Well, the “The Pricess and the Frog” opened quite a long time ago, didn’t it? And I was supposed to write a review…and what I ended up doing was falling into a pit of Thesis Doom instead. Neat, no? But! I do have some interesting things to say about the movie which I think are still relevant all these months after the fact.

It's Hard Out There for a Princess

It's Hard Out There for a Princess

First of all, most of what can be said about “The Princess and the Frog” has in fact been said. The animation is gorgeous. The songs are sweet, but not stellar (with the exception of Tiana’s “Almost There.”) For the most part, Disney handled Tiana’s race and the issues she faces because of it by not handling it at all..with a few small exceptions (such as Tiana being refused a loan because of her “condition.”)

For an excellent perspective on the movie’s good and bad, I recommend that you read Racialicious’ post on the subject here as well as here.

Now here’s what I think is interesting! That *servant* storyline! Remember that? Remember how i did a post on that wayyyyyy back? Well I personally thought that how that turned out was one of the more interesting parts of the entire movie…

I was especially interested in Lawrence, Prince Naveen’s “pompous” valet (with the obligatory “pompous valet name,” right up there with Soames and Jeeves). Now in the movie, Dr. Facilier turns Prince Naveen into a frog. He also plays on Lawrence’s resentment of Naveen, magics Lawrence so that he looks like Naveen, and commences trying to marry Lawrence off to Big Daddy LaBeouff’s daughter, hoping that he will then be able to control New Orleans through LaBeouff with Lawrence as his pawn.

Ohhhhh there is *such* class tension! One reading of “The Princess and the Frog” is that it is not only a love story – and to some extent a story about race – but also a class story. The movie, in effect, teaches children about the “correct” way each class is allowed to behave. Observe!

The Upper Class, or “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.”

It’s perfectly OK, says the movie, that some people are wildly wealthy and live off of others. This is quite a benevolent system, so long as the wealthy don’t abuse their power and/or squander their money. Even though the monetary oligarchy which Big Daddy represents is rather unfair (and probably keeps everyone earning low wages, as Tiana’s mother’s monetary woes suggest), the film is quite content to tolerate the unfairness of that system because, well, Big Daddy is such a nice guy. Naveen, on the other hand, is too loose with his money and so has to be reminded of the privileged life he enjoys. Once he appreciates his lot, he’s in the money again!

The working class, or It’s What You Do With What You’ve Got.

People like Tiana, of course, are supposed to be very happy with what they have as well. Note how Tiania is perfectly OK with Big Daddy’s daughter’s rather obnoxious behavior, and how her mother was also perfectly content to work for Big Daddy without complaint. Of course, it’s perfectly all right for these characters to aspire to something more, but naturally they must work *within the system* to get it. Tiana, for example, wants to open her restaurant, but runs into road blocks because of racist lenders and lack of funds. However, were a white, rich girl to have the same goal, she would have little to no trouble realizing it. That’s too bad, says the film, but rather than directing its criticism against societal structures, the film just teaches that working even harder within these structures (plus wishing) will eventually yield the desired result.

Dr. Facilier, who is also lower-class, is punished for trying to change the societal structure. The desire for revolution or direct change vrs. reform and gradual change is strongly critiqued in the fi;m. Dr. Facilier is, of course, evil because he changes people into frogs and tries to have Tiana killed, but consider what drove him to that behavior. One of his songs describes how he lives in a town which is not his own, and over which he has no power. For attempting to exert some modicum of control over his environment, he is punished by losing his soul. Lawrence, another member of the lower class who Facilier “leads astray,” is also punished by being made ridiculous. Silly old, not-conventionally attractive servants, thinking they could rise in social stature and marry young beauties! He should have been content with what he had, and worked *for* oppressive social structures, instead of against him.

Then maybe he would have been rewarded with a 401 K.

What do you think? Are TPATF’s class relations problematic? Are they similar, better, worse than other class relations in Disney films? Should we even care about these underlying messages?