From Chamber Maid to Princess: The Story is Always More Complicated

I've been meaning for quite some time to offer a response to Monique Fields' article, Enough With Princesses!, in which she rightly criticizes the heteronormative gender hierarchy that encourages little girls to fantasize about becoming "princesses" - courtesy of Disney mega-corporate dreaming. Specifically, Fields argues, the issue is this hegemonic gender role and not that Disney is targeting African American consumers in a new marketing ploy to sell the latest toys, video games, and fashions that tie in to their upcoming animated movie, The Princess and the Frog, featuring the first African American princess. I wish it were only about gender and that we could just excoriate these animation features (see, for example, this criticism of Pixar's gender limitations) in their failure to envision something different for women and girls. But, if you've been reading my blog, you know that gender cannot be separated from the intersections of race, class, sexuality, nationality, etc.

The problem is not just about "princesses." The problem is also cultural - what does it mean this story pertaining to African Americans is based on a British fairy tale vs., say, an Angolan folk tale that also features a frog (here, the frog gets the princess without having to turn into a handsome prince; hence the moral of the story is not for a woman to overlook appearances but to accept the one who will labor the hardest for her love)? Beyond the "source" fairy tale used to create this story is the historical fiction developed to ground this fantasy in "reality." Thus, we don't get a setting in a "land far far away" - could be Timbuktu or some make-believe country on the make-believe continent of Atlantis for all we care - but instead, we get a setting in a very familiar land called the United States of America, in 1920s New Orleans to be specific. Really? Our first African American princess and she's supposed to be living in the deepest of the Deep South, at the height of Jim Crow segregation, severe poverty, and lynchings? I mean, Post-Katrina New Orleans ain't got nothing on 1920s New Orleans! Oh, but of course! This is the musical setting for the birth of jazz. Black music must drive the story, mustn't it? Okay, I can get with that.

No wonder, then, that this "fantasy" is based in "reality" (for all Disney princess stories are intended to have this fantasy in place, considering that, as an American culture based in democracy, we're not trying to feel any aristocratic elitism in nations where monarchs rule and where princes even have their worth for intended princesses: if he's heir to the throne, she too might rule as queen one day and thus "share" in this absolute power. That's the reality vs. the "fantasy" of just wanting to dress up and be treated as if one were a "princess," correct?). However, this first African American princess is first realized as a chambermaid by the name of Maddie. While I understand the criticism of this premise, which led to a rewrite in which our protagonist is then changed into a waitress by the name of Tiana who aspires to own her own restaurant (again, "reality" intrudes on the story for me to say, in 1920s New Orleans? Really?), I also think there is room for subversion in imagining a chambermaid who becomes a princess. Think Cinderella. So, the problem is not just about "princesses." The problem is about socioeconomic status.

Then, there is 1920s New Orleans, which must seem to the filmmakers to be as mystical as any faraway kingdom in some faraway land because the music puts us in that mindset, but how does one realistically address the racial issues here? Apparently, we won't get those issues addressed because most of the drama will take place with Tiana, our first African American princess, as a frog. That's right! As my mom exclaimed, while lapsing into her West Indian dialect, when I first broke the story to her: "You mean to tell me we get our first black princess, and they turn her into a crapeau?!" (That's patois for "frog," for those of you needing a translation.) Which, of course, means the problem is not just "princesses." It is and always will be a racial one.

Here's the premise, from what I've gathered. Tiana, growing up in New Orleans in a family of servants, has ambitions to have her own restaurant. In this enchanting city, Prince Naveen of some indistinct foreign country travels to New Orleans for the jazz. For whatever his transgressions, he is turned into a frog by an evil voodoo priest (oh yes, because New Orleans voodoo must be associated with sinister "black magic," mustn't it?). Realizing that he needs to be kissed by a princess to be turned back into human form, he mistakes Tiana for one, who is dressed up as a princess for Mardi Gras, and convinces her to kiss him so that he could become Prince Charming. They do, and Tiana is the one who transforms by becoming a frog. (So, is Tiana being punished here for daring to pretend she is of a higher status than she really is? i.e. - there goes that "uppity negro.") The two then spend much of the movie in the Louisiana bayou, where they encounter those typical cuddly animals, like a firefly with missing teeth (didn't know fireflies had teeth) and an ambitious alligator by the name of Louie who plays a mean trumpet. Sounds familiar?

Think "King Louie" from The Jungle Book:


Uh-huh, and yes, I absolutely love that scene from The Jungle Book ("I'm gooooone, Man, solid gone!") since that song is definitely one of my favorite Disney tunes ever, despite the racialization of monkeys (let's not pretend we don't see the association), so I can imagine how much fun this new movie could be if they've got a really tight soundtrack, but I can't help but feel the animalization of the story is about both racial avoidance AND racial familiarity. I'm sure there will be cute and cool moments like this one too.

Yet, not all of Disney's racializations are amusing: think the wild Indians in Peter Pan, which are hand-drawn in the most mean-spirited depictions, or the inclusion of that Topsy "pickaninny" servant in the now banned scene from Fantasia. Not only were these uglified stereotypes created as stock characters in Disney movies, but their opposites - the beautifully drawn white characters - were deliberately presented as a contrast of superiority. Perhaps this is why the movie has already received criticism when it appeared that Prince Naveen was not black like Tiana. And, once again, it appears the filmmakers tried to appease the critics by darkening his skin tone; however, there is no denying his Europeanized features or, for that matter (whether he is "black" or not) the history of colorism that has plagued African Americans - especially in New Orleans - in which black men and women have learned to value lighter skin in a potential partner. Nor does it help matters that Prince Naveen, as handsome Prince Charming, is lighter than the evil villain, Facilier, our black voodoo priest.

For me, however, I don't have a problem with Prince Naveen not being black. In light of our racial history, where interracial unions were prohibited by law (but exploited in the night), this again would have served as a moment of racial subversion had the filmmakers imagined that a white Prince could have married a black chambermaid/waitress. Had they the courage to pursue such a story, then the villain could not be some black voodoo priest but some no good white segregationist powerful member of the Ku Klux Klan with their own secret magic powers to turn said prince into a frog. But, we can't have such a story, can we? It would mean having to deal with racial injustice, which would necessarily have to be challenged in order to imagine our Prince and Princess together. Instead, we turn them into frogs and have them spend time in the bayou before some good magical black woman makes them human again.

There are, however, moments of positive gender roles, it seems. First, there is Tiana with her own goals and ambitions. And, as a frog, Tiana is the one who apparently comes to the rescue of our frog prince since she's a scrappy young thing not unused to hard life and struggles. But then again, aren't black women always conceptualized as tough fighters who come to the rescue of their men? We certainly don't get to be dainty damsels in distress. Beyond that, as I already mentioned, there is a good, wise, and powerful voodoo woman, Mama Odie (Pictured here: could she be more stereotypical? And, did they have to make her unrecognizably human?) to counter the evil Facilier. Still, from what we know of the story, they could either make it work into something fun and enchanting and not too offensive, or they could ruin it by being completely over-the-top in their offensiveness.

I don't want to be one of those critics making pointed observations that force filmmakers to make changes just to avoid being offensive or, worse, to try to be as "politically correct" as possible. I much prefer those who are "politically astute" in these things. To me, you either stand by what you've created, or you don't bother at all. At the same time, however, despite the gender, race, class, and cultural problems of these "princess" stories, there is something to be said about Disney's history, which began with Snow White and now heralds a new era of Princess Tiana. It's great that we can now imagine a Disney animation feature starring a black princess. But now that this story is in existence, what about giving us - whether it's Disney or Pixar or Dreamworks -a powerful black woman, who doesn't have to be turned into a frog before she finds her prince? What about giving us a Queen Njinga from Angola, who fought off the Portuguese as they tried to enslave her people? Better yet, give us an African American story rooted here, starring an animated Harriet Tubman who knows how to fly (like in so many of the children's stories about her), kick butt, and lead a people to freedom?

The problem with that last scenario is Disney would force Harriet Tubman to have an army of talking and singing forest animals, maybe even a cuddly North Star to talk to in the night. Maybe that story needs to be an epic action drama instead.

Do we have enough women and people of color in Hollywood who can conceptualize these stories? Because the ones already working in the industry definitely need our guidance.