#Since I obviously don't actually care about a “movie from 1937”

[artist-issues]

@hellotigerbeat Well. I must not be communicating clearly, because this kind of opinion you have keeps getting brought back up.

If you read what I said carefully, you'll see that the problem I have with Rachel Zegler is how she talks about Snow White. I'm not asking her to take responsibility for the production missteps or director's decisions, and I'm not asking her to even like or agree with the original film. (Or as you put it, prostrate herself before the original.)

What I am doing is criticizing her lack of respect for the original, as it was. The thing is, a movie is this: a compelling piece of communication. It has two jobs: 1. say something and 2. compel people.

To say that it "needs" an update is to essentially say that what it already said was either not clear enough or not compelling enough--or irrelevant. And she didn't just say that the original movie, in essence, did its job poorly. She also uses reductionist terms like "85-year old cartoon." Now we can argue semantics of a 22 year-old if you want, but the fact is, anybody who watches Rachel Zegler call the original Prince weird and roll her eyes when she talks about being "saved by the Prince" can easily see that she doesn't respect the original, either.

All I've done is prove that it earned its stripes and respect, and she's wrong when she says it needs something.

We can also argue about what she can and can't do as a promotional actress in this new film, versus what responsibility the directors and producers should have. No, she isn't in charge of the changes. But yes, she absolutely is in charge of how she talks about the old movie. She doesn't need to say anything derogatory about the old in order to promote the new. Not one thing. But she is. Boldly, and obnoxiously.

You don't have to be versed in the intricacies of the original movie's impact to play Snow White well, but it would be ignorant to say that it wouldn't absolutely add to and aid the performance. And again, nobody's calling for that. But what I am calling for, or rather calling out, is the disrespect toward something so deserving of respect, as far as any historical art piece can be.

So yeah, part of being in a public space like a broadcasted interview (or on a tumblr post) means I get to state my opinion about her opinion. And you can dislike it if you want, but don't try to pretend that anyone here is wrong for loudly disagreeing with her.

And now we can talk about your attacks on the people here. I'll just speak for myself.

You don't know the first thing about me or my blog--all that you're interpreting here is nuance. Go look. You'll find that I have similar issues with the actresses you listed--but not exactly the same, because they aren't exactly the same scenario. To my knowledge, only Emma Watson had the same levels of a demonstrative attitude of disrespect toward the original film she was re-portraying. Not talking points (though I criticize the reasoning behind those often enough.) ATTITUDE. Note the distinction here.

You'll also find a huge healthy helping of criticism toward the current corporation of Disney and Greta Gerwig, especially recently.

But this post is far from a personal vendetta against just Rachel Zegler, with no view toward others who disrespect quality source material. And even if it were, how's that wrong? It's my blog. I can notice what I want and focus on what I want and write about it if I want. Some people have whole blogs devoted to one actor.

So you're very wrong about that.

Finally, you don't care about Rachel Zegler as a person, or the Disney remakes at large, but you're sure spending a lot of time telling us what we do and don't care about. Feel good doing that? Telling me I'm a misogynistic poseur who doesn't actually care about the movie I claim to care about?

Did you feel clever, with the "conservative dog whistle" comment?

Do you want to have an actual conversation about abuse in tbe 1930s, nuance in film OR classical fairy tales, the storytelling strategies of Walt Disney and Perce Pearce and Wilfred Jackson? Did you want to go there? Did you want to talk about what values and portrayals are in the original Snow White, how they might be right or wrong for today's culture, and whether or not the changes made are in any way better?

Or didja want to just hop on, sling some personal attacks on everyone's perceived biases and critical thinking skills around with a little name-calling thrown in, and then hop back off again? All book-ended by loudly reminding us you "don't care" about Rachel Zegler or Disney and you know what we care about better than we do?

I Hate How She Talks About Snow White

"People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White, where it's like, yeah, it is − because it needed that. It's an 85-year-old cartoon, and our version is a refreshing story about a young woman who has a function beyond 'Someday My Prince Will Come. "

Let me tell you a little something's about that "85-year-old cartoon," miss Zegler.

It was the first-ever cel-animated feature-length full-color film. Ever. Ever. EVER. I'm worried that you're not hearing me. This movie was Disney inventing the modern animated film. Spirited Away, Into the Spider-Verse, Tangled, you don't get to have any of these without Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937.)

It was praised, not just for its technical marvels, not just for its synchronized craft of sound and action, but primarily and enduringly because people felt like the characters were real. They felt more like they were watching something true to life than they did watching silent, live-action films with real actors and actresses. They couldn't believe that an animated character could make kids wet their pants as she flees, frightened, through the forest, or grown adults cry with grieving Dwarves. Consistently.

Walt Disney Studios was built on this movie. No no; you're not understanding me. Literally, the studio in Burbank, out of which has come legends of this craft of animated filmmaking, was literally built on the incredible, odds-defying, record-breaking profits of just Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, specifically.

Speaking of record-breaking profits, this movie is the highest-grossing animated film in history. Still. TO THIS DAY.

In fact, it made four times as much money than any other film, in any other genre, released during that time period. It was actually THE highest-grossing film of all time, in any genre, until nothing less than Gone With the Wind, herself, came along to take the throne.

It was the first-ever animated movie to be selected for the National Film Registry. Actually, it was one of the first movies, period, to ever go into the registry at all. You know what else is in the NFR? The original West Side Story, the remake of which is responsible for Rachel Ziegler's widespread fame.

Walt Disney sacrificed for this movie to be invented. Literally, he took out a mortgage on his house and screened the movie to banks for loans to finish paying for it, because everyone from the media to his own wife and brother told him he was crazy to make this movie. And you want to tell me it's just an 85-year-old cartoon that needs the most meaningless of updates, with your tender 8 years in the business?

Speaking of sacrifice, this movie employed over 750 people, and they worked immeasurable hours of overtime, and invented--literally invented--so many new techniques that are still used in filmmaking today, that Walt Disney, in a move that NO OTHER STUDIO IN HOLLYWOOD was doing in the 30's, put this in the opening credits: "My sincere appreciation to the members of my staff whose loyalty and creative endeavor made possible this production." Not the end credits, like movies love to do today as a virtue-signal. The opening credits.

It's legacy endures. Your little "85-year-old cartoon" sold more than 1 million DVD copies upon re-release. Just on its first day. The Beatles quoted Snow White in one of their songs. Legacy directors call it "the greatest film ever made." Everything from Rolling Stones to the American Film Institute call this move one of the most influential masterpieces of our culture. This movie doesn't need anything from anybody. This movie is a cultural juggernaut for America. It's a staple in the art of filmmaking--and art, in general. It is the foundation of the Walt Disney Company, of modern children's media in the West, and of modern adaptations of classical fairy tales in the West. When you think only in the base, low, mean terms of "race" and "progressivism" you start taking things that are actually worlds-away from being in your league to judge, and you relegate them to silly ignorant phrases like "85-year-old cartoon" to explain why what you're doing is somehow better.

Sit down and be humble. Who the heck are you?