“LET HER GO”

THE EVOLUTION OF THE DISNEY FEMALE

MODEL
IN TANGLED, BRAVE AND FROZEN

By
Paraskevi Markopoulou

A dissertation to the Department of American Literature and Culture, School of

English, Faculty of Philosophy of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

September 2015
 “LET HER GO”
THE EVOLUTION OF THE DISNEY FEMALE
MODEL
IN TANGLED, BRAVE AND FROZEN

By
Paraskevi Markopoulou

Has been approved

September 2015

APPROVED:

__________
__________
__________
Supervisory Committee

ACCEPTED:

_________
Department Chairperson
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………..……i
Preface ……………………………….……………………………………….………………….ii

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….………….....4

Chapter One

The Disneyization of Folk Tradition……………………………….……………………….…...12

Chapter Two

2.1 Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Has the Princess Changed at All?.....................................54

2.2 What happened to the Big Bad Wolf?.....................................................................................89

Conclusions…………………………………………….………………..….…………….……117

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...121

Filmography………………………………………………………………….………………..132
 i

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Zoe Detsi, for the

patience, the understanding and the useful comments and remarks that facilitated the

writing process of this thesis. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Tatiani Rapatzikou.

Without her I would never have studied in the Uppsala University, Sweden, and

therefore, I would not have become familiar with its amazing library system, which

enriched not only my Bibliography, but mostly my knowledge and comprehension of

the Walt Disney phenomenon. Last but not least, I feel obliged to thank my close

friend and economist Kleopatra Partalidou, who spent personal time and effort, in

order to provide me with hard-to-find financial data on the Disney Company, as well

as my family for supporting me in any possible way during the writing process.
 ii

Preface

Having been raised with the Disney princess film line, I have always had a personal

interest in the Disney fairytale tradition, not only as a result of a nostalgic feeling for my

childhood, but mostly because I believed that by understanding Disney, I would be able to

understand myself better. My curiosity turned into passion, when I studied Disney princesses

more elaborately as a graduate student, while attending a course on feminist theories in my

university. I already knew that my love for Disney that was based on my memories, would be

brutally shuttered, once I started studying feminist theory, but that was a risk I was willing to

take, in order to get a step closer to the young princesses that I adored.

I knew before I even started my research that, Disney in general is not a virgin field for

scholarly investigation. However, the twenty-first century Disney certainly was. The fact that

there had not been a thorough examination of the latest Disney animation films by critics,

probably because of their recent release date, meant that I was free to explore them without any

sort of predisposition. Certainly the curse of subjectivity is always there, as one’s own ideals,

beliefs, aspirations and expectations render any research quite limiting, but I tried to be free from

them, as much as possible, in order to have a more just view of the Disney evolution. On the

other hand though, it is evident for any researcher, that the lack of scientific material while

studying a subject raises the demands and the responsibility of one’s work. But that was another

risk I was willing to take. Not only because of my own interests and ambitions, but also because

I considered it necessary for these films to be critically and thoroughly analyzed, so that the

future researchers of Disney and film studies in general can have an informed idea about the
 ii

changes that the company’s perspective underwent. By providing the academia with this research

paper, I wish to make a scientific contribution and bridge the gap between the old and the future

Disney researchers.

This is the story behind the conception of this project. I hope that the readers will find

this research paper enlightening and enrich their knowledge and understanding of the Disney

philosophy, without forgetting to enjoy the literary value of the text.

 4

Introduction

The Disney company has always been a controversial topic. While Disney and its

productions have been the subject of a heated debate in the field of cultural studies as well as

within the feminist academic circles, because of the peculiar moral codes as well as the gender

stereotyping that its films seem to perpetuate, it never quite lost its prestige and popularity within

the industry of animation films. The tremendous support that Disney has always been offered,

both by critics and, mostly, the audience, even when it was thoroughly scrutinized and criticized,

is very confusing to any Disney researcher.In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, I noticed

that there are two basic reasons why this controversy occurs.

The first reason would probably be that critics themselves seem to have undervalued the

importance of the impact that Disney films could have on the formation or perpetuation of

American ideologies. In Deconstructing Disney, Eleanor Byrne refers to this negligence as ―the

apprehension of unworthiness of Disney for serious academic investigation‖ (59). The second

reason would be that the company itself did not welcome any sort of criticism. It is very

characteristic of the company‘s attitude Elizabeth Bell‘s point that ―Disney does not allow third-

party books to use the name ‗Disney‘ in their titles [as] this implies sponsorship by the Disney

organization‖ (1). Furthermore, based on Janet Wasko‘s analysis of the Disney profits, the appeal

that the Disney animation films had and still have to the public is remarkable. Snow White and the

Seven Dwarfs, according to Wasko, ―was an immediate hit, setting attendance records around the

USA, with box office grosses of $8.5 million within its first three months release‖ (14). A closer

look at the Disney company profits, provided by Wasko, reveals that, from the $0.8 million that
 Markopoulou 5

the Disney industry earned in 1941, it managed to reach $22 million by 1970! In less than 30 years

the profit was multiplied. While the Disney company remained invulnerable to external pressures,

such as the Great Depression and the World War II, a company that was worth $4.7 billion in

1995 succeeded to raise the profits alone to $7.5 billion in 20141 (Bell 2). The refusal of the

company to be critically assessed, in combination with the fact that it has grown into a tremendous

corporation through the merchandising of films, toys, books and clothing, has made the

examination of the Disney phenomenon urgent.

At the same time, however, even the audience fails to provide or even accept criticism that

focuses on the Disney films. I would like to refer at this point to Roberta Seelinger Trites‘s

experience with Ann, a college female student. According to Trites, while analyzing ―The Little

Mermaid,‖ the original Andersen‘s tale, the conversation led to the Disney adaptation (138).

Trites‘s personal opinion that ―whether or not the artists are conscious of creating sexist images

and whether or not children are aware of perceiving them, both groups are involved in

perpetuating ancient symbols of female repression‖ raised strong opposition on the part of Ann

(139). Ann argued that ―kids never notice stuff like that anyway‖ and she left the class in tears

(Trites 139). Ann‘s frustration is a striking example of how deeply rooted the Disney films are in

the young audience‘s soul and consciousness. Taking into consideration that Disney animation

films, as every piece of art, is political and promotes specific models, Ann was herself the living

proof that Trites was right, since she herself embraced unconsciously as a young girl the Disney

female model. These images of femininity were so deeply rooted in her that they followed her as

1
The data is taken from bloomberg.com. For further information upon the financial data of the Disney

industry, the reader can visit the

site:<http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=DIS>.
 Markopoulou 6

she grew up. Every film‘s message is intentional; and most importantly, it is exactly the fact that

kids are unable to notice these ideological representations, that this political message earns ground

and blooms in their unconscious.

Attention should also be given, however, to the fact that in Trites‘s example we notice a

confusion between the Andersen‘s tale ―The Little Mermaid‖ and the Disney film that bears the

same title. The Disney industry, not only entered the field of folk tale, but also managed to

substitute the original tales with the Disney versions of them, which have gained so much fame

that the original tales have been completely forgotten. This process of ―disneyization,‖ as Alan

Bryman calls it, is explained by the strong connection that the Disney model has with the

American culture. As Bryman points out, ―culture becomes more and more economically inflected

when commercial organizations create idioms that find their way into culture. These cultural

elements are representations that frequently sanitize and distort‖ (174). Jack Zipes, in his article

―Breaking the Disney Spell,‖ also tries to identify the reasons why Disney tales became so

popular, as well as the alterations that Disney made on the folk tales that the company used as

primary material in the production of their animation films. Zipes characterizes the Disney film as

an ―attack on the literary tradition of the fairy tale. He robs the literary tale of its voice and

changes form and meaning. […] In fact, the fairy tale is practically infantilized, just as the jokes

are infantile. The plot records the deepest oedipal desire of every young boy: the son humiliates

and undermines the father and runs off with his most valued object of love, the daughter/wife‖

(344).

The plot of the Disney animation films has also been the focus of the feminist community,

as they maintain that the female heroine is undermined, while the heterosexual patriarchy is

glorified. In The Madwoman in the Attic Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar notice, while analyzing
 Markopoulou 7

Disney‘s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1939) that ―the film follows the classic ‗sexist‘

narrative about the framing of women‘s lives through a male discourse. Such male framing drives

women to frustration and some women to the point of madness. It also pits women against women

in competition for male approval (the mirror) of their beauty that is short-lived. No matter what

they may do, women cannot chart their own lives without male manipulation and intervention‖

(qtd in Zipes 348).

Regarding the representation of femininity, critics have concluded that Disney offers

limited and limiting choices for women, as the company emphasizes the stereotypical duality of

female nature; in that sense, a woman in a Disney animation film can be either naively good or

unjustifiably evil. This is the main focus of Amy Davis‘s book Good Girls and Wicked Witches.

This moral dilemma that the Disney female body incarnates is seen by Davis as a characteristic of

the 1930s Hollywood tradition. Given that the Disney company starts producing animation films

in the same period, it is no surprise that Davis speaks of the ―female double film‖ in parallel with

the Disney structure. Quoting Hollinger, Davis argues that in this sub-genre, there are two female

heroines with similar characteristics, one good and one evil; ―the good woman‘s traits are aligned

with conventional femininity (passivity, sweetness, emotionality, asexuality), and the bad one‘s

personality is associated with masculinity (assertiveness, acerbity, intelligence, eroticism)‖ (qtd in

Davis 124).

This lack of options for female characters in Disney animation films renders the

identification of the female spectator highly problematic. Since ―80 per cent of [the Disney]

audience are women,‖ based on Walt Disney‘s statement in 1936, it is no wonder why the feminist

community has opposed the Disney princess model (qtd in Davis 123). While Laura Mulvey in her

essay ―Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema‖ argues that the female spectator is deprived of the
 Markopoulou 8

power of the ―gaze,‖ as the gaze is traditionally linked to the male spectator in Hollywood, it

seems that Disney is more than willing to invite female identification, no matter how limiting that

is. Cultural studies have focused on this identification and the possible impact it has on the

formation of gendered behaviors among children. Karem Wohlwend presents the findings of a

study she conducted that involved kindergarten children and the Disney toyline. The results of the

research showed that children internalize the Disney plots and imitate gendered behaviors, while

they play with the Disney dolls. Thus, the attention that was drawn on Disney company and the

representation of femininity that it promotes is quite justified and necessary.

In combination to these findings, the fact that the Disney princess tradition has been linked

to passivity and unconditional obedience renders the issue of gender stereotyping even more

problematic. The princesses have been accused of being too pretty, too silent and naively good,

while Kay Stone points out that the heroines of Walt Disney ―seem barely alive. In fact, two of

them hardly manage to stay awake‖ (qtd. in Janet Wasko 133). However, the Disney princess

seems to always have been a dynamic model under constant evolution. Taking into consideration

Davis‘s categorization of the princesses based on their behavioral characteristics, the first

princesses, Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora, all fall into the Classic Era, despite the

chronological gap between them. According to Davis, ―[a]ll are very kind, graceful, good-natured,

beautiful, musical, innocent young girls‖ (101). They all accept their misery stoically, reinforcing

in this way the melodramatic aspect of the Disney plot, as the heroines endure multiple tortures in

silence, only to be rewarded for their patience in the end by a deus ex machina, usually in the face

of a handsome prince. The Disney princess model, however has been evolving continuously

throughout the twentieth century, by providing an alternative model of female representation with

the advent of the 1980s. Ariel (1989), Belle (1991) and Mulan (1998), the representatives of the
 Markopoulou 9

―Eisner‖ Era according to Davis have little in common with their predecessors, as they appear to

be far more assertive and dynamic (176). ―Unlike Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, […]

Ariel actively seeks adventure and works hard to achieve the goal she has set for herself, rather

than simply responding to the crises with which she is presented‖ (Davis 178). Belle, in her turn,

is also different from the previous princesses, as she is the only one that is presented as an

intellectual, a ―bookworm‖ in Davis‘s own words, that is not in search of true love, but rather

embodies the ―good daughter‖ (191, 189).

It is only expected that the Disney princess model would continue to evolve with the

advent of the twenty first century. However, while I was conducting my research I was struck by

the lack of critical sources on the more recent Disney princesses, Rapunzel (Tangled 2010),

Merida (Brave 2012) and Anna and Elsa (Frozen 2013)2. After watching these films, I realized

that these princesses certainly do not fall into the Disney princess tradition as we know it, since

they appear more self-motivated, strong-willed and independent than their predecessors. The

contrast is evident after comparing them not only to the first era princesses (Snow White,

Cinderella, Aurora), but also to the allegedly more dynamic princesses, such as Ariel and Belle.

What could this change mean? Are we talking about a new Disney era as far as the

Princesstradition is concerned?

2
At this point I need to inform the reader that this thesis does not include analysis of ethnic princesses,

such as Jasmine (Aladdin 1992), Mulan (Mulan 1998), Pocahontas (Pocahontas 1995) and Tiana (The

Princess and the Frog 2009). I certainly do not neglect the importance of the ethnic element within the

Disney animation film tradition. However,I think that this subject is closer to the field of Ethnic Studies,

rather than Feminism, which is the pure focus of this thesis.

 Markopoulou 10

So, this thesis focuses on the Disney evolution, as far as the female representation is

concerned. While in the past Disney altered the folk tales, by romanticizing the plot and

undermining the heroine‘s power,in the more recent films Disney has been adherent to the original

meanings and purposes of the tales that are told. Starting from comparing the way that Disney

misread the old tales with the new Disney‘s respect towards them, this paper continues with a

comparison between the older (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty,

The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast) and the more recent Disney animation films (Tangled,

Brave, Frozen) with the focus being always on the female figure. The princesses are analyzed as

physical and ideological bodies. I am not only interested in their appearance and the extent to

which that has evolved, but also in their attitude and actions. These actions, in their turn, reveal

changes in the way contemporary Disney handles issues, such as femininity, sisterhood,

motherhood, matriarchy and evilness. At the same time, I view this Disney evolution as a result of

external factors, meaning the social changes that affected the notion of femininity, and internal

ones, meaning the risk of bankruptcy that the company faced in the 90s and the relatively recent

purchase of Pixar by Disney. With the help of cultural studies, feminist theory and psychoanalysis

I aim to address a series of important social concerns. Is the princess still passive? Is the villainess

still unjustifiably evil? Is matriarchy still a curse?

As far as the structure of the paper is concerned, it is divided in two chapters. The first chapter

deals with the disneyization of folk tales, meaning the romanticization of the plot of traditional

fairy tales, such as the Grimms‘ or Perrault‘s.In this chapter I explore the Disney evolution,

regarding the alterations made to the original tales that were employed by the company in their

animation films. What I mostly want to emphasize is that, while in the previous films we notice a

romanticization of all fairytales, which undermines the female heroine‘s voice and prestige, in the
 Markopoulou 11

more recent films Disney seems to have abided by the original meanings and morals of the tales.

The second chapter is dedicated to the female figure and the changes that it has undergone in the

latest Disney animation films. The first part of the chapter deals with the princess, while the

second one is concerned with the villainess figure. My choice of using this binarism,good versus

evil girl, even as a structural element of my thesis, is intentional and functions as a comment to the

dilemma that Disney has traditionally posed to women: good and passive or dynamic and evil.

However, there have been tremendous alterations within the Disney company. Based on

my analysis presented in the first part of the second chapter, the princess figure has been

completely transformed. Although externally the changes are very poor, which is construed as

Disney‘s purposeful adherence to the media beauty culture, internally the princess changes from a

passive, victimized, obedient girl to a dynamic, independent young woman. This change is

supported not only by the princess‘s actions and attitude but also from various structural elements

that have become a vital part of all Disney animation films (death, the animal friends and the role

of the prince).What were the social and financial reasons for this changes? Are they an indication

that Disney has entered post-feminism? What is meta-Disney and how it functions in the recent

Disney animation films? While the princess ideological body is completely altered, the villainess

figure, explored in the second part of the chapter, seems to become more humane or even extinct.

Contrary to the old, unjustifiably mean witch, the antagonists in Tangled, Brave and Frozenappear

to be more realistically portrayed, as people with needs and personal agendas. Does motherhood in

Disney acquire new connotations? Could this mean that the princess is now safe in a matriarchal

environment? And, finally, what happened to the traditional patriarchal structure that Disney has

always promoted? These are some of the questions that this thesis aspires to answer.
 Markopoulou 12

Chapter 1

The Disneyization of Folk Tradition

―Careful before you say ‗Listen to me‘

Children will listen‖
(From Disney‘s Into the Woods, 2015)

A thorough comparison of the original written tales with the filmic versions of them

reveals that Disney has altered folk tales by imposing on them a new set of rules and dictations as

far as the concept of femininity is concerned. What is interesting is that we notice a

romanticization of the original tales‘ plot and atmosphere in the Disney adaptations, while in the

folk tradition marriage and love is presented (if at all) mostly as a necessity of the era. In this way,

while folk tales described mostly the path from adolescence to maturity, a term that for women

connoted marriage, Disney films mostly describe the fervent desire of princesses to find true love.

This fact alone has transformed princesses, as I will explain further in this chapter, into pretty little

dreamers, since they are constricted into their own imaginary world rather than actively pursuing

their dreams. What I aim to prove, however, in this chapter is that this disneyization3 and

romanticization process seems to be coming to an end, after the release of Disney‘s Tangled

(2010), Brave (2012) and Frozen (2013). By examining closely the tales that inspired these films,

I have noticed that Disney has started to maintain the original meanings and symbols, as the

3
The term is borrowed by Alan Bryman, as used in The Disneyization of Society. More information about

the book can be found in the Bibliography.

 Markopoulou 13

company shifts the focus from the princess‘s romantic dreams to more complicated plots that do

not evolve around a heterosexual couple, but rather the heroine‘s journey towards maturity.

Starting from Disney‘s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), a number of changes

that were made to the original text in its transition into a film were deemed necessary in order to

spare filmic time and cost. However, these small alterations seem to have changed the overall

effect of the tale and most importantly the message that the brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

were aiming to convey in 1812, when the tale was first published.4 In the original tale, Snow

White is a seven-year-old girl who lives with her father, the king, and her stepmother, a selfish,

narcissistic woman, who makes her life purpose to kill every woman that her magic mirror regards

as prettier than herself. With the unfortunate Snow White being her only rival based on the words

of her magic mirror, the evil stepmother orders the death of the young child. Thanks to the

hunter‘s good will, Snow White escapes from the stepmother‘s fury and gets lost in the forest,

where she accidentally finds the house of seven dwarfs, which she intrudes and finds refugee for

the night. When she finally encounters the dwarfs, they agree to let her stay as long as she takes

care of the household chores. Without having another option of course, she accepts and stays with

the dwarfs who work in the mines all day leaving her alone in the house. After the magic mirror

reveals to the stepmother that she has been deceived and that Snow White is still alive, she decides

to kill Snow White herself by disguising as a peasant woman. She makes three attempts, the first

with laces that cut the heroine‘s breath, the second with a poisoned comb that she places on her

hair and the third with a poisoned apple; of the three attempts the last one succeeds and Snow

White dies, but is never buried. Thanks to her tremendous beauty the dwarfs decide to put her in a

4
The tale was named ―Snow White‖ (original title ―Sneewittchen‖) and was firstly published in the book

titled Grimms’ Fairy Tales (1812). The final revision of the story occurred in 1854.
 Markopoulou 14

glass coffin and admire her even after death. A prince, who happens to pass by, falls in love with

her beauty and asks from the dwarfs to give the coffin to him, as he wants to keep it in his palace.

They agree, but while they move her, the poisoned piece of apple that was stuck in her throat gets

loose and she comes back to life. The prince and Snow White get married and invite the evil

stepmother to the wedding forcing her to dance in two burning iron shoes, which leads to her

instant death.

It has been intriguing to explore the transformations that Disney made to this tale. First and

foremost, Snow White in the Disney version is not a child, but a young woman. In this sense, it is

expected that she could easily be involved in a romantic affair. Her filmic age seems convenient

enough, so that any possible interest on the part of the prince for her will not be considered pervert

or pedophilic. The implication that the film foreshadows a probable romance is strengthened by

another interesting detail that has been altered in the Disney film. While in the Grimms‘ tale the

hunter is ordered to bring back her liver and lungs, in the film the stepmother asks for her heart.

Interestingly enough, the whole essence and existence of Snow White is diminished to her heart,

an organ that has always connoted love and affection. Snow White needs her heart, not only to

live, but in a purely symbolic function, to give it to the prince, who appears even from the first

scene of the film, an element that does not exist in the tale version.

So, from the first minutes of the film the purpose of both heroes has been clearly defined.

Snow White is supposed to earn the love of her life and the prince is supposed to conquer her;

romance becomes the ultimate goal. It is no wonder that the two first murder attempts on the part

of the stepmother are completely neglected by the Disney film, since, not only are they not related

to the new dimension of the plot but would also make Snow White seem extremely ignorant and

naïve as a grown woman who is repeatedly cheated showing lack of critical thinking and alertness.
 Markopoulou 15

In the meantime, Disney enhances the romance by creating a loophole in the stepmother‘s spell;

the poisoned apple has an antidote: ―a true love‘s kiss.‖ Snow White wakes up and voluntarily

follows the prince after he gives her the kiss of life. While in the tale he asks for ―it,‖ meaning the

coffin, and has the body of Snow White taken to his palace without her consent, at least in the

beginning, in the film she acquiesces to follow him and be his wife, or simply his5. By accepting

him gladly as her partner, Disney makes the prince not only ―non-evil‖ but most importantly a

hero, who saves the heroine, the insinuation being naturally that she would have remained dead for

eternity if he did not happen to pass by or if she was not beautiful enough to draw his attention.

The prince in the tale accidentally passes by the dwarfs‘ house, ―where he sought shelter for the

night.‖ In the film, though, the dead Snow White‘s beauty becomes a legend, which leads to the

prince‘s coming to see the spectacle and, surprisingly enough, he happens to be the one she

already knows and loves. In other words, she uses her beauty to attract him. In fact, she is not even

in a position to use it, since she is lying dead; it is the others who spread the word for her.

However, following her prince and savior is not the first time that she volunteers in the

film. When she first meets the dwarfs, she begs them to stay and volunteers to cook and clean for

them, which naturally persuades them to keep her. In the tale, on the other hand, Snow White has

no option but to be a housewife, if she wants to stay in the dwarfs‘ house. It would be interesting

to compare at this point the two versions of the same story. The dialogue in the tale appears like

this:

5
The lack of page reference at this point and from now on means that the texts are drawn from online

sources that have no page numbers. The links that lead to the texts can be found in the Bibliography under

the corresponding title.

 Markopoulou 16

"If you will keep house for us, and cook, make beds, wash, sew, and knit, and keep everything

clean and orderly, then you can stay with us, and you shall have everything that you want."

"Yes," said Snow-White, "with all my heart."

The same point of the story is presented very differently in the filmic version, as Snow White

joyfully informs the dwarfs that ―[i]f you let me stay, I‘ll keep the house for you! I‘ll wash, saw,

sweep, cook.‖

These changes transform Snow White into a happy housewife, the personification of the

domestic, chaste woman and the story per se into a melodrama. This insinuation becomes a

certainty, when Snow White finds a dirty house and she gladly cleans it with the help of her

animal friends. In the tale she finds the dwarfs‘ house ―neat and clean,‖ which makes her a simple

intruder. In the film, though, it seems that her indiscreetness is forgiven as she offers something

back wholeheartedly. However, what she offers back is an act that has always been combined with

womanhood as well as female duties. It is exactly what Betty Friedan meant, when she talked

about the feminine mystique reigning in American society in the 1950s. The advertising

companies, films, books and science were molding ―women‘s lives‖ and claimed to mirror ―their

dreams‖ (Friedan 34). Whereas the feminine mystique dictates that each woman should fulfill her

own femininity, Friedan correctly points out that ―the new image this mystique gives to American

woman is the old image: ‗Occupation: housewife.‘ The new mystique makes the housewife-

mothers, who never had a chance to be anything else, the model for all women‖ (43). Therefore,

recycling this ideology, Snow White seems to embody the classic American housewife, whose life

revolves around the household chores and the dwarfs.

 Markopoulou 17

The filmic Snow White model has no development to show compared to the female model

that the Grimms promote. She remains a stock character throughout the film, as there is no

indication of character development, in contrast with the original texts that depicts the heroine‘s

journey towards maturity. Stock characters, however, is one of the most basic melodramatic

aesthetics. Both Snow White and Cinderella fall into the category of melodrama, as they include

all the elements that a melodrama consists of: the innocent young heroine that is victimized by an

evil villain (in the case of Disney the evil persona is mostly female), who engages the girl in a

collective of tests and tortures, which she stoically endures, only to find salvation at the end of the

story by a deus ex machina, meaning a poetic justice that rewards the heroine for remaining kind

and loving despite the difficulties.

This innocence and compassion towards the dwarfs that Snow White shows continues even

at the end of the film, where the stepmother dies in an accident, while being hunted by the dwarfs.

As a sign of cosmic retribution, she slips and falls over the cliff, offering to Snow White the poetic

justice thatwas previously mentioned. In the tale, though, the evil stepmother is punished by being

forced to dance in iron shoes that lead to her death. The innocence of Disney‘s Snow White

renders her a forgiving and kind angel rather than a realistic human being. She wins with her love,

devotion and passivity, rather than her actions.

Except for the romanticization of the filmic story, I spot another serious consequence that derives

from Disney‘s intervention on the tale, in that the meaning of the original story is completely

altered. I borrow at this point N. J. Giradot‘s interpretation of the Grimms‘ tale. According to

Giradot, the Snow White tale presents a motif that is common among folk tradition and that is, the

―initiatory scenario‖ (280). More specifically, he claims that the story is nothing more but a
 Markopoulou 18

description of the growing-up process, meaning Snow White‘s as well as every girl‘s ―passage

from childhood to adulthood, natural to cultural life, asexual to sexual life. More specifically for

Snow White, she makes the necessary move from the ―egocentric self-love of the child to the

other-directed love that is required for maintaining society through its institutionalized form of

marriage‖ (Giradot 280). Through this perspective, Giradot divides the story into three important

stages: the ―Phase of Separation,‖ the ―Phase of Liminality,‖ and the ―Phase of Reincorporation

and Rebirth‖ (281, 282). In the first stage, the seven year old Snow White leaves the motherly nest

and the rest of the world, which is a necessary stage for the maturation process (Giradot 281, 282).

It may seem quite early to leave the house at the age of seven, as Snow White does, but it is

important to remember that the age is symbolic. It does not mean that the girl literally abandons

the house, but that she enters the phase of liminality, which is the stage where the young girl is

subdued to tests posed by the older generation women, who are responsible for the girl‘s education

(Giradot 282). The young girl is trained, in order to become a competent wife and mother. This

competence is naturally connected to the household, as the woman needs to know how to take care

of the domestic sphere. In that sense, it seems in fact too early for the girl that is still a child, to be

faced with such huge burden. However, in the German society of 1812, when the tale was

originally written, the age of fourteen was considered ideal for a girl to enter marriage and

motherhood, as it is the biological maturity, meaning menstruation, that dictated social maturity as

well. As Giradot notices, the stepmother of the tale attacks the three elements that constitute

womanhood: she uses laces to attack the breath, meaning the spirit of the girl, a comb to attack the

hair, which stands for ―physical power and spiritual power‖ and last but not least a poisoned red

apple, which has various meanings; it could stand for the ―menstrual blood,‖ which signifies the
 Markopoulou 19

initiation of womanhood, or even for the discovery of sexuality, in a more biblical reading

(Giradot 291, 283, 292).

Based on this interpretation of the story, Snow White‘s age of seven is important, as it

symbolizes the beginning of the maturation process. According to Giradot, Snow White must have

remained in the coffin for seven years only to wake up at fourteen, an age where physiologically a

girl turns into a woman (282, 283). In the end, Snow White enters the third and last stage of

maturation, meaning death and rebirth, which is symbolic. The death is not physical but

psychological, as the girl has to transform the love for herself into love for the others, a stage that

the stepmother has failed to surpass (Giradot 287). The death ―involves,‖ as Giradot mentions, ―a

reiteration of the overall cycle of transformation‖ (293). At the end of the tale, the stepmother is

forced to die, which once more is a symbol of the old generation‘s retreat and its replacement by

the new ones, so that the circle of life can go on (Giradot 298).

This model of interpretation, however, cannot apply to the Disney version of the tale, as

the changes made have altered the meaning of the story. The filmic heroine is a grown woman

rather than a kid, the stepmother makes only one attempt to murder her instead of three, Snow

White is awakened by the prince‘s kiss, before the ritual of maturation is complete, meaning

before the physical and psychological maturation of the girl, and, finally, the stepmother‘s death is

presented as a result of cosmic justice, rather than an intentional one, in which case it would

enhance the power of the young generation of women. All these changes lead to the tale being

deprived of the original metaphors that contribute to Giradot‘s possible meaning of the Grimms‘

tale. Instead, the Disney film seems to focus more on the victimization of the young and full of
 Markopoulou 20

dreams and hopes Snow White, who is presented as an angelically innocent and passive girl that is

pursued and murdered by an evil, narcissistic woman, only to be resurrected by a man‘s kiss.

As Giradot observes about the Grimms‘ heroine:

She is hardly a developed personality or even very heroic. Snow White in fact, is always acted

upon and seems incredibly stupid in her repeated failure to see through the wiles of the evil

stepmother. Indeed, the distinctly stylized and mechanical protagonists in fairy tales, as

differentiated from the more defined and tragic heroes of epic tradition, may represent an essential

functional trait associated with the type of initiatory theme found in fairy tales. (284)

At the same time, the stepmother‘s evilness is presented in the tale as a failure to complete the

maturation process, as ―[s]he is one who has failed to pass the sacrificial tests of life and growth,

one who selfishly attempts to perpetuate her ‗beauty‘ when life demands that she grow old and

die, to be replaced by new life and new beauty‖ (Giradot 287). In the filmic version, however, she

is simply depicted as a narcissistic, ruthless woman that would do anything to protect and maintain

her prestige. It is her unjustified attitude that presents womanhood as a warfield of vanity, where

sisterhood and compassion is not an option, leading in this way to a false, individualistic

perception of womanhood that the young female audience unconsciously embraces.

All the metaphors that Giradot explains in the Snow White tale could be explained by the period

in which the tale was written. Literature is not apolitical. When the Grimms publish their book

Grimms’ Fairy Tales in 1812, they are motivated by their own nationalistic feelings. Jack Zipes,

the folk tale analyst, argues that the Grimms attempted to ―create a body of tales through which all

Germans, young and old, could relate and develop a sense of community‖ driven by their ―their
 Markopoulou 21

utopic and idealistic program in the name of democratic nationalism‖ (82). At the same time,

when the Grimms write their tales, the fairy tale in European literary tradition is not considered to

be appropriate for children. ―These collections flourished throughout Europe and were read by

children and adults, but they were not considered to be […] be ‗healthy‘ for the development of

children‘s minds‖ (Zipes 85). It was in the mid nineteenth century that the tale started being

viewed as children‘s literature, a few years after Grimms‘ publication of 1812. ―[I]t was from

1830 to 1900, during the rise of the middle class, that the fairy tale came into its own for

children,‖ Zipes points out (86). We understand therefore, not only the social context of the

Grimms‘ tales that Girardot talks about, but most importantly, that we cannot ask for moral

responsibility in the formation of children‘s characters, as the tale‘s meanings were not aimed for

children. But even if they were, the role of the fairy tale is not to be the protector of morality, as

Zipes claims (131). ―This moral component of the fairy tales does not mean that the proposed

morals or norms are good. Every moral code in every society is continued by the most powerful

groups in a community or nation-state theirs vested interests‖ (Zipes 131). In the case of ―Snow

White‖ particularly the aim of the tale seems to have been the portrayal of ―universal instinctual

struggles among women. […] The fierce, primeval conflict between women clearly made this tale

relevant for families, tribes, and communities many years before it begun to take shape in literary

form in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century‖ (Zipes 133). This is an idea also

expressed by Gilbert and Gubar, when they focus on the binarism of the innocent and the

monstrous woman, which is a topic elaborately explored in the second part of my paper.

While the fairy tale does not protect morality, Disney claims to protect the innocence of

the post-Depression era, when Snow White is released (1937). In an insecure America, where

everything seems to be ephemeral, there is a social need to believe that morality exists and can be
 Markopoulou 22

guaranteed. Disney responds to the social demand and feelings of the era and proposes a moral

stability that is assured by stock, melodramatic characters, whose identity, motifs and intentions

are overt and unchanged. In a sense, one knows that an evil character will remain evil, the good

will remain good and a poetic justice will make up for the struggles and suppression of the good

character at the end of the film. Despite the ups and downs of the heroine‘s story, which is the

most basic element of a melodramatic plot, the problems will magically resolve themselves, just as

long as the heroine remains pure and innocent, free of guilt and evilness. Rebecca-Anne Rosario

explains Disney by viewing the company as a result of the Hollywood era of the 30s. ―Snow

White is a 1920s/‗30s starlet with a flapper‘s haircut, rosebud mouth, and high-pitched warble.

She matures in the Depression and is happy to pitch in with the working class dwarves in times of

high unemployment and poverty until she is found once again by her prince‖ (38). Therefore, the

Disney princess and, in this case, Snow White, was an answer both to the social need for a moral

security and a product of the new Hollywood era that was about to begin, with the 30s melodrama.

The problem is, however, that Disney focused specifically on children as its target

audience, which means that there is social responsibility in what the company produces, since the

didactic character of Disney‘s version of the tales imply that children will listen and embrace the

moral codes portrayed. Therefore, the false representation of the female model creates a false idea

about gender roles that children will imitate and reincarnate in their own life as an adult. By

presenting a firm idea about what constitutes morality, Disney leaves no spaces for a different

reading of its stories, which leads to the solidification of untrue gender standards and roles that

form the new generations. For instance, in the specific tale analyzed, by presenting Snow White as

a passive, obedient girl, and by saving her at the end of the film from her misery, Disney creates a
 Markopoulou 23

false cause and effect relationship: if a woman remains silent and compliant, she will be rewarded

with a beautiful prince.

In the same way, the Disney version of the Cinderella story (1950) is quite different from

the original one, titled ―Cinderella‖ or ―The Little Glass Slipper‖ by Charles Perrault (1697) as

well as from the latter‘s adaptation that the Grimms made in 1812. The story plot in both tales

refers to a young girl who lives with her father, her evil stepmother and her two mean stepsisters.

In Perrault‘s tale, similarly to the film, Cinderella has a godmother that helps her find justice.

After she has become queen, she does not forget her stepsisters, as she provides them with two

husbands and forgives them. In the Grimms‘ version of the tale, though, which seems more gothic

and dark, Cinderella has to fulfill three tasks that her stepmother gives her (the same motif of the

old generation that tests the new maid, in order to prepare her for womanhood that we found in

Snow White is also applied here) and she is helped by her bird friends to complete them. It is these

birds that blind her evil stepsisters at the end of the tale, which turns Cinderella into an indirect,

unforgiving punisher.

Interestingly enough, the film undermines the princess‘s role once more, as she seems to

be marginalized in her own story. The most important alteration that becomes evident is that in

both tales Cinderella acts, in order to be saved from the predicament she is facing. In Perrault‘s

version, although the godmother is indeed moved by the girl‘s tears, Cinderella is an active

member of the process of magic. She runs to the garden and brings to her godmother a pumpkin, a

rat (the irony is obvious since in the filmic version Cinderella passionately protects her mice

friends, while in the tales she removes a rat from a trap in order to use it as a coachman) and six

lizards. At the same time, she asks for better clothes, without waiting for her godmother to think of
 Markopoulou 24

it first. ―[M]ust I go in these nasty rags?‖ says Cinderella in the tale, which proves once more that

she does not passively accept the transformation, but she also asks for it and facilitates it. In the

Grimms‘ tale Cinderella is even more active, since she verbally asks for help from her bird friends

multiple times: ―You tame pigeons, you turtledoves, and all you birds beneath the sky, come and

help me,‖ she says every time she has to complete a task that her stepmother sets for her. The

moment of her own transformation is even more interesting, as Cinderella says to the magic tree

that lays on her mother‘s grave ―[s]hake and quiver, little tree, Throw gold and silver down on

me,‖ which means that it is she who decides to change her situation.

The ball scene is also altered by the Disney company. In the tales, Cinderella goes to the

ball more than one time6 and while she is there she is an active participant. In Perrault‘s tale ―[s]he

went and sat down by her sisters, showing them a thousand civilities, giving them part of the

oranges and citrons which the prince had presented her with.‖ She also asks her sisters about the

mysterious woman of the ball, since she gains pleasure from the fact that they have no idea it is

her. In a sense, she is presented as a person with human weaknesses and needs, as she finds

pleasure in her tormentors‘ confusion. On the other hand, in the filmic version, Cinderella is

neither as verbal nor as realistically portrayed in the folk tales, as, not only are her lines practically

non-existent (except for the times when she talks to her mice friends, where amazingly she is more

than resourceful and talkative), but also she is passively drawn into the dance with the prince,

6
In the Grimms‘ version she escapes from the ball three times, three being a magic number in folk

tradition, a motif that is also employed in Snow White, as the stepmother attempts to kill her three times.
 Markopoulou 25

without even being able to identify his royal origins7. In fact, it is the prince who seems to be the

source of action in the film, a fact also observed by Susan Ohmer. ―In Snow White,‖ Ohmer

notices, ―the Prince shows up only briefly before the end, and the animators for Cinderella were

determined to forge a more active role for the male protagonist. Several argued that the Prince

should be a more rough and ready type,‖ rendering Cinderella to a purely decorative, secondary

character whose existence simply verifies the prince‘s assertiveness (244).

Even towards the end of the tale, when her stepsisters are trying on the glass slipper, for

which they mutilate themselves under their mom‘s directions in the Grimms‘ version, Cinderella

personally asks to try it on: ―Let me see if it will not fit me,‖ the heroine says in Perrault‘s version,

whereas in the film she is locked in a room waiting for some mice to set her free! As the typical

melodramatic heroine, Cinderella is not allowed to save herself from the difficult situation she is

in, as the melodrama creates a cause and effect relationship between the heroine‘s inactiveness and

her salvation. Similarly to Snow White, Cinderella needs to be rescued as a result of cosmic

retribution. It is expected then that the ending of the tale is also altered, in the sense that in the

filmic version the stepsisters‘ punishment is totally eliminated, while interestingly enough they are

treated in two opposite ways in the tales. In Perrault‘s version, which is much older than the

Grimms‘ tale, they are both forgiven and Cinderella arranges them to be married. Therefore, while

in the more realistic version of the story even evil women find happiness in the end, in the filmic

version prince and marriage seem to be a prize only for the girls who behave, meaning those who

stay passive, suffer stoically and remain hopeful dreamers, an implication that is strengthened by

7
One could argue that her silence is a form of defiance against a society that has muted her; however, it is

her extreme sweetness and kindness that suggest that this obedience is an inherent attribute, as the heroine

seems to be by nature kind and goodwill.

 Markopoulou 26

the opening song of the film ―A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes,‖ as Alexander Bruce also

notices. ―In depicting the marital success of subservient, passive females, Disney thereby teaches

its audience that women should fulfill that passive role in society, not acting but instead waiting

for a man to give them the perfect life‖ (Bruce 2). In the Grimms‘ version, on the other hand, the

sisters are both blinded in a brutal way by Cinderella‘s bird friends, which renders Cinderella an

indirect punisher; therefore, she is more realistically portrayed, as it is understandable that one

may not be able to forgive one‘s tormentors8. However, in the filmic version, Cinderella is

construed as a better person and a kind and forgiving angel, since, as a melodramatic character,

violence is something foreign to her. Exactly as in the case of Snow White, whereas in the

Grimms‘ story the stepmother is punished in the end, Disney seems to avoid the risk of presenting

Cinderella as even remotely mean, so she is presented, just like Snow White, too nice to be true,

promoting the model of the ever forgiving woman, no matter how badly treated she has been.

Overall, it is obvious that the whole moral of both tales is transformed into the always

unchangeable Disney moral that centers around a passive, inactive heroine that leaves her rescue

to a deus ex machina, instead of claiming it herself. The similarity between Cinderella‘s structural

elements with those of Snow White have been noticed also by Ohmer, according to whom

―[p]roduction on Cinderella was supervised by senior animators who had been with the studio

since the 1930s. […] They provided a link between Disney's present and its past, and shaped the

narrative and design of Cinderella along the lines established by the studio's previous films. […]

The narrative structure and characters of Cinderella are very similar to those of Snow White, the

8
Grimms‘ depiction of violence and brutality has been widely discussed and criticized. As Maria Tartar

points out, many of their stories were banned as ‗nourishers and reflectors of a cruel, perverse national

mentality‘ (qtd in María Elena Soliño 70, 71)

 Markopoulou 27

only previous Disney feature based on a fairy tale‖ (239, 243). While Grimms‘ tale seems to once

more describe the passage from childhood to maturity, Perrault‘s moral is double: firstly, that

graciousness is more important that beauty, but also, and more importantly, that beauty and

intelligence are important assets. However, ―even these may fail to bring you success, without the

blessing of a godfather or a godmother9.‖

In that sense, in ―Cinderella,‖ ―[w]ith marked cynicism, [Perrault] observes that talents in

and of themselves are useless, without the helpful patronage of someone in power,‖ as Jeanne

Morgan Zarucchi observes. ―The moral suggests a personal dimension as well,‖ Zarucchi

continues, ―for without the patronage of Colbert, Louis XIV's powerful minister of finance,

Perrault himself would never have achieved entrance into the French Academy, despite his

considerable literary gifts; and after Colbert's death, Perrault was forced to resign from the

Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, of which he had been a founding member‖ (164). Naturally,

this ―patronage‖ that Zarucchi refers to is related to the figure of the godmother in Perrault‘s tale,

without which Cinderella, despite her kindness and beauty would never have been able to go to the

ball and meet the prince (164). Disney‘s film, on the other hand, has nothing to do with these

messages. Disney‘s version of Cinderella, as already mentioned, is a typical melodrama. In a

sense, Disney‘s moral seems to be that passivity and patience will be rewarded with a wealthy

husband, rather than that one should act and fight, in order to achieve one‘s dreams.

It is true that Perrault‘s tale appeared to be ideal for a Disney filmic adaptation, since ―[h]is

didactic purpose and praise of patience and fortitude are ideologically consonant with previous

Disney works‖ (Ohmer 244). We notice indeed a regression on the part of Disney to a previous

9
Page number is missing, because it is an online source. More details are provided in the Bibliography.
 Markopoulou 28

female model, meaning Snow White. It should not be forgotten that there is a chronological gap of

eleven years between these two films, and, in fact, these were years of extreme social turmoil and

changes, with the World War II being the stigma of the era. While one would expect an evolution

in the female representation, it was due to financial reasons, as reported by Ohmer, that Disney

avoided the risk of change. Amidst the post-war economic crisis and the budget cuts of the forties,

it is even surprising that Disney insisted on making this animation film, which turned out to

financially save the company (Ohmer 235, 232). The financial problems of the company led to a

huge labor strike in 1941, with Disney‘s employees asking for job security and better wages. That

did not cause only a delay in the Disney production, but most importantly a lack of trust within the

company10. However, it should still be pointed out that the profit replaced the moral responsibility

of children‘s animation, as the film failed to embrace the feminist advances of the forties. With the

advent of World War II, women played an important role in the economy of the country.

According to the data provided by 1940s.org:

When the United States entered the war, 12 million women (one quarter of the workforce) were

already working and by the end of the war, the number was up to 18 million (one third of the

workforce). […] When women started working at traditionally male jobs the biggest problem was

changing men‘s attitudes. Male employees and male-controlled unions were suspicious of women.

10
Facts taken from ―Historic Missourians-The State Historical Society of Missouri.‖

<shs.umsystem.edu/historicmissourians/>
 Markopoulou 29

Companies saw women‘s needs and desires on the job as secondary to men‘s, so they were not

taken seriously or given much attention.11

After the end of the war, according to the same source, ―[m]any women remained in the workforce

but employers forced them back into lower-paying female jobs. Most women were laid off and

told to go back to their homes.‖ It is this suspicion and anxiety towards women entering the

traditionally male, public sphere that Disney embraces in Cinderella, as the company seems to

remind the audience that the woman belongs in the domestic sphere, where she is only responsible

of the household chores, while the assertiveness and dynamism is a male characteristic, one that

women lack or should lack and, therefore, they should be banned from the public sphere.

It could be the case that this compatibility of Perrault‘s morals with the Disney philosophy

inspired the company to continue with one more adaptation of the writer‘s tales, Sleeping Beauty

(1959), a film based on the tale ―La Belle au Boit Dormant‖ (―The Beauty Sleeping in the

Wood‖), published in 1697. As most folk tales, so in this case, the original tale reappears in many

adaptations both filmic and literary. However, for the sake of its popularity, I will focus on the

Grimms‘ adaptation of the tale, titled ―Little Brier Rose,‖ which was published in 1812. As in the

previous cases, Disney seems to have followed the same method while adapting the original

tale.12In both Perrault‘s and the Grimms‘ version, the princess is raised by her royal family,

11
More information on women workforce in the US of the 1940s can be found on

<http://1940s.org/history/on-the-homefront/women-at-work/>.
12
I use the term ―original‖ loosely at this point, since I believe that originality is an unjust claim when it

comes to folk tales. For example, Perrault‘s tale seems to have been inspired by ―Perceforest,‖ which is a

romantic prose collection written between 1330 and 1344 and printed in Paris in 1528. However, for the
 Markopoulou 30

instead of being hidden in the woods, which is what occurs in the Disney version. By resorting to

a life of secrecy, hidden behind a fake identity, Disney seems to victimize even more the already

weak figure of princessAurora. Not only is she enchanted, but she is also forced to live excluded

from society and her family for her own good. In this way, the weakness of the female persona

and the wickedness of the evil Maleficent are both accentuated, a fact that creates a false binarism

as far as the female personality is concerned; a Disney woman can be either a victim or a

victimizer.

Furthermore, in the textual form of the tale, the spell that the evil fairy casts upon the

princess is meant to last only one hundred years. So, the princess‘s awakening occurs as a natural

result of the passage of time. ―Trembling in his admiration he [the prince] drew near and went on

his knees beside her,‖ we read in Perrault‘s tale. ―At the same moment, the hour of

disenchantment having come, the princess awoke‖ (Perrault). While the element of the kiss does

not even exist in the French version, it is added by the Grimms in ―Little Brier-Rose.‖ However,

the writers have already established earlier in the text that ―[t]he hundred years had passed, and the

day had come when Little Brier-Rose was to awaken.‖ As a result, the prince‘s kiss and the

princess‘s resurrection do not form a cause and effect relation but are presented as a mere

coincidence. On the contrary, in the Disney‘s version, the prince‘s kiss is necessary for the

princess‘s awakening, as it is a factor in the spell that Merryweather, the third fairy, casts on her

crib, in order to weaken Maleficent‘s original curse: ―And from this slumber you shall wake, when

true love‘s kiss this spell shall break,‖ Merryweather says over Aurora‘s crib, setting in this way

the prince as a term to the latter‘s salvation. Adding to this, Perrault‘s princess speaks after she

sake of time and space I will refer to Perrault‘s tale as the original, always compared to the versions of the

tale that appeared after that.

 Markopoulou 31

wakes up and it is her words that seduce the prince: ―‗Is it you, dear prince?‘ she said. ‗You have

been long in coming!‘ Charmed by these words, and especially by the manner in which they were

said, the prince scarcely knew how to express his delight and gratification‖ (Perrault). On the

contrary, Disney leaves the princess completely silent, similarly to the Grimms‘ version, rendering

Aurora passive and surrendered to the prince.

As far as the latter is concerned, his role as a savior is highly exaggerated in the filmic

version. In the textual versions of the tale, he approaches the tower of the enchanted princess,

simply because he is curious to discover if the legends that he has heard of her are true. However,

in the film Prince Phillip, who has accidentally met Aurora once when she was alive, is personally

called by the fairies as the only person that can awaken the princess; therefore, not only does his

role become of immense importance, but also the romantic aspect of the plot is stressed. The

prince is not going to meet a random princess but he is going to save the love of his life. At the

same time, this romance is even more emphasized by the dangers that he has to overcome, in order

to meet her. His reaching the tower is presented as a safe path in the original tale, as, according to

Perrault, ―[h]ardly had he taken a step towards the wood when the tall trees, the brambles and the

thorns, separated of themselves and made a path for him.‖ Similarly, in the Grimms‘ version,

―[w]hen the prince approached the thorn hedge, it was nothing but large, beautiful flowers that

separated by themselves, allowing him to pass through without harm, but then behind him closed

back into a hedge.‖ Nevertheless, in the filmic version the prince‘s journey to the tower is

presented as a passage full of dangers and traps that Maleficent sets for him and that he overcomes

thanks to the help of the fairies. The music itself romanticizes Prince Phillip‘s journey even more,

as, the moment he kills the dragon, which is nothing more than a deformed version of Maleficent,
 Markopoulou 32

the tower instantly acquires color and light and the music becomes soft and sentimental, indicating

that he succeeded to save the kingdom.

This is in fact another element that has to be pointed out. The fact that the whole kingdom

falls asleep with the princess, means that prince Phillip does not only save her but he also saves

the whole court. The fact that he endangers his life, in order to succeed in this quest and save

Aurora highlights his courage and braveness, whereas weakens the power of the female character,

who is confined to a deathly bed waiting to be rescued. Naturally, it is questionable to what extent

Prince Phillip would have succeeded without the magic help of the female fairies; even so though,

his existence is necessary, as he is presented as the last hope of the kingdom.

The major difference, however, between Perrault‘s tale and the Disney version is that in

the first case the tale does not end with the couple‘s wedding ceremony. According to Perrault, the

princess lives under the regime of an ogress, who happens to be the king‘s mother. The latter

decides to kill and devour the princess and her two offsprings, while her son and king is away, and

so she orders to have them murdered. Thanks to a steward, the princess and her children are saved

while her mother-in-law finds a horrible death, as after her son‘s return, she ends up falling in the

trap that she prepared for the princess and being devoured by animals. Leaving aside the obvious

realization that once more in the filmic version the princess has no connection to the evil persona‘s

death, maintaining in this way her purity, I would like to focus on the moral of Perrault‘s tale that

seems to be quite confusing. ―Now, our story seems to show/ That a century or so,/ Late or early,

matters not;/ True love comes by fairy-lot./ Some old folks will even say/ It grows better by delay‖

(Perrault). Once more, the force of the good fairy that facilitates one‘s life is mentioned here,
 Markopoulou 33

reminding us of ―The Glass Slipper,‖ where Perrault made a comment on the way that one could

climb the social ladder should one have strong acquaintances.

What about, however, the next part of the message the writer uses as an epilogue to the

story? According to Zarucchi, who finds this message quite ―irrelevant,‖ ―Perrault's moral invites

the reader to share in a good-humored indictment of the anxious haste with which women pursue

husbands, spoken from a decidedly masculine and perhaps even personal point of view, for

Perrault himself was married at the age of forty-four‖ (163). If we consider patience as Perrault‘s

solely message, then one could assume that Disney did not actually alter the story‘s moral after all.

Indeed, the film celebrates patience and passivity on the part of Sleeping Beauty, who is rewarded

in the end for her in-activity by finding romance on the side of Prince Phillip.

However, Carolyn Fay makes an interesting case out of the second part of Perrault‘s tale,

meaning the action and punishment of the ogress. According to Fay, this second part of the story is

extremely important, if we accept that the ogress and Sleeping Beauty substitute each other. Fay

notices that the original curse of death is not immediately realized in the tale but it passes from

one character to the other, only to be satisfied at the end of the tale: ―The chain of substitution

functions to delay death long enough to reach the ‗right‘ end, which encompasses both death and

happiness, however ambiguous. The narrative has now come full circle—from death announced,

to death averted, to death achieved—via the mechanism of substitution‖ (Fay 267). Fay realizes

that Sleeping Beauty and the ogress could function as doppelgangers of the same female model,

meaning that they are both dysfunctional and therefore must die. By applying Bettelheim‘s theory

of the ‗isolation of narcissism,‘ Fay categorizes Sleeping Beauty as ―antisocial,‖ since she lives in

her own ―private world,‖ and therefore has nothing to offer to society (268). ―Like the sleeper, the

ogress is a figure turned inward upon herself,‖ Fay continues (269). Her cannibalistic tensions are
 Markopoulou 34

focused on her own grandchildren, which automatically means that ―though satisfying her appetite

may keep the ogress alive, it would destroy future generations‖ (Fay 270). So, once more, the

social order is in danger. By characterizing the princess and the ogress as equally problematic, Fay

tries to prove that, as the ogress dies in the end, so must Sleeping Beauty, in order for the male

social order to be reestablished. Based on this theory, the moral of Perrault‘s tale seems to be

much more profound: ―The death of the ogress is of paramount importance. It carries a global

meaning that resonates throughout the tale. It is not simply the punishment of evil, but the

obliteration of the woman who withdraws from the social order, and who would trouble the

narrative order as well‖ and, if we accept that Sleeping Beauty is no better than the ogress, then

we understand why Fay concludes that ―[a]t the heart of ‗La belle au bois dormant‘ is a warning

about self-isolating women. It is not enough to banish the hungry ogresses and mean fairies of the

world. Sleeping Beauty must die too‖ (272, 273). In this sense, Perrault in his tale considers

Sleeping Beauty as dangerous as the ogress, meaning that passivity and withdrawal from the

public sphere is equally destructive as the overt attack on the social order. It is therefore a

comment of the writer against the passivity of the heroine, as her extreme unresponsiveness is not

an indication of innocence, but of dangerous negligence.

Taking into consideration Fay‘s theory, the fact that Disney neglects the second part of Perrault‘s

story promotes the exact opposite message from the original tale. More specifically, Aurora‘s

resurrection and re-connection with her prince deifies her passivity and submissiveness. The fact

that Maleficent‘s alter ego, Sleeping Beauty, does not die, means that this dysfunctional model of

woman not only survives, but is also presented as healthy, as ideal for society‘s wellbeing.

Ironically enough, it seems that the model of Sleeping Beauty is indeed ideal for the society that
 Markopoulou 35

Disney builds in his films, as Aurora‘s compliance is necessary for the preservation of the

patriarchal society in which she lives.

While one would expect that the romance motif of the Disney films would evolve through

time, here we are in 1989 when TheLittle Mermaid is released, a film based on Hans Christians

Andersen‘s ―The Little Mermaid‖(1837). The original tale appears to be quite different from the

Disney version, since, although the mermaid‘s father is alive, she is living in her grandmother‘s

matriarchal power. According to the original story, the mermaid learns from her grandmother that

humans have immortal souls and it is her curiosity and desire to acquire one that leads her to the

trap of the evil witch: ―It seemed to her that their world was far larger than hers; […] There was so

much that she wanted to know‖ (Andersen 6). The romance is not absent from Andersen‘s tale.

The heroine falls indeed in love with the human prince, but this is not the main reason she wants

to live on Earth. The reason is her extreme thirst for knowledge. She wants to see and know more

about the world that exists outside the sea. At the same time, she wants to have an immortal soul.

According to her grandmother, ―[o]nly if a man should fall so much in love with [her] that [she]

were dearer to him than his mother and father; and he cared so much for [her] that all his thoughts

were of his love for [her]; and he let a priest take his right hand and put it in [hers], while he

promised to be eternally true to [her], then his soul would flow into [her] body and [she] would be

able to partake of human happiness‖ (Andersen 6-7). Therefore, she needs in fact the prince to

reach her goal, but he appears to be the means rather than the goal per se. In the filmic version, the

element of the immortality has been eliminated, which makes Ariel long for a life on Earth with

the prince, rather than an eternal life of her own. As Roberta Trites states, ‗‗Andersen‘s mermaid

quests for a soul, but Disney‘s mermaid, Ariel, quests for a mate.‘‘ It is for Eric, the Disney

prince that Ariel is more than willing to ―mutilate‖ herself and transform into a human. As Waller
 Markopoulou 36

Hastings notices, ―the Disney version accentuates the most sentimental and romantic aspects of

the story at the expense of its moral and psychological complexity‖ (85). This complexity, which

is related to the mermaid‘s sacrifice of her own body seems to be completely undermined and

neglected in the film, compared to the tale. Andersen elaborately states how painful the process of

transformation will be:

It will hurt; it will feel as if a sword were going through your body. All who see you will say that

you are the most beautiful human child they have ever seen. You will walk more gracefully than

any dancer; but every time your foot touches the ground it will feel as though you were walking

on knives so sharp that your blood must flow. If you are willing to suffer all this, then I can help

you. (8)

This process is quite downplayed in the film, first of all since it is never mentioned by Ursula, but

also because it is presented as the closure of Ursula‘s musical solo, with Ariel being simply a

shadow that splits in half. In this sense, the sacrifice she makes, in order to live with the human

prince is undermined and diminished into a simple task that any woman could (or maybe should)

do for love. This is also a point that has been made by Trites, who explains that ―[b]ecause

physical pain is described as less devastating than emotional pain, the self-inflicted physical pain

the mermaid endures is not simply a stereotypical image of women as masochistic. […] Her pain

has a purpose: Through her suffering she will earn an eternal identity. Disney's mermaid, however,

makes pain-free sacrifices so that she can become attractive to a man.‖ Therefore, we notice a shift

of motivation as far as the mermaid‘s transformation is concerned; from the self-centered to the

male-centered; from the self-defined beauty to the hetero-defined one, as Ariel‘s image of herself

is affected and altered by external factors, meaning the male hero.

 Markopoulou 37

Ariel‘s transformation, though, has another level that has to do with the female dress code that

has always confined women. Adrienne Rich in her essay ―Compulsory Heterosexuality‖ wisely

points out that one method used to assert male power over women is physical constraint. Although

Rich speaks of a female dress up code and high heels, which constrain women‘s movement, I

connect this strategy of physical restraint with the complete inability to walk (38). Even after Ariel

acquires legs, still she finds it impossible to walk or even stand. She stumbles and falls repeatedly,

as if she were a child that takes her first steps. It is not only the case that she changes her body, in

order to attract her beloved, but that she also loses her ability to move because of it.

Talking about love, Andersen‘s depiction of love is much deeper than the one Disney

presents. As Trites points out, in Andersen‘s tale the mermaid has all the time she needs, so that

her love for the prince can evolve in its own pace, in contrast with the filmic version, where Ariel

is given only three days to steal a kiss. In that sense, Trites is correct to argue not only that Disney

―reduces love to no more than physical sexuality,‖ but also that ―Disney's representation of love

lacks the basic integrity imbued in Andersen's representation of it.‖ Also, in the Disney version,

love is associated with marriage. While Trites argues that ―[t]his establishes the movie's

superficial values regarding marriage‖ and considers this as a way to undermine the institution of

marriage by presenting it as a privilege of only perfect looking people, I believe that this is not the

main problem of the Disney representation of marriage. In my view, Ariel‘s official union with

Eric in the end reinforces the patriarchal structure of society that is based on heterosexual formal

union, as opposed to the tale, where the mermaid is not even concerned with the idea of marriage.

Interestingly enough, Disney brings back the nineteenth century model of marriage as an

institution of social order, while Andersen himself who writes in 1837 appears to be more liberal,

even though still relatively sexist for today‘s standards.

 Markopoulou 38

In the meantime, according to the tale, the mermaid does not manage to get married to the

prince at the end. She earns his respect, but he ends up marrying someone else, which means that

the mermaid‘s heart would break. That could be explained by the fact that the solid structure of the

society in which Andersen writes does not allow any social mobility. In other words, it could be

the case that the mermaid‘s difference is an unbreakable obstacle. Not being able to bring together

two separate and different natures, meaning the mermaid and the prince, Andersen sends the

heroine up in the sky. It is the air fairies though that offer her to be one of them, moved by her

sacrifice and effort to gain an immortal soul. Therefore, the mermaid does gain immortality, but

she remains alone, among the air fairies, without a prince. In the Disney version though, Ariel,

having changed into human form does in fact end up with the prince, which implies that it was

Ariel‘s nature that led her away from her love. By changing into human, Ariel goes through a

―normalization‖ process, if we may say. In a sense, in order to become part of the male-dominated

world, the woman is forced to change, to sacrifice her body, her origins, her will, so as to become

accepted in patriarchy. Is Disney‘s version more sexist than the original tale? The truth is that both

stories are unjust to the little mermaid, as she is willing to mutilate herself and transform her

whole being, in order to be able to achieve her goal. In that sense, Andersen‘s solution is not at all

innocent. However, there is a huge time and cultural gap between the original story and Disney‘s

production that demands responsibility on the part of Disney animation films; not only because

they undermine the female role in the twentieth century, but most importantly because of the

target audience of the company, which consisted and does still mostly of young girls.

At the same time Andersen himself explains the end of the tale in a way that makes the

mermaid a symbol of assertiveness and independence. Leaving aside the moral that the story itself

provides, that seems to be a didactic message to children who misbehave, as Andersen himself
 Markopoulou 39

states at the end of the tale, I would like to move a step further and discover the deeper meaning of

this tale. It seems that Andersen was interested in presenting a dynamic female model, one that

fights for herself and in the end manages to reach her goal without the help of anyone else, simply

with her own efforts. Trites quotes Andersen himself, when in 1837 he wrote to a friend: ‗I have

not . . . allowed the mermaid's acquiring of an immortal soul to depend upon an alien creature,

upon the love of a human being.... I have permitted my mermaid to follow a more natural, more

divine path.‘

At the same time, even through a more pessimistic reading of Andersen‘s tale, where the

mermaid‘s death is considered as a defeat rather than salvation, I believe that still the tale teaches

the importance of self-love and acceptance, as well as the subjectivity of beauty. In the tale, the

grandmother openly says that the mermaid cannot earn a human without changing, ―[f]or that

which we consider beautiful down here in the ocean, your fishtail, they find ugly up above, on

earth. They have no sense; up there, you have to have two clumsy props, which they call legs, in

order to be called beautiful" (Andersen 7). I find this part of the tale extremely essential as it

proves that appearance is a matter of habit and taste, rather than a matter of objectivity.

The objectivity of beauty is a topic that has been widely discussed in the feminist

community. As Naomi Wolf elaborately explains in her book The Beauty Myth, the idea that there

are objective criteria and beauty standards is a myth that the patriarchal rule has created, in order

to undermine the female power. In her own words:

The beauty myth tells a story: The quality called ‗beauty‘ objectively and universally exists.

Women must want to embody it and men must want to possess women who embody it. […] None

of this is true. ‗Beauty‘ is a currency system like the gold standard. Like any economy, it is
 Markopoulou 40

determined by politics, and in the modern age in the West it is the last, best belief system that

keeps male dominance intact. In assigning value to women in a vertical hierarchy according to a

culturally imposed physical standard, it is an expression of power relations in which women must

unnaturally compete for resources that men have appropriated for themselves. (12)

In this sense, there is no objectivity in beauty. As a matter of fact, Wolf claims that the beauty

myth, although it appears to be about appearance, in fact it has nothing to do with it. ―The beauty

myth is always actually prescribing behavior and not appearance‖ (14). This behavior connects

femininity to domesticity as the industrialization era, when the myth flourished, demanded a clear

separation between the public and private sphere; this would enforce the ―work unity of the

family,‖ leaving space in this way for the male power to expand in the workplace (Wolf 14, 15). It

is this mistake that Andersen‘s mermaid makes that leads to her destruction. She fails to

acknowledge the subjectivity and politics behind beauty standards and accepts someone else‘s

beauty standards, instead of her own; thus, she changes for someone else. This costs her extreme

pain (the transformation process), the loss of her voice (metaphorically her opinions, her state of

mind) and last but not least emotional pain (the rejection on the part of the prince). In the

meantime, I believe the tale strengthens the implication that without your ―voice,‖ meaning

without your beliefs, you are powerless, as beauty is not enough.

To our discontent, Disney comes once more to completely disrupt the tale‘s undertone by

having Ariel gain her father‘s support and marry her prince in the end. What does this ending

celebrate though? That the lack of voice, good appearance and rejection of who you are can make

your dreams come true, the dream always being marriage. Once more, young girls are taught that
 Markopoulou 41

everything is possible, as long as they are willing to become something that they are not, to forget

their personal views and simply transform into what male-dominated society expects them to be.

At this point I would like to briefly comment on a final alteration of the original tale

and that is Ursula‘s brutal death at the end of the film, since the evil must be destroyed. The first

comment is that, once more, exactly as in Snow White and Cinderella, the Disney princess‘s hands

and conscience are clean, since the angelic model of the innocent girl is preserved. The second

comment is that, while in the previous films the enemy‘s death was presented as a cosmic

retribution (Snow White) or neglected completely (Cinderella), we notice that in the 1989 Disney

film the prince saves the day by killing Ursula. Therefore, there is a new element that is added in

Disney films, the punishment of the evil persona but this death occurs thanks to the male

protagonist. In this way, men in Disney films seem to occupy the center, marginalizing in this way

the female heroines. Of course, this ending is in any case highly problematic also because of the

representation of violence. Waller Hastings notices that the film adaptation of ―The Little

Mermaid‖ seems to perpetuate the philosophy of the post war era of the fifties, where good and

evil were considered to be an everlasting battle that can be resolved only through violence and not

through negotiation (90). According to Hastings:

The child who reads Andersen's fairy tale has experienced a world in which desires have

consequences that may be painful, where wanting something badly enough to suffer for it need not

make it happen; the child who views the Disney film experiences a world in which bad things only

happen because of bad people, where desire is always fulfilled. Such moral simplification

increases the likelihood that these children will become adults who find the causes of their

unhappiness in personalized, ‗evil‘ antagonists- a sure formula for continued conflict. (90)
 Markopoulou 42

However, I personally believe that Hastings‘s view has to be taken one step further, as these

―‗evil‘ antagonists‖ that he talks about always happen to be female characters in Disney films. The

evil stepmother in Snow White, the evil stepmother and stepsisters in Cinderella and Ursula in The

Little Mermaid. It seems that the Disney World is not generally a world of conflict, but

specifically a war within the female sphere, a fact which unavoidably teaches the young audience

to never trust another woman, since she is probably a rival rather than a friend. However, this

issue will be further explored later on.

Moving on to Beauty and the Beast (1991), Disney employs Jeanne-Marie Le Prince de

Beaumant‘s fairytale which bears the same title (1756). In this case as well, Disney seems to have

diverted quite noticeably from the original tale. In Beaumant‘s version, Belle is a girl who adores

reading and this is why she is considered to be the wisest among her siblings. According to June

Cummins, Beaumont ―intends to provide moral and intellectual guidance for her listeners.

Although she encourages these girls to be virtuous and ‗agreeable,‘ she just as ardently wants

them to be intelligent and well-instructed‖ (23). On the contrary, in the filmic version, Belle‘s

thirst for books and knowledge makes her be perceived by the inhabitants of the village as

―beautiful but odd, different,‖ as the opening song narrates. It is this that makes one wonder

whether Belle is weird because she is an educated individual or because she is a woman that wants

to be educated; the question is never answered by the film.

The problematic of Disney‘s interpretation of the story at this point does not only lie in

the fact that Belle‘s cultivation is considered weird but mostly in the depiction of this curiosity. To

put it more openly, while the old tale Belle loves reading in general, the filmic Belle is mostly

attracted by fairy tales, as her words show. ―[I]t‘s my favorite!‖ she tells the owner of the

bookshop that she visits every day; ―Far off places, daring swordfights, magic spells, a prince in
 Markopoulou 43

disguise!‖ It seems, in other words, that Belle is depicted as a teenage dreamer rather than an

educated woman, since what fascinates her most is imaginary worlds and fairy tale adventures. To

put it simply, she is metaphorically living in her own dream-world, which transforms her from a

mature, wise woman to a curious, fearless adolescent girl.

To this perception of Belle, meaning as an airy, imaginative figure, contributes the

depiction of her father. While in the tale Belle‘s father is a merchant, which, at the time the tale

was written was the new emerging social class that stood for wealth and prestige, 13 in the film her

father, Maurice, appears to be a failed, foolish scientist. This alteration comes to strengthen the

implication that Belle is not really to be taken seriously, at least not by her fellow citizens. By

presenting her only family member, her protector and father, as mentally ill, Disney reduces the

possibility of Belle being perceived as socially secure mentally healthy either. In these aspects,

therefore, the female protagonist of the film is completely destabilized, as the tale acquires a

romanticized aspect, in contrast to the atmosphere of the original story.

Moreover, in the original tale, Belle‘s family becomes bankrupt, which leads to her

father having to take a trip to meet the family‘s potential financial savior. It is on this trip that her

father encounters the Beast, as he takes a rose from the latter‘s garden, to bring it as a gift to his

daughter. In the filmic version though, Belle‘s poverty is a given, a factor that she alone needs to

change, as her father seems to be in no position to handle it. The motif of the poor girl that

manages to seduce a prince and solve her financial issues is recurrent in the Disney tradition. As

Snow White and Cinderella, Belle is also going to find happiness on the side of a wealthy, kind

13
According to Cummins, Beaumont wrote this story, in order to ―reinforce the goals of the meritocracy

for the young women who were the intended audience of her story,‖ as meritocracy substituted the

aristocratic advancement. (23).

 Markopoulou 44

man. This motif though becomes even more destructive for the image of the female character,

once she is presented to win the prince only with her passivity and beauty. In other words, the

silent girl is always rewarded in Disney animation films, which, in its turn, sets a bad model for

young girls, who, unaware of the politics of the image, embrace the beliefs and values presented to

them.

Belle is in fact a necessary gear in the story as she is certainly more active than the former

Disney princesses. She defies the Beast‘s orders and enters the forbidden room, where the

enchanted rose is located. However, as Zipes points out, ―[d]espite providing [Belle] with a touch

of feminist feistiness, the Disney screenplay writers did not alter the plot very much: the boys

struggle for the charming girl. The right guy wins. She moves up in society, and everyone sings

and rejoices‖ (140-41). It seems that her most treasured characteristic for the filmic plot is not her

assertiveness but her female nature. Cummins verifies this implication by noting that ―[i]n the

Disney version, it is Belle's utility as female that most attracts the castle's inhabitants, and her

beauty is a close second‖ (24). While in the original story the Beast is simply deformed as a result

of nature, in the filmic version he is enchanted (interestingly enough by yet another evil female

witch) and, in order for the spell to be broken, he must earn a woman‘s love. This turns out to be

the main focus of the Disney story; how the Beast will find love and be saved. In other words, we

can safely say that, Belle‘s interesting forcefulness is undermined by the fact that she ends up

being a secondary character in her own story, as even the opening scene of the Disney film is

dedicated to the Beast‘s misfortune, rather to her.

Having already emphasized how Disney romanticized once more a classic tale, I wonder

how far away Disney‘s moral is from Beaumont‘s story. In the previous tales, I noticed a major

shift, a crucial alteration of the filmic message. However, in Beauty and the Beast I believe that
 Markopoulou 45

Disney managed to maintain the original didactic intention of the story; you cannot judge one

from one‘s appearance. And that is truly what Belle learns at the end of both versions of the story.

Nevertheless, while Cummins focuses on the sexist aspect of the film, in that ―[i]t is Belle and not

the Beast who must learn to love ugliness and literally embrace the bestial,‖ I believe that the

problem lies in the extreme passivity and patience with which Belle manages to break the Beast‘s

curse (26). Given that Disney‘s Beast is depicted as extremely violent and intimidating, rude and

ruthless, the fact that Belle‘s passive and nurturing attitude towards him leads to his salvation

seems to alter the overall meaning of the film; in other words, be kind, patient and obedient

towards your brutal man and you will turn him into a prince.

Nevertheless, Disney seems to have made a powerful step towards gender equality as far as

the depiction of female characters is concerned in the more recent films. Starting with Tangled

(2010), the film is based on Grimms‘ tale ―Rapunzel‖ (1812), although the plot has been quite

altered. In the original tale, a wife asks from her husband to enter a fairy‘s garden and steal a plant

called ―rapunzel,‖ which according to critics must have been a kind of lettuce or spinach, 14 that

she was craving for. This act angers the ogress who owns the garden and as a punishment she asks

for the first child that the woman will bring into the world. She names the girl Rapunzel and locks

her up in a high tower that had no entrance but only a window. It is from this window that

Rapunzel throws her hair to let the ogress in, after the latter says the following verse: ―Rapunzel,

Rapunzel/ let down your hair‖ (Grimms). One day a prince passes by and overhears the ogress‘s

poem. So, he uses it to get into the tower and meets Rapunzel who falls in love with him instantly.

Together they decide to leave, but Rapunzel naively reveals their secret to the ogress, who decides

14
According to Marina Warner, the plant implied was probably a primrose, which is ―is connected to the

female cycle, and recommended for regulating it and preventing cramps‖ (334).
 Markopoulou 46

to cut Rapunzel‘s long hair and use it to trick the prince into getting into the tower and meeting

her. After the ogress reveals to the prince that he is never to see Rapunzel again, he falls from the

tower and loses his sight because of some thorns. He wanders in the forest until he finds Rapunzel

and their two kids to whom she has given birth. In the end, her tears give him back his sight and

they live together in his kingdom.

The meanings of the original tale have been debated, since it invites multiple readings.

While Robert Stallman views this story as a ‗rite of passage,‘ Warner positions it in the era when it

was written (Stallman 224). According to Warner, the story ―opens up reflections on the new

contemporary rapid changes in motherhood, often caused by decreasing fertility in the West and

the correspondingly rising rates of surrogate motherhood, of adoption of children by older women,

and at different reproductive technologies coming on stream‖ (331). This implication is

strengthened by the fact that the ogress asks for the child, in contrast with the previous tale

villainesses who envied youth and beauty (Warner 331).

The point that Warner makes about motherhood is also evident in the filmic version. In the

film, Rapunzel is endowed with the gift of magic, since her long hair is a source of health, youth

and beauty. The evil character in the film, who has the exact same name as the textual character,

Mother Gothel, kidnaps Rapunzel from her crib and locks her in a tower, as in the original story.

However, although in the tale the ogress appears to have motherly feelings, Mother Gothel in the

Disney version is only after Rapunzel‘s magic hair. In a sense, the love that the Grimms‘ fairy has

for youth and innocence becomes a sick obsession in the filmic version, which of course

eliminates any possibility for Rapunzel to have a loving mother as she grows up. The selfishness

that the witch represents in the film accentuates her viciousness and emphasizes the similarity of

the textual tower with a prison.

 Markopoulou 47

Nevertheless, the Tangled villainess is presented as more motherly than any other previous

female opponent in Disney films, while the filmic male character is not a prince as in the original

tale, but a common thief who is known as Flynn Rider. It is obvious that Disney intentionally

disrupts the previous model of a couple that was presented in earlier animation films, by ironically

pointing out that love is blind, as it can bring together people from opposite social classes.15 For

once, it is the female character that helps the male one to climb up the social ladder. Not only that

but also the romance between Rapunzel and Flynn is not the main focus of the film as she runs

away with him in order to see the world and, more specifically, the lanterns that appear in the sky

on her birthday every year. While in the Grimms‘ tale ―the emphasis falls on fair maidens in

situations of entrapment (tower) who are endangered by someone or something (curse, witch) and

urgently need rescue (prince),‖ as Shuli Barzilai notices, in the Disney version Rapunzel is not

motivated to follow Flynn by her love for him, nor does she wait for him to rescue her; instead,

she uses him as a guide into the real world (232). Not to mention of course that it is she who

rescues Flynn multiple times in the film with the last scene being the most striking example.

Also, according to Warner, ―[t]he fairy tale in effect warns against keeping young women

in the dark as the old witch has done. The story is clearly on the side of the lovers - with the added

angle that it's giving its support to sex education - but in his quest for innocence, Wilhelm Grimm

unfortunately managed to turn Rapunzel into a ninny‖ (331). Although the first part of her

comment applies also in the film, the rest of Warner‘s points are not supported by Disney‘s

reading of the story. Under no circumstances could one describe Rapunzel in Tangled as a

―ninny.‖ Compared to the textual heroine, Disney‘s Rapunzel is certainly more assertive and

15
The same motif was employed in Disney‘s Aladdin (1992), with the difference that Aladdin was a thief

out of need and not out of greediness as Flynn is.

 Markopoulou 48

dynamic. She finds the strength to abandon the tower and go into the real world, which in her

imagination is a place full of dangers, as Mother Gothel taught her. She remains strong throughout

the film and, interestingly enough, she is called to rescue Flynn in the end, as she brings him back

to life with her healing tears, an element taken from the original tale, upsetting in this way the

Disney norm where the princess is saved by the prince‘s kiss. However, there are of course

weaknesses, as the film refuses to present Rapunzel as truly powerful. In order to save Flynn, she

has to sacrifice her life, which she voluntarily does, as she accepts to stay with Mother Gothel as

long as the latter sets him free. In the meantime, one could assume that it is she who is actually

saved in the end by Flynn as he cuts her hair and renders her useless to her tormentor.

Nevertheless, even if they end up saving each other, the progress made should not be

unacknowledged, as Rapunzel is definitely a more dynamic and realistic female model than her

ancestors.

In the case of Frozen, which has received enthusiastic responses on the part of both the

audience and the critics after its release in 2013, it seems that Disney has employed once more a

story by Hans Christian Andersen, ―Snow Queen‖ (1844). The original tale tells the story of two

young children, Kay and Gerda, who are connected by a strong friendship: ―they were not brother

and sister, but they were just as fond of each other as if they had been‖ (Andersen). Their

friendship is challenged, when a piece of a magic mirror made by evil dwarfs slips into his eye.

The enchanted mirror manages to bring out the worst self of Kay, who is actually kidnapped by

Snow Queen herself, in her effort to connect all the pieces of the mirror and recreate it. The story

follows Gerda as she passes literally and metaphorically through the seasons of the year, only to

end up in Snow Queen‘s palace and save her friend with her warm tears of love. Disney‘s Frozen

seems to be quite far from the original plot; there is no mirror, no evil dwarfs and no male
 Markopoulou 49

protagonist. Instead, Frozen is about two sisters, Elsa and Anna, who have grown apart throughout

the years, as Elsa‘s magic icy power has put Anna‘s life in danger as a child. When their parents

die unexpectedly in a shipwreck, it is time for Elsa to become a queen, which leads to everyone

discovering her secret power. Elsa resorts to the mountains to live free and alone, but accidentally

she sets an eternal winter everywhere. It is Anna who decides on her own to embark on a trip to

find her sister and end a literal winter and a metaphorical one, meaning their cold relationship. In

the film version the evil character is not a dwarf, but a well presentable opportunist, Hans, who

tricks Anna into believing he loves her in order to become a king. Naturally, his plan will be

revealed and Anna will end up with Kristoff, an ice seller with a warm heart.

Although the story has completely changed during the adaptation process, there are some

similarities that reveal Disney‘s source of inspiration. First and foremost, Elsa seems to incarnate

Andersen‘s perception of the Snow Queen: ―[The snowflake] grew bigger and bigger, till it

became the figure of a woman, dressed in the finest white gauze, which appeared to be made of

millions of starry flakes. She was delicately lovely, but all ice, glittering, dazzling ice.‖ In the

meantime, Anna, exactly like Gerda, is the only one that can save Kay; as in the film Kay does not

exist, it is Elsa who needs saving, and the only person that can do it is her sister: ―'I can't give her

[Gerda] greater power than she already has. Don't you see how great it is? Don't you see how both

man and beast have to serve her? How she has got on as well as she has on her bare feet? We must

not tell her what power she has; it is in her heart, because she is such a sweet innocent child. If she

can't reach the Snow Queen herself, then we can't help her‖ (Andersen). Interestingly enough,

Anna saves Elsa by actually putting her own life in danger and is saved by Elsa in return, in the

same way that Gerda saves Kay: ―Then little Gerda shed hot tears; they fell upon his breast and

penetrated to his heart. Here they thawed the lump of ice, and melted the little bit of the mirror
 Markopoulou 50

which was in it‖ (Andersen). All these similarities make one wonder if in the Disney version the

overall meaning of the story was altered.

Surprisingly, the meaning of the story seems to have been preserved. Andersen openly

states at the end of his tale the moral of the story, which is that one should try to preserve a

childlike innocence in one‘s heart, even if time passes: ―'Where roses deck the flowery

vale,/There, Infant Jesus, we thee hail!‘ And there they both sat, grown up and yet children,

children at heart; and it was summer—warm, beautiful summer‖ (Andersen). It seems that it is

also Anna‘s innocent and pure love for her sister that saves the latter. To the audience‘s surprise,

we could safely say that it is the first Disney film, where the heroine is not saved by a prince‘s

kiss, but by a woman‘s tears.

That leads to the conclusion that Disney has made in fact a noticeable progress, as far as

the depiction of romance is concerned. In the first place, there are two equally important

princesses in the film, since both Anna and Elsa are indispensable in the story. For the first time in

a Disney film, there are, not only one, but two female heroines, a model which seems to replace

the old heterosexual couple depicted in previous films, as I have already pointed out. Furthermore,

these two heroines save each other, Anna warms up Elsa‘s heart by sacrificing herself for the latter

and Elsa brings Anna back to life with her tears of love. The heterosexual kiss is substituted by

sisterly tears. Also, Elsa does in fact remain unwedded at the end of the story, while Anna ends up

with Kristoff. Has the romance eclipsed in this Disney film? Certainly not. It is not surprising that

the heterosexual model is still an option in Disney, as changes take time and occur only gradually.

So Anna falls in love with Hans and then with Kristoff. However, the romance is certainly not the

main focus of the film, as both Kristoff and Hans are not the protagonists of Frozen, but rather

secondary characters that are employed in order for the relationship of the sisters to be challenged
 Markopoulou 51

and reestablished. So, we understand why Tom Russo states in his film review that ―‗Frozen‘

could […] leave its mark as the next step in the Disney Princess feminist revisionism championed

by last year's ‗Brave.‘ Where that film staunchly pushed a men-don't-define-me theme throughout,

here it's the requisite fairy tale ending that gets tweaked.‖

Also, not only are the male heroes not essential to the rescue of any female character in the

film, but also the film is humorously critical towards the romance model presented by the previous

films. ―You can't marry a man you just met,‖ Elsa cries to Anna, when the latter introduces her

future husband Hans, whom she has just met. ―Who marries someone you just met?‖ Kristoff

exclaims. Ironically, the answer to his question would be ―all the previous Disney princesses.‖ All

of the first generation princesses,16 like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, married the

princes without even knowing them, as they fell in love at first sight. This is something that

Frozen ridicules, as love at first sight is presented as an indication of childish spontaneity.

In order not to be misunderstood, there are some points that I would like to clarify, as far

as Disney‘s alterations of classic tales are concerned. Firstly, I would like to stress that it is very

crucial that we not consider the old tales as completely innocent. What I mean is that the fact that

by proving Disney‘s overall messages problematic, I do not imply that the original messages of

the original tales were correct or even moral. It is essential that we keep in mind that every tale

was written in a specific era and served the philosophy and interests of its writer. I have already

mentioned, for instance, Perrault‘s criticism towards the individualistic spirit of the French society

16
At this point I use Sarah Rothschild‘s categorization of Disney Princesses, which appears in The

Princess Story: Modeling the Feminine in Twentieth-Century American Fiction and Film (2013).

According to Rothschild, the princesses who appeared in the 1980s-90s indicate the same characteristics,

as opposed to those produced in the previous years (Rothschild 135).

 Markopoulou 52

of the seventeenth century of which he was a part and how his criticism is the result of his own

personal disappointing experiences. At the same time, there has been an even bigger discourse as

far as the Grimms‘ tales are concerned, since the Grimms brothers did not simply write down oral

folk tales, but they added their own elements in these stories. According to Donald Haase, the

Grimms‘ tales were used as a tool to reinforce nationalism after the unification of Germany in

1871 (386). ―In 1939,‖ Haase continues, ―Vincent Brun accused the Germans of perverting the

fairy tale by exploiting its rude primitive instincts to educate and not to amuse children,‖ while

after the World War II their stories were so identified with their German origins that were

completely banned from public schools due to their graphic violence (387). Therefore, it is natural

that we cannot avoid subjectivity when it comes to reading and re-telling folk tales. The question

however is to what extent these re-tellings affect and form children‘s characters and beliefs, since

it is the young ages that constitute the audience of such tales. More specifically, Disney‘s

interpretation of femininity and sexuality could lead to misinformation as far as the roles of the

two genders in society are concerned.

Furthermore, Haase is concerned with the issue of ownership of folk tales. The author

realizes that in the spirit of copyright in the nineteenth century, many nations started claiming or

re-claiming their own tales (with Grimms being simply one of the striking examples) (Haase 393).

With the advent of mass media, though, copyright continued playing an important role as, while in

the past tales were considered to be every nation‘s asset, in contemporary years they turned into a

trademark. As an example Haase mentions the lawsuit that Disney company filed against the

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1989 complaining that the latter broke the

copyright law by using the Snow White figure (394). This fact is of immense importance, since

the Disney versions of tales are so popular that they have practically become the only known
 Markopoulou 53

version of them. This leads to a narrowing of meanings and representations as the Disney way

seems to have become the only way. As Annalee Ward states, ―[g]enerations are now raised on

Disney fairy tales, and original story lines are forgotten or dismissed as not the real thing. Disney

rewrites the original tales for its particular version of American values‖ (2). This lack of plurality

of versions of the folk tales leads, in other words, to a false perception of the Disney models as the

real ones, since the young audience is ignorant of the alternative – I purposefully avoid the term

―original‖- readings of the same stories.

The realization, however, remains that Disney has shifted the way it deals with the folk tradition.

The plots of the more recent Disney animation films is built around a series of events that are a

result of the princess‘s choices; through these events, the princess embarks on a journey towards a

personal maturation rather than of romance and marriage. Regardless, does the change of the

Disney company end there or has the princess‘s attitude been altered as well? Is the princess‘s

passivity a given in the new Disney films, or is she the leader of her own story? And what is the

villainess‘s role in the recent Disney films?These are the issues that the second chapter of this

paper aspires to explore.

 Markopoulou 54

Chapter 2

2.1 Mirror Mirror on the Wall,

Has the Princess Changed at all?

Having already established that Disney‘s interpretation of folk tales has been completely

altered compared to the past, it is only natural that the characters‘ portrayal has also evolved. This

chapter is going to explore separately the external and internal changes that the princesses

underwent. While princesses remain stunningly beautiful, beauty loses the prestige it occupied in

the previous Disney animation films. The focus is clearly shifted on the internal beauty and

dynamism of the princesses, who embark on a journey of self-awareness and maturity. This

change of the heroine‘s personality indicates the beginning of a new era of sisterhood, where

villainess is possibly good, death can be defeated with sisterly or self love and matriarchy is a

possibility.

Before the external and internal change of the Disney princesses is explored, it is important

that the social conditions in which Disney writes and creates nowadays be mentioned, as it will

facilitate our understanding of the Disney female model evolution. It seems that Disney has

realized that social changes need new forms of representations, as, in the opposite case, the

company would be left behind financially and culturally speaking. With gender equality being

nowadays more powerful than ever not only in the US, but all around the world and given that

Disney aims to the global market, they could not help taking into account the changes of their
 Markopoulou 55

target audience‘s mentality. At the same time, the advances of technology has forced Disney to

catch up by collaborating with Pixar; a change that, as we will see seems to have affected the

aesthetics of the Disney way.

It is not surprising that gender equality is nowadays more contemporary than ever. Naomi

Wolf, author of ―The Beauty Myth,‖ in an interview she gave to the editors of Global Agenda on

this issue declares that ―[w]hat ‗gender equality‘ or ‗feminism‘ should mean -- I suppose if gender

equality is the goal, feminism is the process of how we get there -- is the logical extension of the

core idea of democracy‖ (qtd in H.J. Raymond). Just a few months ago the Bangkok Post writes

about the proposals of the seminar that took place in Bangkok under the title ―Hearing Women's

Voices before Drafting the Charter.‖ According to Mongkol Bangprapa, the seminar asked for

30% quota for women in politics as it is in the western countries, ―budget support for local

women's networks and the establishment of an independent body for women to put forward issues

for the national agenda,‖ protection from sexual violence especially against socially sensitive and

underage female groups, protection of the legal right to motherhood in the workplace and

generally that ―unfair treatment of women must be addressed.‖ Women also ask for opportunities

in male dominated professions. Dan Clark informs us that ―[a] recent report from the Smith

Institute, called Building The Future: Women In Construction, said only 1.2 per cent of

tradespeople in the construction industry were women. As a result of the report, the Construction

Industry Training Board (CITB) is now working with its partners and employers in Hull to try to

improve the perception of construction among women and address some of the negative attitudes

towards women that still persist in the industry‖ (16).

Women do not only occupy a wide space in the workplace, politics and economy but also

the army. Matt Sanctis informs us that ―[a]ccording to information from the Department of
 Markopoulou 56

Veterans Affairs, women comprise about 14.5 percent of all active-duty military and 18 percent of

all National Guard and Reserves‖ (2). Even being a housemother, which has been construed as a

traditionally female duty, is considered nowadays as a woman‘s personal choice. Vasanthi

Ramachandran, the author of And the Winner Is… and a speaker on women and children's issues,

argues that ―[w]omen who chose to being at home today are not traditionalists who are

simplistically hanging on to the apron strings of tradition. They have just chosen motherhood

against other options that are available to them‖ (6). All this evidence proves that women are not

silent anymore; so how could the princess be? Within this world that changes rapidly and taken

over by the female power, a passive, obedient Belle that comforts an abusive Beast, a Sleeping

Beauty that misses all the action, a Snow White that naively chokes on a poisoned apple and a

mermaid that is willing to cut her tail, in order to get married, seem too naïve to even exist.

The changes of the Disney mentality, however, are also related to the fact that the company

was forced to widen its target audience. While in the past the Disney animation films were quite

childish and failed to attract the older members of the audience, it seems that nowadays being an

adult is not an excuse to avoid Disney. As Fraser Martens points out, ―[t]he long list of animated

features by which Disney built its reputation were, without exception, fanciful stories, fairy-stories

in the usual sense of the word, in which wooden toys came to life, elephants flew, and animals

were more often than not capable of talking as well as, or better than, humans. In other words,

animated movies were kids‘ stuff. Adults saw them, usually, because their children dragged them,

and when they did enjoy them, they probably felt a little sheepish about it. After all, they were just

so… cartoony.‖ This widening of the audience was probably a decision that the company had to

make, when it faced a financial disaster after the release of Beauty and the Beast. Based on data

provided by The Independent ―Euro Disney [the part of the Disney company that controls the
 Markopoulou 57

hotels and theme parks] has been blighted with bad luck since its gates opened in 1992 as a

recession loomed and it soon teetered close to bankruptcy‖ and according to the newspaper the

financial difficulties continued till 2010, as the company was facing a €1.8 billion debt. Part of the

financial disaster was definitely that the company could not compete against the CGI (Computer

Generated Imagery) animation that other companies, such as Pixar, exclusively used.

So, it was not surprising that seven years ago Disney bought Pixar for $7.4 billion, as Paul

La Monica writes in CNN Money, although the extreme amount of money that Disney was willing

to pay reveal the severity of the company‘s situation. However, the two companies did not merge,

as Pixar got to maintain its independence and keep its offices and name. The deal was that Pixar

would be responsible for the production of the film and Disney for the marketing of the product,

as Ed Catmull, co-founder and president of Pixar Animation, mentions in his interview regarding

his new book Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True

Inspiration, where he explores issues of management of staff and sources during the production of

the film, as well as the Disney and Pixar collaboration. The reason I mention this is that I believe

that Pixar has affected the Disney way and created what I like to call the Dixar way. Pixar never

really focused on a romance as the main element of the plot. Toy Story (1995), A Bug’s Life

(1998), Monsters, Inc (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004) are some of the

examples that prove that Pixar seems to focus mostly on relationships between friends (such as

Woody and Bud in Toy Story) or fathers and sons (Finding Nemo, Up), rather than on romantic

relationships. In the meantime, Pixar characters evolve tremendously within the filmic time. Toy

Story is all about a boy, Andy, who grows old and naturally abandons his toys, as he enters

puberty. In Finding Nemo, we observe an overprotective father who gradually realizes that his son

can protect himself and is no need of him anymore, while Up focuses on an old man who has
 Markopoulou 58

become introvert and stubborn due to the loss of his wife, loosening up and letting a young boy

help him deal with his grief. It is this element of deep meaningful relationships that Martens calls

the ―Pixar Effect,‖ which has definitely affected the Disney way. Pixar has not only given a third

dimension to the princesses‘ looks but most importantly to their characters, as they all seem to

evolve throughout their films. Do they get all the glory and credits for the change? Certainly not. It

is, however, important to acknowledge Pixar‘s strong voice within the Disney company, as muting

it would be ahistorical and uninformed.

Under these social and financial circumstances, Disney offers a new generation of

princesses that share the same characteristics externally and internally; those traits that constitute a

common ground among the new princesses, separate them from the previous princess traditions.

Beauty remains a given in Disney animation films but the importance of it is undermined, as it

does not seem to facilitate the princess in her journey of self-awareness and maturity, in contrast

with the previous princesses. On the other hand, their attitude seems to have evolved, as they

appear to be significantly stronger than their predecessors.

Starting from the princesses‘ appearance, the results of the comparison are disappointing.

It is not only the tremendous beauty of the new princesses that renders us unable to spot a failure

on the part of Disney to represent reality, but most importantly it is the fact that all new princesses

have a fair complexion, shiny hair and tiny waists. In other words, one could assume that Disney

has not managed yet to escape the beauty standards of today‘s media culture. This media beauty is

certainly not characterized by any sort of objectivity, which makes the criteria of what is

considered beautiful by the industry all the more problematic. Roger Scruton points out this

―ideological‖ aspect of beauty (63). ―An ‗ideology‘ is adopted for its social or political utility,

rather than its truth. And to show that some concept […] is ideological, is to undermine its claim
 Markopoulou 59

to objectivity. It is to suggest that there is no such thing as […] beauty, but only the belief in it–a

belief that arises under certain social and economic relations and plays a part in cementing them,

but which will vanish as conditions change‖ (Scruton 63). These economic relations are explored

by Geoffrey Jones who analyzes the beauty industry, meaning the use of the beauty ideology, in

order to promote specific cosmetic products mostly to a female target audience. The main

problematic behind this utilization of beauty is that it is inextricably linked to fashion that changes

constantly, thus making beauty change along with it. According to Jones, ―[t]he beauty industry

has always been obsessed with the latest fashions. The coolest celebrities feature as spokespeople

to the world for the leading brands. Advertisements proudly highlight the latest technological

breakthroughs designed to firm, uplift, and hydrate skin, reverse the signs of aging, and make hair

shine as never before‖ (2). In the meantime, through advertising the media shapes an idealized

body image that is naturally unrealizable for the most part of the audience, which resorts to

unhealthy ways to alter their body weight. Based on a study conducted by the psychologists Janet

Polivy and Peter Herman, ―the media are often blamed for the (increasing) incidence of E[ating]

D[isorder]s, on the grounds that media images of idealized (slim) physiques motivate or even

force people to attempt to achieve slimness themselves. The media are accused of distorting

reality, in that the models and celebrities portrayed in the media are either naturally thin (i.e., at

the tail of the normal distribution of body weight) and thus unrepresentative of normality, or

unnaturally thin (i.e., the products of exceptional exertions to achieve and maintain a slim

physique)‖ (192).

In this media culture, it is natural to assume that the audience is accustomed to unrealistic

depiction of beauty and, therefore, any visual production has to abide by the trend of the era, since

otherwise the audience, being unused to this blunt realism may reject the product. The assumption
 Markopoulou 60

would be that aesthetics are a product of the media culture and therefore anything that deviates

from the popular beauty norm is construed as ugly and, thus, uninteresting or even repulsive.

However, there as examples that contradict this assumption, such as Dreamworks‘ Shrek (2001),

where beauty has been reexamined and redefined. The film promotes the idea that beauty is

internal, since both Shrek and princess Fiona are two green beasts, the first from birth, the latter

under a curse. While the curse is supposed to be reversed with true love‘s kiss, the heroine remains

a green monster. Shrek, however, exclaims that to him she is beautiful, subverting in this way the

beauty standards. Interestingly enough, the audience appeared to be very open to this innovative

depiction of unconventionality, as the film elaborately presents how beauty is a trait that you

cannot see, but you can only feel. The characters of the film, despite their deviation from the

media-dictated beauty standards, have been in fact widely loved and accepted by the viewers,

since it brought in $42,347,760 during the opening weekend in the US, a sum that covers over

50% of the estimated budget of the film17. It is thanks to this unexpectedly huge success of the

film that four sequels were released in the next years: Shrek 2 (2004), Shrek the Third (2007),

Shrek Forever After (2010) and Shrek the Musical (2013). Based on the financial success of the

films, it seems that adolescent viewers are in fact able to embrace characters that are far from

perfect. The commitment that the young, mostly, audience showed to the deformed princess and

the monster of the film proves that children are not discouraged by appearance, but they fall for

sympathetic characters with humor and good intentions instead. Although this is not the

mainstream idea of beauty in the film industry, this example proves that it may have opened a way

to alternative ideas about beauty and love, which means that there are new demands and

expectations from the Disney company, which unfortunately seems to adhere to the traditional

beauty, as dictated by the media culture.

17
Data taken from <www.imdb.com> (Internet Movie Database).
 Markopoulou 61

In the case of Rapunzel, the most powerful part of her external beauty is her extremely

long, healthy, shiny and, interestingly enough, not ―tangled‖ at all hair that is the source of health

and youth for Rapunzel herself and everybody else who uses it. Therefore, what makes her unique

and invaluable, like a contemporary Sampson, is actually her hair, which is nothing but a part of

her appearance18. ―The display of hair, especially female hair, has [always] carried emotional and

sexual connotations around the world‖ (Jones 44). As Jones informs us, the hair fashion finds its

origins in the middle of the nineteenth century, when ―the fashion of more elaborate and longer

hair for women returned in Europe,‖ which led to the advent of the hair industry of ―haute

coiffure‖ (44, 46). By entering the market industry, by being, that is, commercialized, hair

becomes automatically a merchandise, a fetish that indicates femininity and beauty. Thus,

Rapunzel‘s extremely long hair seem to be an exaggeration of this ideology. It is interesting

though that Disney surprises us at the end of the film, by presenting that Rapunzel‘s gift is not

confined in her hair, but in her soul. In the last scene, when Flynn cuts her hair to make her useless

to Mother Gothel, Rapunzel heals him with her tears. In other words, the power she has is deeper,

it comes from her soul and it is her who decides who can use it, as she chooses who deserves her

healing tears. In that sense, indeed Disney has made a step towards the internalization of beauty,

although it is not yet something overt and easy to be perceived, especially by the young viewers.
18
The Disney animator Kelly Ward describes the innovative simulation techniques that were used

specifically for Rapunzel‘s hair. ―To simulate [her] hair,‖ Ward reveals, ―we use our proprietary hair

simulation software, DynamicWires, which utilizes a mass-spring system for the dynamics of curves. We

have extended this system to handle the unique challenges of Rapunzel‘s hair.‖ Four different techniques

were in fact used simultaneously to add realistic movements and shine to the heroine‘s hair, according to

Ward; ―Hair Piling and Volume Preservation,‖ ―Effortless Dragging,‖ ―Simulation Freezing‖ and ―Hair-

Hair Constraints.‖
 Markopoulou 62

At the same time, beauty does not guarantee you a happy ending any more. Flynn accepts

to lead her to the night lights, not because he is in love with her or stunned by her beauty, although

it is implicit that he will by the end of the film, but because of his personal interests and ambitions.

In other words, had Rapunzel not hidden his satchel, which contained the royal crown, there is no

reason to believe that he would have helped her. Her rescue from her imprisoned life is not a result

of her looks, but a result of a diplomatic and strategic offer that she plots herself and traps Flynn

into accepting. Moreover, the fact that he falls in love with her and returns to the tower to save her

at the end of the film cannot really be accredited to her beauty either, since the difficult situations

that they have survived together throughout the film and the way she coped with the difficulties

seem to be a more valid reason for him to be impressed and seduced by her. My point thus is that,

despite the melodramatic idea of love that is certainly apparent, while in the previous Disney films

the prince fell in love with the princess‘s appearance and saved her with a kiss, in the more recent

ones, it seems that the focus is not on her beauty but on her personality, which seems to attract the

male hero, who, in response facilitates the princess in her journey, without being account for her

salvation in the end.

Disney‘s opposition to the belief that true love is a result of immense beauty19 is also

obvious in the newest Disney film Into the Woods (2015). As a matter of fact, the Witch and

Rapunzel‘s mother blinds the prince, an act that is clearly symbolic. Disney punishes the one who

falls in love with beauty rather than essence. The Witch deprives him of the male gaze, which in

all the previous films is the beginning of the quest, the motivation of the prince to save the

princess, as he always falls in love with her looks. By taking away his ability to see, even if this is

19
Previous films that undergird this idea is Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, where the prince

seems to instantly fall in love with the princess, without even having proper interaction with her.
 Markopoulou 63

the result of motherly jealousy or maybe vanity, Disney opposes the objectification of the female

beauty as it places the emphasis on the soul rather than looks. When the Witch blinds the prince,

she takes away his ability, not only to draw pleasure in what he sees, but mostly to objectify what

he sees, which, in this case is her daughter Rapunzel. Likewise, even though the Witch wins back

her beauty, she fails to be truly loved, even by her own daughter, as it is her soul that renders her

ugly and undesired, rather than her appearance20. In the meantime, the symbolic blinding of the

male viewer opens up new possibilities for the female viewer‘s identification, which has been

quite neglected by the traditional cinema structure, as Mulvey claims (Smelik 10).

While Rapunzel does not use her prettiness in any way, Mother Gothel is in fact punished

for seeking eternal beauty. Although this could be viewed as a step against the obsession with

female beauty standards, it has always been the case that vanity should be punished in Disney

animation films. Snow White‘s stepmother slips off a cliff in her attempt to kill her one single

rival and dominate as the world‘s most beautiful woman. However, the difference between the

stepmother and Mother Gothel is that the second one seems to be more interested in youth rather

than beauty. As the filmic evidence suggests, once she uses Rapunzel‘s hair, she goes back to

being young and healthy. The element of the American obsession with youth is indeed apparent,

20
The deprivation of the male gaze has a more profound meaning, should we take into consideration Laura

Mulvey‘s theory about scopophilia in the movies. Mulvey emphasized that the gaze is the main source of

pleasure in the cinema, as the viewer engages in voyeuristic pleasure or narcissistic identification (qtd in

Anneke Smelik 9, 10). Scopophilia, however, was analyzed by Mulvey ―on the axis of activity and

passivity, a binary opposition which is gendered, that is signified, through sexual difference,‖ as Smelik

explains Mulvey (10). In this schema, it is the male who is the agent, while the woman is ―‗his‘ object‖

(Smelik 10).
 Markopoulou 64

but it is not necessarily related to the beauty standards. Although the problematics behind this idea

are obvious, one should keep in mind that it is hard to evade the depiction of young heroes in a

children‘s film, since the identification process would be interrupted. After all, I argue that in fact

the obsession with youth might even be criticized by Disney in the film Tangled, as Mother Gothel

is actually punished for defying the natural way of life.

In the meantime, beauty is not a factor either in the case of Merida, the heroine of Brave

(2012). In this case, there has been strong opposition as far as Disney‘s distorted version of

femininity and beauty is concerned, the most striking example being the lawsuit against Disney in

2013, which concerned princess Merida. After the release of the toy line for the film Brave,

Disney published a picture of the young princess that was however extremely different from the

original heroine. The new image depicted a woman, rather than a teenager, that was extremely

feminine and sexualized. The outrage was so intense that Disney finally withdrew Merida‘s

picture.

However, it seems that beauty in the film is something that is not only completely

neglected by the princess herself, but also it is a fact that she hates about her. Merida is presented

as a tomboy, rebellious teenager that enjoys hunting and riding her horse in the forests; a girl that

likes breaking the boundaries of the two genders and living free away from laws and rules.

Femininity in Brave is not linked to physical beauty, but to duty. It is the tradition based on which

every woman needs to be married, in order to protect her kingdom and rule that defines

womanhood. It is this tradition that Merida is trying to break, or, at least, alter somehow, as she

refuses to have a prearranged marriage at the age of fifteen. What Merida is afraid of and she feels

she needs to be saved from is tradition. To that end, beauty has certainly nothing to do with the

outcome of her struggle. In fact, Merida manages to stay unwed by persuading her mother, after a
 Markopoulou 65

series of unfortunate events and complications, as in all Disney animation films, that traditions

evolve along with people. This is something that will be analyzed as we proceed, but for the time

being we need to highlight that beauty, although a given in Disney, is not a key to happiness in the

latest films as it was for the old princesses.

The fact that being pretty is not enough anymore in Disney films is also supported by

Frozen (2013). The stunning beauty of Elsa and Anna does not lead to the melting of the ice. In

fact, beauty and the superficial perception of it is presented as dangerous in this specific film, as it

is on appearance that Anna and Hans base their alleged love at first sight. The very fact that their

love is proved to be a façade and Hans turns out to be evil rather than Prince Charming

undermines beauty even more and it undergirds the argument that superficial perception of beauty

may hide enormous dangers. While the old princesses were lucky enough to have gotten away

with remarkably beautiful and ideal husbands21 the younger princesses either refuse to, or simply

fail to achieve a happy ending through looks. Not to mention of course that in Frozen, Anna ends

up with Kristoff, who is supposedly less beautiful than Hans. Although this is not supported by

Kristoff‘s appearance per se, the trolls sing about all his flaws, both the external and the internal

ones, saying that he deserves to be loved despite them. Indeed, Anna chooses the imperfect one,

rather than the typical fairytale prince. In other words, while in the previous Disney films the

prince‘s beauty was a given and, therefore, it was perceived as common sense that the princess

would fall back in love with him, we notice that in the more recent ones both male and female

21
All the princes of the old Disney films that this study focuses on were not only physically beautiful, but

very wealthy as well, which implies that they saved the princesses both physically, as they brought them

back to life, and socially, as their marriage offers to the princess a financial security and social status,

which princesses such as Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel and Belle certainly lacked.
 Markopoulou 66

heroes seem to find love despite their imperfections, as beauty is not the factor that determines

love.

Not only are the newest princesses‘ beauty unstressed by the filmic plot, as it is not an

element that eases their journey but also they seem to be portrayed much more realistically as far

as their body movements are concerned. Kinesthetically, I spot one crucial difference between the

new princesses and the old; that is, the old princesses are very airy and light, while the new ones

seem to be more down to earth, literally and metaphorically. To be more specific, in Snow White

and Cinderella Disney used actual ballet dancers and adapted the movements of the princesses on

them (in fact the same ballerina was used for both leading roles, which is why the similarity

between the two heroines‘ movements is uncanny). These princesses walk on their toes, which

highlights their graceful, classy, aristocratic and gentle nature. However, this airiness of

movement makes it hard for them to be viewed as realistically portrayed women. Similar to their

dreamy personality, their body also emphasizes they are part of a dream themselves. Even Ariel

who constitutes an extreme case, as she cannot even walk, is presented as an airy creature, since

her figure is as fluid as the waters she lives in.

This illusion of reality has been noticed by Chris Pallant who identifies it as part of

―Disney-Formalistic Hyperrealism‖ (345). According to him, ―[h]yperrealism, as deployed in the

works of animation theorist Paul Wells, has come to define a mode of animation which, despite

the medium‘s obvious artifice, strives for ‗realism‘. It is this paradox – the attempt to represent

reality in a medium predicated on artificiality – that makes hyperrealism such an appropriate term‖

(Pallant 345). To make the paradox even clearer, Disney craved for realism but resisted it at the

same time; firstly because the technological means did not favor realism, as, in Pallant‘s own

words, ―a completely realistic human figure could not be depicted using traditional 2-D hand
 Markopoulou 67

animation, given that the medium constantly, and unavoidably, foregrounds its artifice‖ (346). The

second reason though seems to be that Disney was willing to sacrifice realism, in order to add

cuteness to the princesses22. While this obsession with staying pretty affected how the classic

princesses moved and talked, it seems to me that the new princesses have nothing aristocratic

about them; in fact the majority of them seem to be goofy and clumsy. Naturally, this change

should be attributed to the advent of 3-D technology that makes it easier to portray realistic figures

on the big screen.

In order to prove my point, I want to draw attention to a scene that I find representative of

this idea. When Rapunzel first leaves the tower, we see her hanging from her hair terrified staring

at the ground. Slowly and hesitantly, she places her bare foot on the grass, starting from the toes

and finishing with the whole foot down on the ground, so steadily that her toes move from the

force she puts on it, a force that strong that after a while the foot is barely visible, as it is hidden by

the grass. This process of Rapunzel‘s stepping on the ground cautiously represents, in my view,

Disney‘s process of re-exploring the female model tradition that the company has been faithful to

all these years. By placing Rapunzel stepping slowly but steadily and forcefully on the grass,

Disney makes a new statement about the princess tradition; princesses are real, they are here and

they claim their space with their voice and actions. The closer they physically are to the ground,

the more realistic they get. Thus, it is safe to assume that the old princesses represented a more

idealistic beauty, while the new princesses appear to be more human, more realistically portrayed.

Therefore, we have established through all this textual evidence that, although beauty

continues being the norm in Disney, it seems that the importance of it has been seriously
22
As Zack Schwartz, a Disney animator during the ‗Golden Age‘, argues, ‗that word ‗cute‘ used to drive

me crazy, it was all over the studio‘ (qtd in Pallant 346).

 Markopoulou 68

undermined. Not only is it not the goal of the newest heroines but it seems to not play a single role

in the development of the plot; neither does it put them in danger nor does it save them. Despite

the fact that by no means should Disney idealize the female body, it is crucial that the evolution of

the company‘s strategy be acknowledged, since the emphasis has been shifted from the princess‘s

appearance to the princess‘s attitude. As far as their attitude is concerned, the princesses have let

go of the passivity that has outraged feminists who blamed Disney in the past for perpetuating the

image of the silent, passive woman who waits for a man to rescue her.

This evolution does not surprise us. Disney princesses have always been the subject of

evolution throughout the years, even though those changes were slow. Using Amy Davis‘s

classification of the princesses, Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora constitute one category (100).

What brings them together is that ―[a]ll are very kind, graceful, good-natured, beautiful, musical,

innocent young girls‖ (Davis 101). Ariel, however, seems to be more dynamic than her

predecessors, even if this assertiveness is motivated by a romanticized dream of love that she is

obsessed with. She opposes her father and escapes the ocean, trying to accomplish her dream.

Does she try to do it on her own terms and with her own power? No; but still, she manages to stay

awake, in contrast with Aurora who willingly withdraws from her own film. Belle, however,

seems to be both a progression and a regression for the Disney standards. On the one hand, she is

the most intelligent and productive of all the previous Disney princesses; on the other hand

though, this education of hers does not prove her assertiveness, but renders her ―the other‖ among

the inhabitants of her village. While we would expect Belle to be even more dynamic than Ariel,

she seems to embody the archetype of the ―good daughter,‖ as Davis exclaims (189). ―[T]he good

daughter is (usually) a young woman who, out of loyalty to her good but naïve father, finds herself

in a potentially threatening situation and must use all her personal resources to survive, an exercise
 Markopoulou 69

which usually ends in personal triumph for the heroine‖ (Davis 189-90). Nevertheless, these

―resources‖ that Belle employs seem to be passivity, tolerance and submission, as it is her patience

that changes the Beast in the end of the film, rather than her actions.

The new princesses, however, seem to be all characterized by assertiveness, passion,

determination and courage. By no means are they waiting to be saved by a prince; on the contrary

they become the saviors of themselves and of others. The importance of this change is stressed

should we consider the effect the media icons have on young viewers.In an attempt to prove that

gender portrayal in media affects children‘s perception of gender roles, Dawn Elizabeth England,

Lara Descartes and Melissa Collier-Meek conducted a comparative study in 2011 that focused

specifically on the gender roles in Disney animation films and spotted the differences in the

portrayal of male and female characters. The conclusions of this study are very interesting to read:

Whereas the later princesses performed more active roles in the final rescues of the movies, the

princes still performed most of the climatic rescues. A princess has not yet performed the final

rescue without the involvement of the prince. […] The princess always won the love of the prince

by the end of the Disney Princess films, and this portrayal of romance provides a strongly

gendered message. The child viewer is provided with consistent exposure to the social script that

one falls in love either very quickly, at first sight. […] [A] heterosexual romance is inevitable and

often a central conclusion of the movie. No princess remains single except for Pocahontas. […]

Consistent with the romantic resolutions of the films, the princesses are frequently portrayed as

idealized feminine figures. (565)

These conclusions would be perfectly accurate for the old Disney princesses. Is that the case

though still? Is Elsa indeed a princess that ends up with a prince? Is it the case that no rescue has
 Markopoulou 70

been conducted by a princess herself? Do the princesses still advocate love at first sight? A close

reading of the recent Disney films proves that such conclusions are no longer accurate.

The first of the new princesses, Rapunzel, remains a special case, as the film is not as

innovative as the following ones. However, the young princess has still a lot of boldness to show

to Disney‘s analysts. First and foremost, she manages to protect herself from Flynn the first time

she sees him by attacking him with a pan. Although her weapon is a pan, which is relatively

childish and could connote what is traditionally perceived as female space, meaning the kitchen, it

is expected that she would employ a house object, since she has never been in the outside world.

Even if we accept though that the pan stands indeed for the female sphere, it is an even more

striking comment that women are not willing to remain in their kitchen any more. Rapunzel, being

herself oppressed by Mother Gothel, refuses to accept this confinement any longer and actively

offers a deal to Flynn to make him take her to the lights. While one would expect that Disney

would put Flynn in the position of the protector, interestingly enough, it seems that he needs

Rapunzel more than she needs him. Repeatedly throughout the film, she saves him thanks to her

charisma and inventiveness. If it was not for her, he would probably have gotten himself killed in

the ―Ugly Ducklin‖ restaurant, caught by the horse Maximus and the guards of the palace, or die

in the end after Mother Gothel attacks him. Although one could argue that Flynn saves her too by

cutting her hair, it is she who in the end brings him back to life, not with a kiss any more but with

her tears. For the first time in Disney history, it is the princess that saves the hero and gives the

story a happy ending.

To this argument I would like to also add that Flynn is both physically and socially saved

by Rapunzel. He is a common thief and he would have remained one, if he did not marry a

member of the royal family. In the previous films, Snow White, Cinderella, Belle, Aurora and
 Markopoulou 71

Ariel are all of lower or of the same class with the prince and, even if they are of the same social

class, it is their fate or an evil stepmother that has deprived them of their power. This power they

earn back only thanks to the prince who brings them back to life and social prestige and wealth.

On the other hand, Rapunzel, who has also been deprived of her royal rights and life because of

Mother Gothel, needs no one to reclaim her throne; she ends up finding her true identity and place

on her own and offers to Flynn a share of the throne as well. Traditionally, marriage was

considered to be a necessity for a woman, since, until the 1960s an unwed woman was

discriminated against and lacked social status and prestige. David Clark notices that since the late

1950s marriage starts changing form, as women‘s emancipation led to their claiming ―higher

standard of living‖ (25). As the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce reported in 1956

‗[w]omen are no longer content to endure the treatment which in past times their inferior position

forced them to endure‘ (qtd in Clark 25). Even since the 1960s ―marriage as institution gave way

to marriage as relationship‖ (Clark 27). This emphasis on marriage as mostly a relationship rather

than an institution that brings wealth and prestige to the wife is apparent on the recent Disney

films. Consequently, the princess‘s social status does not depend on the prince, her husband,

anymore, but it is rather the princess‘s responsibility to reclaim her post and, even help her

husband climb up the social hierarchy.

Merida is also another dynamic princess. From the beginning of the film it is established

that she needs no one in order to survive, as she can protect herself in the woods. Being really

adept at the arrow, Merida seems to explore the male sphere, as Warcraft has been traditionally

linked to the male sex. She claims a position in the male dominated world, the one where men are

allowed to hunt, ride horses and be free from rules. Merida has nothing in common with the old,

fragile princesses who passively accept their fate and suffer. She refuses to suffer, she speaks up
 Markopoulou 72

her mind and confronts her mother. In order to change her mother‘s opinion, Merida asks for the

help from a witch, similarly to Ariel. The difference however is that the witch in Brave is

definitely not evil, but simply unqualified, as she forgets the particularity of the spell that she

offers to Merida. As a result Merida‘s mother turns into a bear. Throughout the rest of the story

Merida is the one and only protagonist, with her mom, a bear that luckily does not speak, being a

secondary character. It is Merida who is called to reverse the spell, as the witch is gone and it is

her who needs to protect her mother from the men who hunt her down, including the king himself.

The princess succeeds to solve the spell basically alone and, when she does, she manages to

change also her mother‘s will, ending up in this way single and free.

What is quite important to mention is that Brave is in fact the first Disney princess film

that involves no romance at all. Merida neither has nor finds true love; she does not even seek for

it. She fights against the idea and the institution of marriage and this is in fact a major transition

for a Disney princess. However, although in the beginning she wants to be unwed and free, it

appears that in the end all she was fighting for is her right to choose her husband in time. In other

words, Disney is not ready to completely let go of the romantic dream that Walt Disney himself

advocated in the old princess films. The innuendos of Brave is that Merida will want to get

married eventually, once she finds her true love. But she has earned her right to be the one to pick

the time and the man, the right to choose, which reveals the postfeminist influences of the film,

which will be further explored later. Even though the ending is not as innovative as one would

hope, Merida sets unquestionably an example to the older princesses who dream of love and suffer

until they find it.

In Frozen, the plot focuses on the relationship of the two heroines that both seem to be

completely emancipated. Elsa is born with a special gift; the gift of ice. It is this gift that leads to
 Markopoulou 73

an accident that endangers young Anna‘s life, so Elsa is confined to a life of solidarity and

exclusion, believing that she is a danger to her own sister. However, after the death of their parents

in a shipwreck, it is time for Elsa‘s coronation. Not being able to control her power, she is

discovered and everybody attacks her for being different, a ―freak.‖ Elsa refuses to accept this

characterization and runs away to the mountains. The song ―Let It Go,‖ that has become the

symbol of this film in general, indicates that Elsa is not willing to change under the pressure of

social standards. ―It's time to see what I can do/ To test the limits and break through/ No right, no

wrong, no rules for me/ I'm free!‖ Elsa sings, ignoring the social stereotypes that confined her all

these years and forced her to deny herself and her particularities.

Naturally, the solution that Disney gives to the difference is quite problematic, since Elsa

voluntarily adopts a marginal existence, as she is forced to run away, in order to be able to be

herself. Does that mean that an untamed woman is not allowed to be part of society? Is Elsa

obliged to control her power if she ever wants to come back? Is society still afraid of the deviant

femininity? Examining the connection between the supernatural and monstrous femininity in

horror films, such as Carrie (1976), Shelley Stamp Lindsey notices that there is a systematic

attempt from the filmic industry to castrate the aberrant woman by mutilating her body (35).

―[T]he horror, as often noted, arises not from woman's ‗castration,‘ but from the fact that she is not

castrated. In order to account for this puzzling phenomenon of sexual difference, the male subject

constructs a fantasy of female castration, perversely enacted by the slasher‖ (Lindsey 35). Thus,

the monster and the woman become one, ―because of their shared (and threatening) anatomical

difference‖ (Linda Williams qtd in Lindsey 35-36). ―Monster! Monster,‖ the Duke of Weselton

exclaims, once Elsa‘s powers are revealed. I simply wonder at this point if this voluntary escape of
 Markopoulou 74

the heroine is an easy way out for Disney, since in this way both society and Elsa seem satisfied

with the outcome.

However, Elsa does not in fact come back, when she has tamed her power, but when she

realizes that what she was told when she was young is not true. She is not a danger to her sister, in

fact the latter needs and loves her in spite of her special nature. In this sense, it is the lies of her

parents and as an extent of society that have created Elsa‘s dark side; once she escapes society‘s

imposed beliefs about her, she finds her true self, that is simply different rather than dangerous.

Therefore, Elsa may be a circumstantial victim, but not in the same way that the old princesses

were. While the old princesses run away from their tormentors and hide in fear, Elsa runs away

but she does it for her own sake and for her sister‘s wellbeing; she leaves on her own terms. She is

not a weak victim, but a powerful woman that chooses where she wants to be. Elsa is not an evil

enemy, nor a victimized girl: she is a woman that reaches maturity by realizing that she can be

whoever she wants and, once she realizes that, she is finally ready to rule her kingdom.

As far as Anna is concerned, she seems to be as powerful as her older sister, although in

the beginning she is presented as a playful, naïve young girl. Ironically, Anna is oppressed by

being deprived of her sister‘s company for her own good, as the accident has led her parents to the

conclusion she is in physical danger. The fact that they have kept her away from her sister has

made Anna suppress her needs for communication and companionship. She is starved for real life

and action and she finds it all, after Elsa sets accidentally an eternal winter upon their kingdom,

Arendelle. Anna‘s romanticized version of reality, which is obvious by her song ―For the First

Time in Forever‖ is not really an indication of a romantic, dreamy girl, but of a human being that

has been completely deprived of company and social life in years. Anna is craving for love,

because in my view, she simply longs for human contact. At the same time though, Anna is not
 Markopoulou 75

motivated to act by her love for a prince. She enters the adventure, in order to talk to her sister and

save her town from eternal winter. The romance in Anna‘s case is not the goal of the film, but

rather a way to make things more complicated, as Anna‘s alleged love at first sight, Hans, turns

out to be the antagonist, an opportunist who goes after the throne. Despite Anna‘s tiny figure, the

young of her age and her lack of real life experiences, she is presented as extremely courageous.

Although she is scared, she manages to overcome her fears and save the day. For instance, the first

time she encounters Kristoff, Anna is terrified to negotiate with him, as she has never done it

before. However, she hides her hesitation and comes up with a perfect plan, in order to persuade

him to lead her to Elsa. This particular scene reminds us vividly of Rapunzel‘s diplomatic offer to

Flynn; the princesses do not wait for a man to save them hoping that their beauty will attract the

male any more, but they ask for help by following strategies that easily convince the male heroes.

The assertiveness of the princesses is highlighted even by the way that they die, which has

been seriously altered in the new Disney films. First of all, in two out of three new animation films

that we examine the princesses actually never die, which means that the figure of the savior, as the

one who brings them back to life is completely eliminated. On the other hand they are called to

save someone else. In Rapunzel‘s case, she is the one who saves Flynn with her healing tears,

while in Brave Merida saves her mother by reversing the spell herself. What is most important

though about the death motif in the new films is that the princess ceases to be simply a pretty

corpse waiting for a savior. Snow White is the most striking example of this, as the heroine‘s dead

body becomes an object of the male gaze thanks to her beauty. In Over her Dead Body,Elisabeth

Bronfen notices that the dead body of the heroine is the first requirement to becoming an object of

admiration. Snow White, according to Bronfen, after her death, is transformed from a human

being to an ―auto-icon,‖ as she exemplifies the idealization of beauty (100). ―[A]s auto-icon, [she]
 Markopoulou 76

performs the apotheosis of one of the central positions ascribed to Woman in western culture;

namely that the ‗surveyed‘ feminine body is meant to confirm the power of the masculine gaze. In

Lemoine-Luccioni‘s words, Woman doesn‘t look; she gives herself to be looked at; she is beauty

and being beauty she is also an object of love‖ (qtd. in Bronfen 102). While Snow White and

Aurora fall into deep sleep passively waiting for the prince to notice their beauty and give them

the kiss of life, Anna dies while protecting her sister. The very position that Anna‘s frozen body

holds comes in contrast with the passivity of the previous princesses‘ dead bodies. Even after

death, Anna is dynamic and assertive with her hand raised against Hans‘s sword. Her posture is

definitely not inviting to any sort of rescue. Not to mention that Frozen is the first Disney film

where the princess is saved by a woman‘s kiss rather than a man‘s.

This change of the Disney company‘s perception of death is indeed intriguing. Gary

Laderman, in an attempt to justify Disney‘s ―obsession with death,‖ as he calls it and after running

through Walt Disney‘s biographies to find the answer, ends up making some interesting points that

mostly concern the time when the most famous Disney animation films were created (34, 35).

Laderman explains:

During a period that witnessed severe economic turmoil, a second world war, scientific and

technological revolutions, and other tumultuous social developments in the 1930s, 1940s, and

1950s, Disney's early animated films simultaneously entertained the masses and inculcated

Americans with simplistic notions of right and wrong, virtue and vice, and innocence and

corruption. And what is most striking-though not surprising-about these films is that for many

stories, death, or the threat of death, is the motor, the driving force that enlivens each narrative.

(39)
 Markopoulou 77

Based on the writer‘s words, one could assume that the fact that Disney no longer uses death as

one of the basic plot elements is a result of social needs. The industrialization of the 1950s created

the illusion, or even the hope within the American society of an ever-lasting movement, of a non-

stop progress and evolution. By killing the characters in his films, Disney aimed to present that

nothing is over, not even after death. The answer, however is not yet answered. If the motif of

death as a stimulus for motion is now gone, what is now its substitute? It seems to me that death

has not actually eclipsed from Disney films, but it has changed form. Snow White‘s physical death

has turned into an emotional death in the case of Rapunzel that finds the strength to break the bond

with the woman that she was raised by, into a death of innocence, in the case of Brave where

Merida is forced to enter maturity and do her duty to her kingdom, and an ideological death in

Frozen, where Elsa has to break free from the social confinements that oppress her. In this sense,

Disney is still obsessed with the notion of death, but at least this death is dealt with by the princess

per se, as she is the one who dies and resurrects herself.

There is one more element, though, that contributes to the empowerment of the female figure in

Disney films that this chapter focuses on. The role that the animals played in the past becomes

more and more confined, which contributes to the empowerment of the heroine. While in the

past animals had a human voice and were crucial to the development of the plot, in the newest

films they lose the ability to speak and their existence is simply a comic relief and not a necessity

for the storyline. Looking back at the old princesses, it is clear that without the animals‘ help they

would have been in crucial danger. Starting from Snow White, it is the animals that save her more

than once. It is them that lead her to the dwarfs‘ hut at the beginning of the film, they help her

clean and tidy it, they scare away the dwarfs when they come home, in order to protect her and

they notify the latter, when she meets the witch in disguise. Not to mention that it is them who
 Markopoulou 78

carry the dwarfs back home soon enough to find and hunt down the evil stepmother. At the same

time, even if they don‘t save her in all scenes, they are her companionship and comfort, her only

friend and support from the way till the end, as they even cry next to her glass coffin, as if they

had human feelings and consciousness.

It is this consciousness of the animals that is portrayed vividly in Cinderella as well. While

being completely alone and tortured in the house of her evil stepmother and stepsisters, all she has

is her mice-friends. They help her cope with her everyday reality, wake her up, help her get

dressed, facilitate her chores and, when things get out of control, they finish her ball dress and

unlock the door so she can have a chance to try on the magic shoe. Interestingly enough, the

human feelings that animals showed in Snow White evolve into a human voice in Cinderella,

where muteness is a characteristic of the enemy, of the evil cat Lucifer that the stepmother owns.

Except for the allegory of the cat-mouse hunt that Cinderella plays with her stepmother, Naomi

Wood also notices that ―Jaq and Gus [the mice] express the physicality that Cinderella cannot‖

(39, 40). They ―possess the libidinal energy that the Cinderella plot lacks,‖ as they seem to be able

to discern between the gender roles of the two sexes (in the scene when Cinderella needs to

prepare male clothes for the newcomer, Gus), they enter and exit holes, and they protest verbally

and physically against the stepmother, when Cinderella stoically accepts the humiliation (Wood

37, 40). In this sense, the role of the animals was extended, highlighted and reinforced gradually

as Disney evolved, since they seem to have entered the human sphere as equal members. Not to

neglect of course the importance of the fact that Cinderella and Snow White can only

communicate with animals, which implies that the female is undermined to an animalistic level,

unable to communicate with any other human being.

 Markopoulou 79

At the same time, the animals in The Little Mermaid are more than simply the heroine‘s

helpers. Sebastian, the crab, is practically the protagonist in the place of the protagonist, as it is

him who dictates what Ariel is supposed to do, how she is supposed to look and how she will be

able to acquire the prince‘s heart. The fact that a crab is in a position to dictate Ariel and give her

instructions about how to be a woman, undermines even more the intelligence of the latter, as she

is presented as incapable of thinking for herself. In other words, it is implied that without the help

of an animal, the princess would be completely weak and helpless. We notice thus that animals in

Disney acquire gradually more and more filmic space and importance. From the silent,

compassionate helpers in Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, we pass to the talking, energetic,

active helping mice in Cinderella, only to end up in The Little Mermaid‘s world, where animals

not only have a voice, but have also opinions and a personal will and agenda that defines the

development of the plot.

In the case of Beauty and the Beast, the animal motif is replaced by the house objects,

which is a natural change, as the whole plot unravels in a castle. However, their role, despite their

nature is no different than their predecessors. Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs Potts are there to

facilitate the plot, meaning to make Belle fall in love with the Beast, so that the spell that has been

casted upon him can be broken. The little helpers are necessary to the plot, as they create the

conditions so the Beast and Belle will come together. However, what is more important is that

these inhuman characters seem once more to be the only companion of the heroine. It is not

accidental that Beauty has been placed in a completely strange space alone, where her only

solution is to resort for comfort to house objects that speak with a human voice. Although in this

film there are not animal friends, except for the stool that behaves interestingly enough like a dog,

the pattern of the heroine communicating only with non-human creatures is still there.
 Markopoulou 80

What is the common characteristic between the animals of all these classic Disney

animation films, however, is not their human traits or even the fact that they help the heroine

overcome obstacles. The main element is that they seem to be a vital part of the conflict between

the main characters. The animals in Snow White fight the transformed stepmother, the mice in

Cinderella attack Lucifer, who stands for the evil ladies of the house, Sebastian fights for Ariel,

while the house objects speak up for Belle. In a sense, they are in fact soldiers and protectors of

the justice and innocence in animation films. Timothy Cooper views also animals as a means of

political and strategic talk on the part of Disney industry. According to him, ―[c]onsidering that

the anthropomorphic animals are already an ‗other‘ and that their situated origin resides in both

drawn animation and their own contemporary and historic reality, they become redoubled into

something akin to a suggestion for the viewer to consider enacting. Walt Disney Productions

implicitly assumes that animals should be a part of the human war, thus naturalizing and, using

Eisenstein‘s terminology, harmonizing the conflict with nature‖ (341).

At the same time, however, in order to be more effective in this world animals, seem to be

willing to sacrifice themselves, being on the one hand align with the heroines‘ personal sacrifices

but on the other hand opposing the princesses‘ passivity, making it all the more evident to see that

what they lack the animals have. A striking example would be the courage and willingness of

Cinderella‘s pets when the godmother decides to transform them. The exact moment of the

animals‘ transformation in Disney has been explained by Sergei Eisentsein as a metaphor for

social transformation that people craved after the American depression of the 30s. ―The ideal

reality that took on contours in Disney‘s fairy tales showed nothing other than the momentary

arrest of all possibilities for revolutionary social transformation. The idealized world moulded in

Disney‘s fairy tale reels made graphic the suppression of revolutionary hopes for social
 Markopoulou 81

transformation in the 1930s and 1940s‖ (qtd in Cooper 337). Leaving aside the ecologic view that

would see this as a complete exploration of nature for the sake of humanity and focusing on

Eisenstein‘s social transformation theory, it is even sadder to see that the animals take part in a

war that is always the princess‘s problem. By voluntarily offering their help, the animals

undermine the power and feistiness of the heroine who seems to be the trophy of the war, rather

than an active participant. And if we accept Eisentsein‘s view on the social transformation

allegory, it is even sadder that woman is not a part of it or a soldier for its sake, but simply a

motive for all the other powers (male heroes, animals, nature, fairies) to cooperate and fight back.

However, things have been altered in the new princess films. In the case of Tangled, once

more we can spot the in-between-ness of the film, as the heroine has indeed an animal friend,

Pascal, the chameleon, but he neither talks nor is of major importance for the plot (in contrast to

Rapunzel in the Barbie film whose female dragon actually carries her over the great wall finally

conquering its own fear of flying high). In other words, the animal friend is not eliminated in

Tangled, but, in contrast with the previous cases, Pascal is not Rapunzel‘s support system

throughout the film. He is her only friend out of necessity while growing up alone in the castle,

but she grows into having human friends, like Flynn, as the film progresses. In fact, Flynn is not

the only person that she can communicate with. Rapunzel seems to be extremely outgoing and

talkative compared to the previous princesses. She seems to have a charisma that attracts people‘s

attention and helps her resolve complicated situations, with the ―Ugly Ducklin‖ scene being the

most striking example. Therefore, we notice that the role of the animal as the heroine‘s only friend

is undermined in the newest Disney animation films.

Similarly, Merida has no animal friends either; in fact, she has no friends at all. What is

interesting in this film is that the animal element is inextricably combined with the human.
 Markopoulou 82

Starting with her father‘s figure, he seems to be himself a giant human bear. His posture, the fur he

always wears on his back, his manners and the obsession he has with his sworn enemy, the bear,

strengthen his connection with this particular animal. Interestingly enough, the connection is even

more striking, once Merida accidentally transforms her mother into a bear. Although one could

argue that the animal motif is back, since the whole film deals with Merida‘s relationship with a

bear, the truth is that there is more into it than void accusations against Disney. It is my view that

in this film everybody is taken down to the level of the animal, and particularly the bear. Her

father and siblings‘ animalistic manners, the queen‘s transformation into a bear and her gradual

embracement of the animalistic urges, Merida‘s own connection to the nature and freedom, all

point to the direction that it is a family of bears more than a family of humans. Even the scenery of

the film is not accidental, as they live in a castle of rock that is so similar to a cave.

This is an interesting twist to the old animal heroine relationship. First of all, by placing

everyone at the level of the animal the film plays upon the instincts that are hidden in every

individual and that are oppressed because of society‘s rules and indications. Merida‘s mother is a

comme-il-faut queen and she looks down on her daughter‘s free spirit, until she is forced to

become one with the nature, which she learns to love and embrace as part of herself. Therefore, in

Brave the argument that it is only the princess who is undermined at the level of the animal cannot

stand simply because it is the playful point of the story that people are nothing more than animals

that are well trained to behave in specific ways, in order to coexist. Being an animal and

communicating with one, as the relationship of Merida and her mother bear indicates, is not

something to be looked down on, but mostly it is a process of repositioning the self in life and

nature. It is not accidental that Merida‘s mother becomes more flexible after her transformation

experience, since she realizes that happiness matters in life more than rules.
 Markopoulou 83

In the case of Frozen, there are barely any animals at all. The only animal in the film is

Kristoff‘s reindeer, Sven; not only does he not talk but he also has nothing to do with Anna, as he

is Kristoff‘s best friend. In a way in Frozen the pattern of the heroine-animal friendship has been

completely disrupted by placing the male hero in the original schema. At the same time, the two

heroines of the story are friends with Olof the snowman. The point is though that, except for the

fact that Olof is very similar to a human being both appearance-like and behavior-like, his

existence in the plot does not undermine at all the mentality of the heroines but rather enhances it.

Olof is not a random creature that Elsa has created, but the incarnation of Elsa‘s childhood

memories that were filled with love for her sister. Elsa is not simply Olof‘s friend but she is his

creator, which places her in a very strong and powerful position as it is. Moreover, Olof‘s role is

more a comedy release rather than an essential part of the plot, as far as the evolution of it is

concerned. The link that connects the two sisters is not Olof per se, but rather the space of

memories that he connotes.

This assertiveness on the part of the heroine is nothing we have ever seen in Disney

princesses, which leads once more to the realization that the company has made powerful steps

towards the acceptance of the female voice. Has romance eclipsed from the life of the Disney

princess? Certainly not. Nevertheless, romance is neither the question nor the answer any more. It

is a side story to the main plot and it does not undermine the power of the heroine, but it simply

supplements it. Therefore, an accurate question at this point would be: has Disney entered

postfeminism? The concept of postfeminism seems to be quite elusive. It seems that the prevailing

idea behind it is that it portrays the end of feminism, meaning that the latter is no longer needed, as

the female voice is now heard in the social sphere. Understanding this difficulty to define

postfeminism, Elaine J. Hall and Marnie Salupo Rodriguez attempt to analyze this new
 Markopoulou 84

phenomenon, based on four different theories. Quoting Laurie Ouelette, they state that ―[t]he four

claims of the postfeminist argument are as follows: (1) Support for the women's movement has

decreased over the 1980-90 period. (2) Antifeminism has increased among ‗pockets‘ of young

women, women of color, and full-time homemakers. (3) Feminism has lost support because it has

become irrelevant. For women who were feminists when younger, the movement failed to achieve

gender equality; for young women in the current era, the success of the movement means it is no

longer needed. (4) A ‗no, but...‘ version of feminism has developed, in which women are

‗reluctant to define themselves with the feminist label, but they approve of and indeed demand

equal pay, economic independence, sexual freedom, and reproductive choice (Hall and Rodriguez

879). By examining the accuracy of these four assumptions, Hall and Rodriguez reach the

conclusion that postfeminism is a myth, rather than a real movement. ―Our research shows that

postfeminism currently is a myth; women continue to support feminism and find it relevant in

their lives. However, the emphasis on postfeminism in the popular media may create a future

reality in which collective struggle is deemed unnecessary. This possibility is the ultimate danger

of the postfeminist argument‖ (Halls and Rodriguez 899). This fear that the scholars express is

related to the ‗lifestyle feminism,‘ as they call it, which ―undermine[s], if not eliminate[s], the

collective struggle that is synonymous with feminism‖ (Halls and Rodriguez 899).

However, to make things clearer and set the boundaries of postfeminism for the sake of

this study, I will use Yvonne Tasker‘s idea of postfeminism, as it is presented and employed in the

cinematic sphere and attempt to see if it applies to the recent Disney films 23. According to Tasker,

―[p]ostfeminism emphasizes women‘s achievements- physical, educational, professional- and

23
It must be noted that Tasker‘s idea is quite similar to Ouelette‘s ―no but…‖ feminism theory that was

previously mentioned.
 Markopoulou 85

places particular emphasis on individual choice. Contemporary women are imagined by

postfeminist discourse to be free to choose; free of both old-fashioned, sexist ideas about women‘s

limits and feminism‘s supposed imposition of an asexual, unfeminine appearance‖ (68-69).

However, Tasker sees a major contradiction within the postfeminist culture; that is, despite the

fact that female ―strength can […] be celebrated when figured in appropriately feminine terms.

And since conventional femininities are traditionally aligned not with strength but with passivity,

malleability, and a broad willingness to sacrifice self for others, the postfeminist commitment to

an imagery of strong […] yet resolutely feminine women is potentially rife with contradiction‖

(69). In this sense then, are our new princesses postfeminists?

It seems that Tasker‘s theory is more than accurate in the Disney films that we analyze. To

begin with, all of the films obviously advocate the woman‘s right to free choice. Rapunzel screams

for her right to leave the tower, even if that constitutes a danger, Merida claims her right to not get

married at the age of fifteen for the sake of her kingdom, Elsa chooses to be alone and free in the

mountains away from society, while Anna argues for her right to be married to whomever she

wants. But how do they celebrate their victory in the end? Rapunzel marries Flynn, Merida agrees

to get married, although her original position was completely negative towards this institution, as

long as this happens in her own time and on her own terms. Her right to not get married in the

beginning becomes her right to true love by the end of the film, a kind of romanticization that has

been linked to femininity and Disney princesses as well. Anna sacrifices herself for her sister.

Even though it is her sister that needs protection, the fact that Anna has to die, in order to save

Elsa proves that she is indeed the typically innocent angel that places someone else‘s needs above

hers. As for the ending, Anna ends up with and probably marries Kristoff, as hinted by the filmic

evidence. The contradiction that Tasker notices in Disney‘s Enchanted (2007), that the film is both
 Markopoulou 86

ironic and supportive of true love at the same time, is more than accurate in Frozen (68). The

irony that the film treats Anna‘s first true love with, is completely silenced at the end, when she

finds her actual true love, Kristoff. In a nutshell, Anna‘s possible marriage to Kristoff seems to be

justified and completely supported by the film. Therefore, love at first sight may not exist, but true

love definitely does and it always leads to a heterosexual relationship. This realization that Disney

has entered, as it seems, the postfeminist era does not negate the company‘s evolution; it sets

though the limits of this evolution, as it seems that there are yet miles to be run, in order for the

woman to be redefined and repositioned within the social perception as an individual free from

confinements, double standards and romanticized ideologies.

No matter the weaknesses, the importance of the change should not be undermined.

Changing the Disney princess‘s attitude is crucial, since the audience of such films consists of

young children that seem to form gendered behaviors, based on the models that are portrayed in

Disney films, as cultural studies suggest. In particular, Karen Wohlwend supply us with data from

a survey that ascertains that children reenact expected gendered identities, while specifically

playing with the Disney princess toy line. The observance of the children‘s playtime illustrated the

embodiment of gender stereotypes on the part of the subjects, with the most striking one, in my

view, being that boys are not supposed to reenact female characters (Wohlwend 15). ―As children

in this kindergarten replayed Disney Princess films and played favorite storylines and characters,‖

Wohlwend continues, ―they activated anticipated identities – gendered character roles and

consumer expectations sedimented through production and distribution processes – in Disney

Princess film images, texts, and products‖ (19). These conclusions prove, not only the dangers of

false representation of gender portrayal, but also that children unconsciously realize the

performative nature of gender, since they themselves play out behaviors that they have associated
 Markopoulou 87

with each gender. Judith Butler, who is most known for her theory on gender performativity

argues that ―gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts

proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time - an identity instituted through a

stylized repetition of acts‖ (519). This ―repetition of acts‖ that Butler mentions is a given, when a

child revisits and reproduces the plot and songs of Disney animation films, while playing with the

Disney dolls. Therefore, the child adopts the perspective and behaviors of the film, as she imitates

the models projected.

The real dimensions of the impact that these representations have on children‘s mental

formation of gender identity could only be understood, should we consider the commercialization

of the cultural product that occurs, since Disney does not only sell image, but also toy lines that

are based on each film individually. The unlimited success of Disney merchandise is an indication

that children, after watching a Disney film, get to replay and reincarnate the roles and identities

depicted at home. As Janet Wasko points out, ―the content of Disney-branded products, which are

assumed to be wholesome, safe, and pure, as well as ethical, virtuous and unprejudiced. Through

various methods of textual analysis, many studies have identified reoccurring themes in Classic

Disney products, especially those having to do with representation and ideology‖ (250). To make

my point even stronger, recent data from Entertainment Newsweekly shows that ―Frozen products

have landed on every major holiday toy list released by national retailers, toy industry

organizations and media outlets with the Disney Frozen Snow Glow Elsa doll by JAKKS Pacific

being identified on six major lists including TTPM's24 Most Wanted List.‖ At the same time,

Disney dolls are not the end of the story. With the advent of smartphones and tablets, Disney

24
TTPM: Reviews of Toys, Baby Gear, Kids Electronics, Pet Toys, Video Games, & Sporting

Goods<www.ttpm.com>
 Markopoulou 88

entered the social media by producing e-books, apps and games associated to the films. The same

source informs us:

Since Frozen's release in 2013, Disney Publishing Worldwide and its licensees have published

more than 800 Frozen print titles globally and more than 35 e-books in the U.S. The Disney

Karaoke: Frozen app has reached no. 1 in the iPad Entertainment Downloads category in more

than 100 countries around the world and ‗Let it Go‘ has been played in the app 3.2 million times

since its launch in May 2014. Additionally, ‗Disney Frozen: Free Fall‘ is Disney Interactive's top-

grossing, most-downloaded app of the year. Millions of people continue to play the mobile game

each day, logging an average of 147 million daily play time minutes each day. (55)

The dazzling numbers of Disney merchandise‘s success emphasize the importance of the analysis

of gender representation in Disney films. Under these circumstances, the fact that Disney

princesses, as previously discussed, have entered a new phase of assertiveness and power creates

new possibilities for the new generations that have come a step closer to a more realistic and

understanding depiction of gender and, most importantly, of femininity on the big screen.
 Markopoulou 89

2.2 What Happened to the Big Bad Wolf?

So, while the princess herself experiences a literal transformation, it is only expected that

the villainess would also be altered in some way. The villainess figure is a Disney trend of her

own, with merchandise that has been created and embraced by the audiences. I use the term

―villainess‖ instead of ―villain‖ on purpose, as in this paper what interests me most is how the

female antagonists of the heroines were portrayed in the old Disney films, as well as if and how

this representation has changed in the contemporary princess tradition. It is the general idea among

the critics that the villainess model has changed, especially after the film Maleficent (2014), where

Disney has shifted the focus on the antagonist, rather than the princess, creating in this way a third

dimension for an old animated character. The film Maleficent will be discussed in this chapter, as

indeed I believe that the depiction of the villainess has revolutionary changed the perception of

evil. However, my main focus is not the contemporary villainess per se but the gradual extinction

of it, as Disney evolves.

I do not intend to elaborately describe the old villainess tradition. I believe that it is in fact

a domain that has been discussed and criticized extensively in the past. What I would like to do is

to run through the old princess films, aiming to find an evolution in the villainess portrait, as

Disney‘s evolution in terms of the company‘s perspective is what mostly concerns me. It seems to

me that the old princess generation had only one model of villainess to suggest: the evil witch.

While in the contemporary films we see a variation, that I will elaborately describe later on, the

old Disney demonized the idea of the evil antagonist. The fact that this antagonist is almost in
 Markopoulou 90

every case a woman is what makes the films even more problematic. The stepmother from Snow

White, Lady Tremaine from Cinderella, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty and Ursula from The

Little Mermaid have mostly common characteristics to share rather than differences. They are all

of the same sex (even in Beauty and the Beast the actual villain is not the Beast but the evil witch

that casts a spell on him in the first scene of the film), they are unjustifiably mean and angry, they

are obsessed with the destruction of the princess‘s happiness, they have highly edged faces and

prestigious black gowns and they all get punished in the end for being mean. However, as Davis

notices, the one major characteristic that they have in common is a ―much higher proportion of

agency they show compared to that of their victims‖ (107). The fact that assertiveness has always

been linked with evilness in Disney animation films is quite dangerous, since it conveys the

message that only passivity equals goodness. At the same time, this unexpected evilness that has

possessed them is accentuated by the fact that Disney princesses are presented as innocent, naïve,

unprotected angels. By acquitting the princesses of any sort of flaw, Disney makes it all the more

difficult for the audience to ever understand, sympathize or even identify with the evil witches.

The result is that they become the ―other‖ in the viewer‘s imagination. They are a threat to the

princess‘s happiness, the only obstacle between her and the happy ending and, therefore, they

deserve to be annihilated.

Could these witches be described as femme fatales? My answer would be no. There is an

element in femme fatale that we cannot find in most of the Disney villainesses; hyper-sexuality. In

fact it seems to me that Ursula is the only one that actually expresses some sort of sexual urge, by

attempting to lure prince Eric, despite the fact that even then the viewer cannot clearly detect her

motives; it could be just the case that she wants to sabotage Ariel‘s happiness and through her

destroy Triton, who is her main antagonist. In any case though, Ann Kaplan‘s description of the
 Markopoulou 91

evil woman in film noir seems to be more than accurate in the portrayal of Ursula. ‗The hero‘s

success [in our case, Eric] or not depends on the degree to which he can extricate himself from the

woman‘s manipulations. Although the man is sometimes simply destroyed because he cannot

resist the woman‘s lures, […] often the work of the film is the attempted restoration of order

through the exposure and then destruction of the sexual, manipulating woman‘ (qtd in Amy Davis

121). This filmic destruction of Ursula points towards her sexuality even more, as Eric uses a

phallic symbol to destroy her.

The main problem remains. By placing a female as the only antagonist of the princess,

Disney films seem to have completely tainted the idea of sisterhood. This lack of sisterhood in

children‘s animation films could and has become harmful, as they embrace the belief that all

women are jealous, vain and dangerous. By eliminating however this bond among women, the

young girl stands alone and unprotected in a world where patriarchy rules and companionship

seems more and more necessary for her to survive. Is that the case, however, in the new princess

tradition? Are women still the enemy or has anything been altered?

I believe Maleficent is the most striking example for this change and, despite the fact that it

is not an animation film, I think it would be naive on my part to ignore it, since it is a film that

celebrates the evolution of Disney‘s representation of femininity and sisterhood. In Maleficent,

where Angelina Jolie holds the leading part, Disney rewrites the story of Sleeping Beauty, by

presenting it from the witch‘s point of view. Maleficent‘s motives, whose lack rendered her

irrationally angry in the animation film, become now clear, as she has been betrayed by her best

friend, Stefan, who mutilates her by clipping off her wings, in order to win the throne. As a

revenge to Stefan, Maleficent curses his daughter, baby Aurora. While in the animation film

Maleficent‘s evilness has no boundaries, in the 2014 film Maleficent comes to love the young girl
 Markopoulou 92

and does everything to reverse the curse and save her. And even when she fails, even when the girl

dies, she is there to give her ―true love‘s kiss‖ and bring her back to life. It is very interesting to

see how Disney justifies the evil woman and presents a more realistic character with human

dimensions that feels pain, gets hurt, changes her mind and falls in love. In a sense we could say

that Maleficent stands for all the other villainesses who were never justified for their behavior. By

bringing her back to realism, Disney advocates that evil and good coexist and live within the

person; what matters is the one that prevails in the end. There is no pure evil, there is only human

weakness. At the same time, nevertheless, it is obvious that Disney falls again into the trap of

dilemmas, when it comes to female psychology; right or wrong, good or evil, victimizer or victim.

As Adam Nayman reviews the film, he notices that ―Maleficent‘s malevolence, once so

deliciously unmotivated, is pathologised as the fury of a woman scorned, which ostensibly

provides a feminist subtext yet also defines this omnipotent earth-goddess entirely by the actions

of a man‖ (80). Under no circumstances though can we undermine the importance of the change

that Disney has made as far as the portrait of the villainess is concerned.

One year after the release of Maleficent, Disney repeats the same motif of the kind,

misunderstood witch in the film Into the Woods, where everybody is literally and metaphorically

―into the woods,‖ meaning into the forest and in danger. Meryl Streep incarnates the ultimate fairy

tale witch. What is the difference between her and her predecessors? That she herself is a victim of

her own mother, whose curse has cost her her youth and beauty. The whole film evolves around

the witch‘s efforts to reverse a curse that her mother had cast upon a household, in order to find

her inner good/ beauty (sadly the associations of goodness and beauty have not yet changed).

However, the heroes of the fairy tale, who are cleverly interconnected by the plot, seem to be

predisposed towards her, as they do not hesitate to blame her for every danger that has befallen
 Markopoulou 93

them. It is then and only then that the witch literally explodes, as she feels the injustice. ―I'm the

Witch/ You're the world/ I'm the hitch/ I'm what no one believes/ I'm the Witch,‖ she sings in ―The

Last Midnight,‖ expressing in this way her misery for the fact that she is indeed misunderstood.

While Maleficent and Into the Woods change the figure of the villainess, Rapunzel, to return to

our main focus, is not that revolutionary. Once again it is proved that Tangled stands in-between

the old and the new era, as Mother Gothel is unquestionably the main antagonist of the girl, but

clearly less evil than her predecessors. Her figure is soft and humanized, despite her black, full of

volume hair that point to a threat. She is the first villainess that looks like a realistically portrayed

woman, without yellow eyes, edged face and magic skills that can transform her. What is the most

important element though that differentiates her from the previous villainesses is her motherly

feelings towards Rapunzel. Rapunzel is not accidentally left with her as the result of misfortune,

like Snow White or Cinderella did, after the deaths of their fathers. She was not murdered by her

like Aurora and she was not mistreated while asking for help as in Ariel‘s case. Rapunzel was

raised by Mother Gothel. Although the latter kidnapped the princess, in order to be able to take

advantage of her magic hair, still it should not be unacknowledged that it is her who took care of

the girl. In fact, there are elements in the film that prove that Mother Gothel may have been a quite

adequate mother throughout the years.

At the beginning of the song, when Rapunzel sings ―When Will My Life Begin,‖ she

presents all the different activities that she does in the house. This house, even though it confines

her, it still gives her a lot of opportunities to grow and entertain herself. Moreover, when Rapunzel

asks to go out on her birthday, Mother Gothel forbids her to do so, but she still makes up for it by

going on a long trip to bring to Rapunzel her favorite painting colors and she makes also her

favorite soup. In a way, I sense that the film purposefully leaves unclarified whether or not Mother
 Markopoulou 94

Gothel really cares for Rapunzel or not. Despite her actions, and even if we accept that she is a

selfish, vain woman, she is still much more maternal than the previous villainesses. Not to

mention of course that her hatred appears, once she loses Rapunzel, which could be interpreted as

the reaction of a mother obsessed with her daughter. This obsession is more clearly portrayed

actually in Into the Woods. The Witch does not take advantage of Rapunzel in any way, so, when

the latter decides to run away with the prince, the Witch‘s despair can only be explained as

hyperbolic motherly love. In fact, the scene where the Witch prevents Rapunzel from leaving is a

heartbreaking motherly stream of insecurities and complains. ―Someone has to shield you from the

world./ Stay with me./ […] Who out there could love you more than I?/ […] The world is dark and

wild/ Stay a child while you can be a child/ With me.‖ Even in Tangled though, it is the balance

between motherly love and manipulation of the princess that makes the film progressive, as we see

a new side of a mother. It is very interesting also to notice that, while the previous villainesses

were stepmothers, Mother Gothel, as her name also indicates is a true mother, or at least this is

what the heroine thinks. Mother Gothel is all she knows, which makes her feel safe. She is not

endangered technically in any way; she is protected and free to do whatever she wants, if she

agrees though to stay inside. Not to mention of course that Mother Gothel needs Rapunzel alive,

which is ironically the exact opposite of her predecessors. Rapunzel‘s life guarantees her own life

as well, so it is the protection of the girl that is her main goal. Mother Gothel is indeed a villainess,

but she suppresses Rapunzel, interestingly enough, for her own sake.

In the case of Brave, there is no villainess at all. Merida‘s ghosts are the ideals that her

family has been following for years, the traditions that she is forced to comply with. Although a

superficial reading of the film renders her mother as the antagonist, since she is the one who

fervently forces her to marry, based on what tradition dictates, under no circumstances could we
 Markopoulou 95

argue that she is evil, or that she intends Merida‘s unhappiness. On the contrary, the film seems to

advocate that her mother is a victim as well, since she was also forced to marry very young, in

order for the kingdom to be safe. As a matter of fact, she is herself victimized by the patriarchal

society that forbids a woman to become queen, unless she is married. The ―bad wolf‖ in Brave is

not a woman or a witch, but the system, the institution of marriage itself that seems to be a curse

for young girls. This interesting twist shows that the simplistic villainess figure of the past tends to

become extinct in contemporary Disney films, as it is substituted by a more intangible model. The

enemy is not out there, but it is inside of the heroes; it is the internalized ideals and values that

were imposed on them and that they learned to live with.

In the same way, Frozen lacks a villainess. Hans, who could be considered as the evil

antagonist, is by no means villain material. His role in the film is confined to basically keeping the

two sisters apart. In a sense, he is the obstacle that they have to overcome, in order to find each

other, in the same way that Prince Philip has to kill the Maleficent-dragon, so as to reach the

princess. However, Hans is neither the main problem nor the most difficult one. He is easy to win,

as it seems, once Elsa finds inside of her the suppressed love that she always had for her sister.

Once she manages to open up and find her sisterly love, without fear and shame, she manages to

bring her sister back to life and control her icy powers. Could we assume that Elsa is the evil witch

of the story that substitutes the old villainess? My answer is once more negative. The fact that Elsa

is a witch is unquestionable; she embodies all the characteristics of a filmic witch based on

Barbara Creed‘s description. ―The witch is defined as an abject figure in that she is represented

within patriarchal discourses as an implacable enemy of the symbolic order. She is thought to be

dangerous and wily, capable of drawing on her evil powers to wreak destruction on the

community. […] Her evil powers are seen as part of her ‗feminine‘ nature; she is closer to nature
 Markopoulou 96

than man and can control forces in nature such as tempests, hurricanes and storms‖ (Creed 76).

Creed‘s description of the witch figure seems to be exactly what Elsa is: she is indeed ―thought to

be dangerous‖ towards the community by the patriarchs (the Duke of Weselton and Hans),

although she is not. She is extremely feminine, as her transformation during the song ―Let It Go‖

turns her into a curvy, confident, shiny woman, and at the same time she does in fact control the

weather, since her icy storms literally bury the whole town under snow. However, Elsa lacks the

one characteristic that would make her yet another Disney villainess: the evilness. She is more

scared of herself than the others could ever be of her. She is not the enemy. The danger in Frozen

is not external. Her biggest enemy, as the troll says when he enchants Anna‘s young body, is fear.

The enemy lives inside of her and it is a result of other people‘s decision. Her parents made this

choice, so as to protect her and her sister. What seems to be the best choice ends up destroying

Elsa, who is victimized. It is not accidental that the person who makes the decision is her father

and king. He is the head of patriarchy and he decided that she should live away from her sister,

because she is dangerous. She is suppressed, because she is forced to live with herself under

someone else‘s decision; she hates herself, because patriarchy told her that her powers render her

harmful towards her own sister.

In the case of Frozen, the internalization of the struggle theory that I am trying to establish

could also be explained, once we prove that Elsa and Anna are two sides of the same person. The

dual nature of the woman in Disney films seems to be an irrefutable element. According to Davis,

―Walt also seems to have believed that [women] had a ‗dual nature,‘ as evidenced in the contrast

between his general conviction of women‘s greater emotional depth and his critical comment

[and] this idea that Walt could believe in female duality is hinted at in his film‖ (226). This

duality, though graphically portrayed in two separate bodies in the past, has been incorporated
 Markopoulou 97

within the body of the princess. Using the theory of the double I aim to prove that Anna and Elsa

are the psyche of the individual that has been torn in half at a very early stage of life.

Elsa‘s ability to create ice is not accidental. One‘s reflection on an icy surface is similar to

that in a mirror. Considering that Elsa and Anna are separated from each other while they are

playing with ice brings in mind Jacque Lacan‘s theory of ―the mirror stage.‖ Based on that, one

could assume that, once Anna sees herself in the icy surface/ mirror, the construction of her ego

(i.e. Elsa) occurs. Jane Gallop explains that ―in the mirror stage, the infant who has not yet

mastered the upright posture and who is supported by either another person or some device will,

upon seeing herself in the mirror, ‗jubilantly assume‘ the upright position. She thus finds ‗already

there‘ in the mirror image a mastery that she will actually learn only later. The jubilation, the

enthusiasm, is tied to the temporal dialectic by which she appears already to be what she will only

later become‖ (120). From that point on the child ‗anticipates,‘ according to Lacan, ‗the

maturation of his power‘ (qtd in Gallop 122). The drama, however, according to Lacan lies in the

fact that the child‘s natural maturation is impeded by his anticipation and fantasies, which are very

rigid and difficult to deconstruct (qtd in Gallop 124). It is this rigidity of Anna‘s ego, which is as

firm as ice that she tries to fight throughout the film. By melting down the ice that Elsa creates

around her, by reaching her ego, she will be able to see herself in its own dimensions and truly

mature.

This dichotomy is emphasized by the film by creating two physically separate sisters that,

however, share common characteristics and movements, insinuating in this sense that they are two

sides of the same person. The textual evidence that supports this theory is plenty. First of all, Elsa

seems to always be unattainable and rather inexistent throughout the years. Anna‘s begging her to

come out of the room could be seen as her inability to attain her fantasy self, meaning Elsa, whom
 Markopoulou 98

she evidently admires. Ironically enough, after the death of her parents Anna sings outside Elsa‘s

room ―It‘s just you and me./ What are we gonna do?‖ a song that is actually a monologue rather

than a dialogue, since it seems that Anna is speaking out loud to herself. Moreover, on the

coronation day, when Anna meets her sister for the first time after years, she is terrified to even

look her in the eyes. Anna‘s fear of her supposed double could be explained with the help of

Robert Rogers, who, while discussing the motif of the ―double‖ in literature, mentions that seeing

the double has always connoted danger; he brings in his argument the example of

―catoptricophobia- fear of mirrors and reflections‖ (8). This superstition is actually proven by the

film, in the sense that meeting her double means that Anna has to undergo a dangerous journey

into her psyche, in order to catch Elsa and achieve her own self-fulfillment.

The idea of reflection is even more emphasized, both during the song ―Do You Wanna

Build a Snowman‖ when the two sisters are leaning against the two sides of the door and at the

point where the two sisters identify the smell of chocolate during the ball after the coronation.

Leaving aside the fact that their facial characteristics are indistinguishable, the movements of their

bodies are so identical that it literally seems as if they are each other‘s reflection in a mirror. ―A

special genre of the manifest double is the mirror image,‖ Rogers notices, ―the projected self being

nor merely a similar self but an exact duplicate‖ (19). Adding to that, Anna mentions to Hans,

while commenting on her white highlight in her hair that she ―dreamt [she] was kissed by a troll.‖

Despite the humoristic tone of the phrase, the idea that Elsa‘s power is only part of Anna‘s dreams

strengthens the implication that Elsa lives within the heroine. As Rogers quotes Freud, we find out

that the latter has mentioned in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) ―that the ego sometimes

appears in dreams together with other people who prove, on analysis, simply to be further

representatives of the ego (‗ego‘ here meaning ‗self‘). The self […] can achieve multiple
 Markopoulou 99

representation either directly or by virtue of its identification with other personages in the dream‖

(qtd in Rogers 11). The ultimate element that verifies this doubling is that after Anna has been

struck by Elsa‘s ice, her hair, which is no longer in the bun but loose, exactly like Elsa‘s, starts

turning white and ends up looking exactly like her double‘s hair. The whole film actually prepares

the two sisters for this identification as they have similar stages of change. In the beginning they

both have their hair in a bun, which changes into the braid pattern for both of them. Even the

colors used are the same in different combinations; Anna‘s purple dress appears as an eye shadow

on Elsa, while they both wear blue dresses. In other words, the deeper Anna travels within herself,

the more similar she becomes with Elsa, the closer she gets, that is, to the self that she anticipates

to become.

The emphasis I place on these allusions to the mirrors and the doubling are crucial, since,

in my view, by proving Anna and Elsa to be one, we can reach two vital conclusions for the new

Disney tradition. Firstly, the theory of the double proves that the antagonist lives within. The

internalization of action and evilness is even more apparent, should we consider that Elsa and

Anna are the embodiment of evilness and goodness that occupy the same vessel, the same body.

Moreover, if these two are one, then we do not only have a new era of sisterhood in Disney films,

but we can safely speak of a new movement where the princess saves not another princess, but her

own self. Given Disney‘s past obsession with hetero-defined image, where the princesses were the

object of the gaze and action, Frozen suggests that the princess is the one and only heroine in her

own movie.

Based on the textual evidence of the new films, it is doubtless that the Disney villainess

figure has changed and actually become extinct. My theory is that, while evilness was an external

factor in the previous Disney animation films, it is now part of the self of the princess. I notice an
 Markopoulou 100

internalization of action, as the evil lives within. All of the princesses fight with themselves and it

is the result of this internal fight that will force them to cope with their repressed weaknesses,

frustrations, fears and eventually set them free. Even Rapunzel, where the villainess exists, has to

fight with the beliefs that her mother imposed on her about the outside world. Mother Gothel has

taught her that the world is mean full of monsters that will hunt her down. It is fear that keeps her

in the cage, not Mother Gothel. At the same time, she was taught that being a good daughter

means always obey to her mother, since ―Mother Knows Best.‖ As a result, Rapunzel is at a

constant war with herself, as Flynn points out. The moment she leaves the tower, we see the young

princess engaging in a dance of guilt, as her independent side feels happy she is finally away from

home, but her weak one feels guilty for having disobeyed her mother. The adult versus the child;

the truth versus the lie.

Similarly, Merida is not really fighting against her mother. She is simply torn between what she

wants to do and what she is supposed to do. She is afraid to break the tradition, but at the same

time she is afraid to embrace it. The whole battle happens within herself, as, in the end of the film,

it is the inner values that she actually manages to win, rather than her mother. The body of the

princess becomes a literal battlefield of ideals and beliefs that the system has imposed on her, but

she refuses to accept. Even in Frozen, where the plot is clearly more complicated, Elsa is not

fighting against Hans or her sister, but against her own fear and self, a fear that has been forced

down her throat as a child by her overprotective parents. The dilemma is within the self, the battle

is with their own independent, strong side, which Elsa has been taught that is evil; the darkness

lives inside.

To take this theory one step further, there is a meta-Disney effect in the new princess films, in

the sense that there is an overt criticism against the old Disney ideals and beliefs. I am combining
 Markopoulou 101

this element with the internalization of the action theory that I have just elaborated on, since it is

my view that the new princesses seem to be a living proof that Disney‘s old ideological system has

been internalized by young girls and it has already failed. To put it more simply, the princesses in

the new films could be interpreted as symbols of the Disney generation, the audience of young

girls that has been raised within the Disney idealistic, patriarchal world and now find it hard to

cope with their reality. In order to make this argument clear, I am providing evidence that proves

that what tortures the recent princesses are all part of the old Disney propaganda.

In the first film, Tangled, Rapunzel incarnates a girl that has been raised with the belief

that passivity and surveillance are the characteristics of a respectful young woman, despite the fact

that this passivity may lead to her imprisonment. Rapunzel finds it impossible to confine herself in

a small house, even though this house has everything she could possibly need. Comparing this

image to the first full-length animation film, Snow White, it is evident that Snow White‘s happy

housewife figure is no longer the case in Disney films. Rapunzel wants to see the world, which

means that she technically trespasses the borders between the genders, as she enters the

traditionally conceived as male sphere. While Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora and Belle accepted

their imprisonment and construed it as a blessing, Rapunzel craves for emancipation. One could

easily assume that Rapunzel stands for every young girl that has been raised with the Snow White

model and reacts to it, as it is impossible to satisfy her needs.

The example of Merida‘s case is not far from the previous one. In the film Brave, what is mostly

criticized by Disney is the institution of arranged marriage at a young age. Merida claims her right

to love, meaning that she claims her right to choose her own companion, when and if she feels

ready to do so. ―You were never there for me! This whole marriage is what you want! Do you ever

bother to ask what I want? No! You walk around telling me what to do, what not to do! Trying to
 Markopoulou 102

make me be like you! Well, I'm not going to be like you!‖ Merida screams to her mother in an

attempt to persuade her that it is her right to make her own decisions about her life. In a playful

way, which becomes even more comic in Frozen, Disney satirizes the happy endings of the

previous films, where the princesses are awoken by their princes and instantly fall in love with

them. What is even more interesting is that Merida is of the same age as the previous Disney

princesses are, when they get married. Based on the analysis of the folk tale of Snow White we

have already seen that her estimated age is fifteen years old at the end of the film; in the same

way, Aurora is not more than sixteen years old, when she marries her prince, as it is at the age of

sixteen that she was supposed to fall into deep sleep as Maleficent‘s spell dictated. Merida‘s

criticism of the tradition that forces the woman to enter an arranged marriage, even though she is

still a teenager, seems all the more ironic, once we consider that the old generation princesses

embrace gladly this tradition, as they fall in love with their future mates instantly. In other words,

once more I notice that Merida could stand for a girl raised with the Disney ideals of what

constitutes a happy ending for a woman; by fighting against her mother, she is fighting against the

tradition and ideology that she has been raised with and that lives inside of her. She has

internalized society‘s and the media‘s instructions, but finds it impossible to live with herself

because of that fact.

The meta- effect is even more obvious in the film Frozen, where Anna is presented as a romantic

dreamer who falls in love with literally the first man she meets. The song ―Love Is an Open Door‖

clearly ridicules the old Disney idea that love at first sight is a realistic option, as it points out the

superficiality of the overall idea. Elsa‘s reaction to Anna‘s unexpected news about her wedding

seems to reflect new Disney‘s reaction to the company‘s previously promoted ideals. Anna is

evidently the incarnation of the false old Disney philosophy; she is a girl raised with the old
 Markopoulou 103

Disney ideals that construe love as a superficial, fast-paced process based on appearance and

complete ignorance. Hans‘s evil side is used by the film, mostly to point out the shallowness of

love at first sight. By rendering Hans as the antagonist of Anna, Disney casts a shadow upon the

happy ending concept, as Anna‘s misfortune transforms into every old Disney princess‘s future,

after marrying the perfect prince. To put it plainly, Disney no longer guarantees that love at first

sight leads to a happy ending. In the case of Elsa, the criticism on the part of the Disney company

is not that overt. However, it seems to be the same case as the previous princesses, as Elsa is

struggling to overcome society‘s indications that a woman with special powers is dangerous. This

internalized fear has rendered her unable to function within society and forces her to resort to the

nature to find her inner peace. Elsa is punished for being different and this punishment is far worse

than a physical one; it is emotional. Elsa in my perception stands for all the girls that cannot fall

into the typical Disney princess, for all the girls that are different; those whose body type is not

skinny, their hair is not shiny and long and their character is not passive but assertive. Elsa

constitutes the ―otherness,‖ that part of the audience that was told by traditional Disney films that

it does not deserve to find happiness, because they stray from the norm. Luckily, Elsa in the end

finds her own voice. It is not accidental that the song ―Let It Go‖ has become one of the symbols

of the film, as well as a financial hit, since for the first time a princess raises her voice against

society, against false ideologies and suppression.

After the heroines have been emancipated by society‘s suffocating rules, they are able to

handle power, as they are ready to rule their countries in all of the new Disney films. I noticed in

my research that most critics and reviewers, while analyzing mostly Frozen, focused on the

concept of sisterhood and how it is a new promising era for Disney animation films. Without

wanting to negate this fact, which is self-proven, I believe all of them failed to mention the role of
 Markopoulou 104

matriarchy in the new films, as well as the changes that the perception and depiction of it has

undergone. At this point I would like to discuss the differences between the representation of

motherhood and matriarchy in the old princess tradition and how these notions change from curse

to blessing in the more recent films. The absence of mother or the presence of an evil stepmother

poses a threat for the unprotected in the past princess, who resorts to patriarchy, in order to

survive, a fact that is supported by the princesses‘ wedding to the princes at the end of the films.

Are the princesses still in danger and, if this is the case, is patriarchy still their shelter?

In the previous generation princesses, the heroines are forced to leave the matriarchal space, as it

poses a threat to them. Drawn by selfish reasons, all the evil women of the old Disney films that

we focus on create a dangerous sphere for the heroine that is forced to exit this matriarchal sphere,

in order to survive. In the case of Snow White and Aurora matriarchy means physical death, while

in Cinderella it is equal to eternal slavery and submission, which implies a type of emotional and

social death. In order to break free, the heroines choose gladly a patriarchy that seems problem-

free. Even before her wedding to the prince, Snow White lives in the patriarchy of the dwarfs‘

house. Despite the fact that she is obliged to undertake the role of the maid in order to be able to

stay in their house, it seems that the household duties are a blessing compared to the dangers that

await for her in the stepmother‘s world. The choices that she has is either dead with a queen or

housewife with a king: the dilemma is clear and easily answered.

In Cinderella‘s case, the death implied by matriarchy is a social one, as she is forced to spend the

rest of her life executing orders and cleaning the house. The household chores that Snow White

loves, Cinderella secretly hates but ungrudgingly performs, as, in the first case it is presented as

the heroine‘s own conscious choice, while in the second it is something imposed on Cinderella. In

this case, matriarchy implies a financial and social death and this fact has led to the Cinderella
 Markopoulou 105

myth, the young poor girl that marries into prestige and wealth. This power though is only

achieved through a heterosexual marriage, as, despite her noble descent, the heroine is in desperate

need of the prince, in order to come back to the upper class of society. What about the fairy,

however? Could we assume that this is another form of matriarchy presented in the film, similar to

the Sleeping Beauty? The truth is that the godmother in this film manages to give Cinderella a way

out, a disguise to enter the outside world, the king‘s ball, a chance to climb the social ladder.

Nevertheless, this disguise is only temporary and rather ineffective, as it has a time limit that does

not give the heroine the opportunity to truly achieve her goal. That her slipper accidentally falls

off is not the achievement of the godmother‘s matriarchy, but rather a result of the heroine‘s

hastiness.

Also, I cannot neglect the superficiality that is attached to the godmother‘s matriarchy, as

she arms Cinderella with nothing but accessories and clothes, in order to help her break free. We

spot the early signs of fetishization of commercial objects, as it is only a slipper that manages to

save the heroine‘s life. This idea of the fetish is even more striking, should we consider the

function of this object in the overall depiction of womanhood. According to Smelik‘s explanation

of fetishism, ―classical cinema reinstates and displaces the lacking penis in the form of a fetish that

is a hyper-polished object. Fetishizing the woman deflects attention from female ‗lack‘ and

changes her from a dangerous figure into a reassuring object of flawless beauty‖ (11). In other

words, the whole essence of womanhood comes down to one shoe that by luck falls into the right

hands. Cinderella owes her life to a piece of clothing. The film Into the Woods gives, actually, an

interesting twist to the original plot, by placing Cinderella freeze time and contemplate upon what

to do with the prince who is running after her. Interestingly enough, leaving the slipper behind is

Cinderella‘s plan in the film, in order to test the prince‘s love. What is left in luck and fate in the
 Markopoulou 106

old animation film is now the woman‘s choice and intention, which shows once more that women

in Disney have become quite wittier than the classic heroines. At the same time, though, and

taking into consideration Smelik‘s theory, could that mean that the female herself promotes

fetishism and engages to it, in order to captivate a man? Is contemporary Cinderella a new Carrie

Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker in Sex and the City), who claims ―a woman‘s right to shoes‖25 and

―choose‖ at the same time? Does free choice overlap with fetishism and consumerism? The

question remains to be answered.

In Sleeping Beauty the plot becomes slightly more complicated, as, in order to be safe from

Maleficent‘s spell, Aurora is taken away from the patriarchy of the king and into the matriarchy of

the three little fairies. One could assume that in this film matriarchy is presented as both dangerous

and safe, since the fairies manage indeed to protect the heroine for sixteen whole years. However,

we must not forget that Aurora is not free in the matriarchy of the three fairies. She is obliged to

live as a peasant and has no idea of her royal descent. At the same time, her small trip to the forest

seems to be extremely confining, since the fairies advise her to avoid any sort of human contact. In

other words, the matriarchy of the fairies seems to simulate a golden cage, rather than a functional

world for the princess. Moreover, under no circumstances can we accept this matriarchy as a safe

environment, as it turns out to be impossible to protect Aurora. Her death renders the matriarchy

of the fairies rather naïve and futile, since three grown women could not manage to protect one

girl. On the other hand, patriarchy in Aurora is a necessity, since it is the spell that dictates that she

needs to be kissed by a prince, in order to come back to life. Therefore, Prince Philip is practically

indispensable, as he is the only one that can reverse the curse. Patriarchy, in this sense, is not only

25
―A Woman‘s Right to Shoes‖ is a title of HBO‘s Sex and the City TV series. (season 6 episode 9,

August 2003).
 Markopoulou 107

a blessing but the source of life. The fact that Aurora will continue living in this patriarchy safe

and protected for the rest of her life seems to be a given by the end of the film.

In The Little Mermaid, patriarchy appears as an oppressive world in the beginning but, after

Ursula‘s intervention, it transforms into the lesser of the two evils. Taking into consideration the

major change that Disney has made on the original tale by Andersen, where matriarchy equals

security and happiness, Ariel lives with a father, Triton, that forces her to stay under the water for

her own safety. Even though he is a tyrant, his good intentions that are driven by fatherly love

undermine the negative aspect of his patriarchal kingdom. However, Ariel‘s free spirit leads her to

neglect her father‘s orders and enter Ursula‘s matriarchy. Ursula, although a woman, seems to

have the beliefs of a male tyrant. Her ambitions are evil, since she craves for power and

dominance over Triton. Her song ―Poor Unfortunate Souls‖ that has outraged in the past the

feminist community is evidence that Ursula‘s matriarchy is no friend to the female heroine, but

rather a trap. Her ideas about what an attractive woman is supposed to be proves that she herself

undermines the female, rather than supports her. She uses Ariel, in order to revenge Triton, by

tricking her into an unfair deal. By taking Ariel‘s voice, Ursula‘s matriarchy becomes worse than

Triton‘s patriarchy, since she literally mutilates the heroine both physically and emotionally. The

dilemma is once more apparent: would you rather have a matriarchy that gives you the illusion of

freedom or a patriarchy that cares for your wellbeing?

In her journey though, Ariel enters unconsciously a new sort of patriarchy; that of her male

friends. Sebastian the crab, the seagull and Flounder the fish are Ariel‘s main companions and

support. The irony is, however, that Sebastian is not a simple friend, but rather the voice of

patriarchy per se, since, as we already mentioned, he dictates how Ariel should behave, in order to

win the prince. Similar to the mirror in Snow White, his opinions seem to be the common sense
 Markopoulou 108

and truth. In Snow White it is the King‘s voice that is heard through the magic mirror of the

wicked stepmother. As Gilbert and Gubar informs us while analyzing the original tale, ―[h]is

surely is the voice of the looking glass, the patriarchal voice of judgment that rules the Queen‘s –

and every woman‘s – self-evaluation. He is who decides, first, that his consort is ‗the fairest of

all,‘ and then, as she becomes maddened, rebellious, witchlike, that she must be replaced by his

angelically innocent and dutiful daughter, a girl who is therefore defined as ‗more beautiful still‘

than the Queen‖ (38). The King however does not make an appearance, because ―his voice resides

now in her [the woman‘s] own mirror, her own mind‖ (Gilbert 38). Therefore, the female subject

has internalized the patriarchal directives and has made them part of her own mentality. In The

Little Mermaid, this patriarchal voice is expressed by Sebastian. He shows Ariel how to squeeze

her lips in order to be attractive, while the seagull teaches her how to use a fork to comb her hair.

All the directions come from male voices, while Ariel‘s voice is long gone and, interestingly

enough, this is presented as her own choice.

The very fact that in the end she manages to achieve her dream and marry Eric enhances

all the more the insinuation that she owes her success to the patriarchal voice. Not to mention of

course that it is Eric who kills Ursula in the end and brings peace back to the ocean. The woman

equals danger and it is thanks to a man that this danger is avoided. Things become even more

complicated in this film, once we consider the connotations of Eric‘s patriarchy, the ―white male

system,‖ as Laura Sells calls it (178). The film presents it as the real world, undermining in this

way Ariel‘s own sea world. According to Sells, ―the repeated depictions of land and sea as

complementary also create a hierarchical relationship in which Eric‘s human world on land is

privileged as the real world‖ (178). This implication is undergirded not only by the language and

images of ‗up there‘ and ‗down here‘, but also by Ariel‘s song, ―Part of Your World,‖ in the
 Markopoulou 109

beginning of the film, where ―the spatial imagery supports the hierarchy of dominant and muted

cultures‖ (Sells 178). At this point, Sells focuses mostly on how Disney presents the developed

countries as superior to the developing ones. However what mostly concerns me is this contrast

between land and sea, which falsely implies that women would do anything to be part of the male

world. In a way, it is presented as natural that a woman would yearn to be part of the male world

and not only yearn but actually risk her life for it. Nevertheless, Disney cleverly hides the risks of

Ariel‘s choice behind the emotionally charged music and with a happy ending that ―makes Ariel‘s

choices appear cost-free‖ (Sells 180).

In Beauty and the Beast patriarchy is presented as a dangerous world that can be altered, should

the princess be obedient enough. Belle ends up trapped into the Beast‘s house, a house that is ruled

by him and only. His dominant figure and unquestioned power and prestige, which is based on

fear, makes the Beast‘s castle a terrifying prison for Belle. The physical and most importantly

emotional violence that Belle endures in this film has been widely criticized, since it is presented

as a necessity, as part of the deal she made with the Beast, in order to free her father. The

problematics of their abusive relationship in my view is mainly that the Beast seems to be

acquitted for his tyrannical behavior, which is attributed to the deep depression that he has been in,

since the witch cursed him. In other words he is allowed by the film and his servants to be a

monarch, because he is hurting inside. This seems to be also Susan Jeffords‘s view of the tale, as

she sees the Beast as a 90s hero in an 80s hero‘s body (170). In her own words, ―[t]he Beast‘s

external appearance is here more than a horrific guise that repels women, but instead a burden, one

that he must carry until he is set free, free to be the man he truly can be. […] It is as if, the Beast‘s

story might suggest, masculinity has been betrayed by its own cultural imagery: what men thought
 Markopoulou 110

they were supposed to be- strong, protective, powerful, commanding- has somehow backfired and

become their own evil curse‖ (Jeffords 170-71).

In my view Jeffords‘s exclusive focus on the Beast‘s victimization and her negligence of

the heroine‘s attitude towards his misery seems to be quite naïve and unfair to the female heroine.

First of all, Jeffords is wrong in that the Beast‘s appearance ―repels women.‖ Based on the filmic

evidence, Belle is annoyed clearly by his attitude, rather than his monstrous looks. Proof to that is

that she falls in love with him, without even seeing his true looks. Also, what Jeffords sees as a

burden that men have put on them the film sees as a curse that is specifically casted on him by a

female witch. Where does the witch stand in Jeffords‘s analogy? Does she symbolize culture that

oppresses the man, does she stand for society or even the collective of manhood who decided that

masculinity should be depicted on the male body? In the meantime, in what sense is the Beast the

―self-sacrificing man of the 90s,‖ as Jeffords claims? (170) It seems to me that it is Belle who has

to make the sacrifice and tolerate his brutal behavior, simply because of his weakness to see that

he has to change his heart, in order to regain his external beauty. As a new filmic Dorian Gray, the

tale hints that it is his ugly soul that is depicted on his external looks. In order to change he has to

be a hard critic of himself, a fact that is completely neglected by the film, which places Belle in

the position of the therapist. Instead of his self-love and self-realization the film suggests that it is

her tolerance towards his cruelty, acceptance and love that can save him, acquitting him of his

responsibility as an individual. This justification of violence, combined with the fact that Belle

manages to change the Beast and turn him into a prince, creates the false idea that if the woman

stays submissive and persistent, even the most monstrous man will change. In other words, even if

patriarchy is extremely cruel and inhuman, Disney dictates that with a woman‘s patience it will

become a better place in the end.

 Markopoulou 111

Naturally, I need to emphasize that the matriarchies presented in the old Disney films that I

analyze are not products of the princesses‘ real mothers, but of their stepmothers, which poses new

questions on the concept of motherhood. In other words, the princesses are completely alone,

abandoned because of fate by their biological mothers in a world, where no other female would

ever care for them, but would in fact hunt them down. According to Lynda Haas, ―in Disney films

[…] the typical mother is absent, generously good, powerfully evil, or a silent other, a mirror that

confirms the child‘s identity without interference from hers. In this way, mothers are either

sentimentalized or disdained; in either case, their identity and their work are simultaneously

erased, naturalized, and devalued‖ (196). It is this motherlessness that strengthens the misogyny of

the previous Disney films, as the heroines are in need of a male friend or of simply a male, in

order to survive. Regarding the representation of motherhood in contemporary cinema, Ann

Kaplan has noticed the binarism as well as the superficiality of this portrayal. According to her,

―[t]here are either Good [mothers] (saintly, self-sacrificing, angelic) or Bad (evil, jealous,

neglectful, sexual, transgressing, cruel, sadistic)‖ (Kaplan qtd in Karen Howe 48). It is my view

however that this dilemma that Kaplan spots has been slightly altered as in Disney animation films

the case is Evil mother or no mother at all. By eliminating at all the image of a good mother, even

if that angelic figure is completely unrealistic, the old Disney distorts the idea of motherhood as it

seems like a hopeless, dangerous sphere.

Davis will come to notice that it is a general tradition in folk tales that the parent is

missing, so that the child can embark on the journey of maturity alone (102). However, it is

specifically the mother figure that is muted in Disney films, while the father usually affects the

plot, either by being the bad guy (as Triton), or the naïve and comic character (in the case of

Aurora‘s father). ―[Fathers] […] have an important presence in the films, and are there to offer
 Markopoulou 112

advice, love and support to their children,‖ Davis realizes (104). In the case of the biological

mothers, they are either dead or silent, while the step-mothers are always evil. To take this thought

a step further, it seems that Disney used to imply that only the biological mother cares truly and

protects her daughter. Leaving aside the fact that this thought could be dangerous for all the young

viewers who possibly live in a foster family and deal with the fact that their mothers have either

abandoned them or died and that their stepmothers is all they have, I sense that this obsession with

biological motherhood on the part of Disney insinuated in the past that motherhood is an innate

instinct inextricable from the female nature. In other words, how could Disney guarantee that the

princesses would be safe in their biological mother‘s bosom? Why is it so certain that every

woman is or will definitely become a true maternal figure?

This obsession with patriarchy, or even better, the demonization of matriarchy seems to

gradually eclipse, however, from the recent Disney films. To be more specific, it seems that,

although in the beginning of the films matriarchy may appear dysfunctional, by the end it is

always the case that matriarchy manages to save the day. Tangled is not a representative example,

since the matriarchy of Mother Gothel reminds the viewer mostly of the stepmother tyranny of the

previous films. However, despite the special nature of this specific stepmother, which has already

been analyzed. Mother Gothel embodies the dichotomy that Kaplan talks about. She is both Evil

and Good; she is a more realistically portrayed mother. Tangled is a film that does not suggest

patriarchy as the solution to an evil matriarchy either. Rapunzel runs away from the tower, in

order to escape the confining world that Mother Gothel made for her. However, in contrast with

all the previous princesses, Rapunzel does not enter patriarchy, in order to be safe. What she does

instead is explore the world on her own, even if she is accompanied by Flynn. His incapability to

protect even himself makes it all the more obvious that it is Rapunzel who supports them both.
 Markopoulou 113

Rapunzel does not escape matriarchy through the institution of marriage, but by using her own

inventiveness and strength. At the same time, and most importantly, she does not end up in a

patriarchy either at the end of the film. There is a big difference between the heterosexuality

projected in Tangled with the one proposed by the previous films. She is the one who marries

Flynn and not the other way around. She saves him and with their marriage she is the one who

brings the prestige to his life. Adding to that, the whole film suggests that Rapunzel is far more

dynamic than Flynn, which gives the impression that even in their marriage she is the one who

dominates, as the latter is a man of words rather than actions. In a nutshell, the film seems to

suggest that matriarchy, when in the right hands, is truly a place of safety.

In the case of Brave, matriarchy is once more presented in the beginning as something wrong.

Although Merida‘s mother, Elinor, does not threaten her in any way, the pressure that the young

girl feels seems to derive from what her mother mostly believes is right and pushes her to do.

Once more we can spot that the mother figure is neither right nor wrong; neither bad nor good; she

is simply a human being with her own agenda. ―What have I done?‖ Elinor asks herself in tears

after she has thrown Merida‘s bow in the fire during their big fight, proving that she is not evil, but

simply a woman that is torn between her motherly love and her social duty. In fact, I would like to

mention at this point two important details that acquit Merida‘s mother from any possible evilness

attributed to her. First and foremost, her ideas are obviously a result of a patriarchal thought that

were probably imposed on her, when she was a child. The obsession with the institution of

marriage and the obligation that the queen sees in a fifteen year old girl to be married to a prince,

in order to save her kingdom, is obviously a belief that only a patriarchal system could produce,

since it undermines the power of the woman and positions her simply on the side of a king. My

point is that the film suggests that the patriarchal voice has entered the woman‘s soul and it has
 Markopoulou 114

influenced the female thought so much that the woman has started not only to think but also to

fervently believe what the voice dictates as right and wrong. The blame, in other words, is to be

place on the male perspective that has brainwashed Merida‘s mother into believing a woman‘s

duty is to be married with a prearranged marriage, in order to be able to rule her kingdom.

The second thought about this special matriarchy is that, even if we consider it is a world

that suppressed the princess, it is a flexible system of ideas that has the opportunity to change and

function well. What I mean is that Merida, in contrast with the previous generation princesses does

not resort to patriarchy, not only because she does not need to, but also because patriarchy is not

even an option in this case. She resorts to another matriarchy, that of the old witch, in order to

change her mother‘s opinion. Starting from the fact that the witch in this film has nothing to do

with the old Disney villainesses, we have to point out that she is rather a sympathetic, comic

character that uses funny and naïve magic, instead of using it as a weapon; therefore, this is a

matriarchy that poses a quite naïve threat only accidentally. With the help of this woman, Merida

forces her mother into the body of a bear, meaning the life of freedom and nature that she adores.

This accident, however, seems to be what the two heroines needed to reconnect, which seems to

turn the witch‘s matriarchy into a blessing. The emphasis that is posed on the relationship of the

mother and daughter proves that through discussion and communication, any problem of

matriarchy is easily solved.

This emphasis on the mother-daughter relationship that we notice in the new Disney films

and particularly in the case of Brave is not an accidental phenomenon but rather an indication that

society has evolved. In fact, there is a very interesting study conducted by Karen Howe within the

context of the Women Studies‘ field, in an attempt to show how and to what extent motherhood is

a product of social beliefs and ideas. This is not a new idea; the French feminist philosopher Luce
 Markopoulou 115

Irigaray has already spotted the social construction of the term ―mother‖; according to her, ―a

woman whose identity is her motherhood is ‗the other of the same‘- a woman drawn by the

patriarchy who is ultimately a residual, a defective man, an object in exchange in a male market‖

(qtd in Haas 194). However, Howe‘s ―mother biography assignment,‖ as she names it, aims

mostly on whether or not the daughters view their mothers as socially constructed bodies or as real

women with particularities (51). Howe mentions that the aim of the project is to ―stimulate the

daughter to see her mother as a person, separate from her identity as a mother‖ (Howe 51). ―It is

interesting to note,‖ Howe continues, ―that many of the daughters define this new sort of

interaction as ‗friendship,‘ suggesting an equality they feel lacking in the traditional mother-

daughter relationship. By going beyond the roles, both women begin to relate to each other as

women‖ (Howe 52).

The most important conclusion of this experiment that will help us to fully understand the

development of the relationship between Merida and her mother is ―the new attention paid by the

daughter to the social forces that influenced her mother‘s life. […] Now the daughter can see that

her mother had to deal with the same -if not stronger- social pressures on her development and

behavior‖ (Howe 54). ―You are a princess and I expect you to act like one,‖ Elinor screams to

Merida in the beginning of the film. However, Merida is unable to understand that her mother is

nothing more than a vessel of social restrictions and ideas that she, as a queen, is forced to pass on

to the next generation. It is through spending time with her and seeing that her mother, even if in

the form of a bear, is no different than her that she manages to realize that who her mother is and

what her mother does are two separate things. ―Once [Merida] sees connections between her own

situation as a woman and her mother‘s –a generation apart, but facing many similar influences in

their lives- she can appreciate her mother in a new way, and also recognize and try to overcome
 Markopoulou 116

limitations or restrictions in her own experience due to her status as a female‖ (Howe 55).

Motherhood is no longer a one-dimensional concept as Kaplan once worried, but is only a part of

the Disney heroines‘ existence, a side that affects the way they think and act: a justification for

their occasional cruelty. It is this repositioning of motherhood in its true dimensions that alters the

portrayal of matriarchy as well. If the mother is not evil, then the matriarchy will not be a threat

any more.

Frozen is a film that is evidently in favor of a matriarchal society. Although in the

beginning matriarchy is presented as a dangerous place, since ice and winter have fallen upon

Arendelle, the truth is that this side effect of Elsa‘s powers is a result of her fear, which, as I

already showed earlier, is a patriarchal invention. She was told by the elder of the trolls that fear

will be her enemy and her father supported that decision by locking her up away from her sister‘s

love. In a sense, the dysfunctional matriarchy that Elsa seems to be responsible for is truly a result

of bad decisions that men have made for Elsa. Similarly to the previous cases, Anna does not need

or intend to escape this matriarchy but, in fact, goes after Elsa and tries to persuade her with her

love to return to Arendelle. Although Elsa is not easily convinced that there is nothing to fear, the

film suggests that with support from her sister she manages to overcome her fear and become a

fantastic queen. Therefore, matriarchy I perpetuated in the film; it may seem like an impossible

choice in the beginning but in the end it is the only valid option. Actually, the film Frozen takes

this new tradition of powerful queens a step further by presenting patriarchy as the dangerous

antagonist. Hans‘s hypocricy is evidence that patriarchy in contemporary Disney is definitely not

the answer to a dysfunctional society. On the contrary, both Hans and the Duke of Weselton

appear to be the only antagonists of Arendelle, which seems to be better off with a female queen

and a female princess.

 Markopoulou 117

Conclusions

It seems therefore that Disney has in fact changed. The new way that Disney deals with the

original folk tales it draws inspiration from proves that it is no longer the case that the company‘s

main focus is the love story of the female protagonist. Instead, we could safely now assume that

the adaptation does not alter the original meaning of the story; While Snow White was

transformed by Disney into a willing housewife, while Sleeping Beauty was left undisturbed in her

deathbed waiting for her prince and while Cinderella placed her happiness on a glass slipper,

Disney appears to criticize the company‘s own female model by suggesting a new one. The path

that was opened by Ariel and Belle is now becoming a wide road where Rapunzel, Merida, Elsa

and Anna leave their own marks.

They may not look different from the previous princesses, as their beauty does not stray

from the media-dictated image. Regardless of Disney‘s weakness to break free from the

stereotypical femininity that has been traditionally linked in Hollywood with an unnaturally slim

waist and long, shiny hair is apparent, the new princesses undoubtedly have a new attitude that

diverts from the audience‘s expectations. They are no longer simply dreaming, but they are

actively pursuing their dreams. Rapunzel makes her own plan, in order to escape the tour; Merida

alters the tradition, in order to protect her right of choice; Anna is set upon a journey to save her

own kingdom and her sister as well, while Elsa denounces a society that suffocates her by going

away. The new princesses do not expect salvation from external factors, as the prince ceases to be

a necessity in the filmic plot, but is rather an element that facilitates the princess‘s own passage
 Markopoulou 118

from childhood to maturity, from ignorance to sexual awakening, from a scary patriarchy to a

functioning matriarchy.

In the postfeminist spirit of the twenty-first century, where women reclaim their right to

equality both in the public and the private sphere, Disney, in collaboration with Pixar, which has

evidently contributed significantly to these alterations, catches up with the latest needs of society

and presents a meta-Disney product; films that satirize the old Disney stereotypes of the perfect

mother, the perfect daughter, the perfect sister, the perfect woman. The young heroine has

internalized the stereotypical ideas about womanhood, motherhood, sisterhood, goodness and

innocence that society (and Disney, in cinematic context) has produced and perpetuated for years.

Infected with these ideologies the princess needs to break free by looking into herself and re-

establishing her own identity. The choices that the woman has are no longer limited to the Angel

versus Demon dilemma that traditional Disney suggested. A queen like Elsa can remain unwed, a

princess can choose to save her sister with a true love‘s kiss and the villainess becomes a person

with feelings that could and will change their mind under the right conditions, as the new

Maleficent film projects. The princess is no longer in danger of a woman, as the evilness becomes

internalized.

Should we be content with the Disney evolution? I personally believe that it is a

remarkable change that should be acknowledged on the part of the Disney company. Having in

mind always that this alteration is most likely the result of the social demand for more

psychologically complex and realistic female figures, I think that it is an expedient move and a

necessary one, as the traditional princess line is nowadays outdated. We could make a note about

Disney‘s inability to escape from the model-like appearance of the heroines. Without neglecting

the audience‘s expectations, which is in fact alarming, there is always the fear that any depiction
 Markopoulou 119

of progress is superficial, as the basic product remains exactly the same. In other words, how can

the princess become more political and realistic if she looks like a fabricated Barbie doll? We have

yet to see a Disney princess that does not comply with the characteristics that are typically linked

to beauty, as defined by the media world. On the other hand, maybe this is what the media beauty

is all about; both external beauty and intelligence. It could be the case that the media image of the

ideal woman has not remained the same but it has in fact become broader and more demanding, as

external beauty is not enough anymore. In that sense, Disney again follows the dictations of the

media culture regarding the female model, since the new princesses appear to have it all. Can

Disney become more revolutionary as far as the princess‘s appearance is concerned?

The most important question, though, is whether Disney will fall into the trap of regression

and take a few steps behind, reproducing the old Disney animation films, only in order to keep the

spark and the memory of the audience alive. To put it more clearly, I worry that there is a large

part of the Disney audience that is so adhered to the old films and the ideologies they promote that

will abstain from the new ones, thus, ―forcing‖ the company to return to the old, tested formula of

the Disney princess tradition. To my discontent, the most recent Cinderella film (2015) appears to

be an exact replica of the 1950s Disney animation film. It appears to have no original suggestions,

as far as the plot and the princess‘s role in this story are concerned.

The heroine‘s moto in life is ―have courage, be kind,‖ a saying that is repeated various

times in the film, dictating once again that passivity is a necessary asset. The single element that

differentiates the filmic Cinderella (Lily James) than the original heroine is that she attempts to

speak up towards the end of the film and accuses her stepmother of unjustifiable meanness.

However, even during the attack, Cinderella remains weak, full of tears, fragile and victimized, as

she expresses how much she struggled to remain kind and how her efforts found no response. Her
 Markopoulou 120

weakness is presented by the film as strength and courage, especially after forgiving her

stepmother at the end, verifying the good angel figure that all the classic princesses embodied.

Naturally, the cruel stepmother figure (Kate Blanchett) is nothing that surprises the audience, nor

does the villainess give a good explanation for her behavior. Her apology fails to actually justify

the brutal attitude, but rather presents her as extremely jealous of Cinderella‘s youth, beauty and

kindness, stressing once more the value of these traits. The perfect appearance and indifferent

personality of the prince, the mice friends of the heroine that balance between animal and human

intelligence, the magic that makes everything right performed by the fairy godmother (Helena

Bonham Carter), the happy ending that leads to Cinderella‘s wedding and the punishment of the

stepmother that is sent away from the kingdom seem to glorify the classic Disney ideals.

Are we dealing with an inconsistency on the part of Disney? Perhaps yes. It may be the

case that this regression is an attempt on the part of the company to remind the audience that the

Disney way of life and the Disney ideals are always there, despite the alterations that they may

have undergone. On the other hand, a small fall back does not necessarily signify the end of

evolution, but it could be a way to revisit the past, familiarize with it and alter it in the future. In

any case I am more than excited to stick around to find out if this Disney fairytale of evolution

leads to a happy ending.

 Markopoulou 121

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Andersen, Hans Christian. ―The Little Mermaid.‖ or ―Den Lille Havfrue.‖ Web. 23 Aug 2014.

<http://scandinavian.wisc.edu/mellor/taleballad/pdf_files/LittleMermaid.pdf>

---. ―The Snow Queen.‖ Web. 15 Aug 2014. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1597/1597-h/1597-

h.htm#link2H_4_0006>

Grimm Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. ―Little Snow-White.‖ Web. 12 Aug 2014.

<http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm053.html>

---. ―Cinderella.‖ Web. 9 Sep 2014. <http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm021.html>

---. ―Little Brier-Rose.‖ Web. 9 Sep 2014. <http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm050.html>

---. ―Rapunzel.‖ Web. 16 Sep 2014.<http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm012.html>

LePrince de Beaumont, Jeanne-Marie. ―Beauty and the Beast.‖ Web. 10 Sep 2014.

<http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/beauty.html>

Perrault, Charles. ―Cinderella‖ or ―The Glass Slipper.‖

<http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/perrault06.html>

---. ―La Belle au Bois Dormant.‖ <http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/perrault01.html>

 Markopoulou 122

Secondary Sources

Bangprapa, Mongkol. ―Boost female role in politics, seminar told.‖ Bangkok Post (Nov 2014).

Web. 9 Jan 2015. <http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/444714/>

Barzilai, Shuli. ―‗Say That I Had a Lovely Face‘: The Grimms' ‗Rapunzel,‘ Tennyson's ‗Lady of

Shalott,‘ and Atwood's ‗Lady Oracle‘.‖ Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 19. 2 (2000):

231-254. Print.

Bell, Elizabeth and Lynda Haas. Introduction.From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film,

Gender, and Culture. Eds Elizabeth Bell, Lynda Haas, Laura Sells. Bloomington: Indiana

UP, 1995. 1-17. Google Book. Web. 30 Dec 2014.

<http://books.google.gr/books?id=pdCrF4JxKDIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_su

mmary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Bronfen, Elisabeth. Over her Dead Body: Death, Femininity and the Aesthetic. Manchester:

Manchester UP, 1992. Print.

Bruce, Alexander M. ―The Role of the ‗Princess‘ in Walt Disney's Animated Films: Reactions of

College Students.‖ Studies in Popular Culture 30. 1 (2007): 1-25. JSTOR. Web. 16 March

2014.

Bryman, Alan. The Disneyization of Society. London: Saga Pub, 2004. Print.

Butler, Judith. ―Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and

Feminist Theory.‖ Theatre Journal 40.4 (1988): 519-531. JSTOR. Web. 31 Dec 2014.

Byrne, Eleanor J., and Martin McQuillan. Deconstructing Disney. London: Pluto Press, 2000.

ProQuest. Web. 3 Nov 2014.

 Markopoulou 123

Cooper, Timothy PA. ―Walt at War – Animation, Transformation and Indoctrination: The

Hypothetical Image of Disney‘s Animal Soldiers.‖ Animation: an Interdisciplinary Journal

9.3 (2014): 333 –35. SAGE. Web. 31 Dec 2014.

Catmull, Ed. ―Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True

Inspiration.‖ Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 6 Aug 2014. Web. 3 Jan 2014.

Clark, Dan. ―Building Women's Construction Role.‖ Hull Daily Mail (2014): 16. Factiva. Web. 8

Jan 2015.

Clark, David. ―Marriage and Social Change.‖ Marriage: Disillusion and Hope: Papers

Celebrating Forty Years of the Tavistock Institute of Marital Studies. Ed. Christopher

Clulow. Karnac Books (2012): 23-32. ProQuest. Web. 18 Mar 2015.

Creed, Barbara. The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge,

1993. Print.

Cummins, June. ―Romancing the Plot: The Real Beast of Disney‘s Beauty and the Beast.‖

Children's Literature Association Quarterly 20. 1 (1995): 22-28. Project Muse. Web. 1

October 2014.

Davis, Amy M. ―The ‗Dark Prince‘ and Dream Women: Walt Disney and Mid-Twentieth Century

American Feminism.‖ Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 25.2 (2005): 213-

230. Taylor & Francis Group. Web. 24 Dec 2014.

--. Good Girls & Wicked Witches: Women in Disney’s Feature Animation. Leicester: John Libbey

Pub, 2006. Print.

 Markopoulou 124

England Dawn Elizabeth, Lara Descartes and Melissa A. Collier Meek. ―Gender Role Portrayal

and the Disney Princesses.‖ Sex Roles 64 (2011): 555-567. Springer US. Web. 30 Nov 2014.

Entertainment Newsweekly ―Big Freeze Continues as Disney Reveals More than 3 Million Frozen

Dresses Sold.‖ NewsRx (Nov 2014): 55. Factiva. Web. 3 Jan 2014.

Fay, Carolyn. ―Sleeping Beauty Must Die: The Plots of Perrault‘s ‗La belle au bois dormant‘.‖

Marvels & Tales 22. 2, (2008): 259-276. Project Muse. Web. 3 October 2014.

Friedan, Betty. ―The Happy Housewife Heroine.‖ The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton,

1963. Print.

Gallop, Jane. ―Lacan's ‗Mirror Stage‘: Where to Begin.‖ SubStance 11. 4 – 12. 1 (1982): 118-12.

JSTOR. Web. 30 Dec 2014.

Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the

Nineteenth – Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979. Print.

Girardot, N. J. ―Initiation and Meaning in the Tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.‖ The

Journal of American Folklore 90.357 (1977): 274-300. JSTOR. Web. 29 September 2014.

Haas, Lynda. ―‗Eighty-Six the Mother‘; Murder, Matricide, and Good Mothers.‖ From Mouse to

Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender and Culture. Ed. Elizabeth Bell. Bloomington:

Indiana UP, 1995. 193-211. Print.

Haase, Donald. ―Yours, Mine, or Ours? Perrault, The Brothers Grimm, and the Ownership of

Fairy Tales.‖ Merveilles & Contes 7. 2 (1993): 383-402. JSTOR. Web. 2 October 2014.

Hall, Elaine J. and Marnie Salupo Rodriguez. ―The Myth of Postfeminism.‖ Gender and Society

17. 6 (2003): 878-902. JSTOR. Web. 23 April 2015.

 Markopoulou 125

Hastings, Waller A. ―Moral Simplification in Disney‘s The Little Mermaid.‖ The Lion and

theUnicorn 17. 1 (1993): 83-92. Project Muse. Web. 1 October 2014.

Howe, Karen G. ―Telling Our Mother‘s Story: Changing Daughters‘ Perceptions of Their Mothers

in a Women‘s Studies Course.‖ Representations: Social Constructions of Gender. Ed Rhoda

K. Unger. New York: Baywood Pub, 1984. Print.

Jeffords, Susan. ―‗The Curse of Masculinity‘: Disney‘s Beauty and the Beast.‖ From Mouse to

Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender and Culture. Ed. Elizabeth Bell. Bloomington:

Indiana UP, 1995. 161-172. Print.

Jones, Geoffrey. Beauty Imagined: A History of the Global Beauty Industry. New York: Oxford

UP, 2010. ProQuest. Web. 14 March 2015.

Laderman, Gary. ―The Disney Way of Death.‖ Journal of the American Academy of Religion 68. 1

(2000): 27-46. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov 2014.

La Monica, Paul R. ―Disney Buys Pixar.‖ CNN Money (2006). Web. 8 Jan 2015.

<http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/news/companies/disney_pixar_deal/>

Lindsey, Shelley Stamp. ―Horror, Femininity, and Carrie‘s Monstrous Puberty.‖ Journal of Film

and Video 43. 4 (1991): 33-44. JSTOR. Web. 22 April 2015.

Martens, Fraser. ―The Pixar Effect.‖ Technology 2. 2 (2011) Web. 8 Jan 2015.

<http://fermentations.org/2011/the-pixar-effect/>

Mulvey, Laura. ―Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.‖ Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory

Readings. Eds. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 833-44.

Web. <https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~mquillig/20050131mulvey.pdf>
 Markopoulou 126

Nayman, Adam. ―Maleficent.‖ Sight and Sound 24.8 (2014): 80. ProQuest. Web. 7 Jan 2015.

Ohmer, Susan. ―'That Rags to Riches Stuff': Disney's Cinderella and the Cultural Space of

Animation.‖ Film History 5. 2 (1993): 231-249. JSTOR. Web. 1 October 2014.

Pallant, Chris. ―Disney-Formalism: Rethinking ‗Classic Disney‘.‖ Animation 5. 341 (2010): 341-

352. SAGE. Web. 30 Dec 2014.

Polivy Janet and C. Peter Herman. ―Causes of Eating Disorders.‖ Annual Review of Psychology 53

(2002): 187-213. EBSCO HOST. Web. 15 Mar 2015.

Ramachandran, Vasanthi. ―Redefining Traditional Women's Roles.‖ New Straits Times (2001): 6

Factiva. Web. 8 Jan 2015.

Raymond H.J. & Co. ―Gender Equality.‖ The New York Times (2012). Factiva. Web. 9 Jan 2015.

<http://mz8an8jm8e.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-

2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-

8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal

&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gender+Equality&rft.jtitle=The+New+York+Times&rft.date=

2012-11-30&rft.pub=The+New+York+Times+Company&rft.issn=0362-

4331&rft.eissn=1542-

667X&rft.externalDBID=ISR&rft.externalDocID=310424471&paramdict=en-US>

Rich, Adrienne. ―Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980).‖ Blood, Bread and

Poetry: Selected Prose 1979-1985. New York: Norton, 1986. Print.

Rogers, Robert. A Psychoanalysis Study of the Double in Literature. Detroit:Wayne State UP,

1970. Print.
 Markopoulou 127

Rothschild, Sarah. The Princess Story: Modeling the Feminine in Twentieth-Century American

Fiction and Film. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc, 2013. Print.

Rozario, Rebecca-Anne C. Do. ―The Princess and the Magic Kingdom: Beyond Nostalgia, the

Function of the Disney Princess.‖ Women’s Studies in Communication 27.1 (2004): 35-59.

Web. 15 Jan 2015.

<http://www.uky.edu/~addesa01/documents/ThePrincessandtheMagicKingdom.pdf>

Russo, Tom. ―‗Frozen,‘ Disney‘s latest animation, is solid.‖ The Boston Globe (2013) ProQuest.

Web. 7 October 2014.

Sanctis, Matt. ―Women's combat roles expanding.‖ Dayton Daily News (2011): 2 Factiva. Web. 9

Jan 2015.

Scruton, Roger. Beauty. New York: Oxford UP,2009. ProQuest. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

Sells, Laura. ―‗Where do the Mermaids Stand?‘ Voice and Body in The Little Mermaid.‖ From

Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender and Culture. Ed. Elizabeth Bell.

Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995. 175-192. Print.

Smelik, Anneke M. And the Mirror Cracked: Feminist Cinema and Film Theory. New York:

Palgrave, 1998. Print.

Soliño, María Elena. ―From Perrault Through Disney to Fina Torres: Cinderella learns Spanish

and Talks Back in ‗Celestial Clockwork‘.‖ Letras Femeninas 27. 2 (2001): 68-84. JSTOR.

Web. 1 October 2014.

Stallman, Robert L. ―‗Rapunzel‘ Unravelled.‖ Victorian Poetry 7. 3 (1969): 221-232. JSTOR.

Web. 7 October 2014.

 Markopoulou 128

Tasker, Yvonne. ―Enchanted (2007) by Postfeminism: Gender, Irony, and the New Romantic

Comedy.‖ Feminism at the Movies: Understanding Gender in Contemporary Popular

Cinema. Eds. Hilary Radner and Rebecca Stringer. New York: Routledge, 2011. 67-79.

Print.

The Independent. ―Losing The Magic: How Euro Disney Became a Nightmare.‖ (Nov 2010) Web.

9 Jan 2015. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/losing-the-

magic-how-euro-disney-became-a-nightmare-2132892.html>

Trites Seelinger, Roberta. Waking Sleeping Beauty: Feminist Voices in Children’s Novels. Iowa:

Iowa UP, 1997. Print.

---. ―Disney's subversion of Andersen's The Little Mermaid.‖Journal of Popular Film &

Television 18. 4 (1991)

<http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/ehost/detail/detail?sid=631d4ac2-bb2b-467d-

9756-

e4d12a9a8697%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z

Q%3d%3d#db=ufh&AN=9108122088>

Ward, Annalee R. Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film. Austin: Texas UP,

2002. eBook. ProQuest. Web. 3 Feb 2015.

Ward, Kelly, Maryann Simmons and Andy Milne. ―Simulating Rapunzel‘s Hair in Disney‘s

Tangled.‖ SIGGRAPH (2010). ACM DL. Web. 5 Jan 2015.

Warner, Marina. ―After ‗Rapunzel‘.‖ Marvels & Tales 24. 2 (2010): 329-335. JSTOR. Web. 7

October 2014.
 Markopoulou 129

Wasko, Janet. ―Challenging Disney Myths.‖ Journal of Communication Inquiry 25.3 (2001): 237-

257. SAGE. Web. 2 Jan 2015.

---. Understanding Disney: the Manufacture of Fantasy. Malden: Polity and Blackwell, 2001.

Print.

Wohlwend, Karen E. ―‗Are You Guys Girls?‘: Boys, Identity Texts, and Disney Princess Play.‖

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12.1 (2011): 3–23. SAGE. Web. 1 Jan 2015.

Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. New York:

William Morrow and Company Inc, 1991. Print.

Wood, Naomi. ―Domesticating Dreams in Walt Disney's Cinderella.‖ The Lion and the Unicorn

20.1 (1996): 25-49. Project Muse. Web. 2 Jan 2015.

Zarucchi, Jeanne Morgan. ―Audiences and Messages in Perrault's Tales.‖ Children's Literature

Association Quarterly 12. 4 (1987): 162-164. Project Muse. Web. 1 October 2014.

Zipes, Jack. Why Fairy Tales Stick: the Evolution and Relevance of a Genre. New York:

Routledge, 2006.

---. ―Breaking the Disney Spell.‖ The Classic Fairy Tales. Ed Maria Tartar. New York:

Norton,1999. 332-352.Web.

<http://jtbarbarese.camden.rutgers.edu/files/2013/05/Zipes_Breaking-the-Disney-Spell.pdf>

Sources Consulted
 Markopoulou 130

Aston, Jacob M. and Estela Vasquez, eds. Masculinity and Femininity: Stereotypes/ Myths,

Psychology and Role of Culture. Social Issues, Justice and Status (2013) eBook. ProQuest.

Web. 13 Jan 2015.

Coyne, Sarah M., and Emily Whitehead. ―Indirect Aggression in Animated Disney Films.‖

Journal of Communication 58. 2 (2008): 382–395. International Communication

Association. Web. 10 Apr 2014.

Gillam, Ken, and Shannon Wooden. "Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in

Disney/Pixar." Journal of Popular Film and Television 36.1 (2008): 2-8. Web. 9 March

2014.

Giroux, Henry A., and Grace Pollock. The Mouse that Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence.

Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2010.eBook. Web. 10 Jan 2014.

Grant, Barry Keith. The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film.Austin: Texas UP,

1996. Print.

Lee, Newton, and Krystina Madej. Disney Stories: Getting to Digital. DE: Springer Verlag,

2012.eBook. Web. 11 March 2014.

May, Jill P. ―Walt Disney's Interpretation of Children's Literature.‖ Language Arts 58. 4 (1981):

463-472. JSTOR. Web. 11 March 2014.

Müller-Hartmann, Andreas. ―Is Disney Safe for Kids?—Subtexts in Walt Disney's Animated.‖

Amerikastudien / American Studies 52. 3 (2007): 399-415. JSTOR. Web. 2 April 2014.

Ross, Deborah. ―Escape from Wonderland: Disney and the Female Imagination.‖ Marvels & Tales

18. 1 (2004): 53-66. JSTOR. Web. 15 March 2014.

 Markopoulou 131

Showalter, Elaine. A literature of their own: British women novelists from Bronte to Lessing.

London: Virago, 1988.

Stone, Kay. ―Things That Disney Never Told Us.‖ The Journal of American Folklore 88. 347

(1975): 42-50. JSTOR. Web. 10 Apr 2015.

Sumera, Lara. ―The Mask of Beauty: Masquerade Theory and Disney's Beauty and the Beast.‖

Quarterly Review of Film and Video 26.1 (2008): 40-46. Web. 30 Dec 2014.

Tavin M. and David Anderson. ―Teaching (Popular) Visual Culture: Deconstructing Disney in the

Elementary Art Classroom.‖ Art Education 56. 3 (2003): 21-24 & 33-35. JSTOR. Web. 11

March 2014.

Waters, Melanie. Women on Screen: Feminism and Femininity in Visual Culture. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print.

Watts, Steven. ―Walt Disney: Art and Politics in the American Century.‖ The Journal of American

History 82. 1 (1995): 84-110.JSTOR. Web. 12 March 2014.

 Markopoulou 132

Filmography

A Bug’s Life. Dir. John Lasseter. Pixar and Walt Disney, 1998.

Aladdin. Dir. Ron Clements. Walt Disney Pictures, 1992.

Barbie as Rapunzel. Dir. Owen Hurley. Mainframe Entertainment, 2002.

Beauty and the Beast. Dir. Gary Trousdale. Walt Disney, 1991.

Brave. Dir. Mark Andrews. Walt Disney and Pixar, 2012.

Carrie. Dir. Brian De Palma. United Artists, 1976.

Cinderella. Dir. Clyde Geronimi. Walt Disney, 1950.

Cinderella. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Walt Disney, 2015.

Enchanted. Dir. Kevin Lima. Walt Disney, 2007.

Finding Nemo. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Walt Disney and Pixar, 2003.

Frozen. Dir. Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee. Walt Disney, 2013.

Into the Woods. Dir. Rob Marshall. Lucamar, Marc Platt and Walt Disney, 2014.

Maleficent. Dir. Robert Stromberg. Roth and Walt Disney, 2014.

Monsters, Inc. Dir. Pete Docter. Walt Disney and Pixar, 2001.

Mulan. Dir. Tony Bancroft. Walt Disney, 1998.

Pocahontas. Dir. Mike Gabriel. Walt Disney, 1995.

 Markopoulou 133

Sex and the City. Dir. Michael Patrick King. New Line, 2008.

Shrek. Dir. Andrew Adamson. DreamWorks, 2001.

Shrek 2. Dir. Andrew Adamson. DreamWorks, 2004.

Shrek the Third. Dir. Chris Miller. DreamWorks, 2007.

Shrek Forever After. Dir. Mike Mitchell. DreamWorks, 2010.

Shrek the Musical. Dir. Michael John Warren. DreamWorks, 2013.

Sleeping Beauty. Dir. Clyde Geronimi. Walt Disney, 1959.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Dir. William Cottrell. Walt Disney, 1937.

Tangled. Dir. Nathan Greno. Walt Disney, 2010.

The Incredibles. Dir. Brad Bird. Walt Disney and Pixar, 2004.

The Little Mermaid. Dir. Ron Clements. Walt Disney, 1989.

The Princess and the Frog. Dir. Ron Clements. Walt Disney, 2009.

Toy Story. Dir. John Lasseter. Pixar and Walt Disney, 1995.

Up. Dir. Pete Docter. Walt Disney and Pixar, 2009.