Goin' Down the Bayou

Thanks to the film symposium class here at USC, I had the privilege of viewing Disney's The Princess and the Frog last week, nearly three weeks before it makes its theatrical release. While my critical studies-trained mind recognized that there were problems with the film, my escapist, borderline Disney-obsessed self loved every minute of it. Movies like this film make me question the relationship between critical thought and entertainment value because it's difficult trying to acknowledge the problems while still maintaining my extremely enthusiastic response to this film. The return to hand-drawn animation and a story laden with new Disney songs to add to my epic playlist, right alongside the likes of "Be Our Guest" and "A Whole New World," would have had to include devastatingly horrendous problems for me to leave the theater unhappy. However, I did recognize its problems, and though I feel unworthy in critical circles to say that I like a film with obvious flaws, I'd be lying if I said I didn't smile more during this film than any other I've seen this fall.

Sometimes I hate that the love of movies that led me to take film classes has also caused a bit of an embittered viewing experience in many cases. Throughout this film, I could not stop analyzing it. I think the thing that bothered me the most was the villain, Doctor Facilier, and his lack of a clear motivation for anything he did in the film. Any screenwriting class will talk about defining a character's "want" that drives their actions, so it seemed a little simplistic to think that I was just supposed to to rely on the conventions employed to tell that he was the villain to explain his evil actions. Sure he dealt with voodoo, had a menacingly deep speaking voice, and had a hat adorned with a skull and crossbones, but that just tells me he's the bad guy. I never really understood why he was so bad. It made the story feel like it was missing something, perhaps a subplot this could've produced. I didn't think about it too much in the moment, but, at the end of the film when he meets his end, I was left thinking, "Wait. What just happened? Why did he get taken back to the 'other side'?!" I think the stakes should've been clearly set for him based on his want which would've given the audience more of a reason to root against him. I think it was there somewhere beneath the surface of the story, but it was never clearly manifested in the final product. I'm not sure if it is just because I am now trained to do so, or if these problems with the plot are actually glaringly obvious to the average viewer.

I think it's also due to the fact that Disney has built a reputation for well-crafted, creative stories that audiences have come to expect so much from their films. I know I do. While this film was very good, I do feel like it was a bit safe and rested in the conventions of past Disney animated features without doing very much that was new. There was a princess, a prince, a kiss, a wedding, and wishing upon a star. There was so much about it that was just a Disney cliche. Just like in Cinderella, the stroke of midnight was employed to set a timeline for the action. Furthermore, there was a talisman which allowed the prince's squire to turn into the prince that mimicked the function of the shell worn by Ursula to sabotage Ariel's kiss with Prince Eric in The Little Mermaid. Also, the character of Louis resembles a sort of Baloo-like figure in the way he floats on his back down the river. Not to mention the idea that a kiss is the ultimate solution to breaking the spell which is present in countless Disney films from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty. Whereas Disney's Enchanted recognized and employed these conventions for humor, this film simply utilized them without commentary which seemed to undercut Disney's reputation for creativity and innovation in their films.

Whew! Okay, so now that I've got all that criticism out of the way to legitimize my status as a film student, I've got a bit more to add. I LOVED THIS MOVIE!! Like I said before, to say I'm an obsessive fan of Disney movies would be an understatement. I like Disney cliches. While it is a new installment from the studio, there is a lot that is nostalgic about this film, and I think that it will definitely resonate with audiences who grew up with a childhood relationship with films like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. It has lots of toe-tapping musical numbers, so catchy that I woke up with a different song from the film in my head for three days after watching it. My personal favorite song, both for music and animated sequence, is "Gonna Take You There," where the characters whirl down the water of the bayou led by a trail of glittering fireflies. The setting in New Orleans is beautifully drawn and really allows the audience to be taken away to the world of the film. I was completely captured by it visually, getting completely sucked into the setting and all of the characters who inhabit it. Despite the issues that I had with Doctor Facilier, the villain, I thought the characters in the film were great. From the high-pitched, overly talkative Charlotte to the jolly, musically gifted alligator Louis, they are all so endearing. My favorite, by far, though, was the Cajun-speaking firefly Ray, with his ridiculous colloquial phrases and devoted love to "his" Evangeline made him an enjoyable supporting cast member to say the least. I could not stop smiling throughout the entire film and was left with the same delighted grin even as the lights came back up. Maybe it was nostalgia or perhaps a strong bias, but, despite my film critical self, I have to say that The Princess and the Frog was a great movie. Yes, there a problems with it, but, the songs full of energy, characters full of personality, and settings full of detail are more than enough to combat those criticisms.

For a glimpse into what I've mentioned, check out the preview here: