholar) WifeRat is still appalled that she has had to make room in her household for princess dolls. It's not so much that we object to princesses but the ubiquity of the Disney princess image is so absolute; on everything from bicycles, to baseball gloves, to cheese sticks; that there really is no opportunity for little girls to form their own opinion about whether or not they're going to like or respond to this image.
As the feminist mom of a 7 1/2 year old girl, I can relate to WifeRat's reaction to the whole Disney Princess thing. Never thought I'd have a daughter who'd play with Barbies or watch Sleeping Beauty or the Little Mermaid again and again and again, but parenting is full of all sorts of surprises. I figured out two things that made our journey though that easier for me: 1) to resist it was to give it more power, and 2) talking about my reactions and concerns gave me a chance to discuss and possibly instill my values in her more than censorship would. Now she knows that I think Ariel was wrong to trade her most valued quality (her voice) for a man, and that I think women don't need to give up what's most important to them to find true love. I hope she is learning to see things in a more nuanced way than she otherwise would at her age.
And, for what it's worth, at age 7 she is pretty much past the princess phase. Now, she's a self-declared "Nature Girl," and she is trying to figure out how she can save endangered animals, write books about them, and still have time to be a mom. Good luck with that, I say!
I read a discussion about this movie on Racialicious, and the thing that stuck with me was that the shine of finally having a Black Disney Princess was tarnished by the fact that she spends most of the movie as a frog. If you think about it in terms of little girls excited about finally seeing a princess that looks like them, it's kind of a bummer if she spends most of the movie...not looking like them.
Bingo! My daughter loves Disney animated movies (so do I) and since she was a little girl we've gone to see almost all of them together and watched the classics on dvd. This latest wasn't on my radar, but she clued me in by complaining, loud and long, that in the first Disney "princess" movie with a Black princess, the princess spends most of her screen time as a frog. I'd ask what were the folks at Disney thinking, but the best gloss I can put on it is they weren't.
Not only am I going to go see it, but I've bought both of the Tiana dolls; the cheaper one and the one that says some phrases. Yes, I'm disappointed that the Prince isn't Black, but you can't have everything. My Peanut isn't ready for the movies yet, but I'll be going, and buying it on DVD.
Is he really not black?
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Hahaha. I like that you posted that one minute after the initial question...
He's GOT to be a passing Creole. Like Ernie Johnson from TNT. (Not really, my mother just swears he is.)
well, the prince is not African American. he is a "shemar moore-looking" brother from the land of Maldonia, voiced by a brazilian actor. He's an Other, but not african american, but definitely exotic, but not the brotha' next door.
His race is indeterminate, but he can't be said to be African-American. As for any lingering traces of African ethnicity -- erase...erase...erase. I think Naveen is an Indian/Pakistani name? That was totally common in turn of the century NOLA!
Prince Naveen is of ambiguous ethnic origin, hailing from the kingdom of Moldavia, and is described as a "handsome, exotic prince", as per the Disney website.( Yes I looked this up.) The voice actor, Bruno Campos, is Brazilian.
"He's GOT to be a passing Creole. Like Ernie Johnson from TNT."
Now that shit is funny. And really doesn't seem that crazy.
And can I just say, stereotyping aside, I'm kinda glad that the Prince is of amorphous ethnic origin; i think it speaks to the growing multi-ethnic tinge of US culture, along with the multiethnic melting pot that New Orleans has been since its founding. Of course, we're still far off, but things like this show that we might be getting there.
I'm sooo going to see it, seeing Disney movies was something I used to do as a kidwhen all those gorgeous hand-painted animated features would come out. I'll be shamelessly sneaking my food in too. Times are tough.
The history of Tiana's character is also, problematic. She was originally a maid named Maddie.
[another black maid!? ...i mean princess]
People objected to the character's close proximity to a popular stereotype.
[even though "Mammy" and "Maddie" are spelled with different letters]
Casting around for another name that would resonate with black women's names from that era, they ran past Josephine, Georgia, Hattie, Bertha (just running off some great-auntie names here...) and found the first American mom to name her child Tiana. Totally ahistorical.
It seems like Disney had difficulty engaging very deeply with the rich culture of African Americans in 19th century and just gave up after a while.
[because really, how deeply could Af-Am roots be planted in New Orleans anyway? Those black folk and their silly ideas about cultural relevance and representation.]
@cocomala
Mammy and Maddie? Really? I think it could be looked at in a more positive light, in that "Madison" has been one of the top 5 girl names in the U.S. for a few years.
I don't know - I know it's not perfect, but it does seem like some progress that all little girls will be looking at this little girl as their new princess ideal, even though I kind of hate the whole obsession with princesses thing in general.
On the other hand, I can understand why people are sensitive to all the implications. My daughter is fifteen and they did an Asian princess (Mulan) and a Native American princess (Pocahantas) way back then, 10 years or so ago before they finally got around to doing a black princess.
jennifer d
"Maddie/Mammy...?" that's what people said -- that was the objection months ago, when details about the character began to circulate
and i don't want to be the black girl whose friends tell her to hop around like a frog when they play princess...
okay, those are my last objections. i got work to do (i am a graphic designer too, on deadline over here!)
"and i don't want to be the black girl whose friends tell her to hop around like a frog when they play princess..."
LOL.
Now you made me feel guilty about work - I gotta go back to it, too. Damn deadlines!
I notice that two of the villains are stereotypical Louisiana toothless crackers. It's nice to know that our culture is still cool with making fun of poor whites.
You always see this in Disney. I enjoy some of their stuff, but even Ichabod Crane, which is otherwise very well done, has a seen where everyone is disgusted a the idea of dancing with a fat girl. I guess Disney just reflects power dynamics. Be very interesting to see how they navigate Jim Crowe in Princess and the Frog.
Evvvvery now and then I'll go to the movie theater. Like T and others are saying, it can really be exPENsive!! But, for some of the summer block busters, it's nice to see it BIG and hear it LOUD.
I'm blessed to have a rather nice home theater set-up, so I tend to watch whatever it is on DVD. BOOM it or lower the intensity as I happen to like it.
I'll be curious to see how the Princess And The Frog shall do. I'm thinking that it should be MUCH better than their feature cartoons of the past eight or so years. They've been poor. Dreamworks has been kicking their BEhinds. And, therein....
GREAT to see so many fans of Pixar here. And, I, too, count myself amongst the group. Disney has noticed how well Pixar has done, too. Which is why, in 2006, I believe, they made John Lasseter the head of ALL animation for them.
Hopefully, he continues with his Midas touch and Disney, which started the animated movie after all, can get back in the hunt.
I will watch a cartoon over a live action film any day. I think I get that from my parents who watch cartoons a lot. My Mom loves her some Teen Titans and Batman. I watch Spongebob all the time. Invader Zim is a must see. One of the funniest cartoons ever created. I will see this b/c I laughed quite a bit just watching that trailer.
I love that Disney finally has a black princess (and I was a self proclaimed Disney kid, have seen have all of the movies and still have most of them on VHS!) But...
Am I the only person who thinks it's a little suspect that they finally got a black princess and she spends the majority of the movie as a FROG?
I get the twist and all, but even Ariel got to be cute from the waist up...
Possible spoilers ahead:
So, I saw an advance screening of The Princess & The Frog yesterday (I'm in the industry and have friends who worked on the show). I enjoyed it. Not on the level of Up, but still pretty good.
Visually, the movie is absolutely gorgeous -- this is hand-drawn animation and has a kind of elegance and warmth I find rare in digital animation. The voice acting was solid. Both Tiana and Naveen are appealing. I also thought the two principal villains were compelling, with motivations a little more interesting than just being nasty.
I love that it doesn't take place in a generic fairyland, but happens in a very specific place and period (post World War I, which provides a crucial plot point) . Having just visited (and fallen in love with) New Orleans for the first time earlier this year, I appreciated how the filmmakers tried to evoke as much of the flavor of the place as possible: food, music, architecture, language -- even a brief but very amusing toss-away reference to Streetcar Named Desire. They tried to do their homework on this one. Terence Blanchard even plays on the soundtrack. At the very least, I hope the movie sparks an interest in New Orleans and Bayou culture among the very young.
I see why Tiana's transformation into a frog and spending most of the film that way wouldn't sit well with some. On the other hand, I also understood the writers' choice -- it's a clever twist (shame they give it away in the trailer) and does resolve a fundamental problem they faced. To wit: how do you spin out the source material into a feature-length film? I mean, the original story is only a couple pages long. In a self-reflexive twist, "The Frog Prince" is read to Tiana as a little girl in the opening scenes, so strictly speaking this isn't an actual adaptation of the original story, but a very thorough re-imagining of it.
I also thought the transformation works on a thematic level in terms of the character development -- basically, neither Naveen nor Tiana can return to human form (i.e., become their true selves) until they've learned certain necessary lessons from their experience and matured. So I'd say it worked for me as a plot device. And actually, she is kinda cute even as a frog.
Then again I'm not really the target audience. If I were, perhaps I'd be very disappointed. Personally I don't really feel qualified to address the issues of representation raised by the movie. I do know from my friends who worked on it that the people involved in the film (many of whom are African-American) were aware of those concerns, took them seriously, and tried to be as responsible and sensitive as possible. I'll be interested to read what others think.
Actually, my biggest disappointment on this film? The songs. They're not very memorable. I'm a big Randy Newman fan, but I kinda felt like he was coasting on this one. Ironic for a story set in a city known above all for its music.
Actually, one thing I left out -- there is one unmistakable reference to racial discrimination in the movie, which I think many kids will miss but adults will certainly get. What the film does address much more bluntly is class difference -- a great deal is made of the fact that Prince Naveen has never had to work a day in his life, while Tiana has had to sweat for everything she has. I thought that was interesting.
On a more general note: for me the experience of seeing movies in an actual theater is indispensable, even though I go much less frequently nowadays. Something about seeing a film in a darkened room with the screen filling my entire field of vision...I honestly think there must be an actual physiological difference between that and watching a movie at home. Wide-screen TVs and better home sound systems have narrowed the gap, but not closed it. The audience can be a crucial component too -- an engaged, enthusiastic crowd can really enhance the experience (particularly a comedy or one of the big summer movies). Of course, they can also ruin it with cell phones going off or chatting, but (at least where I live) audiences seem to have gotten much better-behaved in the last ten years. I have no idea why.
I understand why people feel otherwise, particularly with the cost issue. I get to go to a fair number of free screenings for work reasons and whenever I see a bad movie, my reaction is "Well, at least I didn't pay for it". I'd definitely be pissed if I had. And there's not always a lot out there that appeals. I do think that American narrative film, both mainstream and indie, is in a fallow period right now. Not as bad as the 80s, but not great.
I've loved a handful of the big "event" movies of the last decade -- the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and The Dark Knight at the top of the list-- but most mainstream Hollywood product (and I do mean product) doesn't interest me. The indie scene ran out of steam sometime in the early noughties. Most of the creative energy out there seems to have diffused into three areas: 1) animation, 2) documentaries (we're in something of a golden age for docs), and above all 3) TV, the best of which is so much better than American theatrical features in general right now that it makes you laugh. Or cry.
And, as usual, some of the best movies are being made beyond our border. In the past few years, I've seen great films from Argentina, Mexico, South Korea, Germany, and Thailand among other places. French cinema has had a strong decade and Japanese cinema has come roaring back after some very lean years.
Along with Up, my favorite film so far this year has been Still Walking, a beautiful and heart-breaking family drama from Japan. Actually, it has a lot in common with Up, at least thematically -- both deal with loss and disappointment.
The gems are still out there. But nowadays you sometimes have to dig a little deeper to find them.