Eight Reasons Why You Should All Watch Tangled: The Series

Note on last week's post: Look, I'm a new D&D player and I'm a Ranger, so if I got some of the mechanics wrong, I apologize, I'm still learning, and please be kind.

Also, some news: this Friday, May 1st, at 7 pm Central time, and 6 pm Mountain time, I'm going to be doing an interview with Kim Ventrella (author of the MG book Skeleton Tree). It will be on Facebook Live, so come and watch! Information is on the picture below, but if it doesn't load for you, you can access the interview at facebook.com/kimventrella.

Okay, so today, I'm giving you another recommendation for TV show to watch, and that show is Tangled: The Series, or, after its name change at season 2, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure.

I know a lot of you might be surprised that I'm advocating a Disney Channel animated TV show marketed toward younger girls. Others, who read this blog more, probably aren't surprised at all. And, I was thinking of doing a blog post on why Tangled, the film and show, is better than Frozen (and I still might), but instead, I'm going to do a spoiler-free review and recommendation for this TV show.

1. It's a movie plus three seasons of 20-minute episodes

Let's be honest, time is something we care about. This show is a pretty short binge, all things considered. The show kicks off with an hour-long movie that bridges the film to the series and sets up the major characters and plot points of the TV show. It's IMPERATIVE you watch the movie first, but since each season is about 22 episodes long, and again, there are only three, this isn't much beyond what you'd expect from the series. The movie is titled Tangled: Before Ever After.

2. All three seasons are on Disney+ and yes, the series has ended

No nasty hiatuses for you, you lucky dogs! And yes, you have no idea how lucky you are. All three seasons, plus the original 2010 Tangled film and Before Ever After, are already on Disney+, so if you have that streaming service or a friend who is willing to let you use theirs, you have access to it all.

And with that, let's stop talking about convenience and talk about why you should even watch this in the first place.

3. Same voice actors, writers, etc. as the film

If you loved the 2010 Tangled movie, good news: every voice actor is back. Mandy Moore is back as Rapunzel, Zachary Levi is still Flynn Rider/Eugene Fitzherbert, and so on, even through the minor characters like the Pub Thugs.

Also, the film's writers are back to create the TV show. Chris Sonnenburg is the producer, again. All of this contributes to Tangled: The Series being less of a spin-off and more of a sequel to the film. Voices and writing feel the same as the film, in natural succession.

Oh, and did I mention Glenn Slater is still the lyricist and the man-myth-legend Alan Menken still composes the songs?

4. The music!

Oh my gosh, the music! This show is a musical! Don't expect every episode to have a song, but they do appear every so often. Major episodes always have musical numbers. These songs range from goofy to deeply serious and poignant, and honestly, it's amazing quality. Like I said, Alan Menken of original Tangled and Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and The Little Mermaid as well as so much more, is the composer. It's truly stunning.

The cast is also stunning. Aside from Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi, the cast also includes Jeremy Jordan (the original Jack Kelly from Newsies on Broadway), James Monroe Iglehart (the original Genie from Broadway's Aladdin), and last but certainly not least, Eden Espinosa (Idina Menzel's stand-by for Elphaba in Wicked, as well as Maureen Johnson in Rent) as new characters. And yes, they're major characters and sing multiple times through the series.

They're stupidly talented, and so the music in this show feels like Broadway. I am currently relistening to the soundtrack for this show. To contrast, I haven't felt like listening to the Frozen 2 soundtrack since January.

Here's a sample of the music. Yes, you only get the audio. No, it's not tied to any major plot arc. No spoilers, remember?

Oh, and the songs get better in every season, in my opinion. They start great and become truly incredible. There is one in season 3 that, in context of the story and characters, may very well be one of the best things Disney has rolled out in the last ten years, or even ever. It literally (and I use the word correctly) took my breath away.

I wish I could share it with you now, but you really should come to it in your own time.

5. Animation is lovely

The style of animation, though different than the film's, is charming. Look at it!

6. The storytelling is amazing

This is a writer's blog, so you had to know I'd get to the storytelling here.

This show is very well-written. The story covers the time between the 2010 film and the short Tangled Ever After, where we see Rapunzel and Eugene get married.

(By the way, I know you all might call him "Flynn." It's hard for me to do that after 3 seasons of hearing him called "Eugene.)

But the show has a real story, with depth and intrigue. It's not filling time, or presenting a bunch of little vignettes of Rapunzel's life in Corona, though you do have plenty of fun episodes that do that. There's an overall story with lore that deepens Rapunzel's connection to the healing flower and something darker and a bit more sinister.

I really don't want to give too much away. But I'll say this: this story is a sequel, and it does everything a good sequel should do. It opens the world up and explores more implications not addressed in the film. It creates a new story instead of rehashing the old story.

Also, the story isn't afraid to get deep or go to dark places. You see the king's trauma over losing his daughter once, and you see the effect of anger and guilt and hate in some pretty interesting ways.

7. Character. Development.

Rapunzel is not a static character in this show. She's grown after the film, but there's a lot she has to learn. For the first time, she's out of her tower and back with parents who love her and want her to be safe. This causes some tension, actually. She's also pretty naive at first and needs to learn more about how to be a person and a royal (read, leader) in her kingdom. This show is about how she learns and becomes.

You see Rapunzel in her bright, bubbly self that we all know, but we see that tested. We see her doubt herself and have to make hard choices, and we see her annoyed with other people, including her loved ones.We see her hurt, and fear.

And it's not just her! Every major character has a character arc. Eugene has an arc: what's a former thief to do, when his only skill is stealing and he doesn't do that anymore? Who is he now? And the other characters, the new ones, also have their own arcs.

These character arcs are fully in-character. They make sense, and never blindside the viewer. You watch as the characters develop in realistic, though not always good ways. On a side note, this show has the kind of villains I wish other writers were brave enough to try. Honestly, if you think Disney's idea of a "villain" is Hans from Frozen (who is so mustache-twirling hamfistedly written they had to tell us three times in Frozen 2 that he was, in fact, the villain) or even coldly depraved Scar or Maleficent, you've got a good surprise coming for you. Can you say "understandable motives while still doing awful things"? Can you say "nuanced"?

By the end of the series, I was satisfied. Characters had developed, without suddenly becoming entirely different people. It never seemed forced or faked, just real people developing in realistic ways.

8. This is a hopeful, wholesome show

Guys, it's Tangled. This is a show about a girl who made instant friends with a bunch of thugs and who sees the best in people and situations. The music and story drive toward hope and how, together, people can do amazing things despite very difficult times. This music ties into the inspiring message well, and hey, don't we all kind of need that narrative right now?

Beyond that, get ready to see healthy relationships, romantic and platonic, portrayed, the Power of Friendship, the infectious nature of seeing the good in others, and lots of other wholesome, cheerful subjects, all handled with excellent storytelling.

So, yeah. Watch this show. You don't know what treat you have ahead of you.

What is this Rubbish???

I'm coming out of hibernation because something needs to be said.

When I was in 6th grade, the Artemis Fowl series was new, on its first book. I bought it at a Scholastic Book Fair and read it, and subsequently loved it and read the whole series. I have the final book in the series signed by the author, and I thought the whole series was a great story full of great stories.

So, when I heard that Disney was adapting Artemis Fowl for film, I was excited. And when I saw the first teaser trailer, way back last year, I was excited. It seemed to capture the feel of the books.

But then this morning I woke up and I saw their new trailer. Artemis Fowl fans, I apologize for what you're about to see.

Excuse me.

But WHAT.

IS.

THIS???

WHAT IS THIS???

This is NOT the movie I have been waiting for YEARS to see!

As soon as I saw this trailer, I was bummed, then angry, and now I'm furious. Because dang it, Disney is doing it again.
 
What makes me so angry about this trailer is that once again, we're getting a film adaptation of a book that has stripped the story of everything that made it special and gives us, once again, the same canned storyline Hollywood keeps feeding us.

The story in this trailer is unrecognizable from the beloved book. The characters bear a resemblance to their book counterparts, and you have crime and fairies, but that is it. Beyond that, what do we have? Yet another story where a child learns that his parent has some secret and that he must now step up and fight evil.

We got this story. We got it in Spy Kids. We're getting it now in Locke & Key on Netflix. Heck, we got it in Harry Potter and even Star Wars! It's a pretty common tale. I'm sure, given a few minutes, you'll think of many more stories that have this exact plot (feel free to share them in the comments).

You know what's not common, though? A story about a preteen boy who is so smart and criminal that he's able to outwit an ancient, technologically advanced race who has magic to boot!

That's what Artemis Fowl is about! Artemis is not the hero. He's the protagonist, but he's the hero. He's a Bond villain. He was designed to be a Bond villain. This is a story about a child criminal who is brilliant enough to win against a people that have everything on their side, apparently. It's a high-action chess game between Artemis and the fairies, where the fairies have the law on their side and Artemis has his huge brain and a bit of desperation.

That's not what we see in this trailer. This trailer gives me no reason to believe Artemis is a genius, or that he's a "criminal mastermind." It's the same old "your father lived a secret life" story we've seen a million times, and I don't even see in the trailer the signature sarcastic humor that made the book such a joy to read.

Long time readers of this blog should know that I'm forgiving to movies that don't follow the book exactly. Heck, one of my favorite movies is How to Train Your Dragon and it's very different than the book. But the book isn't about the plot; the book is about how Hiccup is a not-great Viking who loves dragons and how he learns how to be a hero "the hard way." And that was kept in the movie.

With Artemis Fowl, the story is gone. The characterization is gone. The themes of complex villainy and character growth from villain to hero seems to have followed it. What is left? The same old story we keep getting.

And this is why I'm angry. Disney just did this to us with A Wrinkle in Time. They took a book with a huge fanbase and essentially turned it into the same old coming-of-age fantasy adventure they always tell, with no consideration for what made the story resonate with people.

 
They gave us the same old canned adventure "chosen one" story in The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, something that could have easily been avoided if they'd done a modicum of research and read E.T.A. Hoffmann's story.

 
Now, they're doing the same thing to Artemis Fowl---stripping it of everything that made the story unique and giving us a bland adventure tale.

(Side note: I'm not mad at all of Disney right now. Tangled the Series people, I want you to know that you're doing great, sweeties. Excellent work on the finale.<3)

Why bother adapting a book to film if you're not going to look at why people liked it in the first place? Why give us the same old story when you can do something unique like show kids a child who is smart enough to outwit grown-ups? There's a reason people liked these stories enough to merit a movie studio's attention. Why claim a book's title if you're just going to toss out everything about it? Why not just write your own dang story?

(Disney, tossing out everything fans loved about a book.)

Maybe the idea of a morally gray child criminal didn't "test well." I mean, it "tested well" with me and thousands of other readers, but I'm not a filmmaker, so what do I know?

All I know now is that upon seeing this trailer, all my desire to see the movie has melted away. If this movie is going the same way as the others I mentioned, then it's not worth my time or money. I don't want to see a great book turned into yet another mediocre movie.

Okay, that's it. I'm done. I'm done with all of this. Allison out.

Pictures and Nonsense

Hello, folks! I'm back, and I'm married!

I know it's been a long time since my last post. I've been so busy with wedding preparations, the actual wedding, and then moving into my new house and then the honeymoon that I haven't been posting. Who could blame me?

Anyway, I'm now Allison Boyer, working on getting that name legally changed. However, I will still use Allison K. Hymas as my professional writer name, so that will be the name that is on my books and websites.

For our honeymoon, Spencer and I roadtripped to Banff, Canada. It was my first time going there, and wow, it's beautiful. Such a great place for me to spend time with my new husband!

We both loved looking at the lakes, in particular. They're so blue!

Lake Louise. (That's Spencer in the sunglasses.)

Lake Moraine. And in this one, yes, the water looks like that. It's as blue as if it was dyed, but it's a natural effect of "rock flour" from the glaciers. The picture really doesn't do it justice, and it still looks like that.

And this is a cute little tearoom at the top of a hike near Lake Louise. We got an apple crumble to share and two lemonades.

I got a lot of other pictures, but they're taking forever to upload and these are some of the best, anyway. As for wedding pictures, I don't have them yet, but I'll share a couple as soon as I get them back from the photographer.

In other news, THE EXPLORER'S CODE is listed on Goodreads now, so if you want to keep an eye on its progress, you can look at it there!

Okay, so I promised you some nonsense. Like I said, we roadtripped, and when you put two nerds in a car for 15 hours to and fro, not even counting hours of driving around the parks, then things start to happen. Especially when one of you is a writer, you both enjoy Weird Al Yankovic, and you're going on a trip later this year to Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland. You start thinking of Disney songs and Star Wars and then...this happens.

So this is for all you Tangled and Obi-Wan Kenobi fans out there.

When Will The Fight Begin?

("When Will My Life Begin?" from Tangled)

 

Morning arrives, awake to a double sunrise.

Start on the chores and sweep ‘til the floor’s all clean,

Maintain my beard, do laundry, and gather supplies.

Life is bland in the sand here on Tatooine!

 

And so I’ll meditate, for maybe quite a while.

I’ll watch the Tusken Raiders—they walk single-file,

And then I’ll spar my shadow in Soresu style,

Just wonderin’ when will the fight begin?

 

Then after lunch of blue milk and bantha jerky

I’ll stick around, safe on my high ground, alone.

Visit my memories, though they are getting murky,

Though I’ve yet to forget all my time with the clones.

 

I lost another robe; good thing I have a spare.

I’ll plan my duel with Maul—sure he’s alive somewhere.

And then I’ll practice greeting droids with, “Hello, there.”

Stuck in this desert since Anakin…

 

(ahem)

 

And I’ll be wonderin’, and wonderin’, and wonderin’, and wonderin’, when will my fight begin?

 

I watch the boy down on his farm,

Make sure that Luke won’t come to any harm.

One day he might rebalance the Force.

When he is older, I will set him on that course.

 

So, yes. Pictures and nonsense. There may be a few more Disney/Star Wars parodies coming around the bend...it was a LONG drive. So, enjoy, and I'll see you again next week!

Frozen's Not All Meh

I was thinking that I'd do a post about Infinity War, but I will DEFINITELY have spoilers in it and I want to wait until an acceptable time has passed before I talk about it. Maybe next week.

This week, I am going to be spending the weekend in the Happiest Place on Earth:

DISNEYLAND!

Personally, I think Disney World, the Most Magical Place on Earth, is the better location, but I admit East Coast bias and any Disney is good Disney, I think.

Which may come as a surprise to you, considering how much I criticize Disney lately. That doesn't mean I don't like Disney or enjoy its movies and attractions. It just means that I don't want them to get complacent and try to pass off okay movies as great ones. Like Frozen.

I throw a lot of shade at Frozen because I think it's an okay movie, a good movie, but not a great one and I don't like it when okay, good stories are touted as great ones. Elsa is not a feminist character just because she doesn't chase a man (seriously) and Hans is not a good villain just because you didn't see him coming.

That said, there is one thing that Frozen did that I think they did very well, and that was in Anna's characterization.

Anna is a good protagonist that gets overshadowed by fans and media by her older sister (which is interesting, when you think about it). She is a strong character and, I think, the more feminist character, because she acts and is not acted upon. But that's not what I think they did well with her.

No, what I like about Anna's writing is that she has consistent character traits that work as both flaws and strengths.

One annoying sign of lazy writing is the "clumsy character." The writer knows the main character can't be perfect, so they give them some stupid flaw like clumsiness that doesn't impact that plot at all. At first glance, Anna seems to be one of these lazy characters.

But she's not. Why?

Because she's impulsive.

This is the trait that makes her interesting! Over and over again, we see Anna act before thinking. With Hans:

 

With Elsa:

Running off to find Elsa without supplies or proper clothing for a winter mountain trek:

 
Insisting they go "right now":

Trust-falling into Kristoff's arms:

Jumping off the cliff:

And, lest we forget, confronting Elsa without any kind of plan beyond "I'm going to talk to my sister."

This character trait is consistent. It's not just there when it's convenient or inconvenient. Anna is always a bit impulsive. Sure, she does plan and think, but overall, she's eager to leap before looking.

And this causes problems for her.

This trait is the reason she trusts Hans so much so early. It's also the reason she fails so badly with Elsa at first, because she didn't have a good plan.

But it's also the reason she actually goes in the first place to get Elsa to come back, and it's the reason she moves to save Elsa from Hans so quickly, thereby saving Elsa and herself. She doesn't think before she acts, and that means she can act quickly.

Sometimes, that quick action is reckless, and sometimes it's needed. But either way, it's a character trait that belongs to her. It doesn't make her a weak character; in fact, it makes her stronger by giving her realistic strengths and weaknesses beyond "clumsy."

Flaws and strengths in characters are subjective. A tendency toward reckless action may be a strength on the battlefield but not in a diplomat's office. It's traits that give characters strengths and weaknesses, not some inherent list of "good" and "bad" qualities. Frozen actually did a good job showing that with Anna.

So, can we please start liking the movie for what it has instead of what we wish it had?

The Problem of Unproblematic Stories

Sorry for the slightly late post. I just got back from seeing Infinity War.

*screams*

Ahem...anyway, the blog post.

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time.

Now, I love Disney. I have my whole life. And, soon I'll be visiting Disneyland with my siblings and I'm about as excited as an eight-year-old about it.

But I was talking with my sister yesterday about some of Disney's most recent blockbusters, and about their older movies (the Renaissance ones), and we discussed how those older ones could not be made today.

Think about it. Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and certainly The Hunchback of Notre Dame...all movies with plots or elements that would face enormous scrutiny and backlash today. Race relations and religion, gender roles and unfeminist messages. Un-PC terms and ideas.

I honestly think Disney could not have released these, brand new, today. I think the reason for this is that they're all a bit problematic, and big companies can't afford to be problematic.

Okay, before we move forward, I just want to say that I'm not advocating writing and producing stories that offend major audiences, or even minor ones. There are things that should be left out of movies and stories because they are offensive, and they do make people angry, and it's bad writing to include them because they can easily be corrected by compassion for one's subject as well as proper research and understanding. Look at Coco; Pixar did a good job with that one.

But I think that, sometimes, in the desire to stop this kind of problematic content, a writer can throw out all complicated, heavy, and problematic themes and plots as well as the offensive material. This makes the final product, well, weak.


I throw a lot of shade at Frozen, and here's some more. It was a good movie, but honestly, I think the heaps of praise it receives are a bit much for what it is. I know Frozen has a huge following and lots of people love it, and yes, the music is good. But when I look at the story and themes, I'm not wowed. I don't feel the awe I felt in The Lion King when Mufasa tells Simba to, "Remember who you are." I don't ache for the characters. Sure, I feel for them, but I don't feel for them. Everything is...a little washed out.

Frozen had a binary theme: love=good, fear=bad. No one is going to dispute this. No one is going to feel for the villain or question what to do in this situation. It's obvious; Elsa needs to let love conquer fear. Because of this weak theme, we had a paper doll villain who needs to be a psychopath in order to actually work as a believable villain (which is lazy writing).

Now, let's compare this to another Disney movie, one that I think they allowed to be a bit troubling. Big Hero 6.

In Big Hero 6, there is no easy binary. Hiro has a legitimate reason to grieve, as does Dr. Callahan. The film deals with ideas of depression, obsession, revenge, and justice, and it doesn't make it easy for the viewer. Hiro lost a loved one, but so did Dr. Callahan. Does that make Callahan's actions just? Is Hiro justified in doing the same? What is justice, and how can healing happen? We see Hiro come just shy of becoming villainous himself.

The movie does comment on the rightness or wrongness of their actions, and Callahan is the villain, but he's a believable, even relatable one. It's not neat or clear, and there is no easy fix, no wave of the hand that can return what has been lost. There are consequences that don't go away, and that makes me care a bit more. It also leaves me thinking about the themes for myself.

Let's look at another movie comparison. Moana had a protagonist who didn't actually grow all that much, or discover all that much about herself, through the whole movie. The movie presents a choice: Moana must choose between her love of her people and her love of the ocean. But it's a hollow choice. The two are not mutually exclusive, not inherently. I never felt like this was a real choice. No choice, no consequences. No problems to solve. So, I think, that's why Moana doesn't seem to grow. She's never challenged to determine for herself who she is at the expense of anything.

Now, there's Tarzan. Tarzan grows up among the apes, feeling like an outcast. Then humans come to the jungle and he realizes that there are creatures like him. Soon, he has to face a choice: to stay in Africa or go to England and be with other humans.

These choices are mutually exclusive. Tarzan cannot do both. In the end, he has to choose one or the other, and the other door closes, so to speak. Yes, the girl he loves stays with him. In the jungle. It's a good ending, but a choice is made, and there are consequences for choosing it. We see a moment where Tarzan decides who he is and where he belongs.

Now, I know the point of Moana is that she can have both. But there was never any problem with it, not really. No conflict in the viewer's mind. Moana starts as someone who loves her people but will go to the sea against her father's wishes, and in the end, she still chooses the sea and her people. There's never really a moment where she has to consider giving up one or the other, or where she's really stopped from having one.

Not like in Wreck-It Ralph where Ralph wrecks Vanellope's car. Dang, that's always hard to watch.

This is getting long-winded, so I'll wrap it up. I'm afraid that Disney, scared of offending anyone, has also stopped allowing problematic themes in their musicals. Other films, like Big Hero 6, aren't as scrutinized and so get away with more. But the musicals seem to have stopped trying to explore complicated themes.

So, here are some suggestions I have for Disney, on how to do this again:

- No easy binaries. If 99% (if not 100%) of the audience can point to love as better than fear, then why not replace the binary with personal comfort versus responsibility, like in The Lion King? Even if audiences know which one Simba should choose, they at least can see why he might want to choose the other.

- Consequences. If one choice is made, the other has been lost. Winning the day requires a sacrifice, even if it's small.

- Start treating the female-lead, musical movies like the male-lead, non-musical movies. Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6 have a lot more compelling plots and characters than the female-lead movies, which all seem to have the same plot and characters.

- Don't be afraid. Do your research, and be kind to the cultures you're depicting. But part of humanity is dealing with difficult ideas and making hard choices, and that should be present in your movies. Now, more than ever.

Disney Defense: Cinderella

Hello! Sorry again for the late post; I've been traveling and spending time with my family, and for me, that takes priority.

But I'm about to get back to a regular schedule, so that's good. I thought that today I'd try to defend one of Disney's most blasted films: Cinderella.

Why? Because I feel like Disney's old movies are misinterpreted after so much time. Nowadays, the push is so strong to present what is typically considered a "strong female protagonist" and I think that too often the movies actually become less feminist, offering a semblance of it but perhaps not the real thing. Cinderella is, surprisingly, far more feminist in nature than remembered.

But wait! Isn't this the movie about a passive, helpless girl waiting for her prince to save her? Isn't that this story?

Actually, no. Not at all. If you watch the movie again, you may notice that the Prince does one thing that moves the plot forward: he goes looking for the girl he met at the ball. Even that could be considered a reactive move, acting only because of the actions of others.

Cinderella, on the other hand, the so-called passive princess, is anything but.

This girl gets up at the crack of dawn to get to work, seemingly running the household on her own. Sure, she sings about dreams coming true, but that's not where she leaves it. She acts on what she dreams, working hard day after day. She doesn't leave the oppressive situation she's in (and perhaps she can't), but neither does she succumb to it.

On watching the film again, I was surprised by how sarcastic and sassy this "passive" character can be. She was going to beat that cat with a broom!

So, the ball comes around. I'm no scholar in medieval politics and social events, but I'm guessing that a royal ball to which every eligible maiden in the kingdom is invited is not something that happens every Friday. This is likely a once-in-a-lifetime event, much like a total solar eclipse, and for once, Cinderella is invited. She can go, by royal decree.

Lady Tremaine, Cinderella's stepmother, can't disobey a royal decree. So she, intelligent, conniving villain that she is, does what she can to stop Cinderella from going to the ball: she sets terms she knows Cinderella can't meet. In order to go, Cinderella must finish all her chores and have a suitable dress. She then, with the stepsisters, load Cinderella with more chores than she can manage.

Two notes, here: One - evil as Lady Tremaine is, she's certainly a strong character. Strong characters don't have to always be good.

And two - The Prince is not mentioned by Cinderella at all to this point, not really. She's not hoping to meet him and marry him. She doesn't expect him to save her. She just wants to go to this ball.

Cinderella does everything she can to meet the terms. She works hard and she pulls out a dress to alter. These are not the actions of a passive, "oh, well," character. She needs help to succeed, but I'd like to mention that these mice and birds that help her do so because she showed them kindness first, saving them from traps and feeding them. This is tit-for-tat, payment in kind. Kindness is not passivity, here or anywhere.

And she succeeds! Her hard work pays off and she has a dress to wear and chores are finished. And then....

The stepfamily ruins everything.

Here, Cinderella has done everything she can. She worked hard, she did everything that was in her limited power, and nothing came of it. A ball, a big party, seems so silly a desire, but for this girl who lost her parents and must now slave at the mercy of an unkind stepmother and stepsisters, one night out on the town must have seemed like a reprieve well-deserved.

Here, she receives help again, from a powerful female character: the Fairy Godmother. This character is kind and very powerful, able to give Cinderella everything she needs to go to the ball. She doesn't set Cinderella there, though, and I find it interesting that she uses the fruits of Cinderella's labors to send her there: the pumpkin you know Lady Tremaine didn't grow, the rags of the dress Cinderella was planning to wear, and the mice, dog, and horse that she cared for.

Cinderella goes to the ball, aided, but of her own desires. She meets the prince and falls in love, but then leaves when she must. After that, we see no proof that she's sitting, waiting for him to find her. She goes back to work, keeping that memory in her heart.

Then, when she learns he's coming, she stops working. Lady Tremaine realizes who that mysterious girl from the ball is, and locks her in the tower. But does Cinderella wait and wish?

In the remake, sure, but in the old cartoon, never!

She gets help. She makes a plan to use Bruno, the dog, to scare off Lucifer, the cat. And then, when the slipper is broken and all hope seems lost, she pulls out the other slipper.

In this film, Cinderella is proactive, strong, and kind, and the passive waiter is nowhere to be found. The most I can do to call her weak is comment on her needing help, and I think the day we believe that it's weak to need help after you've done your best is the day that we've lost all compassion as a society.

I realize these Disney Defenses may not change anyone's mind about how they view these movies, but I think there's much more good to be found in these films than usually believed, and that if children like and want to watch them, it's important to see the good messages about working hard, being kind, and taking action to teach them, instead of letting the media preach only "be pretty." These old Disney movies are a lot deeper than we give them credit for, and the "Disney stereotype" of passive princesses is more fantasy than reality in many cases.

Here's hoping all your dreams come true!

Here are this week's debuts:

Middle Grade:
Jonathan Rosen - Night of the Living Cuddle Bunnies (8/29)

Young Adult:
Rebecca Barrow - You Don't Know Me But I Know You (8/29)
Maggie Ann Martin - The Big F (8/29)
Gregory Katsoulis - All Rights Reserved (8/29)