Q: What kinds of projects did you work on? Did you design products?
A: I did, actually. I did some things that came out in 2009 as well as this year. I also did a lot of Mattel's early Princess & the Frog drawings, when the movie was in its very early stages, because they wouldn't give us any visual reference. Too afraid of it getting leaked. So I'd get to see their drawings, and then back at my office I'd try to replicate them.
Q: What sorts of products did you work on?
A: I was mostly in charge of the tiny plastic figures, because what they call the "play pattern" was about acting out a story and I was trying to make that my focus. But also because they were the easiest, and I was new to toy design. I'd always been their animator, never a toy designer, which is a lot more engineering. As a cartoonist, engineering and measurements are kinda the opposite of me. :D
Q: So, who's your favorite princess and why?
A: We were each kinda "in charge" of a princess, not boss wise just as the main resource for reference and brainstorming. And of course we always knew the most about our favorites, hehe. Mine was Belle, which has been my favorite since it came out. I say I like it because I like how she's a reader, and might read something I wrote, and I like how I see similarities.
Q: So did you get to pick the one you were in "charge" of?
A: Eh, kinda sorta, it was more organic. We had probably the best boss in the world, and she kinda just let us run with it. She knew that we'd be the most passionate about something we were into, and work the hardest on it.
Q: That sounds like an excellent boss. The best ones always let you play to your strengths. So, when you designed products, were the characters pretty much always in the same outfit, or did you ever design different clothes for them?
A: Ooooh, hahaha, that's a great question. And the answer almost always is a resounding NO. Disney is veeeeerrrrrry particular about what the princesses are wearing, what specific colors every piece is. They have a whole division called Disney Consumer Products that is just in charge of that, making sure all the license companies like Mattel are all on the same page. You may have noticed, for the Princess versions of the princesses...did you see that Belle doesn't have brown hair and brown eyes anymore? She has reddish hair and greenish eyes.
Q: No, I hadn't noticed that! Weird! Do you know why?
A: It's partially to make all the princess stand out from each other - they never had to in the movies - and partially to play to market research. Girls don't want to buy brown haired, brown eyed dolls because they're "boring."
Q: Well, I can still kind of understand it. Still, it's too bad everything has to be analyzed to death for the sake of marketing.
A: It's true. I worked with market research for years, making animations for them to test before I switched to design. I saw enough of it for several lifetimes. Did you know that there's a very very specific order that the average girl likes the princesses in? You'll always find little girls that have their favorites, like all of us did at the office. But in that market research world, it's the same like 90% plus of the time. Girls like Cinderella the best because she has blond hair and blue eyes. That's it. Her story factors into it not so much. (The target age for Disney princess is girls 2 -5 years old, so they don't understand the story anyway.)
Q: Aha, I see! So the character's personality doesn't seem to matter at all, huh?
A: It does for the older crowd, like your 5 - 8s, but the "target" age doesn't care quite so much. They might like someone's outfit better, because they love dressing up like their princess whenever they can. Older girls can appreciate their personality and actions: Many don't like Snow White because "all she does is cooks and cleans." But Belle gets points because she makes her own way.
Q: Ah, so it sounds like a little feminism is actually finding its way into the line then - that's at least somewhat encouraging! I find it interesting that Tiana's not selling well, though. Maybe her story would appeal more to older girls (and women, since I love her story so much), but I wonder if that means that African-American girls just don't get into the Disney Princess line, and Tiana's not drawing them in? Or possibly African-American girls like the white princesses better, which would say something interesting about the way race is viewed in our society today.
A: Oh, there's a reason. It was a pretty big culture shock for me because many stores have their own market research, that tells them minority dolls don't sell as well as white dolls. It's in that weird area that I kept worrying was racist: some overseas countries even used slang we never would, because that's still the cultural norm over there though it may not carry the same connotation for them. But like any big company they work to their numbers, and the numbers say that they'll often lose money by devoting space to anything that won't move as well. It's easy for us to think of it like "but that's just greedy!" but in big business, not making as much money and losing money are the exact same thing. Any product that makes less than the maximum your best product could is losing money. African American moms always tell Mattel how much they'd love to see more positive role models and toys, and Mattel wants to provide for them, but many stores are shy about devoting shelf space. In this country, black families sadly do typically have less disposable income as much as I want to ignore the numbers, and stores like catering to the moms that will spend a lot or even waste money.
Q: Ah, I see. So it's a problem on multiple levels - not something that's so easy to fix.
A: It's all sales. Like you said, Tiana's movie is fantastic and she's by far the most independent. But the merchandise world really doesn't care about the story, just the product. That's mostly all they see. Disney itself tries to promote all of their princesses with equal passion, but meet a lot of resistance.
Q: It's almost encouraging to hear that. It's too easy to see Disney as a soulless conglomerate that's lost sight of its original mission. It's nice to hear they're actually trying, even if it's not working out as well as people hope. Personally, I think it's pretty important that entertainment make those strides to cross racial boundaries. A lot of people argue that one of the reasons President Obama was elected is because we've seen a number of black presidents in TV and movies, and I think there's some truth to that. But it's difficult in our society and economy, and the world of marketing doesn't encourage those risks.
A: Actually, I do have to admit that even though Disney and Mattel are both big comapnies, Disney cares about preserving their brand integrity and Mattel cares about kids and moms. So both are quite noble. I don't begrudge the stores but it's hard not to see them as greedy. Though I suppose if I worked there I might not say that. I think you're totally right about Obama, and the stores were right too. It's not the minorities that have a problem buying white toys, it's the opposite.
Q: Exactly. Have you seen the video that's going around about a study that was done with kids? They asked little kids to look at drawings of children and say which they thought was the smartest, the prettiest, the nicest. A black girl was pointing out the blond white girl in the drawing as the smartest.
A: I've seen market research that points to black kids sometimes picking white toys over black ones, on occasion. That wasn't my world so I'm not sure of all the complexities behind those times or how often they come up.
Q: Yeah, the girl's parents were stunned and saddened. It's an important realization for anyone who still thinks we live in a "post-racial" society.
A: Well at the end of the day, at least the kids are spared from all of this, though it means it can be hard if not impossible to find merchandise of their particular princess. Serious, got to any store that sells princess products. You'll see the princesses that sell well over and over, and the ones that don't much less often. Pick up a coloring book or birthday napkins or anything, anywhere: maybe they're all inside, but the popular princesses are the ones on those covers. I never realized how empowering DP was, it's like the one thing American girls love more than anything else at that age.
Q: Yeah, and I've noticed that a lot of times in group pictures, princesses like Mulan and Pocahontas just aren't included at all.
A: Pocahontas is kinda wierd, because she doesn't actually have a ballgown, and if she did it would be brown. So I kinda get her. But Mulan, Jasmine and Tiana need more princess presence. (Kids are less racist too...much of the reason they don't like Jasmine is because she has pants instead of a dress.)
Q: Ahh, so it's less about race and more about who's girliest? :D
A: Yes! At 2-5, girls love two things: being a magical princess/mermaid/fairy, or being essentially a domestic housewife. They often like both at the same time, and there's lots of photos of girls in their cherished gowns to feel pretty, playing kitchen.
But it's everywhere, the blond hair blue eye curse. You remember Kingdom Hearts? Princess Alice? Since when is she a princess? Total market research move. That's how it works.
Q: Yeah, I know. It seemed as if they could have found a real princess if they'd tried hard enough. I always felt it was annoying that they hadn't included Ariel, but I guess the fins thing got in the way.
Q: So I notice that not all of the Disney Princesses are actually princesses, but there are Disney animated characters who ARE technically princesses and have never been included, like Princess Kida from Atlantis. Ever notice that, or have an idea why it might be?
A: That's a good question, and surprisingly one I have to think about. That means it wasn't something we dealt with every day...Disney essentially wanted more Cinderella toys or whatever each year. Part of it would be anyone that wasn't girly enough in clothing or attitude, which might explain Kida. And they'd probably take pause at introducing anyone ethnic.
Q: Yeah, that was my first thought too. Plus, I'm not so sure that Atlantis did very well at the box office, and although she was a princess, it wasn't your typical princess movie.
A: But then you've got the Rapunzel problem, which is their next princess. She's blond hair pink dress just like Aurora...so how do you make them stand out, and not cannibalize your sales? I think they pushed her dress purple for that very reason, actually. I think that's probably the real answer to your question. If I put in another, less popular princess from the stable, she's going to compete with the other ones: probably one in particular. And even if they have more princesses, the ones they're already using are pretty much the heavy hitters.
Q: I only just found out about the new Rapunzel movie. Did you hear about it pretty early on?
A: As a 3D animator I can tell you that what I saw before I left was breathtaking. I can also tell you as a cartoonist I hate it with the same rage and futility of a thousand dying sons. I thought Frog was going to be the first of many. It's actually the only one they're doing. We heard about Rapunzel right on the heels of Frog, back when we all assumed it was going to be 2D. They really can't with her hair...her hair is I think 50ft long, and she's only 5 ft tall. Way too much not to let the computer do it, I suppose.
Q: That's really depressing. I just got done watching The Princess and the Frog with the commentary, and they talked a lot about how Disney had shut down the 2D animation studio and gotten rid of all the animator desks, but one guy had kept a few hidden away in a warehouse. It's sad that they're just giving up again. I'm really sad that Frog didn't do better, and I can't believe they don't seem to think 2D matters anymore.
A: Seriously! It seems like only Japan gets it. But they're also the only people that get they don't have to be just for kids. We've started to get there with Simpsons and the like, but we haven't ever had a real drama cartoon have we?
Q: No, we haven't, not that I know of. And actually, although you were complaining about Alice in Kingdom Hearts, I've heard that Square Enix actually got a fair amount of freedom to do what they wanted once they got the okay to use specific characters. Otherwise I just can't see Disney having the guts to let something like that happen, since some of the plot stuff is so far from Disney norm.
A: Oh yeah, totally. I am starting to see edgier things. We use these things called Style Guides, or Bibles, that are all the visual rules we have to follow to make this or that match. Like the Princesses have several just based on Christmas, all a little different. Anyway, they're doing this edgier thing with Tinkerbell where they give her a bratty personality. "It's all about me." Huh...wasn't she mute? :D
Q: Speaking of which, I heard that at E3 they've revealed a new Mickey Mouse game that's dark and steampunk-y and geared towards older gamers. Apparently the success of Kingdom Hearts has inspired them to do something a little different!
A: Yes! That's actually a Wii game. It's brilliant. If you remember Oswald the Rabbit, I think was the character, he was Walt's first. The game is about him getting revenge on Mickey, and both are in the older style but much darker. IGN and some other sites have screenies up.
Q: Okay, I only had one more princess question. I read an interesting blog post about the new Rapunzel movie that theorized that it's a princess movie that's actually being geared kind of toward boys. The idea is that the trailer focused mostly on the male lead for a lot of it, and it has lots of derring-do and stuff boys are supposed to like better. What do you think?
A: This is probably the first thing you've asked that I'm not allowed to talk about. I know the whole plot of the movie...granted it will change, just like Frog kept changing. But essentially no, at least, not when I last saw it. At the time there were definitely things boys would like, which I'm sure they structured that way on purpose, and boys will like the male lead. But last I saw it was still Rapunzel's show, and she does some pretty cool things herself.
Q: I did get that from it! I was just curious about the accuracy of the post I read. I thought it was interesting but wasn't sure if I agreed. I do think the male lead looks like fun though! Okay, I won't ask anymore about Rapunzel. I don't want it to be spoiled for me anyway. ;)
A: All I can say is that when I just looked it up, it looks like it's called Tangled now? I've been away from Mattel for a year, but I am allowed to say as an outside observer that changing the name from Rapunzel to Tangled does sound like they're de-girlifying it. But that would be a pretty hefty change from the last plot I knew of.
Q: Ahh. Interesting, we'll have to see if they've changed much! Maybe after it comes out you can tell me if it was really different or not. Anyway, I think Tangled is a good name, but it's not so obvious that it's Rapunzel anymore. Not sure how that will affect things, we'll see. Anyway, thanks for answering all my questions!
So, as you can see, I learned a lot about the marketing and presentation of the Disney Princesses! Some was discouraging, some of it very encouraging. Overall I got some interesting insights as to how our culture views race, and how that affects the way toys are marketed to kids—and also a little about feminism, too. My personal take on all this? I wish there was more emphasis on the Princesses' personalities, rather than what they look like, and a more inclusive, modern attitude toward the characters. I wish they didn't marginalize the ethnic characters as much. It's a tough cycle to break, though—companies market the blond, blue-eyed characters because that's what market research tells them little girls want. Parents buy those products for their kids because that's what's out there, and also because those are the ones marketed most aggressively and are also easiest to find. Little girls accept the way the products are marketed to them and internalize this as affirming that blond, blue-eyed girls in pink dresses are the ideal. Even though they're very young, they're beginning to develop prejudices based on the toys their parents buy for them and the way those toys are marketed in stores and advertisements. It's hard to know where to step in to try to break the cycle, but I believe that parents and companies all have at least some of the responsibility.
Anyway, enough with the soapbox! It's time to talk more about this idea of a postmodern princess. We've seen that the old-fashioned princess is still extremely popular, but entertainment outlets are trying to bring those princess ideals into the 21st century, even though it's difficult to do. I've already mentioned how we can see an example of this in Tiana from The Princess and the Frog, where the princess is actually a very real sort of American character, suffering from the disadvantages of her race and social class, but working hard to achieve her dreams through her own work, rather than just wishing. We also see her foil in the character of Charlotte, a blond and blue-eyed girl who always dresses in pink, wants more than anything to be a princess, and is used to having everything in life handed to her. Despite this, she's a very likable character, and I can see the two characters almost trying to resolve that dichotomy, to bridge the gap between the old ideal and the new.
Other movies have had similar ideas. One of the most popular is the Shrek series, whose Princess Fiona is anything but normal. She's got an attitude, she can take care of herself, she actually willingly gives up her classic beauty and the lifestyle that's expected of her for what she wants. This is great stuff, of course, but it's also wrapped up in the middle of satire and pop-culture references, which are definitely fun but tend to obscure the message a bit. On the other hand, we're talking about the "postmodern" princess here, so maybe it's appropriate that she isn't just in a traditional setting.
I use the term "postmodern princess" a lot, and it might seem as if "modern" would work just as well, or better. Possibly, but I do love my alliteration. :P Besides, we've seen a lot of feminism in the last few decades—self-assured girls and women are nothing new in popular media. What is different, however, is the way we're seeing this as a synthesis of old and new. Feminism is not about being a tomboy and rejecting traditional feminine norms. It's not about seeing anything womanly as bad or restrictive. Instead, we see our society attempting to reconcile feminine identity with feminine freedom. We're aware of the ways in which what we think is feminism can actually be counter-productive, and those working in the film industry or with other types of creative media often try to really examine the ways in which women are portrayed. The modern woman was trying to break out of old roles, stereotypes, and restrictions; the postmodern princess is attempting to reconcile identity and freedom, to look at traditional roles and decide what they mean to her.
A commenter on my last princess post disagreed with me on my explanation of Jasmine. Jasmine, she argued, is not really all that feminist at all. She wants to determine her own fate, but at the expense of others. She is naive and irresponsible, attempting to seek out freedom, but falling back on her position of power and privilege when things get rough. As a princess, Jasmine has responsibilities that go with the privileges of royalty, but she doesn't seem to take them all that seriously. She spends a lot of time complaining about how she is not a prize to be won, but most of the time it's just words. I think this is a decent paraphrasing of what the commenter had to say, and I think she's write about most of it. It's as if the filmmakers wanted Jasmine to be a modern feminist, but they focused too much on outward gestures and not so much on what feminism really means. Jasmine wants freedom, but as a princess she also has duties to her people. It would be very interesting to see a story about such a princess attempting to reconcile her desires and her longing for freedom with her position as royalty and the responsibilities that come with it. She might gain her freedom by running away, but at what cost?
Like Jasmine, much of Ariel's feminism is about her spunk and drive to seek out what she wants on her own. Still, what she wants is a very old-fashioned sort of thing. She wants to get her man, no matter the cost to herself and her own identity. Some of these princesses might be considered "modern", while someone like Tiana is more "postmodern". Tiana knows what she wants and knows who she is. The end of the movie is not about her completely changing her view of herself and her desires—it's about admitting that it's possible to want more than one thing and to work to reconcile those dreams. She doesn't give up her dream of owning her own restaurant; instead, she tells Naveen that she wants him to be a part of that dream.
Going back a little, though... Animated princesses of all kinds are such a Disney stereotype, however, that it isn't surprising that Shrek satirized the Disney fairy tale so fiercely. If you sit down to watch any of the movies and try to count the references to Disney characters, themes, and tropes, I imagine you'd lose count pretty quickly. The princess can easily get forest animals to sing and dance with her, with unexpected results. There's always a dragon to battle, though exploring the dragon's motivations might lead to some surprises. Shrek made fun of many classic Disney ideas and turned many story elements completely upside down. What's more, most of these jabs actually hit pretty close to home. So how did Disney react to having their creations mocked so thoroughly? Why, they decided that if they can't beat 'em, join 'em. Never let it be said that Disney doesn't know how to laugh at itself! And thus Enchanted was born.
Enchanted was hilarious in part because it was so self-aware and took great joy in lampshading as many classic tropes as possible. These fairy tale themes and stereotypes were all the more ridiculous, however, when taken out of the original animated setting and dropped down in modern day New York City. Giselle spends most of the movie seeking a way back to her charmed life in an animated fairyland, only to discover that's not what she really wants. She finds a more fulfilling life in the real world, with all its complications and gray areas and lack of clear right or wrong answers. The movie isn't a rejection of the idealistic world of animated fairy tales, however. The character Nancy ends up finding her own happily-ever-after by following the prince back to Andalasia, where she becomes animated and impulsively gets married, without looking back to her successful life as a modern New York woman. And although Giselle stays in the real world, she retains that sunny, almost foolishly optimistic personality and her love of feminine beauty, old-fashioned romance, and sugary cheerfulness. The story is about growing up, I think, but it's not so much about rejecting childhood as it is acknowledging and accepting the idealistic fairytale worlds of childhood and incorporating that into part of who you are as an adult.
There's nothing wrong with loving frilly pink princess dresses and sparkly magical fairylands with unicorns and magic. There's nothing wrong with wishing on stars, either. But you have to remember that wishing will only get you part of the way, and if you want to fulfill your dreams, you're going to have to work at it. This goes for feminism, too. It's not about just demanding freedom from traditional gender roles. It's about taking that freedom and using it to decide what role you want, and what you want out of life, and using that freedom to reach for it. It's only the first stepping stone, and if we want to achieve our dreams, we have to accept that the sparkly tiara of womanhood brings with it royal responsibility as well.
Did I just throw myself headlong overboard with that overstretched metaphor? Sorry, I guess it's the overdramatic princess in me being fed too much sugar. Time to get rid of some excess fairy dust and head out. Next week: we'll talk about this modern idea of womanhood, feminism, and the "princess" ideal as it's presented in Ella Enchanted. I'll see you then!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment