“Black-washing”: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Halle Bailey as Ariel from Disney’s The Little Mermaid

White-washing. I’m sure everyone has heard this word once or twice. Simply put, it’s a word used to describe when Hollywood casts White people or lighter people to play everyone, especially characters that were originally people of color. It has been seen as another term to describe “Blackface” in the modern era. White-washing has existed since the beginning of cinema, even when Black people were “allowed” to act in Hollywood. In fact, Whitewashing existed frequently up until as recently as 2017. It was around this time, in 2017, when Hollywood started to realize that casting White actors to play various ethnicities doesn’t always pay pockets in a modern society (Ghost in the Shell, 2017), even if the actor is well known and loved. They even recognized that it could be a career-killer for movie studios and actors alike.

After complaints about the Oscars’ selection of nominees appearing as “White” as possible, the Oscars began to set new diversity standards of eligibility for Movie Academy Awards in 2020. The rules were as follows:

1. At least one actor from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group must be cast in a significant role.
2. The story must center on women, L.G.T.B.Q. people, a racial or ethnic group or the disabled.
3. At least 30 percent of the cast must be actors from at least two of those four underrepresented categories.

This caused Hollywood to go through a frenzy of hiring people of color anywhere they could.  One way they have implemented this change is by casting Black people to play characters that were originally White, either by suddenly presenting them as Black…or actually calling them “White” (Hamilton-style) despite their race, with the audience having to suspend a bit of reality. This has been called in recent years “Black-washing”.

Just like with White-washing, Black-washing has also had its share of controversy. Some people find it to be hypocritical that “Black-washing” is allowed culturally when White-washing often gets met with disdain and backlash. Others don’t like “Black-washing” because it makes everything feel less authentic or unrecognizable as the cast doesn’t match the character in the source or most familiar material.

On the other hand, many like this type of casting choice because they feel it finally gives Black people and other people of color more representation. Some have even argued that Black-washing as an ideology doesn’t exist and that casting black people in these types of roles is simply another form of reparations for the mistreatment and erasure of Black people from media during the Golden Age Of Hollywood and during the days of the Hay’s Code (a time when Hollywood restricted what could be seen in cinema).

What I aim to do is give a nuanced perspective about “Black-washing”. Regardless of whether I think the theory holds any merit, as a Black person myself, I want to discuss the good that could come with this idea or concept, the bad that could come with this idea or concept, and the ugly that can often surround this idea or concept. Let’s break it all down.

The Good: More Opportunities For Black People

We are beginning to see a rise in Black characters in every source of media. According to Diversity Inc, roles for Black actors in a variety of tv series have increased post pandemic in which 65.8% of TV series featured a Black actor pre-pandemic and 70.5% featured at least one Black person post-pandemic. Roles for Black actors in films particularly have increased overall from 56.1% to 58.7%.

What this means is that Black-washing gives Black people an opportunity to be even more represented. That is a major feat, believe it or not. I actually remember a time when I went to Backstage.com to find auditions and many of the auditions would say “White-preferred”. As someone who used to be an aspiring actor, it was discouraging to say the least. This was in the early 2010s, not too long ago.

Make no mistake. Almost every lead character is still White, but at least more of them are starting to be people of color. I no longer feel like I would automatically be rejected from an opportunity just because of the color of my skin. I feel like I can finally be recognized for my talent, the talents I’ve had since high school, if I choose acting as a career choice again.

In a sense, this makes Black-washing different from White-washing. White people have never actually been barred from playing any roles in cinema. They have had plenty of opportunities; doors have been open to them from around the world and the doors still are open. Therefore, the effects of White-washing are actually a lot more harmful to Black people than Black-washing is to White people. Black-washing doesn’t bar White people from getting opportunities. Rather, it “evens” the playing field. Don’t misunderstand, I do see a lot of pitfalls that can come from “Black-washing” (which I will get into later in this article), but some of the arguments that many people make against “Black-washing” are usually based on misconceptions, bias, or racial prejudice.

Here is a common argument for example:

“Black people only make up 19% of the population in America. White people are the majority so why should Black people get an increase in roles?”

There are two problems with this statement. One problem is that there is a sense of American-centrism, basically Americans acting as if the entire world demographic begins and ends with America. In the entire world, there are more people of color then White people across continents. To be frank, many actors hired in Hollywood are not exactly from the USA. Many of them are from other countries. So this argument that having more Black people in Hollywood is somehow inaccurate or inauthentic is strange.

Second, these kinds of arguments seem to assume that White people will not relate to characters that are of a different race, so by making more characters of color it will somehow push White people away from watching movies. However, people of color have had to relate to characters of various backgrounds for decades, due to the dominance of White actors in media, and are constantly told that it shouldn’t matter what color they are. So shouldn’t the same apply to White people? Furthermore, why is it that viewers must relate to what they see personally? Isn’t it great to learn about something new and imagine what that would be like? I don’t relate to Harry Potter as a wizard, but I like learning and imagining what it would be like to have wizarding powers. Why doesn’t this logic apply to movies featuring Black culture?

To add, many of the characters that are accused of being “Black-washed” in a movie or a show are often played by mixed or biracial people. This makes the outrage a little more complex. We often have a tendency to see every mixed person that has a drop of Black as ONLY Black. I don’t think this is fair, especially if the actor in question is mixed with White ancestry and understands White culture. If they can act as Black characters, why shouldn’t someone of mixed ancestry be able to act as a White character? Sure, we can talk about how often times the mixed person doesn’t, in any way, resemble the character they are meant to portray. I think in some ways this is a valid criticism. But are you really mad just because they don’t look as you envisioned the part, or are you mad just because the person cast has a little bit of Black in them?

Here is another common argument against Black-washing:

“It is culturally inauthentic to have Black mermaids, elves, fairies, Black aristocracy, etc.  These things are based in White culture.”

To counter this, Folklore and other tales have existed all over the world.  Stories surrounding fantasy-like creatures didn’t start with the European diaspora.  Furthermore, Black people have existed in all classes of European society due to colonialism.  For example, many were upset that a Black man was cast to play Porthos in BBC’s The Musketeers.  But did anyone know that the original writer of The Three Musketeers novel, Alexander Dumas, was of Black heritage himself, as well as a General in Napoleon’s army?  I’m sure he wouldn’t have minded such a casting choice.

Finally, here is another common argument against Black-washing:

“It is unfair because the actor is being given a role just for the sake of diversity or “woke points”, not because they actually can do the job.”

I can understand this frustration.  Even as Black people, we don’t just want to be chosen because we’re Black, becoming the “token” actor.  We want our talents to be respected. However, it is a broad assumption to assume that every Black person that was chosen for these roles were simply chosen because they are Black. 

Furthermore, various people of a variety of racial backgrounds, especially White people, were and still are simply preferred because of their White features, not their talents, compared to talents across other racial backgrounds.  Therefore, this is not exclusively a Black-washing issue.  If anything, White-washing occurred as a result of this “White” preference in Hollywood; Black-washing is simply another way of giving Black people the same treatment Hollywood has been giving White people for many years.

On the other hand, whether Black-washing exists or not, Black-washing as a strategy for diversity does have some major issues that I think needs to be discussed.

The Bad: Race-baiting, Whiteface, and Blackface

Blackface is when a White person puts on dark make-up to mock Black people, particularly for comedic purposes. This form of entertainment has been popular for many years. White-washing was often compared to Blackface because many times Hollywood would cast White or lighter actors to play Black people or other people of color, which to many felt disrespectful and conflicted with the experiences of people of color.

So what about “Black-washing”? We can see it as synonymous with Whiteface. Whiteface is a type of performance in which a person wears theatrical makeup in order to make themselves look like a White person. While it doesn’t have the same racist history as Blackface (nor does it have the same level of power or influence over how White people are seen overall), it is meant to represent a caricature of Whiteness and White people’s way of being. Whenever I watch movies that have a Black-washed cast, I can’t help but feel like the Black actors are playing a caricature of White people. There are certain mannerisms and ways of being that sometimes seem more in line with the way White people navigate society and respond to it. Although skin color doesn’t necessarily come with a set of personality traits, there are certain cultural differences between those across the Afro-diaspora and those within the Euro-diaspora, and that makes “Black-washing” so obvious to those who are viewing it.

Another part of the issue comes with the demand for the Black actors to live up to the expectations of the public’s perception of Whiteness. When a Black person acts as a character that was once White, many people expect the Black actor to capture the White character from head to toe, and so Black actors are often forced to portray themselves EXACTLY as the White character would even without the nuance of the Black experience. They have to speak as a White person would (this is not necessarily about articulation but rather for environmental responses), behave as White people would in certain situations, and often times the nuances of being Black within the story is not mentioned because technically they are playing a White person. It’s as if they live in a post-racist world where they are celebrated. In theory, this is great news and not all stories featuring Black people should be about “the Black experience”. Some people may even argue that’s the point of acting; to challenge yourself to behave as someone else.

But it doesn’t come without feeling that this new-found celebration of Blackness in Hollywood is less about colorblindness and more about Black people playing the roles White people are comfortable with. It creates a Hollywood form of cultural assimilation. For example, when we think of a Black princess, what exactly comes to mind? To the eyes of Hollywood, a movie about princesses should include a person acting, dressing, and adorning their hair as a European-inspired princess would because that is what Hollywood’s perception of a princess is: White and/or European.

I wouldn’t see a handful of Black girls in a lead role in cinema until my teens and early 20s. To make a comparison of the two movies I saw as a teen and young adult, one was Akeelah And The Bee (2006); the other was Annie (2014). Akeelah and the Bee was a story about a young girl who discovers she has a knack for spelling.  She beats the odds of her underprivileged background to compete in the Scripps National Spelling Bee.  In Annie, the movie follows the story of its predecessors where an orphan girl gets lucky enough to be chosen to live with the wealthy Daddy Warbucks, winning the hearts of many. Both actresses did a great job as far as acting goes, and both movies were mildly entertaining for me. When I watched Annie I admit I was excited to see a Black girl on screen as the lead (which I hadn’t seen since Roger’s and Hammerstein’s Cinderella). However, while watching Annie I couldn’t help but compare it to the original movie adaptation, Annie (1982), and all of the other Annie versions before it. While I understand it was meant to be a modern Annie, the only thing this movie had to offer was a “Black face”.

I already had an Annie movie version that I had grown to love long before this new adaptation and I became more critical of the newer movie as a result.

Whereas with Akeelah And The Bee, there was nothing compared to it. It was a one-of-a kind movie and, more importantly, it was an original Black story. You could feel the authenticity based on how it tied in Black culture in such a nuanced way and, yet, gave Akeelah her own personality and interests as an individual. People could watch it and enjoy it for what it was without making a comparison to anything else. Whereas with Annie (2014), if felt as if the Black actors were telling the story of a White girl who happens to have a Black face.

I also wonder: What more does Black-washing offer to Black audiences outside of the skin color of the actors? What more does it showcase to audiences outside of our community about Black people? In the end, most people are going to end up sticking to the more popular “White” versions while the “Black” version of the movie will be wiped from memory as the “knock-off”. Even as I enjoyed “Black-washed” movies like Roger’s and Hammerstein’s Cinderella (1997) or The Wiz (1978), let’s be honest here, these movies are mostly remembered by the Black audience that tuned in to watch in their respective time periods during eras where Black people were a lot less visible than today in movies.

To make multibillion dollar industries and bring in the big box office money, which would help continue Black Hollywood, we have to have something to offer others besides a Black face. Contrary to popular belief, we do not have to do it by imitating White people. Most people in the modern world are looking for new and original story-telling; with an interest in diversity, why are we not taking advantage of this to hop on new ideas and introduce our culture to the world in a fresh, new way?

To add, while “Black-washing” makes some of us feel seen in the moment, will it have the same long-lasting cultural impact, especially in regards to how we see ourselves?

Of course, we can forgive Hollywood executives when they cast Black people as fictional characters, right? These type of characters are usually imagined and so changing their skin color is a matter of taking creative liberties to be more inclusive. This motive is not something I would scorn and sometimes the intentions are good.

However, Black-washing gets murkier when we start to see White historical figures being Black-washed as well. I’m going to examine a good example of this sort of Black-washing: the stage production Hamilton (2015). The Hamilton cast is filled with extremely talented Black actors that capture the characters in quite an entertaining and charming way. I admit that I enjoyed watching it on stage and the talent was inspirational to say the least. To be honest, I even have forgotten that the characters they were portraying were White historical figures.

And that is sort of the problem. These White people, while they shaped the USA in many ways, were also slave owners and they could care less about Black people in their lifetime. So while the cast does a celebratory job of playing these roles, they still are playing White slave owners and colonists. Putting a Black face on these kinds of figures makes us sympathize with them more, I suppose. Yet, it makes us ignore what the actual person did because we see a Black face. We begin to fictionalize the real person because the stage production presented them as Black (even if what they did to Black people was questionable).  So the question is, who gets to be celebrated in history, and should Black people be celebrated only when they are acting as White people, especially White people that participated in our oppression?

Understandably, I do believe that there has been a good reason historically for Black-washing. After all, as mentioned before, Black people were excluded from Hollywood after years of racism, and so we would often create movies or spaces that were made to mimic that of White entertainment just to be seen or represented. This was probably the only way Black people could gain visibility back in the past.

However, we are living in the 21st century. I think it is time we progressed past the need for Black-washing. We are one of the most visible minorities on-screen to date. Why do we still hold on to this old idea that the only way to have Black representation is by casting ourselves as White?

In my honest opinion, while I’m always happy to see Black people like myself on screen, I think Black-washing is lazy. It is a lazy way to give people “diversity” without actually giving them a unique story to call their own. There is a perception in Hollywood that Black people cannot carry a movie by themselves without the help of White people. There is also the perception that people won’t go see Black-led movies unless the story is already familiar (or in other words Eurocentric). Whiteness is often treated as the “default” and therefore more acceptable and digestible.

Black Panther (2018) was one of the movies to challenge these ideas. Black Panther, while known by most fans of the Marvel comics, was not as well-known among casual movie goers. In this movie, we see an African king of Wakanda and a true Black superhero who protects his own people, without the need of White intervention or European involvement.  In this sense, the movie adaptation introduced an all-new story because it was the first adaptation of its kind. This made a bigger difference in the legacy of Black entertainment when we compare it to the White “knock-offs” that Black-washing had to offer. To add, what we also see from Black Panther is culture. Black culture.

The Ugly: The Absence Of Black Culture

There are different ways to Black-wash. Black-washing can come in the form of a Black reimagination of an established property. What I do like about some movies with this approach is that it gives an opportunity to tell a similar story but with a unique “Black” point-of-view, inculcating the rich culture, music, and fashion that comes from the Black community. Take Disney’s The Princess And The Frog (2009), for example. While it can be seen as a “Black-washed” version of its predecessor (a fairy tale of European origin), it has its own way of telling the story that makes it feel unique from the batch of fairy tale movies. It also caters to the sentiments and experiences of Black people. Just for understanding, this is not to say the movie is perfect (there are various flaws with the movie, starting with the creative decision to showcase the Black princess as a frog for most of the movie). However, you can tell that the creators took an interest in Black culture and wanted to inculcate some of our rich heritage into the movie. Unlike Hamilton, this movie celebrates Blackness rather than Whiteness, even if inspired from a European tale. I feel the same way with The Wiz (1978), the Black adaptation of The Wizard Of Oz, where Oz is designed to resemble that of Black urban neighborhoods, music, and culture. In a sense, we as Black people can both relate to it and see ourselves being represented more authentically.

Unfortunately, many movies today are missing the nuances of our culture in them because they are simply casting Black people to play White people. Movies that Black-wash without the nuances of our culture often feel hollow. They give me nothing to look back and be proud of except the fact that the person playing in the role is Black. Trust me, there will be plenty more feats where the “first Black actor” is playing the “first Black something”. This will get old really soon.

Furthermore, when are we going to start embracing stories from Black communities and culture? I want more movies like The Black Panther (2018). I want to see our culture celebrated, our kings or queens honored, our “fairy-tales” or folk tales visible. When are we going to get an Anansi The Spider movie? What about Mufaro’s Beautiful Daughters? There’s so many more Black stories that we need only Google search to find them.

I think about the show Bridgerton (2020-Present). It is a great show with a very diverse cast of characters. However, while the show is progressive in its approach, having as many diverse faces as possible, the styles and attitudes are meant to mimic that of the Regency era in White European society. While this story is based on historical facts (albeit controversially), and it is being produced through a Black-owned entertainment company (even if the writers of the show are mostly White), that doesn’t take away the fact that the inspiration of this show and most shows and movies are always focused on Europe. Why so Eurocentric? Many of these actors will be praised only when they are acting in roles that reflect European culture or aristocracy while movies that reflect other cultures are often criticized as being somehow “stereotypical” or less “universal” to audiences.

Ultimately, it feels as if we are more eager to praise this form of cultural assimilation rather than embrace cultural diversity and liberation. In a story like Bridgerton, we can pretend that people of color were equal to that of White people in those societies. We can ignore the racist history behind people of color at court, how they had to cut off family ties to be seen as more “White” in society, and dismiss their culture to assimilate to a European way of life. We can more easily see Black people in power when the backdrop is European because Whiteness and European values represent power in our minds. We can even ignore the atrocities that occur even within the story of Bridgerton towards people of color, such as when Daphne (a White woman) decides to force Simon, a Black man, to have intercourse with her to get what she wants and gets away with it, especially in the book, which the series adaptation is based on.  Amongst the beautiful scenery and European-style costumes, we can pretend that this is what true diversity looks like.

Hollywood champions diversity when it comes to casting, but many of the White producers and directors there don’t actually have enough interest in diversity to delve into a culture that is not their own. No, they should not be able to use the excuse that they don’t know enough about other cultures because the opportunity is there to hire advisors or even have some of the actors give advice. Yet, Black-washing gives them the easiest way out because they believe that Black people are desperate and accepting of their scraps. The truth is that many of the major producers in Hollywood are not interested in expanding their interest. Black-washing is simply another way for them to brush the issue under the rug, with very little effort to include diversity, especially when many of them are reluctant to recruit creative thinkers from even a small number of people from underrepresented groups behind the scenes.

Despite a major increase of Black people in media, what has been staggering is the amount of Black showrunners. Black screenwriters and directors are also very few. In 2017 alone, only 5.1% of showrunners were reported to be Black. Many of the Black people that are on-set sometimes don’t even honestly get a say in how the characters are created, not even when it comes to the creation of Black people in fiction.

As Cord Jefferson, writer of The Good Place (2016-2020), put it: “Something that happens a lot when it comes to diversity in Hollywood ― and everywhere else ― is that people will just populate the room with people of color or queer people or women but not really respect those people’s voices or pay attention to what they’re saying. It feels like you’re diversity decoration a little bit, as opposed to a valuable member of the team.”

Executives mistakenly believe that simply having a “racial-neutral” cast or staff is the best way to add more diversity. As we can see, that only addresses the problem of diversity superficially. When I see a movie that Black-washes in this sort of “color-blind” way, I become very skeptical of the intentions. I do recognize that some producers or casting directors simply want to show talent without discrimination, but this method makes it seem as if they do not actually care who they cast in the role. This is why we get diverse-looking characters, but an absence of diverse story-telling.

Abbott Elementary, a TV series that focuses on a predominately Black school and its teachers, manages to highlight Black characters in a way Black people, especially educators, can relate to because of its authenticity. To date, Abbott Elementary has the best comedy ratings on ABC since Modern Family, even in a time when streaming services dominate traditional cable TV. What makes the show fantastic is that it is not “color-blind”. It is an original story with the intent of showcasing what it is like to work with Black children in a low-income area. Despite the fact that the show does not focus on White people (even with a handful of White people in the show), it still manages to relate to people of various backgrounds. The show didn’t have to be a Black version of an established “White” series nor did the show have to focus on White culture’s influence on Black people.

Instead, what makes this show appealing is that it is an authentic Black story, and because the cast is predominately Black, we don’t have to rely on “token” Black voices to get a full picture of what being Black is like. Through the characters of this show, we can see a variety of attitudes and feelings that can relate to anyone who is a teacher or has ever taught in a low-income school. The show also doesn’t have to shy away from Black culture in order to avoid stereotyping. Instead, it approaches stereotypes in a nuanced way, allowing for Black audiences to recognize themselves while relating to a variety of characters who approach these topics differently. While the show draws inspiration from the other mocumentary-style comedies before it, viewers can feel the intention was to tell a Black story. The best part is it is written by a Black person (Quinta Brunson).

This is what I’m hoping will happen in the future when companies are dealing with Black movies and shows. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being inspired from European stories nor do I think it is wrong to cast more people of color. However, I think we need to do better when it comes to recognizing Black people outside of the face alone, taking on the opportunity to also show respect for where we come from and exploring that experience to make more authentic Black content.

As far as acting as historical figures, we don’t have to be honored in White history in order to prove that we are a part of history. Believe it or not, we Black people have our own history outside of the White European diaspora. We have had kingdoms. We have had Gods. We have had heroes and villains. But how will other generations know or understand this if all they have to see is a White interpretation of Blackness or culturally assimilated Blackness? Black-washing in Hollywood might give us temporary excitement and representation, but will it give us something to look back on that will make us proud to be who we are for a lifetime? I honestly do not think so.

I want to know what you all think. Do you think “Black-washing” is beneficial or is the concept regressive? Do you think it actually exists or is it just all in our heads?

Sincerely,

Guest Writer VenusLove

Kids’ Choice Awards 2014 is Coming This Weekend!

Click the Link Below:

http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards

Go online and vote! The line-up this year is better than it’s been in years! Actors and Actresses who can actually act, comedians who are actually funny, musical artists worthy of the attention, and movies that each deserve a blimp! Check it out!

KCA has always been a big event for kids. It was the first awards’ show where kids could have a voice in choosing what’s popular according to entertainment geared toward them. Of course, many teens and adults also vote. He he Guilty…

Let’s walk down Memory Lane…

So much nostalgia, I can’t breathe…cough…cough…

Let’s hope the performances are good this year, and hopefully it’s exciting…just as it used to be.

KCA will be held tomorrow, March 29, 2014, 8/7c so stay tuned!

You can also vote for Teen Nick’s Your Choice Awards!

https://www.facebook.com/90sAreAllThat

The winning show will air TONIGHT!

Disney Has Lost Touch with the Male Audience, No Male Princes

Disney has released the movie Frozen not too long ago, and though the movie was better than anything they’ve released in a long time (with one great musical number, and a twisted new story line, with a few plot holes), it still is missing several things. One of those things is its ability to relate to a male audience.

Over the past few years, Disney has failed to relate to their male audience. We’ve had several movies geared to women (The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Brave), and few movies geared to males. The last movie Disney ever had geared to boys was Wreck it Ralph and that was also made by Pixar. Disney really hasn’t had a musical with the male as the lead since Hercules.

And okay, I’m not just talking about having male heroes as main characters. Even the female characters fail to relate to boys. Mulan was the last (and really, only) female heroine that related to both men and women.

With all of this emphasis on female heroines, it leaves the male audience disconnected from Disney, labeling it as something feminine and “just for girls”. This isn’t really the first time it has been like this. Look at this old trailer for Alice in Wonderland, and we see that Disney began that way.

And since when has Disney ever had a male Prince as the lead character? Talk about sexism and unfair treatment!

And Disney has done it again. Once again, look at Frozen. Disney’s lead characters in Frozen were considered icons of “feminism” (though not really, Is Frozen a feminist movie?), rather than relating to boys. Mulan had that strong, brave, with-a-little-clumsiness type of personality (which relates to girls), but Mulan had the same experiences men in war have had, the same desire to bring honor to her father and her family, and hardly any “pretty-ful” dresses. She had substance and depth, not merchandising gimmicks.

To add, the few lead male characters in Frozen were forgettable and one-dimensional.

So I ask, why has Disney disconnected from it’s male audiences? The last good movies of the 1990’s have had male leads, so it couldn’t be because movies with males don’t sell very well (box office sales were at their best then). Maybe it’s because they’ve had too many movies with males taking over the box office…(?)

But as I said, from the start, Disney has had a hard time catering to males. This needs to change. Once it does, Disney will really grab the audience’s attention, much like they did with movies in the 1990’s.

Frozen is popular now, but I don’t see it being a timeless classic, like the Lion King, Mulan, Tarzan, Hercules, or Beauty and the Beast. This is because Disney is so focused on imitating the crude humor of Dreamworks. The difference is they want to cater it exclusively to a female audience.

The Disney Channel also seems to be infested with tween girls. It’s so bad, they had to make a completely SEPARATE channel for boys (Disney XD) instead of just merging the two, and gaining both audiences…What’s the deal, Disney? This is exactly why boys can’t take Disney seriously nowadays and would rather watch Dreamworks movies.

Just something that’s been bothering me lately…

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think about Disney’s “attack of the females”…

Also, mosey on over to: Is Frozen a feminist movie or a sexist one?

Frozen Review

Just finished watching the all-new Disney animated movie Frozen. The best word to describe it: Fair.

The story is about two sisters who, while young, played together. One sister had a special magical ability: she could turn everything to ice. One day, this sister with ice powers mishandles the ice and hurts the other sister. From that moment on, she is forbidden from using her powers.

SPOILERS BELOW

The best Frozen Review is by Bestforfilm.com and Whatculture.com!

He explains things in a way I wanted to, but can’t. With all of the hype, merchandising, pretty graphics, and captivating music, one may ignore that Frozen was medicore. I certainly did. The graphics and music stole my spirit away. It wasn’t until I left the theaters did I realize I still had questions…And I began to really think about the movie plot holes.

Read some good reviews about Frozen!

Best for Film

What Culture

The Mary Sue

They touched on some points and there are points left missing for me as well:

1) Elsa was locked away all those years as a child, as Anna tried to get her to come out. So who fed Elsa? Did she eat her ice? Couldn’t Anna have used those moments to try to reach her sister? Or did she eat at all? Did Anna get her dinner? Who took care of them after their parents died at such young ages? ALL of that was left untouched!

2) Olaf knew about the summer. How? When he’s never seen summer or heard of it from anyone? He knew about summer, but didn’t know snowmen couldn’t be under the summer sun and that he could melt? Who told him about summer? No clarity there, Disney.

And how was Olaf re-created in the ice? Why did Elsa re-create him? Was she thinking about her sister when she re-designed him? Would’ve been a touching point.

3) Kristoff KNEW that Anna was the girl, or was like the girl, that got her heart frozen a long time ago. Why didn’t he say anything? Or why weren’t there any scenes showing him trying to hide anything? He acted like it was never in his memories. How could he keep that secret for so long? Why wasn’t that used to make him more important to the story? Other than taking Anna to the ice mountain, which frankly, couldn’t have been far, because Hans, a foreigner, found it easily, what purpose did Kristoff serve?

Disney placed him in the scene to watch Anna’s healing. Why? Why did they show us that scene? They acted like it was supposed to be a foreshadowing, but that scene served no purpose.

4) WHERE DID ELSA GET HER POWERS? The biggest question of all. That was not explained at all, and glossed over as normal, even though Elsa was the ONLY one with powers in her family. Why was she born with powers and not her sister or anyone else in the kingdom (that wasn’t a troll)? The trolls were family; they knew there were people like them. But Elsa was alone. You’d think she’d question why she has to be locked up and not her sister, you’d think she’d wonder why she has powers and not her sister, and you’d think she’d want to break free to find others like her or discover more about her powers. I mean, if I felt alone, I would want to know if there are others like me…Would’ve made a better story than Anna and Kristoff’s pointless romance for over 160 minutes of the movie.

5) The trolls. What purpose did they serve other than to tell us how to break the ice spell? And how did they know about spells and magic? Why didn’t they ever tell Anna anything? How were they able to keep the secret? There were no interesting “slip-of-mouth” moments. They just dutifully and perfectly kept the secret…okay….

6) Can we elaborate on Kristoff’s past a little bit? How did he become an orphan or when did his parents die? What was his lifestyle like living with the trolls as a HUMAN? Where did he get his clothing? Where does he currently live and work? Anna only knew him for a day, just like Hans. So, why was the moral NOT to fall in love with a guy you’ve just met, when Anna fell in love with Kristoff in one day? Contradictory.

7) Why did they need to hide Elsa’s powers from Anna in the first place? The trolls implied that hiding it would keep Anna alive, but once Anna found out about it, she was fine…

8) Anna comes to tell Elsa that the whole kingdom is snowed in. Elsa looks back in surprise and goes, “Really?” How could she not have known that the whole kingdom was covered in snow when her whole surroundings was snow in the MIDDLE OF SUMMER? She looked back at the kingdom in the musical number Let it Go! How could she not have known that?

9) The trolls told the parents that “fear would be Elsa’s worst enemy”. So, what’s the parents’ solution? Lock her up and make her afraid…

10) If love is the only way for Elsa to control her powers, shouldn’t she have been in control of it before? She loved her sister and her parents. She didn’t figure that out a long time ago? And since the trolls know so much, why didn’t they simply just TELL Elsa that?

11) Why did this land get so worked up about being “iced over” when their main export is ice?

If we see the forest instead of the trees, we could all enjoy the story. But if you start to look at each individual tree, in this movie, you will find flaws. Nobody should put this on the level of Lion King or Beauty and the Beast. It doesn’t deserve an Oscar, it doesn’t deserve an Academy, and it doesn’t deserve a Golden Globe. But it does deserve a Grammy, and that’s because the music is the only thing driving this story home. That and the pretty animation meant to blind people to the fact that this movie had a poorly written story.

People seem to like the ideas in the story rather than the actual story itself. I hear so many people saying, “Oh I like that Anna is saved by Elsa’s love instead of a man’s” and “Elsa is just like me. She is trying to hide who she is, and learns to just let go and be herself.” And those ideas, in and of themselves, are awesome to add to a kid’s movie. But those ideas can be more realized and understood in a movie that has order, structure, and a clear direction. Otherwise, all the lovely humanitarian messages are lost. The movie ended up seeming more sexist than feminist, and less about a girl trying to be herself and more of a girl not really caring about anyone but herself. Click me to find out why this movie isn’t feminist.

Elsa being “herself” involved a selfish act of running away, leaving a loved one alone to freeze, and never taking responsibility. Anna being saved by Elsa didn’t make Anna less of a damsel-in-distress than any princess before her, even if it was her sister who saved her. All messages contradicted themselves. So, if we set aside all of the “agendas” being forced into the story, we are now left with the story…Which is predictable and mediocre. In fact, I think people saw what they wanted to see in this movie. I had one girl try to explain to me how Elsa was abused by her parents and isolated herself, and that’s why she related to Elsa…However, no one else saw Elsa as that kind of character. It’s easy for people to look for characters to relate to them and to find something. Honestly, I don’t think Disney intended to do anything different. But because the reaction was positive, they are rolling with it and repeating it for other movies in the future.

They told us this was a “sister” movie, but this didn’t feel like one. They didn’t make this sisterly love believable. Over 106 minutes were spent on Kristoff and Anna’s romance! I wish that there was more screen time between the sisters. I wished I could’ve seen them bond. When Elsa attended her coronation, she and Anna almost felt like strangers meeting for the first time.

Let’s not even get started on the lyrics. It was obvious this was made to compete with Dreamworks’ idea of a musical. The speech was not authentic at all. Let’s use “For the First Time in Forever” as an example. “There is the window, so is that door, I didn’t know they did that before.” That was really…sad. But when it gets to “I don’t know if I’m elated or gassy, or somewhere in that zone”, I was done. Let’s throw a “butt joke” in there to make it a little corny. Boy, I sure do miss “Circle of Life” and “I Just Can’t Wait to be King”. And Lion King took place in modern times, so it can get away with lame modern jokes in songs like “Hakuna Matata”. But Frozen is supposed to be from a time that doesn’t use the word “totally”. You think Mulan would have jokes like that? No. It was still for kids, but completely meaningful and authentic for the times. Elton John, where are you?

Despite the cheesiness, though, the music was still rather charming in its own way…I certainly overlooked the lyrical flaws when “Let it Go” popped on the screen…

However, I really do miss soundtracks like Hunchback of Notre Dame….WOW. Truly impressive music there. But hey, at least this time, the music was memorable, unlike in the other CGI animated movie, Tangled. Still, honestly, Tangled‘s story was better constructed. While it didn’t break any stereotypes, or bring any new elements to a kid’s movie, it used tried-and-true methods in a way that formed a solid story with few plot holes. Frozen threw in a few attractive ideas, but didn’t form a story that was believable or solid.

At least, however, the music conveyed more feeling than any of the movies of this decade. Elsa stole the show in “Let it Go” and “For the First Time in Forever”. But many songs sounded like they stepped out of a Shrek movie. This Disney movie had more songs than any movie they’ve had. Nine of them to be exact, and some of them were just in there to be in there. They added nothing to the story. If you listen to the whole soundtrack without watching the movie, you really would be confused about what’s happening. Only four songs really tie the whole thing together. Some songs just seem to throw the whole story off. There were two that were unforgettable, about two that were memorable, but there were many that were just forgettable.

I do appreciate darker characters like Elsa. I also find Hans to be interesting as he seems to “mirror” anyone he comes into contact with, which adds to his deception. It’s interesting that he was named after the original author of the story.

However, this movie limits itself to being blown off as a kid’s film by the more detailed-oriented people. This movie, of all movies, had potential to be a super family flick. There have been movies that have been for kids that have been good for every kind of person. An American Tail was just for kids, but meaningful and interesting. Frozen could’ve done that had the wrinkles been ironed out.

The fact that there are people who like it so much is bitter-sweet. The up-side is that Disney will now turn its focus on making more powerful female leads, like all the other movies in Hollywood nowadays. The downside is that Disney will hand us these characters in butchered up stories that don’t make sense. That’s exactly what they did with Maleficent. That means more rushed, stuffed, and “merchandising” movies in the future.

The movie relies on itunes hits and dolls selling to get its point across. Everything seemed rushed and stuffed to make this movie a feminist flick, which it kind of failed at. It was all designed to appeal to simple emotions and to rewrite an already perfect story created by Christian Andersen. It was all designed to appeal to the “modern” idea that “everyone is a victim”. Puh-leeze.

Frozen is praised for being a feminist movie, but it isn’t. Feminism is the idea that men and women are equal to one another. Kristoff was not equal to Anna in any way. He was a useless character that served no purpose. This movie was to put women ABOVE men on many levels. This movie was to tell women they don’t need men, which is not feminism. It is sexist. If a man went around saying, “I don’t need women”, it would be deemed a sexist movie. This movie is no different, so why are we treating it differently?

In fact, this movie didn’t show two strong, powerful female characters. It showed two versions of women: The naive, typical damsel-in-distress Anna, and her Emo, misunderstood, irresponsible sister, Elsa.

Anna attempts to be brave and save her sister, riding off towards the snow-capped mountains. But then, her brave points diminish as she receives help from Kristoff to get up the mountain. After she is frozen in ice, waiting for someone to rescue her, be it sister or boyfriend, she dumbed herself down to a damsel-in-distress.

People may think this movie is a feminist movie, but how would this movie turn out with male main characters? If we take the two female characters out and replace them with men, would we honestly say there were no flaws? If we make Kristoff a girl, would it be any better? No. I’ll bet then people would clearly see the plot holes, though. But oh no, the little movie renovations, sparkly traditional dresses, and musical scores hid all that was missing. It jumped around the details and got to the big picture…Unfortunately, many of the details were needed to bring the story together to make the big picture.

I can admit the movie was entertaining. Despite its failed attempt at being feminist, it was still an entertaining movie. Could I see myself watching this again? Maybe when I’m bored or want to watch my collection of Disney movies. But did this deserve awards? No. Does Frozen deserve praise for pushing social agendas? No.

If we’re talking feminist movies, Mulan is an idea of a feminist movie, not a sexist one. She saved China just like any man could’ve done. She went through the same training as all the other men. She had the same reasons for becoming a soldier as all the other men: to honor her father and to find where she belonged. She saved a man’s life through her courage. But she still loved men, just like men love women, and he was her prize for winning the war, just like men end up with a lady at the end of their movies. Men view women as a prize, why can’t women view men that way? It was an “equal” movie.

Feminism at Dictionary.com

People think because Mulan falls in love with a man, the movie is traditional and therefore the movie isn’t feminist enough. Or perhaps people are waiting for something to pass the Bechdel Test. But that’s distorting the idea of feminism. The idea of feminism is not to break some traditional rule or to do something different to make men respect women and “bow down” to women. The point of feminism is to help men respect women as their equals.

Does Frozen get respect from men as “equal” to movies catered to males? Or does it just seem like a “Girl Power” movie, that puts women above men, more like a SEXIST movie would?

I’d say the latter.

A Youtuber named Sorafanchick puts it nicely in response to a “defender” of Frozen:

Part I

[In response to Hans being the villain of Frozen] …While Hans is the antagonist, [he] may not necessarily be villainous as his character is constituted in the story to be a good character, before he is revealed to be the antagonist.

Definition of a Villain: (in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.

Unfortunately, Hans’s actions were not extremely important to the main plot of the story.  In contrast, Elsa could also be considered to be the villain, as she causes a storm in Arendale and doesn’t care who is affected by it throughout the entire story. She is the one that Anna is seeking to “conquer”, Anna who is the main character.  Elsa is set as the deuteragonist; the second important character that could go either way.

Definition of an Antagonist: a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary

This is more of what Hans is…He is an obstacle to the main characters eventually, an interference with the main characters’ goals. But he is not necessarily the villain throughout the entire story.

Antagonists and villains are not even synonyms of one another.

[Mentioning several things wrong with the story]

1.) No strong plot/story development. There was a good idea here: a sister who has dangerous powers and a sister who wants to get closer with the only family she has. But throughout the movie this relationship is not developed. Therefore the entire plot is messy. The movie instead focuses more on Kristoff and Anna’s relationship….At this point in the movie I become confused as to what the movie is even about.

2.) No strong character development. Sure, Elsa’s character was interesting…her struggle with her powers would have been wonderful for me to see…if only she was the main character in this type of story. If they had kept with the original tale by Hans Christian Anderson The Snow Queen, then having Anna as the main character would have been easier to maneuver and develop throughout the story. But, in this movie, by them making Elsa a character with trials of her own, it would have been easier to see her internal fight had she’d been the main character instead. If Elsa were the main character every person she would meet would teach her something about herself. She would gradually but surely understand that her powers are not evil, but can be good. We would go through a journey with Elsa understanding the creative and destructive powers that Elsa beholds. But that didn’t happen in this movie. Instead we get Elsa sitting in a castle and that’s the last we hear from her until Hans comes after her. (ironically the antagonist is named after the writer. They should have called him Disney instead). 😛
Then we have Kristoff…all he is is the ice selling chauffeur. We have no back story of him accept that he lives with trolls. How did he come to live with the trolls? What happened to his parents? Then we have these unnecessary trolls (more than likely made to compete with the Smurfs’ movies) who could have served the purpose of telling Anna about Elsa’s past…but instead they say nothing. They act as if they forgot everything that’s happened. If they had told Anna, Anna would have understood her sister better. What was the purpose of Anna’s parents not telling Anna? Didn’t they want to protect Anna? Along with the movie’s magnificent animation are its magnificent plot holes….

3.) Plot holes. Many of them unexplained. First of all we know there is magic in the world…but yet we don’t know why Elsa got these supposed powers and Anna and the parents did not. Again, Kristoff had some kind of family in the beginning…but we never get clarity on what exactly happened to them. After [the sisters’] parents die…who takes care of the sisters? Usually in every good movie we would also see a developing connection with someone who takes care of the protagonist in this kind of story situation…but I guess they just took care of themselves…especially Elsa while locked up in a room (sarcasm). And we also have no idea why the smurfs/trolls told Anna absolutely nothing about Elsa and her powers, nor why the parents withheld this information. So with all of these unexplained things that could have added to each character’s likeness…we are left with nothing. Kristoff ends up being an uninteresting and rather useless character to the story. Anna and Elsa seem almost not to be sisters at all even towards the end. They never actually rekindled their relationship. Elsa just showed some random act of kindness that broke the spell. But it didn’t feel genuine.

4.) The musical composition. Now I will admit there were some pretty catchy songs in Frozen. However, the songs all felt really shallowly placed. In Disney’s greatest days, most times Disney would have songs that would reflect a change of event that is about to occur in the main character’s life. Even songs introducing new characters often shared with the audience that this character would make a major impact on the main character in some way. Sadly in Frozen, only 3 songs did that. Out of nine songs…only three songs actually reflected important events in the main character’s life: “The First Time in Forever”, “Let it Go”, and “Love is an Open Door”. These songs were placed to be important to the main story, therefore we could feel the emotion of the characters singing them. When a song is important to the events in a character’s life, not only does it have more feeling but it also avoids being an annoying song just to be a song. Sadly the other songs in Frozen were annoyingly placed. People broke out in song for no apparent reason. To add…who has NINE songs? This was obviously set up to be a Broadway musical…but the difference between a Broadway musical again is that Broadways are LONGER. A feature film usually is not nearly as long. Its no wonder there was hardly any character development/interaction…the movie characters spent most of the time singing about nothing relevant to the movie. Just listen to the soundtrack as if you never watched the movie….could you honestly say that you know what the movie is about when listening to all the songs on the soundtrack? Through the “Do you Want to Build a Snowman song”, for example, would you honestly know that something tragic occurred at that pivotal moment? I listened to the soundtrack before watching the movie. I liked the songs at first…but when I watched the movie that’s when I realized how distracting the songs were to what this story is even about.

With all due respect, I felt this movie was a good attempt at captivating people who are easily entertained by a few good catchy tunes and pretty CGI animation. But as for me, when I spend 16-20 bucks on a movie, especially a Disney movie, I want to see more depth and effort on the creators’ part. I did not see effort in this movie. All I saw was Disney using clever tools to make money: pushing social agendas, make creative-looking animation, catchy songs, and making two princesses instead of one so they can sell even more merchandise. Even the Disney creators said they wish they had developed the sisters’ relationship more (See Frozen deleted scene on Youtube).
But did they honestly care about good story composition that would have made this movie a quality movie? IDTS.  Too bad Frozen is popular. Disney’s going to ride on the back of this…SMH I used to work in the field of animation. But when I saw where it was headed…I moved away from it very quickly…

Best Disney movie of this decade? No. Tangled is probably the best Disney movie of this decade because at least Tangled had a story foundation…In fact, Enchanted made a better Disney movie than this movie. Two very underrated movies. And Frozen can never be compared to Disney’s renaissance, not even close. This movie simply reminded me, a long time fan of Disney, why I miss Disney’s Renaissance even more.

The sad part is the makers of the film were thinking: “Let’s make a feature film into a rehashed Wicked Broadway play (let’s get the same actress too)…that’ll make us lots of money….nobody will care if there is no story or character development because people want to hear popular catchy modern music and see pretty colors”.  That is exactly how Frozen came to be.

PART II

[When asked why they didn’t just ignore the plot holes] I try not to ignore ANYTHING. This is why I noticed the good with this movie (the catchy music, beautiful animation) and the bad (no plot development, no character development, too many plot holes, and shallow music composition). Every movie has flaws, but sometimes too many flaws can dampen the greatness of it, especially if it makes it difficult to follow the story line.

[In response to someone who believed the movie was like the 1990’s classics] There are plenty of people who say the movie Frozen can be compared to Disney’s classics, which I have to disagree. You did however say, that this movie somehow shows proper understanding of why a Disney Classic is the best. That I also disagree with. This movie again showed me Disney has a long way to go.

Good musical numbers? I stated that there are some catchy tunes. But are they good necessarily? Shall I quote a lyric from the song “First Time in Forever? “There is the window, so is that door, I didn’t know they did that anymore…..” “I don’t know if I’m elated or gassy, or somewhere in that zone, but for the first time in forever I won’t be alone.”
These verses, to name a few, feel as if a kid wrote it. It doesn’t take effort to write something like this. I really do miss when Elton John was the composer for Disney’s music.

While there are Disney movies that often have missed details (such as in the Little Mermaid, Ariel can clearly write her name on Ursula’s contract, but decides to use awkward hand gestures instead), yet the details that helped to understand the plot/story development were usually present in Disney’s old movies. [In response to someone who suggested there were plot holes in Beauty and the Beast] In DISNEY’s original version of Beauty and the Beast, they never stated what age the Beast was when he was enchanted. And if he was 12 at the time of his enchantment, we know that that might explain why, when he returned to being human, he was a grown man by then. So how is that good evidence that this movie had a plot hole? [In response to someone referencing one of Disney’s sequels] To add, if you are talking about Disney’s sequels (Beauty and the Beast 3)…most of them have ALL been bad except Lion King 2, Simba’s Pride. lol

What I will say is a plot hole [in] Beauty and the Beast (the ORIGINAL) is that there is no evidence as to what kind of enchantress…. cast the spell and why she used a rose as a clock to determine its permanence.  But since her role is not relevant to the main story/plot (the story is about Beauty and the beast), this is not a mandatory detail and could easily be overlooked.

The details in Frozen that were heavily left out were VERY important to character development and story development. For example, if we knew who took care of Elsa while she was growing up, it might have helped us see more about Elsa’s relationship with her Kingdom as well as her sister. We would have understood how serious it was for Elsa to withhold her powers because there would be many people that she cares about at stake. Hell, the caretaker wouldn’t have to be an extremely important character. In Mulan, her mother and grandmother are not extremely important to the story. But they help us to see what kind of family Mulan has and get to understand the seriousness of Mulan making her family proud. This is why the placement of characters is very important.
Kristoff didn’t need a back story, sure. But he would have been a more lovable character had we understood a little more about his history and how he came to be the way he is toward Anna. For example, the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast” didn’t have a strong backstory, but we knew why he was angry all the time because we know in the past he was cast with a horrible spell that made his handsome yet arrogant self into a beast and his whole kingdom turned into castle ornaments. That is enough detail for us to understand his anger and personality. With Kristoff we are given nothing for us to feel anything toward this character. He is simply there to be the chauffeur. He is as dead as the prince in Cinderella and Snow White. The difference being, those Princes didn’t take up HALF the movie time. They served their purpose and that was that. Most of Frozen’s movie was about Anna and Kristoff, Kristoff being the character with hardly any importance to the main plot. How can a movie have a male lead with absolutely no development nor importance? He was a waste of space in this movie. And about Elsa having powers…its very important for us to know why she was cursed/blessed with such a power, because it is the main issue in the entire story.

When I saw this movie, so much was left in a messy disarray, that it was difficult for me to like this movie. If not for the powerful “Let it Go” number, and interesting Elsa character…I would not have liked this movie at all! But those elements made the movie more bearable. And themes of sisterly love? It’s about sisters mostly in “idea: form. The movie was more about Anna and Kristoff than Anna and Elsa lol. The supposed “theme” of sisterly love was a scam to make money, while they really created yet another man/woman love story. You just fell for it.

Overall, despite the plot holes, inconsistencies, and failed humanitarian concepts, the movie was something entertaining for the whole family. This movie aggravates me with its plot holes, but it’s so charming, who can hate it for long? Like a child. They may get on your nerves for a minute,but it’s so hard to hate them. The music will be stuck in your head, you will enjoy every scene because of the animation, and the overall story can be followed and engaging, even if many things just don’t make sense. Perhaps Disney will later explain my questions in a sequel. Who knows. In the meantime, I still do recommend this movie for a watch on Netflix.