Because What's a Princess Without Perfect Hair?

This Buzzfeed article had me actually laughing out loud: If Disney Princesses Had Realistic Hair. My first reaction was that the title and concept of this article was rather ridiculous and unnecessary, but after reading it my thoughts had completely shifted. THIS IS SO TRUE. HOW HAS NOBODY THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE?! I mean seriously, how in the world does Ariel have such voluminous hair when she is underwater. I know she grooms her luscious locks carefully (forks work wonders these days!), but no amount of hair care could defy the laws of nature and prevent her hair from being soaked.

The Pocahontas one was also BEYOND accurate. Pocahontas stands atop a giant cliff, hair blowing perfectly over her shoulder. I would estimate there to be a 0% chance of this happening in actuality. It's really windy on top of cliffs.... I know from experience:

Anyways... as humorous and entertaining as I found this article to be, it also provoked some analysis. The perfectly groomed hairstyles of the Disney princesses is just one feature of their flawless beauty. Disney creates it's princesses to look the way that people will respond best to: beautiful. No one would fall in love with a frizzy haired princess. How would that look on merchandise? Imagine how a frizzy haired doll would do on the markets. These princesses are sketched to be perfect looking. Unfortunately, the young girls who idolize them are not quite created the same way. I'd pay someone a lot of money to get my hair to blow gracefully in the wind like Pocahontas'. There's always wishful thinking! 

The Pixar Theory.... MINDBLOWN!!!!

This past week I was lucky enough to be introduced to the legendary "Pixar Theory." If you're not familiar with this remarkable idea, I suggest you check out the following link: Pixar Theory (trust me, it's well worth the 8 minutes). Now that we're all on the same page, I hope you can join me in saying WOW.

I'll discuss the validity of this theory in a moment, but for now I want to emphasize how genuinely excited this video made me! The way that the theory brilliantly connects all Pixar movies is incredible. The optimist in me wants to believe every ounce of it. After all, after being shocked by the "Toy Story Theory" a few years back, I know that there's no saying that Pixar won't put little tricks into its movies. With that idea, there was sufficient evidence to lead to me believe that Jessie once belonged to Andy's mom when she was a kid. In that specific example, clues like Andy having the same hat as Jessie's previous owner practically scream "THIS WAS PLANNED". It makes me picture little Pixar workers sitting at their desks chuckling to themselves at their cleverness.

The Pixar Theory provokes a different image in my mind. Instead, I don't quite see it as a planned sequence of events, but rather an incredible coincidence pieced together by Pixar and its fans. And while I don't think the connections between the Pixar movies was necessarily intentional, that makes it none the less awesome! It's sort of like the concept of how Mamma Mia was comprised completely of unrelated songs from an ABBA album. The songs which, previously had no relation, were suddenly intertwined and connected. I feel like the Pixar Theory is along the same lines.

The part that especially intrigued me was the concept of life: humans, machines, and animals. I'll admit, the animal part (Finding Nemo, Ratatouille...) seemed to be a little bit of a stretch. However, after taking a Sci Fi class last year, I can definitely see the truth behind the technological aspect of the theory. I feel that Wall-E and Cars both have enough evidence to make the theory realistic (realistic to believe, at least). My favorite conclusion was the fact all machines and animals need human energy to survive. I loved this claim so much because it seemed to wrap up the theory with one of Pixar's key ideologies: human happiness is a necessity of life.

Still waiting to find out "What's Wrong With Cinderella"...

After making my way through Peggy Orenstein's "What's Wrong With Cinderella?", I was disappointed to conclude that I was unable to answer this enticing question. I think Orenstein's article was beautifully written and creatively crafted. I was intrigued by her topic and her style of writing and thoroughly enjoyed the piece. However, while I applaud the author for her captivating title and interesting article, I don't think she affectively proved the flaws of Cinderella and the whole princess phenomena. 

I was not convinced by the conversation Orenstein has with her daughter at the supermarket, in which she declares that "Cinderella doesn't really do anything." Unless I've been watching the wrong movie all these years, I'm fairly certain that Cinderella does, in fact, work hard. The majority of the movie consists of her tiring away with an excessive amount of household chores. I would think that Orenstein would want to use this diligent work ethic as a role model for her daughter. Something along the lines of, "Try your best in school, just like how Cinderella tried her hardest with her cleaning!" You get the picture. Yes, I know that there are aspects of the Cinderella story (cough cough fairy godmother cough cough) that depict the princess as being helpless and needy, but I still don't agree with the author's reaction to her daughter's fascination with princesses. If, like most young girls, her daughter is going to love princesses, Orenstein should make an effort to support it by finding the positive traits these princesses have to offer. 

On another, more positive note, I felt that this article discussed many interesting aspects of the broader princess industry. I was fascinated with the idea of Tinker Bell as a sort of rebel princess to appeal to the angsty pre-teen. This idea was probably, to a certain extent, modeled after the success of the sassy Bratz dolls that Orenstein mentions. Tinkerbell has come to represent rebellion and an escape from innocence, and I feel like this is a brilliant shift in marketing. 

Additionally, I was shocked to read about the evolution of color-gender association. It's funny to imagine a time when little boys sported mainly pink and girls mainly blue. The comment about purple was especially amusing to me. Just a couple days ago, a male friend of mine purchased a fleece that was far more purple than had been intended. As a result, he was poked fun at by the majority of our dormmates for ordering a fleece intended for a girl. I wonder what he would think if he knew that purple was once considered a manly color associated with royalty...

Overall, this article made me think, question, smile and wonder. I learned new things and enjoyed making connections to my own childhood experience (buying a Cinderella costume, destroying my barbies, etc.). However, at the end of the day, I don't have a convincing argument to summarize Cinderella's shortcomings. 

Janet Wasko's Mission to Expose Disney

Obviously I don't know Janet Wasko, but I feel like we wouldn't be very good friends. From what I gathered from her "Challenging Disney Myths" piece, she is not a very positive person. She seems like the kind of woman who isn't content with just accepting the obvious good in things. Instead, she finds pleasure and satisfaction by analyzing (perhaps overanalyzing) things to find the bad that lies hidden below the surface. In this case, Wasko is looking beyond all the good that Disney has brought to the world and is instead focusing on exposing the negative side.

I'm not saying that Wasko is wrong. In fact, I think she did a great job creating affective arguments against myths that people believe about Disney. Her strongest point, I believe, was her ability to counter the widespread belief that "Disney Is a Unique and Different Company." I admit, I had never seen Disney as anything but an entertainment provider. Disney is fun. Disney makes you smile. Disney bring happiness. But Disney as a "profit-motivated corporation"? This was news to me. First of all, I had NO idea how giant the Disney label was. I didn't know that Disney owned and operated other huge labels like ABC and ESPN (I may have been living under a rock, but this was definitely a shocker). This new piece of evidence alone is enough to shatter my belief that Disney's sole purpose is to entertain. DUH,  I say to myself. I had been foolish in believing that there was whole other side to Disney: the business side. This piece taught me that the Disney name is associated with a lot more than Mickey and Minnie. Disney wants to make money. Whether this be through the array of Disney products, Disney parks, or Disney-owned labels, the Disney corporation will continue to work to achieve its goal of financial success.

Like I said earlier, Janet Wasko and I are two very different people. If you were to tell me that Disney was a magical, happiness-generating company, I would take your word for it. Wasko, on the other hand, is probably a lot less oblivious than I am. However, her desire to uncover the obscured negativity led to a very rich piece of writing that I'm sure has provoked a lot of interesting debate and discussion.

Once Upon a Time...

Once upon a time, I was a naïve toddler with an affinity for all things Disney. Like many young girls, I endured the classic "refuse-to-wear-anything-but-dresses" stage in an attempt to be more like my beloved Disney princesses. I spent countless nights popping a VHS tape from my bounteous collection of Disney classics into the VCR. My innocent eyes were fixated on the screen as I watched my favorite characters come to life in a blend of brilliant color and music. I was captivated by the magic of Disney.

Fast-forward a dozen years and not much has changed. While, unfortunately, my dreams of becoming a Disney princess were shattered, my infatuation with Disney has not died down. The Decoding Disney course seemed like it would be an extremely unique experience in which I could improve my writing while engaging with such a relatable topic. When (shout out to the gods of ACES) a new section of the course magically appeared online, I felt that my fairytale was falling into place and, needless to say, enrolled immediately.

I look forward to studying the evolution of Disney throughout the years. By this I mean both the technological improvements and the conceptual changes. In comparing the Disney classic Cinderella to the newest hit Frozen, it’s clear that Frozen has more advanced graphics, as well as a more modern idea of women being able to help themselves. I also am excited about discovering different perspectives on Disney, especially those that I would have never considered. I anticipate that there will be classmates that agree with my beliefs about Disney, as well as those who have an entirely different view. I hope that our varied opinions will lead to rich discussion and debate.  

This course parallels the transition from childhood to adulthood that college is all about. I am excited to turn my childhood passion for Disney into a complex and debate-provoking matter. As this course takes us on a journey of exploring and analyzing the world of Disney, I look forward to finding out what lies beyond the happily ever after.