Tag Archives: Disney

The Incredibles 2 (2018)

The Incredibles


Things that are not worth waiting for: breakfast at that overpriced brunch place, slow walkers, that person you’ve been texting to actually agree on where and when to meet in 3D. Things that are worth waiting for: The Incredibles 2.

A mere 14 years after the original movie came out, the sequel has arrived in cinemas, picking up the action right where we left off. It’s fun, it’s funny, it’s dramatic, there’s a baby fighting a raccoon, there are more superheroes: it’s worth your time, and your cash, and the inevitable annoying person sitting next to you texting. But… how does it represent women? Spoilers and insight ahead.

Does it pass the Bechdel test?

Yes: Voyd and Elastigirl talk about being superheroes.

A brief catch-up on the recent history of superhero movies and how they’ve treated women

Remember all the way back to 2004, the year The Incredibles came out. The Recession hadn’t hit, Facebook only existed at Ivy League colleges, President Obama hadn’t been elected, Donald Trump was a woman-grabbing morally bankrupt TV host, Paris Hilton was the most photographed woman in the world, and Juicy Couture velour tracksuits were not ironic. Superhero movies were few and far between. They were either cheesier than a Swiss fondue, like the old Superman and Batman films, or they focused on dark and twisty anti-heroes, like Blade, or Constantine, or V For Vendetta, in a way that made them less a take-the-kids blockbuster, and more of a watch-in-the-dark-alone action drama.

There were some more mainstream attempts, but they were still nerdy and niche. That year saw the release of Halle Berry’s critically-panned Razzie-winning Catwoman. The first two X-Men movies were released in 2000 and 2003, and Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman came out in 2002 (still my favourite) with the first sequel in 2004. Batman Begins, the first of Christopher Nolan’s genre-redefining trilogy, wasn’t released until 2005, and The Dark Knight didn’t come out until 2008.

Come back to now, and it feels like every other movie in the cinema is about people in skin-tight suits with weird powers. From 2017 to now, we’ve had Logan, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok, Justice League, Deadpool 2, Black Panther and The Avengers: Infinity War. Those last two are now the ninth and fifth highest-grossing movies all of time in the U.S. – a list that also includes the two other Avengers movies. This summer, we’re getting Ant Man and the Wasp and The Darkest Minds. And, of course, The Incredibles 2.

The only movies in this list to feature a female lead are 2017’s Wonder Woman, just-released Ant Man and the Wasp, The Darkest Minds, which hasn’t come out yet, and The Incredibles 2.

Yes, there’s a terrifying girl in Logan, but she’s not the titular character: she’s a tool to explore Logan’s decay. Yes, Gamora and Nebula are both tough-talking, tough-fighting badasses, but Starlord is the lead. The Spider-Man/Spiderman films always have a damsel in distress, sometimes ‘the other woman’, and the wise aunt, but they’re just there to serve as cheerleaders to Maguire/Garfield/Holland.

The Princess Leia Effect

Women show up in action movies; they don’t lead them. That includes films in the superhero and sci-fi genres. A female lead in a superhero movie is still a novelty, and it’s worse for people of color, and women of color specifically. Hopefully the success of Black Panther will force producers to start putting their money into projects with more diverse casts.

I call this token use of a single ‘strong’ woman in a movie the Princess Leia effect. Male writers think they can appease whiny feminists like me by throwing us one tough, moderately skillful, domineering, underdeveloped female character. (Sometimes, if we’re super lucky, two.) Not only does this mislead us harpies, but she can also serve their dude-oriented plot by becoming bait for the bad guys, which gives him the chance to save her and be the hero. Oh, she’s also always super conventionally hot.

This is why I can’t be bothered with most action movies; they put so little effort into making even the few female characters they include seem like more than just some heterosexual dude’s masturbatory fantasy that it’s annoying and boring. The exceptions are the recent releases from the Star Wars franchise. Apart from Solo, the studio has taken some note of their own tokenism, hence we have Rey, Jyn Erso, Rose, and Vice Admiral Holdo. Not to mention the original Leia, now General Organa, thanks very much. But what about The Incredibles 2?

How does The Incredibles 2 represent women?

This movie accidentally came out at a time when we are seeing a very gradual, very slow, very bitty move away from entirely white male-dominated superhero movies. One Wonder Woman movie – or even two – does not make up for decades of presenting women as damsels in distress, or throwing in one token ‘strong’ woman to quieten down us shrill, complaining feminists. And although The Incredibles 2 is not perfect, it’s definitely an evolution.


Incredibles 2


Let’s start with the single big positive thing: while the first movie focused on Mr Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), this sequel puts Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) as the crime-fighting, plot-foiling, ass-kicking centre. (And yes, she has a motorbike.)

This is because a finance guy (Bob ‘Better Call Saul’ Odenkirk) who wants to make superheroes legal again has done the numbers and found that the way she approaches going after bad guys is less costly than her husband’s methods. This smells like that very boring narrative of ‘women are gentler than men’ to me, but at least it’s a compliment. In one of the big butt-kicking moments, we get to see her chase down a runaway train, with the help of another woman talking to her through a headset. Director Brad Bird has a history of his female characters playing the action hero: he also directed Brave.

Meanwhile, Bob is back in their fancy new home, running around after the superkids: lovesick teenager Violet (Sarah Vowell), maths-hating Dash (Huck Milner), and multi-talented baby Jack-Jack (Eli Fucile). Bob is bitter because Elastigirl, who was initially reluctant to leave her kids, gets to have all the fun and the glory.

Annoyingly, the film never directly points out the hypocrisy of his line of thought. Ask yourself: why should Bob be the family member who gets to be the hero?

This is the point where the sexists will say, ‘Because he’s a man,’ and the in-denial sexists will make up some dumb excuse, like, ‘Super strength is better than stretchiness,’ or ‘She’s just naturally better at the whole domestic side.’ If you just read that question and made up a dumb excuse, you are an in-denial sexist. If you’re now considering writing a comment that could conceivably start with the clause, ‘I’m not sexist, but…’ you are an in-denial sexist. See you in the comments!

BTW That internal rage at being dismissed as less competent at the ‘important’ stuff is how many women feel ALL THE TIME.

We never really get the sense that Bob realises this, or that he suddenly comes to appreciate everything his wife did for their family when he was out being Man The Provider. What he constantly screws up, she makes look easy. (This would be a good time to mention that this constant portrayal of dads as domestically incompetent dopes is insulting to dads who nail the whole parenting thing, but this is a blog post about women.) We’re supposed to fawn all over his newfound kid-herding skills, but she gets no credit. Shout-out to all the real-live mums out there throwing their hands up like “Duh!”

Even while Bob is lamenting having to stay home with his kids – you know, the kids who share the same amount of DNA with him as they do with their mother – Elastigirl can’t quite shake off her mummy role. When she calls Bob after the aforementioned train crash, the first thing she asks about is how the kids are, and how he’s doing, before mentioning, oh yeah, SHE SAVED HUNDREDS OF LIVES TODAY AND WAS ON TV. And at the end, when she realises it’s time to bust out superhero mode to stop a soon-to-be-crashing yacht, she pauses to consider, what will the kids do? Bob has no such qualms, because… he’s a testosterone-charged dude?

Somehow, in the middle of that exchange, there was a super sweet moment. When Elastigirl is dithering about whether to charge off and save the city or to look after her kids, Violet turns to her and says something along the lines of, ‘Go, we’ll be fine.’ To me, it felt like this look at the future of being female: Violet understands that her mum can have responsibilities outside of her, and her generation is giving an older generation the permission to do that. It’s a new perspective on gender roles coming to help out people caught up in the old one. Got me right in the feminist feels. (I’ll get to Violet as a character in a sec.)

Oh, and since I was discussing the sexualisation of women in superhero movies earlier, let’s have a chat about the internet’s response to Elastigirl. Specifically, this one New Yorker critic, who basically implies that the (presumably hetero- or bisexual) men in the audience are going to be getting boners looking at her hips. He also manages to turn a conversation between Elastigirl and Evelyn (Catherine Keener) into some kind of male-gaze lesbian fantasy.

On the one hand, it’s nice to finally see someone acknowledging that a female over 40 can be more than just a sexless, frumpy waste of space. (Shout-out to all the women over 40 going, “WE KNOW!”) But it seems like this is pretty much all the guy got from this character. She’s out kicking ass and he’s looking at her butt. What decade are we in, again?




Speaking of Evelyn, let’s speak about Evelyn. She’s the sister of that insurance guy, the designer to his ad-man. Basically, behind the big-selling, money-making, bullshit-talking dude is a woman who actually did the hard work. The filmmakers are kind of making this point too, in a roundabout way, although they don’t really examine the gender dynamics so much as the low-level sibling rivalry, and the world vs superheroes. Unfortunately, it turns out that Evelyn is the baddie, which implies that women who are simply ambitious enough to demand credit for their hard work must be evil.

You can tell immediately that Evelyn is evil, anyway, because she has untamed hair. I say this as someone whose most identifiable physical quality is my curly hair. The moment I see someone in a cartoon or movie with hair like mine, I’m like, either we don’t trust her, or we’re going to see her get a makeover. (I also have a British accent and a Russian first name, so I’m basically inherently evil, according to Hollywood.) And this is a thousand times more problematic for women of color. I could write a whole post about the abuse of curly and kinky hair in movies.

When I say Evelyn has untamed hair, I don’t mean Merida-from-Brave’s beautiful big curls, which are wild and defiant, just like her. (Merida is my movie hair icon because she breaks outta that big-hair-bad-girl box I just mentioned.) I mean a pixie cut with strands that form wispy spikes all over her head – it’s a haircut that’s shorthand for women who don’t play nice. Women who scheme. Women with ambition. Women who don’t care what other people think about them. Women, to be very heteronormative, who act like men.

Her motivations aside, I like that we have a female villain. Does she have to be a female because it wouldn’t be believable for a woman to take on a man and win? I don’t think that’s what’s going on here: we initially think the Screenslaver is a man, and Elastigirl has no trouble beating up the unfortunate pizza delivery guy Evelyn frames. The more women we can get, with variable personalities instead of the cookie-cutter stereotype, the better. I want them good, evil, polite, rude, meek, loud, hateable, lovable, messy, neat, all-together, total trainwreck, in all different shapes, and from all different backgrounds, and with all different nationalities and ethnicities. I want them human.




OK, look, I have to admit that Violet is my FAVOURITE character in The Incredibles franchise. She has many teenagers’ dream power: she can turn invisible, shoot balls of energy, and put up a forcefield around herself and people near her. Also, we share the qualities of external shyness balanced with inner confidence around our families and close friends. (Any family members reading this are like, ‘You? Shy? Get outta here.’ Any colleagues are like, ‘You… talk?’)

I felt that Violet was woefully underused for the first part of the movie, but that’s because I love her. She’s slightly lost in the typical teenager role, specifically a lovelorn, dad-hating teenager. But then we get to the bit where the kids basically have to save the day, and she becomes this warrior girl, who’s smart and decisive in battle, with mastery over her superpowers. Watching her and Dash squabble over babysitting duties shows that she’s not going to be sat around looking after the kids in the future. She also postpones a long-awaited date to go battle crime with her family. In short, she’s the independent girl we need, and her mother’s daughter.


If you were like, WTF is Honey, then you’ve already identified the problem with this character. Honey (Kimberly Adair Clark) is Frozone’s wife/partner, but you never see her. Although it’s never said, we can assume that her superpower is super-hearing, because she always knows when Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) is about to do something fun and cool, like fight crime, and that’s when we hear her, shouting from the other room. This is a less-than-ideal representation of women, reducing her to just the nagging wife, out to kill her husband’s masculine urge to run around in Lycra, shooting ice from his hands.

Also, although it’s again never specified, Honey is voiced by Kimberly Adair Clark, a black woman, so in that way, the character also perpetuates that stereotype of the controlling, finger-snapping, always-angry black girlfriend. Yes, it’s just a side joke, I GET IT, but it would have been easier to swallow if we’d also seen a woman of color (or even, crazy notion, multiple women of color) in this movie do more than just screech at a man.




Every scene with Edna Mode (Brad Bird – yes, that Brad Bird) is like the toy you get in the cereal, or the cookie dough in your ice cream.

Like I said, I’m all about all types of women on screen, and I love that Edna gets to be this career-oriented, super rich, no-nonsense business woman, who is also hilarious. She’s the uniform designer, which is, on the surface, a stereotypical female role. BUT her ability to make clothes that are versatile and resilient, as well as visually impressive, deviously undermines this dismissal of fashion as frilly and superficial, and reminds us that ‘women’s work’ is skillful, and what you wear matters. It’s a technical triumph that the family couldn’t perform their duties without.

By the way, you know how we know she’s super competent and hardass? The straight, dark, fringed/banged bob. WELCOME TO THE HAIR CONSPIRACY.



Overall, I’m very happy to welcome The Incredibles 2 to the category of Female-Led Superhero Movies, along with recent inductees Wonder Woman and Marvel/Netflix’s Jessica Jones. I love that it’s showing mums as cool and brave and smart (and hot, apparently). I wish that they’d taken a moment to point out that Bob’s sulky resentment is total hypocrisy that women have been putting up with for centuries. I hope the next one has more, better-developed women of color. I love that it has a female villain, even if I think the qualities that make her evil would actually be admired in a dude. I also love Violet, and the idea that she is the future, confident in her abilities and not about to accept being left at home.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you also heart Violet? Did you think Elastigirl proved her mettle? Did you wonder where Frozone’s screentime went, and when we’re going to finally see Honey? Are you ‘not sexist but…’? Let me know in the comments or on Facebook.


Leave a comment

Filed under Animated, Superheroes

Beauty and the Beast (1991): Part Two


The public reading of ‘Babe’ was proving immensely popular.

Spoiler alert: If you still haven’t managed to watch this film, cancel your one o’clock, grab the popcorn and watch it now. If that’s just not possible, or you simply cannot deny yourself the pleasure of reading this magnificent post first, be aware that there will be spoilers. And more moaning about that baker.

 Welcome to part two of LttL’s first attempt to destroy your love of classic Disney films. No, not really. Actually, the plan is to offer you the chance to look beyond the heartfelt romance, sharp banter and singing clock, and examine it with a more critical eye. As we discovered in Part One, Disney have set up a female character who wants more than the role prescribed for her by her society. Belle is intelligent, imaginative, brave and desperate for adventure. This makes her a bit of an oddball in her town, which boasts an illiterate population, a horny hunter and a terrible baker (selling the same old bread and rolls every day, the monster), not to mention a lot of sheep. However, as noted, she’s beautiful, so they can cope with her fancy ideas about reading. Just about.

The topic of beauty gets a rather contradictory treatment in this film. The prince is cursed because he turns away an old hag, who then turns out to be a hot young sorceress who curses him for his shallowness. The message, then, is that appearances can be deceptive, and you shouldn’t judge people by their looks. That’s all well and good, but why couldn’t the hag have simply pointed this out? In order to gain power over the prince, she had to reveal her physical beauty, thereby suggesting that only good-looking women can have power over men. The emphasis on Belle’s beauty (which, as Francophiles and GCSE French students will tell you, starts with her name) also suggests that the only reason her differences are accepted is because she is beautiful. Belle is oblivious to her own good looks and she doesn’t judge others by their outward appearance, turning down the chiselled chin and bulging biceps of Gaston in favour of a hairy, scruffy, poorly-mannered Beast. However, these preferences are only extraordinary because Belle herself adheres to society’s ideals of beauty, that is to say, she’s white, with an impossibly slender hourglass figure, straight brown hair with a slight wave at the ends, and enormous eyes. If she were, say, a hag, she wouldn’t be a celebrated and kind-spirited heroine, she would be accepting her rightful place in society. The message Disney is sending women is that you shouldn’t judge men by their appearance, but that you should absolutely be beautiful if you want to have any power.

Let’s move on from Belle’s looks, because, as Disney have gone to great pains to show us, not only is she the local beauty, but she’s intelligent, imaginative and craves adventure, which is something she finds through her reading. Upon examining Belle’s reading material, however, we find a disturbing contradiction between her supposed desire for adventure, and what she actually seems to want.

Early in the film, she outlines the plot of her favourite book for the bookshop owner, a man who will surely be going out of business imminently. (Seriously, his attitude is unbelievable. As we’ve learned, Belle is the only woman in the village who reads, and the men find her hobby rather uninspiring too (or at least the baker does, but he’s an unimaginative individual). Furthermore, the bookseller (which the sign outside identifies him as) doesn’t seem to understand that he’s running a shop, not a library: Belle, his only customer, breezes in, declaring she’s just returning a book she borrowed, and rather than pointing out that this might otherwise be known as theft, the man proceeds to give her another one for free. No wonder the book trade is in so much trouble.) She tells him that the reason she loves it so much is because it’s about ‘Far off places, daring swordfights, magic spells, a prince in disguise’. The last two elements foreshadow events in the rest of the film, and all of them are exciting and extraordinary, particularly when you’re facing the prospect of eating the same old bread and rolls every day (just too horrible) in a sleepy French village.

So which bit of this fantastic, totally out-there book is her favourite? The exotic locations? The stunts? The spells? The royalty-flavoured twist? No, she tells the sheep, her favourite part is where the heroine meets Prince Charming (but she won’t discover that it’s him until chapter three). And with that one mushy sentiment, our independent, daring rebel reveals that while she thinks all that adventure is sort of cool, what’s actually ‘amazing’ is meeting a man. Oh Disney. Oh Belle. Even the sheep is disgusted. Ultimately, it turns out that all these kooky characteristics are just flavouring: enough to make her seem like an interesting character, especially when compared with Gaston’s image of his little wife and the swooning identical triplets (don’t get me started on the bleak representation of triplets in this film), but not something she would actually act on. Good god, no.

And so, after declaring her passionate desire to explore the great wide somewhere, Belle willingly returns to an isolated castle to live happily ever after with a man she barely knows. The relationship between Beast and Belle is more complex than your usual Disney fodder, thanks in some part to the comparison with Gaston’s feelings for Belle. Gaston wants Belle solely because she’s the most beautiful girl in town, whereas Beast values her selflessness, courage and kindness. Gaston chastises her for reading, before tossing her favourite book in a puddle, whereas Beast gives her an entire library. There is certainly more substance in their relationship, but it still posits them within traditional gender roles.

One thing that should be said in favour of this romantic pairing is that the verbal sparring between the two characters does contribute to an image of them as equal partners in this relationship. Neither is afraid to stand up to and defy the other if they believe they’re in the wrong. However, once the relationship has been established, Belle loses most of the adventurous spirit that made her more than your generic romantic heroine in the first place. From being the main character whose experiences and desires dictate the plot, Belle effectively becomes important only as Beast’s saviour. This is a fairly common trope in romantic films: the quirky but pretty female outcast, whose charming personality and adventurous spirit help the reserved man, trapped in a rut by his own dark nature, to find the good side of life and thereby improve himself. These female characters often come dressed in fairy wings, playing harps and making cupcakes for kittens, but the essential story of the good woman with no needs of her own other than to be loved, who rescues the man so he can contribute to society, is as old as time. Or at least as old as stories. Of course, Beast does save Belle when she’s attacked by wolves in the forest, but this also plays into traditional gender roles, whereby the strong, courageous man puts himself in harm’s way to protect the woman, who is left to dab up the blood and stick a bandage on it. Oh Disney.



Belle is a deeply lovable character, at least initially, thanks to her intelligence, kindness and rebellion against her small town life and its rubbish bread. However, the emphasis on her appearance and the fact she fades into the role of love interest means that ultimately this representation fails to challenge gender roles. Of course, this is a twenty two-year-old Disney Princess story, so it’s hardly surprising that a radical challenge to gender roles was not exactly on the cards. The romance and songs are just as good as you remember, so sing along with Be Our Guest, and mist up a bit in Tale as Old as Time, but always remember we deserve more from a heroine.

Do you agree with this verdict? Let everyone know what you think with a comment. If you enjoyed reading this, and have friends with similarly awesome taste, don’t forget to share it with them. Make sure you follow the blog so you never miss the chance to read more of the same.

1 Comment

Filed under '90s, Animated

Beauty and the Beast (1991): Part One


Belle wasn’t convinced by Gaston’s claim to be the real Christian Grey.

Spoiler alert: For anyone who has reached puberty without seeing Beauty and the Beast, go and have a serious talk with the parents/guardians/wolves who raised you, and explain to them that because of their inattention, this post is going to give away some of the plot before you’ve had a chance to experience it onscreen. Then watch the film and be amazed.

 As long-term fans may remember, this blog has Tangled with Disney before, in this previous post about Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken. It’s not a classic Disney film, but it’s worth a watch if you like gutsy heroines and, er, diving horses. However, Beauty and the Beast is the first instantly-recognisable Disney film to go under the magnifying glass, and is particularly pertinent to a feminist critique since it features one of those oh-so lovable yet highly controversial figures, the Disney Princess. Loved and loathed for their peppy charm, admirable gumption and anatomically impossible waists, these heroines have sparked plenty of debate among recent generations of women, as we struggle to rationalise our horror at the helplessness and shallow morals that often epitomise these characters with the fact we spent the first eight years of our lives wanting to be one. Yes, I had the Ariel doll (the one with the Velcro tail you could take on and off, it was, like, awesome), and yes, I now die a little inside every time I’m reminded she was sixteen in the film.


I won’t patronise you with the details of this girl-meets-beast love story, but it’s worth noting that Beauty and the Beast is one of the more compelling love stories to feature a Disney Princess. While many of the notable ones start out pining for Prince Charming and then swoon on sight of him, Belle and Beast initially have a rather tense relationship (he kidnaps her father and holds her hostage, she nearly destroys his magical rose, etc) before discovering that perhaps they do find the other rather dishy. The fantastic soundtrack, with its understated but evocative songs, certainly help convey the sweet and sincere affection between them. Besides this, the film works hard to make Belle a brave, brainy and caring character who aspires to more than the role her provincial town can give her. Look past the singing candlesticks and vague mentions of not judging a book by its cover, however, and you’ll see the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of this Disney Princess tale.

Leading Ladies

Bookworm Belle (voiced by Paige O’Hara) is the outcast in her sleepy French village, and that’s before she takes up with an unusually hairy fellow in a gloomy castle. Mrs Potts (voiced by Angela Lansbury, of The Manchurian Candidate fame) is a cook cursed to take the form of a teapot. The imaginatively named ‘Wardrobe’ (Jo Anne Worley) is a steam iron – jokes, she’s a wardrobe, who comforts Belle when the latter is imprisoned by Beast. Babette is a feather duster, voiced by Mary Kay Bergman, who, in an interesting career twist, did many of the female voices for South Park.

Bechdel Test

Hmm, I’m going to say it passes, but only just, thanks to a scene where Mrs Potts and Wardrobe tell Belle that even though she’s now looking at a lifetime spent as a prisoner of a beast with horrible manners and a vile temper, and will never see her father or her home again, it will all be fine. And then Mrs Potts goes back to the kitchen to finish cooking dinner. No, really.

How are women represented?

To give Disney credit, they really tried to give Belle more depth than has been afforded to other Disney Princesses. From the first song we are shown that Belle rebels against the fixed role that is accepted and prescribed for her by the townspeople and Gaston. The townspeople cannot fathom why Belle seems so discontented with their sleepy village, where no one is interested in hearing the story of Jack and the Beanstalk (maybe they’ve read that one), and where – horror of horrors – the baker sells the same old bread and rolls everyday (apparently this is a big issue for Belle, who would presumably be horrified by the concept of Tesco). Luckily, to quote Gaston’s assessment, she’s gorgeous, so rather than gathering the pitchforks, the townspeople are just a little bemused by the oddball. Thus far, the message Disney is sending us ladies is that it’s good to want more than the narrow life your home offers you, but you better make damn sure you’re good-looking with it if you want to be tolerated rather than alienated. Right. Excellent.

Then we have Gaston, he of the chin and excessive biceps. Since we recognise him as The Bad Guy, we automatically understand that his idea of the perfect woman is Wrong. Gaston wants a pretty little wife to roast the various animal corpses he brings home, massage his stinky, post-hunting feet, and pump out six or seven strapping boys. Yikes. He, and apparently the townspeople, are also against women reading, since this might lead to them ‘getting ideas and thinking’. It’s unclear what might come next, but the point is, it’s not good. Thus, Gaston has helpfully created a Wrong image of women that can be contrasted with Belle to show the latter’s deep and intelligent nature, thereby countering all those nasty accusations that Disney Princesses are superficial wimps.

Belle has been set up as a character who goes against this limited image of women, but what is she actually like? Disney take great pains to show her as a free-spirit with a sense of adventure, who values imagination, is caring towards her father, polite towards the servants, unphased by the fact her captor is a bad-tempered monster, willing to give up her bold dreams and her freedom to save her father, and brave enough to speak her mind and challenge everyone’s expectations that she become Mrs Gaston and make with the babies and spit roasts. Running into the fields beyond the village and away from Gaston, she declares that she wants ‘adventure in the great wide somewhere’, and ‘so much more than they’ve got planned’, an open declaration of her desire to escape the confines of her small village and the role assigned to her. When Gaston tries to pressure her into conforming to this narrow life, barging into her house and declaring that they are going to get married, she points out that she does not deserve this, meaning she deserves more than what he’s offering. She frees herself from his advances by opening a door to the yard and causing him to fall down into a puddle. This rather nice image symbolises her desire to get rid of obstacles that stand in the way of her chance to move outside the confines of a home and to find new opportunities.

Just from this, we’ve seen that in Belle, Disney have given us a character who is determined to go against the narrow role society has prescribed for her, and to find adventure for herself. However, this positive beginning doesn’t end happily ever after. I’ve split this post into two sections (loosely positive and negative sides), partly to give your poor eyes a rest, and obviously to let your brains calculate the ground-breaking, life-changing insights offered thus far, but also to allow anyone who is averse to having films from their childhood picked apart for their poor representations of women to close this tab. I agree that it’s frustrating to realise that films you loved were subconsciously leading you astray, but I also believe that being able to see the problems in a film does not render it less enjoyable as a work of entertainment. If that were the case, no one would be able to sit through the first three minutes of Gone with the Wind. If you agree with me, come back for part two, which includes more berating of that awful baker (the one who makes the same old bread and rolls every day, or Satan, as we know him), an analysis of the poor business plan of the village bookseller (shocking fact: he’s not a librarian), and, of course, actual analysis of the negative elements of the representation of women in this classic.

Liked what you’ve seen so far? Disagreed with my perspective? Got some angry words to share about that damn baker? Don’t forget to share this post with your friends on Facebook, Twitter and The Whole Internet, and give us your comments below.

1 Comment

Filed under '90s, Animated

Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken (1991)


Click picture for trailer: Gabrielle Anwar plays feisty Sonora in Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken

A gutsy heroine aspires to join the dangerous horse diving profession in this true life Disney tale, but are we looking at a winner for women or just a ‘mare?


In the early years of the Depression orphaned teenager Sonora Webster (Gabrielle Anwar) is determined to see the world, or at least Atlantic City. When her aunt surrenders Sonora to the mercy of the state, she runs off to join Doc Carver’s (Cliff Robertson) diving horse act, headed by aspiring actress Marie (Kathleen York) and assisted by Doc’s handsome son Al (Michael Schoeffling). While Doc initially rejects Sonora as too young, her stubborn refusal to take no for an answer sees him hire her as a stable hand. As the act travels round the country, Al helps Sonora train a difficult horse in the hope of impressing Doc and earning her the chance to be a diving girl.

Bechdel Test

Passes: Marie and Sonora have a brief discussion about the importance of make-up, and Sonora’s aunt tells her she is nothing but trouble.

Leading Ladies

Gabrielle Anwar is bright and bold Sonora Webster, and Kathleen York is haughty wannabe starlet Marie. Lisa Norman also appears briefly as Sonora’s Aunt Helen.

How are women represented?

Sonora is the Disney heroine we have all been waiting for. She is resilient, driven, and defiant of those who would stop her from reaching her dream. She resolutely refuses to accept limitations inflicted on her by general life happenings or narrow-minded people, and she isn’t afraid to stand up for herself. I’m not saying that punching a classroom bully in the face is big or clever, but it’s pretty satisfying to see a girl let her fists do the talking in the same way a male character would. Warm and caring with those she likes, particularly horses, not only does Sonora have self-belief in bucket loads, and a no nonsense approach to haters, but she doesn’t blink at taking on slightly bizarre, death-defying stunts.

Teenager Sonora’s slightly disturbing romance with the obviously much older Al thankfully doesn’t dampen her spirit, since she continues to defy him in order to achieve her dream. Although the film is based on real events (yes, horse diving was apparently a thing), it would have been nice if they had veered off course in order to avoid marrying off a sixteen year old, and particularly one with such an independent spirit. The only redeeming point to note is that this information is tactlessly given out by an extremely curt ‘and they lived happily ever after’ type announcement right at the end, which at least goes to show that the totally unnecessary marriage plot was an afterthought rather than the main message.

Critics have pointed out that Sonora’s big dream apparently consists of living a glamorous life as defined by an advert for the Atlantic City pier, and that this superficial goal is what leads her to cut her hair, in an effort to live up to this image of femininity. However, this haircut is less about adhering to cultural expectations of women, and more about taking control of her life, refusing to give in to the limitations inflicted by the Depression, and defying people’s expectations of her. The bobbed hairstyle was all about rejecting traditional notions of how women should look, and marks her as a modern woman in charge of her own destiny. Sonora’s priorities, prizing her character over her appearance, are emphasised throughout the film, in which she remains almost entirely make-up free, particularly when compared with the eternally dolled up Marie.

However, although there’s a lot to love about Sonora, the film offers mixed messages about women. While Sonora benefits from instruction offered by male characters like Al and Doc, the women in the film are either stressed out, unfeeling nags, in the case of her aunt and her teacher, or superficial and vain, as with Marie, the other main female character. This seems to imply that Sonora is the exception that proves the rule, hence her affiliation with men rather than women. In this way, the film praises an extraordinary heroine by identifying her positive traits with men, thereby rejecting the notion that women can be feminine and also courageous, defiant and determined. This message is made particularly clear when you compare the characterisation of Marie and Sonora: bare-faced Sonora is lauded for her bold character, while heavily made-up Marie, who prides herself on her appearance, is a shallow, fickle airhead. On the one hand, you have to admire Disney for refusing to cover their leading lady in more than a dash of lipstick, and for celebrating her admirable personality instead. However, on another level, this implies that femininity is incompatible with the grit displayed by Sonora, and that in order to be respected, women must sacrifice typically ‘feminine’ traits.



This film grapples with social and cultural expectations of men and women, sometimes supporting them and sometimes undermining them. Sonora is one of those rare heroines who makes you want to throw your popcorn/film food of choice into the air and shout ‘YES!’ She goes to extreme lengths to take on a wildly dangerous job, refuses to give up when the going gets tough, and is unswerving in pursuit of her dream. However, the unflattering portrayals of Marie and the other women, and the fact that Sonora’s positive relationships are with men, implies that Sonora is an exceptional woman, and that most women are insensitive and unfeeling, while particularly ‘feminised’ women, who wear make-up and skirts, must also be shallow. Overall, this is a brilliant portrayal of a feisty female that nevertheless neglects to examine the place of femininity within empowerment.

Did you find Sonora’s refusal to adhere to traditional expectations of femininity refreshing or frustrating? Is she a role model? How do you perceive the women in the film? Spill your heart and go wild in the comments.

Leave a comment

Filed under '90s, Sports