So, to start off, if you read the first version of this post -- I'm really sorry. I actually thought that I deleted it, but technology and I don't always work completely in sync, and this actually did not happen.
Basically, last Friday night I was in the 4th floor common room with BF, attempting to get some homework done before a two-day rugby tournament. ("The tournament?" you ask - a success! "The homework?" Well, not so much...) [Un]fortunately for us, someone else had reserved the room to watch that new Disney movie, The Princess and the Frog.
I was exhausted and nervous and distracted, so of course my attention wandered from the arousing topic of my paper (Caribbean epics, anyone?) to mindless, colorful objects flickering on a screen. I didn't feel so badly, as BF was doing the exact same thing.
As I was "getting nowhere, way too fast" with the aforementioned paper, I decided to try for a blog post - maybe that would stimulate my writing abilities. And so I wrote the post that you may or may not have read that used to be here. Satisfied, I pointed out to BF that I had, kinda, sorta, maybe accomplished something and was going to turn in for the night. Curious (and possibly wanting to prolong her own procrastination), she asked me what I was writing about. And I told her about my "review" of The Princess and the Frog. How I generally liked it, the things I thought Disney had improved as opposed to its regular schtick, etc. "Really?" she said, actually surprised. "But it was so controversial!" Now it was my turn to be surprised. "Really?" I responded. And that's how we got into a conversation about the relative cultural merits of The Princess and the Frog.
And the debate can be summed up as such: Yes, it was nice that they had a princess of color and yes, it was interesting to have the film in a different setting (the south) than is usually depicted, and yes, the princess was hard-working and an overall interesting, dynamic character and not one whose sole purpose in life seemed to be finding "Prince Charming." (For the record, it was opening her own restaurant in memory of her father.) She wasn't one of those empty-headed pretties that are too-often on display for children.
BUT: She was also a frog for a majority of the movie - she wasn't depicted as her full self and was, in fact, demeaned by being turned into a lowly, slimy creature. Does this have anything to do with the fact that she was a princess of color? Also, the south was, as things typically are in these types of things, overdone and stereotyped - did that give people the wrong impression, and is that impression more damaging than having it not represented at all? Does "drawing attention" to something stop being worth it at a certain point? And as for Prince Charming, himself - Oh, there was apparently a whole debate about his skin color. At first, he was lighter skinned, and people we all "Oh, so we can't have a black man as a central character in this children's movie?" So apparently, the film was gone through and his color was darkened. And then people were all "Oh, so we can't have an interracial marriage with a black woman and a white man?"
...sometimes, you just can't win.
I mean, it gave me a lot to think about. I "deleted" (although apparently, not-so-much) this post and sighed at BF. "Guess I'm re-writing that one tomorrow." She felt guilty for making me re-evaluate, although she needn't have - discussions like that, as infuriating as they sometimes are, are really the reason I came to this school: to learn how to think critically about things.
Except... I don't always do a very good job of it. I told BF "You know, I always try to see the good in people/things. I thought that Disney was trying to make a progressive step forward with this movie... and was so caught up in seeing that, that I didn't want to see the potential problems." To be honest, they kept cropping up in the back of my mind. But I didn't want to talk about them; I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and say "Hey, maybe this was a good thing - good can come out of it." She asked me why I was like that, and I had to think about it.
In fact, I still am. Apparently.
I mean, my default setting for people is "like." Not everyone's is - it takes them a while to open up and trust, and while, I don't think I do that too readily in terms of deeper things, I am a very open person on the surface, and try to quell my human instincts to judge someone too quickly, lest I be mistaken and regret it later.
But should I be more judgmental? I mean, being "discerning" is a mark of intelligence - I shouldn't just take things at face value, like I often try to. Isn't the education I'm supposed to be getting (especially as an English major) supposed to be preparing me to think critically, to question things and to speak up against things that "aren't right?"
I'm going to stop before I go off on a tangent about the definition of "right" (which is where this could easily start heading), but I think this is all interesting to keep in mind.
...and to think, I thought this post was going to be a sort of "throwaway" that I snuck in on a Friday night to fill the quota for my grade.
Look at that - it took on a life of it's own and became all interesting. Huh.
No comments:
Post a Comment