Power to the Princess: Disney and the Creation ofthe 20* CenturyPrincess Narrative

Bridget WhelanUniversity of Louisiana at Eafajette

"If I WAS a princess—a REAL princess—1 could scatter largess to thepopulace. But even if I am only a pretend princess, 1 can invent little things to

do for people ... I'll pretend that to do things like this is scattering largess. I'vescattered largess."'

~A Little Princess (1904)

Most of us would agree that it would not be overstating things to assertthat the princess narrative has been a staple throughout the body of children'sliterature. Even before the Grimms' initial publication of their Kinder- undHausmärchen (1812), English-speaking children were enjoying translatedversions of literary French fairy tales, such as Madame de Beaumont's Ea Belleet la Bête (English translation, 1757). Both the Grimms' and the Frenchstorytellers' tales featured a wide variet)' of princess narratives. Finette inMarie-Jeanne L'Heritier's The Discreet Princess, or the Adventures of Finette, forexample, advises her father on sociopolitical decisions, defends herself from anardent suitor with a mallet, and tricks her own husband out of murdering her.The princess from the Grimms' "The Twelve Brothers" voluntarily secludesherself in a tree for seven years in order to save her twelve helplesslytransformed brothers. Whether dutiful or rebellious, rambunctious or sweet,princesses and their narratives featured prominently in the literary lives ofmany nineteenth century English and American children.

This trend in children's publishing continued with the publication ofAndrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book in 1889, which was succeeded by a virtualparade of Fairj Books in the years that followed: the Red (1890), the Green(1892), the Yellow (1894), the Pink (1897), the Grej (1900), the Violet (1901), theGrimson (1903), the Brown (1904), the Orange (1906), the Olive (1807), and the\Jlac (1910). Sandwiched within this colorful narrative display was Hodgson

Children's Media I 21t1

Burnett's A Little Prineess, wherein young Sara Crewe is not born a princess,nor does she ever become one. In fact, the nickname "Princess Sara" is at firstmockingly given to her by some of the other girls at Miss Minchin's boardingschool. Fortunately, clever, thoughtful Sara decides to appropriate her newidentity, and to use it as a means to remind herself to be kind and generoustowards others—in essence, to "scatter largess."

But here is the ironic thing about Sara Crew: she was not a princess.Instead, she served to represent what all girls at the time were encouraged toaspire toward: ideal girlhood. Locked away with fellow servant Becky in theattic of her now hostüe boarding school environment, Sara envisioned herselfa princess; she transformed herself into a veritable Rapunzel or SleepingBeauty in the Woods, trapped in a tower and awaiting rescue by an exoticprince from a foreign land—or, in Sara's case, an Indian lascar and his petmonkey. This image of stillness and passivity was echoed in other girls' booksthroughout the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centur)', for "thebest girls were passive, sdU," writes Deborah O'Keefe. "It was understood thatnot every girl came naturally to this exalted state but the rebellious ones wereurged to emulate the saindy ones, and they usually gave in by the end of thebook or at least the end of the series."^ Sara Crewe, however, does not somuch "give in" as give up—on the physical world around her, that is. Instead,she turns to the inner workings of her imagination, and in her mind's eye, thisis what saves her from Miss Minchin's dutches, as she believes the gifts thatMr. Carrisford and Ram Dass have lain out for herself and Becky have beenproduced by magic—and by her own imagination.

There is power here, however miniscule. Sara is rescued by the workingsof her own inriagination—something even Miss Minchin fears at times, thewoman at one point enthralled by the mesmerizing power of Sara's words onher "narrow, unimaginative mind."^ This imaginative power coincides withSara's actual physical escape, which involves her returning the lascar's monkeyto Mr. Carrisford's house. But it is at this point, towards the end of the novel,when Sara exclaims over her new wealth, recalling her earlier desire to "scatterlargess": "Yes ... and I can give buns and bread to the populace."'' For Sara,and for her author and readers, princesshood was both a state of mind and anemblem of ideal girlhood which encompassed duty, compassion, andcondescension towards the less fortunate. Becky the scullery maid is, after all,informed that she wül now be serving the "Missee Sahib" instead of the evüMiss Minchin—a rise in circumstances if not in situation.^

However, even with the publication of Burnet's widely-read and belovedA Little Prineess, the imprint the princess narrative was making on children'sliterature and culture was only just beginning. The mande of princesshood wasto be taken up by the Walt Disney company, which released the world's firstever feature-length animated film, a groundbreaking retelling of a Grimms'fairy tale: Snow Wbite and tbe Seven Dwarfs (1937). The film begins and ends withthe opening and closing of a book, hinting at its literary origins and cleverlymaking the link for the audience between book and film. Interestingly, the tale

221 Interdisciplinar)' Humanities

loosely mimics the narrative of Burnett's A Uttle Princess: Snow White is borninto wealth, loses that wealth, and Uves in poverty for awhile, then reclaims ittowards the end. However, unUke Sara, Snow White remains a true princessthroughout the film. Perhaps more importandy, she is depicted not as a childbut as a young woman, her corseted dress oudining her small but womanlycurves, her face and hair made up to reflect what was considered attractive fora young woman at the time. Perhaps the most significant difference betweenthe two Ues in the fact that Snow White is thoroughly tricked by the evil femalepresence in the narrative and ultimately must be rescued by the prince.

The intention here, however, is not to draw too narrow a comparisonbetween Burnett's and Disney's narratives, but to instead show how Disneymanipulated a somewhat fluid, traditional, and existing narrative and shaped itinto their own. From that point onward, Disney staked a claim on the princessnarrative. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs became a formative film in the psycheof the American pubUc. By rendering the princess and her narrative on film,and in beautiful, vivid color at that, Disney brought the princess narrative toUfe in a way that children had never before witnessed it. Its impact was not tobe underestimated—and not just among young girls. "Like mothers andfathers everj'where," writes Sheldon Cashdan, "my parents read Hansel andGretel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and other popular tales to me."*» He continues:

But my most vivid childhood memories of fairy tales came byway of Walt Disney. I remember sitting on the edge of myseat in a darkened movie theater watching Snow White andholding my breath as the gamekeeper prepared to cut out theheroine's heart."^

And Cashdan agrees that the impact the film had on its audience wasoverwhelming, to say the least. "More than any other film," he points out,"Snow White and the Seven Dwa /̂i' heralded an era of fairy-tale animation thatchanged the pubUc's view of fairy tales forever."^ And as fiction for childrenmoved towards reaUsm for girls—books such as Laura IngaUs Wilder's UttleHouse on the Prairie books (series run 1932-2006, intermittendy) and the NangDrew (1930-present) and Trixie Beiden (1948-86) mystery series were the wildlypopular girls books of their day—Disney continued to exert a monopoly overthe princess narradve. And it was a monopoly that continued throughout thetwentieth century and into the next.

After Snow White, over ten years passed before Disney released theirsecond animated princess narrative. Ginderelta (1950) was then foUowed bySleeping Beauty (1959). These two films continued to conform to societalconvention regarding girls and their place in society. Novels written for girlscontemporary to the first "wave" of Disney princess movies suggested, saysDeborah O'Keefe, diat it was "desirable" for girl-heroines ".. . to have a sweetvoice so low it could hardly be heard."^ She condnues, "It was good for a gid-heroine to be misty, Usping, and inaudible, and even better for her to be

Children's Media I 23ti

dead."'" Two of the three first wave Disney princesses spend part of theirnarradves in death-like comas—each, of course, then wakened and rescued bya male prince. Cinderella, in a sense, is also rescued from a sodally inacdvestate—a state of poverty and servitude. These three films thus neatly solidifiedDisney's repackaging of the princess narradve, linking "princesshood" tocontemporary concepts of ideal girlhood, and presenting it to the public on thebig screen and in vivid color at a dme when such a thing was uncommon, andhence utterly capdvadng to its audience.

For awhile, however, the Walt Disney Company seemed content to moveon and explore other narratives and mediums, leaving the princess-centeredfairy tale narratives behind. But the lasdng impression had been made. Thesethree fairy tales—Snow White, Ginderella, and Sleeping Beauty—were now thosemost familiar to American (and perhaps other English-speaking) audiences.Early second wave feminists such as Marcia R. Lieberman became frustratedwith this growing dichotomy between less popular, less well-known but morefeminist fairy tales and those popularized by Disney. These more inherendyfeminist fair)' tales, she wrote, "are so reladvely unknown that they cannotseriously be considered in a study of the meaning of fairy tales to women."'*Instead, most children were, of course, more familiar with the tales retold byDisney. "Cinderella, the Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White are mythic figureswho have replaced the Old Greek and Norse gods, goddesses, and heroes formost children,"'- she rather dismally concludes.

Lieberman's suggesdon that large pordons of the American publicremained ignorant of the existence of the more feminist tales is a telling one. Itpoints out that Disney's monopoly over the princess narradve was nearlycomplete. Frustrated with the company's appropriadon and ultra-feminizadonof what could otherwise be seen as a powerful pro-feminist archetjfpe, feministcrides and authors attempted to reclaim the princess narrative by eitherretelling those lesser known tales or putdng a more feminist spin on thoseDisney had already retold. Jack Zipes' Don't Bet on the Prince (1987), which, notsurprisingly, included Lieberman's essay, featured fairy tale retellings byrenowned feminist authors such as Angela Carter, Margaret Atwood, JaneYolen, and Tanith Lee. One, dded "The Princess Who Stood On Her OwnTwo Feet," by Jeanne Desy, even features a princess who loudly declares, "APrincess says what she thinks. A Princess stands on her own two feet. APrincess stands tall."'^ "Mist)'," "lisping," and "inaudible" this princess is not!Outside the circle of academia, fantasists like Robin McKJnley and Donna Jo

. Napoli condnued the trend. Beauty, A Retelling of the Story of Beauty <¿y the Beast,McKinley's 1978 retelling of "Beauty and the Beast," for example, featured ayoung heroine inaccurately named Beauty who is, by her own admission, notbeaudful; Beauty is considered unusually clever by those who know her, hasunfeminine aspiradons to attend universit)', and looks askance at such"princessly" occupadons as sipping tea because she fears she might break thetea cup.'"*

241 Interdisciplinar)'Humanitiestl

However, in 1989 Disney flnaUy returned to the princess narrative. TheUttle Mermaid, though puUed from a non-Grimms source, automaticaUyboosted Hans Christian Andersen's tale into the fairy tale haU of fame, alongwith Disney's previous three retelUngs. The film's domestic gross was ?84.4miUion and stayed in theatres for some fifteen weeks''—the "second wave" ofDisney princess tales had begun. In 1991, the company turned to French tale"Beaut)' and the Beast"; the film (domestic gross: $145.8 miUion) introduced toyoung audiences the character of Belle, a book-loving young woman whorefused the attentions of the town "hunk" in favor of continuing her readinghabits and caring for her absent-minded father. In 1992, Aladdin ($217.3miUion) had Princess Jasmine, whose only wish was to escape her father'sdecree that she marr)' a man she didn't love.'^ Mulan ($120 miUion) in 1998rounded the genre out for Disney, this time drawing from a Chinese tale andfocusing on—again—a young woman who escapes the prospect of a lovelessmarriage, this time in favor of fighting for her father in China's war against theMongols."

AU four films did weU, both at the box office and in DVD and othermerchandising sales. However, it was in 2000 that Disney executives (chieflythen-chairman of consumer products Andy Moone)') came up with the DisneyPrincess brand.'^ The concept was simply to use the various heroines fromboth flrst and second wave Disney princess films and present them together inone single product. Snow White, Cinderella, BeUe, and aU the other girls beganappearing together on t-shirts, DVD covers, plastic cups, and more. Only one)'ear later, the franchise netted an impressive $300 miUion; by 2010, thatnumber had shot up to $4 bilUon." The Disney Princess franchise currentlyoffers approximately 26,000 different products on the market.^o Interestingly,one ofthe reasons they're able to offer such a variet)' of products is due in partto the purposefully broad definition of princess that Mooney and his feUowDisney executives have put forth; heroines such as Mulan and Pocahontas arenot technically princesses, for instance, but simply adding them to the Une-upappears to have granted them default ro)'al status.

Clearly, Disney has tapped into a gold mine of marketing. Writers whohave continued to return to the princess narrative throughout the century,weaving their versions in and around Disney's, seem to have realized this fact,too. But what is it about the princess narrative that has had such a lastingappeal among young readers and audiences? Marina Warner believes that "fairytales play to the child's hankering after nobler, richer, altogether better origins,the fantasy of being a prince or a princess in disguise, the Freudian 'famUy

e.'''^! Sheldon Cashdan agrees:

Most children harbor fantasies about leading privileged Uvesand enjoying the liberties associated with such an existence.But the royal children in fairy tales possess neitherextraordinary powers nor special skiUs. They are just Uke theother children, except for their titles. It thus is not difficult for

Children's Media I 25tl

young readers to share in the emotional travails of their royalcounterparts.^^

Children are thus invited to give in to fantasies involving mysterious royalorigins by reading and viewing fanciful yet believable narratives that featurechild protagonists who are much like themselves—hence their faintbelievability to the child audience or readership. Even Guillermo Del Toro'sPan's Labyrinth (2006) follows this formula, as the heroine of that film is drivento believe that she is in fact the secret daughter of the king and queen ofFaerie—and, indeed, the cult popularity of Del Toro's film suggests that suchfantasies may even foUow us into adulthood. Second wave Disney princessnarratives have easily adapted to this formula; two of the four heroines areordinary girls, and both Ariel's and Jasmine's greatest desire in The LittleMermaid and Aladdin is to experience life outside the sea or palace as anordinary person.

Because of Disney's impressive ability to market and distribute theirproduct so widely and visibly, however, it is their version of the princessnarrative which has wormed its way into the psyche of the American public.Kay Stone tells us that "Of the total of 210 stories in the complete edition," ofthe Grimms' Kinder- und Hausmärchen, "there are 40 heroines, not ail of thempassive and pretty."^^ But today, when most people think of princesses, theydo not think ofthe wide variety of other princesses in the Grimms' or AndrewLang's collections, such as the princess in "The Three Little Birds" whorescues and finds her tvvo brothers as well as their long lost royal parents. Nordo they think of Del Toro's brave young Ofelia in Pan's Eahjrinth. Neither havethey likely read Robin McKJnley's retelling of the Grimms' "Thousandfurs,"wherein Princess Lissar saves the prince's sister from marrying Lissar's ownrapist father. Instead, they may think of Ariel, who, "at first glance appears tobe engaged in a struggle against parental control," writes Henry Giroux,"motivated by the desire to explore the human world and willing to take a riskin defining the subject and object of her desires."^^ These positive, evenfeminist-friendly character traits are, however, virtually canceled out by thebargain Ariel makes with the sea-witch Ursula. Ariel's free-spiritedness istransformed into a longing to meet Prince Eric, a man she happened to seeabove sea one day; in order to do this, she gives up her own voice to.gainadmittance into the world of humans. Says Giroux, "Although girls might bedelighted by Ariel's teenage rebelliousness, they are strongly positioned tobelieve, in the end, that desire, choice, and empowerment are closely linked tocatching and loving a handsome man."^^

. It may be normal, then, as both Warner and Cashdan suggest, for childreaders and viewers to aspire toward prince- and princesshood, but it is Disneywhich has essentially taken this gender neutral aspiration and assigned specificcharacteristics to young male and female fantasies. Princehood remains linkedwith notions of power, freedom, and exploration, as exemplified by Disneyheroes like Aladdin, Simba, and Tarzan, whereas princesshood is now rigidly

261 Interdisciplinar)' Humanities

bound to concepts like dutifulness, self-sacrifice, and desire for andsubservience to males—all character traits shared by both first and secondwave Disney princesses. These Disney princesses, 26 writes Kay Stone,

are not only passive and pretty, but also unusually patient,obedient, industrious, and quiet. A woman who failed to beany of these could not become a heroine. Even Cinderella hasto do no nnore than put on dirty rags to conceal herselfcompletely. She is a heroine only when properly cleaned anddressed.2'' .

Stone argues in "Things Walt Disney Never Told Us" that Disney's infiuenceover the princess narradve is so powerful that few American women can namefairy tale heroines other than those that have been immortalized on film byDisney; furthermore, the traits listed above have become those traits nowlinked inexorably with princesshood. Other critics agree that Stone is notoverestimating Disney's infiuence; Henry Giroux also encourages us tounderstand that the power Disney has had in reformuladng the princessnarradve is thus not insignificant:

At issue for parents, educators, and others is how culture,especially media culture, has become a substantial, if not theprimary, educational force in regulating the meanings, values,and tastes that set the norms that offer up and legitimateparticular subject posidons—what it means to claim anidendt)' as a male, female, white, black, citizen, noncitizen.^s

For generadons, Disney has used the princess narrative to insdU in its viewersan understanding of the posidon of girls and women in American society. Thecompany's infiuence may not have necessarily been insidious (though manywould argue that it was and is), but it has nonetheless exerted this influence onan unsuspecting populace. As second and third wave feminists becomemothers, aunts, and grandmothers, however, awareness of Disney's (in manyways) anti-feminist presentation of the princess narradve only begins to grow."Since when did every litde girl become a princess?" wonders Pegg)' Orenstein."It wasn't like this when I was a kid, and I was born back when feminism wasstill a mere twinkle in our mothers' eyes,"^' In Cinderella Ate My Daugbter, newmother Orenstein recalls her frustradon over her pre-school aged daughters'newfound fascination with princesses, writing, "I fretted over what playingLitde Mermaid, a character who actually gives up her voiee to get a man, wasteaching her.''^"

What is it then that so many find objectionable about the traditional (i.e.Disney) princess narradve? For one, we leave girls with a very limited choice ofrole models when we offer them Disney princesses. Deborah O'Keefe insiststhat even spirited female characters, who could otherwise serve as exceUent

Children's Media I 27ti

role models for young female readers and viewers, have historicaUy "crumpledso readily under the male gaze."^' This behavior is mimicked by all three firstwave Disney princesses and is even carried over at times into the narratives ofthe second wave princesses. Jasmine's escape attempts \n Aladdin are ultimatelythwarted by her association with the tide character, forcing her to return to herfather's palace and ending her stint of freedom. Ariel's longing for adventurein The Uttle Mermaid \s completely redirected when she first lays eyes on PrinceEric^2—thenceforth, she can think of nothing except meeting him. When theBeast first lays eyes on BeUe in Beauty and the Beast, she UteraUy becomes hisprisoner, exchanging her freedom for her captive father's. And in Mulan, thetide character Uves in constant fear of Shang Li's gaze; his discover}' of her sexwould ruin her and her entire family and could even potentiaUy result in herexecution.

The brief glimpse Disney offers into the lives of their princesses beginsand ends with the princesses' romantic involvement with men. "At no pointdo these girls go off to lead their own Uves," notes one disgrunded blogger."They always end up being with the man."^^ Not that Disney princes areunworthy characters—far from it. The Beast is revealed to be kind beneath hisrough exterior; Shang Li is the very picture of equal parts dutifulness andcompassion. But young girls do not aspire to be Uke Disney princes. The worldaround them teUs them that they are princesses, and so princesses they aspireto be.̂ "* Deborah O'Keefe agrees: "Some readers and researchers maintain thatif girls do not encounter strong female models in their reading, they can andwiM identify with the male models. 1 am skeptical of this."^^ But neither is it assimple as prescribing what Lissa Paul refers to as "hero[es] in drag"^''—femalecharacters who take on traditionaUy male characteristics in an attempt tosubvert the kinds of traditional female roles the first and second wave Disneyprincesses have taken on. If that were the case, then the lead character inRobert Munsch's Paper Bag Princess would have strapped on a suit of armor,taken up her sword, and defeated the dragon at the end of the book by force—but she did not. O'Keefe thus argues that if it is wrong for young femalereaders to be indoctrinated into a culture of submissiveness and passivity, thenit is equally wrong for them to be 'pointed toward the pole opposite tosubmissiveness, tradidonally male qualifies which are just as harmful—selfishness, rigidit)', aggression, and the need to dominate."^^ She furthermorereminds us that there are stiU positive traditionally feminine traits to beconsidered, such as "sympathy, cooperation, flexibilitj'.''^^ Therefore, "Insteadof engaging in such simpUstic stereot)'pe switching," suggests Roberta Trites,"feminist characters use a variety of means, notably employing theirimaginations and trickery, to enact a transcendence of gender roles."^'

If such feminist characters really do exist in children's Uterature, wherethen do they fit in within the princess narrative—or can they fit in at aU? Inother words, is a feminist or progressive princess even possible? Has Disney'sinfluence been so overarching that the princess narrative has been foreverbranded as anti-feminist? The answer is Yes—and No.

281 Interdisciplinary Humanitiestl

In Waking Sleeping Beauty, Robert Trites essendally gives a perfect definidonfor what 1 consider to be the feminist or progressive princess narradve.Although Trites is speaking of feminist children's books in general, it can easilybe applied to the twenty-first century revisions of the tradidonal (asreconstructed by Disney) princess narradve: "Many feminist children's novelsseem to be direct revisions of earlier images of passive femininit)' in children'sliterature."'*'' Trites condnues: "Although these revisions take a variet)' offorms, most of them rely on a character who rejects stereot)'pical behavior tobalance asserdveness with compassion.""*' The progressive princess is aprincess who "rejects stereot)'pical behavior" from the past, behavior that wasperpetuated by the first and second wave Disney princesses. Such behaviorincludes characterisdcs considered to be unpalatable to contemporaryfeminists, such as passivity, dudfulness, and subservience to male characters.But the progressive princess moves beyond simple rejecdon; she must"balance asserdveness"—a new assertiveness not previously seen in thetradidonal Disney princess narradve'*^, and one that might inidally be moretradidonally associated with male characters—with "compassion." In otherwords, progressive princesses exchange negadve, tradidonally femininecharacterisdcs (i.e. passivity) for more positive, tradidonally masculine traits,such as assertiveness and rebelliousness. However, they retain thosetradidonally feminine characterisdcs which are sdll considered posidve bycontemporary feminists (i.e. compassion). The resuldng character is not a"hero in drag" but a new kind of heroine, and for the princess narradvespecifically, a new kind of princess: the progressive princess.

Trites' theory of intertextualit)' amongst feminist children's book authors israther uniquely suited to fairy tale and princess narradve revisions. Sherightfully points out that feminist authors who do revise fairy tales "oftenrewrite these tales to suit their own ideological purposes."'*^ Naturall)', "theform these ideological revisions usually take is to depict how much more awareof her agency the protagonist is than are the characters in the tale the author isrevising."'*'* This is, of course, endrely applicable to the progressive princessnarrative.

So where, then, are these narradves, and how successful have they been?I've said that the answer to the Disney quesdon—has Disney's influence onthe princess narradve been truly overpowering—is both yes and no. Why?

First, we have to acknowledge that the response against Disney by feministstorytellers has been strong and, in many ways, both a cridcal and markedngsuccess. Feminist fairy tale authors like Gail Carson Levine (Ella Enchanted,1997) and Shannon Hale (Princess Acadet?/y, 2005) have received NewberyHonor awards for their efforts. Both Levine and Meg Cabot have had theirown widely popular feminist princess narratives turned into movies (EllaEnchanted, 2004, and The Princess Diaries, 2001, respecdvely). These authors alsomarket themselves rigorously; they blog, tweet, and pardcipate in booksignings throughout the )'ear. Either as a response to their own success orsimply as a condnued reacdon to Disney, many, many princess-themed

Children's Media I 29tl

narratives have emerged in the past ten years. Many Young Adult andintermediate authors have launched their careers by making their flrstpublication a princess narrative: see E.D. Baker (The Frog Princess, 2002), JuUeBerry (The Amaranth Enchantment, 2009), and even the three authors mentionedauthors. Publishing houses cannot seem, to get enough of this new wily but stiUroyal heroine. In essence, princesses have become good for business.

And they aren't alone in their crusade against (or rather, their reformationof) the more traditional Disney princesses. They have a surprising and perhapsnot entirely welcome new aUy: the Walt Disney company.

In 2009, Disney released its latest princess-themed film, an adaptation ofE.D. Baker's The Frog Princess. The Princess and the Frog arrived with much fanfarejust before the hoUday season; Disney marketed the film almost to distraction,and the media was abuzz over the company's first black princess. Notsurprisingly. The Princess and the Frog also garnered some immediate criticism;some claimed Tiana's love interest. Prince Naveen, was not black enough.''^(Disney's response: WeU, he's not white)."*^ In "Her Priiice Has Come. Critics,Too," Brooks Barnes was one of the first to point out something problematicabout the narrative involving Disney's first black princess: "We finaUy get ablack princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?""*'Then again, some of the criticism was misplaced. Neal A. Lester notes that"the flrst and only African-American princess, unlike other Disney princesses,is not a princess by birth but rather becomes a princess through marriage to aprince,"'*^ which is, of course, untrue. Neither Cinderella, BeUe, nor Mulanwere born to royal parents, yet aU have been welcomed into the • DisneyPrincess pantheon.

These criticisms aside, however. The Princess and the Frog became the firstDisney princess film to feature a heroine who aspired for something more thanromance throughout the film's narrative. Tiana is introduced to us as a youngwoman whose greatest goal in Ufe is to own her own restaurant—that goaldoes not change, not when she first meets Prince Naveen, not when sherealizes she loves him, and not even after she marries him. While some of hersecond wave sisters do have dreams and aspirations, they all involve, in someway or another, marriage to a man. Mulan, for example, despairs over havingto marry in order to make her family happy; presumably, she'd rather marry toplease herself—which she does at the film's conclusion by faUing in love withShang Li, agreeing to a match that ends up pleasing aU parties involved.Jasmine's goal in Aladdin is similar; she wishes to escape her life as a sultan'sdaughter and her father's decree that she marr)' a prince. But Tiana's desire toown her own restaurant UteraUy has nothing to do with marriage; presumably,she can accompUsh this goal through hard work and with time."" Furthermore,Tiana is the first princess whose narrative does ndt end with marriage (orromance in general): the narrative concludes with her finaUy building andoperating her dream restaurant.

Tiana is a progressive princess because she exhibits both positivetraditionaUy feminine traits (compassion, understanding) and positive

301 Interdisciplinar)' Humanitiestl

traditionally masculine traits (enterprise, cleverness, assertiveness) whileeschewing those negative traits that have been traditionally associated withfemininity and first (and some second) wave Disney Princesses. It is Tiana whofinds the path through the swamp; it is she who keeps.herself and Naveen safeand well fed throughout their journey. She purchases her business with herown money and at no point requires rescuing—save, perhaps, for the kiss atthe end with Naveen, though, to be fair, he needs it just as much as she does.

Much to Disney's dismay, however. The Princess and the Frog did not do aswell at the box office as they might have hoped—a dismal $104 milliondomestic gross.^" This had suirprisingly dramatic consequences for Disney'snext and perhaps last (so they claim) princess film: Tangled (2010). "Disney iswringing the pink out of its princess movies," wrote Dawn C. Chmielewskiand Claudia EUer in the LA Times.^' The company went so far as tocompletely alter the storyline; the title of the film was changed from"Rapunzel" to "Tangled," and the film's director. Glen Keane, who hadpreviously worked on Disney princess films like Beauty and the Beast and TheLittle Mermaid, stepped aside, allowing Ron Clements and John Musker toeventually take over at the helm. Pixar and Disney Animation Studiospresident Ed Catmull claimed that they "did not want to be put into a box"and that Disney wanted to produce "movies to be appreciated and loved byeverybody"—not just giris.52 "Young boys won't go to giri movies," agreedfilm analyst Paul Dergarabedian." Essentially, since The Princess and the Frogdidn't garner as much income as Disney might have hoped, this perceivedfailure was placed at the feet of America's boys, who allegedly stopped seeingprincess-themed films—or rather, had begun to respond to Disney's aggressivemarketing scheme that began in 2000, linking all things "princess" with giris^*.

Since movies for girls—i.e. princess movies—were no longer deemedmarketably salient, Rapunzel's story underwent a transformation that no otherDisney princess has yet had to endure: she was forced to share the lead withher male love interest-''̂ . Even more grating perhaps is the fact that Rapunzeldoes not even have control over her own story; Fl)'nn Rider narrates the story,though his narrative presence all but disappears for most of the film; he mostlybookends it, introducing us to himself and Rapunzel, and concluding the storyby telling the audience that he eventually asked Rapunzel to marry him, andshe accepted. Despite this somewhat unsettling beginning, however,Rapunzel's narrative begins progressively enough; feminist heads likely noddedas we saw Rapunzel sing about the creative accomplishments she's been forcedto perfect over the years in her tower. It's virtually impossible not to comparea )'oung girl who spends her da)'s baking, painting, and dancing to thosefeminine "accomplishments" that were so scathingly mocked by ironists likeJane Austen and deconstructed by critics like Virginia Wolfe. Throughout themontage of artisric endeavors, we see Rapunzel struggling to find new surfacesto paint on and despairing over having to read the same books again and again.This is cleady a non-traditional princess trapped in an all too traditional setting,and she aches to escape. And she is clever enough to orchestrate her own

Children's Media I 31tl

escape, too, convincing the wily Flynn Rider to lead her to the site of thefloating lanterns; her desire to sec them in person is for all intents andpurposes her life's ambition.

But floating lanterns don't exacdy compare to owning one's ownbusiness—let alone saving all of China. And like Mulan, and Belle, Jasmine,and Ariel, Rapunzel's stor)' ends with romance. The culmination of hernarrative is not the fulfillment of her life's dream but her marriage to FlynnRider. Clearly, her progressive tendencies have been diminished so thataddidonal focus can be placed on Flynn. As the narrator, he exerts definitivecontrol over the story. He is Rapunzel's guide, for he is older, wiser, and moreworldly than she. Rapunzel may be clever in the beginning, but she isconsistendy easily duped by her mother, whereas Flynn never loses sight ofwhat he wants and desires.

Uldmately, the answer to the question as to whether Disney's influenceover the princess narradve has been too powerful to contradict—yes and no—is even yet too simplistic. Yes, other feminist storytellers have rebelled againstDisney, and their works are marketable successes, some even beingtransformed into films'^. But critics such as Pegg)' Orenstein continue to rebelagainst the princess narradve and seem entirely unaware of its more recendyprogressive evolutions. The power of the Disney Princesses looms large overthe princess narrative—even to the point that Disney's own efforts to conformto a seemingly more progressive and feminist-friendly audience somehow fail.Perhaps only dme will tell whether Disney's decision to stop making fairy taleanimated films altogether will signal the end to their dominance over theprincess narrative''. All that can be certain is that so long as there is a marketfor it—whatever "it" may be—Disney will continue to sell it.

Notes

' Francis Hodgson Burnett, A Utile Princess (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 66.2 Deborah J. O'Keefe, Good Girl Messages (New York: Continuum InternationalPublishing Group Inc., 2000), 12.^ Hodgson Burnett, 176." Ibid., 308.5 Ibid., 301.<> Sheldon Cashdan, The Witch Must Die (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 1.Mbid., 1.8 Ibid., 40.'•> O'Keefe, 164."'Ibid., 164." Marcia R. Lieberman, "One Day My Prince Will Come: Female yVcculturationthrough the Fair)'Tale," College English 34, no. 3 (1972): 384.'2 Ibid., 384.

321 Interdisciplinary Humanities

'5 Jeanne Desy, "The Princess \X'ho Stood On Her Own Two Feet," in Don't Bet OnThe Prince: Contemporary Feminist Fairy 'Tales in North America and England, ed. Jack Zipes(New York: Methuen, Inc., 1986), 46.'•t Robin McKinley, Beauty: A Retelling of the Stoij of Beauty and the Beast (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1978), 6-8.'5 John Brodie and Jay Greene, "Dwarfs Tell Disney: Draw!; Rival studios get seriousabout animation," Variety]u\y 11, 1994-July 17, 1994, News: 1,http://w\vw.le-\isnexis.coni."5 Ibid." Eileen Fitzpatrick, "Mulan, Dalmations, and Winnie-The-Pooh Due in '99," BillboardNovember 02, 1998, Shelf Talk: 1. http://vvww.l&xisnexis.com.'* Pegg)' Orenstein, Cinderella Ate My Daughter (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 13.'Hbid., 14.2" Ibid., 16.2' Marina Warner, From the Beast to the Blonde: On Fairy Tales and Their Tellers (London:Chatto & Windus, 1994), 210.22 Cashdan, 30.23 Kay Stone, "Fairytales for Adults: Walt Disney's Americanization of the Märchen,"Folklore on Two Continents: Essajs in Honor of IJnda Dégh, eds. Burlakoff and Lindahl(Bloomington, Indiana: Trickster Press, 1980), 42.2'' Henr)' Giroux, 'I'he Mouse 'That Roared (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & LitdefieldPublishers, Inc., 1999), 98.25 Ibid., 99.2' Stone was exclusively referring to the first wave Disney princesses in her article:Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora.27 Stone, 43.28 Giroux, 2-3.2'̂ Orenstein, 4.••"' I b i d . , 4 .

31 O'Keefe, 169.32 It is important to note that Eric does not see her at this po in t—he first sees herwhen she rescues him from the shipwreck. At that point, it's over for the both ofthem. They can think of nothing but one another.33 Daedalus Ciarán, "Disney Princess Syndrome; If You Want T o Be Happy, YouBetter Get A Man," .Spill, May 3, 2009, http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/disney-princess-syndrome-if.3'' Orenstein, 3.35 O'Keefe, 13.3̂ ' Lissa Paul, "Enigma Variations: What Feminist Theory Knows About Children'sLiterature," .Signal 54 (September 1987): 199.37 O'Keefe, 22.38 Ibid., 22.

3'-' Roberta Seelinger Trites, Waking Sleeping Beauty (Iowa Citj', Iowa: University' of IowaPress, 1997), 5.""Ibid., 11.tl Ibid., 12.

Children's Media I 33tl

'*2 While it is true that some Second Wave Disney princesses have displayed degrees ofassertive behavior, it must be noted that this asserdveness nearly always disappearsonce they make contact with' the male lead. Ariel loses her voice to be with Eric,Jasmine's future hinges on Aladdin's offer of marriage, and Mulan's very existence is inpedl as soon as she meets Shang Li.'*3 Ibid., 40.

'*5 Brooks Barnes, "Her Prince Has Come. Critics, Too," Tbe New York Times, May 21,2009, http://www.nydmes.com/2009/05/31/fashion/31disney.html."'S Ibid.'*̂ Ibid.*^ Neal A. Lester, "Disne)''s Tbe Princess and tbe Frog. The Pride, the Pressure, and thePolitics of Being First," The Journal of American Culture 33 , no. 4 (December 2010): 299.•*' Tiana's difficulties regarding her desire to own her own restaurant are mostly relatedto her race and gender, and what it means to be a black woman living in 1950s NewOrleans. Prince Naveen is strategically poor and can offer her no rise in circumstances.5" Box Office Report, Variety, March 29, 2010 - Apdl 4, 2010, Film, 10.5' Dawn C. Chmielewski and Claudia Eller, "Disney rest)'les 'Rapunzel' to appeal toboys," Iuis Angeles Times, March. 09, 2010.http://articles.iadmes.com/2010/mar/09/business/la-fi-ct-disney9-2010mar09.52 Ibid.53 Gloria Goodale, "How 'Tangled' topped 'Harr)' Potter' at the box office," TheCbristian SdenceMonitor, December 6, 2010, http://www.lexisnexis.com.^ Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Disney Pdncesses were indeedwholeheartedly rejected by boys—or by their parents.55 To be fair. Jasmine in Aladdin does not even share the lead with Aladdin. He is thehero, and she merely the love interest.5'' Though keep in mind that the adaptadon of Cabot's Tbe Princess Diaries wasproduced by Disney!5' Dawn C. Chmielewski and Claudia Eller, "Disney Animation is closing the book onfairy tales," Us Angeles Times, November 21, 2010.http://nL-f.icles.latimes.com/20IO/nov/21/enteLtainment/la-et-ri21-tangled-20101121.

341 Interdisciplinary' Humanitiestl

Copyright of Interdisciplinary Humanities is the property of Humanities Education & Research Association and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.