I haven't seen teh movie yet but I'm one of thos epeople who are not "spoiled" on the movie by knowing details. Anywho, I'd heard the same things about the movie that you said with the exception of your analysis of why Tiana was being turned into a frog.

I thought the whole being turned into a frog bit happened because well, she posed as a princess and well...wasn't. A princess/prince by deifnition is someone who is heir to a throne or at the very least MARRIED to someone who is an heir. She was neither at the time of the kiss. It would serve as a way to one 1) punish the Prince for trying to trick the spell if he had known she was indeed NOT a "real" princess and 2) warn others who may have tried to sell a kiss that their "deception" would come at a price.

I felt the same way about it. However, I don't have the same reservations about the marriage. They decided to spend their lives together, even as frogs. They were going to make the most of the danger and the fun together. If you remember, the human Naveen was only going to marry so that he would have money to finance his lifestyle. The frog Naveen grew into someone who could marry because he found an equal (or a better) in Tiana.

All in all, it's a movie I feel very comfortable taking my niece to. The story is good and the underlying theme is that a dream and hard work will take you where you want to go.

I'm so glad to hear that others like this movie as much as I did. I couldn't stop smiling the whole time. For once, a Princess that's independent, hard-working, and thinks for herself!

I really liked this movie, from an ideological standpoint (I didn't feel like it held up as a narrative as well as, say, Beauty and the Beast or Sleeping Beauty), for exactly the reasons you say, Rose. The story was about her trying to get her restaurant, everything she did was about that, and the prince was a side plot.

I think your points about the marriage are interesting. I hadn't thought of them that way. With the marriage, along with the Lottie side plot, I was struck by the emphasis on the fluid nature of "princess." Whether or not that's feminist, or even could be, I don't know, but I thought it was interesting.

Oh, and her name is Tiana, not Tatiana, as you called her twice in the post

I work very very hard, and I think one of the hardest things for me growing up was trying to combat peoples impressions of me as always sexually available and constant sexual harrassment in the workplace.

What the OP labels "sexual policing" is IMO a way of avoiding "jezebel pitfalls". Black women are hypsersexualized and any movie that says she has a choice to say no to the business of sex is a good one for me.

The black family was directly attacked by slavery. A strong marriage where both husband and wife are equal partners leaning on the other is critical to healing the black community. Black women have had to be the "rock of Zion" for WAY too long. It's time to just be get some balance, pick up your feet and just a freaking princess for once!

I took my 2 and half year old daughter to see this. She's totally into "princesses" right now and I'm doing my best to counter this, but I also know that arguing with a two year old is fruitless at best.

I loved the movie. I was expecting to be bored and angry, but I was enchanted. I loved the hand-drawn animation (which gave it more life than other animated movies I've seen...and I've seen a lot of them), I loved the music, and I loved the humour. My daughter was fascinated, and was not antsy until the last few minutes.

I walked out of the theatre happy that I took Gracie to see it. While I usually feel crappy about playing into her princess obsession in any way, I felt that this film was different. Not perfect, and not without reservations, but better than most. And very entertaining.

Really enough already. It's fine to like this movie but please, it wasn't some "feminist" masterpiece and no different or better than some of the other Disney Princess pictures. And honestly as a WOC it kind of bothers me when I see grown women hyped up talking about they "need" this.

Yeah, I really liked it too. I don't think it was a "feminist masterpiece" but I do think that it was better than some of the other Disney Princess movies. Sleeping Beauty whose sole accomplishment is getting a prince to kiss her? Same thing for Snow White. Tiana, on the other hand, is portrayed as a hardworking woman with her own dreams that she is relying on no one else for. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction, even if it wasn't perfect.

What is wrong with not finding fulfillment in your career? I am a woman, engaged, with graduate studies at an Ivy league university, and there's nothing I want more than to be a wife and a mother. I would pick my husband and kids over my career any day and in a heartbeat with no looking back.

I don't believe that women and men are the same; we're equal but different. I have different needs than a man and I believe in traditional gender roles, that of a man being the provider/protector and the woman being the nurturer.

Men and women are complementaries of each other, we both need each other, as long as I have my husband I am self-sufficient.

as long as I have my husband I am self-sufficient

You do know the definition of "self-sufficient," right? Self-sufficient means you are sufficient by yourself, hence the "self" part.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have seen the trailer several times and was completely shocked by the proliferation of racist tropes within it. In a two-and-a-half minute preview, we get big butt jokes, tap dancing, tribal masks, a witch-doctor, and a snaggle-toothed grandpa firefly with lines just a shade away from "yassuh."

What amazes me even more is that I have seen no acknowledgment whatsoever of this in any of the reviews anywhere (not just on this thread). Again, I haven't seen the film in its entirety, and I'm sure it's possible to engage with these tropes in a sensitive and maybe even useful ways, but Disney is hardly the company I'd trust to do that, given their track record with racism and sexism in so many of their other films.

Can anyone in the feministing community who's seen the film speak to this aspect of it, and explain the radio silence?

While the overall movie was not as bad as I originally assumed there were inherent problem in the movie. Early in the movie Tiana's mother was insistent that she "find herself a husband" so she "could live out her happily ever after." Embedded in the statement is the idea that women can only find happiness and through marriage and women. While Tiana did not subscribe to this belief her mother continuously offered Tiana this type of gendered advice. While Tiana's mother had a very small role in the film her presence was quite problematic. One of the pitfalls of the welfare queen, the mammy and the matriarch is the inability to pass good morals to their children (Patricia Hill Collins). Tiana's mother's insistence that she have children and get married may be proliferating the idea that bad morals are passed down through generations. Although Tiana did not subscribe to these beliefs the fact that her mother was pushing her to have children is an inherent problem.

The relationship that between Charlotte's white friend was also bothersome. In the first scene of the movie Tiana is playing at Charlotte's magnificent house. When she leaves with her mother, on the bus, she goes to her very small home which is obviously in an urban setting. This scene suggests that African American people cannot gain wealth or prestige in America. Even though Tiana's mother is "the best seamstress in town, and her father can make the best gumbo in town, they cannot access a better life for themselves. After all it is Charlotte that "rescues" Tiana and gives her money for the restaurant. Charlotte also gives Tiana a dress to wear to the party, even though Tiana's mother made the dress. Charlotte is always there to save her poor black friend. The relationship between Tiana and Charlotte is quite interesting. It is the first time there their is an interracial friendship in a Disney cartoon, however Charlotte seems to be more of a savior than friend. Why Charlotte ad to be white is a question in itself. Is it still unthinkable to have a wealthy successful Black family on screen? Or why couldn't Charlotte be in the same social class as Tiana?Before this movie African Americans were completely invisible in cartoons, why in the first movie with a black princess did her best friend have to be a wealthy white girl?

The movie also portrayed poor whites as ignorant, and thus deserving to be in their situation. Three white men were fishing late night when they were outwitted by frogs, Tiana and Naveen.

The negativity associated with Voodoo in the movie is a story by itself.

However, I believe the movie is beneficial. Giving young Black girls the opportunity to see a princess that looks like them is invaluable. The problems in the movie are symptoms of the sexism and racism inherent in America. These types of issues come up in all media outlets. Therefore while this movie has inherent problems it serves a purpose which is providing young Black the opportunity to see themselves on the big screen in a somewhat positive light. The bigger questions are what can we do to fix these problem that are so intricately woven into American society and how do we make Disney continue to make movie where minorities are the main character. There are many movies that depict the lives of white princess but minorities are tokenized and allowed one movie each. The freenzy over Tiana should not excuse Disney from years of ignoring the stores of Black women. TIana should not be the end of the black princess nor should Mulan, or Pocahantas. The problem of inclusion continues because of tokenism. Disney needs to continue to make movies about all women.

While the overall movie was not as bad as I originally assumed there were inherent problem in the movie. Early in the movie Tiana's mother was insistent that she "find herself a husband" so she "could live out her happily ever after." Embedded in the statement is the idea that women can only find happiness and through marriage and women. While Tiana did not subscribe to this belief her mother continuously offered Tiana this type of gendered advice. While Tiana's mother had a very small role in the film her presence was quite problematic. One of the pitfalls of the welfare queen, the mammy and the matriarch is the inability to pass good morals to their children (Patricia Hill Collins). Tiana's mother's insistence that she have children and get married may be proliferating the idea that bad morals are passed down through generations. Although Tiana did not subscribe to these beliefs the fact that her mother was pushing her to have children is an inherent problem.

The relationship that between Charlotte's white friend was also bothersome. In the first scene of the movie Tiana is playing at Charlotte's magnificent house. When she leaves with her mother, on the bus, she goes to her very small home which is obviously in an urban setting. This scene suggests that African American people cannot gain wealth or prestige in America. Even though Tiana's mother is "the best seamstress in town, and her father can make the best gumbo in town, they cannot access a better life for themselves. After all it is Charlotte that "rescues" Tiana and gives her money for the restaurant. Charlotte also gives Tiana a dress to wear to the party, even though Tiana's mother made the dress. Charlotte is always there to save her poor black friend. The relationship between Tiana and Charlotte is quite interesting. It is the first time there their is an interracial friendship in a Disney cartoon, however Charlotte seems to be more of a savior than friend. Why Charlotte ad to be white is a question in itself. Is it still unthinkable to have a wealthy successful Black family on screen? Or why couldn't Charlotte be in the same social class as Tiana?Before this movie African Americans were completely invisible in cartoons, why in the first movie with a black princess did her best friend have to be a wealthy white girl?

The movie also portrayed poor whites as ignorant, and thus deserving to be in their situation. Three white men were fishing late night when they were outwitted by frogs, Tiana and Naveen.

The negativity associated with Voodoo in the movie is a story by itself.

However, I believe the movie is beneficial. Giving young Black girls the opportunity to see a princess that looks like them is invaluable. The problems in the movie are symptoms of the sexism and racism inherent in America. These types of issues come up in all media outlets. Therefore while this movie has inherent problems it serves a purpose which is providing young Black the opportunity to see themselves on the big screen in a somewhat positive light. The bigger questions are what can we do to fix these problem that are so intricately woven into American society and how do we make Disney continue to make movie where minorities are the main character. There are many movies that depict the lives of white princess but minorities are tokenized and allowed one movie each. The freenzy over Tiana should not excuse Disney from years of ignoring the stores of Black women. TIana should not be the end of the black princess nor should Mulan, or Pocahantas. The problem of inclusion continues because of tokenism. Disney needs to continue to make movies about all women.

Saw this movie tonight with my partner and came out feeling kind of dirty, because despite having a lot of problems with the movie, it was hard to dislike it overall. Disney certainly knows how to work their magic. If you haven't already seen the movie, there are spoilers below.

Anyway, one of the biggest issues I had with the movie was its glorification of liberal individualism, or the notion that if you just work hard enough, you'll achieve what you want in life. It completely disregards the racist, classist institutions that systematically exclude droves of people from elevating themselves economically/socially (eg, white privilege). The emphasis on the "work hard, get far" fantasy certainly wasn't surprising considering the US's capitalist structure is founded so deeply in individualism. This idea was only challenged once, and even then in an indirect, roundabout way (when Mama Odie was trying to get Tiana to realize that maybe working even harder isn't the answer), which will likely go over the heads of most children.

All of this invariably got me thinking about the definitions we have of "hard work." I don't know about you, but whenever I hear the term hard work, it's generally in the context of "menial," unskilled, or physical labor. Then we have Tiana, who was also portrayed in a very positive light for working two hard jobs (she even did a Snow White like dance as she gracefully and easily juggled all of her work, because waiting tables is fun!) So what is this supposed to say, specifically to young Blacks in the audience? To work multiple hard, low-paying jobs all the while singing and dancing and being grateful, instead of investing themselves in some sort of training that would allow you to work less hours for more pay? Or *gasp* challenging the system to ensure fair compensation and treatment so that we aren't wage slaves? Why is it even acceptable that someone has to work 2 jobs to get anywhere?

Another big problem we had with the movie was the contrast between Doctor Facilier and Big Daddy. Facilier is vilified for, among many things, being a greedy bastard who wants to take money and power that he hasn't "earned," whereas Big Daddy's massive wealth and social power are shown as completely normal/neutral. Big daddy made his money off being white and owning a sugar mill, and in all likelihood exploiting the workers who made his company a success, yet at worst, he's portrayed as a lovable, pushover oaf. He seems to run the town, what with his being "crowned" 5 years in a row and hobnobbing with royalty, but unlike Facilier, none of his scenes have ominous music with dancing shadows and lots of dark imagery. It's normal. But Facilier's desire for what Big Daddy has, well, that was just EVIL! Granted, Big Daddy probably didn't trade the souls of the townsfolk for his success, but that bit really only came in at the end, after the plan was already concocted.

I was also kind of astonished at how the movie condoned violence - as long as it's against the "bad guys!" In the scene where the hunters were trying to trap Tiana and the Prince, it wasn't enough for the main characters to fight off their attackers and run away, no, they had to enjoy beating them beyond what was reasonably necessary, all the while making light of it by making jokes and funny faces. Since when is encouraging sadistic violence a value we want to instill in our youth? This was later reinforced during our "happy" ending when Tiana offers the original, outbid sum for the restaurant, and our lovable alligator Louis menacingly scares the property owners into submission. Um, what?

I also can't overlook the speciesism present in the film. The alligator fears being killed by the hunters, who might want to turn him into a commodity (belt, shoes, meal, who knows?) and the frogs most definitely don't want to be turned into someone's dinner, but right after they escape their attackers, Louis talks about how he wants a meal and instantly licks his lips and mentions some animal or another he'd like to devour. While some of you might say, but of course Atalia, alligators eat other animals in real life! Well, yes, but this isn't real life, this is a Disney movie, and if we want to nitpick about whether or not things are realistic, we can look at the likelihood that Tiana and Lottie ever becoming friends, or the availability of jobs in that time period, especially for Blacks, when contrasted with Tiana's 2 and the redeemed prince's promises of working 3. Anyway, they completely glaze over the contradiction of "I don't want to be anyone else's meal" and "I want someone else to be my meal." Also, was it just me, or was the notion of eating frog legs also presented in an EW, THAT'S GROSS way as another affirmation that these are BAD GUYS? Were we supposed to forget that in the opening scenes, we see Tiana and her family eating a meal with shrimp? Why is eating frogs worse than eating shrimps?

It also completely glazed over Blacks dying in the trenches of war (Tiana's father) for a country that systematically abuses and discards them, the long and complicated history of Voodoo as well as the fact that it's, you know, an actual religion, not just silly magic tricks (I'd love to see a movie get approved where Christian 'magic' is the antagonistic agent in the same ways Voodoo was used here), and the role of men vs. women post-marriage (during their first wedding, Mama Odie pronounces them Frog and Wife, not Frog and Frog, not Husband and Wife), etc etc etc

Oh, and two little girls at the theater came dressed in frilly princess dresses and crowns...boo for the early gendering of our youth, and boo for me thinking it was cute *sigh*

Enough out of me. What did you guys think?

One of the things that I found to be refreshing is that Charlotte & Tiana's relationship is that of actual friendship.

I fully expected Charlotte to use their relationship only to her convenience b/c this is how the majority of interracial female friendships are portrayed on screen. Even if the woc is the main character, when it comes to her white friend/s she's still just supportive & it's all about them. It's a one sided deal.

So when Charlotte had the chance to marry her prince I had my heart steeled, ready for her to do whatever it took to make her dream come true. Instead she decided to do whatever it took to make Tiana's dream come true. Which might not seem like much, but it was to me.

I was very impressed with Disney's efforts and I wonder if they can/will do better next time.

@Claudia

The exaggerated optimism is one of the things I had a problem with. I realize it’s a Disney movie and it has to be happy, but in ignoring the resentment Blacks at that time felt and the hatred most whites had towards them, I felt like the movie painted a deliberately dishonest image of that period.

Also, in line with your comment about training, that’s sort of my point – in any era where racism was so rampant, it’s unrealistic to believe she would have been able to find job, let alone TWO, during the Great Depression. The question isn’t about whether any of this is realistic. It’s about what message it sends out to the children in the audience. I never said I wanted Tiana to have no problems in getting a well paid career, you’re extrapolating that from what I did say, which was that the movie’s emphasis on “hard work” alone is dishonest and dangerously misleading.

I don’t agree with what you say about her graceful dish routine, how many “wealthy middle class” restaurant owners do you know that actually do the grunt work at their establishments? I think it echoes a Snow White happy-go-lucky, boy-i-love-manual-labor sentiment. I don’t think she explicitly becomes any more wealthy at the end of the film, the Prince is still probably cut off and she offers the property owners the original sum of money for a down payment. So she gained no wealth, she gained debt (coupled with a way to pay it off, assuming the restaurant is a success).

Speciesism is avoidable, and it is important. *Speciesism is a feminist issue.* The same logic of domination that was used to justify the rape, genocide, and enslavement of Natives, Blacks, and other systematically subjugated groups is being used against non-human animals. We need to end ALL hierarchical exploitation, not just some of it. The first wave of feminism dealt with the issues of middle class white women, and was criticized for being exclusive of others’ plights and experiences. Why should we let history repeat itself?

I'm studying to be an animator and I've been excited for this movie for the past three years, I've been following any updates on the story and the characters I could find. And this year I could tell how wonderful everything was being put together.

In truth, I was a bit concerned on what this website would have to say about this movie. But I really loved this article (I disagree with the last paragraph, but that's my own opinion). I personally, loved the movie from both a animator and a feminist view.

"This happened after the property owners of her restaurant told her she was a few dollars short."

I've seen a couple people interpret this scene far, far too literally.

She wasn't "a few dollars short" and she hadn't been "outbid". Those real estate agents invented a "bidder" who didn't actually exist in order to keep the "young woman, with [her] background" from owning a business.

It seems to me that a lot of people's complaints about the movie stem from having little to no knowledge of what black Americans went through (especially in the Deep South in the 1920s). Commentators on this board have complained that the movie shows white people as privileged and black families being poor and having to struggle and still not getting money? Well, heaven forfend we show things the way they actually were.

Disney got about as explicit as they could in the disparities of wealth, disparities of opportunities, disparities of respect, and even disparities of location while still being a children's movie. I imagine they never would have gotten a "G" rating if they had shown Tiana be threatened by white men in the streets after dark, or if they'd noted that "Big Daddy" had taken Charlotte out to a lynching picnic the previous weekend.

I just saw the movie today and although I enjoyed it overrall---Ray, the firefly, TOTALLY stole the show---I have a few problems:

1) Charlotte keeps calling her daddy "big daddy." That sounded weirdly sexual to me!

2) Poor Prince Naveen's handler got the short end of the stick---how would we feel if he was an old heavy woman wanting to get married? Seemed like Ursala remix. Age and Fat is viewed as horrorifying in this film.

3) Naveen's parents "cut him off"? Seriously?

4) The moral of the story seemed to be, "Girls work hard for your dreams, but don't forget to pick up a man along the way because that's what is REALLY important in life." Thankfully, Naveen falls in love with her cuz she's independent, but I felt that marriage and creating a family was much more important in this film than any of the others.